Abstract:
The presentation is a literature survey on Deconstruction and Literature which are available on the Internet. It explains that Deconstruction is a theory and a tool for critical analysis and defines its use as a theory used in study of literature or philosophy advocated by Jacques Derrida. The origin of Deconstruction is traced to the works of Heidegger whereas today the term Deconstruction is used in the most general way, though Derrida himself initially resisted its overarching usage. According to Derrida, Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded—supposedly showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. Deconstruction is seen as a very difficult concept for one to wrap his or her mind around. To grasp the essence of deconstruction, the first and essential step, is to gain a general picture of the linguistic theory essentially that propounded by Saussure. Derrida, accepting Saussure's observation that signs are arbitrary, deferential and relational, goes a step further than any other structuralist does, to investigate the diacritical nature of meaning. For Derrida, since every sign generates its distinctive meaning by way of difference and every sign is what it is because it is not all the other signs within the system, it follows that meaning is not immediately present in a sign; on the contrary, meaning is always in some sense absent from the sign. Deconstructive reading can be applied to any text. It is a theory of reading, not a theory of literature. Derrida generally deconstructs philosophical writing, showing the metaphysical contradictions and the historicity of writing which lays claim to the absolute. Deconstruction has overwhelmingly shaped the course of literary studies and has diverted the development of the literary theory. The very language of literary criticism has also been largely affected by deconstructive concepts. Key terms and phrases of deconstruction such as "logo-centrism," "differance," "supplement," "misinterpretation," and "reversal of hierarchies," have enriched the vocabulary of literary discussions. Deconstructionist criticism rejects the traditional assumption that language can accurately represent reality. Derrida rejects the Jakobsonian text whereby a message is sent horizontally to the addressee; the message having a vertical fixed contextual meaning. Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings, rather than being a unified, logical whole. Finally two sample cases of how Deconstruction can be done are presented – that of Hamlet and that of African Author Unyana Womntu. Key Words: Deconstruction, Structuralism, Literature, Literary / Literature Analysis, Literary Theory, Literary Criticism Introduction: Post the era of Structuralism, several literary theories have cropped up. One of such key theories is the concept of Deconstruction advocated by Jacques Derrida. Several articles and books have been written about the application of Deconstruction, not only in the field of literature, but also in many other fields. In this presentation a survey of the literature available on the internet on Deconstruction with emphasis on the field of literary theory is presented. What is Deconstruction? According to Muller, Deconstruction is a theory and tool for critical analysis which originated in 1960s and 1970s, forming part of a wider critical approach called “post-structuralism”. Deconstruction is chiefly concerned with something that lies at heart of and key to any critical approach viz. “language”. Deconstruction is interested in structures and workings of language itself; that is, in relationships and processes involved in our articulation and creation of the world around us. Central to the definition of Deconstruction are the relationships between language, meaning, and literature. Deconstruction Defined: The Oxford English Dictionary defines Deconstruction as: “deconstruction, n”: A method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression” In simple English, Deconstruction is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as: “a theory used in the study of literature or philosophy which says that a piece of writing does not have just one meaning and that the meaning depends on the reader”. In a more formal definition, Deconstruction is seen as: “a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers” Beidler (2010) defines Deconstruction as follows: “Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings, rather than being a unified, logical whole.” Origin of Deconstruction: Saenger says that Derrida’s main influence for the development of this theory was from the theorist, Martin Heidegger. In his work called “Being and Time”, Heidegger talks about “destructuring” of previous ontological concepts such as time, history, matter, etc. in order to better understand them. Derrida’s theory is similar to Heidegger’s in that he too wanted to rethink many of the terms commonly used in philosophical considerations, but Derrida took further steps in creating a workable theory. Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) as a form of philosophical and literary analysis is derived from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work of Grammatology. It is designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Derrida initially resisted granting to his approach the overarching name "deconstruction," on the grounds that it was a precise technical term that could not be used to characterize his work generally. Nevertheless, he eventually accepted that the term had come into common use to refer to his textual approach, and Derrida himself increasingly began to use the term in this more general way. Talking about the influence of Derrida, Encyclopedia Britannica says: “In all the fields it influenced, deconstruction called attention to rhetorical and performative aspects of language use, and it encouraged scholars to consider not merely what a text says but rather on the relationship—and potential conflict—between what a text says and what it “does.” In various disciplines, deconstruction also prompted an exploration of fundamental oppositions and critical terms and a reexamination of ultimate goals. Most generally, deconstruction joined with other strands of post-structural and postmodern thinking to inspire a suspicion of established intellectual categories and skepticism about the possibility of objectivity. Consequently, its diffusion was met with a sizeable body of opposition. Some philosophers, especially those in the Anglo-American tradition, dismissed it as obscurantist wordplay whose major claims, when intelligible, were either trivial or false. Others accused it of being ahistorical and apolitical. Still others regarded it as a nihilistic endorsement of radical epistemic relativism. Despite such attacks, deconstruction has had an enormous impact on a variety of intellectual enterprises.” The Concept of Deconstruction according to Derrida: From Wikipedia it is seen that: Deconstruction denies the possibility of a “pure presence”: "the present or presence of sense to a full and primordial intuition". It thus denies the possibility of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning and the unmediated access to "reality”. Derrida points that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs". Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says, is nothing but differences. Derrida terms logo-centrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning. Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": Signified over Signifier; Intelligible over Sensible; Speech over Writing; Activity over Passivity, etc. The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc., would be to overturn these oppositions. But it is not that the final objective of deconstruction is to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself, but this only points to "the necessity of an interminable analysis" that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts. Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position regarding all meaning, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively". To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. Derrida's method consisted in demonstrating all the forms and varieties of the originary complexity of semiotics, and their multiple consequences in many fields. His way of achieving this was by conducting thorough, careful, sensitive, and yet transformational readings of philosophical and literary texts, with an ear to what in those texts runs counter to their apparent systematicity (structural unity) or intended sense (authorial genesis). By demonstrating the aporias and ellipses of thought, Derrida hoped to show the infinitely subtle ways that this originary complexity, which by definition cannot ever be completely known, works its structuring and de-structuring effects. Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded—supposedly showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, in literary analysis, and even in the analysis of scientific writings. Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an "aporia" in the text; thus, deconstructive reading is termed "aporetic." He insists that meaning is made possible by the relations of a word to other words within the network of structures that language is. Per the article published by the Saylor foundation: “In the most general sense, Jacques Derrida’s notion of deconstruction questions the very structural foundations of Western thought by showing how such privileges particular terms, ideas, and concepts over others at the expense of meaning and truth. The sort of metaphysical notions that are analyzed through deconstruction are characterized, in essence, by the assumption that there are ultimate sources of meaning which are encoded throughout existence. Deconstruction tends to argue that every privileged term, idea, or concept depends upon a suppressed term for its meaning. Language, then, is considered to be an arbitrary and relative construct in the view of a deconstructionist. According to Derrida, languages—and texts, moreover— never contain full and precise meanings that can be fully realized. For a deconstructionist, a text is not itself quite a structure per se, but instead a chain of signs and symbols which serve to generate meaning, but none of those signs or symbols occupy a set and unchanging position or meaning within language. Deconstruction tends to contend that the textual world is ultimately unknowable through the textual act of philosophy, for language itself is not obedient and set. Deconstructionists claim, furthermore, that one’s individuality is itself a product of the linguistic structures— structures which exist before we do—which establish and assert our identities.” Difficulties in Understanding Deconstruction: The difficulty encountered by a reader in understanding the concept of Deconstruction is brought out nicely in the following comments taken from Saylor’s publication: “Deconstruction is, indeed, a very difficult concept for one to wrap his or her mind around. In fact, many textbooks and dictionaries of philosophy define the term and its meaning(s) in radically different manners. Perhaps, the best example of a deconstructive textual act can be found through a consideration of the various conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Since the time Kennedy was killed, various groups of