This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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:
Now if that's not deconstruction, I don't know what is. So I'm putting my sentence back for now.
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.
A folksonomy is a way to organize information by aggregate opinion rather than hard-and-fast rule. Websites like del.icio.us have begun exploring this concept. There is also a new site out there attempting to organize information in this way. color folksonomy deconstructionism
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)
(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)
::::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)
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)
The example definitely helps explain "metaphysical" a lot.
Could you clarify "multi-vocal" and "other voice"? Beland 01:12, 5 Jun 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)
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 gazabo - 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…
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. [[User:COGDEN| COGDEN (talk)]] 00:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I’m relatively new to this so I’m not going to make any changes to the Wikipedia article but I’d like to mention of few things that might make this subject more approachable for the common reader (who will typically read the article). For the record, I think quotations in Deconstruction usually are not meant to communicate irony, but to ‘honestly’ describe violence in ones dialogue. Some thoughts (in no particular order).
As the article states 'text is dead'. Even Deconstruction will undergo change (difference) as I corrupt meaning from Derrida. Derrida didn’t ‘invent’ or ‘discover’ Deconstruction… I think what he helped to do is bring structure to its description and give a framework for those with similar observations could explore a 'new' thread of reality. Most Judges that have stuggled with interpretations of law can perceive laws as being 'organic', but I think they misunderstand the reasons why. Its a framework to not allow misalignment in language to immediately cause one to be dismissive of deeper content.
(I.e.. A cell phone call from my friend…. “ I (STATIC) hate (STATIC) you. The (STATIC) is each individuals essence of particular meaning of ‘dead text’. Some would have us believe we should stop at “I hate you”.
Some might argue that Deconstruction argues that even that I hate you can be Deconstructed into the morass of what appears like Nihilism. At some point this will probaly cause a schism to create branching thoughts on the subject. Judges pass judgment at some point. An event has occured what that event's 'dead texts' translate to does not affect the occurance of 'something'(maybe not the best word). Personally I think this is another place I think Derrida was a little too ambigious on the subject as he (in my eyes) comes up on the side of action.
Deconstruction is a 'rational' extension of the western ideas of discrete information while bridging eastern ideas of relationships (NOT to be confused with the term relativity).... perhaps even analogous to some physics descriptions of waves and particles.... nonsense using common rules of wisdom.
What one needs to realize is the text of Deconstruction cannot explicitly state it is 'better' as that would be 'violence' (‘good’ word he used) against its’ own tangent.
I think where Derrida could have 'better' described the distinction between Nihilism and Deconstruction is by noting that the word 'meaning' onto itself can trigger violence. Furthermore because Deconstruction seems to lack 'judgment' does not mean one should (or should not judge). As that too would be ‘violence’.
Deconstruction is not a philosophy…. it is a tool for examining philosophy. Think of it as an in-depth description of NPOV. It does not mean one cannot have an opinion or that option (does or does not exist). It is an attempt to more deeply determine observations from something we often ambiguously can call 'facts'.
Just as an aside…. some possible ‘practical’ applications.
Supreme Court Justices should probably be required to learn it (the as yet clearly defined principles).
Journalists and politicians could be given Deconstruction-for-Dummies version (not because they are dummies but because the terminology is out of scope of their professions). They have a habit of using words that eventually create situations were none existed…..triggering the other kind of violence.
A real world application?
Why not examine Intellectual property using this method? I can see why Derrida might be driven towards Marxism (the immense complexity of the reality makes me want to cuddle too) but I don’t consider Deconstruction political. A tool can be used to build anything.
Example: If I take an essay and copy it verbatim from another… it is copyright infringement. What if I only copy a paragraph? What about a sentence? Three captivating words?
If computer code I write is coded a completely different way, but the compiled object looks similar… (i.e. cars look the same)…. is this ‘infringement’ (‘violence’)?
