Deconstruction was a form of criticism created by French philosopher Jaques Derrida (1930-2004). His methods were quite controversial in his time (and there is no shortage of criticism towards deconstruction in the modern age, either). I believe that this backlash is caused in part by Derrida's refusal to define the deconstruction process, yet insisting that the practice of it by others did not match up to the theory that he developed.
So how can we define a term that denies definition from its conception? James Herrick provides three goals of deconstruction: "(1) to reveal the hidden mechanisms at work influencing meaning, (2) to demonstrate the concealed power of symbols to shape thinking, and (3) to underline the fact that no one escapes these elusive qualities of language" (273). However, I think this video does a better job of explaining deconstructive criticism, albeit with a little more silliness than may be necessary.
Essentially, deconstructive criticism covers the problems that occur when different individuals experience different meanings associated with the same word or phrase. If a word does not have one singular meaning, does it have a meaning at all? Additionally, deconstruction highlights the things that are implied by what is or is not said in a statement (such as the "you look nice today" examples discussed in the video).
Nitpicking every aspect of language included in a scenario can surely get exhausting, so it is unsurprising that deconstruction has come under fire so many times. After all, can you imagine living with someone who felt the need to deconstruct everything?
As we've seen, deconstruction can be used to examine texts, but how else can this theory work rhetorically? One option for this involves deconstructing two seemingly contradictory ideas or systems (such as capitalism & socialism, male & female, etc). Jaques Derrida suggested that undergoing deconstruction with ideas will show that the systems may not be contradictory at all, and in fact share several similarities. This method also serves to highlight that any given system is neither completely good nor completely bad. Under deconstruction, all ideas, language, and words are flawed.
It is understandable that deconstruction had its fair share of critics. It can be excessive to constantly poke holes in the meaning of very simple language. Nonetheless, it is at least interesting to explore this unique piece of rhetorical theory. Whether or not you subscribe to deconstruction is up to you.
In the end, deconstruction ends up feeling like this for me.
You have raised a few very good points about deconstruction and how deconstruction has sort of ruptured the rhetorical world. I found the meme very funny because the poem that is offered in it is such a common poem, that people do not even realize the basic facts of the identities of the flowers. Of course, no one ever really cares to mention that, but it is a thought considering there are probably many more "common" phrases and tactics that we use in society to discuss a certain situation, but yet we never talk about how these phrases may not be exact with what they mean. Deconstruction is certain;y something special because it sort of feels like inwardly arguing with oneself and even the very law of rhetorical verses. Breaking down everything is sometimes just too complex and it is easier to just go with the flow of things. I love the gif you included at the end!
ReplyDeleteDeconstructionism reminds me of the color theory, where it's possible that no one sees exactly the same shade of colors; existence in general seems to be different for everyone in almost every way despite how similar we may think we are. This whole semester we've been talking about how important language is to our cultures and defining who we are, but Derrida raises a good point that at the end of the day, our language is just a combination of made-up symbols that have no substance in the physical world. I think it's interesting to apply deconstructionism to one's own name--everyone's probably looked at their name for too long before and suddenly had a moment of existential dread when they realized how weird the letters look next to each other. Seeing something that should be incredibly familiar take on an unfamiliar appearance can be unsettling, especially when it's as personal as language is, which is why it's important to take into consideration one's audience when you're communicating. Really nice post!
ReplyDeleteI think the importance of deconstruction lies in its ability to unveil the ways in which we might be harming those around us in our speech. I'm personally not a big proponent of right versus wrong arguments--they never fully take context into consideration, and because there are exceptions to every rule, assigning an act a label of "right" or "wrong" just makes room for more harm. I am a bigger fan of identifying actions and choices as reducing or creating harm when deciding whether or not something should be done or believed in (though of course, usually it's a mix of both harm reduction for some and harm creation for others--it's complicated). We can more accurately quantify and discuss harm than we can morals. Deconstruction helps us identify harm. For example, when non-Black people were incorrectly associating AAVE with "internet culture" not specifically Black American culture a few months ago, Black individuals on social media were telling non-Black people to reevaluate their use of AAVE. Arguing over "right and wrong" wouldn't have helped here--there are too many intricacies concerning cultural diffusion, ownership of language, etc. and no conclusion could really be found. However, deconstruction was incredibly helpful. Black individuals started asking non-Black people why and when they were using AAVE. It was noted that non-Black people only seemed to use AAVE when trying to be funny, or worse, aggressive. This deconstruction of the use of this language showed the biases many non-Black people have about Black Americans and how they express themselves. Through this, a lot of people were able to change their habits and become better anti-racists. I know this discussion made me reevaluate a lot of my own speech patterns, and having these conversations, even if some people consider them trivial, are really important if we are to minimize harm.
ReplyDeleteIvy, as I watched the video you have included in your post, and I read and think more about the theory of deconstruction, I am reminded again and again of this John Mulaney bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXkUEyOp9OU. The one part I'm thinking about is right at the end--"Or if it's one of those true or false questions, you should be able to add a third option, which is 'Who's to say?'" While he's referring to elementary school tests, it still seems to be a sentiment about deconstruction. We can say nothing with certainty, so who is to say?
ReplyDeleteYou know, as I read through your post, I struggle to think of what kind of people dismiss deconstruction conceptually. Like, what? Who wakes up in the morning and decides that nothing is made up of parts and therefore should only ever be considered as a whole? Sure, there may be times when deconstructing an idea is a fruitless endeavor, but that certainly doesn't mean deconstruction is without worth. Perhaps the opposition is in the form of “deconstruction isn't helpful in [a specific instance]” and I just don't know what I'm on about.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: say what you will about Deconstructionist Girlfriend, but she at least cared enough to write a poem for Deconstructed Boyfriend.