Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Very Good

Very good article. I think it is a good balance, and has criticism right where it is needed.--ShaunMacPherson 02:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The post modernism generator

This has been moved to the criticism section. It should be mentioned, not only because it has been viewed by over a million people but also because it demonstrates the connection between deconstruction and linguistics (and playfulness). 2:21 1/10/04 - I saw the caveat that was added, you're right to add it.

Audience

As of 2004-04-14, the deconstruction article reads as if it is aimed at an audience of philosophers who already understand the subject. But the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a general encyclopedia for a general audience, who may not know anything about post-modern philosophy. The article needs to be worked on so that it is clear to a general audience. I've made a start by putting a succinct definition in the opening paragraph, but the rest of the text still needs a lot of work before it can be understood. Gdr 11:28, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Except that would be impossible because, as we all know, contemporary philosophy in general and deconstruction in particular is inherently about stringing together obscuratinist jargon to form long winded sentences that either say something utterly trivial once painstakingly decoded, or in fact, nothing meaningful at all. :^) Kuratowski's Ghost 00:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's a challenging task to be both accurate and user-friendly on this topic. It might end up being a rather long article. COGDEN 17:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, your change seems to have made the first paragraph more obscure and not necessarily more correct. For example, you imply that one can only apply deconstruction to texts grounded in Western culture. But surely the method is more general than that? Or does the method have a different name when applied to other cultural traditions? Gdr 19:37, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I've never personally seen a version of deconstruction relating to anything other than Western metaphysics. I suppose it would be possible to have, for example, a form of deconstruction based solely on Buddhist metaphysics or Animism. Has anybody seen an article attempting to describe a deconstruction-like event in a text outside the influence of Western metaphysics? COGDEN 23:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

It's too vague

This article is too vague and confusing. What I want to know is: What is the purpose and the result of deconstruction? Why would someone want to make a deconstructive reading? And what happens to the text afterwards? What does deconstruction accomplish? What is the value of deconstruction to scientists?

Hello? Are there no answers? These are really basic questions that the average person would want to know and would expect to find answers to in an encyclopedia.

First, it's important to note that while these questions are basic their answers are complicated and difficult (as is the case with much of philosophy, not just deconstruction: think, for example, of Kant's answers to "how can there be knowledge whose source is outside the knower?"). Second, these questions are pragmatic, and deconstruction is quite opposed to most forms of pragmatism, so you might expect that many deconstructive thinkers would reject them as the wrong questions. In any case, it's not immediately clear that usefulness is what one wants or needs from philosophy in general (and we certainly don't ask of philosophy first and foremost that it be useful to scientists).

That said, I think there are some possible answers to these questions. The historical and current importance of deconstruction has to do with the revival of the critical tradition in philosophy, a new attention to ideas of text and writing in accounts of consciousness and thought, and a new, intense skepticism toward metaphysics. All of these are important for reading and potentially for science (especially cognitive science); on this topic, one reference is Paul Cilliers's book Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems (ISBN 0415152879). -- Rbellin 03:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a bit over my head. Admittedly, I am not deep in philosophy or science. I am not interested in the whole philosophy surrounding deconstruction, I just want to know about this specific thing called a deconstructive reading. Why would someone want to make a deconstructive reading? What does it accomplish? I am not interested in how it works, only why. Certainly they don't just do it for fun. They must be trying to accomplish something, so what is it?

Typically, they're trying to get away from a binary opposition of one kind or another. One does a deconstructive reading to show, for instance, that the opposition of male and female is not as simple a division as one might think, as is shown by the way in which such and such a text, when talking about male and female, undermines itself, showing that the terms do not really operate and thus that the entire distinction of male and female is a false one/a social construct. It's basically politically motivated, as is most critical theory these days. Snowspinner 04:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Deconstructive reading is not so much something that one does. Deconstruction is more like something that occurs, and that we try in vain to understand. Thus, it doesn't really have a purpose or reason. If someone were able to find the purpose of/for deconstruction, we could all go home and stop writing about it. Nobody "uses" deconstruction for political purposes. Indeed, they write for political purposes in spite of the fact that their writings are deconstructing even as they write. It is true that people who write about deconstruction are usually left-leaning, but the Western political left deconstructs just as easily as the Western political right. COGDEN 04:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The characterization of deconstruction as an "event" seems to be merely a semantic trick to keep criticism fenced in. It doesn't matter though; English is very flexible. If using "deconstruct" as a transitive verb is taboo, then we can simply use a circumlocution like "make a deconstructive reading of": it's the same thing. Deconstructionists do admit that they make "deconstructive readings", so I think I'm on good ground here. My question still stands: what are they trying to accomplish?

The only real answer to that is: They are trying to think. If you demand this level of oversimplification, when your question has already been answered very well in a few different ways, I'm not sure how to proceed. Deconstruction, and philosophy in general, are complicated topics which many very smart people spend a lifetime thinking about. Shrugging it off with an "it's over my head" or calling it a "semantic trick" is a way of expressing hostility to any idea you don't understand. I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining deconstruction without being too reductive or stupid -- it compares favorably to some of the "deconstruction for beginners"-type books. Don't demand this level of reductiveness. (By the way, I disagree with Snowspinner's answer.) -- Rbellin 14:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Imagine a slick French intellectual sitting in his study, busily working out a deconstructive analysis of a text. Beads of sweat are collecting on his brow--this is a tough one. But finally, after hours of laboring, he lays down his pen: the analysis is complete. He has managed to deconstruct the text--err, I mean, to show how it deconstructs itself. Now here is my question: What has he accomplished? What has he done to the text?

The answer, as I understand it, is that he has discredited the text. If that is right, then my sentence ("The primary function of deconstruction is to discredit the text") should stand. Just for good measure, lets look at the definition of "discredit" from M-W:

2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of

Now if that's not deconstruction, I don't know what is. So I'm putting my sentence back for now.