Laws have a historical bias towards those in power (whatever political system) as opposed to ‘rational’ thought. I can see where this is convenient, but I can’t see how someone can make these legal distinctions ‘rationally’ without delving into Deconstruction.
However, I think the concept stills needs to refine its language to a mathematical-like formula rather than just a bunch of loose thoughts. Another analogy: the standard model versus photoelectric effect. Einstein identified a way at looking at the world, it took decades for the world to accept and map it out.)
[User:Jim Dec.30/2004 est] ... still looking into posting/editing etiquette.. sorry.
The style of this article is appropriate for a university term paper but not for an encyclopedia entry. As such it is unlikely to be of any use to the non-expert who is trying to understand deconstruction. The dense, obscure writing style conveys the impression that deconstruction is just as silly and pompous as its critics maintain. Hint: clarification often is achieved by making a piece of writing shorter, not longer. Mascarasnake 23:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One typical procedure of deconstruction is its critique of binary oppositions. A central deconstructive argument holds that, in all the classic dualities of Western thought, one term is privileged or "central" over the other. The privileged, central term is the one most associated with the phallus (penis) and the logos. Examples include: speech over writing presence over absence identity over difference
Is that for real or is that a bad edit?
Why is this essay (Deconstructing Deconstructionism) linked to? There are many strong critiques of deconstructionism out there, and this article is quite horrible. My opinion, however, is subjective of course, and I should point out that I don't claim it to be the objective opinion. But notwithstanding this caveat, I hope somebody may be kind enough to help me understand Robert Locke's essay.
He writes: "Michel Foucault (the bald Frenchman who died of AIDS) thought he was the first person to figure out that social order is maintained not just through "hard" coercion like the police but through an intricate web of "soft" coercions that make us behave through the pressures of conformity and culture. But does any precocious eighth grader not grasp this intuitively?" Forgive my ignorance, but why is it relevant to his argument that Foucault was a "bald Frenchman who died of AIDS"? Do the bald, the French (the Frenchmen, to be specific), or people who die of AIDS have the power to turn logical arguments into illogical arguments (or maybe its the combination of all 4 factors)? I must confess that my awareness of recent developments in alchemistical logic is rather incomplete, but I do not understand this phenomenon. In addition, if he "thought" that he discovered something new in the social order, does that mean he did not? And if he did not discover out something previously not noticed, could he have not given new insight into previous knowledge?
My first inclination was to label his summary of Foucault's theory of decentralized power ("pressures of conformity and culture") as the set up to a straw man argument, but I regretted this prejudgement after reading his refutation, which is a logically valid proof (if "p" claims "s", and any precocious eighth grader can intuitively grasp "s", then "p" is a dorkwad). He later proves that it is actually Deconstructionism that creates straw men: "Deconstructionism is notorious for lynching philosophical straw men. They love to pounce on other thinkers and say, "Aha! There you have an Enlightenment Assumption," meaning a dubious idea from the eighteenth century. But the Enlightenment was 200 years ago, and I have yet to see any dubious idea thus pilloried that people actually believe today, except for those that are baldly true."
Despite this, a few minor problems exist in his argument: he describes Deconstructionism as including the "Jacques Derrida school," his argument against Deconstructionism on account of Heiddeger being a Nazi and a re-re ("What is a thing?"), and his description of "Deconstructionism" as a thinking being who "loves" "social constructionism." I would give Locke the benefit of a doubt and say he prob. made a mistake, but he doesn't connect any specific deconstructionist views with any specific deconstructionist thinkers apart from Derrida, Heidegger, and Foucault (the fact that Foucault is more accurately described as post-structuralist, not deconstructionist, and that Heidegger barely saw the origins of Deconstructionism in France in the 1970's on account of being a German and dying in 1976 complicate things further). In fairness, Locke does define deconstructionism and post-structuralism as the same thing (and that structuralism was "no better"), but this just makes me further doubt that he knows what he is talking about.
