Deconstruction disrupts a text from the inside out. (Cobussen)
This means that deconstruction operates from within a text, from within the vocabulary of the text that it deconstructs. It necessarily operates from the inside, borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of the subversions from the old structure, borrowing them structurally (cf. Of Grammatology, p.24). Derrida shows that every text is always permeated by multiple meanings. But this heteronomy is relegated to the background by the author, by a reader or by the context in such a way as to favor one meaning over another. Such manifestation of power is revealed and questioned in deconstruction. For that reason, deconstruction is not a discursive or theoretical 'play', but a practical-political affair; it is the taking of responsibility (cf. Music, Deconstruction, and Ethics).
Derrida's major criticism on logocentrism (on Western thought, in general) is its continuous attempt to control the other, (thereby) reducing it and merging it into the same. The other inspires us with fear because it cannot be reduced to the same; and so it needs to be counteracted. Derrida does not want to do away with traditional philosophy and logical-discursive language altogether; he acknowledges the value of rational discussion and the importance of reason. However, he wants us to be more susceptible for realms outside of that rationality, for moments where the discursive order is broken and invaded.
Derrida acknowledges that the desire to deconstruct may itself become a desire to actively re-appropriate the text through mastery, to show the text what it 'does not know'. He who deconstructs assumes that he at least means what he writes. But there is also an opposite side to the desire for deconstruction. By inaugurating the open-ended indefiniteness of textuality, we are given the pleasure of the bottomless, the joy of freedom (cf. Of Grammatology, p.lxxvii).
See Cobussen
This means that deconstruction operates from within a text, from within the vocabulary of the text that it deconstructs. It necessarily operates from the inside, borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of the subversions from the old structure, borrowing them structurally (cf. Of Grammatology, p.24). Derrida shows that every text is always permeated by multiple meanings. But this heteronomy is relegated to the background by the author, by a reader or by the context in such a way as to favor one meaning over another. Such manifestation of power is revealed and questioned in deconstruction. For that reason, deconstruction is not a discursive or theoretical 'play', but a practical-political affair; it is the taking of responsibility (cf. Music, Deconstruction, and Ethics).
Derrida's major criticism on logocentrism (on Western thought, in general) is its continuous attempt to control the other, (thereby) reducing it and merging it into the same. The other inspires us with fear because it cannot be reduced to the same; and so it needs to be counteracted. Derrida does not want to do away with traditional philosophy and logical-discursive language altogether; he acknowledges the value of rational discussion and the importance of reason. However, he wants us to be more susceptible for realms outside of that rationality, for moments where the discursive order is broken and invaded.
Derrida acknowledges that the desire to deconstruct may itself become a desire to actively re-appropriate the text through mastery, to show the text what it 'does not know'. He who deconstructs assumes that he at least means what he writes. But there is also an opposite side to the desire for deconstruction. By inaugurating the open-ended indefiniteness of textuality, we are given the pleasure of the bottomless, the joy of freedom (cf. Of Grammatology, p.lxxvii).
See Cobussen
No comments:
Post a Comment