scholars, journalists, and historians have questioned the official ruling that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as the lone murderer of Kennedy and assert that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. These conspiracy theorists, however, offer a wide range of different assertions and interpretations of the evidence provided about Kennedy’s assassination. Virtually all of these theories conflict with each other and focus upon the different ways in which the evidence at hand can be logically interpreted, in turn revealing the conflicting meanings that exist behind the language of the countless reports and pieces of evidence that have been assembled over the last several decades. These conspiracy theorists operate, essentially, as deconstructionists by drawing our attention to the plethora of often contradictory ways in which particular assertions/statements/facts/arguments takes from the assassination investigation can be understood and interpreted, in turn, highlighting the futility and impossibility of realizing any sort of inherent truth.” Understanding Deconstruction: Reading the publication from The Kaohsiung Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School which outlines the basics which are required to understand Deconstruction, one reads: “To grasp the essence of deconstruction, the first and essential step, accordingly, is to gain a general picture of the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure, on which structuralism bases its theoretical foundation. In his epoch-making Course in General Linguistics, Saussure first distinguished la parole (actual speech) from la langue (the structure or system that makes individual speech possible), insisting that the latter be the object of linguistic studies. Such a distinction between system and individual realization is crucial to the structuralist theory, for it puts a high premium on the set of rules or system that underlies language structure and this emphasis on the system of any structure is suggestive of the study of any particular human practice in like manner. Saussure's achievements and contributions lie in his unprecedented analysis of linguistic signs. In his view, a linguistic sign consists of two inseparable parts: the ‘signifier’ (a sound image or a graphic mark) and the ‘signified’ (a concept). However, there is no natural bond or inherent connection between the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’, the relation between which is an arbitrary one. The fact that in different language systems different sound images or marks are used to signify the same concept can clearly illustrate the arbitrary relations of linguistic signs. The other aspect, which is no less prominent than the former, of Saussurean notions of signs is that signs are deferential. A sign generates its meaning only as a result of its difference from other signs. That is to say, there is no intrinsic property of any sign. Or, a sign should gain its distinctiveness from differentiation. Take the sign "cat" for example. "Cat" functions to point to a specific signified in language system by virtue of its phonic differences from "bat," "mat" and all the others. Language is in this sense "diacritical or dependent on a structured economy of differences which allows a relatively small range of linguistic elements to signify a vast repertoire of negotiable meanings" (Norris). A sign does not possess meaning in itself. Rather, a sign operates as long as it preserves its difference and makes a distinction within the system. Besides being arbitrary and deferential, the meaning of a sign is also relational. Both ‘signifiers’ and ‘signifieds’ are "purely relational entities, products of a system of differences" (Culler, The Pursuit of Signs). When a sign is said to correspond to a certain concept, this concept is not purely defined by its positive content but by its relation with the other concepts expressed in negative terms in the system. In language paired opposites of concepts that mutually define each other are abundant. Each end of the polarity designates the absence of the characteristics possessed by the other end. Consequently, male can be efficiently and effectively defined as "not female" and female "not male." The same is so also true with the binary opposition of day and night. The concept of "day" by definition precludes "night," yet it has to call for the concept of night so as to assert its distinctiveness. Likewise, without the notion of "evil," "good" would merely be an absurd idea, since there were no contrasts or opposites against which the meaning of "good" is constructed. This common phenomenon in linguistic system that manifests the relational aspect of language leads Saussure to assert: "in language there are only differences without positive terms". Derrida, accepting Saussure's observation that signs are arbitrary, deferential and relational, goes a step further than any other structuralist does to investigate the diacritical nature of meaning and to consider Saussure's epoch-making declaration "in language there are only differences without positive terms" (Saussure) – (Emphasis mine). Since every sign generates its distinctive meaning by way of difference and every sign is what it is because it is not all the other signs within the system, it follows that meaning is not immediately present in a sign; on the contrary, meaning is always in some sense absent from the sign. The above-mentioned concepts of deconstruction expounded by Derrida and de Man benefit literary studies in that the deconstructionists, by interrogating the uncertainty and indeterminacy of language system, welcome different readings of literary works. Deconstructionists