Talk: Deconstruction

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

for older discussion, see Talk:Deconstruction/Archive1

Very good article. I think it is a good balance, and has criticism right where it is needed.--ShaunMacPherson 02:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 The post modernism generator

2 Audience

3 It's too vague

4 Discrediting and Deconstruction

5 Hard vocabulary words

The post modernism generator

This has been moved to the criticism section. It should be mentioned, not only because it has been viewed by over a million people but also because it demonstrates the connection between deconstruction and linguistics (and playfulness). 2:21 1/10/04 - I saw the caveat that was added, you're right to add it.

Audience

As of 2004-04-14, the deconstruction article reads as if it is aimed at an audience of philosophers who already understand the subject. But the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a general encyclopedia for a general audience, who may not know anything about post-modern philosophy. The article needs to be worked on so that it is clear to a general audience. I've made a start by putting a succinct definition in the opening paragraph, but the rest of the text still needs a lot of work before it can be understood. Gdr 11:28, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I agree. It's a challenging task to be both accurate and user-friendly on this topic. It might end up being a rather long article. COGDEN 17:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, your change seems to have made the first paragraph more obscure and not necessarily more correct. For example, you imply that one can only apply deconstruction to texts grounded in Western culture. But surely the method is more general than that? Or does the method have a different name when applied to other cultural traditions? Gdr 19:37, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I've never personally seen a version of deconstruction relating to anything other than Western metaphysics. I suppose it would be possible to have, for example, a form of deconstruction based solely on Buddhist metaphysics or Animism. Has anybody seen an article attempting to describe a deconstruction-like event in a text outside the influence of Western metaphysics? COGDEN 23:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's too vague

This article is too vague and confusing. What I want to know is: What is the purpose and the result of deconstruction? Why would someone want to make a deconstructive reading? And what happens to the text afterwards? What does deconstruction accomplish? What is the value of deconstruction to scientists?

Hello? Are there no answers? These are really basic questions that the average person would want to know and would expect to find answers to in an encyclopedia.

First, it's important to note that while these questions are basic their answers are complicated and difficult (as is the case with much of philosophy, not just deconstruction: think, for example, of Kant's answers to "how can there be knowledge whose source is outside the knower?"). Second, these questions are pragmatic, and deconstruction is quite opposed to most forms of pragmatism, so you might expect that many deconstructive thinkers would reject them as the wrong questions. In any case, it's not immediately clear that usefulness is what one wants or needs from philosophy in general (and we certainly don't ask of philosophy first and foremost that it be useful to scientists).

That said, I think there are some possible answers to these questions. The historical and current importance of deconstruction has to do with the revival of the critical tradition in philosophy, a new attention to ideas of text and writing in accounts of consciousness and thought, and a new, intense skepticism toward metaphysics. All of these are important for reading and potentially for science (especially cognitive science); on this topic, one reference is Paul Cilliers's book Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems (ISBN 0415152879). -- Rbellin 03:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a bit over my head. Admittedly, I am not deep in philosophy or science. I am not interested in the whole philosophy surrounding deconstruction, I just want to know about this specific thing called a deconstructive reading. Why would someone want to make a deconstructive reading? What does it accomplish? I am not interested in how it works, only why. Certainly they don't just do it for fun. They must be trying to accomplish something, so what is it?

Typically, they're trying to get away from a binary opposition of one kind or another. One does a deconstructive reading to show, for instance, that the opposition of male and female is not as simple a division as one might think, as is shown by the way in which such and such a text, when talking about male and female, undermines itself, showing that the terms do not really operate and thus that the entire distinction of male and female is a false one/a social construct. It's basically politically motivated, as is most critical theory these days. Snowspinner 04:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Deconstructive reading is not so much something that one does. Deconstruction is more like something that occurs, and that we try in vain to understand. Thus, it doesn't really have a purpose or reason. If someone were able to find the purpose of/for deconstruction, we could all go home and stop writing about it. Nobody "uses" deconstruction for political purposes. Indeed, they write for political purposes in spite of the fact that their writings are deconstructing even as they write. It is true that people who write about deconstruction are usually left-leaning, but the Western political left deconstructs just as easily as the Western political right. COGDEN 04:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The characterization of deconstruction as an "event" seems to be merely a semantic trick to keep criticism fenced in. It doesn't matter though; English is very flexible. If using "deconstruct" as a transitive verb is taboo, then we can simply use a circumlocution like "make a deconstructive reading of": it's the same thing. Deconstructionists do admit that they make "deconstructive readings", so I think I'm on good ground here. My question still stands: what are they trying to accomplish?

