Deconstruction & Poststructuralist Theories

Deleuze's Thinking

Buchanan and Marks (eds, 2001) address Deleuze's thinking, while Colebrook (2002) offers an explanation of the philosophical ideas behind his project. Deleuze was heavily influenced by thinkers like Nietzsche and Bergson, developing concepts such as the rhizome and the body without organs, which challenge traditional philosophical structures and hierarchies.

Deconstruction: Jacques Derrida

Derrida's 1966 paper, 'Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,' introduced a new critical movement, questioning the metaphysical assumptions of Western philosophy since Plato. He argues that the idea of 'structure' has always relied on a 'centre' of meaning that governs the structure but remains exempt from structural analysis. This 'centre' is desired because it secures being as presence. Deconstruction seeks to expose the inherent instability and contradictions within these structures by examining the underlying assumptions and hierarchies that support them.

For instance, we perceive our mental and physical existence as centered on an 'I,' a personality that unifies our experiences. However, Freud's theories challenge this certainty by revealing a division within the self between the conscious and unconscious. Western thought has developed principles like being, essence, substance, truth, form, beginning, end, purpose, consciousness, man, and God to act as centring principles.

Derrida acknowledges that it's impossible to think outside these terms, as any attempt to dismantle a concept risks being trapped by its dependencies. For instance, countering 'consciousness' with the 'unconscious' might create a new centre, as we're compelled to use the conceptual system we aim to displace. The solution is to resist allowing either pole in a system (e.g., body/soul, good/bad) from becoming the guarantor of presence. Derrida suggests that deconstruction is not about destroying these concepts but rather about understanding their limitations and the ways in which they shape our thinking.

This desire for a centre is termed 'logocentrism' in Derrida’s Of Grammatology. 'Logos,' meaning 'word' in Greek, represents concentrated presence in the New Testament: 'In the beginning was the Word.' As the origin of all things, the 'Word' supports the full presence of the world. Derrida argues that privileging speech over writing ('phonocentrism') is a classic feature of logocentrism, as spoken words seem closer to originating thought.

Différance

Derrida introduces 'différance' to describe the divided nature of the sign. The 'a' in 'différance' is silent in French, sounding like 'différence'. This ambiguity, noticeable only in writing, highlights that 'différer' means both 'to differ' (spatial concept) and 'to defer' (temporal concept). 'Differ' is spatial and indicates that the sign comes from a system of differences within the system itself. 'Defer' is temporal and indicates that signifiers cause a postponment of presence. Phonocentric thought dismisses 'différance' and emphasizes the self-presence of the spoken word, treating writing as a tainted form of speech.

Speech is often perceived as having a 'presence' lacking in writing, which seems to impose its system through physical marks. Writing can be repeated and reinterpreted, whereas speech is attributed a presence because it seems closer to the originating thought. Speech, associated with presence, seems less contaminated than writing because sounds disappear without a trace unless recorded. Philosophers have historically disliked writing, fearing it would undermine philosophic Truth by contaminating pure thought. However, qualities criticized in writing were originally developed for speech, illustrating a 'violent hierarchy' where speech is primary and writing secondary. This hierarchy, supported by Western philosophy to preserve presence, can be reversed to reveal that both speech and writing lack presence. Therefore speech is a type of writing.

This reversal is the initial step in Derridean 'deconstruction.' Deconstruction aims to destabilize these hierarchies by showing how the supposedly secondary term is always already present within the primary term, undermining its claim to priority.

Deconstruction: Philosophy vs. Literature, Literal vs. Figurative

Derrida parallels the questioning of speech and writing with an interrogation of the distinctions between 'philosophy' and 'literature,' and between the 'literal' and the 'figurative.'

Philosophy maintains its philosophical integrity by ignoring its own textuality, distancing itself from contamination. It regards ‘literature’ as mere fiction, dominated by figures of speech. By reversing the hierarchy of philosophy/literature, philosophy is placed sous rature or ‘under erasure’ ( philosophy) – philosophy is itself governed by rhetoric and yet is preserved as a distinct form of ‘writing’ (we still see ‘philosophy’ under the mark of erasure). This concept implies that philosophy, despite its claims to objectivity and truth, is always influenced by rhetorical and literary devices.

Reading philosophy as literature does not prevent us from reading literature as philosophy; Derrida refuses to assert a new hierarchy (literature/philosophy), although some Derrideans are guilty of this partial deconstruction. Similarly, we find that ‘literal’ language is in fact ‘figurative’ language whose figuration has been forgotten. However, the concept of the ‘literal’ is not thereby eliminated but only deconstructed. It remains in effect, but ‘under erasure’. Deconstruction, therefore, seeks to reveal the figurative nature of supposedly literal language, highlighting the ways in which meaning is always mediated by interpretation and context.