Deconstruction is not about discrediting the text. The answer you want is not independent of the deconstructive philosophy you refuse to hear anything about. The sentence is coming back out. Snowspinner 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Look, you can't just say "you're wrong" and then revert my edits. You have to show everyone why. I say deconstruction is about discrediting the text, and here's why. First of all, look at the sentence that preceedes mine:

a deconstructive reading is an analysis a text in such a way that the text itself undermines its own foundation in Western metaphysics,

That exactly fits the definition for "discredit" which I supplied above. My sentence follows almost naturally from this one (that's why I began it with "thus"). Now look at the Barbara Johnson quote:

If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another

Again, this fits the definition perfectly: "to cause disbelief in the... authority of". Now look at the David B. Allison quote:

"[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought

This contradicts Rbellin's statement that the task of deconstructionists is to "think". Apparently their task is much more specific than that: to "locate and take apart" (i.e. discredit) certain "concepts". You guys really need to get your stories straight. Till then, the sentence goes back.

Now here is the most damning evidence, the quote from Paul-de-Man:

It's possible, within text, to frame a question or to undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text

And this too:

the 'accidental' features of a text can be seen as betraying, subverting, its purportedly 'essential' message

This clearly says that the function of deconstruction is to discredit the text. My sentence stands.

To say that a reader discredits a text, implies that a text has an inherent, unambiguous meaning the authority of which can be discredited. I don't think this does justice to the deconstructionist idea of a text.

OK, let's try this. "I've read Derrida and a wealth of deconstructive philosophy. I am furthermore interested in these issues. You have admitted that you are uninterested in these issues and that you have not done necessary background reading. You are unquallified to make the edit you are making. I am quallified to make the edit. Your edit is not going in."

Qualifications don't mean nothing on Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopedia. I have as much right as you. I have shown plenty of evidence to support my claim, you have shown none. That makes me more qualified than you.

More politely, the key phrase there is foundation in Western metaphysics. That is to say, the point is not to undermine the text, but to show an unresolved ambiguity in Western metaphysics through the text. There would be no need for a deconstructive reading to attack the authority of a text - plenty of historical criticism can already be used for that. It is not trying to make the text look bad or unreliable or anything that would fall under discrediting. It's attacking the culture that the text represents, as you would note if you even bothered to read the rest of the article. As for the contradiction between Rbellin's views and my own, while I disagree with Rebellin, that does not mean that your uneducated perspective defaults to being true.

I'm sorry, that may be your personal belief, but that's not what the article says. The article says that deconstruction makes the text betray and subvert it's own meaning. It says it undoes assertions made in the text. That means it discredits the text. I have demonstrated this above with many quotes from the article. Come back with some quotes of your own to support your argument, before you revert my edits.

Finally, I would be much more happy to respond to your posts if you got them right the first time instead of constantly editing the page so that I get edit conflicts over and over again when I try to respond. Snowspinner 20:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There's not really an answer to that. I mean, the answer is really contingent on deconstructive philosophy. That's like asking "OK, I don't want to hear anything about the whole food processing business and culinary issues surrounding salmon. But what does a salmon fisherman accomplish when he catches the fish?" Snowspinner 18:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think Derrida's political motivations have been made clear at several points - have you seen the film Derrida? Really interesting - and not just for the odd site of Derrida wandering around trying to find his keys. In any case, have you joined Wikiproject:Critical Theory yet? It would be a crime not to have you. :) Snowspinner 14:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Some deconstructionists say that the "text deconstructs itself," leaving themselves as passive observers. As for the accomplishment, as I said, it's politically motivated - the attempt to get beyond, or to at least undermine a division (Black/White, Male/Female, Employer/Employee) that's being employed harmfully. Snowspinner 14:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say to that beyond that, while you may describe Derrida with some accuracy (Though Derrida contradicts this claim in other places - he is very politically invested, and doesn't find that fact completely problematic), you don't really describe deconstruction as a whole - especially not in the contemporary academy.

---

The section Criticisms classifying deconstruction as nihilism or relativism is mostly full of strawmen for proponents of deconstruction to knock down. It's not really criticism at all, more like the opposite.

The criticisms should probably be expanded, however, in the popular press, where deconstruction has come up with mild frequency, these are both real criticisms of it, and so really do need to be in the article. Snowspinner 14:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This section is completely worthwhile, because thinking deconstruction is nihilism or relativism is such a common misunderstanding (in the popular press, for instance, as Snowspinner observes, and among non-academics). You don't need to be a "proponent" (or an "opponent") to correct a factual mistake like this, and it seems to me that that is what the section does. -- Rbellin 14:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

True, but the problem is in the presentation. It presents these arguments as criticisms, but they are presumed from the start to be invalid: strawmen. Strawmen are not NPOV.

What about the presentation bothers you? I just looked over the section, and I don't see it - the nihilism/relatavist critique is frequently lobbed, so it really needs to be addressed. And I just don't see where the POV is. Maybe I'm missing it. What specific phrases bother you? Snowspinner 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Folksonomy

A folksonomy is a way to organize information by aggregate opinion rather than hard-and-fast rule. Websites like del.icio.us have begun exploring this concept. There is also a new site out there attempting to organize information in this way. color folksonomy deconstructionism

Discrediting and Deconstruction

I advise you to read J. Hillis Miller's essay "The Critic as Host". It deals with these issues. Choice quote - "The meaning of The Triumph of Life can never be reduced to any "univocal" reading... The poem, like all texts, is "unreadable" if by "readable" one means a single, definitive interpretation."

