This blog is assigned the task of flipped learning about Derrida and Deconstruction. We are assigned the task of watching the selected videos, attempt a quiz, write brief answer related to it, write our understanding on it and to raise question/ bring own doubts.
Flip learning is the modern form of education. And it's the complete opposite of the traditional learning process. In this class work is done as homework and home work is done as classroom. This process is accepted in order to engage a number of students in the discussion happening. IN flip learning students carry out the research by their own or under the task allotment and discuss with teacher or ask doubts about in the classroom. It provides freedom to students to select their own atmosphere to study.
Derrida and Deconstruction
Video 1
Video 5.1 discusses Derrida and Deconstruction. It discusses the question like why is it difficult to define deconstruction? Is Deconstruction a negative term? How does deconstruction happen on its own?
Derrida himself questioned “is it possible to define something? What are the limitations or to what extent can we define anything?”. Derrida also claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is, and that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticizes the very language needed to explain it. Actually, we are accustomed to clear cut definitions, we want definition, whereas it is not possible to define Deconstruction.
Deconstruction cannot be considered as a negative term. Why? Deconstruction (in a verb form) means "undo the construction of, take to pieces," 1973, a back-formation form. Basically deconstruction doesn't mean to destroy but to inquiry in the foundations. Derrida’s aim while introducing this theory was to transform the people’s way of thinking.
The reason behind the deconstruction happening on its own is - the conditions which give 'meaning' to the system, that very conditions put a limit to it. So, when the foundations of meanings are inquired, it break free the limitations. Thus, an inquiry into foundations destroys the institution. So we can say that deconstruction happens on its own.
E.g.: the term ‘emancipation’
Meaning of this word is - the fact or process of being set free but if we deconstruct this term inquiring its foundations it is to transfer ownership; i.e. going into another control from one.
Video 2
Video 5.2.1 discusses The influence of Heidegger on Derrida and Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy. Derrida was influenced by Heidegger, Nietzsche and Freud for the deconstruction philosophy and He acknowledged them in his essay ‘Structure, sign and play’. He was influenced by philosophical ideas of Heidegger, The seeds of deconstruction were sprouted in Heidegger.
Heidegger argued that the western thought has neglected or repressed the question of Being of beings which has resulted in a deep crisis in the western civilization.
Derrida in the first book Of 'Grammatology' (1968) argues that neglect and the repression of the question of writing in its conception of language as speech is another such blind-spot in the western thought and the rigorous pursuit of this question can similarly ‘deconstruct’ the tradition of western thinking.
Heidegger demands the destruction (Destruktion) of the Western philosophical tradition, which is not its destruction but total transformation.
Derrida continues and critiques the Heideggerian themes of radical rethinking of the very foundations of western thought by dismantling the metaphysical tradition and raising the key question of language and reinvention of the language of western philosophy. Heidegger in his later work points out that it is ‘language that speaks, not Man’ and that language is ‘the house of Being’.
Derrida gave the idea of Logocentrism while Heidegger shared the phonocentric idea.
Que: what were the themes of Heidegger and did Derrida continued them all?
Video 3
Video 5.2.2 discusses Ferdinand de Saussure and Derrida and talks about How does Derrida deconstruct the idea of arbitrariness? Concept of metaphysics of presence.
Saussure in his ‘Course in General linguistics’ work gave the relation between words and its meanings is not natural but conventional one. 'What connects a word with its meaning is the convention and the convention is always social.’ E.g.: mother; it doesn't have any natural meaning but it presents a connection with humans. It shows the arbitrariness of the meaning of a word. Any Word can be used to talk about anything.
Derrida deconstructing this idea points out that the meaning of the word is nothing but the other word, meaning is thought of something in our mind.
Metaphysics of Presence is a term from Heidegger which points out that when we consider being of something we often connect it with its presence. While Derrida pointed out that western philosophy is built on the differences of binary opposition- just like human language. Saussure also stated- there is no positive lament in language but only negative one. We recognize elements of language by contrasting it. Presence of something can only be understood by the absence of something. And this is the only method of Western philosophies.
E.g.; Women? Absence of manliness; Dark? Absence of light
However, Derrida points out that these oppositions are not equal but hierarchic where the second term is considered either derivative or inferior to the first, the privileged one.
Que- Please explain Logocentrism and Phonocentrism in relation to deconstruction?
Video 4
Video 5.3 discussed about the Derridean concept of DiffArnce, Infinite play of meaning and Diffarnce= to differ and to defer.
Différance is a French term coined by Jacques Derrida. It is a central concept in Derrida's deconstruction, a critical outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Derrida says there is no ultimate or final meaning, it is a myth. It is a tendency of language to Postpone. If we search for a meaning in a dictionary we get another group of words not a meaning and we assume that we have grasped. Saussure says- sign is equal to signifier which signifies something but Derrida says- Sign is a free play of signifiers signifying nothing. Derrida calls it deferring. In Western Philosophy we assume that final meaning is grasped but final meaning is transcendental (beyond language) signified. Saussure 'sign' is equal to 'signifier' which 'signifies' some meaning; but Derridean 'sign' is 'FREE-PLAY' of signifiers, signifying nothing.
Infinite play of meaning suggest that there is no specific meaning to any word, another words is assumed as the meaning of the word
Eg.: Internet- money, hobby, attraction, advantage, share in business these are the meanings through which we understand words. But actually these words are a group of words. We also have to find its meaning, meaning of meaning. This way the infinite play of meaning continues.
