Cultural Theory Weekly Discussion Spring 2009: Week 7
From Metapedia
One Way to Think About Deconstruction: Converting Philosophical Statements into Rhetorical Statements
One way to think about "doing deconstruction" is to convert seeming truth-claims, or statements requiring an assumption of a ground of truth, as rhetorical statements, ways of making persuasive arguments.
Example:
"Gays should/should not be given equal rights in marriage because [fill in blanks]
the concept violates a historical institution that is the foundation of our civilization /
gay people should be treated like all citizens with the same individual rights ... "
Convert truth claims to a type rhetorical procedure, a "topic" of argument in classical rhetoric (appeals to known or agreed upon truths based on the prejudices of your audience).
--Martin Irvine
Audai Shakour and Sonora Bostian: Derrida, Post-Structuralism, and Deconstruction
Sonora Bostian: Mystery Deconstruction Theater 3000
I like Derrida in that he acknowledges all that is cool about semiotics - inherent meanings, value-based languages, etc - but also acknowledges that we as a culture are unique and have various ways of interpreting and representing various messages. I think that one fault with various theories about culture is that they underestimate the power of the individual mind. Sure, we are largely influenced by the cultures we are raised in. But despite what some will say, we are still able to construct unique thoughts and interpretations based on what we personally like, agree with, see in a message, etc. Various cultures exist, and as such, various cultural messages and receptions of said messages occur, resulting in constant play between sender and receiver.
Image from http://subtlebluntness.com/tag/mst3k/
Derrida's discussions brought to my mind one of my favorite television shows - Mystery Science Theater 3000. The show features one man (Joel for the first half of the run, then Mike after Joel's departure) and two robots, Tom and Crow, who are trapped on a spaceship and are forced to watch bad films, thanks to an evil scientist who wants to run experiments on their mind. However, Joel/Mike and the robots do not just sit and suffer through these films, nor do they necessarily accept the "concrete" meaning of the film they watch. Rather, they lampoon these movies ruthlessly, commenting on everything from the acting to the special effects. Thus, two different texts are running at once - the original text of the movie at hand, and the new texts that Joel or Mike, Crow, and Tom add overtop of the movie. Derrida says of differing texts and languages:
“In a language, in the system of language, there are only differences ... but on the one hand, these differences play: in language, in speech too, and in the exchange between language and speech. On the other hand, these differences are themselves effects.” (Differance, Critical Theory, 125)
This almost perfectly describes MST3K, as the guys on the show engage in play with an old movie, or text, or language, that they themselves did not create, but are modifying and changing as they mock the movie and create new interpretations of what is going on. There is also a sense of deconstruction occurring on the program, especially when the show mocks old short and educational films, which were laden with hidden (or not so hidden) meanings about the status quo. Other than adding new dialogue or making their own observations about the film, the three commentators often employ sarcasm against these status quo messages by adding dialogue that says what the film really "means." Take, for example, this short film about grooming and hygiene:
This film is about more than just how to take care of yourself, it's about matching social constructions and norms about what a "good citizen" does to maintain appearance - and Joel, Crow, and Tom are there to literally rip this message apart. For example, when the girl comes in looking slightly unkempt and the narrator trashes her appearance, Crow makes it a point to discuss how attractive he thinks that she is. Then when they cut to her "new look," Joel imitates the narrator and says, "Let's find more ways to shame her," mocking the film's berating of women and their appearance. They also make comments after her transformation about how one's "libido has been starched and pressed," mocking the prudish message the film promotes; and then cap off this deconstruction with Crow imitating the amorous young man and calling, "Hey, I couldn't help noticing how much you look like everyone else!" This deconstructive play is constant throughout the film, and mocks other aspects of the film and its constructed meaning as well - for example, Joel mocks the film's lack of diversity in its casting by noting that "people were whiter back then," pointing out a "fact" in the film that is obviously not true of actual reality, and therefore a construction worthy of critique.