In other words, the point of deconstruction is not to make the text look bad. It's to open up new possibilities within the text, to show new angles, to open up uncertainties and things that couldn't be talked about before. Snowspinner 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous user posting above (69.106.x.x) has been persistently re-inserting into the introductory paragraph the sentence "Thus the function of deconstruction is to discredit the text." Aside from flame content, this is an interesting discussion, and the article might profitably address it. I'd like to suggest that the fundamental misunderstanding is that discrediting a single work, or an author, is not the same thing as discrediting (etymologically, not-believing) metaphysical assumptions and axioms at work in interpretation. As I and the article have stressed, skepticism toward metaphysics is one of the core principles of deconstruction (of course, this is also a core principle of other philosophies, including analytic philosophy). That's why deconstruction is not about doing a hatchet-job on a text or author, as the anonymous user seems to misunderstand. We can discuss the individual quotations, if you like, but I think they're quite consistent on this point. -- Rbellin 20:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Further: The de Man quotations which the anonymous user has taken as support for the claim that deconstructive reading "discredits the text" are, in fact, saying something very close to the opposite. What de Man is describing is a process of reading which, in fact, credits the literality of a text -- believes it, takes it at its word, including its "accidental" features (and he's using the word "accidental" in its technical philosophical sense, dating back to Aristotle at least) -- and in so doing finds that the text itself does not simply support its essential meaning. That is, a (deconstructive) reading, which finds that the text is too complex to support a metaphysical, essential interpretation, does so by attempting radically to believe or to credit the text itself, not by forcing anything on it from outside, and certainly not by trying to falsify it. -- Rbellin 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I can see that we're not on the same page here. You seem to be describing the process of deconstruction, whereas I am only concerned with the result. The article says that a deconstructive reading results in the text undermining its own foundation in Western metaphysics, for example through internal contradictions and biases. If a text's foundation has been undermined, if it has been found to contain internal contradictions, then it has been discredited, by the very defintion of the word "discredit". My sentence is merely a summary of the one that precedes it!

In which case it's redundant. Snowspinner 01:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Grow up.

??? If it's just a restatement of what came before, it's redundant and unnecessary. If it's not (As I would claim), then it's inaccurate. Either way, it doesn't belong there. Snowspinner 03:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not a restatement, it's a reformulation. The article is full of them. If we used your standards for redundancy we would cut the size of the article in half.

Regardless, it's a completely wrong reformulation, based on a misunderstanding that has been explained to you by three different people now. There is a consensus. Your edit ought not go in. Snowspinner 03:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I have significantly changed my sentence since then.

And have yet to remove the incorrect claim. Snowspinner 03:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Which is what? What is the difference between my sentence and the sentence that precedes it? My sentence makes the same claim as the preceding sentence, so how can one be wrong and the other be right?

(Back to the left) It's not about discrediting. This has been made clear. It's not about the text. It's not about an attack on the text. We're up to four people now who have explained this. How is it that you're not getting it? Snowspinner 04:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

After more than a couple of good-faith explanations from me and others of why this sentence is wrong, and without making any demonstration of acquaintance with or study of the thousands of pages of relevant material, the anonymous user continues to revert the page. I'm not putting more effort into this discussion. Looks like vandalism, or at least willful ignorance, at this point. -- Rbellin 02:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, a deconstructive reading is an analysis a text in such a way that the text itself undermines its own foundation in Western metaphysics, for example through internal contradictions and biases: thus the effect of a deconstructive reading is to discredit the text by showing that it contradicts itself.

Just explain to me shortly in a sentence or two what's wrong with this, and then I'll leave it alone. If you agree with the first part (the part before the colon), then how can you disagree with the second part? The second part is merely a reformulation of the first. So how can you say that the first one is right but the second one is wrong? They are making the same claim!

::::The effect of deconstruction has almost nothing to do with the text, and everything to do with Western metaphysics. The text is just a tool for looking at the culture. Snowspinner 03:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. Why do I feed the trolls? Snowspinner 03:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

To say that a text or piece is constructed or constructed upon, either by the author or by the culture (for example if the text is canonized as being the representative X), is not to say that it is not real, important, and valid. The construction may actually inhibit one's appreciate of a piece. The best example I can think of (music related, of course) is Susan McClary's article "The Blasphemy of Talking Politics during Bach Year" in which she discusses how the univocal interpretation of Bach's music as the representative and ideal of beauty and order in (classical) music, and the univocal interpretation of classical music as non-referential (or refering only to itself or to other pieces crassly through quotation) actually inhibits appreciation and performances of his music. Bach's music was referential and politically charged, and he made for himself the risky task of blending German, French, and Italian aesthetics in a manner some contemporaries found appalling. Reading pieces in which he mixes two styles as if they were not only one style, but its best example, impovrishes interpretation, appreciation, the piece, and Bach. Deconstruction is, in this case, overwhelmingly positive. Hyacinth 03:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

From Power (sociology): "Deconstruction often works to reveal hidden power structures and relationships."

Deconstruction should be proliferation, not appropriation. Hyacinth 20:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd just like to note, COGDEN's latest edit is really great. Snowspinner 00:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hard vocabulary words

The example definitely helps explain "metaphysical" a lot.

Could you clarify "multi-vocal" and "other voice"? Beland 01:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll see what I can do in a minute. Right now I'm actually working on research for a "Popular discussion of deconstruction" section. Snowspinner 01:13, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I like your improvements. The introductory paragraph in particular is much clearer now and probably captures the essence of deconstructionalism better than my very concrete discussion; not to mention reducing redundancy.

I added a reference to the Sokal Affair in the "Lack of concreteness" section at the same time you added one, I think. I don't know if mine is still appropriate.

The only possibly substantive thing which has gone missing is the link to social construction. Do you think that insistance/emphasis on the socially constructed nature of things is a hallmark of deconstructive analysis, or that it's an important related concept? -- Beland 01:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I associate social construction more with Foucault and discourse analysis than with deconstruction, though the two schools of thought came together at a similar time. Snowspinner 02:09, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okey doke. -- Beland 10:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clear as mud...

