Flipped Learning Activity: Derrida and Deconstruction
This Blog is written on the purpose to clarify Derrida and Deconstruction .assigned by our professor for further information Click Here .
No, deconstruction is not a negative term. It is not about tearing down or destroying ideas. Instead, it is an inquiry into the foundations of intellectual systems, seeking to understand why they are structured the way they are and what causes their breakdown or incompleteness. It's about examining the limits of systems, not simply destroying them.
5.2.1 This video discusses the relationship between Derrida’s deconstruction and the philosophy of Heidegger, illustrating how Heidegger’s ideas influenced Derrida's development of his own philosophical project.
1.Heidegger’s Influence on Derrida:
Derrida acknowledges Heidegger, alongside Freud and Nietzsche, as a key influence on his own thought. Heidegger's focus on the question of being is a central theme that Derrida picks up and transforms in his own work. Heidegger argues that Western philosophy has neglected or repressed the question of the being of beings—the way things exist in the world. This neglect becomes a foundation for Derrida’s deconstruction, which questions the structures of Western thought, just as Heidegger tried to dismantle and transform them.
2.Heidegger’s Project of Transformation:
Heidegger’s famous work Being and Time is an attempt to shift the way Western thought understands being. It is not just about transforming philosophy but about transforming how people in the West think. Derrida continues this project by challenging traditional Western philosophy and attempting to rethink its foundations. This shared ambition to reshape the philosophical landscape is a direct connection between the two thinkers.
3.The Role of Language:
Heidegger’s later works, like Derrida's, emphasize the importance of language. Heidegger suggests that language speaks, not man—meaning that humans are decentered by language. Language is not just a tool for expressing thoughts; it plays a central role in shaping our reality. Derrida picks up this theme, further exploring the idea that language displaces humans from the center of philosophical thought. This marks a postmodern shift, where language is understood as an active force, rather than a passive tool used by human subjects.
4.Reinvention of Language in Philosophy:
Like Heidegger, Derrida wants to rethink the very foundation of Western philosophy, but Derrida goes a step further by focusing on the role of writing rather than speech in philosophy. Heidegger often prioritizes speech over writing, but Derrida critiques this by saying that Western philosophy has repressed the question of writing. For Derrida, writing is fundamental, and this critique leads to his concept of logocentrism—a term he uses to describe the Western tendency to privilege speech (presence) over writing (absence).
5.Derrida’s Critique of Heidegger:
While Derrida is influenced by Heidegger, he also critiques him. Heidegger’s focus on speech in philosophy is an example of what Derrida calls "phonocentrism" (the privileging of speech over writing). Derrida argues that this preference for speech is part of the larger metaphysical system he calls logocentrism, which privileges presence and fixity in meaning. Derrida’s deconstruction seeks to overturn this hierarchy and show that writing (absence) is just as foundational to meaning as speech.
Derrida and Deconstruction: Flipped Learning: Check Your Understanding
Part 1 ( Check Your Understanding )
2.1. Is it true to say that the the seeds of Deconstruction sprouted from Martin Heidegger (1889-1976).
2.2. Which of the following thinkers are acknowledged by Derrida as a major influence on his thinking about the concept of Deconstruction?
2.3. When we think of Heideggerian influence on Derrida, which of the following point should be considered?
2.4. Which of the following English title of M. Heidegger's book 'Sein Und Zeit' carries his hypothesis on 'being of beings'?
2.5. What does the talk on the theme of language refer to . . .
Part 2 ( Check Your Understanding )
1.The influence of Heidegger on Derrida
Heidegger influenced Derrida primarily through his focus on the question of being and the critique of Western philosophy. Heidegger's work, especially Being and Time, aimed to transform how people understand being, and Derrida continued this project by questioning traditional philosophy’s foundations. Heidegger also emphasized the importance of language, suggesting that it shapes reality, which Derrida expanded on by displacing humans from the center of thought. While Derrida was influenced by Heidegger, he critiqued his preference for speech over writing, challenging "phonocentrism" and highlighting writing as just as fundamental to meaning.
2.Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy
Derrida’s rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy revolves around his concept of deconstruction. He challenges the traditional structures of Western thought, particularly the privileging of concepts like presence over absence. Derrida critiques the metaphysical systems that have dominated philosophy, including the hierarchical oppositions that define them. For example, he argues that Western philosophy has favored speech (presence) over writing (absence), a bias he calls logocentrism and phonocentrism. Through deconstruction, Derrida seeks to undo these hierarchies and show that absence (writing) is just as essential to meaning as presence (speech).
