"What deconstruction is not?
Everything of course! What is deconstruction?
Nothing of course!"
These are the words of Jaques Derrida, the leading figure in a current trend in philosophy and literary criticism known as 'deconstructionism.' Why deconstructionism matters is that it is at the headwaters of contemporary feminism and 'queer theory,' among other things.
It also seems to describe the tangled, unhierarchical nature of the internet. (...But...there still is an on/off button, isn't there?)
The very nature of deconstructionism defies definition, claiming that words are inadequate to the task of defining reality. It teaches that meaning is a mercurial thing, and impossible to pin down.
Their vocabularies are certainly not deficient, their text is littered with words like 'prolegomena,' 'prenotional,' 'desedimented' and even 'parergon.'
I don't assume to be an expert on the subject, but will attempt to summarize what I have garnered from various sources and present a 'thumbnail sketch', for my friends not willing to hack through thickets of words like those mentioned above. Some will argue that it is like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a wristwatch TV screen, but I can't agree. It's more like Andy Warhol's 'Sleep.'
The argument is that language, especially writing, mediates between the ideas and the reader, undermining the possibility of 'presence': a self-authenticating experience; as others have said:'grokking,' or deep resonance. (The idea is nothing new, in Buddhist and Vedic texts it is a recurring theme. In my humble opinion, deconstructionism takes an old idea and uses a lot of pseudo-Nietzschean jargon to make it sound really brainy and confusing to the poor plebes languishing in some lower mental strata. Ambiguity is used as a shield against focused inspection, and straight-from-the-shoulder statment of ideas.)
This separation of experience is called 'differance,' another five dollar word. This idea justifies the dismantling of metaphysics, literature, and gender roles, saying they are all arbitrary conventions and thought constructs.
Another source of these ideas is Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788), the influential 18th century thinker, who said 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.' This is interpreted to mean: we are all perfect at birth, it is society that corrupts us. Therefore, a perfectly engineered society is possible, if we can only remove all evil influences. Perhaps, but don't hold your breath.
Rousseau also articulated and developed John Locke's concept of the "Social Contract," that is, a need for a set of rules by which society should run. Confucius in China, and the Indian Vedas offer similar "recipes," though much more completely thought out.
Another influence is Michel Foucault, who brought the deconstructionist ideas into the sexual-preference arena. He held the chair in the history of systems of thought at the College de France and was the reigning Parisian intellectual when he died. Also expert in an impenetrable writing style, Foucault lived for extended periods of time in the crucible of the gay baths in New York City, indulging in the darkest of actualized fantasy, steeped in sexual power gaming. He saw power relations as at the center of societal structure.
Difficult to classify, Foucault explains himself here:
"It concerns my way of approaching political questions. It is true that my attitude
isn't a result of the form of critique that claims to be a methodical examination in order to reject
all possible solutions except for the one valid one. It is more on the order
of "problematization"- which is to say, the development of a domain of acts, practices, and thoughts that seem to me to pose
problems for politics."(from "The Foucault Reader," edited by Paul Rabinow,
Pantheon Books, New York, 1984)
Foucault was fascinated with suicide and death. He died of AIDS, still working towards a new conception of how power and knowledge interact.
These French ideas have brought about the 'government as nurturer' myth that prevails today, and the questioning of virtually any belief, just for the sake of questioning. Also the idea that we are all the same, except for our nasty old conditioning. Political Correctness is another outgrowth of deconstructionism, an attempt to remove stereotyping of any kind, seen as an opressive power tool. It's an attempt at a kind of 'Newspeak,' as in Orwell's 1984. Consciousness Raising, of a sort.
Some theorists want to eliminate the concept 'boy' and 'girl,' claiming that these are part of the power structure's attempt to oppress certain people. They suggest that there is a heirarchic caste system that is perpetuated by language, that facilitates the oppression of women, and that the ideal human state is androgynous.
There has been oppression of women throughout history, terrible oppression, and it does seem to be entrenched in society. But women cannot break the cycle by becoming androgynous, and avoiding the issue.
woMAN. feMALE. sHE. The reduction of half the species to the status of appendage is unconsionable. Mrs. Dick Jones. Mrs. Joe Sixpack. Ridiculous. The Judeo-Christian demonization of the Goddess is an ancient machine of oppression- but discarding gender entirely is really throwing out the baby with the bath water. There must be a middle way.
- (Well, in fact 'female' and 'male' come from completely different roots.)
- Female is a reduction from Latin femella, a diminutive of femina or woman; formed by popular etymology on the analogy of male. Femina, is in turn rooted to feminine, which comes from Latin femina, which is a construction of fe to suck, suckle, also found in Latin felare to suck, suckling, also seen in fetus. Femele became female in about 1333.
- Male is first found in texts dating from 1373, and is borrowed from the French male, masle, mascle, from Latin masculus masculine, male, diminutive of mas (genitive maris), uncertain before that.
Opponents of deconstructionism and 'political correctness' shout 'moral
relativism' and decry 'the left wing rap that everybody is wonderful and
that with a little bit of love, the world would be a better place'.*
PC mush fuels the rage of the right.
Apparently, deconstructionism 'isn't finished yet.' Entropy is always advancing. There will always be more to 'deconstruct.'
The good side of deconstructionism is the 'Question Authority' idea, which is obviously what is needed perhaps most in our society. The earlier versions also brought Jefferson's 'All men are created equal'- a concept we probably wouldn't want to do away with, even though it does raise many questions.
(Jane says this page gives her a headache. I can't blame her.)
If someone else thinks they can explain it better, please email me and I will post your remarks.
From a Restroom Wall:
"The Frenchman treats the text as a lonely man treats an
inflatable doll. First, he reconstitutes it with his own hot air. Then he
masturbates on it."