Now I'm no genius, but I do manage to dress myself, and can even walk around without falling down (on occasion). In a word, I consider myself as rational and alert as the next gazabo - but I got nothing from this article but eyestrain.

No doubt this is a difficult, complex subject – a subject perhaps unsuited to one lacking an advanced degree in philosophy, so I will ask my question and go my merry way – humming to myself, hands in pockets.

My question: What happens when we conduct a deconstructive reading of the text of an article on deconstructivism – then type that up, and do a deconstructive reading of it – and on and on ad infinitum. At what point does the system break down and become a meaningless hodgepodge of trivial scholastic nonsense – I know my guess…

That's a good question, and to some extent, things never seem to stop deconstructing. But I think that way of looking at the situation is somewhat misleading, because the thing that deconstructs is not deconstruction itself, because deconstruction really isn't a thing. The thing that authors use when writing about deconstruction is existing Western thought, but if you show how the author's writings deconstruct, you have essentially said amen to what the author originally wrote.

For example, suppose I write about the deconstruction of speech (logos) by showing how under phenomenology (a form of existentialism whose "father" was Edmund Husserl) speech is seen as a derivative form of writing (the Western opposite and scorned little brother of speech). If somebody then tries to show how my writing itself deconstructs, one cannot do so without showing how my methodology (in this case, phenomenology) deconstructs, which was exactly my original point. COGDEN 22:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

At present, the opening paragraph states that deconstruction is a "school of criticism created by...Derrida". I don't think Derrida would have ever classified deconstruction as a school, or say he created it. In fact, I think he once said it wasn't a school or movement. The whole article treats deconstruction as if it were an -ism, but clearly it isn't, except when Derrida's critics use the word, and even though they may not say "deconstructionism", the -ism is implied. I don't think any use of the term deconstruction should include a silent -ism, unless the text makes clear that it's a critic of deconstruction(ism) who's impliedly calling it an -ism. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)]] 00:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

RFC - Why Deconstruction does not support Nihilism

I’m relatively new to this so I’m not going to make any changes to the Wikipedia article but I’d like to mention of few things that might make this subject more approachable for the common reader (who will typically read the article). For the record, I think quotations in Deconstruction usually are not meant to communicate irony, but to ‘honestly’ describe violence in ones dialogue. Some thoughts (in no particular order).

As the article states 'text is dead'. Even Deconstruction will undergo change (difference) as I corrupt meaning from Derrida. Derrida didn’t ‘invent’ or ‘discover’ Deconstruction… I think what he helped to do is bring structure to its description and give a framework for those with similar observations could explore a 'new' thread of reality. Most Judges that have stuggled with interpretations of law can perceive laws as being 'organic', but I think they misunderstand the reasons why. Its a framework to not allow misalignment in language to immediately cause one to be dismissive of deeper content.

(I.e.. A cell phone call from my friend…. “ I (STATIC) hate (STATIC) you. The (STATIC) is each individuals essence of particular meaning of ‘dead text’. Some would have us believe we should stop at “I hate you”.

Some might argue that Deconstruction argues that even that I hate you can be Deconstructed into the morass of what appears like Nihilism. At some point this will probaly cause a schism to create branching thoughts on the subject. Judges pass judgment at some point. An event has occured what that event's 'dead texts' translate to does not affect the occurance of 'something'(maybe not the best word). Personally I think this is another place I think Derrida was a little too ambigious on the subject as he (in my eyes) comes up on the side of action.

Deconstruction is a 'rational' extension of the western ideas of discrete information while bridging eastern ideas of relationships (NOT to be confused with the term relativity).... perhaps even analogous to some physics descriptions of waves and particles.... nonsense using common rules of wisdom.

What one needs to realize is the text of Deconstruction cannot explicitly state it is 'better' as that would be 'violence' (‘good’ word he used) against its’ own tangent.

I think where Derrida could have 'better' described the distinction between Nihilism and Deconstruction is by noting that the word 'meaning' onto itself can trigger violence. Furthermore because Deconstruction seems to lack 'judgment' does not mean one should (or should not judge). As that too would be ‘violence’.

Deconstruction is not a philosophy…. it is a tool for examining philosophy. Think of it as an in-depth description of NPOV. It does not mean one cannot have an opinion or that option (does or does not exist). It is an attempt to more deeply determine observations from something we often ambiguously can call 'facts'.

Just as an aside…. some possible ‘practical’ applications.

Supreme Court Justices should probably be required to learn it (the as yet clearly defined principles).

Journalists and politicians could be given Deconstruction-for-Dummies version (not because they are dummies but because the terminology is out of scope of their professions). They have a habit of using words that eventually create situations were none existed…..triggering the other kind of violence.

A real world application?

Why not examine Intellectual property using this method? I can see why Derrida might be driven towards Marxism (the immense complexity of the reality makes me want to cuddle too) but I don’t consider Deconstruction political. A tool can be used to build anything.

Example: If I take an essay and copy it verbatim from another… it is copyright infringement. What if I only copy a paragraph? What about a sentence? Three captivating words?

If computer code I write is coded a completely different way, but the compiled object looks similar… (i.e. cars look the same)…. is this ‘infringement’ (‘violence’)?

Laws have a historical bias towards those in power (whatever political system) as opposed to ‘rational’ thought. I can see where this is convenient, but I can’t see how someone can make these legal distinctions ‘rationally’ without delving into Deconstruction.

However, I think the concept stills needs to refine its language to a mathematical-like formula rather than just a bunch of loose thoughts. Another analogy: the standard model versus photoelectric effect. Einstein identified a way at looking at the world, it took decades for the world to accept and map it out.)

[User:Jim Dec.30/2004 est] ... still looking into posting/editing etiquette.. sorry.

