Derrida asking : Is it possible to define something? What are the limits or to what extent can we define something? He also refuses to define it saying that like all other terms that we use in philosophy or literary criticism for that matters. Deconstruction cannot be once and for all finally defined.
Deconstruction is not exactly a negative term. In fact it is not a negative term. Actually, Derrida is inquiring in to the condition or what causes philosophical system or meaning to stand up on its own and fall down. He is inquiring into the foundation.
In a sense that the conditions which give 'meaning' to the system, that very conditions put a limit to it. So, when the foundations of meanings are inquired, it breakfree the limitations. Thus, an inquiry into foundations destroys the institution. So we can say that deconstruction happens on its own.
Video : 2
The discussion centers on the philosophical connections between Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida, particularly regarding the origins and development of deconstruction. Heidegger is identified as a key precursor whose ideas laid the groundwork for Derrida’s philosophy. Heidegger critiques Western philosophy's neglect of the question of "being of beings" the mode of existence of entitieswhich he believes has been repressed or avoided throughout the tradition. His ambitious project, especially articulated in Being and Time, aims not only to transform philosophy but also the Western way of thinking itself. Derrida builds on Heidegger’s project, continuing the critique and dismantling of Western philosophy, but shifts focus towards language, specifically the concept of writing.
Unlike Heidegger, who emphasizes language as speech, Derrida argues that Western thought privileges speech over writing, a bias he terms "phonocentrism," which is part of a broader metaphysics of presence or logocentrism. Derrida’s project of deconstruction involves displacing these traditional hierarchies and reinventing the language of philosophy. The conversation also highlights the post-structuralist theme of language "speaking" rather than man speaking, which decouples the centrality of the human subject in philosophical inquiry, a notion both Heidegger and Derrida explore. Thus, Derrida’s deconstruction is a continuation and critique of Heidegger’s philosophy, focusing on language’s role and challenging foundational Western metaphysical assumptions.
Video : 3
An insightful exploration of Jacques Derrida’s critique of traditional linguistic and philosophical concepts, particularly focusing on the ideas of arbitrariness in language, metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, and phallocentrism. It begins by discussing Ferdinand de Saussure’s foundational linguistic theory that the relationship between words and their meanings is arbitrary and conventional rather than natural. Derrida builds on this by challenging the notion that meanings are fixed mental entities, instead suggesting that meaning is always relational and deferred, encapsulated in his concept of “difference.”
The discussion then shifts to the metaphysics of presence, a philosophical idea primarily derived from Martin Heidegger, which critiques Western philosophy’s tendency to equate being with presence. For instance, the existence of an object is often tied to its immediate presence or “is-ness,” such as saying “this table is.” Derrida extends this critique by explaining how Western thought privileges presence over absence through binary oppositions such as man/woman, good/evil, light/darkness where the “present” term is considered superior and the “absent” or secondary term is marginalized.
This privileging of presence in language and thought is called logocentrism by Derrida, reflecting a deep-seated bias toward speech (logos) as the primary and most authentic expression of meaning. Phallocentrism is introduced as a specific subset of this bias, where male sexuality (phallus) symbolizes power and presence, leading to the systemic marginalization of women and the feminine in both language and society. Derrida’s critique reveals that these biases are not just social but are embedded in the very structure of language itself, making them difficult to dismantle.
Overall, the video offers a dense yet clear explanation of Derrida’s deconstructionist approach, which aims to expose and challenge the hidden assumptions underpinning Western philosophy and language, particularly the metaphysics of presence and the hierarchical binaries that sustain social inequalities.
Video : 4
The complex philosophical concept of "difference" as introduced by Jacques Derrida, particularly his critique of traditional understandings of meaning, language, and presence in Western philosophy. The discussion begins with a common example of looking up a word in the dictionary such as "interest"to illustrate the problematic nature of meaning. Derrida challenges the idea that words have fixed meanings by showing how each word’s meaning refers to other words, leading to an infinite chain of signifiers and the postponement of ultimate meaning. This endless deferral prevents any final, absolute understanding of a word or concept, revealing meaning as perpetually deferred rather than fixed.
Derrida’s pun on the French word “différer,” which simultaneously means both "to differ" and "to defer." This dual meaning encapsulates his argument that meaning is both differentiated (distinguished by differences) and deferred (postponed indefinitely). Derrida’s concept of "différance" (with an "a") thus becomes a force enabling differentiation and deferral in language, communication, and meaning-making. It is not a positive or negative entity but a paradoxical force that both makes meaning possible and prevents its final closure.
The discussion also touches on Derrida’s critique of Western philosophy’s privileging of speech over writing, known as "phono-centrism," and its connection to "logocentrism," the belief in a transcendental, stable meaning or presence. Speech is traditionally viewed as immediate and present, whereas writing is associated with absence and distance. Derrida challenges this hierarchy by arguing that writing is primary and speech is derivative, thus overturning long-held philosophical assumptions. The concept of différance underpins this critique by exposing the instability and deferral of meaning in both speech and writing.