My conclusion:
Locke's essay *is* a straw man argument and that his use of "deconstructionism" to refer to anything he opposes cleverly makes his refutation of deconstructionism irrefutable - but also meaningless.
Apart from that, the essay is good.-- Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have added a {{technical}} tag to it in order that someone who cares about the subject will fix it. As it stands, it is so thick with jargon that the typical reader can't understand it. At the minimum, the following should happen to this article:
I strongly suggest that someone else make these changes, since if I step in, I will have to slash out anything I can't understand, and someone might accuse me of vandalism. You have until Monday. - Casito⇝ Talk 05:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This text does have much room for improval. Still, Casito, it conveyed the essentials to you: deconstruction really
This might well be how someone would start a conversational description of the subject. See also the section Criticism - Unintelligiblity of the main text. I don't mean to defend the text by that. It can be done better and made more comprehensible. Heuristic deletions without research, as you are planning them, Casito, are no solution, nor is the threat of a deadline on a project that people work on without pay and mostly in their sparetime/breaks.-- Fenice 08:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that Casito quite grasps the enormity of what s/he is asking. Defining deconstruction in lay terms is like defining something like a Kahler manifold without referring to high-falutin' math. If anyone has any ideas about how to simplify the article, it should be done, but not at the expense of accuracy. COGDEN 22:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that, in reading the article, one may actually lose their grasp on the meaning of deconstruction, yet by taking in the form and 'structure' of the article can acquire a sense of deconstruction. For example, I personally thought I understood deconstruction until I spent an hour reading this article (for a final exam that I'm taking in about 5 hours), and then another 45 minutes reading the discussion. I am now prepared to drop out of school and apply to fast food restaurants.
Additionally, I find it humorous that such a large portion of the discussion for this article deals with one sentence (whether or not deconstruction is a discrediting of the text), and the other half comes from lay-persons (such as my humble self) begging and pleading with someone to make this article at least semi-approachable by someone besides Derrida and Chomsky. Hacking away at it is definately not an answer, but neither is leaving it alone in its current state of jargon and ambiguity. Okay, I'm done, I'll shut up now.-- Adeadcat 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've already asked this question twice, but I don't feel it's been answered. In the criticisms section, potential objections to deconstruction as nihilism, solipsism, and relativism have been raised, and I think the first two have been answered, but I still don't see how deconstruction isn't a form of relativism. The first sentence of the relativism article states that "[r]elativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference," whereas what I assume is supposed to be the response in this article to the relativism classification runs as follows: "Nor do deconstructive writers allege that it is impossible to learn authoritative information. However, authoritative text, they say, is still text, and while Western metaphysics has established methods to establish and perpetuate authority, it has not located the source of that authority as a transcendental signifier." I would think (perhaps wrongly) that the "absolute reference" cited in the relativism article would be the "transcendental signifier" justifying authority that is denied in this article. Perhaps someone could please clarify, at least for me here, if this question is deemed too stupid to be answered on the main page? Vivacissamamente 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm begining to think this isn't supposed to make sense. Some of the ideas proposed in the article make little if any sense, and at times, suggest self-parody (intentional or otherwise!). I'd second the 'technical' template but I'm inclined to think 'technical' might be a bit pretentious. The 'binary oppositions' to be deconstructed generally seem aptly divided by a predominent one and derivative one, making inverting them pointless if not ludicrous.
As I've skimmed the talk page, there hasn't been much defense for this topic. Unless someone can argue for its validity, it appears as though we're doing a disservice by parading this about as a reputable concept.
