Name:- Sejal R parmar
Sem:- 2
Enrollment no:- 2069108420190033
Year:- 2018-2020
Email:- sejalparmar095@gmail.com
Paper:- cultural studies
Topic:- post-structuralism and deconstruction
Submitted:- smt. S. B. gardi department of English
*Post-structuralism and deconstruction
*Introduction
At the same time, deconstruction is also a
"structuralist gesture" because it is concerned with the structure of
texts. ... It was for this reason that Derrida distances his use of the term
deconstruction from post-structuralism, a term that would suggest that
philosophy could simply go beyond structuralism.
*What is post-structuralism
Post-structuralism, sometimes referred as the French theory,
was associated with the works of a series of mid-20th-century French
continental philosophers and critical theorists who came to international
prominence in the 1960s and 1970s. The term was defined by its relationship to
the system before it—structuralism.
*What is deconstruction
a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary
language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual
systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in
forms of expression.
*Definition of Post-structuralist:
“Any of several
theories of literary criticism
As deconstruction or reader response criticism
That use structuralists methods but argue against
The results of structuralism and hold that there wasno one
true reading of a text”
Post structuralism
was the reaction of structuralism, a variety of postmodernism. The
post-structuralists accuse structuralist of not following through the
implications of the views about language on which their intellectual system is
based. One structuralist said that language doesn't but just reflect or record
the world.
According to the post-structuralist we have such kind of
belief that we enter a universal of radical uncertainty. Since we can not have
fixed landmark or fixed place. Without a fixed point of reference against which
to measure movement we can’t tell whether or not we are moving at all. For
example if I am seating in a stationary train with another train was running at
that time we think that it’s my train was moving but it isn't. So when the
train gone we can see that I am till now on the platform. So post structuralism
says that fixed intellectual reference points are permanently removed by
properly taking on board.
*Saussure’s theory about linguistic structuralism:
Saussure was a key
figure in the development of modern approaches to language study. In the 19th
century linguistic scholar had mainly been interested in historical aspects of
language such as working out the historical development of languages and the
connections between them. Saussure concentrated instead of patterns and
functions of language in use today, with emphasis on how meaning are maintained
and established and on the functions of grammatical structures.
But there
was so interesting which wasfound Saussure structuralism. These can be
explained by three pronouncements. First he emphasized that the meaning we give
to word are purely arbitrary and these meaning are maintained by convention
only. Words are to say are ‘unmotivated signs’ meaning that there is no
inherent connection between a word and what is designates. Foe example the
word’ Hut’ for instance is not any way appropriate to its meaning, and all
linguistic signs art arbitrary is a fairly obvious point to make perhaps and is
not a new thing to say(Plato said it in Ancient Greek times) but it is a new
concepts to emphasis (which is always very much important that if language as a
sign system is based on arbitrariness of this kind then if follows that
language isn't reflection of the world and of experience, but a system which
stands quite separate from it. This point will be further developed later
.
Secondly he emphasized that meaning of word are rational.
This is something no word can be defined in isolation from other words. The
definition of any given word depends upon its relation with other ‘adjoin’
word. For example, that word ‘Hut’ depends for its precise meaning on its
position in a ‘Syntagmatic chain’ that is, chain of words related in function
and meaning each of which could be substituted for any of others in a given
sentence. The Syntagmatic chain in this case might include the following.
Hovel, shed,
hut, house, mansion, palace
The meaning of these words may be change if any word from
this chain removed. Thus, ‘Hut’ and ‘She’ are both small and basic structures
but they are not quite the same thing. One is primarily for shelter (a night
watchman’s hut for instance) while other primarily for storage.
Saussure used a
famous example to explain what he meant by saying that there are no intrinsic
fixed meaning in language
Hardly for
Saussure has language constituted our world, it doesn't just record it or label
it. Meaning always attributed by and expressed through language. It is not
already contained within the thing. Well-known examples are what would be the
first choice between ‘Terrorist’ and ‘Freedom Fighter’. There is no neutral or
objective way of designating such a person merely a choice of two terms which
‘construct’ that person in certain ways.
*Post-structuralism/ Deconstruction:
The post-structuralism accuse structuralist of not following
through the implication of the views about language on which their intellectual
system is based. We saw one or other structuralism characteristic views is the
notion that language doesn't just reflect or record the world rather it shapes
it, so that how we see that how we see
that.
*Deconstruction
Originated by the philosopher Jacques Derrida,
deconstruction is an approach to understanding the relationship between text
and meaning. Derrida's approach consisted of conducting readings of texts with
an ear to what runs counter to the intended meaning or structural unity of a
particular text. The purpose of deconstruction is to show that the usage of
language in a given text, and language as a whole, are irreducibly complex,
unstable, or impossible. Throughout his readings, Derrida hoped to show
deconstruction at work.
Many debates in continental philosophy surrounding ontology,
epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language
refer to Derrida's observations. Since the 1980s, these observations inspired a
range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities,including the disciplines of
law anthropology,historiography,linguistics,sociolinguisticspsychoanalysis,
LGBT studies, and the feminist school of thought. Deconstruction also inspired
deconstructivism in architecture and remains important within art,music,and
literary criticism.[11][12]
While common in continental Europe (and wherever Continental
philosophy is in the mainstream), deconstruction is not adopted or accepted by
most philosophy departments in universities where analytic philosophy is
predominant.