DifferEnce/ DifferAnce= to differ + to defer
Differ is to disagree and defer is to put off or to choose to do something at a later time, postpone. Difference- it applies force, it's not an idea or a concept but force which makes differentiation possible, which makes postponing possible.
Que- Differance 'is force which makes differentiation possible, which makes postponing possible'- elaborate.
Video 5
Video 5.4 discussed structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences and “language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique” statement from the same essay.
Quoted statement by Derrida sums up the deconstruction in itself.” It implies that structuralism began as criticism or attack on metaphysics on one hand and science (predominant of getting knowledge in the west.) on other hand.
Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ was read at the colloquium on 'Structuralism' at John Hopkins Uni.(1966). It inaugurated post- structuralism, going beyond structuralism. Essay is critic of Claude Levi- Strauss, a famous French Anthropologist who made structuralism very popular.
Derrida questions how Levi's is using the same assumptions that we find in metaphysics and science, in his own practice of structuralism? So structuralism is criticism of science and metaphysics on the other hand it is criticism of the same assumptions.
One word is used again and again so it doesn't go out of tradition, it has to work under the inherent legacy of that tradition; and this happens because of the language, because language contains all the assumptions coded into it. As we already saw, the final meaning can not be grasped; it can be promised or deferred.
So when a philosopher criticizes any system he uses the same language, ideas and assumptions. So he says structuralism falls prey to what he wants to pray upon (science and metaphysics). When you start criticizing something you start resembling that thing. And this happens due to language according to Derrida. As we cannot capture the final meaning of the language.
So any philosophical language contains blind spot, which asks for criticism and that applies as much to deconstruction also, that's why deconstructive writing is most of the time auto- critical. It questions itself
Que- Criticism doesn't go out of tradition. what does it say 'a word' or 'an idea' doesn't go out of tradition?
Video 6
Video 5.5 talks about the Yale School- a hub of the practitioners of deconstruction in the literary theories and the characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction.
During the 1970s, the Yale School has been a hub of the practitioners of deconstruction in literary theories. Yale University has played a vital role in propagating Derrida’s idea in America and the whole world. Earlier it was confined to continental traditions of European philosophy. It became a kind of new thing breaking on the scene after new criticism, and so it became famous. The four people Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman made it very popular. All these four are very different from each other in occupation but still Yale school played an important role for bringing Deconstruction in literary criticism, earlier it was largely in philosophy domain.
Important Characteristics: Looking at literature as rhetorical or figurative construct.
As Language is full of Figurative components, it becomes an unreliable tool for communication of meaning. Figurative puts language as a very problematic entity. So all four focused on the figurative components of literature and showed that literature can create multiplicity of meaning by focusing on various figures of speech.
E.g.: my love is like a red red rose, that's newly sprung in June.
No logical or rhetorical sense if we look at it logically but its use of figurative gives it a multiplicity of meanings.
Secondly, they question both the aesthetics as well as the formalist approach to literature; and also question the historicist and sociologist approach to literature.
They point out that language is not a transparent medium of communication as it doesn't take us directly to the society and what makes it non- transparent is figurative components. Materiality of signifiers is what creates aesthetic delight or illusion, Paul de Man argues that aesthetic is the very illusory effect of language and so is social and historical. So the people who read literature from sociologists as well as aesthetic approach for both deconstruction is very challenging.
Third important characteristic of Yale School is their preoccupation with romanticism.
They read romantic literature from the deconstruction approach and later give it to us. Romanticized literature uses metaphors and symbols but Paul de Man demonstrates that it is the allegory and metonymy which are the most important devices in romantic poetry. Thus, he wants to show that the whole romantic desire to transcend the difference between subject and object as in Wordsworth the subject is the poet just be current and object is the nature and so this desire for transcending this binary is achieved through the use of metaphors and so metaphor being more organic in romanticism but Paul de Man shows that its not metaphor but allegory that is more important in romanticism. His reading of Romanticism is very counter and conventional.
Que: how is Paul de Man proving that 'not metaphor but allegory that is more important in romanticism'?
Video 7
Video 5.6 discussed about the other critical schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theories.
We will see the difference between the Yale school of deconstruction and how other critical approaches used deconstruction. Yale school was primarily preoccupied with rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary texts and in demonstrating that literary text has a multiple range of meanings so that was one of the most important preoccupations of Yale school.
While the other critical approaches like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theories all of them have been influenced from Derrida’s writing.
E.g.; Postcolonial theories fascinated by the ability to show that the texts of the discourse of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within narratives.
Feminist theory interested because it deals with how to subvert the binary between male and female and deconstruction provided tools to subvert patriarchal discourse.
Cultural materialism is interested in it to emphasize the materiality of language, Derrida emphasized language is material construct and it has an ability to unmask the hidden ideological agendas and program.
New historians are also influenced by it and of what Louis Montrose stated new historians are interested in reciprocal concern between textuality of history and historicity of texts so he meant that text itself is a historical context, being shaped by the history and what is known about history is also from text. Montrose points out about is historicity of texts and textuality of history’
We can see that Derrida has an impact on multiple approaches to literary criticism.
I hope my blog is useful.
[words: 2073]
No comments:
Post a Comment