The only real answer to that is: They are trying to think. If you demand this level of oversimplification, when your question has already been answered very well in a few different ways, I'm not sure how to proceed. Deconstruction, and philosophy in general, are complicated topics which many very smart people spend a lifetime thinking about. Shrugging it off with an "it's over my head" or calling it a "semantic trick" is a way of expressing hostility to any idea you don't understand. I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining deconstruction without being too reductive or stupid -- it compares favorably to some of the "deconstruction for beginners"-type books. Don't demand this level of reductiveness. (By the way, I disagree with Snowspinner's answer.) -- Rbellin 14:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Imagine a slick French intellectual sitting in his study, busily working out a deconstructive analysis of a text. Beads of sweat are collecting on his brow--this is a tough one. But finally, after hours of laboring, he lays down his pen: the analysis is complete. He has managed to deconstruct the text--err, I mean, to show how it deconstructs itself. Now here is my question: What has he accomplished? What has he done to the text?

The answer, as I understand it, is that he has discredited the text. If that is right, then my sentence ("The primary function of deconstruction is to discredit the text") should stand. Just for good measure, lets look at the definition of "discredit" from M-W:

2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of

Now if that's not deconstruction, I don't know what is. So I'm putting my sentence back for now.

Deconstruction is not about discrediting the text. The answer you want is not independent of the deconstructive philosophy you refuse to hear anything about. The sentence is coming back out. Snowspinner 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Look, you can't just say "you're wrong" and then revert my edits. You have to show everyone why. I say deconstruction is about discrediting the text, and here's why. First of all, look at the sentence that preceedes mine:

a deconstructive reading is an analysis a text in such a way that the text itself undermines its own foundation in Western metaphysics,

That exactly fits the definition for "discredit" which I supplied above. My sentence follows almost naturally from this one (that's why I began it with "thus"). Now look at the Barbara Johnson quote:

If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another

Again, this fits the definition perfectly: "to cause disbelief in the... authority of". Now look at the David B. Allison quote:

"[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought

This contradicts Rbellin's statement that the task of deconstructionists is to "think". Apparently their task is much more specific than that: to "locate and take apart" (i.e. discredit) certain "concepts". You guys really need to get your stories straight. Till then, the sentence goes back.

Now here is the most damning evidence, the quote from Paul-de-Man:

It's possible, within text, to frame a question or to undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text

And this too:

the 'accidental' features of a text can be seen as betraying, subverting, its purportedly 'essential' message

This clearly says that the function of deconstruction is to discredit the text. My sentence stands.

OK, let's try this. "I've read Derrida and a wealth of deconstructive philosophy. I am furthermore interested in these issues. You have admitted that you are uninterested in these issues and that you have not done necessary background reading. You are unquallified to make the edit you are making. I am quallified to make the edit. Your edit is not going in."

Qualifications don't mean nothing on Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopedia. I have as much right as you. I have shown plenty of evidence to support my claim, you have shown none. That makes me more qualified than you.

More politely, the key phrase there is foundation in Western metaphysics. That is to say, the point is not to undermine the text, but to show an unresolved ambiguity in Western metaphysics through the text. There would be no need for a deconstructive reading to attack the authority of a text - plenty of historical criticism can already be used for that. It is not trying to make the text look bad or unreliable or anything that would fall under discrediting. It's attacking the culture that the text represents, as you would note if you even bothered to read the rest of the article. As for the contradiction between Rbellin's views and my own, while I disagree with Rebellin, that does not mean that your uneducated perspective defaults to being true.

