Deconstruction - Revision history

Quidam65: /* Deconstruction in Other Areas */

2022-06-30T20:59:15Z

Deconstruction in Other Areas

Progressingamerica: Link

2019-01-30T00:56:58Z

Link

DavidB4-bot: /* External links */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.britannica.com → https://www.britannica.com

2018-09-26T15:14:37Z

External links: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.britannica.com → https://www.britannica.com

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-12T04:18:07Z

clean up & uniformity

PaulDiFoglio: "not to be confused with Reconstruction"

2012-06-22T05:50:44Z

"not to be confused with Reconstruction"

2008-10-03T04:22:17Z

2008-10-03T04:15:20Z

2008-10-03T04:10:56Z

External links

2008-10-03T03:48:05Z

BillyR at 03:06, October 3, 2008

2008-10-03T03:06:32Z

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Deconstruction in Other Areas==
-Deconstruction can be interpreted as hostile to [[Christianity]].  The [[Bible]] was written with specific meaning and concrete teachings. Christians seek to discover the meaning of God's Word, and apply the Bible's truths to their lives.
+Deconstruction can be interpreted as hostile to [[Christianity]].  The [[Bible]] was written with specific meaning and concrete teachings. Christians seek to discover the meaning of God's Word, and apply the Bible's truths to their lives.  However, those who have decided they no longer agree with Biblical teaching (or, more accurately, the Biblical teaching of a specific branch of Christianity, such as [[Evangelical Christianity]]) and who have either left Christianity completely, or have embraced [[Liberal Christianity]], are said to have "deconstructed" their faith (the former may also be considered to have "deconverted").
 [[Critical Legal Studies]] is deconstruction applied to [[Law]]. It involves dissecting and critiquing a law to find its subjective meaning, regardless of what it objectively states. Critical Legal Studies result in a view of law as tool to obtain what one wants. Susan Estich said, "You believe in principle; I believe in politics."<ref>Susan Estich in an online letter to Stuart Taylor Jr., www.slate.com/id/3628/entry/23734</ref> Deconstruction endangers law as we know it by rejecting standards of justice derived from religious moral absolutes and using law as a tool to beat political opponents into submission.<ref>Noebel, page 312</ref>
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 "We now know -- or have no excuse for not knowing -- that deconstruction is not a technique or a method, and hence that there is no question of "applying" it. We know that it is not a moment of carnival or liberation, but a moment of the deepest concern with limits. We know that it is not a hymn to indeterminacy, or a life-imprisonment within language, or a denial of history: reference, mimesis, context, historicity, are among the most repeatedly emphasized and carefully scrutinized topics in Derrida's writing. And we know -- though this myth perhaps dies hardest of all -- that the ethical and the political are not avoided by deconstruction, but are implicated at every step." Derek Attridge.<ref>[http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.php Deconstruction: Some Assumptions] Attridge, Derek, "Singularities, Responsibilities: Derrida, Deconstruction and Literary Criticism" in Critical Encounters: Reference and Responsibility in Deconstructive Writing ed. Cathy Caruth and Deborah Esch, pp 109-110</ref>
 </blockquote>
 ==See also==
 *[[Postmodernism]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|The Holy Bible]]
 :''Not to be confused with [[Reconstruction]].
-'''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or post-structuralist technique for language and literary analysis, created by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that denies the existence of a single meaning behind a set of symbols, such as a sentence.  This is in contrast with most previous methods of understanding meanings, which assumed that there was a single concrete message intended by the author. The term is used in [[philosophy]], literary criticism, and the social sciences.
+'''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or post-structuralist technique for language and literary analysis, created by French philosopher [[Jacques Derrida]], that denies the existence of a single meaning behind a set of symbols, such as a sentence.  This is in contrast with most previous methods of understanding meanings, which assumed that there was a single concrete message intended by the author. The term is used in [[philosophy]], literary criticism, and the social sciences.
 In pointing out that the manner in which symbols (or "signifiers") are understood is something that changes not only from culture to culture, but also person to person, deconstruction indicates that there is no essentially transcendental idea (or "signified") behind a symbol.<ref>Bressler, Charles.  ''Literary Criticism'' 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Chicago, Illinois 2002) ISBN 978-0130333971.</ref>  This is sometimes interpreted as there being ''no'' meaning at all, but this is a common misunderstanding.  Further, some confuse deconstruction with another school of thought known as "reader response" criticism, in which emphasis is placed upon individual interpretation according to personal experiences.<ref>Noebel, David, ''Understanding the Times'' (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.</ref>  In deconstruction, an approach which derives mostly from linguistic analysis, Derrida pointed out that the "actual" signified of any given signifier was often "undecidable," or incapable of being given a single interpretation independent from the individual understanding it.  Derrida coined a number of the above terms, among others, to describe these phenomena.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == External links ==
-*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029711/deconstruction Deconstruction] Encyclopædia Britannica.
+*[https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029711/deconstruction Deconstruction] Encyclopædia Britannica.
 *[http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/deconstr.html Deconstruction] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07.
 *[http://homepage.eircom.net/~obrienh/ffh.htm Far From Heaven (2002)] A satirical deconstruction?