anticipate and celebrate the text's self-deconstruction, a final truth or transcendental meaning denied. Laying bare the narrative logic of a particular text and its implied presuppositions, practitioners of deconstruction endeavor to expose the fact that the text's narrative logic contradicts what it intends to assert. They show us that "a literary text is not necessary saying what it intends to say or even what it appears to say" and that "writing can never be governed by the intention and avowed aims of its authors" (Jefferson and Robey). By discerning the falsity of binary oppositions and a chink in the discourse, they effectively demonstrate the possible reversal of the hierarchy (Selden Practicing Theory). Thus they throw those unexamined axioms and truths into question, "unmask their pretenses, destabilize the hierarchies" (Bonnycastle) and make possible the text's liberation from oppressive authorities or the author's control over textual meanings. Texts in their interpretations can be used to support both readings of seemingly irreconcilable positions.” Attributes of literature in the Deconstructive view: As seen from the web-page of Brock University, English Department, the attributes of literature in the destructive view are: Literature is an institution, brought into being by legal, social and political processes; Literature is that which at the same time speaks the heart of the individual and which shows how the individual is made possible only by otherness, exteriority, institution, law, structures and meanings outside oneself; that literature is both (simultaneously) a singular, unrepeatable event and a generalizable experience, and demonstrates the tension/ antithesis between these -- as something which is original is also of necessity not original, or it could not have been thought. It is possible that texts which 'confess' the highly mediated nature of our experience, texts which themselves throw the reader into the realm of complex, contested, symbolized, inter-textual, interactive mediated experience, texts which therefore move closer than usual to deconstructing themselves, are in a sense closer to reality (that is, the truth of our real experience) than any other texts. This kind of text conforms to the kind of text known as 'literature' -- most clearly, to modernist literature, but to all texts which participate in one or more of the ironic, the playful, the explicitly inter-textual, the explicitly symbolizing -- from Renaissance love poetry to Milton to Swift to Fielding to Tennyson to Ondaatje. Reading these texts in the deconstructive mode is, however, not a matter of 'decoding the message'; it is a matter of entering into the thoughtful play of contradiction, multiple references, and the ceaseless questioning of conclusions and responses. The less a text deconstructs itself, the more we can and must deconstruct it, that is, show the structures of thought and assumption which ground it and the exclusions which make its meaning possible. The particular strategy of deconstructive reading is based on fissures in what we take to be the common-sense experience of texts and reality, and on reversals, oppositions and exclusions that are lying in wait in, or implicit in, signification and textuality. Application of Deconstruction in literature: According to Saenger, Deconstructive reading can be applied to any text. It is a theory of reading, not a theory of literature. Derrida generally deconstructs philosophical writing, showing the metaphysical contradictions and the historicity of writing which lays claim to the absolute. 'Literature' is a writing clearly open to deconstructive reading, as it relies so heavily on the multiple meanings of words, on exclusions, on substitutions, on inter-textuality, on filiations among meanings and signs, on the play of meaning, on repetition (hence significant difference). In Jakobson's phrasing, literature attends to (or, reading as literature attends to), the poetic function of the text. This, in (one guesses) a Derridean understanding would mean that the naive, thetic, transcendental reading of a text is complicated (folded-with) by a counter-reading which de-constructs the thetic impetus and claims. The more 'metaphysical' or universal and 'meaningful' a text, the more powerfully it can provoke deconstructive reading; similarly as 'reading as literature' implies a raising of meaning to the highest level of universality, 'reading as literature' also calls forth the potential for a strong counter-reading. As Derrida says, "the more it is written, the more it shakes up its own limits or lets them be thought." To look at how deconstruction is used in Literary Analysis – It is used as a tool in narrative analysis which starts with a very careful reading that looks for inconsistency and contradictions in the text. The results are often uncovering of a deeply complex foundation that is difficult to make sense of. This is one of the many criticism of Deconstruction, that it nihilistic and unproductive because it leads to uncertainty. Phases of Deconstruction: 1st Phase: Reverse the hierarchies so that the repressed is dominated. Ex: Writing is more valued than speech, so now speech is valued over writing. Argue to support the reversal with terms like “in” or “within” Speech is in writing. Writing is within speech. 