Flipped learning of Deconstruction

Hello everyone,

This blog is response of the task assigned by Professor Dilip Barad sir. This is flipped learning task in which we have to do self study through given videos and materials. So this blog is about my understanding of the given videos. So let's start with the introduction of the Derrida,

Who is Derrida?

Jacques Derrida was an Algerian-born French philosopher best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction, which he analyzed in numerous texts, and developed in the context of phenomenology. He is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy.

During his career, Derrida published more than 40 books, together with hundreds of essays and public presentations. He had a significant influence on the humanities and social sciences, including philosophy, literature, law, anthropology, historiography, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, architecture, and political theory.

What is Deconstruction?

Deconstruction doesn't actually mean "demolition" instead it means "breaking down" or analysing something especially the words in a work of fiction or nonfiction to discover its true significance, which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended. 

The term deconstruction refers to approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. It was originated by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who defined it as a turn away from Platonism's ideas of "true" forms and essences which take precedence over appearances, instead considering the constantly changing complex function of language, making static and idealist ideas of it inadequate. 

My understanding of this videos:-

Video -1

In the very first video speaker give the idea about why is it difficult to define deconstruction, why is it a not negative term and how deconstruction happen it's own.

1)Why is it difficult to define deconstruction? 

Darrida denied to deconstruct any work. And he put a question that it is possible to define? and Derrida become very difficult philosopher to read and the one reason is that why it is difficult to define.

2)Why is it a not negative term?

Derrida said this is not destructive activity and breaking down something for sake of deconstruction but Derrida inquiring into the condition - what are the condition which make philosophical or intellectual system possible, basically he is inquiring.

How deconstruction is not a negative term:- 

Deconstruction is not destructive activity but an inquiry into the foundations causes of intellectual system, one reason why it is not negative term.

This is from Heidegger's project of destruction which he transformed into french from German and that is what he explained in the Latter to a Japanese friend" to July, 1983 To Professor Izutsu.  He want to transformed  French text of Derrida into Japanese and so he wants to know how to translate.

3)How deconstruction happen it's own?

 Once you consider it's not deconstruction but an inquiry into the limits of Philosophical System it's coherence then we see that the condition which Produced a Philosophical system -

'The very condition Derrida argue is based on distinction or binary oppositions'

Video -2 :-

In this video speaker talked about the Heidegger's influence on Derrida and Western philosophy.

-The seeds of deconstruction sprouted from Martin Heidegger.(1889-1976).

Martin Heidegger, Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche - three famous thinkers.

Heidegger and his philosophy deals with the theme which Derrida continued in his own philosophy.

The term 'Destruction' in German translated as 'Deconstruction' in French - is one of the many direct connections between Heidegger & Derrida  so this is direct connection.

Heidegger pointed out that the western tradition of philosophy avoided or repressed or neglected the question of being of beings he implies entities like this microtable or person but western philosophy refused to look at the mode of their existence.

-Heidegger wanted to destroy or dismantle the entire tradition of western philosophy by persuing the question of being of beings.

Famous book - 'Being and time' German sein und zeit' 1927 by Martin Heidegger. 

Book about the project of transforming western people think and Derrida continued this project.

-Theme of language:-

Heidegger pointed out that it is Language who speaks not man. 'Man is decentered from the language'.    Meaning is product of language - language displace the man this we find in Heidegger as well as in Nietzsche's philosophy also.

Derrida argue that the whole question of writing is neglected and repressed in entire tradition of western thought. Focus of language is on writing rather than speaking so what happens here Derrida is criticizing Heidegger - tendency is speech rather than write - Derrida called it phonosentricism is a menifestation of 'logocentricism' of the western metaphysics the tendency to privilege presence over absence.

Question:- what is difference between 'phonocentricism' and 'logocentricism'?

Video:-3 

1)How Derrida deconstrucs the idea of arbitrariness metaphysics of presence.

Ferdinand de Saussure( 1857- 1913)

(Course in general linguistic)

Saussure's writing is that the relationship between word and it's meaning it is natural but conventional for example word - sister - has no natural relationship with the person or human being. 

 "What connects a word with it's meaning or as signal with it's meaning is the convention and the convention is always social."

