Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Very poor article

This article is piecemeal, poorly written and frequently wrong, lacking structure, clarity, and coherence. It needs to be abandoned and restarted. This, of course, is not possible unless a consensus forms in favour of deleting almost all the material currently included in the article. Until that consensus forms it is not possible to begin to create a worthwhile encyclopedia entry on this topic. Mtevfrog (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite poor in its current form (though you don't qualify your assertion that it is "frequently wrong") but I think this reflects the genuine difficulty of communicating the subject matter. I do not believe that it should be abandoned and restarted. Shabby as the page currently is I think it is unnecessarily destructive to arbitrarily delete it when what we should be trying to do is increase the amount of good information on the page and editing out the poor material as it is replaced. Seferin (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely needs some work, I've read the first third of the article and still have no idea what exactly Deconstruction is. The opening paragraph is incredibly confusing. Maybe you guys should take a look at the Hyperrealism article, I think it does a good job explaining and defining, for what can initially be an esoteric subject. Vechs (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I read the first couple paragraphs and have no clue what Destruction is. I am college educated. 24.16.12.136 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect that you are all intelligent people experiencing difficulty with the subject matter but this can also be said of other technical subjects also (for random example: matrix theory) and in these cases of real difficulty a wikipedia article could never be expected to simply give you understanding of the topic. This is not necessarily the fault of the best article nor your best efforts to understand. Seferin (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why some of you find that this article is confusing or difficult to read. After reading the first couple of sentences, I completely knew what it was talking about and what deconstructivism was. In fact, I was coming to this topic page to comment on how great I thought the clarity of the introductory paragraph was. I have been familiar with the concept of deconstructivism for quite some time, I just didn't know there was a word for it. I think it might just be a difficult subject matter for those unfamiliar with it - just like I would be completely lost if I went to the wikipedia article on Ignition Timing. I don't think this article is in need of a re-write or even a cleanup for that matter, as I don't think the introductory paragraph can be put into simpler terms than what it is already in. --97.112.121.215 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that deconstructionist analysis of texts has nothing to do with science, and should be viewed as something on par with creationist analysis of the origins of life, or astrological analysis of the future events. It uses a great lot of made-up words to obscure the embarrassing truth, that it has nothing to say. Obviously, deconstructivists won't ever admit that, and will vandalize any proper description of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.70.129 (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can one delete the comments of people like User:81.190.70.129, who have simply come here to be unpleasant? Che Gannarelli (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I just found out about this article and either I'm a freak of nature or you guys are trying to create some colossal pun. It's a fairly simple idea. The first paragraph pretty much puts it in terms anyone could understand if they cared to. Keep the article simple. Quote frequently, and CITE! Stop creating subjective comments like "he was a mentor and foil"--that's literary criticism of a historical event. It doesn't apply to an objective medium, and only seeks to further destroy the validity of the article. Just state something generic like "his opinions were supported/contradicted by the works of..." This article is about the idea that you can take any written/word item and use it as a time-capsule for humanity. You look at the basic assumptions present in the writer's mind when he wrote something: i.e. the funny use of imagery to describe technology in Fahrenheit 451 used probably because the writer didn't have better technology to insert, or was strongly influenced by surrounding forces (personal experience of profundidty, cultural norm, other writers pissing him off). Except these highlighted "forefathers" use grander ideas, like "Philosophy" and "Socialism" to try to bring themselves and perhaps others to a point of transcendence and understanding. Deconstruction is something that can only be done "in reading" if you're one of those people who does crossword puzzles all the time. It's a word study, and authors hate it. It debases the whole point of writing as an art. Call it the anti-author. Authors seek to build art out of assumptions and fads, the Deconstructionist seeks to bring everything back to the drawing board. This article demonstrates nicely the point that Wikipedia is not the world's greatest source of knowledge. It's just a site where people post what they want to. And usually the phallus wins. Stop groveling already. The later parts of the article really start to pull everything together. It is unfortunate that citation is badly needed. Please, someone from Yale try to find these guys and bring more examples to the table. The stumbling block is where strict philosophical, sociological, or scientific dogma is challenged for what it is: flawed ideas asserted by flawed human beings. Don't worry. The threads of existence aren't going to pull apart on you. E. Feldt

This article is written in, obscure, often impenetrable prose. It therefor conforms with all current international guidelines emanating from The Guild of Postmodernist Artists and Writers. Prunesqualer (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article definately needs a re-write. In it's current form, it is completely incomprehensable. Wikipedia's purpose is to educate. Anyone reading this article who isn't a complete master of the subject will have absolutely no idea what the hell this article is taking about. Can we please make it so that someone who hasn't written papers on this subject will actually know what we're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The JMO Man (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential vandalism

The do boy initially resisted granting to his approach the overarching name "deconstruction," on the grounds that it was a precise technical term that could not be used to characterise his work generally. Nevertheless, he eventually accepted that the term had come into common use to refer to his textual approach, and Derrida himself increasingly began to use the term in this more general way.

Do boy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.48.163 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I'm kind of an outsider to this whole discussion, but I have valiantly tried to understand what this is all about and have utterly failed. Is this because the term is just indefinable, or is it because the article is just so laden with gobbledygook that only people "in the profession" can figure it out? If it's the latter then this whole thing needs a drastic rewrite, because it's incomprehensible to the average Joe, I suspect deliberately so. Thant’s fine for some English journal, but not for Wikipedia. Andacar (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has won the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to put this material

The following was in the section on Criticism in Popular Media but it really doesn't belong there: "Native American novelist Gerald Vizenor claims an extensive debt to deconstructionist ideas in attacking essentialist notions of race." Lawyer2b (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Top importance for Literature?

I've just set the assessment to mid importance for the Literature wikiproject. I'm unsure if the importance is actually high as for Philosophy.--Sum (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The first two sentences are terrible. They tell us little and are poorly constructed. I won't risk doing it myself, only to have it redacted in 20 seconds. Someone who's allowed to contribute, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.68 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is a poor introduction and doesn't really explain anything, in addition to sounding overtly esoteric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.216.35 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I can't make head nor tail of the introduction. I can't imagine anything being summed up so badly in two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I found this from a quick Googling. I can't say it's the clearest prose I've read, but it gives me a much better idea than this article:

"A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all." --http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/decon-body.html

Is this a reasonable intro? I'm not going to edit the page myself because I'm in no position to say whether it's accurate. 66.44.24.184 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) - Brian