5.2.2 This video explains key concepts in Derrida's philosophy, focusing on arbitrariness, metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, and phonocentrism
1. Arbitrariness and Derrida’s Deconstruction
Ferdinand de Saussure (a key figure in structural linguistics) proposed that the relationship between a word and its meaning is arbitrary—there is no inherent, natural connection between a word (e.g., "sister") and what it represents (a female sibling). Instead, this connection is social and conventional, formed by a collective consensus.
Derrida builds on Saussure’s idea of arbitrariness but takes it further. He argues that meaning is not a mental representation or something fixed in the mind; rather, meaning is always relational—it comes from the difference between words. This connects to Derrida's idea of différance, where the meaning of any word is constantly deferred and determined by its difference from other words, rather than being a stable, inherent entity.
2. Metaphysics of Presence
The metaphysics of presence is a term borrowed from Heidegger that Derrida adopts to critique Western philosophy. Heidegger observed that in Western thought, we often equate being (the essence of something) with presence—i.e., we assume that something "exists" because it is present in some way (physically or in our experience). This tendency to associate being with presence forms part of the foundation of Western metaphysics.
Derrida extends this critique by highlighting how language itself perpetuates this idea. When we say something "is" (e.g., "The table is"), we are associating its existence with its presence, reinforcing the metaphysics of presence.
3. Logocentrism and Phonocentrism
Logocentrism refers to the Western philosophical bias that privileges presence and speech as the primary forms of meaning and truth. In this view, what is "present" (e.g., the spoken word) is considered superior, and the absence or lack of presence (e.g., writing) is seen as inferior.
Derrida critiques this bias, arguing that Western thought has been built on binary oppositions, where one side is always privileged over the other (e.g., good vs. evil, man vs. woman). For example, men are seen as "full" (due to their association with presence), while women are often seen as "lacking" (because they are perceived as an absence or secondary to men).
Phonocentrism is a term Derrida uses to describe the Western emphasis on speech as the true expression of language. He connects this to the privilege given to the male sexual organ (the phallus) in patriarchal society. Derrida suggests that the social hierarchy between men and women is reflected in the way language privileges speech (which is associated with masculinity) and marginalizes writing (which is associated with femininity).
4. The Role of Binary Oppositions
Western thought often relies on binary oppositions like good/evil, man/woman, and light/darkness. In these binaries, the first term (e.g., man, good, light) is considered the "presence" or "superior" term, while the second term (e.g., woman, evil, darkness) is seen as its absence or inferior counterpart.
Derrida argues that these oppositions are not neutral but are inherently lopsided. For instance, the idea that women are defined as the absence of masculinity reflects the logocentric bias that privileges presence (masculinity) over absence (femininity). This manifests in social and linguistic systems that favor what is perceived as present or whole.
5. Derrida’s Critique of Social Systems and Language
Derrida’s critique extends beyond philosophy into social systems. He sees the way language is structured as reinforcing power dynamics in society, particularly patriarchy. Language—especially the privileging of speech over writing—reflects and perpetuates these social biases.
By deconstructing these biases, Derrida aims to expose how language and metaphysics work together to create and maintain oppressive social structures.
2.Taking a clue from Saussure / structuralists, Derrida argues that . . . .
Saussure's concept of language centers on the arbitrariness of the sign, meaning there's no inherent connection between a word (signifier) and its meaning (signified). This relationship is socially constructed through convention, not nature.
Derrida extends this by emphasizing the relational nature of meaning. According to Derrida, meaning is constantly deferred—it’s not fixed or intrinsic but defined by differences between words (différance). This is consistent with Saussure's view that meaning emerges from the relations between signs, rather than from any inherent essence.
Derrida deconstructs Saussure’s idea of arbitrariness by showing that arbitrariness itself isn’t neutral. While Saussure suggests the relationship between a signifier (word) and its signified (meaning) is arbitrary, Derrida argues that meaning is always deferred through its differences from other signs (a concept he calls différance). This makes meaning unstable and constantly shifting, challenging the idea of fixed or inherent meaning.
Derrida also critiques the notion that arbitrariness implies a starting point or foundation. If meaning is arbitrary, there’s no stable origin, which destabilizes traditional metaphysical assumptions about fixed truths. Thus, for Derrida, language is a dynamic system where meaning is never fully present, always defined by relational differences.