2nd Phase: The previously devalued term now has an opportunity to have a hierarchy of its own. Impact of Deconstruction on literary theory: From the article appearing in the web-site of Kaohsiung Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School it is seen that, Deconstruction has overwhelmingly shaped the course of literary studies and has diverted the development of the literary theory. The very language of literary criticism has also been largely affected by deconstructive concepts. Key terms and phrases of deconstruction such as "logo-centrism," "differance," "supplement," "misinterpretation," and "reversal of hierarchies," have enriched the vocabulary of literary discussions. According to Robert Con Davis and Roland Schleifer, deconstruction is a strategy of reading and deconstructive reading starts from "a philosophical hierarchy in which two opposed terms are presented as the 'superior' general case and the 'inferior' special case". These opposed terms are too numerous to list but the most common dichotomies will definitely include good/evil, day/night, male/female, active/passive, and nature/culture. However, not all of them are "natural" oppositions; some might be considered "cultural," others "biological," and still others "thematic" (Green and Lebihan); namely, binary positions are not universal but culturally variable. Different cultures might assign various attributes to each term of the polarities and some dichotomies might belong to a certain culture only. For example, Yin and Yang are exclusively Eastern concepts, while Apollonian and Dionysian distinctions in literary representations originate from Greek mythology. Murfin and Supriya (1998) quoting Eagleton say that the Deconstructive criticism favors the employment of metaphysics as an important instrument for studying a work of literature. This metaphysical view sees literature functioning beyond the periphery but rather associates every human phenomenon with supernaturalism. Hence, the human quest for the utopia that is always the preoccupation of literature is the prerogative of such variables as drawing rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self and non-self, truth and falsity, sense and nonsense, reason and madness, central and marginal, surface and depth. Deconstruction and Literary Criticism: According to the publication by the English Department of Shandong University of Finance, China, Literary criticism is not an abstract, intellectual exercise; it is a natural human response to literature. Literary criticism is nothing more than discourse—spoken or written—about literature. The informal criticism of friends talking about literature tends to be casual, unorganized, and subjective. Since Aristotle, however, philosophers, scholars, and writers have tried to create more precise and disciplined ways of discussing literature. Literary critics have borrowed concepts from other disciplines, like linguistics, psychology, and anthropology, to analyze imaginative literature more perceptively. Some critics have found it useful to work in the abstract area of literary theory, criticism that tries to formulate general principles rather than discuss specific texts. Mass media critics, such as newspaper reviewers, usually spend their time evaluating works—telling us which books are worth reading, which plays not to bother seeing. But most serious literary criticism is not primarily evaluative; it assumes we know that Othello or “The Death of Ivan Ilych” is worth reading. Instead, it is analytical; it tries to help us better understand a literary work. Deconstructionist criticism rejects the traditional assumption that language can accurately represent reality. Language, according to deconstructionists, is a fundamentally unstable medium; consequently, literary texts, which are made up of words, have no fixed, single meaning. Deconstructionists insist, according to critic Paul de Man, on “the impossibility of making the actual expression coincide with what has to be expressed, of making the actual signs coincide with what is signified.” Since they believe that literature cannot definitively express its subject matter, deconstructionists tend to shift their attention away from what is being said to how language is being used in a text. Paradoxically, deconstructionist criticism often resembles formalist criticism; both methods usually involve close reading. But while a formalist usually tries to demonstrate how the diverse elements of a text cohere into meaning, the deconstructionist approach attempts to show how the text “deconstructs,” that is, how it can be broken down—by a skeptical critic— into mutually irreconcilable positions. A biographical or historical critic might seek to establish the author’s intention as a means to interpreting a literary work, but deconstructionists reject the notion that the critic should endorse the myth of authorial control over language. Deconstructionist critics like Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault have therefore called for “the death of the author,” that is, the rejection of the assumption that the author, no matter how ingenious, can fully control the meaning of a text. They have also announced the death of literature as a special category of writing. In their view, poems and novels are merely words on a page that deserve no privileged status as art; all texts are created equal—equally untrustworthy, that is. (Emphasis mine) Deconstructionists focus on how language is used to achieve power. Since they believe, in the words of critic David Lehman, that “there are no truths, only rival interpretations,” deconstructionists try to understand how some “interpretations come to be regarded as truth. A major goal of deconstruction is to demonstrate how those supposed truths are at best provisional and at worst contradictory. In conclusion the article says, Deconstruction may strike one as a negative, even destructive, critical approach, and yet its best practitioners are adept at exposing the inadequacy of much conventional criticism. By patient analysis, they can