Deconstruction/ GI and MIKE M sissy slap fest

[jebreject]

through all the misunderstandings i'm thinking that Good Intentions' description of this issue is coming through pretty clearly for me now - i didn't have a clue what was going on about a page in but i'm pretty much up to speed now.

[...]

i'm going to keep quiet about the central question except to say that GI - i think i'm understanding what you're saying, so don't feel too much like you're banging your head against a brick wall if you can help it.

Just wanted to say that I'm in this boat as well.  Before this thread I knew only a very little about deconstruction and related philosophies--it seemed all the wikipedia articles in the world weren't really helping much.  But now I do feel that I really understand rather well what's being talked about.

I think Zach brought up a really good question that hasn't exactly been addressed, or at least not as clearly as it should have been, and I think I maybe have an answer for it as well, but I'm not sure I want to say anything without thinking about it a little more.

[FreddyKnuckles]

I am working on my paper about Moby Dick, its due tomorrow.

Ishmael believes that there are three distinct pieces to the Fates: necessity (what one must do), free will (the ability to do what one pleases), and chance (luck in events out of the realm of will and necessity).  


I will let you guys know on thursday when I'm working on my derrida paper how it is going.  This is sort of what I was hoping for, thanks guys, you guys arguing about it is way better than any lecture.

[Good Intentions]

Length of argument and the ability of said argument to inform are seperate issues, though.  For all your text on the subject, I'm just not grasping what you're trying to SAY.  Derrida made deconstruction and desconstruction is a useful tool in literary and philosophical criticism, but what that means vis a vis essentialism is ground you didn't really cover, sans calling essentialism bullshit.

You talk about "approaching a text on [the text's] terms" but I'm not sure what that really means, seeing as you need some cultural/historical context in which to place the text in order to look for the "traces" or the markers of biographical significance, a la Freud, and that's a point of Coldforge's that you didn't really return to.

Rereading over this thread, returning to calirfy some more things.

I think I've covered cf's objection, but speak up if I haven't.

I don't really want to go into essentialism here - suffice it to say that strcuturalism and essentialism are diametrically opposed, and I'm on the other side. I will say this as further explanation:
Essentialism is the belief that material things have some inseperable essence, "it is in the nature of wood to burn" (in lit crit this essence is what one has a heartfelt reaction to), and if this object existed in some void this essence would still exist.
Structuralism says this is so much nonsense. It arises through the example of language - what is it that gives words meaning? Is there something in the word 'dog' that essentially evokes a dog? Of course not - that's only a sound. It only gathers meaning by being in a structure of relations (hence structuralism) - 'dog' means dog because it doesn't mean bog or log or doll or or... that is how 'dog' and 'chien' (in French) and 'hond' (in Afrikaans) means the same thing, because they occupy the same spot in the different structures of relation. So what we have are not essential components (words) arranged into some structure (language), but a structure that defines arbitrary signs within itself - the structure is the important part, not the individual components.
This brings up the subject of signs - the word doesn't represent what it means, it merely points towards it (think of how one teaches a child a language - pointing at Fido and going "dog"). A sign therefore exists in two parts - the signifier ("dog") and the signified (the loyal pooch Fido). The connection between the two is entirely arbitrary, like how a red light at the traffic lights means stop, how a red stroke on a painting shows the subject's mouth, how a red flag at a rally means communism.

A text, any text, a canononical philosophical book, a conversation between two housewives, a mathematical formula, this post, is a collection of signs. It doesn't communicate by physically presenting you with the things under discussion, nor by presenting their essence, since it can't do either. It communicates by offering a structure of signifiers in such a way that you can infer meaning from them - "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" works because you know what rain, Spain and plain are, and what the relations in, on, mainly and the means. But when I say that sentence, I'm not only invoking a hypothetical weather forecast, I might make you think of Pygmalion, or My Fair Lady or diction classes or the English teacher you had a crush on when you were 12 - different things that are signified by the signifier. I say one thing, you hear another, it is by no means determined that we mean the same things.
Here we reach an important point. Language as a structure of relations is pretty unchanging from person to person, and so are many other framework of ideas (like liberalism, indie cred, chemistry). But any reading of an event has its own framework, informed by the structures at work inside the understanding of the reader. And any presentation of an idea has its own unique structure as well.