Definition

"It is difficult to define formally "Deconstruction" within Western philosophy."? Why not "It is difficult to formally define 'Deconstruction'"? Why within western philosophy? Does it become easy with reference to Lao Tzu? TheAnonymousHamster (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it.... What is the sentence "Most criticism of deconstruction is difficult to read and summarise.", which reads as a dig at critics of deconstruction, doing in the Definition section at all? TheAnonymousHamster (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to define "deconstruction" for the same reason that it's difficult to define "art". (That doesn't mean deconstruction is art, but perhaps it is an art). We generally recognize art when we see it, but we don't have a general algorithm which will produce it. (We have algorithms that can produce artifacts recognizeable as art, but not ones that capture all and any art, or that decide art from non-art). Deconstruction basically means to find some interpretation for some piece of text, other than what the actually says. If it has various qualities like being sublimely clever, funny, or somehow enligthening or stimulating, then the intellectuals will point at it and call it a fine work of deconstruction. The nice thing is that if you have a talent for interpreting some text in wacky ways, you don't have to study anything about deconstruction to do it, or justify what you are doing in any way. Which is the essence of true liberal arts: avoiding anything that smells like what employed people do. And so, the only small problem with that deconstructionist interpretation is that the text doesn't really say that.--70.79.96.174 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Deconstruction basically means to find some interpretation for some piece of text, other than what the actually says." That is the clearest definition of this topic that I have ever seen. If the whole article was replaced by that sentence, it would lead to greater understanding for the average wikipedia user. Jimhsu77479 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.125.88 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 

The current definition "Deconstruction is a term that French philosopher Jacques Derrida introduced..." does not say what the term means. What happened to the Wikipedia definition shown by Google: "Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or ..."? That one at least gave a meaning to the word. PlutarcoNaranjo (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PlutarcoNaranjo on that point. It occurs to me that in the opening definition, we might attain that clarity for the uninitiated reader by enumerating three or four ways to "define" deconstruction. A difficulty in doing this, however, would be an overlap with the section on Derrida's negative descriptions. This revision I'm suggesting would likely lead to a fuller reorganization of the article, perhaps by bringing those negative descriptions up closer to the top of the article. Perhaps one entry in that enumeration would be to discuss the view that, as Derrida has said, deconstruction is not a method, but more akin to a process that occurs inherently through the dissemination of the text(s) that determine culture. I see this view of deconstruction as inherent process intimated or implied under the negative descriptions section, but the writer(s) do not make it explicit enough. It comes closest to emerging in the section on Differance. Again, a proper revision with clearer definitions will likely lead to reorganization, so that Differance is discussed after the definitions, including a briefer presentation of the negative descriptions. I think this inherent process is important, and some attempt at clear admission of this process will aid the uninitiated audience in understanding why deconstruction is not a method. To put it another way, "Deconstruction happens, or texts deconstruct themselves, with the verb used as an intransitive rather than transitive. (Sorry... I'll need to search for references to back this up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.37.201.28 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Binary opposites?

I just took a class in post-structuralism, and we discussed Deconstruction in detail. I tried understanding it before I took the class, and it was impossible.

But what made it possible for me to understand this is the preliminary discussion on Saussurean semiotics and the binary opposition by which semiotic structures work. The concept of binary opposition is crucial in making a definition of Deconstruction. Sadly though,the article doesn't even make mention of it.

What did I learn Deconstruction is, you ask? It's actually very simple.As I digression, let me explain it.

Ferdinand de Saussure, father of Structuralism, declared two things: that signs were composed of "signifiers" (things used to represent, i.e. letters, phonemes, etc.) associated with "signifieds" (concepts of things) and that these signs (on both signifier and signified level) are only part of structures that work in a system of binary opposition: signs convey meaning, and the only way they can be signs and they can mean something is if they are put beside those that are not them and that have meanings other than theirs. That which is not-X defines what X is. "Dog" refers to the animal because 1.) its signifier is "dog" and not "cat" (or any other signifier) and 2.) the signifier "dog" is attached to a signified other than that to which "cat" (or any other signifier) is attached to.

Derrida, in his lecture "Structure, Sign and Play and the Discourse of the Human Sciences" says "the center is not the center, the center is elsewhere." This means that in "dog" the dog is not found, only that which is "not-not dog" ("not dog" being the binary opposite of dog). That the signifier "dog" never completely "associates" itself with the concept of dog is what is called Différance.

Deconstruction happens when you observe that "dog" means "not-not dog," and point out that opposites in fact define each other. Good is only good with evil around (that's John Milton's idea). Men are only men with women around. Speech is only a distinct form of communication with text around. Presence is only presence when we realize that there is absence. This is where Nietzsche comes in: the cause can only be determined with the effect, and contrary to common sense, the former follows the latter. To complete the reversal, "man" is a type of "woman" because it is one with a negative concept attached (a "woman that is not"). What makes it "not an approach" is that it doesn't answer the question it poses ("what then will a sign be outside its structure?") but simply refuses (rather mockingly) to let either side "take control" of the "violent hierarchy." ("woman" defines "man," but "man" defines "woman" too...) It is not at all constructive, hence the name.

For a more thorough introduction, try Raman Selden's Introduction to Literary Theory. He has a section there on this.

I hope that cleared things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.158.58 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That cleared things up in the sense that a brain tumor will clear up a migraine. Ornithikos (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, binary opposites ARE mentioned -- but just once -- under "Not poststructuralist." The term is NOT tied to Saussure, however, as it should be. Again, the first big problem here is organization. Let's tackle that first, so we can then triage the whole article. 14.37.201.28 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

intro

the last sentence in the lead paragraph either means nothing because of how it is worded, or means virtually nothing to the general public because of how it is worded. can this be changed by someone who understands the intent of the sentence? Murderbike (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is all a joke. Right?

It's all made up, right? I mean, that gag has been done before. That is, seeing how long a paper of gobbledygook gets taken seriously before it's exposed. Is this one of them? I'm serious.

108.7.8.198 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay okay, I wasn't completely serious. It's just that, for a reader doesn't know that D is a "real" thing, and who doesn't check other sources, and who knows that such gags have been done in the past, the article does have a whiff of the possibility of it being that kind of gag. The very first sentence (before I improved it) seemed like an immediate attempt at misdirection and intimidation, both of which aren't encyclopedic, and both of which are necessary for the gag to work. And so on...

108.7.8.198 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence is off topic.

While editing the first sentence for better clarity, I realized that it is not a description of what the thing is but rather an immediate digression into the history of the word.

I beseech anyone who knows the subject better than I do, and who can write simply and clearly, to fix this off-topic-ness in the introduction paragraph.

108.7.8.198 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I just now saw (by scanning this talk page) that this not-describing-what-the-thing-is problem has been a problem since at least August 2008 (two years) - and I thought I was so clever to discover it!  :-)

108.7.8.198 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An attempted definition of deconstruction appears in the section on that topic in Postmodernism. I would paste that text into this article, but trying to provide an objective definition of deconstruction or postmodernism would be contrary to the nature of deconstruction and postmodernism. What could definitely be true of the philosophy that nothing is definitely true? Perhaps that is why Derrida himself "carefully avoided defining [deconstruction] directly" as this article forthrightly notes. If he demurred, what hope have we? Ornithikos (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Li and Chang

Anyone know what the citation "Li and Chang" in the Theory section is referring to? --Quadalpha (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

nerd note

I want to point out, as a geek (and someone who doesn't understand literary criticism a bit) what I think about this article.