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or post-structuralist technique for language and literary analysis, created by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that denies the existence of a single meaning behind a set of symbols, such as a sentence.  This is in contrast with most previous methods of understanding meanings, which assumed that there was a single concrete message intended by the author. The term is used in [[philosophy]], literary criticism, and the social sciences.
-In pointing out that the manner in which symbols (or "signifiers") are understood is something that changes not only from culture to culture, but also person to person, deconstruction indicates that there is no essentially transcendental idea (or "signified") behind a symbol.<ref>Bressler, Charles.  ''Literary Criticism'' 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Chicago, Illinois 2002) ISBN 978-0130333971.</ref>  This is sometimes interpreted as there being ''no'' meaning at all, but this is a common misunderstanding.  Further, some confuse deconstruction with another school of thought known as "reader response" criticism, in which emphasis is placed upon individual interpretation according to personal experiences. <ref>Noebel, David, ''Understanding the Times'' (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.</ref>  In deconstruction, an approach which derives mostly from linguistic analysis, Derrida pointed out that the "actual" signified of any given signifier was often "undecidable," or incapable of being given a single interpretation independent from the individual understanding it.  Derrida coined a number of the above terms, among others, to describe these phenomena.
+In pointing out that the manner in which symbols (or "signifiers") are understood is something that changes not only from culture to culture, but also person to person, deconstruction indicates that there is no essentially transcendental idea (or "signified") behind a symbol.<ref>Bressler, Charles.  ''Literary Criticism'' 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Chicago, Illinois 2002) ISBN 978-0130333971.</ref>  This is sometimes interpreted as there being ''no'' meaning at all, but this is a common misunderstanding.  Further, some confuse deconstruction with another school of thought known as "reader response" criticism, in which emphasis is placed upon individual interpretation according to personal experiences.<ref>Noebel, David, ''Understanding the Times'' (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.</ref>  In deconstruction, an approach which derives mostly from linguistic analysis, Derrida pointed out that the "actual" signified of any given signifier was often "undecidable," or incapable of being given a single interpretation independent from the individual understanding it.  Derrida coined a number of the above terms, among others, to describe these phenomena.
 In a contemporary [[essay]] entitled "The Death of the Author",<ref>Roland Barthes, ''The Death of the Author'', (Aspen 1968)</ref> [[France|French]] literary critic Roland Barthes argued in favor of deconstruction when he stated that the origin of a text is unimportant, and that only the interpretation of the [[reader]] matters. He declared that this personal interpretation frees the text from the [[tyranny]] of the intended meaning given it by the [[author]]. No matter what a writer writes, or what they mean to say through their writing, their words will never have a universal meaning, and will be understood in a thousand different ways by the readers.  This was a landmark shift in thought, as previously many literary critics sought the "true" meaning of a text by attempting to analyze according to what the original author had thought.  This shift has led to a modern dichotomy of thought in literary criticism, with new criticism, deconstruction, and other post-structuralist approaches contrasting with more traditional methods.
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 <blockquote>
-"We now know -- or have no excuse for not knowing -- that deconstruction is not a technique or a method, and hence that there is no question of "applying" it. We know that it is not a moment of carnival or liberation, but a moment of the deepest concern with limits. We know that it is not a hymn to indeterminacy, or a life-imprisonment within language, or a denial of history: reference, mimesis, context, historicity, are among the most repeatedly emphasized and carefully scrutinized topics in Derrida's writing. And we know -- though this myth perhaps dies hardest of all -- that the ethical and the political are not avoided by deconstruction, but are implicated at every step." Derek Attridge. <ref>[http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.php Deconstruction: Some Assumptions] Attridge, Derek, "Singularities, Responsibilities: Derrida, Deconstruction and Literary Criticism" in Critical Encounters: Reference and Responsibility in Deconstructive Writing ed. Cathy Caruth and Deborah Esch, pp 109-110</ref>
+"We now know -- or have no excuse for not knowing -- that deconstruction is not a technique or a method, and hence that there is no question of "applying" it. We know that it is not a moment of carnival or liberation, but a moment of the deepest concern with limits. We know that it is not a hymn to indeterminacy, or a life-imprisonment within language, or a denial of history: reference, mimesis, context, historicity, are among the most repeatedly emphasized and carefully scrutinized topics in Derrida's writing. And we know -- though this myth perhaps dies hardest of all -- that the ethical and the political are not avoided by deconstruction, but are implicated at every step." Derek Attridge.<ref>[http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.php Deconstruction: Some Assumptions] Attridge, Derek, "Singularities, Responsibilities: Derrida, Deconstruction and Literary Criticism" in Critical Encounters: Reference and Responsibility in Deconstructive Writing ed. Cathy Caruth and Deborah Esch, pp 109-110</ref>
 </blockquote>
-==See Also==
+==See also==
 *[[Postmodernism]]
 *[[Deism]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:50, June 22, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|The Holy Bible]]		[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|The Holy Bible]]
		+	:''Not to be confused with [[Reconstruction]].
	'''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or post-structuralist technique for language and literary analysis, created by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that denies the existence of a single meaning behind a set of symbols, such as a sentence. This is in contrast with most previous methods of understanding meanings, which assumed that there was a single concrete message intended by the author. The term is used in [[philosophy]], literary criticism, and the social sciences.		'''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or post-structuralist technique for language and literary analysis, created by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that denies the existence of a single meaning behind a set of symbols, such as a sentence. This is in contrast with most previous methods of understanding meanings, which assumed that there was a single concrete message intended by the author. The term is used in [[philosophy]], literary criticism, and the social sciences.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, October 3, 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:

