Difference between revisions of "Deconstruction"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m (Reverting back to properly phrased version, absent my false neutrality and liberalism)
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 [[post-structuralism | 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.
+
'''Deconstruction''' is the [[postmodern]] or [[liberal]] belief that each person interprets a text in light of their own experiences, [[bias]]es, and [[prejudice]]s.<ref>Noebel, David, ''Understanding the Times'' (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.</ref> Thus, no text can have the same meaning for all [[people]]; a text's [[message]] depends entirely upon personal interpretation. Deconstruction holds an individual's interpretation of a text to be more important than the text itself.
  
−
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.
+
Deconstruction is a theory of interpretation favored by [[liberal]]s.
 +
''The term "deconstruction" was coined by [[French]] philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s.''<ref>''[http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/deconstr.html Deconstruction]'' in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.</ref><!-- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deconstruction indicates that the word dates from 1973, although that's probably the /English/ word, and perhaps he coined the French version earlier? -->
  
−
In a contemporary [[essay]] entitled "The Death of the Author",<ref>Roland Barthes, ''The Death of the Author'', (Aspen 1968)</ref> 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.
+
Supporters of deconstruction apply it not only to [[literature]], but to all of [[reality]]. [[Postmodernist]]s claim that reality is constructed by each individual based on their unique ideas, biases, prejudices, etc. Thus, there can be no universal [[truth]] because reality is different for each individual.
  
−
==Privileged Binaries and Différance==
+
==Deconstruction in Practice==
−
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 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.
+
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.
  
−
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.  Thus, the différance of a word is the conjunction of conflict between the signifier and signified; Derrida termed the substantive quality of this conflict as "trace," and deemed that definitions and accordingly understandings of the relationships between signifier and the signified had to undergo a process known as supplementation in order to be fully complete.
+
Deconstructionistic thinking has crept stealthily into [[America]]n [[public school]]s. From [[elementary school]], [[children]] are encouraged to share "What this story meant to me", rather than searching for the meaning the author intended when he wrote the text. This dangerously teaches children to believe that they can create their own meaning for a text, and even their own version of reality and truth. This [[relativism|relativistic]] view of meaning has invaded public school classrooms, purporting to encourage "love of literature", while indoctrinating students with postmodernistic ideas.<ref>Walter Russell, ''Playing With Fire'' www.boundless.org/features</ref>
  
−
The interplay that occurs during the process of endless deferment in conventional [[linguistics]], while trying to track down the inner meaning of a given term, is referred to by deconstructionists as the [[hymen]], in reference to the anatomical structure.  The reference is an allusion to the fact that the structure is both inside and outside of the body at the same time, an apparent paradox and a contradiction of the Law of Identity proposed classically by [[Aristotle]] and held as an essential tenet of [[logical positivism]] within linguistics. This paradox has been most notably explored by author and philosopher [[Robert Pirsig]] in his works ''[[Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance]]'' and ''[[Lila]]''.
+
==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.
  
−
==Deconstruction in Other Areas==
+
In addition, Christianity teaches universal truth and ethics, while Deconstruction teaches that universal truth is nonexistent.
−
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.
 
  
−
[[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>
+
==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."<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>
  
 
[[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.<ref>[http://duncankennedy.net/legal_history/index.html History of legal thought]</ref> 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.
 
[[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.<ref>[http://duncankennedy.net/legal_history/index.html History of legal thought]</ref> 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."<ref>Speech by Justice [[William Brennan]] on November 21, 1982.</ref>
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Revision as of 19:12, May 20, 2008

The Holy Bible

Deconstruction is the postmodern or liberal belief that each person interprets a text in light of their own experiences, biases, and prejudices.[1] Thus, no text can have the same meaning for all people; a text's message depends entirely upon personal interpretation. Deconstruction holds an individual's interpretation of a text to be more important than the text itself.

Deconstruction is a theory of interpretation favored by liberals. The term "deconstruction" was coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s.[2]

Supporters of deconstruction apply it not only to literature, but to all of reality. Postmodernists claim that reality is constructed by each individual based on their unique ideas, biases, prejudices, etc. Thus, there can be no universal truth because reality is different for each individual.

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.

Deconstructionistic thinking has crept stealthily into American public schools. From elementary school, children are encouraged to share "What this story meant to me", rather than searching for the meaning the author intended when he wrote the text. This dangerously teaches children to believe that they can create their own meaning for a text, and even their own version of reality and truth. This relativistic view of meaning has invaded public school classrooms, purporting to encourage "love of literature", while indoctrinating students with postmodernistic ideas.[4]

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."[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] 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."[8]

See Also

External links

References

  1. ↑ Noebel, David, Understanding the Times (Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, Colorado 2006) ISBN 978-0936163000.
  2. ↑ Deconstruction in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
  3. ↑ Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author, (Aspen 1968)
  4. ↑ Walter Russell, Playing With Fire www.boundless.org/features
  5. ↑ Susan Estich in an online letter to Stuart Taylor Jr., www.slate.com/id/3628/entry/23734
  6. ↑ Noebel, page 312
  7. ↑ History of legal thought
  8. ↑ Speech by Justice William Brennan on November 21, 1982.
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deconstruction&oldid=457250"