Article about deconstruction should, at least in the first few paragraphs, describe, what deconstruction is for those who does not know it. It shouldn't be a paper about deconstruction or discussion about it. BUT - the first three paragraphs, which should include the most important basis of the described thing, is written what desconstruction is not (i don't care what it's NOT!) and describing it all in some strange words I don't understand.

that's a bit of a problem, as deconstruction is defined by it's creator by saying what it isn't. what you want doesn't matter; doesn't exist. that's kind of the point. each of us deconstructs differently than everyone else. what it is for you is different than what it is for me. for me to say what it is limits it to just my version. I have given examples from my POV further down this discussion. Now, if Deconstruction has no meaning to you, perhaps you should consider posting in a discussion where you know something about the subject matter rather than claim (as you are about to) that it shouldn't have an article because you don't understand it.96.24.93.114 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just give a quick note at the beginning of the article to say, what deconstruction is - if someone can say it. If it's something that cannot be described as such, I don't know if it deserves an article :P --89.24.72.230 (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

see? I told you you'd say that.96.24.93.114 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I once heard a philosophy grad student discuss, for an hour, whether meanings existed. At the end of it, someone raised their hand and asked him what he meant by "exists." Before he could answer, someone added that they weren't sure what he meant by "meaning." He answered with a quote from Quine (I think, or it might have been Hume, I've forgotten)... something like: "our argument is not circular. Rather, its approximate form is that of a closed curve in space."

The problem isn't that no one has defined deconstruction in this article, it's that no one has ever defined it at all (successfully), leaving no one with much of anything constructive to say. I suspect that, much like the philosophy of language, the entire field of deconstructionism is one gigantic logical fallacy, shrouded in the mists of increasingly obtuse terminology designed specifically to avoid the realization that everything its practitioners have ever done (usually with the best of intentions) has been undermined by faulty assumptions.

That said, I don't really understand deconstruction any better than I understand quantum computing or astrobiology, so who am I to pass judgment. 71.81.78.66 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that this page is for planning the wikipedia article explaining deconstruction not for debating the merits of the topic itself...but having said that I would like to respond on one point. Derrida's work emphasises the importance of the involvement of language when we are doing philosophy but language (and meaning and knowledge) are fundamentally metaphysical for Derrida. This is because they involve an appeal to a presence beyond themselves and are therefore tied up with questions of being and the basic transcendentalism of metaphysical thought. I'd therefore argue that Derrida is not operating in some kind of linguistic bubble constructed in false assumption, through circularity, as you suggest. Derrida's philosophy works intimately with questions of the real and of meaning and obviously operates with this concepts even while problematising them because (as you seem to imply) it would be difficult to philosophise or even write without these terms implicitly operating to a greater or lesser degree. If Derrida's questioning appears to denigrate the terms "real" and "meaning" more than you are comfortable with then this denigration as you see it does not originate with Derrida but with Husserl's phenomenology - where it is argued quite convincingly and, dare I say it, in an exceedingly analytic manner that all we know of the real and meaning is derived from our conscious experience...it is therefore the assumption of the supposed externality of the external world that one should reject first. If you are interested in logical fallacies then you could derive great enjoyment from Derrida's demonstrations of the aporia in pure philosophical thought (such as that in the purest of transcendental philosophical thought, that of an objective external world) but once again this manner of thinking does not originate with Derrida but with Kant - remember that Kant's text is titled the "Critique of Pure Reason". Seferin (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Say what? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So try harder. Seferin (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit flip. I guess we just have different outlooks: my approach to writing is that the burden is on the writer to express himself clearly and concisely, rather than being on the reader to decipher sesquipedalian prolixity. Deconstruct that. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - but obviously it is easier to express yourself clearly when all you want to say is "The toast is on the table" as against trying to indicate to someone how they are subtly confused on a difficult topic. Not being able to understand the clarification could be considered part of their initial confusion and not necessarily part of my attempt to clarify the matter with limited space and time. If they already understood the clarification then they would not have been confused so some work is always required. My basic strategy was to demonstrate how much Derrida shares the concerns raised by 71.81.78.66 and indicate how the implied criticism of Derrida can actually be pinned on his predecessors Husserl and Kant (thinkers that no one ever derides as bullshit despite advocating some of the positions that are attributed to Derrida in the first place and the technical difficulty of their philosophical prose). [btw - love the thesaurus! I had to google "sesquipedalian" and "prolixity". So sometimes work is required to understand other people and our desire not to be confused is all that is required to take some responsibility for overcoming our confusion :0P ] Seferin (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I have to admit I had to read your comment several times and I still don't understand it. Well, you are trying to say, that instead of cycling arguments, deconstruction somehow escape this cycle. Is this, what that term, deconstruction, mean? Or is it only a way to escape this cycle?

remember, I wrote, that I know nothing about this subject - and that's what encyclopedia should be for - to explain the term to me. There are many articles about nearly-undefinable terms. All I want to know is what deconstruction means, that means for example, what new it brings to philosophy.

it can use philosophic terms, but these should be explained - or linked to another article. Let's look at, for example, article Leaf node - it's explained in terms of CompSci, but these are all linked and explained elsewhere. .... I hope you get my point :) --89.24.72.230 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 89.24.72.230, I was replying to 71.81.78.66 rather than yourself. I'm sorry if you don't understand some of the words being used to explain deconstruction. I would love to be able to link to other articles that could explain the explanatory terminology itself that is being used on the deconstruction page but unfortunately a lot of those articles don't seem to exist yet. The page on structuralism might sound promising but it doesn't really help because Derrida refers to a structural mode of description in Husserl's philosophy that doesn't have its own article. Similarly there does not appear to be a page to explain what origin means in a technical philosophical sense that could be related to Derrida's use the term. I've linked to related terms like hermeneutics and immanent critique but these can't actually be expected to explain deconstruction merely by association. Perhaps one of the biggest problems is the lack of a page on the phenomenological reduction. Perhaps wikipedia is just stronger on CompSci pages at the moment than it is on continental philosophy?