	== Privileged Binaries and "Différance" ==		== Privileged Binaries and "Différance" ==
		+	[[Image:Deconstruction.jpg\|right\|200px]]
	Jacques Derrida wrote that history and language have always been traditionally full of privileged dualities of terms, such as order/chaos, high/low, and even good/bad. Among these has been the pairing of speaking/writing, which emphasized a historically logocentric (or speech-focused) approach to literature. In support of this, he indicates the vocal patterning which evidences itself amongst the written word, found within such literary devices as dialogue, which functions as an awkward attempt to mimic vocal exchanges via the written word, and accordingly is intrinsically less natural.		Jacques Derrida wrote that history and language have always been traditionally full of privileged dualities of terms, such as order/chaos, high/low, and even good/bad. Among these has been the pairing of speaking/writing, which emphasized a historically logocentric (or speech-focused) approach to literature. In support of this, he indicates the vocal patterning which evidences itself amongst the written word, found within such literary devices as dialogue, which functions as an awkward attempt to mimic vocal exchanges via the written word, and accordingly is intrinsically less natural.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 In a contemporary [[essay]] entitled "The Death of the Author",<ref>Roland Barthes, ''The Death of the Author'', (Aspen 1968)</ref> [[France|French]] literary critic Roland Barthes argued in favor of deconstruction when he stated that the origin of a text is unimportant, and that only the interpretation of the [[reader]] matters. He declared that this personal interpretation frees the text from the [[tyranny]] of the intended meaning given it by the [[author]]. No matter what a writer writes, or what they mean to say through their writing, their words will never have a universal meaning, and will be understood in a thousand different ways by the readers.  This was a landmark shift in thought, as previously many literary critics sought the "true" meaning of a text by attempting to analyze according to what the original author had thought.  This shift has led to a modern dichotomy of thought in literary criticism, with new criticism, deconstruction, and other post-structuralist approaches contrasting with more traditional methods.
-==Privileged Binaries and Différance==
+== Privileged Binaries and "Différance" ==
 Jacques Derrida wrote that history and language have always been traditionally full of privileged dualities of terms, such as order/chaos, high/low, and even good/bad.  Among these has been the pairing of speaking/writing, which emphasized a historically logocentric (or speech-focused) approach to literature.  In support of this, he indicates the vocal patterning which evidences itself amongst the written word, found within such literary devices as dialogue, which functions as an awkward attempt to mimic vocal exchanges via the written word, and accordingly is intrinsically less natural.