Use of the word presupposes nothing more than that word's existence, which is not of necessity dependent on a particular sense. I can find the word "meme" in a dictionary (which does not, by the way, supply a definition exclusive to memetics), and in any case I understand from its difficult Greek etymology that underlying it is a somewhat murky concept, variably of mimesis or memory, which is to say transmission or inheritance (and therefore iteration) that is not as readily conveyed by "concept." You or I may not agree with memetics and generally think that some technical uses of the term draw on some hazy thinking, but trying to abolish a word that does exist because you disagree with a specific sense of it partakes of POV in Orwellian way. I see no reason follow you from your assertion that memetics is disputable to an implicit assertion that all uses of the term necessarily depend on it, which is neither self-evident nor reasonable (certainly this cannot be said of its historical usage). I'm not enamored of the word myself, but I can recognise in it a notion of inheritance and tradition by simple virtue of its etymology, which is not as easily available via "concept." This is why I see your edit as ill-advised and your remark about POV as itself almost entirely polemical and therefore POV. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not that I cannot begin to try to explain; it's that my sense of obligation is to provide explanation by way of the article and not further contribution to this discussion. Without further comment I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous response(s) and Rbellin's remark about the purpose of discussion pages. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why do people continue to perpetuate such things? it's just far too easy a criticism to make. Be more creative, people.
I've got to second Banno's comment. I find it terribly interesting that tons of people promote deconstruction but can't begin to explain it. As George Orwell reminds us, and Banno illustrates, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." Alan Sokal's hoax shows that even the most prestigious, peer-reviewed post-modern writings accept any patent nonsense as long as it flatters the basic principles, mostly set down in meaningless jargon. Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense perfectly illustrates this point by analysing postmodern texts and pointing out errors-is that, finally, an example of a deconstructive reading? What delicious irony would it be if Sokal's wonderful book against postmodernism is itself an example of deconstruction; whether it is or not, it is an example of everything analysis should be-clearly elucidating complex concepts and data by clarifying technical expressions into simpler and more basic ones. It isn't dumbing it down, it's making sure it makes sense to begin with. As I said earlier, I'll admit I don't understand deconstruction though I doubt many proponents do either, as no one can begin to try to explain it. It's not that I'm too stupid, in fact I'm not so stupid as to accept an idea I don't understand or as to pretend to understand something so as not to look stupid (which I'm not the first to point out seems to be the essence of this postmodern phenomenon). Maprovonsha172 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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:
Now if that's not deconstruction, I don't know what is. So I'm putting my sentence back for now.
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.
A folksonomy is a way to organize information by aggregate opinion rather than hard-and-fast rule. Websites like del.icio.us have begun exploring this concept. There is also a new site out there attempting to organize information in this way. color folksonomy deconstructionism
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)
(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)
::::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)
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)
The example definitely helps explain "metaphysical" a lot.
Could you clarify "multi-vocal" and "other voice"? Beland 01:12, 5 Jun 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)
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 gazabo - 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…
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. [[User:COGDEN| COGDEN (talk)]] 00:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I’m relatively new to this so I’m not going to make any changes to the Wikipedia article but I’d like to mention of few things that might make this subject more approachable for the common reader (who will typically read the article). For the record, I think quotations in Deconstruction usually are not meant to communicate irony, but to ‘honestly’ describe violence in ones dialogue. Some thoughts (in no particular order).
As the article states 'text is dead'. Even Deconstruction will undergo change (difference) as I corrupt meaning from Derrida. Derrida didn’t ‘invent’ or ‘discover’ Deconstruction… I think what he helped to do is bring structure to its description and give a framework for those with similar observations could explore a 'new' thread of reality. Most Judges that have stuggled with interpretations of law can perceive laws as being 'organic', but I think they misunderstand the reasons why. Its a framework to not allow misalignment in language to immediately cause one to be dismissive of deeper content.
(I.e.. A cell phone call from my friend…. “ I (STATIC) hate (STATIC) you. The (STATIC) is each individuals essence of particular meaning of ‘dead text’. Some would have us believe we should stop at “I hate you”.
Some might argue that Deconstruction argues that even that I hate you can be Deconstructed into the morass of what appears like Nihilism. At some point this will probaly cause a schism to create branching thoughts on the subject. Judges pass judgment at some point. An event has occured what that event's 'dead texts' translate to does not affect the occurance of 'something'(maybe not the best word). Personally I think this is another place I think Derrida was a little too ambigious on the subject as he (in my eyes) comes up on the side of action.