Now it is complicated, but there is actually a serious amount of explanation on the page at this stage. Though maybe it can't be figured out without learning to philosophise at least a little bit. For example: Try asking yourself what is meant by methodology in the sense Derrida means when he states "deconstruction is not a methodology" and try to figure out what kind of methodology is leftover without that sense of methodology that Derrida rejects. If you can realise what Beardsworth means when he describes "a procedural form of judgement" and how that might be a problem then you have been prompted by deconstruction to think much more deeply about a fundamental tool of philosophy and your own interest of computer programming! (Since procedural judgement is the only kind of judgement that a computer programme can use) You will then have started to grasp some aspect of the significance of what deconstruction means. Figure it out in little bits at a time. I have barely a clue how deconstruction is related to Lacanian psychoanalysis because I've never read Lacan but I've a pretty clear idea of how it relates to Husserl's phenomenology...you don't have to understand absolutely everything all at once to get a sense of what the term deconstruction means and once you start to figure parts of it out you realise how exciting it is to begin thinking through the kinds of question it raises. Seferin (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this article and the discussion just a perfect example of the confusion that arises from deconstruction? The fact that it seems so difficult to even give a simple definition is crazy. Reading the article, I'm wondering if a true article on it would require multiple sections, side by side, lifting up opposing interpretations of each point of deconstruction. Of course you can't give a definition of it, if you could, a deconstructionist would show up and deconstruct it. Continental philosophy always gave me a headache - just seems like a moving target. Complex things are very hard to explain, but I do wonder, if you can't at least define something simply, do you really understand it? Maybe some of the folks trying to write this article should leave it to those who actually know what they're talking about. 12:12 5 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.197 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Emperor Has No Clothes

No one knows what Deconstruction is. Every conversation on Deconstruction is just two people pretending to know what Deconstruction is. More people need to be honest about this. Prominence should be given to the clear critism of Deconstruction as nonsense from academics who are comprehensible, such as Noam Chomsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk • contribs)

Well, if you look above, you'll see a conversation in which I make absolutely no attempt to pretend to know what deconstruction is. :) Chomsky would probably be a good source for this article -- do you have a particular writing by him in mind? rspεεr (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I've been looking over the comments for a place to say this, and this is as good a place as any. I actually know exactly what "deconstruction" is. I'm a deconstructionist poet. I will not edit the article as long as it exists in some form. Deconstruction is an existentialist concept. here is a simplified view: the meaning of what I say can exist in one of 3 places: 1. my mind as I write. 2. the words. 3. your mind as you read. Deconstruction says the real meaning is in the words, because any meaning you and I may say exists is subjective. the text, or thought-out collection of words to most precisely transmit the meaning from me to you is what matters. any pride I may have in assembling the words doesn't matter. any feelings you attach to understanding the text doesn't matter. what matters is that the meaning is transmitted accurately. this seems easy enough until you consider the over-all ambiguity of language. how often does it happen that 2 words that seem to mean the same thing really don't, and should not be used interchangeably, but are. the "corrosive nihilism" that has been used to criticize deconstruction, from my experience, would seem to be that some words, some language would cease to be. it happens to me when I remove unneeded words from a poem and discover, or make obvious hidden and unseen meanings by having words modify the ideas before and after them in context. In my opinion, deconstruction is related to the Zen concept of the "transmission of mind", except instead of a lifelong search for spiritual understanding, it is a disciplined study through which clarity is achieved and improved. Discussion, like here, is but one deconstructionist method. As for Heidegger and Nietzsche, well, an exaggerated (perhaps) comparison would be that if there is a mis-spelled word, a deconstructionist might fix the spelling, or choose another word. Heidegger would have us re-write the whole article, and Nietzsche would blow up the server farm the wiki is on and start from scratch.

I write this because so much of what we do is just the informal deconstruction techniques we have developed as individuals (and sometimes even share), and no one gets it (deconstruction at work: I had written "understands" instead of "gets", but I think the meaning is better communicated this way. people understand the words, but don't get the meaning).96.24.93.114 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

translation

I read the first sentence and decided to go no further with the article. Can the author please arrange for his/her text to be translated into standard English ? Thank you. Pamour (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the spelling is getting worse - what appear to be quotes have so many mistakes, I assume they are translations by someone for whom English is not a first language. I am not a philiospher, but a Gnome trying to correct typo's; however, when the meaning is unclear, it is difficult to ascertain what is a mistake and what isn't.
Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Deconstructing deconstruction

The author of this article has fallen into the trap maybe of describing the subject matter in a style to appeal to fans of Derrida, a style which judging by the weight of criticism the article has received clearly does not appeal to everyone, but so far I have not found a rule in the Wikipedia principles against this. I am not sure the article entirely leads the way regarding the second of the five pillars of Wikipedia, namely neutrality and verifiable accuracy, but the first pillar states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If Wikipedia were a dictionary, then on the one hand, those who criticise the article for a lack of a snappy definition at the beginning would have a stronger case, but on the other hand, the nature of the subject matter would really not sit very well in Wikipedia. The article makes the important point, that the originator of the term apparently had his reasons for refusing to define it. It also includes at least references to some of the significant attempts of others in the field to do so.

I find some of the criticism here above of this brave and ambitious but flawed article to be rather harsh for Wikipedia, which is founded on openness, and editors are asked on the fourth pillar to be welcoming to others. How about everyone let’s just focus on the business of building Wikipedia and be constructive (no pun intended) about how to improve the article. Jonathan G. G. Lewis 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think an unwritten rule is, or should be, that Wikipedia Is Not An Advanced Textbook. It is an encyclopedia - it's right there in the name and tagline. And what is an encyclopedia? Something meant to be a reference tool, describing things in a way that a person who doesn't know much (if anything) about those things, can understand them a little better. It is meant to serve, in other words, as an introduction. Now, being that we are online and with therefore fewer limitations on space, that "introduction" to a subject can get fairly detailed in totality, BUT, and I emphasize this in particular, the introduction to the introduction should still allow you to get your bearings.

When you first start reading it, in other words, you should be able to get at minimum, a very, very, rough overview of the subject; if the subject is complex, then this overview doesn't need to be "complete", so much as it needs to say "this is a complex subject because of X, Y and Z" with the implication that to understand the fuller context, you would need to read further. In other words, if part of the problem with people comprehending the article is "it is hard to define it because it means something different to everyone who uses it", then simply say as much in the introduction and then let the body of the article elaborate on what it means to whom and in what contexts (preferably in chronological order, as it would make logical sense to do so - somebody invented the term/concept, then other people took it and ran with it).

Since other websites (such as Princeton's WordNet) appear to have a clearer "basic" definition of the subject, I am going to Be Bold and add something equivalent to the introduction so that readers unacquainted with the subject won't at least walk away from the intro thinking "WTF does that mean?". ;) 68.202.85.105 (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

In attempts to research this field elsewhere I notice several things:

Attempts to define Deconstruction by use of its own jargon are unsuccessful at communication, if standards of success formulated elsewhere are compared with those attempts. Perhaps the notions of recursion or tautology are evident.

The use of the term "text" can be replaced in some measure by the term "symbol transmission."

Symbol transmission conveys "meta" meaning by the very fact of symbol transmission. (Sender assumes message or meaning is necessary to transmit; recipient assumes sender assumes recipient in need of meaning, etc.)