So he implied that arbitrariness means any word can be used to talk about anything technically but what connects a word with it's meaning or a signal with it's meaning is the convention and convention is always social and it by concious that kind of word and meaning gets connects.

Derrida says that meaning of a word is usually thought of as something in our mind in such are but Derrida points out that meaning of word is nothing but another word.

Metaphysics of presence logocentricism & phonocentricism' is another term taking from Heidegger - what he pointed out by metaphysics of presence is when we consider to being of something - for example The word table - we always connectingn it with presence and what Heidegger was questioning association to being with presence when you want to say something exists you can say 'is'  so it is proofe of it's existence.

Western philosophy is built on the  binary oppositions just like human language, there is no positive element in language but only negative one - Saussure.

 'Presence of something can be understood as absence of something'.

For example what is women - women is seen as absence of the manliness.

 Good v/s evil - binary oppositions then evil is which lacks goodness and what is good , good is something which lacks evil.

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.

Derrida is actually criticising social system because the way Language is used.

Video:- 4 

Derridian concept of 'Differance'

Difference does not have audible difference thus it becomes difficult to understand.

Every common activity which most of the us are familiar with that is referring dictionary. For example - the word intrest 

And there we find meaning - interest is noun which means you know one more thing about intrest, another word is attraction that is another meaning and third meaning is hobby.

What Derrida is questioning is, what do you mean by understand and   he draw the attention to the fact that what we looked in dictionary and what we find is not it's meaning but a group of another word. One word leads to the another word and that word leads to yet another....and finally we never come out of the dictionary - so there is no final word to any word.

Derrida said that we assumed that we have understand. 

Meaning is always postponed-  so final meaning of the word is myth according to Derrida and you can never reach to the final meaning.

Derrida combines two terms - differ and defer - because in French one word is use to implied both that is to differer.

'You can never pronounce it differently you can only spell it differently'.

Derrida is drawing attention towards difference between speech and writing. He questions privilege of speech over writing. And that's why we never hear difference we only read difference.

Difference is not an idea or a concept but a force which makes differentiation posible which makes postponing possible - communication is possible made by difference.

In western philosophy assumed that the final meaning can be grasped and that final meaning what they called 'Transcendental signified '  Derrida called it symptom of metaphysics of presence.

It is both negative and positive at the same time difference is neither positive nor negative.

Phonocentricism is the tendency in the western philosophy to privilege speech over writing. Writing is practice of absence , speaking is practice of presence- and that is called phonocentricism.

Of grammatology (1967) french - De la Grammatogle the English translation by Gayatri chakravarti Spivak  (1976) corrected editing republished in 1997.

Writing as primarily and speeking as secondary.

Video:- 5

Structure , sign &play in the discourse of the human sciences.

'Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.  This sentence is what deconstruction all about.

The essay structure, sign and play   is one of the very important documents of the contemporary literary theory known as post structuralism in 1967 by post structuralism we doesn't mean outright rejection or criticism of structuralism but going beyond by critiquing structuralism so the essay is actually a critique of Claude Lavi Strauss 1908- 2009 french anthropologist  ' who made structuralism very popular.  structural anthropology '1958' what he implies here is that structuralism when it began it began as criticism or attack on metaphysics on one hand or science on another. Science 8s predominant way of getting knowledge in the west.

The centre is paradoxically within the structure and outside it… the totality "has it's centre elsewhere" the centre is not centre.

Structuralism began as critique of assumption of science as well as metaphysics but what Derrida is questioning is how come then Lavi Strauss  using the same assumption so he is saying that how assumption and criticism of science is same. 

So why this happens Derrida said that 

Derrida pushes the established  notion of the centre to the point of 'rupture ' in the history of thought on structurality .

So he gave Examples of past how Nietzsche criticized the earlier tradition of western philosophy and Heidegger said that Nietzsche is the last critic of tradition and Derrida said that Nietzsche was last so what happens to tradition  is that Tradition using the same assumption that tradition is using. So what happens whenever you final meaning of the word ultimate meaning is postponed is never there to take. Derrida said that it happened because of the language because meaning is always postponed and you never catch the final meaning. And there is always something missing so language demands critic so any philosophical statement contain blind spot which asked for criticism and this applies on deconstruction also so deconstruction also falls to prey to metaphysics and so most of the time deconstructive writing is auto critical deconstructive writing most of the time auto critical. Its question itself ongoingly because when you question western tradition you question yourself so autocratic.

