Over the last several weeks I have been wrestling with a definition for deconstruction as used by Jacques Derrida and his followers. I almost quit until I read this piece, again, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (read the whole article here):
Deconstruction is parasitic in that rather than espousing yet another grand narrative, or theory about the nature of the world in which we partake, it restricts itself to distorting already existing narratives, and to revealing the dualistic hierarchies they conceal. While Derrida’s claims to being someone who speaks solely in the margins of philosophy can be contested, it is important to take these claims into account. Deconstruction is, somewhat infamously, the philosophy that says nothing.
Maybe I am now beginning to understand why Derrida refused to define deconstruction. If he defined deconstruction it would become something rather than nothing or it would become an overarching, guiding metanarrative itself rather than merely a critique of all such things. We can argue for or against his success in this matter, but this seems to make the most sense to me.
If you have read any Derrida, and you think you agree with what I presented here or you totally disagree, you opinion is very valuable to me. I need input.
Jonathan Culler’s “On Deconstruction” is a great book for understanding deconstruction. Good luck.
That sounds about right. If you have Vanhoozer’s Is there a meaning in this text?, his discussion is helpful. He takes the critique of deconstruction rather seriously.
For an alternative proposal for meaning and philosophy, you should check out this book: The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought
Mark Johnson’s article, “Philosophy’s debt to metaphor” is a groundbreaking piece.
I was just going to recommend VanHoozer’s book, but I see that I must second the recommendation.
It is a classic, and one that I must read again soon.
The very term “deconstruction” comes from the work of Heidegger. He was the first to call for the deconstruction, or destuction really of the history of ontology. He attacks the Platonic idea of being. But ontology or the doctrine of being is both the substance of reality in both the human being, and the textual reality and priori. This is the basic Western Philosopher/Philosophy.
*dustruction
*destruction, my typing skills are that of an old man today!
Btw, Brian have you engaged Martin Heidegger on this subject? That would be ontology for him.
I read Derrida for one of my Literary Theory English classes and the guy is as your caption says, a very confusing philosopher. What I received from him was essentially this: Every text, in some way, sets itself up against itself. Essentially, deconstructionism is the process of a text deconstructing itself. I have no idea what that means or what it looks like, but I’ve found the only valuable part of it to be an extreme level of criticism. One of my classmates nearly became irate after reading Derrida because he believed Derrida rips apart anything valuable about literature (or about meaning in general). I’d have to agree.
I forget the name of the article by Derrida that we read for class, but I recall him essentially saying that there is no true meaning. My question was simply this, “Isn’t that a true-meaning statement?” Derrida seems to criticize the very truths he uses to criticize anything at all – even himself. So with your quoted definition of deconstruction, I’d agree; it says nothing, but rips apart everything.
@Bryan: Sadly, I cannot find that book in any local library though I did find some journal articles by the author so I may use those. I wish I could get the book but cost + lack of days to write the paper = maybe later.
@Mike: That book is in my seminary library, I will grab it.
@ Fr. Robert: I am beginning to see that to really understand Derrida I’d have to understand Heidegger. Time prevents this from being possible but any useful summary you’d like to leave me will be received.
@Jeremy: That is how I want to read Derrida. What I find hard is that he seems to deny this as well as his supporters. Derrida expects to be understood, and he expects us to believe his anti-system has value, but the whole approach of deconstruction seems to undermine this!
Brian,
Of course if we follow out both Heidegger and Derrida, we will come to see with the pomo, etc. that nothing makes objective sense, and “truth” is nothing more than some created idea, and is always mere culture at best. And here language has no real objective meaning, only simply human existential dread and anguish. For some this is the only existence (Sartre).
Deconstructionism to me is essentially the philosophy of lawyers. It’s like it’s concerned with revealing everything for being more-or-less the same story, since one text can be found to hold two totally contradictory stances. Like how in a court-room, there will be one event told from different perspectives, and the truth will have to be pieced together from these accounts. In this respect, deconstructionism is the ultimate meta-narrative, and I think Derrida was more afraid of defining it because in doing so it would cease to be the universality he had conceived was possible. Meaning isn’t universal though, unfortunately, and deconstructionism is only useful for accepting all experiences (readings) and saying they too can find their place in the universality of the human experience.
Basically, it helps us be suspicious of our own bias. Breaking down things is easy enough though, it’s putting it all back together again that is simply divine. In the quest for meaning, deconstructionism is but a mere tool for spotting all the problems in esteeming anything as too great to be understood, or any event as too sacred to be significant, or any opinion as too superior to be challenged. It’s not an end in itself however, it only gives us something to start from.
So advantages; it can bring about understanding and help us relate to the meanings we derive (because once we conceive an idea, we cease from being excluded from its effects, think Hebrews 11:6). Disadvantages, it’s a hindrance if we see it as an end in itself and not the means to a better, more well-rounded, more truthful, impacting philosophy. It’s useful because though you’ll probably never agree with everyone, you can better understand where people are coming from in order to debate them in ways that get them to think, instead of merely reacting in a defensive manner.