Theories of knowledge are employed by deconstructionist thinkers.

Evolutionary psycho-physiology is not much present in deconstructionist dialog. Nor is modern data compression theory, cybernetic theory, information theory, thermodynamic theory as applied to information, behavioral psychyology, etc. Deconstruction theory often does not employ (avoids?) them.

Topics for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.189.18 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Article too long, needs to branch off into "child" articles

I agree with comments that this article is way too long for a typical encyclopedia article, not to mention to academic for most readers who aren't already at least somewhat familiar with the terminology to start with. I'd like to add some information on deconstruction in the visual arts, but good grief, not here. Proposed solution: Restrict the main "Deconstruction" article to some basic definitions and an overview of theorists (summary style), then move some of the more detailed info into child articles that branch off from the main Deconstruction article: i.e., Deconstruction in literature, Deconstruction in music, Deconstruction in cinema, Deconstruction in art. I think that would be a start. I anticipate problems with cross-genre works and theorists, yes, but this huge, lumbering article needs to be more concise and clear. Too much here for a generalist readership, IMO.OttawaAC (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You clearly were to bold and didn't respect the contributions of many other editors, probably more well informed and read than you. I will revert it and we can star from there. I was dealing with other articles and couldn't have the time for this one. It needs to be reviwed but not the way you have done it. There are a lot of great contributions you proposed. But lets go step by step. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted your edits of 17 April, here. First of all the shape you gave the article in no way conforms to our MOS. The ubiquitous use of text boxes (even in footnotes!) is unnecessary and distracting, and several of them had quotations that started before or ended after the box. Such editorial errors were found in numerous places--I do not claim that the previous version was flawless, yours was no improvement in that respect; did you intend to leave the parentheses unclosed in the second paragraph of the lead? The wordplay in many of the sections suggests emulation, but our readership does not like surprises. Second, I note (under "Not a method") a number of headings with titles that are perfectly acceptable in Derridean books, but not in our articles. Moreover, the tone in your version is far from encyclopedic--even the lead is problematic, with such phrases as "On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning." "We" is inappropriate, as is the jargon. In a nutshell, your version does not take the necessary distance between topic and treatment and in many ways does not conform to our guidelines. With my apologies, Drmies (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Sir - Please, see WP:CONSENSUS. You are not deleting only my contributions but the contributions from dozens of other editors taht are working in this article for many months. You talk about "our MOS, "our readership does not like suprises", "ourarticles". Can you explain me how you own the wikipedia? Sorry, I don't know who you are.

  This is not "my version". I only tried to revert it to an older one before your bold editing. After that some other editors made some contributions. I will revert to it. Please try to get consensus before editing. There is a lot to do, but not the way you wnt to do it (all your critics seem fair and are easy to correct. I will do it after reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't say or imply that I own anything. I guess I own the netbook on which I'm typing this. A willful misreading of my words won't help your argument. "Our" refers to Wikipedia as a collaborative project, with a set of agreed-upon guidelines that are always subject to change. But as the matter stands right now, your edits are not in agreement with our MOS. Not "my" MOS--our MOS. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that Hibrido Mutante's behavior at this article, and its talk page, involves the same kind of problems as his behavior at other articles and their talk pages. Although he invokes WP:CONSENSUS, it's his edits that violate it. Hibrido, WP:MOS is a standard that editors are expected to follow, and Drmies is trying to help you by bringing this to your attention. Another relevant guideline is WP:NOTDICTIONARY; this article is about Deconstruction, not the term "Deconstruction", so it cannot begin with the line, "Deconstruction is a term introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in his 1967 book Of Grammatology." That would be appropriate for a dictionary, but this is an encyclopedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear sir, this sentence is not mine (i belive it is there for some years now...(but, to be honest, your argument doesn't make much sense to me. So, a term introduced by Derrida should not be introduced as a term that was introduced by Derrida. In a diccionary you would say that but not in a encyclopedia?...But ok. You can change it. Please, propose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1) First of all

a) the shape you gave the article in no way conforms to our MOS.

It is not “my article”. It is the result of many editors during many years. I agree with you. We must work its form, more than its content (that is far from perfect)

b) The ubiquitous use of text boxes (even in footnotes!) is unnecessary and distracting, and several of them had quotations that started before or ended after the box.

Corrected

d) the parentheses unclosed in the second paragraph of the lead?

Corrected.

e) The wordplay in many of the sections suggests emulation, but our readership does not like surprises.

Sorry Could you be more explicit. I didn’t understand.

2) Second,

a) I note (under "Not a method") a number of headings with titles that are perfectly acceptable in Derridean books, but not in our articles.

This was not my contribution. I don’t agree with it all (not only with the titles). But I respect the contributions from others. But you can change the titles.

b) Moreover, the tone in your version is far from encyclopedic—

I repeat, it is not “my version”, it is the result of many editors, during many years.

c) On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning." "We" is inappropriate, as is the jargon.

Corrected. I’m not sure I understood what you mean with “jargon".. was it about “overturn”? I tis a term used for many centuries, and become central to some philosophers since Nietzsche. But it looks its philosophical sense is not very different from the common one...

d) your version does not take the necessary distance between topic and treatment and in many ways does not conform to our guidelines

In a nutshell, it is not “your version” against “our guidelines” but “our version” that has to be improved to conform to “our guidelines”

Correct me if I’m wrong

Thanks

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hibrido Mutante seems intent on edit warring at this article. He reverted me with the comment, "This editor is not following the rules of consensus. This has nothing to do with being a dictionary." The suggestion that I am not "following the rules of consensus" is remarkable, given that no one has supported Hibrido Mutante here, and one other editor (Drmies) has also reverted him. Hibrido's comment that "This has nothing to do with being a dicctionarie" is not an argument, and in no way responds to the point I made in the edit summary. Wikipedia articles are, with a handful of exceptions, about topics, not about words. An article called Deconstruction should be about Deconstruction, not the term "Deconstruction", and therefore it cannot begin, "Deconstruction is a term introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in his 1967 book Of Grammatology." Plainly, that violates the intent of WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and as such is unacceptable. The other version of the lead, starting with, "Deconstructionism is a philosophical theory of literary and other artistic criticism", is better because it properly identifies the topic of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Polish Coweb: I'm now used to your methods and I will not start another edit warring with you (I thought you were going to give me an answer in "John Searl" article where you also deleted all my contributions, even after other editors told you the subject was important (we are now trying to get to a final versions based on consensus). It's strange for me that suddenly you appear here (and don't say nothing there)

I'm also surprised that, suddenly, Drmies that came here and deleted not only my contributions (that I published in December) but the contributions from dozens of other editors (talking about something as "philosophy of literary critic"... and this should be enough to any serious editor to understand Drmies is not qualified to edit this article or any other one concerning "philosophy" or "literary critic"), now appeared in the John Serale article but not here.