MST3K does not go in and physically change all of the films that they watch, but by engaging in a playful back-and-forth between message and receiver, the show serves to provide new meaning, deconstruction, and new contexts to a text. By doing so, the show not only adds new/different ways to interpret a text, but also serve to break apart and decode the messages that are already there, just perhaps beneath the surface. Shows such as this also serve as a reminder of how one text is not necessarily going to be defined in one way; rather, audiences watching can always add their own interpretations of the message at hand.
On a final fun note, here are the MST3K guys doing what they do best with a more recent, better received film - 300:
-SB
---
Audai Shakour: Deconstructing Obama's State of the Union Speech
President Obama delivered his first state of the union speech to a nation in peril, last Wednesday night. He reassured the American people that a combination of tax relief, reinvestment in education and energy, and a systematic bailout out of the financial industry would provide the economy the stimulus it needs to secure its dominant place in the world economy once again. After the hour-long speech concluded, the president was met with staggering approval ratings, 63% of the American people approved of the President and his economic plan.
Obama’s approval ratings can be attributed to his plan and vision for the future. However, if one applies Derrida’s theory of deconstruction to Obama’s speech, one is able to interpret the speech’s structure and content in more profound ways that may give us further insight to why this speech resonated so well with Americans. In deconstruction, text can be interpreted in any number of ways and any number of factors can contribute to its interpretation. What is not said is just as significant as what is said: “Derrida therefore argues that the meaning of language is dependent on the larger structures of language and cannot originate in the unity of conscious experience. Derrida therefore argues that linguistic meaning does not originate in the intentional meaning of the speaking subject. This conclusion is very important for deconstruction and explains the importance of Speech and Phenomena for Derrida.” (Wikipedia)
Lets take a look at one word, Obama used significantly throughout his speech. The word “entrepreneur” was used three times throughout his speech. He also employed the word relatively early in his speech and reiterated its importance in our long road to recovery:
“he weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure.”
“First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.”
"In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.”'
On entrepreneurship, one author deconstructs the word "entrepreneurship" and finds that it is tied to innovation, strong will, and interprets it as a strong male gendered concept:
“I concluded that entrepreneurship is construed as something positive, associated with innovation, growth, and development that one can hardly be against. It sees as if entrepreneurship contributes to the betterment of things, fitting nicely to the narrative of modernity where development in not only change but progress, somewhat is both valued and seemingly inevitable….The entrepreneur was described in words such as bold, rational, calculative, firm strong willed, achievement oriented, detached, and so on. A comparison with Bem’s (1981) masculinity and femininity indexed in Table 9.1 reveals that these words are male gendered. The words describing masculinity and entrepreneur are very similar. The femininity words are mostly their direct opposites. Some the femininity words, such as affectionate, sympathetic, understanding and warm, do not seem to be present in the entrepreneurship discussion at all, neither as words describing the entrepreneur, nor as their opposites. Hence, entrepreneurship seems to be a male gendered concept” (Neergard, 226)
From this inference, we can interpret Obama’s use of entrepreneurship to mean many things. On the surface, he was reassuring the nation that he would aide entrepreneurs to stimulate the economy. However, a deconstruction of the word entrepreneur leads us to infer, that he may have been trying to instill a sense of boldness, ingenuity, and strong will during these tough times. It is a code asking individual Americans to be bold in all areas of their lives, to take risks once again, and to live brave through these tough times with energy an vigor. It may also mean that the use of a dominantly male gendered concept may reflect the dominant male hegemony that still exists in our society. Maybe Obama instilled a sense that he would guard and protect, and lead this nation in these perilous times by espousing characteristics of male dominance and strength.
Any number of things can be interpreted from the word “entrepreneurship” and according to Derrida, no one interpretation is considered to be “right” or “wrong”. The point is one can look at a narrative of text like the State of the Union speech and decode any number of codes, or deconstruct a word, theme, or line of speech and interpret it any number of ways to look for meaningful ideas and concepts.