The metaphysics of presence is a concept Derrida borrows from Heidegger, referring to the Western philosophical tradition's tendency to prioritize presence as the core of meaning and being. In this view, things are considered to exist or have essence because they are immediately present to us, either physically or mentally. This idea holds that the true nature of something is tied to its direct, observable presence, whether it’s a physical object or a mental concept. In essence, presence is seen as the foundation of being, and absence or delay is often viewed as secondary or inferior.
Derrida critiques this framework by pointing out that language itself perpetuates this metaphysical bias. In ordinary language, we often equate existence or meaning with presence, as in “the table is” or “this idea is true.” However, Derrida argues that meaning is never fully present but always deferred—it’s defined by differences between signs and never fully grasped. This deconstruction reveals how the privileging of presence distorts our understanding of truth, being, and existence, reinforcing hierarchical systems and excluding other forms of meaning (like writing, which is often treated as an inferior presence).
5.3 The video delves into Derrida's concept of "différance", a complex idea central to his philosophy, which combines two meanings: to differ and to defer.
1. Understanding "Différance"
Derrida's différance is a pun in French, meaning both to differ (as in to distinguish) and to defer (as in to postpone). These two meanings capture the essence of Derrida’s critique of how language functions.
The concept challenges the traditional understanding of meaning in language. According to Derrida, meaning is never fixed or final. Instead, it is always deferred (postponed) and differentiated (distinct through contrasts with other meanings).
2. The Infinite Chain of Signification
Derrida draws attention to how dictionaries define words by using other words. For example, when you look up the word "interest," the dictionary lists various meanings—each defined by other words like "hobby," "business," or "money."
This process never ends. If you continue looking up the meanings of words like "money" or "finance," you are led to more words. Hence, meaning is always deferred, never reaching a final, definitive point. This continuous chain of signifiers (words) points to the idea that there is no ultimate or final meaning.
3. The Illusion of Understanding
According to Derrida, we are often under the illusion that we understand a word’s meaning when, in reality, we have only temporarily stopped the endless chain of definitions. This postponement of meaning is central to Derrida's idea of différance.
The final meaning of any word is a myth because it is always deferred and never fully grasped. This is a critique of the traditional belief in a transcendental signified—a final, ultimate meaning that transcends language and can be understood.
4. Derrida’s Critique of Metaphysics of Presence
Derrida’s concept of différance challenges what Heidegger called the metaphysics of presence—the idea that meaning is directly tied to presence, such as in speech. In Western philosophy, the spoken word is seen as a direct, present form of communication, while writing is often viewed as absent or secondary.
Derrida critiques this bias toward speech (phonocentrism) by showing that writing can be seen as primary, and speech is actually secondary. This reverses the traditional hierarchical view in Western thought, where speech (presence) is privileged over writing (absence).
5. The Difference Between Speech and Writing
Speech is often viewed as a direct, present expression of meaning because the speaker and listener are "present" to each other.
Writing, on the other hand, involves absence—when you write, the writer and reader are not present to each other.
Derrida argues that both speech and writing are part of the same system of signs, and that difference between them is necessary for meaning to exist. However, neither can claim to be the "primary" mode of language.
6. The Role of Difference in Language
The difference (between words) makes communication possible. For instance, we recognize what is "black" only in contrast to what is "not black." This differentiation is crucial to understanding language.
Derrida highlights that there are no positive terms in language—everything is understood through negation and difference. For example, "woman" is often defined as the absence of "man," and "darkness" is defined as the absence of "light."
7. Phonocentrism and Logocentrism
Phonocentrism is the Western philosophical tendency to privilege speech over writing. In Western thought, speech is associated with presence (something immediate and real), while writing is associated with absence (something removed or secondary).
Derrida connects phonocentrism to logocentrism, the idea that all meaning is grounded in a central, unchanging source (the "logos"). He argues that this bias is problematic because it reduces the complexity of language and meaning to a simple hierarchy of presence and absence.
8. Derrida’s Reversal of Hierarchy: Writing as Primary
Derrida uses différance to reverse the traditional hierarchy between speech and writing. He suggests that writing is actually primary, and speech is secondary.
This is a radical shift in understanding language, as it challenges the central assumption in Western philosophy that meaning is tied to presence and direct expression (speech).
Derrida’s idea of différance is challenging because it suggests that meaning is never fixed or complete—it is always in a state of flux, postponed, and defined by differences between words.
