Andy Perry's Basic Deconstructionism
|
1. Meaning is constructed. This means specifically in this context that meaning is created by silencing other dissenting voices. Everything is an interpretation, and the only possible way to generate an interpretation as true (according to this model) is to delicense other interpretations. The fact that truth is always an effect of silencing other truths is captured in the catch-phrase "epistemic violence."
2. Texts contain within themselves their own interpretations, in the sense that there are specific meanings which are licensed and others which are delicensed by any given text. This process is not wholly successful, however, and all texts contain ruptures and contradictions which are markers to the truths which have been silenced in order for other truths to be created.
3. Deconstruction is a practice of reading these ruptures as the "returned of the repressed," to see which meanings are necessarily precluded by the accepted meanings. So in a sense, it is more accurate to say that a text deconstructs itself than to say that you deconstruct it. (Here's the cultural studies bit): These contradictions are further read as inscriptions of larger cultural anxieties, and as such are read in terms of the cultural work which the text does, and the meanings which it circulates and those which it impedes from circulation.
4. An example: In _Macbeth_, Lady Macbeth says she has suckled children. Macduff says that Macbeth doesn't have any children. This is a contradiction, which can be traced to cultural anxieties about maternal power and the feminine which inform the play. In other words, it is necessary to the plot that Macbeth not have any kids, but it is necessary to the cultural imaginary engaged by the play that Lady Macbeth be imaged as an evil mother, so both things happen.
> What is the point of deconstructing something? What is the purpose of deconstructing? What am I looking for, or trying to prove?
Again, here is my answer, which is only one of many possible answers.
The implicit ethic informing Derridean deconstruction is self-awareness. ALL TRUTHS are the effect of epistemic violence, including those constructed by Derrida or any other theorist. The point is not to avoid such violence, but to gain an understanding of what the effects and consequences of your beliefs are. Which specific meanings does your discourse preclude? What cultural problematics are you engaged in? These are questions that you can only partially answer, but giving and attending to those partial answers is admirable, in that you will no longer be denying your effects and investments.
The other major answer to your question is "Western Metaphysics." This is the Great Evil of deconstruction. What is it? Well, basically the metaphysics of presence (oh that, right). Think of it in terms of Logic: the law of the excluded middle (A and ^A and nothing in between) and the law of non-contradiction [^(A + ^A)]. This is a way of mapping the world, in terms of binary oppositions, which is incredibly insidious in terms of the argument above about epistemic violence. Why? Simply because the binary opposition is an incredibly efficient way to organize the world in a way which seems to account for difference but doesn't. (To take a popular current example, seeing race in terms of black and white ignores Asian, Latino, Native American and other perspectives that don't quite fit in the model.) Another criticism of the model is that it fails to account even for the difference which it seems to be all about. So that in psychoanalysis there is only one gender: male. Women are defined as not-men, as the negative of the single term, rather than as a second positive term.
Derrida in particular is engaged with the (a?) philosophical tradition in order to reveal the depth metaphysics which inform all philosophy.
> What, if anything, should I select to deconstruct? Is there a selection criteria I should be aware of, or can I just deconstruct anything?
Deconstruct the things which are silencing you. Deconstruct the discourses for which you are the other. Reveal the instances of epistemic violence which prevent your voice from being heard.
Deconstruct the things which allow you to speak. Deconstruct the discourses for which you are the norm. Reveal the instances of epistemic violence which allow your voice to be heard.
> What are the rules I should follow when deconstructing something? What do I do first? Next? How do I tell when I have finished? How do I tell if I have done a good job?
Such work is always provisional. It is never finished. This is both a practical fact, and a statement with an ethical basis, in that unfinished works are less likely to hide the contradictions which form them, and are thus more self-aware.
> Is deconstruction a stand-alone process, or are there other tasks I must perform after I deconstruct something to finish the job?
> What do I do with all the little deconstructed pieces after I am done?
There are no little pieces left over. What is left over is the edifice you thought you were deconstructing. This is a logical necessity. Derrida's reinscription argument goes something like this: to deconstruct Western Metaphysics, the concept of the sign is a necessary tool. We use it to show the excess of meaning contained within discourse, the lack of control of the speaker over his or her words, etc. But the concept of the sign contains within it (analytically) the sensible/intelligible binary. This is just a subset of the internal/external binary. The internal/external binary *IS* Western Metaphysics. Therefore, any deconstruction of WM will in fact strengthen WM. It goes on forever.
(Hence, Nietzsche smashes metaphysics of presence, which are found in his discourse by Heidegger who really gets it right, until Derrida finds the same stuff at work in Heidegger, ad nauseum, ad inifitum...)
> Your answers will help me sleep better at night.
That I doubt very much. :) -- Andy Perry |