"Writing as an inferior derivative of speech": The Text Message
Derrida takes from Saussure the Aristotelian definition of writing. "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Saussure: "Language and writing are two distinct systems of signs; the second exists for the sole purpose of representing the first." In reference to signs, he explains that "the linguistic object is not defined by the combination of the written word and the spoken word: the spoken form alone constitutes the object."
“To understand this more fully, consider the difference for Derrida between understanding language as speech and as writing. Derrida argues that people have historically understood speech as the primary mode of language and understood writing as an inferior derivative of speech.” (Wikipedia)
What I took from this is that speech is always more effective because a speaker is present to clarify or justify what is said, whereas a writer is not. This can be seen in computer mediated communication such as instant messenger, where one is communicating with text but non-verbal cues cannot be seen and tone of voice cannot be heard. However, due to its “instant” nature, misunderstandings of written words can be articulated and cleared up quickly.
Text messaging on the other hand is a different story. “Meaning necessarily involves some degree of interpretation, negotiation, or translation.” The receiver must do these three things, and sometimes does them in ways that are different from what the sender intended. Text messages are not instant; therefore if clarification is needed the receiver must request it and wait. Because body language and tone of voice do not accompany the language in the text, it becomes easier to misinterpret what the sender was attempting to say. I’m not sure if everyone does this, but I often have an idea in my head of what tone of voice is being used, especially when I know the person really well. However this assumption is often incorrect and problematic.
"Derrida believes that the term deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it."
This blog post humorously describes how to interpret text messages based on what time of day they are sent. http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1728993
This blogger describes her experiences of misinterpretation of text messages. http://www.nzgirl.co.nz/articles/3749
This blog describes text message fights between couples. http://davismintun.com/2009/02/couples-fighting-text-message-wars.html
This is a funny video about a text message break up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcidD2HFK8M
-SU
I have to comment here because of my love for text messaging. I love that I have to say what I want to say in 160 characters. I rarely abbreviate, but love to edit down what I am writing to fit the limit. I find the lack of tone challenging and interesting, as it can leave room for multiple interpretations and misinterpretations. To me, this aspect of texting is one of life's little joys.
-SRP
Deconstruction
“Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that, rather than being a unified whole, any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings…Language is a system of signs. As a system of signs the signifiers are present but the signification can only be inferred… To decide what words mean is therefore an act of interpretation” (Wikipedia: Deconstruction).
Derrida suggests that “meanings are open, plural, and without closure rather than definitive and fixed by the system of langue. Meaning depends upon context… Each reader will have their own ideas about relevant, absent contexts and will use these in multifarious and inconsistent ways” (Smith Riley 123).
This made me think about English Literature classes. The last time I took an English Literature class was in high school. I loved the English literature classes I took in high school. However, I was always a little frustrated because while I read the books assigned in class, I seemed to interpret the readings differently than the teacher and my classmates did. This was one of the main reasons I didn’t take an English class in college- because I was too afraid that I wouldn’t be able to interpret the texts in the correct way. Ironically though, one of the things I enjoyed most about my English literature classes was when the teacher explained what the text meant/ how the author intended the audience to interpret his/her writing. However, based on Derrida and the idea of deconstruction, I now question if anyone, even the author, knows what his/her true intention and meaning is of his/her text because “ ‘accidental’ features of a text can be seen as betraying, subverting, its purportedly ‘essential’ message” (Stanford Presidential Lectures and Symposia in the Humanities and Arts).
“The upshot of Derrida’s theory is to suggest that meanings are endlessly proliferating. They can be thought of as expanding and contracting according to the absent perspectives and codes that are used to interpret their signs” (Smith Riley 123-124).
This quotation reminded me of an Anthropology class that I took in college. One of the things my professor talked about during lecture one day related to this subject, and how meanings of things change over time. I will never forget an example he used. He was trying to find different ways of explaining this concept, and how certain things may not change over time, but our interpretation of those things can change. The example he used was physics- in particular, gravity. He explained how the fact that gravity exists doesn’t change. However, the meaning of what gravity is, or how we understand what gravity is (our interpretation) can change over time.
