Neither is an ordinary German word; both were borrowed from Latin almost as neologisms to express a concept their creators perceived as relatively new to the philosophical domain, only to have the words become confused with their more common cognates when translated into French or English. Derrida uses the word deconstruction to capture both German terms. This is the double gesture referred to above, one that takes apart the European traditions and in so doing finds the basic understanding of Being beneath its surface. This goal separates Destruktion from deconstruction, not because deconstruction is purely negative, but because it has no fixed endpoint or goal.
He argues that these oppositions cannot be simply transcended; given the thousands of years of philosophical history behind them, it would be disingenuous to attempt to move directly to a domain of thought beyond these distinctions. So, construction first attempts to compensate for these historical power imbalances, undertaking the difficult project of thinking through the philosophical implications of questioning and presenting complications to show the contingency of such divisions.
The second way involves the emergence or eruption of a new conception. One can begin to conceive a conceptual terrain away from these oppositions: Derrida spoke in an interview first published in French in about such "concepts," which he called merely "marks" in order to distinguish them from proper philosophical concepts: This is often given as a major reason for the difficult writing style of deconstructive texts.
Critics of deconstruction find this unacceptable as philosophy; many feel that, by working in this manner with unspecified terms, deconstruction ignores the primary task of philosophy, which they say is the creation and elucidation of concepts.
This deep criticism is a result of a fundamental difference of opinion about the nature of philosophy, and is unlikely to be resolved simply.
Text and deconstruction According to deconstructive readers, one of the phallogocentrisms of modernism is the distinction between speech logos and writing, with writing historically being thought of as derivative to logos. As part of subverting the presumed dominance of logos over text, Derrida argued that the idea of a speech-writing dichotomy contains within it the idea of a very expansive view of textuality that subsumes both speech and writing.
According to Derrida, "There is nothing outside of the text. In a sense, deconstruction is simply a way to read text as broadly defined ; any deconstruction has a text as its object and subject.
This accounts for deconstruction's broad cross-disciplinary scope. Deconstruction has been applied to literature, art, architecture, science, mathematics, philosophyand psychologyand any other disciplines that can be thought of as involving the act of marking.
In deconstruction, text can be thought of as "dead," in the sense that once the markings are made, the markings remain in suspended animation and do not change in themselves. Thus, what an author says about his text doesn't revive it, and is just another text commenting on the original, along with the commentary of others.
In this view, when an author says, "You have understood my work perfectly," this utterance constitutes an addition to the textual system, along with what the reader said was understood in and about the original text, and not a resuscitation of the original dead text.
The reader has an opinion, the author has an opinion. Communication is possible not because the text has a transcendental signification, but because the brain tissue of the author contains similar "markings" as the brain tissue of the reader. These brain markings, however, are unstable and fragmentary.
Structuralist analysis generally relies on the search for underlying binary oppositions as an explanatory device. Deconstruction challenges the explanatory value of these oppositions but does not seek to abolish them.
There are three moments to deconstruction, which may be mixed and simultaneous:Jacques Derrida (–) was the founder of “deconstruction,” a way of criticizing not only both literary and philosophical texts but also political institutions.
Essays Related to Deconstruction. 1. Sherlock Holmes the Criminal. Jacques Derrida's theory of Deconstruction. Articles such as Lubomir Dolezel's "Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge" and Simon Wortham's "Teaching Deconstruction" developed my understanding of Derrida's theory to be an argument in claim of the absence of intrinsic 3/5(10).
Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within caninariojana.coms Derrida () coined the term in the s, and proved more forthcoming.
Derrida claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is: 4 and that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it.
On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Deconstructivism is a movement of postmodern architecture which appeared in the s, which gives the impression of the fragmentation of the constructed building.
It is characterized by an absence of harmony, continuity, or symmetry. Its name comes from the idea of "Deconstruction", a form of semiotic analysis developed by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.