Article needs to be edited and clarified

The style of this article is appropriate for a university term paper but not for an encyclopedia entry. As such it is unlikely to be of any use to the non-expert who is trying to understand deconstruction. The dense, obscure writing style conveys the impression that deconstruction is just as silly and pompous as its critics maintain. Hint: clarification often is achieved by making a piece of writing shorter, not longer. Mascarasnake 23:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

perhaps the article is appropriate... Banno 23:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

The penis?

One typical procedure of deconstruction is its critique of binary oppositions. A central deconstructive argument holds that, in all the classic dualities of Western thought, one term is privileged or "central" over the other. The privileged, central term is the one most associated with the phallus (penis) and the logos. Examples include: speech over writing presence over absence identity over difference

Is that for real or is that a bad edit?

No, that's basically correct. But you shouldn't be thinking too much about actual penises--it's a bit more abstract than that, which is why I prefer to refer to the phallus and the invagination, rather than the penis and the vagina. The idea is that Western thought generally sees both the phallus and the logos (which is approximately translated as "speech") as presences without absence, and the invagination and the ecriture (writing or marking) as absences without presence. In other words, Derrida would say that the invagination is not simply the absence of a phallus, and writing is not simply the absence of speech, or simply passive (feminine) speech. COGDEN 20:56, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the identification of "the phallus" (Lacanian-feminist symbolic site) with "the penis" (biological organ) is so controversial and debatable that I think it would be best to strike the parenthetical "(penis)" here. It might be appropriate to link phallus instead as a more detailed explanation could appropriately later be added there. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, thats incredible.. I think I fall in the 'eyes glaze over' category on this one. --Freshraisin

Try blinking, and if that doesn't work reading more. Hyacinth 05:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try getting off your high horse Freshraisin 00:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that every discussion of penis seems to end up with an equestrian metaphor? COGDEN 01:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Deconstructing Deconstructionism

Why is this essay (Deconstructing Deconstructionism) linked to? There are many strong critiques of deconstructionism out there, and this article is quite horrible. My opinion, however, is subjective of course, and I should point out that I don't claim it to be the objective opinion. But notwithstanding this caveat, I hope somebody may be kind enough to help me understand Robert Locke's essay.

He writes: "Michel Foucault (the bald Frenchman who died of AIDS) thought he was the first person to figure out that social order is maintained not just through "hard" coercion like the police but through an intricate web of "soft" coercions that make us behave through the pressures of conformity and culture. But does any precocious eighth grader not grasp this intuitively?" Forgive my ignorance, but why is it relevant to his argument that Foucault was a "bald Frenchman who died of AIDS"? Do the bald, the French (the Frenchmen, to be specific), or people who die of AIDS have the power to turn logical arguments into illogical arguments (or maybe its the combination of all 4 factors)? I must confess that my awareness of recent developments in alchemistical logic is rather incomplete, but I do not understand this phenomenon. In addition, if he "thought" that he discovered something new in the social order, does that mean he did not? And if he did not discover out something previously not noticed, could he have not given new insight into previous knowledge?

My first inclination was to label his summary of Foucault's theory of decentralized power ("pressures of conformity and culture") as the set up to a straw man argument, but I regretted this prejudgement after reading his refutation, which is a logically valid proof (if "p" claims "s", and any precocious eighth grader can intuitively grasp "s", then "p" is a dorkwad). He later proves that it is actually Deconstructionism that creates straw men: "Deconstructionism is notorious for lynching philosophical straw men. They love to pounce on other thinkers and say, "Aha! There you have an Enlightenment Assumption," meaning a dubious idea from the eighteenth century. But the Enlightenment was 200 years ago, and I have yet to see any dubious idea thus pilloried that people actually believe today, except for those that are baldly true."

Despite this, a few minor problems exist in his argument: he describes Deconstructionism as including the "Jacques Derrida school," his argument against Deconstructionism on account of Heiddeger being a Nazi and a re-re ("What is a thing?"), and his description of "Deconstructionism" as a thinking being who "loves" "social constructionism." I would give Locke the benefit of a doubt and say he prob. made a mistake, but he doesn't connect any specific deconstructionist views with any specific deconstructionist thinkers apart from Derrida, Heidegger, and Foucault (the fact that Foucault is more accurately described as post-structuralist, not deconstructionist, and that Heidegger barely saw the origins of Deconstructionism in France in the 1970's on account of being a German and dying in 1976 complicate things further). In fairness, Locke does define deconstructionism and post-structuralism as the same thing (and that structuralism was "no better"), but this just makes me further doubt that he knows what he is talking about.

My conclusion:

Locke's essay *is* a straw man argument and that his use of "deconstructionism" to refer to anything he opposes cleverly makes his refutation of deconstructionism irrefutable - but also meaningless.

Apart from that, the essay is good.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This article is inaccessible to non-experts

I have added a {{technical}} tag to it in order that someone who cares about the subject will fix it. As it stands, it is so thick with jargon that the typical reader can't understand it. At the minimum, the following should happen to this article:

1. Define the word Deconstruction in the first sentence in words that the layman can understand.
2. Define the word Deconstruction in the first sentence in words that the layman can understand(dup. intended).
3. Take a hacksaw and cut the article down to a readable size. It is legal to link to supporting articles. Also, it is over the limit of some browsers' edit windows.
4. Most of the article sounds like it was written by authors who were high on LSD. What I think are examples in The terminology of deconstruction can only be described as nonsensical.

I strongly suggest that someone else make these changes, since if I step in, I will have to slash out anything I can't understand, and someone might accuse me of vandalism. You have until Monday. -Casito⇝Talk 05:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"You have until Monday"??! Perhaps you're also tripping. It's a holiday weekend in a good chunk of the English-speaking world, mate. The revisions you're asking for aren't the sort to appear by virtue of setting such an unreasonable arbitrary deadline. Buffyg 14:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I could set a "deadline" of two years from now and there would be no improvement to this article. I never expected any progress to ever be made by people who care about the subject; someone would have fixed things long ago. Eliminating the hide-and-seek, my statement could be more directly phraised as:

• I plan to fix this article on Monday, any you probably won't like the changes I will make.