2. Is it true to say : Saussurean 'sign' is equal to 'signifier' which 'signifies' some meaning; but Derriean 'sign' is 'FREE-PLAY' of signifier, signifying nothing.
Derrida’s concept of différance combines two meanings: to differ and to defer. Meaning arises through difference between words—words only have meaning because they are distinct from others. At the same time, meaning is deferred, meaning it is never fixed or fully grasped. The definition of any word leads to other words in an infinite chain, with no ultimate or final meaning.
Derrida uses différance to critique the idea that language has stable, inherent meanings or that ultimate truth can be reached. Meaning is always in flux, shaped by relational differences, and never fully present. This challenges the traditional metaphysical view that meaning is tied to immediate presence, such as in speech.
5.4 The video discusses Derrida's idea from his essay "Structure, Sign, and Play", specifically the statement: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."
1. Context of Derrida's Statement
"Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique" is a critical observation that sums up the core of Derrida’s deconstruction.
Derrida argues that structuralism—which emerged as a critique of both metaphysics and science—ironically uses the same assumptions as the very systems it critiques.
2. Structuralism’s Internal Contradiction
Structuralism originally aimed to critique the dominant modes of knowledge in the West—particularly science and metaphysics. However, Derrida points out that structuralism often falls into the same traps as these systems, relying on the same underlying assumptions.
Derrida says structuralism is its own critique: the very structures it critiques (e.g., metaphysics and science) are embedded in its own practice. Structuralism cannot completely escape these assumptions because the language it uses inherently carries these biases.
3. The Role of Language in Philosophical Critique
Derrida explains that language itself contains inherent assumptions, which makes any critique using language still bound by those assumptions.
Even when a philosopher attempts to critique another system (say, science or metaphysics), they are still using the same language, which carries these traditional ideas. This results in a blind spot in any critique, making it impossible to fully escape the system you're critiquing.
4. Deconstruction as Self-Critique
Deconstruction itself, as a form of critique, also falls into this trap. When Derrida critiques the Western philosophical tradition, he also critiques his own method and ideas.
This is why deconstructive writing often seems self-critique or autocritique—it constantly questions itself and the tradition it belongs to.
5. The Criticism of Tradition
Derrida’s point about language and critique is exemplified by the relationship between Nihilism, Heidegger, and Buddhism. For instance, Buddhism, which critiques Vedic traditions, ends up sounding similar to the very tradition it set out to critique. This shows how critiques are never fully independent of the tradition they critique because language always carries the same assumptions.
6. Final Meaning is Always Postponed
Derrida’s concept of difference (from earlier discussions) explains that meaning is never final—it is always postponed. Every time a philosopher or thinker makes a statement, it is always deferred and can never capture the "ultimate meaning."
This lack of final meaning in language is what makes critique a necessary part of any philosophical system. No system can fully close itself off from critique because there is always something missing.
7. Implication of Derrida's Statement
The phrase "language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique" implies that critique is inherent in language itself because language can never fully contain final meaning. Each philosophical system, including deconstruction, contains its own internal blind spots, demanding self-critique.
This self-critique is what makes deconstruction ongoing. Derrida’s critique never ends—it keeps questioning itself because of the inherent limitations of language.
2. The above cited essay was a critique of ....
In "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," Derrida critiques structuralism and its contradictions. He argues that "language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique", meaning that all philosophical systems, including structuralism, are limited by the language they use and cannot fully escape their own assumptions.
-
Structuralism’s Contradiction: Structuralism critiques Western science and metaphysics but relies on the same assumptions it seeks to challenge, making it trapped in the very systems it criticizes.
-
Language’s Role in Critique: Language itself carries inherent biases, so any critique using language remains bound by those same biases, limiting the effectiveness of the critique.
-
Deconstruction as Self-Critique: Derrida’s deconstruction is inherently self-critical, constantly questioning itself because it is also constrained by the limitations of language.
-
Meaning is Always Deferred: Meaning is never final or fixed; it is always postponed through an endless chain of definitions, making critique a never-ending process.
5.5 The video explains the Yale School of Deconstruction and its significant role in bringing Derrida's ideas into literary criticism.
1. Yale School and Deconstruction’s Rise in America
The Yale School (specifically the Department of English at Yale University) played a crucial role in introducing deconstruction to the American academic scene during the 1970s.
Before this, deconstruction was largely confined to continental European philosophy. With the Yale School, it became a major force in literary theory, often seen as a break from New Criticism.