As stated in Wikipedia, “Derrida believes that the term deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticizes the very language needed to explain it.” Irvine explains that “Derrida says there is no there there, centers are an illusion, a mirage of language” (Irvine Derrida/Deconstruction: Notes). This concept was also discussed in my Anthropology class, and I find it very interesting. It is a circular argument, and I don’t see a solution. I think it also relates to culture, where people are socialized in a particular culture or society and therefore cannot truly examine or escape his/her own culture because of the biases and assumptions he/she has by living in that culture.
On another note, I found the following quotation amusing because I definitely agree with it and have such a difficult time reading philosophers.
“John Searle once told me about a conversation he had with the late Michel Foucault: “Michel, you’re so clear in conversation; why is your written work so obscure?” To which Michel replied, “That’s because, in order to be taken seriously by French philosophers, twenty-five percent of what you write has to be impenetrable nonsense” (Wikipedia- Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell (p. 405)).
Allison Peck
OMG, Foucault now has my infinite respect :) - SB
Love a sarcastic French philosopher! SRP
I HEART DERRIDA
In reading and trying to understand and visualize/internalize the explanation of Derrida and deconstruction, I must say I found it to be terribly romantic. I may not understand but the tip of the iceberg, but what I did latch on to is the idea of opposites being somehow intertwined and the same or equal. I may be missing the mark here, but it really stayed with me.
Here is an edited bit from the Stanford Essay broken apart to meditate on the opposites:
The first phase of deconstruction attacks this belief by reversing the Platonistic hierarchies:
the hierarchies between the invisible or intelligible and the visible or sensible;
between the soul and body;
between living memory and rote memory; between mnēmē and hypomnēsis; between voice and writing;
between finally good and evil.
In order to clarify deconstruction's “two phases,” let us restrict ourselves to one specific opposition, the opposition between appearance and essence.
Appearance and Essence
"So, in Platonism, essence is more valuable than appearance. In deconstruction however, we reverse this, making appearance more valuable than essence. How? Here we could resort to empiricist arguments that show that all knowledge of what we call essence depends on the experience of what appears. But then, this argumentation would imply that essence and appearance are not related to one another as separate oppositional poles. The argumentation in other words would show us that essence can be reduced down to a variation of appearances (involving the roles of memory and anticipation). The reduction is a reduction to what we can call “immanence,” which carries the sense of “within” or “in. So, we would say that what we used to call essence is found in appearance, essence is mixed into appearance.
(Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)
Something else that I really enjoyed was this:
The Ghost of the Undecidable
"A decision begins with the initiative to read, to interpret, and even to calculate. But to make such a decision, one must first of all experience what Derrida calls “undecidability.” One must experience that the case, being unique and singular, does not fit the established codes and therefore a decision about it seems to be impossible. The undecidable, for Derrida, is not mere oscillation between two significations. It is the experience of what, though foreign to the calculable and the rule, is still obligated. We are obligated – this is a kind of duty — to give oneself up to the impossible decision, while taking account of rules and law. As Derrida says, “A decision that did not go through the ordeal of the undecidable would not be a free decision, it would only be the programmable application or unfolding of a calculable process”
(Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, pp. 24-26)
I just love the painstaking minutia of Derrida's ideas, and the capacity that exists to get completely lost in them. In saying they are romantic, I mean that they have this escapist, fantastic nature where one could meditate on them/in them almost indefinitely. I look forward to learning more about this topic, and reading Derrida's works and not just others' judgements of the work. And I especially look forward to being able to read them in French, as I believe that ideas and words so beautiful must be exponentially more enjoyable in the original language.
One last thing, that I cannot quote, because it is simply a residue left from the readings, is the idea that we are never really in the present, that we are constantly in memory or anticipation of our lives, that it is impossible to grab hold of the present, either thought experience or comprehension. I may be stretching this concept or altering it to fit my own presumptions, but I think it is a lovely, bittersweet, melancholy, beautiful idea. And I love that those opposites can exist so harmoniously together.