Wikipedia is intended to explain topics to a broad audience, not to preserve every editor's appendation. -Casito⇝Talk 19:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you neither expect others to improve or your knowledge of the subject matter to lead to changes distinguishable from vandalism, perhaps you might spend your efforts in research rather than editorialisation? I'm not about to tell you that the article is good, let alone acceptable. If, however, you don't think yourself well-prepared in terms of subject matter expertise, perhaps you'll find that you at least get some editorial consensus and direction by opening it up to a process like peer review? As it is, one has no reason to believe the abuses of editorial perogative you've denounced will be substantially curbed by your proposed corrective, which rather threatens more of the same. Buffyg 20:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This text does have much room for improval. Still, Casito, it conveyed the essentials to you: deconstruction really

1. is hard to understand
2. appears nonsensical
3. and you get the impression that authors were on LSD.

This might well be how someone would start a conversational description of the subject. See also the section Criticism - Unintelligiblity of the main text. I don't mean to defend the text by that. It can be done better and made more comprehensible. Heuristic deletions without research, as you are planning them, Casito, are no solution, nor is the threat of a deadline on a project that people work on without pay and mostly in their sparetime/breaks.--Fenice 08:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Casito quite grasps the enormity of what s/he is asking. Defining deconstruction in lay terms is like defining something like a Kahler manifold without referring to high-falutin' math. If anyone has any ideas about how to simplify the article, it should be done, but not at the expense of accuracy. COGDEN 22:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people frequently have impossible expectations of social science articles that they would never apply to "hard" sciences. Hyacinth 22:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How neatly your comments fit in with Chomsky's criticism...Banno 22:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that, in reading the article, one may actually lose their grasp on the meaning of deconstruction, yet by taking in the form and 'structure' of the article can acquire a sense of deconstruction. For example, I personally thought I understood deconstruction until I spent an hour reading this article (for a final exam that I'm taking in about 5 hours), and then another 45 minutes reading the discussion. I am now prepared to drop out of school and apply to fast food restaurants.

Additionally, I find it humorous that such a large portion of the discussion for this article deals with one sentence (whether or not deconstruction is a discrediting of the text), and the other half comes from lay-persons (such as my humble self) begging and pleading with someone to make this article at least semi-approachable by someone besides Derrida and Chomsky. Hacking away at it is definately not an answer, but neither is leaving it alone in its current state of jargon and ambiguity. Okay, I'm done, I'll shut up now.--Adeadcat 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why deconstruction is not a form of relativism

I've already asked this question twice, but I don't feel it's been answered. In the criticisms section, potential objections to deconstruction as nihilism, solipsism, and relativism have been raised, and I think the first two have been answered, but I still don't see how deconstruction isn't a form of relativism. The first sentence of the relativism article states that "[r]elativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference," whereas what I assume is supposed to be the response in this article to the relativism classification runs as follows: "Nor do deconstructive writers allege that it is impossible to learn authoritative information. However, authoritative text, they say, is still text, and while Western metaphysics has established methods to establish and perpetuate authority, it has not located the source of that authority as a transcendental signifier." I would think (perhaps wrongly) that the "absolute reference" cited in the relativism article would be the "transcendental signifier" justifying authority that is denied in this article. Perhaps someone could please clarify, at least for me here, if this question is deemed too stupid to be answered on the main page? Vivacissamamente 00:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase transcendental signifier should probably be corrected to say transcendental signified. Also, on why deconstruction is not relativism, here's my view, which I think is consistent with deconstruction: we cannot definitely consign an absolute reference to nonexistence unless we first understood what the absolute reference is. But if we understood what the absolute reference is, it would exist in our minds. Thus, asking whether or not an absolute reference exists is the wrong question.COGDEN 20:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are right that signified instead of signifier should be used. I have evidently not absorbed the jargon. Also, how does "consignation" (of a hypothetical absolute reference) contrast with "assignation" in this usage?

If I understand—which I may not, or I may be oversimplifying—your view is that if there were no absolute reference point, we wouldn't be in a position to demonstrate it, based on lack of reference point. Is this remotely right? Does this view (or yours, if they differ) seem to have majority support? I think the challenge should go answered in the article, if possible.

A shorter question I get from your view is "does nonexistence exist?" but this sounds rather like we're asking if there is a "reality" of "nonexistence" floating around in Platonic idea-space somewhere. It looks as if you're claiming there's a paradox, but that's a misreading, isn't it?

Thanks for your response. I eagerly await (heh) the Simple English article on deconstruction.

— Vivacissamamente 08:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used the word con-sign sort of accidentally here, and you could probably use the word as-sign equally well. I was trying to convey the notion of attaching the sign nonexistence (i.e., absence) to the sign absolute reference.

I think you understand my point, and I'm not sure who would agree with me because I just thought of it, but I do know that Derrida has described deconstruction not as an "enclosure in nothingness", but as an "openness to the other", which I think is roughly the same thing as what I said. To say that there is no absolute reference is to say that the absolute reference is enclosed within the boundaries of nothingness (i.e., absence). But if it is enclosed anywhere, it is present somewhere. So you end up with a statement caught in the act of its own deconstruction. COGDEN 18:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Who are these experts to whom this article is accesible?

I'm begining to think this isn't supposed to make sense. Some of the ideas proposed in the article make little if any sense, and at times, suggest self-parody (intentional or otherwise!). I'd second the 'technical' template but I'm inclined to think 'technical' might be a bit pretentious. The 'binary oppositions' to be deconstructed generally seem aptly divided by a predominent one and derivative one, making inverting them pointless if not ludicrous.