For Derrida, it was necessary to begin thinking that there was no center, that the center could not be thought in the form of a present-being, that the center had no natural site, that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of non locus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions came into play. This rupture. This deconstruction of the centre thus created a world where "the absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of signification infinitely".

Video:- 6

The Yale school hub of practitioners of deconstruction in literary theories.

The characteristics of the Yale school of deconstruction.

During 1970s, the Yale school has been the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories

Yale University and department of Yale has very important role in propagation of Derrida's idea in America and consequently in whole world earlier post structuralism and Derrida were confined to continental tradition of European philosophy with deconstruction going into Yale it became kind of real new theme breaking on the scene after new criticism this was something which were new than new criticism so it's became very fashionable and people associated with this department the four names 1 Paul de man 1919 - 1983 , j Hills Miller 1928, Harold Bloom, Geoffrey Hartman this four people made deconstruction very popular or unpopular we can say in America in fact it became notorious so as the people also titled them as Yale hermeneutic mafia of four people but if we look at the four people they are different in their occupation , in their preoccupation with literary criticism but at first time deconstruction became a school of literary criticism because of yale. Yale school is responsible for bringing deconstruction in literary criticism in a big way.

Some important characteristics:-

Looking at literature as primarily a rhetorical and figurative construct, they argue that Language is full of figurative components. Language is a very unreliable tool for communication of meaning. For example when I say someone an Ass so what I mean figuratively or characteristically. So what figurative language does is that it puts language as a very problematic entity.

 So these four critics focused on this figurative components of literature.

 Firstly looking at literature as rhetorical or figurative construct.

They showed that literature can create multiplicity of meaning by focusing on various figures of speech.

Secondly, they question both the aesthetic as well as formalist approach to literature; and also question the historicist or sociologist approach to literature.

They said that language does not take you directly to the society or outside of the language so language is not a transparent medium of communication so what makes it non-transparent is figurative components so what's they argue?

Secondly, what we understand through the aesthetic pleasure that we derive from literature is when we mistake in prodemand word multiplicity of signified and multiplicity of signifier when we say red red rose then rose comes in our mind.

 This is preoccupation with romanticism  

They often read romantic texts which have different kinds of meanings than what we were taught to read. For example romanticism characterised by metaphor and symbols.

In 'Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism' (1971) Paul de Man sought to deconstruct the privileging of symbol over allegory and metaphor over metonymy in Romantic thought. 

Video:-7 

How other critical school like new historicism , cultural materialism , feminism, Marxism & post colonial theories used deconstruction.

So Yale school was primarily preoccupied with theoretical and figurative analysis of literary criticism of text and in demonstrating that Literary text has multiple range of meanings was one of the most important preoccupation of Yale school as against that other critical approaches like cultural materialism feminism, gender theory, post colonial studies , new historicism, Marxism , psychoanalysis all of the have been influenced by Derrida's writing.

Postcolonial theories: fascinated by its ability to show that the texts or the discource of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narratives.

Feminist theories: interested because it deals with how to subvert the binary between male and female-to subvert patriarchal discourse.

Deconstruction provide tools for supporting this patriarchal setup or patriarchal discourse so faminist are interested in deconstruction and its ability to undermine patriarchy.

'The text is historical , and history is textual'

Cultural materialists: interested in it to emphasize the materiality of language-language is material construct and unmask the hidden it has got ability to

ideological agendas.

As Derrida keeps on emphasizing that the language is material constructed and it has ability to unmask the hidden ideological agendas and programs so cultural materialism also uses many ideas from Derrida. New historicism is also influenced by deconstruction and what Louise Montrose one of very important new historist says that new historicism is interested in reciprocal concern between textuality of history and historically of text so what he means to say is that text itself is a historical entity it has got historical context it's shaped by history and at the same time we understand that history is also through text, we never have history without text.

So this is what I understood from this videos. I hope my blog is useful to you:-)