I'm sorry, that may be your personal belief, but that's not what the article says. The article says that deconstruction makes the text betray and subvert it's own meaning. It says it undoes assertions made in the text. That means it discredits the text. I have demonstrated this above with many quotes from the article. Come back with some quotes of your own to support your argument, before you revert my edits.

Finally, I would be much more happy to respond to your posts if you got them right the first time instead of constantly editing the page so that I get edit conflicts over and over again when I try to respond. Snowspinner 20:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There's not really an answer to that. I mean, the answer is really contingent on deconstructive philosophy. That's like asking "OK, I don't want to hear anything about the whole food processing business and culinary issues surrounding salmon. But what does a salmon fisherman accomplish when he catches the fish?" Snowspinner 18:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think Derrida's political motivations have been made clear at several points - have you seen the film Derrida? Really interesting - and not just for the odd site of Derrida wandering around trying to find his keys. In any case, have you joined Wikiproject:Critical Theory yet? It would be a crime not to have you. :) Snowspinner 14:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Some deconstructionists say that the "text deconstructs itself," leaving themselves as passive observers. As for the accomplishment, as I said, it's politically motivated - the attempt to get beyond, or to at least undermine a division (Black/White, Male/Female, Employer/Employee) that's being employed harmfully. Snowspinner 14:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say to that beyond that, while you may describe Derrida with some accuracy (Though Derrida contradicts this claim in other places - he is very politically invested, and doesn't find that fact completely problematic), you don't really describe deconstruction as a whole - especially not in the contemporary academy.

The section Criticisms classifying deconstruction as nihilism or relativism is mostly full of strawmen for proponents of deconstruction to knock down. It's not really criticism at all, more like the opposite.

The criticisms should probably be expanded, however, in the popular press, where deconstruction has come up with mild frequency, these are both real criticisms of it, and so really do need to be in the article. Snowspinner 14:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This section is completely worthwhile, because thinking deconstruction is nihilism or relativism is such a common misunderstanding (in the popular press, for instance, as Snowspinner observes, and among non-academics). You don't need to be a "proponent" (or an "opponent") to correct a factual mistake like this, and it seems to me that that is what the section does. -- Rbellin 14:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

True, but the problem is in the presentation. It presents these arguments as criticisms, but they are presumed from the start to be invalid: strawmen. Strawmen are not NPOV.

What about the presentation bothers you? I just looked over the section, and I don't see it - the nihilism/relatavist critique is frequently lobbed, so it really needs to be addressed. And I just don't see where the POV is. Maybe I'm missing it. What specific phrases bother you? Snowspinner 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Discrediting and Deconstruction

I advise you to read J. Hillis Miller's essay "The Critic as Host". It deals with these issues. Choice quote - "The meaning of The Triumph of Life can never be reduced to any "univocal" reading... The poem, like all texts, is "unreadable" if by "readable" one means a single, definitive interpretation."

In other words, the point of deconstruction is not to make the text look bad. It's to open up new possibilities within the text, to show new angles, to open up uncertainties and things that couldn't be talked about before. Snowspinner 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous user posting above (69.106.x.x) has been persistently re-inserting into the introductory paragraph the sentence "Thus the function of deconstruction is to discredit the text." Aside from flame content, this is an interesting discussion, and the article might profitably address it. I'd like to suggest that the fundamental misunderstanding is that discrediting a single work, or an author, is not the same thing as discrediting (etymologically, not-believing) metaphysical assumptions and axioms at work in interpretation. As I and the article have stressed, skepticism toward metaphysics is one of the core principles of deconstruction (of course, this is also a core principle of other philosophies, including analytic philosophy). That's why deconstruction is not about doing a hatchet-job on a text or author, as the anonymous user seems to misunderstand. We can discuss the individual quotations, if you like, but I think they're quite consistent on this point. -- Rbellin 20:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Further: The de Man quotations which the anonymous user has taken as support for the claim that deconstructive reading "discredits the text" are, in fact, saying something very close to the opposite. What de Man is describing is a process of reading which, in fact, credits the literality of a text -- believes it, takes it at its word, including its "accidental" features (and he's using the word "accidental" in its technical philosophical sense, dating back to Aristotle at least) -- and in so doing finds that the text itself does not simply support its essential meaning. That is, a (deconstructive) reading, which finds that the text is too complex to support a metaphysical, essential interpretation, does so by attempting radically to believe or to credit the text itself, not by forcing anything on it from outside, and certainly not by trying to falsify it. -- Rbellin 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I can see that we're not on the same page here. You seem to be describing the process of deconstruction, whereas I am only concerned with the result. The article says that a deconstructive reading results in the text undermining its own foundation in Western metaphysics, for example through internal contradictions and biases. If a text's foundation has been undermined, if it has been found to contain internal contradictions, then it has been discredited, by the very defintion of the word "discredit". My sentence is merely a summary of the one that precedes it!