Deconstruction is a 'rational' extension of the western ideas of discrete information while bridging eastern ideas of relationships (NOT to be confused with the term relativity).... perhaps even analogous to some physics descriptions of waves and particles.... nonsense using common rules of wisdom.
What one needs to realize is the text of Deconstruction cannot explicitly state it is 'better' as that would be 'violence' (‘good’ word he used) against its’ own tangent.
I think where Derrida could have 'better' described the distinction between Nihilism and Deconstruction is by noting that the word 'meaning' onto itself can trigger violence. Furthermore because Deconstruction seems to lack 'judgment' does not mean one should (or should not judge). As that too would be ‘violence’.
Deconstruction is not a philosophy…. it is a tool for examining philosophy. Think of it as an in-depth description of NPOV. It does not mean one cannot have an opinion or that option (does or does not exist). It is an attempt to more deeply determine observations from something we often ambiguously can call 'facts'.
Just as an aside…. some possible ‘practical’ applications.
Supreme Court Justices should probably be required to learn it (the as yet clearly defined principles).
Journalists and politicians could be given Deconstruction-for-Dummies version (not because they are dummies but because the terminology is out of scope of their professions). They have a habit of using words that eventually create situations were none existed…..triggering the other kind of violence.
A real world application?
Why not examine Intellectual property using this method? I can see why Derrida might be driven towards Marxism (the immense complexity of the reality makes me want to cuddle too) but I don’t consider Deconstruction political. A tool can be used to build anything.
Example: If I take an essay and copy it verbatim from another… it is copyright infringement. What if I only copy a paragraph? What about a sentence? Three captivating words?
If computer code I write is coded a completely different way, but the compiled object looks similar… (i.e. cars look the same)…. is this ‘infringement’ (‘violence’)?
Laws have a historical bias towards those in power (whatever political system) as opposed to ‘rational’ thought. I can see where this is convenient, but I can’t see how someone can make these legal distinctions ‘rationally’ without delving into Deconstruction.
However, I think the concept stills needs to refine its language to a mathematical-like formula rather than just a bunch of loose thoughts. Another analogy: the standard model versus photoelectric effect. Einstein identified a way at looking at the world, it took decades for the world to accept and map it out.)
[User:Jim Dec.30/2004 est] ... still looking into posting/editing etiquette.. sorry.
The style of this article is appropriate for a university term paper but not for an encyclopedia entry. As such it is unlikely to be of any use to the non-expert who is trying to understand deconstruction. The dense, obscure writing style conveys the impression that deconstruction is just as silly and pompous as its critics maintain. Hint: clarification often is achieved by making a piece of writing shorter, not longer. Mascarasnake 23:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One typical procedure of deconstruction is its critique of binary oppositions. A central deconstructive argument holds that, in all the classic dualities of Western thought, one term is privileged or "central" over the other. The privileged, central term is the one most associated with the phallus (penis) and the logos. Examples include: speech over writing presence over absence identity over difference
Is that for real or is that a bad edit?
Why is this essay (Deconstructing Deconstructionism) linked to? There are many strong critiques of deconstructionism out there, and this article is quite horrible. My opinion, however, is subjective of course, and I should point out that I don't claim it to be the objective opinion. But notwithstanding this caveat, I hope somebody may be kind enough to help me understand Robert Locke's essay.
He writes: "Michel Foucault (the bald Frenchman who died of AIDS) thought he was the first person to figure out that social order is maintained not just through "hard" coercion like the police but through an intricate web of "soft" coercions that make us behave through the pressures of conformity and culture. But does any precocious eighth grader not grasp this intuitively?" Forgive my ignorance, but why is it relevant to his argument that Foucault was a "bald Frenchman who died of AIDS"? Do the bald, the French (the Frenchmen, to be specific), or people who die of AIDS have the power to turn logical arguments into illogical arguments (or maybe its the combination of all 4 factors)? I must confess that my awareness of recent developments in alchemistical logic is rather incomplete, but I do not understand this phenomenon. In addition, if he "thought" that he discovered something new in the social order, does that mean he did not? And if he did not discover out something previously not noticed, could he have not given new insight into previous knowledge?