It's clear for anyone that you are working together to attack Derrida's ideas, without any respect for rules or consensus.

Your argument about WP:NOTDICTIONARY

first, doesn't make any sense (dictionaries, for my knowledge, don't tell you who introduced a term. Encyclopedias do

Second: your argument is only about the first paragraph (that is not my contribution and, for my knowledge is there for some years now). Drmies editing was much more extensive and destructive. If your critic is to the first paragraph, please, propose in the section where we are trying to get consensus.

Thanks

Best regards

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a way to make sure that the definition both describes deconstruction as a concept/theoretical framework and mentions that this framework and the term for it was developed by Derrida in On Grammatology. It is correct that the article is about the concept not the term, but it is also correct that the term and the concept are very closely tied to Derrida -which should be mentioned in the definition. So I suggest a compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree Manus.Please propose. I'm sure we can do it together (I said the same to Polish but he opted to revert everything and start a "Edit warring").

First sentence is not mine (and I will not even say I agree with it in 100% - it clearly privileges Heidegger's influence and not, for example, Saussure, Nietzsche or Cavaillès, etc.) but it looks to me as a good start.

I hope you agree at least (to start with) that it doesn't make sense to say deconstruction is specially concerned with "literary critic". Derrida's main works, for example, were about philosophers (Plato, Descartes, Rousseau, Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, Foucault, Austin, etc.). You can see references (and uses) of deconstruction in the social sciences (anthropology, history, sociology,law, "cultural studies") as much as in arts in general (from the plastic arts to architecture and film, and not only Literary critic and semiotics).

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually dictionaries do, in fact, sometimes say who introduced a term. The issue is irrelevant, however. I wasn't arguing that the way you edited the article made it identical to a dictionary entry in all respects, only that it crossed a certain line, making an encyclopedia entry read more like a dictionary entry than it should. As the article is about the concept/practice/theory, or whatever, of Deconstruction and not the actual term "Deconstruction", it shouldn't begin by asserting that Deconstruction is a "term". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert Intro to pre-XKCD?

The XKCD comic "Impostor". that criticized this page, actually had a clearer opening couple of paragraphs than what is currently here. The text is reproduced below:

"Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within themselves. Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and proved more forthcoming with negative, rather than positive, analyses of the school.

Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers. Though Derrida himself denied deconstruction was a method or school of philosophy, or indeed anything outside of reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to describe Derrida's particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying—and unspoken and implicit—assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture. Derrida's deconstruction was drawn mainly from the work of Heidegger and his notion of Destruktion but also from Levinas and his ideas upon the Other." 68.105.46.68 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's no good, because it defines Deconstruction as a "term." The article is about Deconstruction itself, not the term "Deconstruction." WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Derridean point of view should be condensed to a section of the present article with a link to the main article titled Jacques Derrida on deconstruction.

Derrida just showed the way. After him thousand of authors in many disciplines learned how to deconstruct semiotic systems. It is quite ignorant to reduce deconstruction to conceptual texts. Derrida himself made critics to Saussure to reduce his semiology to conceptual terms.

Deconstruction influenced Continental Philosophy, aesthetics, literary criticism, architecture, film theory, anthropology, sociology, historiography, law, psychoanalysis, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies and political theory. Jean-Luc Nancy, Richard Rorty, Geoffrey Hartman, Harold Bloom, Rosalind Krauss, Hélène Cixous, Julia Kristeva, Duncan Kennedy, Gary Peller, Drucilla Cornell, Alan Hunt, Hayden White, and Alun Munslow are some of the authors who have been influenced by deconstruction.

Please give reasons to delete this.

This was not deleted but relocated in a section titled: "Influences of deconstruction". I have only removed content already included in article titled "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction". I tryed to keep the intro short, giving Derrida is fair share. I have followed a seminar of Derrida in Paris. I am a fan, but it does not make him justice to impose is views over others.--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is Law... for example? Where is art theory? You are a fan? Well, I'm not. But I think people should know what he and other people who use deconstruction in fact are saying and doing. And this is much poor than what was there.

Derrida's interview to Kristeva is a great source for people to understand what he was doing. I don't think you do...you don't even understand this...

"I take great interest in questions of language and rhetoric, and I think they deserve enormous consideration; but there is a point where the authority of final jurisdiction is neither rhetorical nor linguistic, nor even discursive. The notion of trace or of text is introduced to mark the limits of the linguistic turn. This is one more reason why I prefer to speak of 'mark' rather than of language. In the first place the mark is not anthropological; it is prelinguistic; it is the possibility of language, and it is everywhere there is a relation to another thing or relation to another. For such relations, the mark has no need of language."

oh, and the article you mentioned was created by someone interested to delete this content from here... because it is here students try to understand what professors are saying... and, take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida_on_deconstruction "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

• I am not impressed by all your philosophical terms... If the article is proposed for deletion, maybe its content in the present article is also good for deletion. I think you forget that we are not creating a deconstruction here, but an article on "deconstruction"... The goal of the article is to offer a simple understanding of deconstruction to potential readers. You need to be more pragmatic or this article will stay poor and discouraging to any novice... I think that you should consider other articles on wikipedia... Look at the article on Surrealism, is the writing surrealist or is it an explanation of what Surrealism is? Plus if you are not a fan then why are you involved?--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific.. you were first saying it was no use to keep this info here because it was there. Now you say it is also to be deleted here.. What I can read here is Derrida's interview to Julia Kristeva explainig what he was doing when he created "deconstruction". Something we clearly cant do. It is not my "thoughts".It's not your thoughts. It is Derrida explanation to the general public.

Look at the article about "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus...

(Why do you talk about "all your philosophical terms"? I was quoting Derrida...do you understand Derrida?

Why are you talking about "me"? I was not the author... checking the history I see so many contributors there... I'm just saying you were doing a poor contribution deleting what was there before...