Video : 5
Derrida’s claim that “language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique” reveals a fundamental paradox language is both the medium of critique and the source of assumptions that limit critique. This means that any critical discourse is inherently incomplete and self-undermining, as it relies on the very structures it seeks to deconstruct. The inescapability of these linguistic structures necessitates ongoing critique, highlighting the dynamic and unstable nature of meaning.
The example of Nietzsche being called the “last metaphysician” by Heidegger, only for Derrida to similarly label Heidegger, illustrates the circularity in philosophical critique. This recursion underscores Derrida’s point that critique is never external or absolute but always embedded within the tradition it critiques. This challenges the notion of objective, external critique and emphasizes the embeddedness of all philosophical inquiry within inherited assumptions.
Derrida’s concept of “différance” (difference and deferral) is central to understanding why ultimate meaning is unattainable. Meaning is always postponed, never fully present or fixed, which disrupts the quest for final or authoritative interpretations. This deferral underpins the instability of language and meaning, continuously opening up new possibilities for interpretation and critique.
The discussion briefly references Buddhist philosophy’s critique of Vedanta to illustrate how critiques often end up echoing what they oppose, a phenomenon not unique to Western thought. This cross-cultural example broadens the relevance of Derrida’s insight, suggesting that the dilemma of critique within inherited traditions is a universal feature of philosophical inquiry, shaped by the limitations of language itself.
Video : 6
The Yale School was instrumental in adapting Derrida’s deconstruction from a European philosophical context to a practical methodology within literary studies, making it accessible and influential in the American academic landscape. This transition broadened the scope and impact of deconstruction, allowing it to challenge established critical traditions like New Criticism. The school’s most prominent figures Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom, and Geoffrey Hartman were collectively known as the “Yale Hermeneutic Mafia,” a group whose diverse approaches nonetheless unified under the banner of deconstruction.
The main characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction. First, the school's theorists emphasize literature as a rhetorical and figurative construct, positing that language is inherently unreliable for conveying fixed meanings due to its figurative nature. This unreliability leads to a multiplicity of interpretations, as demonstrated through examples like metaphorical language where literal and figurative meanings clash.
Second, the Yale School challenges both the aesthetic/formalist and historicist/sociological approaches to literature. They argue that language is not a transparent medium that directly reflects reality or society but rather a material form that creates illusions of meaning. The aesthetic pleasure derived from literature is seen as an illusion caused by confusing the materiality of language (signifier) with what it signifies (signified). This critique unsettles both those who study literature for its social context and those who value it primarily for aesthetic experience.
Third, the Yale critics show a deep engagement with Romanticism, offering counter-conventional readings of Romantic texts. For example, Paul de Man argues that allegory and irony, rather than metaphor alone, are central to Romantic poetry. This reading challenges traditional interpretations and highlights the inherent undecidability in literary texts—the idea that multiple interpretations coexist without a definitive resolution.
Video : 7
The Yale School primarily focuses on rhetorical and figurative analysis, emphasizing the multiplicity of meanings within literary texts. In contrast, other critical theories such as cultural materialism, feminism, gender theory, postcolonial studies, new historicism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis have adopted deconstructive ideas to serve broader ideological critiques.
Postcolonial theory uses deconstruction to dismantle colonial narratives and expose ideological assumptions.Postcolonial theory’s use of deconstruction highlights how colonial texts and discourses can be undermined from within. By revealing inconsistencies and contradictions in colonial narratives, deconstruction enables a critical dismantling of hegemonic power structures, questioning the authority and legitimacy of colonial discourse.
Feminist critics apply deconstruction to subvert binary oppositions, particularly patriarchy’s male/female divide.Feminist engagement with deconstruction is significant because it targets the binary oppositions that underpin patriarchal ideology. By deconstructing the male/female binary, feminists can challenge essentialist notions of gender and expose the constructedness of these categories, contributing to broader gender and queer theory debates.
Cultural materialism emphasizes the materiality of language and its role in exposing ideological agendas.Cultural materialism’s focus on the materiality of language echoes Derrida’s idea that language is not a transparent medium but a construct with inherent ideological implications. This insight reinforces the view that language itself is a site of power struggles and political contestation, rather than a neutral tool for communication.
New historicism stresses the reciprocal relationship between text and history, a poststructuralist approach.History is always mediated by textual forms, and texts are always embedded in historical contexts. This perspective complicates simplistic historical readings and invites a more nuanced approach that recognizes the constructed nature of both history and literature.
DoE-MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.1 Derrida and Deconstruction - Definition (Final).Avi.” YouTube, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-3BPNk9gs. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.2.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Heidegger (Final).” YouTube, uploaded by DoE MKBU, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=buduIQX1ZIw.Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE-MKBU. 5.2.2 Derrida & Deconstruction – Ferdinand de Saussure (Final). YouTube, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7M9rDyjDbA.Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.3 Derrida and Deconstruction – DifferAnce (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJPlxjjnpQk. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.4 Derrida & Deconstruction – Structure, Sign & Play (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOV2aDwhUas. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.5 Derrida & Deconstruction – Yale School (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_M8o7B973E.Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.6 Derrida & Deconstruction: Influence on Other Critical Theories (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU-17I8lGY.Accessed 26 June 2025.
Comments
Post a Comment