*From a Letter to the Editor, Westword, Apr 4-18.96, Denver, CO.
From: "The Passion of Michel Foucault, James Miller, Simon & Schuster New York, London Toronto, 1993; Foucault Reader, Edited by Paul Rabinow, Pantheon Books, New York, 1984; The Reader's Adviser- A layman's Guide to Literature, Chernow & Vallasi, R.R. Bowker Company, New York & London, 1988
Finally! ... Someone is able to explain Deconstructionism:
Subject:
regardinyr deconstruct page
Date:
Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:37:51 +0600
From:
serendib-naid@geocities.com
Reply-To:
randomvioletz@mindless.com
well anyway probably not worth yr time 2 read dis ,but well here's my thoughtz
on yr page
I just read your page on deconstructionism. Well I completely disagree with
you and think your calling of deconstructionism a jargon filled variant
on eastern religon is a bit absurd,but then agian that is a deconstruction!
anyway I can summarize my veiw of deconstruction real quick 4 ya( although
you seem to be more well read than I)
Deconstructionism rests on these values
1. the utlimate form of nihilism, according to Neitzsche, is that everything
is perspectival appearance.
2. there is no stable means of linguistic meaning. Hence all critques do
not ciritque what the writer really meant ,but are what the reader thinks
and interprets out of the work. In other words the reader's perspective
is what appears in a ciritque and not anything that actually is there. aka
"there is nothing outside the text." Derrida deals with this in "Limited
Inc." & other workz
3. Cateogires are something invented by the mind. They are being broken
down now so we can move n2 more creative forms of thoughts that bear a striking
resemblance to what the insane think. concepts are replaced with fetishes
and so on.
ah well hope this helps
If you eat a whole bunch of acid, that starts to
make sense.
Sure, a shoe is a fetish, but it helps to have other names for it besides
a 'creative' grunt.
The attempt to invalidate language is ludicrous, and a thinly disguised
deeper mission to invalidate restrictive morality. Its just beating around
the bush.
also Steven Shaviro's Doom Patrol's a fairly good explination of post
modernism in general althiough his Foucault influences the sexual side of
him ,and not with Foucault spent most of his time taslking about. Finally
regarding your feminist ideas. Well um... GENDER and SEXUALITY are BOTH
being taken down in other words their is no such thing as women or man biologically.
The entire sex thing is being deconstructed so that cateogires such as homosexual,
heterosexual, and so on will no longer exist. Impossible to explain in less
than 50 pages.
Maybe not.
Actually, it's simple.
Male and Female DO exist, but as archetypes. People occupy different points
along the continuum between these two extremes, and 'sexuality' becomes
a non issue. Whoever can do whatever and still be part of the dance. But
celebrate Extremity along with Diversity. Androgyny and gender-fuck
are a gas, but what would all those drag dolls do if there weren't a few
cowboys around? What would jocks do without cheerleaders?
Not everyone wants to be in some futuristic monastery where everyone wears
a grey uniform and has no sex at all.
One doesn't need 50 pages to justify Homosexuality- It doesn't have to be
justified. It just is. Too bad if the others can't handle it. Everybody
is somewhere between those extremes, and hopefully they can figure out how
to deal with it. If someone needs Jello pudding to get off, more power to
'em.
(Just don't hurt anybody.)
I know your aware of this ,but hey just thought I'd mention it. Ah well
may I remind you that use of Jargon in post modern philosophy is only found
in
A. intellectual papers and when one looks up the terms it makes sense. or
B. as Baudillard uses the terms they mean nothing and are just added becuase
Baudillard does nothing more than take Marhsall McLuhan and add lots of
impressive sounding words to him and renders once meaningfull statements
n2 completely bull shit gibberish. stick 2 da basicz kidz! alot more 2 Derrida,
Foucault, Husserel, Heiddeger, Aristotle, and others than in pop culture
philosopherz.
with kind regards
some idiot
randomvioletz@mindless.com
Thanks much. Your three point list is a clear
summary.
Here's deconstructionism:
1. Something written -- a text -- is in language.
2. Your mind interpets language the way it wants to, so the text can mean
anything.
3. Because it can mean anything, it is "deconstructed" to mean whatever
your professor would prefer it to mean because he gives the grade.
4. Deconstruction is a system to give humanities and philosophy professors
a pompous sounding justification to pop off on politics and other subjects
they know nothing about.
Matt Hogan
Thanks Matt. A refreshing blast of truth.
Another letter:
Recently, people have begun using "deconstruct" as a word for "analysis" or "pulling to pieces" of a particular phenomenon. Though a misunderstanding, it seems a good locution; at least it means something.
This is from Peter Wood's 2003 "Diversity: Invention of a Concept":
"...As far as anthropologists are concerned, we came to see culture as immensely important but also immensely mercurial and virtually impossible to pin down and label. Pinning down and labeling, however, are precisely what concocted cultural diversity requires. Perhaps because of this, when anthropologists lend support to the diversity movement - as many do - they frequently turn obscurantist by invoking the aid of postmodern irony or neo-Marxist dialectic. The categories of concocted diversity plainly do not make sense without such aid."
This item about Rousseau, is from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm, by way of Ralph B.:
"The Social Contract, on the text that all men are born free and equal, regards the State as a contract in which individuals surrender none of their natural rights, but rather agree for the protection of them. Most remarkable in this projected republic was the provision to banish aliens to the state religion and to punish dissenters with death. The Social Contract became the text-book of the French Revolution, and Rousseau's theories as protests bore fruit in the frenzied bloody orgies of the Commune as well as in the rejuvenation of France and the history of the entire Western world."
If anyone wishes to add more, please send it.
PAGLIA
Camille Paglia on Political Correctness
Violence against Women in Russia and P.C.
Shortcuts