As I've skimmed the talk page, there hasn't been much defense for this topic. Unless someone can argue for its validity, it appears as though we're doing a disservice by parading this about as a reputable concept.

Please use Talk pages for discussion of the article, not to state your opinion of the article's topic. Wikipedia is not a forum for "defense for" its topics, nor for "arguing [for] the validity" (or against it) of any of its subjects. I do agree that this article needs editing, both for clarity and for correctness, but that's because I understand its topic well -- and this constant refrain of "I don't get it" and/or "I don't get it, so it must be nonsense" is precisely why I have largely sworn off editing it. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said "I don't get it, so it must be nonsense." I said we're doing a disservice by acting like this is a reputable concept if none of us can show that it is. Continentals are good at confusing people into thinking they're right, or, in your case, through condescension. But if you really want to defend the article, EXPLAIN IT! I'm not above saying I don't understand it, but it's ludicrous for us to all just assume it's right if there's nothing profound to be understood. If all it is is exposing binary oppositions and the predominent-derivitive connotation-it doesn't make much sense as there are often good reasons why one is predominent and one is derivative. It's all these word-games that turn people off to contemporary French 'philosophy'.

Again, I didn't say "I don't get it, so it must be nonsense." I said, "does anyone get it"? You say you understand the topic well, so you explain it. We're not stupid people, I'm sure many of us read David Hume and Bertrand Russell and all sorts of technical philosophy-it's not as though we just can't understand abstract, conceptualized knowledge. My point is that I can't even agree with the 'technical' template if this isn't even technical knowledge, just postmodern sophistry. This isn't art, it's information claimed in utter seriousness as fact; you can't say "you just don't get it."

It says we are supposed to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to critical theory on this site. That's your charge, whether it's possible or not. You're the one who understands it well, after all.Maprovonsha172 14:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to understand how referring to deconstruction as a meme is POV, where calling it a concept instead is not. Buffyg 16:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to deconstruction as meme is presuming the existence of memes, an issue debated at the highest levels of academia today; choosing sides on an issue such as this in an article is clearly promoting one's point of view. You could say "some say" it is a meme, but as Fox News regularly shows, prefacing an opinion by saying "some say" is promoting one's opinion still. Be that as it may, it would be preferable than just saying something is a 'meme' outright.

It's obvious why calling something a 'concept' isn't POV, as the existence of 'concepts' isn't disputed as the existence of 'memes' clearly is. A 'meme' is a 'concept', and a highly disputed one at that.Maprovonsha172 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word presupposes nothing more than that word's existence, which is not of necessity dependent on a particular sense. I can find the word "meme" in a dictionary (which does not, by the way, supply a definition exclusive to memetics), and in any case I understand from its difficult Greek etymology that underlying it is a somewhat murky concept, variably of mimesis or memory, which is to say transmission or inheritance (and therefore iteration) that is not as readily conveyed by "concept." You or I may not agree with memetics and generally think that some technical uses of the term draw on some hazy thinking, but trying to abolish a word that does exist because you disagree with a specific sense of it partakes of POV in Orwellian way. I see no reason follow you from your assertion that memetics is disputable to an implicit assertion that all uses of the term necessarily depend on it, which is neither self-evident nor reasonable (certainly this cannot be said of its historical usage). I'm not enamored of the word myself, but I can recognise in it a notion of inheritance and tradition by simple virtue of its etymology, which is not as easily available via "concept." This is why I see your edit as ill-advised and your remark about POV as itself almost entirely polemical and therefore POV. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please, let's not get into the etymology of the word mimesis, which, as Kaufmann points out in Tragedy and Philosophy - philosophers and philologists have been arguing over it's meaning for hundreds of years. It would be better to start in 1976, when Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme', as we are using it. A meme is unit of imitation, either a concept, image, gesture, sound, or other sort of reproducible unit of communication that supposedly takes hold of the human mind, manipulates it, and forces it to act it's way. Dawkin's 'virus analogy' attempts to show that our brains are forced to reproduce memes the way our bodies are forced to reproduce viruses. Dawkin's 'gene analogy' attempts to show that memes are naturally selected like genes, and thus (were that true) it follows that everything we like and dislike, believe and disbelieve, is a function of a memetic paradigm operating mechnanistically over which we have no choice whatsoever and (as Blackmore goes so far as to say) when we say 'we' it is memetic deception because there is no self and (were that true) there are no selves (as in, we selves). So, clearly, a 'meme' is a concept, concepts aren't memes. To say a concept is a meme, or to say anything is a meme blatantly promotes memetics because it presupposes the existence of memes. I'm not saying we're not allowed to use the word (obviously, I'm using it), I'm saying it's POV to declare anything is a meme because no one is sure memes exist.Maprovonsha172 21:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just caught up on some of the story behind the "meme therefore POV" debate and discovered that I have no interest in discussing the subject except to say that selecting one term that one thinks is inadequate in general and substituting a term thought to be a general-purpose synonym doesn't really strike me as an mode of editing I'd care to emulate, in cases like this where the sense of the sentence goes from imprecise (deconstruction inherits from Marxism in a mode it might well find objectionable) to false (deconstruction is a Marxist concept).

On the subject of imprecision, however, one hears sloppy references to "continentals" (a term I've yet to see used rigourously) and then scare-quoted French philosophy (it is the first term that is more in need of suspension, yet it is followed inevitably by an equally questionable postmodern, used to qualify claims of sophistry — there is a better time and place to rehearse basic facts that anyone interested in doing the research can readily discover, demonstrating that this line of characterisation is but a series of grossly uninformed misassociations), so I have even less of a sense that this sets us up for a discussion about improving the article rather than a polemical exchange about its subject. I really can't see the benefit to readers of trading polemics over whether a poorly written article's subject matter or, for that matter, falsely premised criticism of it is "reputable" when the point that everyone acknowledges is that the article badly needs improvement. I should hope that we might be attentive enough in improving it to allow recognition of basic misconceptions indispensable to the sort of critical remarks most frequently attempted.

