Difference between revisions of "Deconstruction"
m |
|||
| 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]] | ||
| − | '''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or | + | '''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] 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. 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. |
| − | + | ==Privileged Binaries== | |
| − | + | 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 logocentristic (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. | |
| − | + | Derrida was not passing judgment on these concepts; he was notorious for not advocating any "solutions" or even any beliefs, often refusing to define deconstruction when asked. In his view, any definition would fall victim to the notion of what he termed "différance" (a pun on the French for "difference"), wherein no symbol can be described without resorting to further symbols to communicate, often further referencing more misleading binaries and leading into what he described as an endless "deferment" of meaning. | |
==Deconstruction in Practice== | ==Deconstruction in Practice== | ||
In an [[essay]] entitled "The Death of the Author",<ref>Roland Barthes, ''The Death of the Author'', (Aspen 1968)</ref> Roland Barthes argued 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. | In an [[essay]] entitled "The Death of the Author",<ref>Roland Barthes, ''The Death of the Author'', (Aspen 1968)</ref> Roland Barthes argued 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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Deconstruction and Christianity== | ==Deconstruction and Christianity== | ||
Revision as of 22:55, March 21, 2008
Deconstruction is the postmodern 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. 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.
Privileged Binaries
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 logocentristic (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.
Derrida was not passing judgment on these concepts; he was notorious for not advocating any "solutions" or even any beliefs, often refusing to define deconstruction when asked. In his view, any definition would fall victim to the notion of what he termed "différance" (a pun on the French for "difference"), wherein no symbol can be described without resorting to further symbols to communicate, often further referencing more misleading binaries and leading into what he described as an endless "deferment" of meaning.
Deconstruction in Practice
In an essay entitled "The Death of the Author",[3] Roland Barthes argued 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.
Deconstruction and Christianity
Deconstruction is hostile to Christianity, and cannot be reconciled with the Christian worldview. 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 would render the Bible another meaningless piece of text to be bent into any meaning the reader sees fit.
In addition, Christianity teaches universal truth and ethics, while Deconstruction teaches that universal truth is nonexistent.
Deconstruction and Law
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."[4] 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.[5]
Harvard Law School in the late 1970s and 1980s was the home for several tenured professors who became advocates of Critical Legal Studies (or "crits"), such as Professor Duncan Kennedy.[6] By the late 1980s, however, a backlash among more traditional faculty there resulted in the denial of tenure to another adherent of that movement, causing the growth of the movement to halt.
A few Supreme Court Justices have embraced a weaker form of deconstruction by interpreting the Constitution as an "evolving" document, advocating "the evolution of constitutional doctrine."[7]
See Also
External links
- Deconstruction Encyclopædia Britannica.
- Deconstruction The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07.
References
- ↑ Bressler, Charles. Literary Criticism 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Chicago, Illinois 2002) ISBN 978-0130333971.
- ↑ Noebel, David, Understanding the Times (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.
- ↑ Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author, (Aspen 1968)
- ↑ Susan Estich in an online letter to Stuart Taylor Jr., www.slate.com/id/3628/entry/23734
- ↑ Noebel, page 312
- ↑ History of legal thought
- ↑ Speech by Justice William Brennan on November 21, 1982.