sometimes open up the most familiar text and find in it fresh and unexpected significance. Deconstruction as a critique of Structuralism: For Duka (2001), Derrida rejects the Jakobsonian text whereby a message is sent horizontally to the addressee; the message having a vertical fixed contextual meaning. He insists that the message/meaning dimension functions at the level of the Saussurean structural linguistics whereby the text is the signifier and its meaning the signified (fixed meaning). He argues that, if the sign is constituted of the signifier and the signified and the relation between signifier and its corresponding signified is conventional and arbitrary then each signifier does not naturally correspond to its own signified. It is only forced to operate on the basis of one-to-one correspondence. What actually happens then is that the signified is slipping below the bar resisting against fixed meaning. What then happens is that the sign (word) has no full meaning. It refers to other signs (words), which are different from it, in an attempt to acquire a full meaning. Derrida (Selden 1988:385-385) writes: Whether in the order of spoken or written discourse, no element can function, as a sign without referring to another element which itself is not simply present. This interweaving results in each "element" - phoneme or grapheme being constituted on the basis of the trace within it of the other elements of the chain or system. In order to explain the above, the word (sign) "ilulwane" (African Word for ‘bat’) must be scrutinized. This word must be described in terms of the other signs (words) to get its meaning. For instance a bat is a certain creature that looks like a bird as well as a mouse. In describing the word "ilulwane”, we refer to other words (signs) that are, creature, bird and mouse. If the sign "ilulwane" had full presence of meaning it would not be necessary to refer to other signs which are different from it. What this explanation above implies, is that, in Derridean terms, a sign as phoneme or grapheme (a word spoken or written respectively), has no full presence of meaning. Its fullness is being delayed (deferred) by trying to find it in a different (differer) grapheme(s) or phoneme(s). The signs (words) "creature", "bird" and "mouse" have traces of themselves in the sign "ilulwane", while the sign "ilulwane" has also its traces of its meanings in "creature", "bird" and "mouse". The definition: bat is a creature which is a bird as well as a mouse is no closed meaning because we need to give further meaning of the concepts of creature, bird and mouse respectively. This implies that the meaning of the word "ilulwane" is provisional, thus undecidable, because it is a trace that is scattered to infinity; this occurs in an endeavor to get a full presence of meaning. This should not be confused, by saying that a sign has no meaning. It can be seen that Derrida in his theory of meaning, is playing around with the words that help to coin "differance". This helps him to show that a text has a provisional meaning and will also look to other texts for a full meaning. Derrida is undermining the structuralist concept of meaning whereby a sign has its fixed referent. (Emphasis mine) Methodology: As seen from the Angelfire web-site, “Deconstruction is thought of by many scholars as being a very foreboding and exhaustive experience, the time and effort it take to understand this theory becomes worthwhile in the understanding of other postmodern theories that base their ideal principals on the work of Jacques Derrida. However the approach methodology according to Peter Barry says, poststructuralist and deconstructionists, do the following when reading and interpreting a text: • They read the text against itself so as to expose what might be thought of as the ‘textual subconscious’, where meanings are expressed which may be directly contrary to the surface meaning. • They fix upon the surface features of the words - similarities in sound, the root meanings of words, a ‘dead’ (or dying) metaphor and bring these to the foreground, so that they become crucial to the overall meaning. • They seek to show that the text is characterized by disunity rather than unity. • They concentrate on a single passage and analyze it so intensively that it becomes impossible to sustain a ‘univocal’ reading and the language explodes into ‘multiplicities of meaning’. • They look for shifts and breaks of various kinds in the text and see these as evidence of what is repressed or glossed over or passed over in silence by the text. These discontinuities are sometimes called ‘fault-lines’. According to Murfin and Supriya (1998) Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings, rather than being a unified, logical whole. As J. Hillis Miller, the preeminent American deconstructor, has explained in an essay entitled "Stevens' Rock and Criticism as Cure" (1976), "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air." Deconstruction in Practice: Here we see examples of how one can use the concept of Deconstruction in analysis of literature. Application in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (taken from the Saylor foundation free education initiative web-site):- A play as linguistically and creatively rich as Hamlet is ripe for a deconstructive reading. In fact, it can be argued that given the thousands of different theoretical approaches that Hamlet has been given, that the play itself is virtually self-deconstructive. A deconstructionist might focus on what seems to be a very slight or minor element of the play to demonstrate its innate contradictions and layers on meanings in order to offer further insight into Hamlet’s meanings, intentions, and