-SR Pegg
Nargiza Jumanova: Not impressed by Derrida’s "terroristic obscurantism"
Attracted by a highly promising title “Deconstruction” I did find nothing for myself besides of metaphysics, which Derrida used to describe everything he tried to criticize/analyze/deconstruct. He did not even manage to provide a definition for his theory stating that it is neither method, nor critique, nor even an analysis. What is it then? For me, just a plain negation of a text – don’t believe in text; each text is contradictory; an author uses the words, the meaning of which he does not know, or does not know what people know about these words. Consequently, an author does not even know that he contradicts himself in his text. It is very much like the alternative theory about physics: all physics laws are wrong because they are based on our senses and our senses are limited, and, therefore, wrong and nobody knows what truth is. We can only imply that there is truth somewhere and it is truth only because it is inconceivable.
I very much loved Foucault’s critique of him:
"Historically well-determined little pedagogy, which manifests itself here in a very visible manner. A pedagogy which teaches the student that there is nothing outside the text, but that in it, in its interstices, in its blanks and silences, the reserve of the origin reigns; that it is never necessary to look beyond it, but that here, not in the words of course, but in words as crossings-outs [sic], in their lattice, what is said is "the meaning of being". A pedagogy that inversely gives to the voice of the masters that unlimited sovereignty that allows it indefinitely to re-say the text."
And further:
"In order to be taken seriously by French philosophers, twenty-five percent of what you write has to be impenetrable nonsense."
Deconstruction: Do we need it, really?
Image from http://haildubyus.com
First thing, I would have to say that I am not blown away with Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida in general. Maybe I am not quite grasping the deep meaning behind Deconstruction or Derrida's philosophy, in fact, I am sure I am not, but I find it a little bit over-analytical and to be harsh, a little unnecessary. I started reading about it with a preconception, I must admit. However, it is hard for me to believe in a philosophy that can not be described fully, even by its creator:
"It is impossible to respond," Mr. Derrida said. "I can only do something which will leave me unsatisfied." But after some prodding, he gave it a try anyway. "I often describe deconstruction as something which happens. It's not purely linguistic, involving text or books. You can deconstruct gestures, choreography. That's why I enlarged the concept of text." Mr. Derrida did not seem angry at having to define his philosophy at all; he was even smiling. "Everything is a text; this is a text," he said, waving his arm at the diners around him in the bland suburbanlike restaurant, blithely picking at their lunches, completely unaware that they were being "deconstructed."
It made sense once I read a "real" description:"The term denotes a particular kind of practice in reading and, thereby, a method of criticism and mode of analytical inquiry. In her book The Critical Difference (1981), Barbara Johnson clarifies the term: "Deconstruction is not synonymous with "destruction", however. It is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word 'analysis' itself, which etymologically means "to undo" -- a virtual synonym for "to de-construct." ... If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text's critical difference from itself." [First paragraph of a four-page definition of the term deconstruction in J.A. Cuddon, A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, third ed. (London: Blackwell, 1991)]. However, I still can not see the point of why someone would feel the need to deconstruct a text. Do not get me wrong, I am not totally dissing the idea. I find it interesting even. I agree with the fact that when applied to literary criticism, it affects interpretations and that meaning "necessarily involves some degree of interpretation, negotiation, or translation. This necessity for the active interpretation of meaning by readers when language is understood as writing is why deconstruction takes place." However, I think that the statements below are taking this a step further to an unnecessary level of complexity:
The meaning of language does not originate in the thoughts of the individual language user because those thoughts are already taking place in a language that does not originate with them. Individual language users operate within a system of meaning that is given to them from outside. Meaning is therefore not fully under the control of the individual language user. The meaning of a text is not neatly determined by authorial intention and cannot be unproblematically recreated by a reader.
I am not saying that it won't help clarify some hidden meanings or what is lost in a text, or how a language works, but it seems to me like, it is "reading a little bit too much into things" especially when it does not provide a solution to eliminate the contradictions in texts. I can not help but wonder: do we need it, really?
HY