In which case it's redundant. Snowspinner 01:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Grow up.

??? If it's just a restatement of what came before, it's redundant and unnecessary. If it's not (As I would claim), then it's inaccurate. Either way, it doesn't belong there. Snowspinner 03:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not a restatement, it's a reformulation. The article is full of them. If we used your standards for redundancy we would cut the size of the article in half.

Regardless, it's a completely wrong reformulation, based on a misunderstanding that has been explained to you by three different people now. There is a consensus. Your edit ought not go in. Snowspinner 03:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I have significantly changed my sentence since then.

And have yet to remove the incorrect claim. Snowspinner 03:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Which is what? What is the difference between my sentence and the sentence that precedes it? My sentence makes the same claim as the preceding sentence, so how can one be wrong and the other be right?

(Back to the left) It's not about discrediting. This has been made clear. It's not about the text. It's not about an attack on the text. We're up to four people now who have explained this. How is it that you're not getting it? Snowspinner 04:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

After more than a couple of good-faith explanations from me and others of why this sentence is wrong, and without making any demonstration of acquaintance with or study of the thousands of pages of relevant material, the anonymous user continues to revert the page. I'm not putting more effort into this discussion. Looks like vandalism, or at least willful ignorance, at this point. -- Rbellin 02:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, a deconstructive reading is an analysis a text in such a way that the text itself undermines its own foundation in Western metaphysics, for example through internal contradictions and biases: thus the effect of a deconstructive reading is to discredit the text by showing that it contradicts itself.

Just explain to me shortly in a sentence or two what's wrong with this, and then I'll leave it alone. If you agree with the first part (the part before the colon), then how can you disagree with the second part? The second part is merely a reformulation of the first. So how can you say that the first one is right but the second one is wrong? They are making the same claim!

::::The effect of deconstruction has almost nothing to do with the text, and everything to do with Western metaphysics. The text is just a tool for looking at the culture. Snowspinner 03:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. Why do I feed the trolls? Snowspinner 03:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

To say that a text or piece is constructed or constructed upon, either by the author or by the culture (for example if the text is canonized as being the representative X), is not to say that it is not real, important, and valid. The construction may actually inhibit one's appreciate of a piece. The best example I can think of (music related, of course) is Susan McClary's article "The Blasphemy of Talking Politics during Bach Year" in which she discusses how the univocal interpretation of Bach's music as the representative and ideal of beauty and order in (classical) music, and the univocal interpretation of classical music as non-referential (or refering only to itself or to other pieces crassly through quotation) actually inhibits appreciation and performances of his music. Bach's music was referential and politically charged, and he made for himself the risky task of blending German, French, and Italian aesthetics in a manner some contemporaries found appalling. Reading pieces in which he mixes two styles as if they were not only one style, but its best example, impovrishes interpretation, appreciation, the piece, and Bach. Deconstruction is, in this case, overwhelmingly positive. Hyacinth 03:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

From Power (sociology): "Deconstruction often works to reveal hidden power structures and relationships."

Deconstruction should be proliferation, not appropriation. Hyacinth 20:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, COGDEN's latest edit is really great. Snowspinner 00:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hard vocabulary words

The example definitely helps explain "metaphysical" a lot.