The Yale critics—Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom, and Geoffrey Hartman—were instrumental in making deconstruction a widespread and influential method in literary criticism. They were sometimes controversially referred to as the "Yale Hermeneutic Mafia".
2.Characteristics of Yale School of Deconstruction
Literature as Figurative Construct:
Yale deconstructionists emphasized that literature is not just a logical or literal communication of meaning but primarily a rhetorical or figurative construct.
Language is full of metaphors and figures of speech, making it an unreliable tool for conveying meaning. For example, when saying "my love is like a red, red rose," the metaphor doesn’t make literal sense but creates meaning at a figurative level.
This focus on figurative language results in a multiplicity of meanings, making texts open to various interpretations.
Rejection of Traditional Approaches:
The Yale School critiqued both aesthetic (formalist) and historical/sociological approaches to literature. They argued that language is not a transparent medium of communication.
Literature doesn’t directly connect to society or history. Instead, the figurative nature of language creates a gap between what is communicated and what is meant, making both aesthetic and historical readings of literature problematic.
Aesthetic Illusion:
For example, when we hear the phrase "red, red rose," we may picture an actual red rose, creating an aesthetic illusion that the word and the object are identical. This, according to deconstruction, is a misleading effect of language.
Paul de Man argued that aesthetic pleasure derived from literature often comes from mistaking the materiality of the signifier (the word) for the materiality of the signified (the object it represents).
Romanticism and Allegory:
The Yale School also revisited Romanticism in a way that contradicted traditional interpretations.
Paul de Man, for instance, argued that allegory, rather than metaphor, was the dominant literary device in Romantic poetry.
Romanticism, often seen as a quest to transcend the binary opposition between the subject (the poet) and object (nature), was usually thought to achieve this through metaphors. However, de Man suggested that the use of allegory was more central to Romanticism, challenging conventional readings.
3. Emergence of "Free Play of Meaning"
From these characteristics, the idea of the free play of meaning emerges, a core concept in deconstruction. According to this idea, meaning is never fixed or final, and interpretation remains open-ended, leading to undecidability—the inability to determine one true interpretation of a text.
2. Identify important characteristics of Yale School of Deconstruction
The Yale School of Deconstruction had key characteristics:
-
Literature as Figurative Construct: Literature was seen as a figurative construct, with language full of metaphors that lead to multiple interpretations.
-
Rejection of Traditional Approaches: They criticized formalist and historical readings, arguing that language doesn’t directly convey meaning and creates a gap between what is said and what is meant.
-
Aesthetic Illusion: Paul de Man argued that aesthetic pleasure often comes from mistaking the word for the object it represents, creating a misleading illusion.
-
Romanticism and Allegory: They suggested that allegory, not metaphor, was central to Romanticism, challenging traditional views.
The video discusses the influence of Derrida's deconstruction and how it was interpreted and applied by different critical approaches, particularly in comparison to the Yale School of Deconstruction.
Differences Between Yale School of Deconstruction and Other Critical Approaches:
Yale School of Deconstruction:
The Yale School primarily focused on the rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary texts.
Its central preoccupation was demonstrating that literary texts possess a multiplicity of meanings, emphasizing the instability and play of language.
The Yale critics (such as Paul de Man and J. Hillis Miller) used figurative language and metaphors to show how texts resist fixed interpretations and how meaning is always deferred.
Other Critical Approaches:
1.Postcolonial Theory: Postcolonial scholars found deconstruction useful in dismantling the narratives of the colonizer. They used deconstruction to expose the ideological assumptions embedded in colonial texts and narratives, revealing how colonial discourse can be deconstructed from within.
2.Feminist Theory: Feminists were drawn to deconstruction for its ability to subvert binary oppositions, particularly the male-female binary. Deconstruction provides tools to critique and undermine patriarchal structures and expose the power dynamics in gendered discourse.
3.Cultural Materialism: This approach combines materialism and cultural criticism. Influenced by Derrida, cultural materialists emphasize the materiality of language—that language itself is a constructed, material force. They focus on how deconstruction can reveal hidden ideological agendas within texts and discourse.
4.New Historicism: New historicists, influenced by Derrida, are interested in the reciprocal relationship between history and text. They argue that texts are both shaped by historical context and simultaneously shape our understanding of history. According to Louis Montrose, a key figure in new historicism, history and literature cannot be separated; both are textual and must be analyzed as such.
2. How are feminist theorists fascinated by Deconstruction? How are New Historicists fascinated by Deconstruction?
.jfif)
Comments
Post a Comment