My first inclination was to label his summary of Foucault's theory of decentralized power ("pressures of conformity and culture") as the set up to a straw man argument, but I regretted this prejudgement after reading his refutation, which is a logically valid proof (if "p" claims "s", and any precocious eighth grader can intuitively grasp "s", then "p" is a dorkwad). He later proves that it is actually Deconstructionism that creates straw men: "Deconstructionism is notorious for lynching philosophical straw men. They love to pounce on other thinkers and say, "Aha! There you have an Enlightenment Assumption," meaning a dubious idea from the eighteenth century. But the Enlightenment was 200 years ago, and I have yet to see any dubious idea thus pilloried that people actually believe today, except for those that are baldly true."
Despite this, a few minor problems exist in his argument: he describes Deconstructionism as including the "Jacques Derrida school," his argument against Deconstructionism on account of Heiddeger being a Nazi and a re-re ("What is a thing?"), and his description of "Deconstructionism" as a thinking being who "loves" "social constructionism." I would give Locke the benefit of a doubt and say he prob. made a mistake, but he doesn't connect any specific deconstructionist views with any specific deconstructionist thinkers apart from Derrida, Heidegger, and Foucault (the fact that Foucault is more accurately described as post-structuralist, not deconstructionist, and that Heidegger barely saw the origins of Deconstructionism in France in the 1970's on account of being a German and dying in 1976 complicate things further). In fairness, Locke does define deconstructionism and post-structuralism as the same thing (and that structuralism was "no better"), but this just makes me further doubt that he knows what he is talking about.
My conclusion:
Locke's essay *is* a straw man argument and that his use of "deconstructionism" to refer to anything he opposes cleverly makes his refutation of deconstructionism irrefutable - but also meaningless.
Apart from that, the essay is good.-- Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have added a {{technical}} tag to it in order that someone who cares about the subject will fix it. As it stands, it is so thick with jargon that the typical reader can't understand it. At the minimum, the following should happen to this article:
I strongly suggest that someone else make these changes, since if I step in, I will have to slash out anything I can't understand, and someone might accuse me of vandalism. You have until Monday. - Casito⇝ Talk 05:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
This text does have much room for improval. Still, Casito, it conveyed the essentials to you: deconstruction really
This might well be how someone would start a conversational description of the subject. See also the section Criticism - Unintelligiblity of the main text. I don't mean to defend the text by that. It can be done better and made more comprehensible. Heuristic deletions without research, as you are planning them, Casito, are no solution, nor is the threat of a deadline on a project that people work on without pay and mostly in their sparetime/breaks.-- Fenice 08:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that Casito quite grasps the enormity of what s/he is asking. Defining deconstruction in lay terms is like defining something like a Kahler manifold without referring to high-falutin' math. If anyone has any ideas about how to simplify the article, it should be done, but not at the expense of accuracy. COGDEN 22:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that, in reading the article, one may actually lose their grasp on the meaning of deconstruction, yet by taking in the form and 'structure' of the article can acquire a sense of deconstruction. For example, I personally thought I understood deconstruction until I spent an hour reading this article (for a final exam that I'm taking in about 5 hours), and then another 45 minutes reading the discussion. I am now prepared to drop out of school and apply to fast food restaurants.