• All I can say is that I have improved the present article by removing content already included in the article titled: "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction", I have also shortened the intro by transferring some text to a relevant section of the article... But some strange allegations that I was destroying community efforts came on... I think that I improved the article and that those who are destroying community efforts are willing to keep the article in its present form... The IP user who deleted my improvements stated he is not a fan of Derrida... Then why does he get involve for preserving this article in its present poor state...--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Essay

The article is clearly written in an unencyclopedic style more similar to an argumentative essay. It needs to state in clearly intelligible language what Deconstruction is, who has developed it and how it has been used and criticized. It should not rely on primary sources (i.e. no long quotes or original exegeses of Derrida), but on secondary sources interpreting Derrida and other deconstructionists. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point... I think that I have improved this article by linking it to the article on "Jacques Derrida on Deconstruction" and by making its intro more appropriate. If the article "Jacques Derrida on Deconstruction" is to be deleted, then I also agree that most of its content should be transfered here and the rest to Derrida's article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Marxist multiculturalists wanting to deconstruct Western civilization

How are readers who come to this article after seeing the term deconstruction being used by Anders Behring Breivik and other people who use this type of rhetoric, supposed to read the present article to gain an increased understanding of the issue at hand? __meco (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they simply meant "to destroy", but wanted to sound more sophisticated and credible, so used this word instead. 77.229.52.22 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There may certainly be some confusion in play, but there has to be some real basis since in his "manifesto", Anders Behring Breivik quotes Thomas Hylland Eriksen, a professor of social anthropology: “Our (the Marxist elites of Europe) most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again.” (section 2.98, parenthetical injection by Breivik) Eriksen is a scholar and wouldn't use the term in a concocted fashion (The quote stems from a 2008 interview on the web pages of the University of Oslo). Then the question becomes whether Breivik has completely misunderstood what Eriksen wants to discuss. __meco (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are inserting this largely uninteresting quote across articles unrelated to the Breivik trial.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't received any clear response to my question. __meco (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction article needed

I've heard through the grapevine that there's been some contentious editing, debate, and so on here, between editors who can roughly be put into the Team Derrida and the Team Anti-Derrida camps. I'm encouraging anyone who can write well and in detail on Derrida's ideas and his opinions on other deconstructionists, to add some high-quality research to the Derrida on deconstruction article. It could use expansion, and it's a worthy humanities topic that deserves better analysis on Wikipedia. OttawaAC (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It may no be as simple as Derrida and anti-Derrida... If the "Deconstruction" article is to be preserved in proportion to each author's work, then Derrida's idea should be expressed within 80% of the article at least... To offer a wider view of Deconstruction to wiki readers, the article can be lighten from some of Derrida's views by linking it to Jacques Derrida on deconstruction. Now is that a fair way of presenting Deconstruction considering that it is mainly a Derridean concept?--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

About the French wikipedia article for "Deconstruction"

Derrida was a French philosopher, so I checked the French article on deconstruction which is simple and maybe too short...

French introduction for "Deconstruction": "La déconstruction est une méthode, voire une école, de la philosophie contemporaine. Cette pratique d'analyse textuelle s'exerce sur de nombreux types d'écrits (philosophie, littérature, journaux), pour révéler les décalages et confusions de sens qu'ils font apparaître par une lecture centrée sur les postulats sous-entendus et les omissions dévoilés par le texte lui-même. Ce concept, participant à la fois de la philosophie et de la littérature, a eu un grand écho aux États-Unis, où il est assimilé à la philosophie postmoderne, et plus globalement à l'approche divergente de la philosophie continentale d'Europe. Si le terme « déconstruction » a d'abord été utilisé par Heidegger, c'est l'œuvre de Derrida qui en a systématisé l'usage et théorisé la pratique."

I translated the French introduction as follow: "Deconstruction is a philosophical methodology for textual analysis that can be applied to different types of works. It is sometimes considered as a school of contemporary philosophy. Deconstruction reveals confusions and shifts of meanings produced by a text during a reading focussed on its suggested suppositions and on its omissions. This concept of philosophy and literature had an important repercussion in the United States where it is assimilated to post-modern philosophy and European continental philosophy. The word "deconstruction" was first used by Heidegger. Derrida systematised the use of the term and theorised the practice of deconstruction."

The French article has 3 parts after the introduction as follow: 1) Heidegger's Deconstruction 2) Derrida's Deconstruction 3) Thinkers influenced by Deconstruction

I think that there is space for improvement in the French version that I find incomplete. However, this introduction has the quality of being informative and easy to understand for anyone. The French Version assumes that Heidegger first used the term "deconstruction", but this statement is false as Heidegger used the German term "Destruktion" which finds a better translation with the word: "Destruction". Hopefully this will help to improve the English version... --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. My impression, from ignorance, is that this lead is indeed clearer and more straightforward. I suggest being careful about Heidegger, however. Remember that "deconstruction" is a made-up word from the French. It seems to me that rather than simply reading "Destruktion" as "destruction", one would first need to understand Heidegger's use of the term "Destruktion" in his original German context. You might want to post a question to this effect on the French talk page before editing their article. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that you would at least improve / correct my translation with appropriate idioms... "The word was used in English in a literal sense from 1865 of building and architecture, and in late 1860s sometimes as an ironic variant of Reconstruction in the U.S. political sense.". Derrida gave the term a philosophical meaning. Regarding Heidegger, Derrida translated "Destruktion" into "deconstruction" as it was more appropriate to express Heidegger's philosophical position. However the German term for "deconstruction" is "Dekonstruktion" --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought your English phrasing was very good. (I don't know French.)

It took me a while, but I finally found your quotation at Online Etymology Dictionary. Frankly, I don't trust it, and they give no sources. Two much more authoritative dictionaries are Merriam-Webster, which gives 1973 as first use, from the French, and only in its philosophical sense; and similarly at American Heritage. Nor do I find that architectural usage here in Wikipedia, except at Deconstruction (building), which describes the concept rather than the word as a term in common use. I hadn't heard of the ironic - flippant, really - 1860s Reconstruction/ "Deconstruction" before, but it's easy to understand, even if very obscure. The upshot of all this is that regardless of Online Etymology Dictionary's dubious claim, the word has no history of accepted English usage other than in its Derridan sense.

"Dekonstruktion" is clearly a modern rendering of "deconstruction" - but the question remains of Heidegger's intent in his use of "Destruktion". Derrida chose to coin a new term to express his meaning; it seems much more likely to me that Heidegger used the closest word in German and expanded its meaning, rather than making up an entirely new word. In this case the French wiki would be correct. It's the sense of the word rather than its literal form that counts.

I hope this helps. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about German etymology, but the word comes from Latin (paraphrasing Partridge [1]): struere, to pile up; construere, to pile up together, construct; thus to build up a sentence, whence to construe; dēstruere, to build down; demolish. Perhaps Heidegger used this etymology to express the concept of "building a sentence down" or pulling it apart. Note that the word dēstruere need not imply violent or utter demolition, but can also carry the connotation of a careful and thoughtful pulling apart for analysis. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your critics... Regarding Heidegger, we would need a German speaker to assess "Destruktion" versus "Dekonstruktion". Considering the French article, that I will not edit, it is wrongly stating that: "The word "deconstruction" was first used by Heidegger." The term "Deconstruction" was never used by Heidegger. It is used only in translations of his works produced by others... Regarding the pre-derridean meaning, I cannot find any other source than the online etymological dictionary--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right. My ruminations about possible etymology are clearly OR. I was just thinking that if you were inclined to edit the French wiki, you might want to start a discussion on the talk page first. I think it's an excellent idea for difficult articles to be crosschecked against wikis in other languages; English-speaking contributors to en.Wikipedia have no monopoly on clear concepts and good writing. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"My ruminations about possible etymology are clearly OR." Can you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - WP:OR. - Milkunderwood (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Category

• Mm.. Category:Articles linked from high traffic sites ... this is an odd category for a Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Would need to delete template High traffic|date=18 July 2008|url=http://xkcd.com/451/%7Csite=xkcd from the Talk page header. Doesn't seem too relevant/useful. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

done - website is dead anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - it was confusing. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Derrida not about deconstruction!