Deconstruction is the analyses of the structures specific to a text. Because the text has an independent structure of its own, looking at structures outside the text hides the way that signs are meant inside the text, forces a reading on the text, one possibly hostile to the meaning of the text.

To get back to cf's point - a text doesn't contain any ideas, merely pointers to them, and a structure within which to understand these pointers. I said that during deconstruction one looks for signs of tension, and also traces - these are themselves signs, signifiers that not every is being said out loud. Having discovered this, we can track down what is signified (it's revealing that the French trace and German spur both mean 'tracks', traces of where something passed with which that thing can be found). The fact that, in the Freud example, the signified is something that supposedly lies outside the scope of the text (Freud's personal history, and not psychoanalysis) is inconsequential - in the text this signified is given importance. What the scope of the text is should be defined by the text itself, shouldn't it? The question deconstruction asks isn't what you hear, it's what those words mean in the author's mouth at the time of his speaking - what it invoked in him.

[Mike M]

I officially withdraw my support of essentialism, if it means what GI says. The version one of my professors explained was much, much less absurd.

[Good Intentions]

What did your prof call it - ideas sometimes are transmitted very differently on the seperate shores of the Atlantic, even on the seperate sides of the English channel.

[Mike M]

My prof described it as getting whatever you could from something, and there being validity in that, even without knowing any particular context.

[Good Intentions]

It's the same thing, as I hope is clear, because that what you're supposed to get something from is it's 'essence', which is independent of any context.

Whereas structuralism understands that nothing exists without context.

[Mike M]

No, that's not the same thing. I never said you were supposed to get its "essence," I said you were supposed to get something. It could be anything, as long as it's even remotely supported by a logical interaction with the text.

This was my UNDERSTANDING, anyway, this is what I was endorsing.

Essentially, the same way I think you gotta deal with life.

[Mike M]

Also, I think that the next time you try to resolve a statement like "structuralism understands that nothing exists without context" with a premise like 'structuralism considers only the text' I will implode and explode at the same time, in a symbolic interpretation of what your rhetoric looks like to me.

[Good Intentions]

The context is signified within the text, right? And anything can only make sense within a framework, frameworks being given by texts.

It makes sense. It makes its own kind of sense.

[Mike M]

...so why not just consider context?

I mean, seriously, if you're telling me this is all one big logical contortion to get to where common sense lit crit says you oughtta be anyway, I am so confused by the trouble you've gone to here.

[Good Intentions]

Because some context is relevant and some isn't. The parts that are signified in the text are relevant, the parts that aren't aren't.

When you present a piece with a context you are enforcing a reading unto it, placing it into a framework in which the text might or might not belong.

With deconstruction you are extrapolating the context out of the text. Each framework offers tool for analyses, and can understand nothing for which it is not tooled.

So, I go to a record store and ask the guy behind the counter about this band Radiohead I keep hearing about. He says yeah, they're a lot like Pink Floyd. So I listen to OK Computer expecting to hear equivalents of what I heard on Dark Side of the Moon, and I can find enough things to convince me that the comparison is valid, but not enough to convince me that Radiohead is something really special.
If I instead sat down with OK Computer and really, really listened, I would have found something else. I would have found stories of personal triumphs and heartfelt failures, of an individual unsure of how to make his way through a impersonal world, none of that wishy-washy pseudo-significance of Roger Waters' work but instead a personal story told involvingly. I would then realise that comparing Radiohead with Pink Floyd is bunk - there are no sweeping statements, no emotional blanks for the listener to fill in - that in spirit they are descendants of The Smiths with that same young-man-daydreaming feel, and I would realise just how fantastic Radiohead are. I would hear in their music and instrumentation a continuation of a long tradition of British electric and electronic music, something that Pink Floyd once were practicioners of, but not their lingering influence as much as that of the less mainstream dance music.

Because I approached the text a certain way I made sure that I would interpret it that way - it was the only interpretation I had at hand. Instead, what Derrida urges us to do, is to approach the text and listen to how it presents itself.