Additionally, I find it humorous that such a large portion of the discussion for this article deals with one sentence (whether or not deconstruction is a discrediting of the text), and the other half comes from lay-persons (such as my humble self) begging and pleading with someone to make this article at least semi-approachable by someone besides Derrida and Chomsky. Hacking away at it is definately not an answer, but neither is leaving it alone in its current state of jargon and ambiguity. Okay, I'm done, I'll shut up now.-- Adeadcat 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've already asked this question twice, but I don't feel it's been answered. In the criticisms section, potential objections to deconstruction as nihilism, solipsism, and relativism have been raised, and I think the first two have been answered, but I still don't see how deconstruction isn't a form of relativism. The first sentence of the relativism article states that "[r]elativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference," whereas what I assume is supposed to be the response in this article to the relativism classification runs as follows: "Nor do deconstructive writers allege that it is impossible to learn authoritative information. However, authoritative text, they say, is still text, and while Western metaphysics has established methods to establish and perpetuate authority, it has not located the source of that authority as a transcendental signifier." I would think (perhaps wrongly) that the "absolute reference" cited in the relativism article would be the "transcendental signifier" justifying authority that is denied in this article. Perhaps someone could please clarify, at least for me here, if this question is deemed too stupid to be answered on the main page? Vivacissamamente 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm begining to think this isn't supposed to make sense. Some of the ideas proposed in the article make little if any sense, and at times, suggest self-parody (intentional or otherwise!). I'd second the 'technical' template but I'm inclined to think 'technical' might be a bit pretentious. The 'binary oppositions' to be deconstructed generally seem aptly divided by a predominent one and derivative one, making inverting them pointless if not ludicrous.
As I've skimmed the talk page, there hasn't been much defense for this topic. Unless someone can argue for its validity, it appears as though we're doing a disservice by parading this about as a reputable concept.
Use of the word presupposes nothing more than that word's existence, which is not of necessity dependent on a particular sense. I can find the word "meme" in a dictionary (which does not, by the way, supply a definition exclusive to memetics), and in any case I understand from its difficult Greek etymology that underlying it is a somewhat murky concept, variably of mimesis or memory, which is to say transmission or inheritance (and therefore iteration) that is not as readily conveyed by "concept." You or I may not agree with memetics and generally think that some technical uses of the term draw on some hazy thinking, but trying to abolish a word that does exist because you disagree with a specific sense of it partakes of POV in Orwellian way. I see no reason follow you from your assertion that memetics is disputable to an implicit assertion that all uses of the term necessarily depend on it, which is neither self-evident nor reasonable (certainly this cannot be said of its historical usage). I'm not enamored of the word myself, but I can recognise in it a notion of inheritance and tradition by simple virtue of its etymology, which is not as easily available via "concept." This is why I see your edit as ill-advised and your remark about POV as itself almost entirely polemical and therefore POV. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not that I cannot begin to try to explain; it's that my sense of obligation is to provide explanation by way of the article and not further contribution to this discussion. Without further comment I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous response(s) and Rbellin's remark about the purpose of discussion pages. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why do people continue to perpetuate such things? it's just far too easy a criticism to make. Be more creative, people.
I've got to second Banno's comment. I find it terribly interesting that tons of people promote deconstruction but can't begin to explain it. As George Orwell reminds us, and Banno illustrates, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." Alan Sokal's hoax shows that even the most prestigious, peer-reviewed post-modern writings accept any patent nonsense as long as it flatters the basic principles, mostly set down in meaningless jargon. Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense perfectly illustrates this point by analysing postmodern texts and pointing out errors-is that, finally, an example of a deconstructive reading? What delicious irony would it be if Sokal's wonderful book against postmodernism is itself an example of deconstruction; whether it is or not, it is an example of everything analysis should be-clearly elucidating complex concepts and data by clarifying technical expressions into simpler and more basic ones. It isn't dumbing it down, it's making sure it makes sense to begin with. As I said earlier, I'll admit I don't understand deconstruction though I doubt many proponents do either, as no one can begin to try to explain it. It's not that I'm too stupid, in fact I'm not so stupid as to accept an idea I don't understand or as to pretend to understand something so as not to look stupid (which I'm not the first to point out seems to be the essence of this postmodern phenomenon). Maprovonsha172 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)