Deconstruction

Deconstruction

The very first thing u have to keep in mind is that deconstruction is a way of reading and not a theory. I will try not to define deconstruction as suggested by Derrida, because the minute we do so it becomes a system which can again be destabilized giving birth to newer systems.

Derrida’s deconstruction is largely based on Saussure’s and Levi’s Strauss’s theories. He says Saussure always gave more importance to spoken language than written language. Speech gets privileged over writing, because there is somebody present when we hear a speech but when we are reading something written, the writer is absent. Even in this context according to the rules of binary oppositions presence is given an upper hand over absence and in the same way speech is given more weightage than written language. Preference of speech and presence over writing and absence is an example of logocentrism. Logocentrism means word centeredness i.e. there are few words, so constructed that they carry more weightage itself and automatically becomes the centre ignoring the other units revolving around it. Eg. God, unconscious etc. An interesting example is a line from Genesis which says ‘and god said, “Let there be light”, and there was light’. Even god said which proves his presence and so there was light and darkness and he decided on which side would each go of the slash.

Secondly he attacks Levis Strauss’s theory of nature/culture which is again a binary opposition. Nature is something that is universal and innate whereas culture is specific and learned over time. Derrida highlights the loophole in this opposition giving example of word which are natural as well as culture like incest prohibition. Norms regarding having sex with very close blood relatives are universal as were as specifically made in certain cultures. Such things blur the slash between oppositions which challenges the whole concept of binary oppositions again.

Thus to simply put deconstruction is to critically read a text point out its loopholes and the slipperiness of the whole existing system.

Role of the centre

Centre is important for any kind of a structure and lending meaning to it. It holds all the units or members of the structure together to form a meaningful system. Even in binary oppositions both the sides show relative meaning pointing towards the presence of a centre. Some common centres in various metaphysical systems are like God, truth being, unconscious, essence. In other words Derrida says that these words representing structure basically performs two functions: one it is takes the credit for constructing the system and second it guarantees that all units will operate according to the rules. But at the same time it is also implied that centre itself is beyond the system and is not governed by the rules there. Center even prevents the units to move away from the structure or keep changing their positions. This makes it clear that all system include language works between two extreme poles that is: absolute, fixed, rigid, no play in contrast to constant shifting, complete movement and playfulness. Western philosophy has always preferred the rigid structure more than the free flowing ones.

But Derrida even points out that this belief of a rigid, constant system doesn’t hold good for philosophical systems.

There is excellent example proving this. Let’s take the scenario of a kindergarten classroom. The teacher is there centre there, in whose presence everything is in order and she dictates the class. And the minute she leaves there is complete anarchy and children start ‘playing’, making noise and they go crazy. Now Derrida emphasizes that this ‘playfulness’ in the absence of the centre is precisely required for literary language.

The second characteristic feature of the centre is its uniqueness i.e. no other unit of the structure is equivalent to it and it is not a part of the system. For example in the Puritan system of belief God is the centre of everything and, anything that happens in the world is because of him (credit or blame). But that doesn’t make him a part of our world nor any of the human equivalents to him. Thus nothing in the system is equivalent or can replace him. Again taking God as an example, he cannot be represented in our daily world; he doesn’t share a relation with a single unit in the system to form meaning in exchange, rather he lends meaning to the entire system. Thus Derrida concluded centre is a part of the structure but not really belongs to it. It ‘escapes structurality’; the centre itself cannot be governed or bounded by rules as it does. THUS CENTRE IS BOTH PARADOXICALLY, BOTH WITHIN THE STRUCTURE AND OUTSIDE IT. Thus the centre does not qualify as being the part of ‘the totality’ that is the structure but remains only as the centre.

Derrida also refer to the centre as ‘transcendental signified’ as the ultimate source of meaning, which is when paired with other signifiers in the system makes meaning, similar to Saussure’s idea of language and value, that units within a system form relations of exchange.

We are very excited when we get our new room; we decorate it with our choices of curtains, posters and customize it. But suddenly we realize that it is nothing more than a part of the whole building. Further we realize the roomness in our room which is because of the similar characteristics shared by all the rooms in the building. Then you tend to feel your room is not yours because you have decorated it or stay in it but because it is not any other room of the building this moment of realization is when the western philosophers understood that there is nothing as the absolute truth but it is a system, construct and structure.

Derrida says great thinkers like Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to construct systems without centre but failed and concludes that it is impossible to ‘speak out of the system’. For example when we are trying to challenge the centre of the language system, it will mean that no sign will have a specific meaning and they will function in wide range. But while explaining this we are using the word sign with an expectation that it has a definite meaning again referring back to the system which we were deconstructing. In Derrida’s word there is no syntax or lexicon which is foreign to the system.

So what is exactly deconstruction?

It is a way of reading which analyses the details of a text’s critical difference from itself. In other words deconstructive reading is when you identify the centre of a system, then see how it constructs its own realm of truth and then how ii contradicts itself. The basic idea behind deconstruction is to see what would happen to the structure if the centre is taken away from it.

To simply put it is a way of reading that looks for areas from where the structure can be shaken up and there is scope for more ambiguity in meaning and where the binary opposites tend to merge avoiding their pre decided places on either side of the slash (/).

Thus Derrida concludes it is impossible trying to shift from one centre to another without noticing that the centre, the transcendental signifier, is a concept which is playing just like everything else and is not the eternal truth.

Bricolage

Derrida claims that the centre is no longer the eternal truth but a construct.

According to Derrida and Strauss Bricolage is a method where we take various units from different systems, out of their context to make a new system with entirely new meaning, unaware of what the units were originally parts of. Person who does Bricolage is known as the bricoleur, he doesn’t care about the purity, stability or truth. It doesn’t worry about the coherence of words or ideas it uses. For example you talk about Oedipus complex to explain a son’s disrespect for his father, but you don’t know anything about psychoanalysis or Freud then you are a bricoleur. In Bricolage meaning is not fixed or eternal but rather it is something more situational and always shifting.

Thus it is a way of escaping the vicious cycle of making a new system with a new centre on the ruins of the deconstruction of earlier system. And making a system which prone to deconstruction. Bricolage makes a system without a centre thus with no concept of stability or truth. It also enhances the creativity and originality of the systems.

Western system has always preferred systems with complete stability although it knows that system exists between both the extremes of instability and stability. And this is not possible because we can deconstruct any system with rigid centre showing its own contradictions and instabilities.

Thus we need a language system with a centre so that in our ‘regular, day-to-day language’ when we communicate, we except everybody would understand the same meaning of the words that we mean, otherwise communication would end up impossible. But on the other hand we would even like to have fluidity, instabilities and playfulness when it comes to ‘literary language’ where same words will have different meanings for the aesthetics and pleasure of poetry and literature in general.

NOTE: Inputs are from Mr. Pinto’s class and Literary Theory: A guide for the perplexed by Mary Klages. The above essay is largely based on my understanding of Deconstruction and you are free to disagree with.