This blog post is part of an assignment assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad sir from the Department of English, MKBU. In this blog, I will be answering the questions presented to us as part of this assignment. I also put a few questions that were raised in my mind while reading Derrida and Deconstruction.
1.1. • Why is it difficult to define Deconstruction?
Deconstruction resists fixed definitions and emphasizes the instability of language and meaning. Its interdisciplinary nature, elusive language, rejection of fixed definitions, and focus on interpretation make it difficult to define succinctly.
1.2. • Is Deconstruction a negative term?
Different perspectives exist regarding whether deconstruction is a negative term. In its French origin, deconstruction carries connotations of annihilation or negative reduction. Another is, it is not inherently negative and that Derrida's intention was to inquire into the foundations of philosophical systems and transform thinking. In short, opinions vary on whether deconstruction is a negative term or not.
1.3. • How does Deconstruction happen on its own?
Deconstruction occurs naturally when the conditions that give meaning to a system also impose limitations on it. By examining the foundations of meaning, these limitations are surpassed, resulting in the destruction of the established institution. In short, deconstruction emerges spontaneously as an inquiry into foundations breaks free from imposed limitations.
2.1. • The influence of Heidegger on Derrida
Heidegger's influence on Derrida can be seen in his pursuit to dismantle the entire tradition of Western philosophy by delving into the fundamental question of the being of beings.
2.2. • Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy
Derrida's rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy centered around his critique of metaphysics and his exploration of the concept of "being of beings." He sought to challenge traditional notions of presence, truth, and fixed meaning by exposing the inherent contradictions and limitations within these concepts. Derrida aimed to transform the way people think by destabilizing and deconstructing the metaphysical assumptions that underpin Western philosophical frameworks.
3.1. • Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive)
Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of language states that meaning within language is arbitrary, relational, and constitutive. According to Saussure, the connection between the signifier (linguistic form) and the signified (concept or meaning) is not inherent or fixed. Instead, meaning arises through the relational network of signs within a language system. Saussure emphasized that language is a social construct, shaped by collective agreement and shared conventions. His ideas have had a significant impact on linguistics and semiotics, challenging previous notions of direct word-meaning correspondence.
3.2. • How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?
Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness by highlighting the inherent instability and complexities within language. He challenges the notion that the connection between signifiers and signifieds is purely arbitrary and demonstrates how meanings are shaped by a network of differences and associations. Derrida's concept of "différance" reveals that meaning is not fixed but deferred and always in flux. By deconstructing arbitrariness, Derrida exposes power imbalances and hierarchies within language and emphasizes its unstable and open-ended nature.
3.3. • Concept of metaphysics of presence
The concept of the Metaphysics of Presence refers to the binary oppositions found in language and philosophy. These oppositions, such as man-woman or light-dark, differentiate meaning by attributing a sense of lacking or absence to one side. This creates a hierarchy where the first term is considered privileged or superior, while the second term is seen as derivative or inferior. Derrida highlights how these oppositions establish unequal relationships and privilege one side over the other based on the presence or absence of certain qualities.
4.1. • Derridean concept of DifferAnce.
Derrida's concept of "différance" goes beyond being merely an idea or concept—it is a force that enables differentiation and postponement. It represents the simultaneous presence of both positive and negative aspects, while also transcending the conventional notions of positive and negative. Derrida's exploration of "différance" reveals the inherent instability of language, challenging the assumption of fixed meanings. Through deconstruction, Derrida exposes the power dynamics and hierarchical structures embedded within language, emphasizing its perpetual state of flux and open-endedness.
4.2. • Infinite play of meaning
The "infinite play of meaning" refers to the limitless and ever-evolving nature of interpretation and signification. It suggests that meaning is not fixed but continuously shaped by various contexts and perspectives. This concept challenges the idea of a singular truth and encourages multiple interpretations.
4.3. • DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer
"DifferAnce," a term combining "to differ" and "to defer." It signifies the interplay between differentiation and deferral in language and meaning. DifferAnce emphasizes that meaning is not fixed but constantly evolving and postponed. It challenges traditional notions of stable meaning, highlighting the dynamic and complex nature of language.
5.1. • Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.
"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" is a famous essay by Derrida. In this essay, Derrida challenges the traditional understanding of structure and meaning in the context of human sciences.
Derrida argues that structuralism, which seeks to uncover the underlying structures and rules governing language and society, is based on the assumption of a fixed center or stable foundation. However, he contends that this notion of a center is illusory and that there is an inherent playfulness and instability within language and systems of meaning. According to Derrida, signs in language are not fixed and have no inherent meaning. Rather, meaning emerges through a system of differences and relationships. He introduces the concept of "play" to describe the constant interplay and free movement of meaning within language.
5.2. • Explain: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."
"Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique" implies that language inherently contains the need to examine and question itself. Structuralism emerged as a critique of scientific and metaphysical assumptions, but it paradoxically relies on similar assumptions. The center of a structure, paradoxically, exists both within it and outside of it, suggesting that the notion of a fixed center is illusory. Language fails to grasp ultimate meaning and finality, as any critique is bound by the limitations and interplay of language itself. The absence or blind spot in language creates a demand for critique to fill the gap, but this can only be achieved through language, perpetuating the inherent lack or deficiency in language.
6.2. The Yale School: the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.
The Yale School, including Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman, J. Hillis Miller, and Harold Bloom, were influential in developing and applying deconstruction in literary theory. They challenged traditional notions of authorship and meaning through close readings of texts. The Yale School played a vital role in popularizing deconstruction and its multiple interpretations in literary studies.
6.2. • The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction.
Yale University's scholars, associated with the Yale School, had distinct characteristics in their approach to literature. They viewed literature as a figurative or rhetorical construct, analyzing the ways language and literary devices shape meaning. They questioned traditional aesthetic and formalist approaches, as well as historicist and sociological approaches to literature. Additionally, they showed a strong interest in studying Romanticism and its themes, aesthetics, and ideologies. These characteristics marked the unique perspective and contributions of Yale University scholars to the field of literary studies.
7 New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists.
Other schools of literary theory have employed deconstruction in various ways:
Postcolonial theorists:
By its ability to show the texts or the discourse of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narrative.
Feminism:
Because it deals with how to subvert the binary between male and female. By its ability to subvert patriarchal discourse.
New Historicism:
By its ability to see historicity of texts and textuality of history.
Cultural materialism:
By its ability to emphasize materiality of language.
Questions that raised in my mind while reading:
1)What are some criticisms or limitations of deconstruction as a literary theory, and how do proponents of deconstruction respond to these critiques?
2) Are there any examples of specific literary works or texts where deconstruction has been applied?
3)How does the Yale School's approach to literature differ from other literary schools, and how did it contribute to the development of deconstruction?
4)How does deconstruction help subvert patriarchal binaries and challenge gender norms within literary works?
No comments:
Post a Comment