*Deconstruction according to Derrida
*Etymology
Edit
Derrida's original use of the word
"deconstruction" was a translation of Destruktion, a concept from the
work of Martin Heidegger that Derrida sought to apply to textual reading.
Heidegger's term referred to a process of exploring the categories and concepts
that tradition has imposed on a word, and the history behind them.
*Basic philosophical concerns
Edit
*Derrida's concerns flow from a consideration of several
issues:
A desire to contribute to the re-evaluation of all Western
values, a re-evaluation built on the 18th-century Kantian critique of pure
reason, and carried forward to the 19th century, in its more radical
implications, by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
An assertion that texts outlive their authors, and become
part of a set of cultural habits equal to, if not surpassing, the importance of
authorial intent.
A re-valuation of certain classic western dialectics: poetry
vs. philosophy, reason vs. revelation, structure vs. creativity, episteme vs.
techne, etc.
To this end, Derrida follows a long line of modern
philosophers, who look backwards to Plato and his influence on the Western
metaphysical tradition.Like Nietzsche, Derrida suspects Plato of dissimulation
in the service of a political project, namely the education, through critical
reflections, of a class of citizens more strategically positioned to influence
the polis. However, like Nietzsche, Derrida is not satisfied merely with such a
political interpretation of Plato, because of the particular dilemma modern
humans find themselves in. His Platonic reflections are inseparably part of his
critique of modernity, hence the attempt to be something beyond the modern,
because of this Nietzschian sense that the modern has lost its way and become
mired in nihilism.
*Différance
Edit
Main article: Différance
Différance is the observation that the meanings of words
come from their synchrony with other words within the language and their
diachrony between contemporary and historical definitions of a word.
Understanding language, according to Derrida, requires an understanding of both
viewpoints of linguistic analysis. The focus on diachrony has led to
accusations against Derrida of engaging in the etymological fallacy.
There is one statement by Derrida—in an essay on Rousseau in
Of Grammatology—which has been of great interest to his opponents.:158 It is
the assertion that "there is no outside-text" which is often mistranslated as "there
is nothing outside of the text". The mistranslation is often used to
suggest Derrida believes that nothing exists but words. Michel Foucault, for
instance, famously misattributed to Derrida the very different phrase "Il
n'y a rien en dehors du texte" for this purpose.According to Derrida, his
statement simply refers to the unavoidability of context that is at the heart
of différance
For example, the word "house" derives its meaning
more as a function of how it differs from "shed",
"mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. than how the word "house" may be
tied to a certain image of a traditional house.with each term being established
in reciprocal determination with the other terms than by an ostensive
description or definition: when can we talk about a "house" or a
"mansion" or a "shed"? The same can be said about verbs, in
all the languages in the world: when should we stop saying "walk" and
start saying "run"? The same happens, of course, with adjectives:
when must we stop saying "yellow" and start saying
"orange", or exchange "past" for "present"? Not
only are the topological differences between the words relevant here, but the
differentials between what is signified is also covered by différance.
Thus, complete meaning is always "differential"
and postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and
total. A simple example would consist of looking up a given word in a
dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words found in that word's
definition, etc., also comparing with older dictionaries. Such a process would
never end.
*Metaphysics of presence
Edit
Main article: Metaphysics of presence
Derrida describes the task of deconstruction as the
identification of metaphysics of presence, or logocentrism in western
philosophy. Metaphysics of presence is the desire for immediate access to
meaning, the privileging of presence over absence. This means that there is an
assumed bias in certain binary oppositions where one side is placed in a
position over another, such as good over bad, speech over the written word,
male over female. Derrida writes, "Without a doubt, Aristotle thinks of
time on the basis of ousia as parousia, on the basis of the now, the point,
etc. And yet an entire reading could be organized that would repeat in
Aristotle's text both this limitation and its opposite".Derrida, the
central bias of logocentrism was the now being placed as more important than
the future or past. This argument is largely based on the earlier work of
Heidegger, who, in Being and Time, claimed that the theoretical attitude of
pure presence is parasitical upon a more originary involvement with the world
in concepts such as ready-to-hand and being
*Deconstruction and dialectics
Edit
In the deconstruction procedure, one of the main concerns of
Derrida is to not collapse into Hegel's dialectic, where these oppositions
would be reduced to contradictions in a dialectic that has the purpose of
resolving it into a synthesis.The presence of Hegelian dialectics was enormous
in the intellectual life of France during the second half of the 20th century,
with the influence of Kojève and Hyppolite, but also with the impact of
dialectics based on contradiction developed by Marxists, and including the
existentialism of Sartre, etc. This explains Derrida's concern to always
distinguish his procedure from Hegel's,since Hegelianism believes binary
oppositions would produce a synthesis, while Derrida saw binary oppositions as
incapable of collapsing into a synthesis free from the original contradiction
No comments:
Post a Comment