Brian:
No local library has that? Crazy. It’s definitely worth buying. I got my copy used and I’ve seen it a number of times at the used book store. Culler really helped me understand deconstruction. I’ve personally found deconstruction very helpful, and honestly once you understand it, it’s hard not to see texts through it. It’s not that you start deconstructing texts but texts deconstruct themselves and you are just recognizing it take place in texts.
Other books you might find helpful to introducing you to deconstruction as well structuralism and post-structuralism are “Beginning Theory” by Peter Barry and “Critical Theory Today” by Lois Tyson. They both have chapters on structuralism and post-structuralism/deconstruction. The 2nd book is particular interesting in that it uses the book “The Great Gatsby” to illustrate each of the different types of criticism discussed in the book. Some people like Terry Eagleton’s “Literary Theory: An Introduction” but I wasn’t that thrilled with it. It does have some helpful stuff in it though as well as chapters on structuralism and post-structuralism. I just don’t think it reads as easy as the other two books. There’s also Christopher Norris’s “Deconstruction: Theory and Practice”. I’ve seen a number of people say really good things about it but I thought it was a bit difficult to read. I think I might have just been burned out by the topic when I finally got around to it. If you come across the Culler book, even used, definitely pick it up.
Deconstruction of course works well for OpenTheism, since it changes language and words when it wants to. It is not a neutral, or a scholastic helper. Of course really deconstruction is anything but “scholastic”! Again, John Frame has made the most “devastating critique” of Open Theism, along with Bruce Ware. But then, I am something of a classic Calvinist. Sorry Bryan, we are at great theological odds here! 🙂
Where did Bryan say he was an open theist? Even if he is one it seems to me that this is a “slight” reading-into of his comment!
No Brian, I know I am a poor blogger perhaps, but theological truth runs together! I am not attacking Bryan personally, but deconstruction touches the truth of the Biblical Text, if we allow it. And I believe he said we was an Open Theist sometime back? Indeed bliblical and classical Calvinism run hard on epistemology!
@Bryan: I will definitely consider purchasing it in the near future. There are a couple of college libraries in the area that I can still consult. We’ll see if I find it come Monday.
@Robert: For being so epistemologically strict, in the “Calvinist tradition”, you sure did pull a deconstructive move there upon Bryan’s comment, did you not?! 🙂
@Ishta: When we apply this to biblical hermeneutics I can imagine Derrida watching two scholars exegeting the same passage while coming to two totally different interpretations and saying “ah-ha, yes, this is of what I speak”!
Brian,
It was hardly “deconstructive”, as more hermeneutical and exegetical seeking.. in the biblical, textual Reformed model itself. That was my vision and desire. But then I actually believe in the verbal nature of the Text itself! Note, 2 Tim. 1:13 ; 2:15 ; 3:14-16, etc.
Actually I am an Open Theist although not as committed as I was like 4-5 years ago (and not really willing to defend it here as I once may have been). I didn’t know anything about deconstruction when became an Open Theist and I’m not really sure how the two are connected or how one would support the other.
Ultimately whether you end up disagreeing with deconstruction or thinking it’s ultimately harmful at least try to understand it as well as possible on its own terms. If it is to be rejected it can’t merely be because we don’t like its results. I think it makes some important insights into language and discourse. Maybe some of it is right and some is wrong instead of it being all or nothing.
Btw, but the question should come up, was Derrida even a confessing Christian? If not, then he really has no fundamental right to the Text itself! This is often lost today. As if scholars who sit in unbelief really have any real tools on the biblical text, (1 Cor. 2:14). At least in the area of real spirituality. And we should note here that even Bultmann was a confessional Christian.
@ Fr. Robert: If you don’t think Derrida is a legitimate dialog partner please exclude him. That being said, I don’t think most of what you have said in your comments in related to the question of my post, so please stay on topic.
Bryan,
I have read my share of Derrida, and even more of Heidegger. When I was doing my philosophy degrees (I have a D. Phil. btw), Existential philosophy was still kind of the thing. And I was not always the Calvinist conservative either. And again, this is no personal attack at all, but a theological and epistemological difference.
@ Fr. Robert: That is fine. I don’t think you need to work from the same paradigm. In fact, I am not even claiming to work from a paradigm that finds Derrida as significant, but I do want to understand what he says. The biblical text is literature and what Derrida has to say applies to literature and how we read (whether his theory is right or wrong is another matter) so I think it is worth exploring for my own sake.
Being that you have traveled down the road and found it wanting let us who have not had the opportunity to make that journey explore it without you telling us how useless you found it.
Brian,
You somewhat asked me? But, I have said enough. I will bow out now.
pax..and also to you Bryan 🙂
I asked for you to expound on the relationship between Derrida and Heidegger, not for a moral lecture on the dangers of Derrida, deconstruction, and open theism while making baseless remarks about Bryan’s theological leanings.
Brian,
Last word, I am always a pastor-teacher, even before the theolog stuff. And faithfulness to God always. I have seen my share of young men who crashed & burned on the theological highway!
I am sure you have seen plenty of misguided young people. That being said, as you know, it is usually very ineffective to scream of the horrors of this or that forbidden fruit. If Derrida is evil you have only made him more interesting by causing me to wonder what all the fuss is about.