Matthew, might you put the article on your watchlist and ask some earnest questions about the entry when those of us objecting to your comments have more of a stake in a subsequent revision more to our satisfaction? As it is, I hold the insistence "But if you really want to defend the article, EXPLAIN IT!" defective in its predicate, which you subsequently acknowledge is a matter of the subject of the article as the article fails to present it. Buffyg 23:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My insistence for you to "explain it" is precisely in order for us to make a comprehensible article. If you (or anyone) could do that I think that would do well to answer my criticism and the sentiment (as I'm sure I'm not alone) I represent in expressing a concern over the validity and usefullness of postmodernism and critical theory. I'm not a conservative with an ax to grind with the "New Left" (whatever that is), like Alan Sokal said, I'm a Leftist myself but I can't see why any of this (apparent) au courant sophistry promotes Leftist issues in any meaningful way. Moreover, I'll admit I don't understand deconstruction though I doubt many proponents do either, as no one can begin to try to explain it. It's not that I'm too stupid, in fact I'm not so stupid as to accept an idea I don't understand or as to pretend to understand something so as not to look stupid (which I'm not the first to point out seems to be the essence of this postmodern phenomenon).Maprovonsha172 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I cannot begin to try to explain; it's that my sense of obligation is to provide explanation by way of the article and not further contribution to this discussion. Without further comment I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous response(s) and Rbellin's remark about the purpose of discussion pages. Buffyg 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, please see Wikipedia:Talk etiquette FAQ. Having arguments about the topic of the article is not what Talk pages are for, as individual Wikipedians' opinions are irrelevant to the task of writing articles. If you're interested in debating ideas like deconstruction on your own terms, find another forum (surely Usenet would be better). -- Rbellin|Talk 14:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rbellin. Deconstruction is what it is (or, a little more appropriately, it is not what it is not). And one thing it is not is easy to understand. There are very few critics of deconstruction that actually understand it. (I would include Richard Rorty, a relativist, and Jürgen Habermas, a modernist, on that list.) Most criticism of deconstruction is the result of people short-circuiting the analysis by confusing deconstruction with nihilism or Sophism. It would be great if there were an easy way to describe deconstruction so that every lay person--or even every logical positivist--could understand it. Those who have some exposure to structuralism or Continental philosophy have a leg up in this regard. But when the person who coined the word deconstruction (Jacques Derrida spent his whole career trying to discover what it means, it's hard to condense that whole body of work, and the work of countless others, into a short article in simplified english. Not that we won't try. COGDEN 18:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

One must be careful in saying that Derrida coined the term — that account seems insufficient. Buffyg 23:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the eternal cliché of post-modernism being meaningless jargon

why do people continue to perpetuate such things? it's just far too easy a criticism to make. Be more creative, people.

Perhaps it is a ubiquitous criticism for a reason. Certainly nothing in the article here serves to dissuade. Banno 01:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You've got nothing on that last point, given the ready acceptance of so much meaningless jargon. For one, there's no point in pursuing a discussion if we're content to start with a questionable premise about equating deconstruction with postmodernism and drag all the polemical baggage that comes with that rather shaky association. Although I've not yet attempted to clarify this in this article, I have in the Derrida article pointed out some simple facts pointing to the insufficiency of that line of characterisation. In any case, there's an article to re-write, as no one's arguing for the cogency of the current revision, so there's not a lot to discuss for the time being. Buffyg 02:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've got to second Banno's comment. I find it terribly interesting that tons of people promote deconstruction but can't begin to explain it. As George Orwell reminds us, and Banno illustrates, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." Alan Sokal's hoax shows that even the most prestigious, peer-reviewed post-modern writings accept any patent nonsense as long as it flatters the basic principles, mostly set down in meaningless jargon. Sokal's book Fashionable Nonsense perfectly illustrates this point by analysing postmodern texts and pointing out errors-is that, finally, an example of a deconstructive reading? What delicious irony would it be if Sokal's wonderful book against postmodernism is itself an example of deconstruction; whether it is or not, it is an example of everything analysis should be-clearly elucidating complex concepts and data by clarifying technical expressions into simpler and more basic ones. It isn't dumbing it down, it's making sure it makes sense to begin with. As I said earlier, I'll admit I don't understand deconstruction though I doubt many proponents do either, as no one can begin to try to explain it. It's not that I'm too stupid, in fact I'm not so stupid as to accept an idea I don't understand or as to pretend to understand something so as not to look stupid (which I'm not the first to point out seems to be the essence of this postmodern phenomenon).Maprovonsha172 19:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your reading and understanding of Sokal is as poorly researched (e.g. basic factual errors like "peer reviewed," which Social Text certainly was not) and developed as your attempted use of deconstruction as an object of polemical scorn. Let's just settle for saying that the ubiquity of an argument on any side cannot be equated with intellectual validity. Buffyg 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for saying getting it wrong about the "peer-reviewed" statement, but everything else stands. I also understand that an ad populum argument is proof of nothing (and afterall, it would only help your side in this case as I'm clearly outnumbered), but it is nonetheless a truism that, as Banno said, "Perhaps it is a ubiquitous criticism for a reason." You were good to point out my error, but you would do well to answer my other, more serious criticisms.Maprovonsha172 20:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only criticisms I'm willing to entertain as serious are those related to the article. I am in no position to argue here for purposes unrelated to the evident need to overhauling the entry, the validity of content that does not appear in it or is not proposed here. If you'd like to make informed remarks on a subsequent thorough revision, please come back when that work is done. As you have no remarks to offer about how to improve the edit, I have no reason to believe that we have anything further to discuss at this time. Buffyg 17:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)