Supplement

Derrida uses the term ‘supplement’ to represent the relationship between couplets such as speech/writing. For Rousseau writing is merely a supplement to speech; it adds something inessential. Writing supplements and replaces speech, as speech is always already written. All human activity involves this addition-substitution. Similarly, the notion that 'nature' precedes 'civilization' is a violent hierarchy. There is no original nature, only a promoted myth. Milton's Paradise Lost appears to differentiate between good and evil. Good is original, from God. Evil is a supplement, contaminating unity. However, there are no 'good' acts by humans until after the Fall. Adam’s first act of sacrifice is an expression of love for the fallen Eve. This ‘goodness’ comes only after evil. God’s prohibition itself presupposes evil.

Deconstruction begins by identifying the hierarchy, reversing it, and resisting a new hierarchy. Blake and Shelley reversed the hierarchy, but a deconstructive reading sees that the couplet cannot be hierarchized without violence. Evil is both addition and substitution. Deconstruction starts when a text breaks its own rules. The concept of the supplement challenges the idea of a self-sufficient origin, suggesting that every origin is already supplemented by something else.

Three Characteristics of Writing

Derrida outlines three characteristics of writing:

1. A written sign is repeatable, regardless of the writer or addressee.

2. It can break its original context and be read in different contexts.

3. It is subject to 'spacing,' separated from other signs and present reference.

These characteristics distinguish writing from speech, implying irresponsibility due to signs being repeatable out of context. Derrida deconstructs this hierarchy by noting that interpreting oral signs requires recognizing stable signifiers, suggesting speech is a type of writing. This challenges the traditional view of writing as a derivative form of speech, arguing that both are subject to the same conditions of iterability and contextuality.

Speech Acts

J.L. Austin's theory of 'speech acts' challenges the logical-positivist view that only statements describing a state of affairs are meaningful. Austin distinguishes between 'constative' (referential statements) and 'performative' utterances (performing the action they describe). Derrida acknowledges that this makes a break with logocentric thought in that speech does not have to represent something to have a meaning.

Austin differentiates between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. He requires speech acts to have contexts, which Derrida questions by emphasizing the repeatability ('iterability') of the speech act is more fundamental that its attachment to context. Austin notes performative statements must be spoken 'seriously,' not as jokes or in plays. Derrida probes this, demonstrating a 'serious' performative requires a repeatable sign-sequence. Both pure and impure versions involve repetition and citation, typical of writing. Derrida's deconstruction of speech act theory highlights the ways in which meaning is always dependent on context and convention, undermining the idea of a purely self-present and intentional act of communication.

Derrida's Later Career and Influence

After 1966, Derrida became a prominent academic figure, teaching at Yale University and later in Paris. His work, though controversial, has significantly influenced various disciplines. It resists disciplinary boundaries by questioning the assumptions of those disciplines. Derrida describes the task of deconstruction as discovering the other of philosophy.

Derrida's influence extends beyond philosophy to fields such as literature, architecture, law, and political theory. His work has been both celebrated and criticized for its radical questioning of traditional assumptions and its emphasis on the instability of meaning.

Politics of Deconstruction

The political implications of deconstruction have been contentious. Critics argue his ideas deny material reality and human agency necessary for ethical engagement. His statement 'il n’y a pas de hors-texte' has fueled this reaction. Deconstruction has faced charges of formalism and political quietism, particularly from Marxism. Derrida addressed this in Spectres of Marx (1994), arguing deconstruction is a radicalization within Marxism.

Derrida's engagement with political theory reflects his concern with issues of justice, ethics, and responsibility. He argues that deconstruction can be a tool for challenging oppressive structures and promoting social change by revealing the inherent contradictions and exclusions within them.

Spectrality

Derrida introduces ‘spectrality’, utilizing spirits, apparitions, to break down oppositions between reality and absence. The spectre according to Derrida always returns. These ideas continue deconstruction’s critique of the metaphysics of presence and binaries in favor of différance.

The concept of spectrality highlights the ways in which the past continues to haunt the present, challenging the idea of a clear separation between presence and absence. It suggests that our understanding of reality is always shaped by the traces of what is no longer there.

Derrida's work emphasizes alterity and difference in philosophy, language, literature, and ethics. His focus on the other challenges us to think beyond traditional categories and to recognize the inherent limitations of our own perspectives.

American Deconstruction

American critics embraced Derrida, particularly Romantic specialists. Romantic poets were concerned about experiences of lost presence. Paul de Man argued that Romantic poetry invites deconstruction by revealing the presence they desire is always absent. De Man's Blindness and Insight (1971) and Allegories of Reading (1979) are works of deconstruction, and argues that critics achieve insight through blindness by using a method at odds with the insights it produces.

New Critics based their practice upon Coleridge’s idea of organic form. De Man believes insight-in-blindness is facilitated by a slide from one kind of unity to another. New Critics frequently discover unity in the act of interpretation. Criticism must be ignorant of the insight it produces. De Man's work challenges the possibility of objective interpretation, arguing that all readings are necessarily partial and incomplete.