Could you clarify "multi-vocal" and "other voice"? Beland 01:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll see what I can do in a minute. Right now I'm actually working on research for a "Popular discussion of deconstruction" section. Snowspinner 01:13, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I like your improvements. The introductory paragraph in particular is much clearer now and probably captures the essence of deconstructionalism better than my very concrete discussion; not to mention reducing redundancy.

I added a reference to the Sokal Affair in the "Lack of concreteness" section at the same time you added one, I think. I don't know if mine is still appropriate.

The only possibly substantive thing which has gone missing is the link to social construction. Do you think that insistance/emphasis on the socially constructed nature of things is a hallmark of deconstructive analysis, or that it's an important related concept? -- Beland 01:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I associate social construction more with Foucault and discourse analysis than with deconstruction, though the two schools of thought came together at a similar time. Snowspinner 02:09, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okey doke. -- Beland 10:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Counterpoints

One section of the article states deconstruction is often seen as implying nihilism, solipsism, and relativism. Simplistically...

1) The nihilism challenge is countered by the statement that deconstructionists do believe some meaning is present; it just has to be searched for within the web of words and games, rather than with respect to an absolute.

2) The solipsism challenge is countered by the statement that deconstructionists do believe there is an actual external reality; they just believe that our methods, being so confused between signs and what they mean, are insufficient for us to gain knowledge of this outside world.

3) The relativism challenge, as far as I can tell, is not answered. Without some explanation of how it isn't, at this point I would be tempted to conclude that deconstruction is a brand of radical relativism with a focus on word games and playful obfuscation. Why isn't deconstruction relativism?

Clear as mud...

Now I'm no genius, but I do manage to dress myself, and can even walk around without falling down (on occasion). In a word, I consider myself as rational and alert as the next gazebo - but I got nothing from this article but eyestrain.

No doubt this is a difficult, complex subject – a subject perhaps unsuited to one lacking an advanced degree in philosophy, so I will ask my question and go my merry way – humming to myself, hands in pockets.

My question: What happens when we conduct a deconstructive reading of the text of an article on deconstructivism – then type that up, and do a deconstructive reading of it – and on and on ad infinitum. At what point does the system break down and become a meaningless hodgepodge of trivial scholastic nonsense – I know my guess…

That's a good question, and to some extent, things never seem to stop deconstructing. But I think that way of looking at the situation is somewhat misleading, because the thing that deconstructs is not deconstruction itself, because deconstruction really isn't a thing. The thing that authors use when writing about deconstruction is existing Western thought, but if you show how the author's writings deconstruct, you have essentially said amen to what the author originally wrote.

For example, suppose I write about the deconstruction of speech (logos) by showing how under phenomenology (a form of existentialism whose "father" was Edmund Husserl) speech is seen as a derivative form of writing (the Western opposite and scorned little brother of speech). If somebody then tries to show how my writing itself deconstructs, one cannot do so without showing how my methodology (in this case, phenomenology) deconstructs, which was exactly my original point. COGDEN 22:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Relativism

The challenge to deconstruction that equates it to relativism brought up in the body of the article has gone unanswered. Why isn't deconstruction relativism? I'm sure it's a stupid question, but I don't understand, and I would like to, and I think an answer belongs in the criticism section too because the question was raised. Thanks. Vivacissamamente

Opening paragraph

At present, the opening paragraph states that deconstruction is a "school of criticism created by...Derrida". I don't think Derrida would have ever classified deconstruction as a school, or say he created it. In fact, I think he once said it wasn't a school or movement. The whole article treats deconstruction as if it were an -ism, but clearly it isn't, except when Derrida's critics use the word, and even though they may not say "deconstructionism", the -ism is implied. I don't think any use of the term deconstruction should include a silent -ism, unless the text makes clear that it's a critic of deconstruction(ism) who's impliedly calling it an -ism. COGDEN^(talk) 00:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Last Contributor: COGDEN - Article Talk Page: Discussion - GNU FDL: Verbatim Source

Open Encyclopedia