[Mike M]

Because some context is relevant and some isn't. The parts that are signified in the text are relevant, the parts that aren't aren't.

Alright, I can buy that in principle. Honestly I think the idea is still basically bunk but at this point it isn't totally insane.

I really have to ask, though, how I'm supposed to know which context is relevant and which isn't.

And, as a side note, Radiohead bore me sooo hard. (Let the derailment begin!)

[Good Intentions]

Because some context is relevant and some isn't.The parts that are signified in the text are relevant, the parts that aren't aren't.

I really have to ask, though, how I'm supposed to know which context is relevant and which isn't.

[Mike M]

Right, but how would I spot that? It seems like earlier you were talking about how this was a good way to hold people responsible for what they didn't put in the text.

This sort of looks like it can do anything you want it to, from my perspective.

[Good Intentions]

Deconstruction isn't a method of passing judgement. It's a method for extracting greater meaning from a text.

And as to how you'd spot what context is signified? Very, very careful reading. An understanding of how différance works - the word means 'differs' and 'defers': to understand how a term is used by comparing it in relation to other terms in the text - as well as traces and supplements will help you know what to look for.

One really should look at examples of it being done well to see how it works and what is thereby accomplished.

Edit - wanted to clarify that I meant trace and supplement in their technical sense.

[Andrew_TSKS]

i'm with mike m on this, still. to me, the example of freud really does a lot to prove the case AGAINST deconstruction. you're taking for granted that someone reading that particular freud text would have the opportunity to become aware of the relation freud's textual example has to context within his life. then you basically infer that the text points to this. it does, sure, but one is not given this information. and all one would necessarily notice from reading the text itself is that this example is returned to a lot. without doing a certain amount of research, the reader never learns anything more than that. so without being given the aforementioned biographical information as context in which to read freud's book, that's all we're ever going to know. that the text might perhaps point to something. then again, it might not point to anything at all. if we research the text in the wrong places, we might not discover what these references point to. therefore, someone who doesn't do any research or does the wrong research could apply the principles of deconstruction to this freud piece, and come up with a completely different reading. to me, this indicates deconstruction's downfall--you can use its principles to make a text say WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO. if you decide that you want to read a text a certain way, you can find examples within it that point to this, regardless of authorial intent. you can put words in the mouth of an author, words that said author never intended to be there. and then you can turn a 16th century work into a feminist treatise, or revile a science fiction novel as sexist garbage. all by raising the significance of some signifiers over others. i certainly don't agree with concepts of essentialism by any means, but neither do i agree with what i would regard as dishonest use of deconstruction's principles. and i think you're leaving the door wide open for exactly that sort of dishonesty.

then again, this could be an incorrect interpretation of what you're saying, in which case i welcome an explanation of how that interpretation is incorrect.

[Mike M]

to me, this indicates deconstruction's downfall--you can use its principles to make a text say WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO.

Word.

And I'm cool with that -- as long as you admit it's what you're doing, in plain language.

[jebreject]

Andrew, I think you're really, really, really missing the point.

I tried to come up with an example using "Where's Waldo?" but I just couldn't bring myself to go through with it.

[Andrew_TSKS]

jesus, jeb, if you're going to explain to me the way you almost insulted me but decided not to at the last second, you may as well just do it, because either way you've hurt my feelings. maybe i at least would have laughed at the insulting joke if you'd actually made it.

probably not even, though.

why can't you just explain the way you think i'm missing the point? why is there any need to lord it over me?

[jebreject]

I'm sorry, Andrew.  I did not mean to be insulting.  The reason I did not end up saying anything is because 1.) I tried writing out that example, and it just got needlessly complicated; 2.) I still don't have an especially firm grasp on all this, and I didn't want to embarass myself by saying something that was wrong, I guess, so it was easier to just say that rather than actually telling you how you're missing the point.  It wasn't cool.  I'm sorry.,

[Good Intentions]

For fuck's sake, guys, deconstuction is a tool, not a crystal ball. I can use a hammer to build a doll house or to smash the next guy to blast his unfounded opinion's brain in. You want something that will reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It doesn't exist.