creative context. For example, a deconstructionist might point to an apparent contradiction within the play: in Hamlet, Shakespeare suggests that Hamlet is a college student (which might place him in his late teens or early 20s) and also 30 years-old. Many critics have contended that this seeming discrepancy represents a mistake on Shakespeare’s part. A deconstructionist would probe this issue in-depth and point out a number of possible ways to interpret this seeming discrepancy, and argue, perhaps that Shakespeare never states that Hamlet is a college-age student (he might be a professor, a visiting student, a graduate student, or a minister) and that Hamlet himself never identifies himself as being 30. Or, what we conceptualize today as being the typical age for a college student might have been different in Elizabethan England or in the world in which Hamlet takes place, Shakespeare might have been suggesting that Hamlet ages in a metaphorical sense over the course of the play. This discrepancy in age might represent a trace of an earlier version of the play in which Hamlet was imagined by Shakespeare as being younger than he was in the later version. The number “30” was a code word used by King James VI (who might have been an influence on Shakespeare’s characterization of Hamlet), so Shakespeare might have chosen 30 as Hamlet’s age in order to allude to King James VI, and so on. Deconstructive interpretations are rarely definitive, instead they seek to always problematize a text’s meaning and suggest the depths to which a text operates. Analysis and interpretation of Unyana Womntu (from Duka’s (2001) Phd thesis) This novel opens up with the binary opposite ndoda/mfazi (husband/wife). In Xhosa culture, the virtuous qualities are associated with man, whilst the vices with woman, for instance, a mentally dull child will be assumed to have inherited his/her mother's family low I.Q. This assertion will be pronounced even if research result questions its validity. If the child is brilliant, it will be claimed that he/she inherited his/her father's high I.Q. This claim is pronounced regardless of the father's real aptitude. However, the Xhosa logo-centrism that takes the concepts -ndoda (husband) and -mfazi (mfe) as naturally the concepts that represent reality, places the first term in the binary opposition ndoda/mfazi in a position closely associated with superiority, intelligence, cool-headedness, independence, head of family, brave, strong etc. Whilst the second term is closely associated with inferiority, emotionality, irrationality, dependent, subordinate, etc. Bantu, the man, is described as: Wayengumfo ozolileyo onesidima naxa selede wakunikela umva. Umjongile, amehlo akhe ayexela ingqondo ezinzileyo ...... (P-7) (He was a man who was cool-headed and dignified, even if he turns his back towards you. When you look at him, his eyes indicated a stable mind). The above extract depicts Bantu, Dora's husband as cool-headed, dignified and stable. However, on further reading, Dora, the wife, is implicitly portrayed as rude, emotional, irrational and unstable. She answers the telephone rudely when she says: "Ngubani lowo ndingakunceda ngantoniV (P. 1) ("Who is that, how can I help you?") Dora is an educated person, but decides to ignore the rules of polite use of the telephone. When talking she is just throwing her voice. This is evidence: ................, uligibisele okwamanzi anentsila (P. 7) (..............., she throws her voice like water full of dirt) From the extracts quoted above, it can be seen that the novel, in respect to the binary opposition -ndoda/mfazi generates the binary opposition: cool-headed/unstable; rational/irrational, polite/rude etc. However, on further reading the novel, it generates the opposite pairs: success/failure; accountant/alcoholic; and independent/dependent. In all the binary oppositions above, the male is described in positive terms whilst the female is described in negative terms. This description operates on the Saussurean level whereby each term has a fixed meaning. This means binary opposition functions at the level of the signified. The Xhosa culture purposefully does that to put man at the position of power over the woman. The Xhosa culture uses such binary oppositions to construct a patriarchal society. The binary oppositions are culturally propagandistic at the expense of the female's social status. The novel at its initial stage is a readerly text because it functions upon the basis of the primacy of the signified. The extract strengthens and deepens this claim: "Xa kucaca ukuba akusazimisele kwaphela ukuba ngumfazi warn, ithetha loo nto ukuba akusekho lutho emtshatweni wethu," (P. 17) ("If you are not at all prepared to be my wife, then that means that there is nothing in our marriage"). The central concept in the extract is ngumfazi (be wife). It is used in the extract as meaning to be the subordinate of the husband. Bantu is using it in the sense that Dora must submit to his authority and lead life the way he, Bantu, indicates to her. Dora questions subtly the perception that man in marriage is the superior, the head, and he will always dictate terms in respect to the status of the marriage. When she says she is not a fool {andisosihiba) (P.l 1), she implicitly suggests that it is only a fool that accepts the notion that, in marriage, man is the senior partner who will "arrest" and "judge" the other partner. The novel is beginning to question the Xhosa culture's evaluation attached to the binary opposition -ndoda/-mfazi (husband/wife). The novel is starting to be a writerly text. This means that the novel is starting to demand of the reader to be a producer rather than the consumer