Rhetorical Deconstruction

In Allegories of Reading, de Man develops 'rhetorical' deconstruction. 'Rhetoric' is concerned with 'tropes', which allow writers to say one thing but mean another. Tropes destabilize logic, denying straightforward language. De Man argues that literary texts depend on the suppression of the rhetoric used in passages. Language is figurative, not referential, and reference is contaminated. Reading is 'misreading' due to tropes, returning criticism to literature. De Man sees that literary texts are self-deconstructing and that a correct misreading tries to include the inevitable misreadings language produces.

De Man's focus on rhetoric highlights the ways in which language is always indirect and mediated, challenging the idea of a transparent and unproblematic communication. He suggests that literary texts are inherently self-deconstructing, as they inevitably undermine their own claims to meaning and coherence.

Hayden White

Hayden White has deconstructed historical writings, arguing that historians' narratives cannot escape textuality. Historical thinking is only possible in terms of tropes.

White's work has had a significant impact on the field of historiography, challenging the traditional view of history as an objective and factual account of the past. He argues that historical narratives are always shaped by the historian's own perspective and by the rhetorical conventions of the time.

Harold Bloom

Harold Bloom combined the theory of tropes, Freudian psychology, and cabbalistic mysticism. Poets fear that their poetic fathers have already used all of the inspiration. They experience and Oedipal hatred of the father and a desire to deny paternity. Poems always stand in relation to another. Poets must misread in order to create an imaginative space and so they can communicate their own authentic inspiration. Bloom uses Luria's three stages of revision: limitation, substitution, and representation. Strong poets pass through these stages dialectically, grappling with strong poets of the past.

Bloom charts how meaning is produced in Post-Enlightenment images. The tropes and defenses are interchangeable. Strong poets cope with the ‘anxiety of influence’ by adopting separately or successively six psychic defences. These appear in their poetry as tropes which allow a poet to ‘swerve’ from a father’s poems. The six tropes are irony, synecdoche, metonymy, hyperbole/litotes, metaphor and metalepsis. Bloom uses six classical words to describe the six kinds of relationship between the texts of fathers and sons (revisionary ratios): clinamen, tessera, kenosis, daemonization, askesis and apophrades. Bloom's theory of the anxiety of influence has been highly influential in literary studies, providing a framework for understanding the complex relationships between poets and their predecessors.

Geoffrey Hartman

Geoffrey Hartman sees criticism as inside literature, using other texts to underpin his discourse. Critical reading should reveal contradictions and equivocations to make fiction less readable. He rejects scholarly criticism in favor of poststructuralist rejection of science's ambition. Hartman attempts reconciliation as he admires and fears Derrida's theory.

Hartman's work blurs the boundaries between literature and criticism, arguing that critical writing is itself a form of literary expression. He emphasizes the importance of close reading and attention to the nuances of language, seeking to reveal the complexities and contradictions within literary texts.

J. Hillis Miller

J. Hillis Miller centers on deconstruction of fiction. He shows how the realism of Sketches by Boz is figurative. He shows how the metonymic comes to life in Boze's mind. He deconstructs Jakobson's opposition between metonymy and metaphor. A correct interpretation sees the figurative as figurative. Miller falls into the vice of incomplete reversal of a metaphysical hierarchy.

Miller's deconstructive readings of fiction challenge the traditional view of realism as a straightforward representation of reality. He argues that all literary texts are inherently figurative and that meaning is always dependent on interpretation and context.

Barbara Johnson

Barbara Johnson shows that texts set up differences to lure the reader into comprehension. She analyzed Barthes’ identifies in S/Z Barthes identifies and dismantles the masculine/feminine ‘difference’ in Balzac’s. Johnson shows that Barthes reduces a difference to an identity. Johnson makes this point not as a criticism of Barthes but as an illustration of the inevitable blindness of critical insight (to use de Man’s terms).

Johnson's work focuses on the ways in which literary texts construct and deconstruct binary oppositions, such as male/female, nature/culture, and self/other. She argues that these oppositions are never stable or fixed and that they are always subject to interpretation and reinterpretation.

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault believes discourse is involved in power and reduces political/economic forces to aspects of signifying processes. All knowledge is an expression of the Will to Power. There are no absolute truths. People recognize something as ‘true’ only if it fits descriptions laid down by authorities. Foucault is interested in the historical dimension of discourse.

In science, a theory is not recognized if it does not conform to the power consensus. To speak the truth, one must be 'in the truth'. In early work, Foucault found it difficult to find examples of Foucault's work explores the relationship between power, knowledge, and discourse, arguing that these are always intertwined. He examines how power operates through discourse to shape our understanding of the world and to regulate social behavior.