Andrew's objection is based on the fact that deconstruction can be used badly. Fucking duh. Chrissakes, Andrew, any more false dilemnas you want to throw my way?

How many times have I said that first you must do a careful and attentive reading of the text? How many times have I said that deconstruction is not a method of passing judgement? How many times have I said that deconstruction can't cover the inadequacies of the text? How many times have you ignored me?!

So we must only use things that can do no harm? Oops! There goes fire! We can't have fire guys - arsonists will run around and set buildings alight! Hey, look, every possible human act can be done harmfully.

Of course no trace of feminism could have existed 400 years ago, that's left to enlightened fuckers like ourselves, heh?

I don't think you understand what you are engaging with.

Yes, I'm rather irritated.

[jebreject]

without doing a certain amount of research, the reader never learns anything more than that. so without being given the aforementioned biographical information as context in which to read freud's book, that's all we're ever going to know. that the text might perhaps point to something.

That's a beginning, isn't it?  I mean, if you're giving something a close reading, and you notice something happen over and over again, or not happening, wouldn't it pique your interest?  Wouldn't you then want to find out more about that?  The text points you to the outside information, rather than the outside information informing your reading of the text.  Right?

then again, it might not point to anything at all. if we research the text in the wrong places, we might not discover what these references point to. therefore, someone who doesn't do any research or does the wrong research could apply the principles of deconstruction to this freud piece, and come up with a completely different reading. to me, this indicates deconstruction's downfall--you can use its principles to make a text say WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO. if you decide that you want to read a text a certain way, you can find examples within it that point to this, regardless of authorial intent. you can put words in the mouth of an author, words that said author never intended to be there. and then you can turn a 16th century work into a feminist treatise, or revile a science fiction novel as sexist garbage. all by raising the significance of some signifiers over others. i certainly don't agree with concepts of essentialism by any means, but neither do i agree with what i would regard as dishonest use of deconstruction's principles. and i think you're leaving the door wide open for exactly that sort of dishonesty.

It seems to me that that's the exact opposite of what's being talked about here.  People do that kind of thing all the time, yes, but I don't see it having anything to do at all with deconstruction.  This is forcing your own viewpoint on the text, rather than taking from the text relevent information.  Deconstruction wouldn't lead to fundamentalist Christians telling us that March of the Penguins is about intelligent design, or that the Harry Potter series is demonic.  This is forcing your own outside perspective on the text.  That's precisely what deconstruction is against.  And GI has said several times already that deconstruction is not about making a judgement, so, following the "principles" of deconstruction, the kind of conclusions you're talking about people coming to are not going to be come to through deconstructing a text.  I guess I don't really see why you feel that deconstruction is going to lead people to whatever judgement they had beforehand, as that seems quite plainly to be what deconstruction is NOT about.

(As far as those other two points, a science fiction novel can still be sexist even if that wasn't the author's intent, and a 16th century work could certainly contain elements of what later become known as feminism, right?  I mean, I can see how those conclusions being come to without forcing your own view point on something.)

[andronicus]

Not to drain the animosity out of this thread, but when I read this:

I don't think you understand what you are engaging with.

 At first it seemed as if GI were talking about himself and making a sort of psychotic threat.  

All,

GI: ...
GI: Guards.  Leave us.
[Two tiny French men with thick glasses leave.]
GI: I'm looking forward to completing your training.  In time, you will call ME master.
Andrew: You're gravely mistaken.  You'll never convert me.
GI: Ah, Andrew, I think it is you who are mistaken.  About..a great..many..things.
[Jeb hands GI a hammer]
Jeb: His hammer, my lord.
GI: Ah, yes, a hammer.  It can be used in both knowledge, and ignorance.
Andrew: No, it is only a tool to create meaningless chaos!
GI: But in that chaos, the deconstructionist finds true meaning!  I can sense your hate.  Come, strike me down with this hammer, and your conversion to Post-Structuralism will be complete!
Andrew: I'll never join you!
GI: [distastefully] I don't think you understand what you're engaging with.
Andrew: Your overconfidence is your greatest weakness.
GI: And your extra-textual concern is yours!

[Good Intentions]

GI: And extra-textual concern is yours!

For the first time in my life, I seriously concidered having a signature.