of the text. The reader should create a crisis upon the traditional reading of the text which operates on the basis of the signified by reading the novel endlessly disseminating meaning as signifiers that point to each other in search of the full presence of meaning. The term -ndoda (husband) is a signifier. It lacks full presence just as the term -mfazi (wife) does. Xhosa phallocentricism, is to say -ndoda (husband) is superior than -mfazi (wife). This tends to be dominant in the novel. The police, lawyers, successful businessmen, judges, journalists and prosecutors are all men in the novel. These are all positions of trust which, in terms of Xhosa culture, must be occupied by men, because men are intelligent, rational, stable etc. On reading further, it is discovered that the novel falsifies the binary opposition stable/emotional. This occurs when Bantu, on his arrest, accused of killing his wife Dora, with Mngombeni and Bonakele moving towards the police car, suddenly attacks Mngombeni. This incident shows that man can be described also as emotional. This can be contrasted with Noziqhamo's cool-headedness when she has been on "house detention" guarded by a policeman whilst Bantu is hiding on the riverbank near her house. The contrast reverses the binary opposition male/female to female/male with the corresponding binary opposition stable/emotional. The Xhosa logocentrism is exposed. The novel is thus deconstructing itself The last paragraph rejects the cultural notion that man is stable and woman emotional. It takes the words man and stable as signifiers. The signifier man is tracing for its meaning in the signifier stability which in turn searches its own meaning in the concept of emotionality. It can be said then that man is stable, and by stability it is meant to be less of emotionality. This can mean "stable" does not exclude "emotional" but rather stability is tracing its meaning in emotionality on the basis of the differance. The novel, by having the female character Noziqhamo as a university lecturer in political science, deconstructs itself. It falsifies the view that the female is of inferior intelligence in comparison to man and thus she cannot hold positions of trust and status as that of a university lecturer. The novel shows that the two detectives, Mngombeni and Bonakele are less intelligent than Noziqhamo who is able to prove, beyond doubt, that Bantu is innocent. The reaction of Bonakele and Mngombeni to the case is emotional. Even the Supreme Court prosecutor leads the state evidence, without convincing facts, for Bantu to be sentenced to death (P. 5 8) The above paragraph proves that the literary text deconstructs itself. Noziqhamo the female is shown to be intelligent whilst the policemen as male representatives are stupid. The binary opposition male/female is reversed to female/male to generate the binary opposition intelligent/stupid. That which in Xhosa culture is known to be intelligent is shown by the literary text to be stupid. The two irreconcilable terms are used to describe the same body. This creates undecidability in the text. As a result, the text refuses to produce a closed meaning, but instead, a discourse, about intelligence and stupidity with respect to both male and female ensues. Furthermore, the state prosecutor and the judge agree that Bantu is the culprit who killed Dora. Then judgment is not based on the fact that all evidence in the case proves beyond doubt that Bantu is the killer. Conclusion: Again as Duka (2001) concludes: • Derridean deconstruction is primarily a philosophical reading strategy, but has been assimilated in literature to read literary texts. • The basic terms of Derridean deconstruction are differance, trace, arch-trace, arch-writing, logo-centrism, phonocentrism, text, intertext, undecidability, supplement, graphemes and phonemes. • Differance is a condition of possibility of textual meaning. • Differance questions and undermines the traditional and structuralist closed meaning. It rejects closure. • Grammatology is the method, which the Derridean deconstruction uses to analyze and interpret a literary text. -O- References Angelfire web-site. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/rcusson/papers/decon2.html Barry, Parry. Beginning Theory, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Manchester) Beidler, Peter (ed.) Deconstruction’, The Turn of the Screw. Boston: Bedford/ St Martin’s, 2010, p.408 Brock University. https://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.php Dictionary, Concise Oxford English. ‘deconstruction, n.’Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. ‘deconstruction’. http://merriam-webster/dictionary/deconstruction Duka M.M.M. “Contemporary Literary Theory: A Critique of Saule’s Three Isixhosa’s Novels”. University of South Africa, PhD thesis. Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic155306/deconstruction/222929/ Deconstruction-in-literary-studies Kaohsiung Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School, http://lib.kshs.kh.edu.tw/lib/journals/journals-94/P145.pdf Muller, Nadine. Theory-Deconstruction-Lecture-Handout. http://www.nadinemuller.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Theory-Deconstruction-Lecture-Handout.pdf Murfin, Ross and Ray, Supriya M. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. Copyright 1998 Bedford Books. Saenger, Samantha. Deconstruction: A Literary Theory Saylor organization. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ENGL301-CP-FINAL.pdf Shandong University of Finance. http://www2.sdfi.edu.cn/netclass/jiaoan/englit/criticism.htm Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
0 Comments
|
AuthorCyril Fernandez ArchivesCategories |