The primary definition of deconstruction is to break into parts;

de·con·struct (dkn-strkt) tr.v. de·con·struct·ed, de·con·struct·ing, de·con·structs 1. To break down into components; dismantle. 2. To write about or analyze (a literary text, for example), following the tenets of deconstruction.

This article is about the secondary and very specific usage related to Derrida.

Where is the article on deconstruction. In general many things are de-constructed into their components for analysis and not this specific Derrida type of analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.52.64 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What is Deconstruction

I read the opening paragraphs and I was confused as to what this word/idea means, as it seems to be fairly poorly written. I propose that is should be rewritten to focus on the meaning, preferably in laymen terms, and move the historical stuff later (it shouldn't "bury the lead" like it does currently). I think that focusing on the history first rather than explaining what the idea means, suggests that the idea is no longer relevant to modern thought, which is misleading. From what I can tell it should be edited as follows, although perhaps someone more familiar with the topic can verify if this is accurate:

"Deconstruction is a form of semiotic analysis, proposed by Jacques Derrida in his 1967 book Of Grammatology. It is a dissection of a text to its components, to understand the values given to each component, both relative to each other component and to the context in which they are placed. This comes from an understanding that when ideas are put into binary opposition, such as in structuralism or Hegelian analysis, there is an implied hierarchy between the two ideas. Deconstruction exposes the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, in order to "create new concepts, [and] to mark their difference and eternal interplay." Deconstruction holds that (French: it ny apas de hors-texte)"there is nothing outside the text", so that only information and logic from within a given text matters."

Then I think the history (including that Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher) of the term/method should then immediately follow -- as this seems to be important to the development and understanding of what deconstruction is, and possibly the examples of what it is not. I think that organizing it like this would improve the readability of the text significantly. I will also commit these changes to the source article, but I've posted here so that if they get reverted, the proposal can be easily seen by future authors. 68.105.46.68 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, above was reverted by talk -- I re-undid it, because it was 4 seconds between posting and reverting. But yeah, someone, maybe a philosophy graduate student, should really take a look at this article. 68.105.46.68 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A philosophy grad is never going to make a normative statement about it. Deconstruction confounds authority to the point of effacing meaning. It is a tool against bad systems of government, but is good and bad, in the sense that oppression can employ it equally against dissent. If you cannot argue with someone on issues, or logic, use deconstructionism to obfuscate discussion ad naseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltek (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

The text of the first paragraph is so poorly written, I almost think it was generated by a computer algorithm. I understand this might be a difficult concept to explain in ordinary, every-day language, but could you at least make the effort in the opening paragraph? WTF...

208.78.149.62 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree the article is unintelligible

I came to it seeking an explanation of deconstruction but well. To put it mildly the article fails to supply one. There is a lot of talk but is anyone in a position to amend the text so that an ordinary reader can understand it? 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Drshok

Watch this video and you will find that Derrida himself appears to have difficulties to define clearly the subject: Video of Jacques Derrida attempting to define "Deconstruction". I agree that the article needs to be improved, but the controversy surrounding the subject and the different points of views, different interpretations and approaches from different editors, are making this task impossible. This is only my personal position as some editors think that the article should be preserved in its present form.--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only the first paragraph, but virtually the entire article reads as though it was generated by a computer algorithm. The same is true of the article on Jacques Derrida. The concepts being discussed are difficult enough, but to have the discussion of them written in non-English, apparently by an ESL speaker, is not helpful. For instance, what can this sentence possibly mean?

• Questioned this myth of the presence of meaning in itself ("objective") and/or for itself ("subjective") Derrida will start a long deconstruction of all texts where conceptual oppositions are put to work in the actual construction of meaning and values based on the subordination of the movement of "differance".

"Questioned this myth"? This is not English. "Derrida will start"? When will he start?

• ... everything that was said and will be said, in History, difference as structure and deffering as genesis.

"deffering"? Was differing intended? Or deferring? Why is History capitalized?

• Derrida will prefer to follow ... without falling in what he considered ...

When will he prefer to do this? What does "without falling in" mean?

Surely someone conversant with Derrida and deconstruction should be able to render this into proper and comprehensible English. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look to it next month... I will try to improve it without changing the intended meaning... --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Christophe, I appreciate your prompt reply. But I have to say I really don't know how to respond. I haven't tried looking back through the article's history to see who contributed what, but a general problem throughout the article - not just in the examples above that I happened to notice - is that much of the writing is stilted and unidiomatic, which makes a difficult topic all the more difficult to follow. This was why I had guessed that a well-meaning ESL speaker, surely well-versed in the subject matter itself, had composed it. Now I see your sentence, "I will have a look to it next month." No native speaker of English would say this. One might say "I will have a look at it next month." Or more likely, "I will take a look at it next month." Or less formally, "I'll" rather than "I will". (But this kind of informality, using contractions, is more appropriate for a talk page than in the article, of course.) Do you see what I mean? More idiomatic phrasing is just much easier to read and follow. Stilted language is harder to point to; it's just phrasing that gives an impression of stiffness. I took the liberty of glancing through your user talk page, and couldn't help noticing that much of your writing there gave me the impression of being stilted. Please be assured that I'm not trying to be critical. I have no doubt of your bona fides in your understanding of deconstruction, or of Derrida. But I think it would most helpful to readers if you could try to phrase things somewhat more colloquially. My best wishes to you. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point... But you need to keep in mind that we have a problem of translation here. There are French expressions that cannot be fully translated and if I agree that a native English speaker is required, a French native speaker will also be needed to preserve as much as possible from the original meaning of the text in the English translation... When you ask what "without falling in" mean? This is a common English expression used as "falling in love" "falling in pieces" "falling in sleep" "falling in depression" or others? what is the problem here? Plus, I have lived in England and Ireland. I have some friends from Australia, Canada, Jamaica and the US, and I found that their English (oral or written) are different... It is the same for French speakers, the language has geo-variances. Is my phrase "I will have a look to it" grammatically incorrect? Is the time 9h25pm or 21h25? Shall I say "my attorney" or "my solicitor" when I speak about my legal representative? Shall this article be rewritten in British English or US English? I wanted to look towards it, but despite finding your intervention rather pedantic (too formal), I will follow your advise and leave this task to a native English speaker; let's hope that someone will come forward and I will be here to help if required - Cordially - --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm very glad you haven't taken offense at my being frank. One falls in love - but one falls into a situation. You're entirely correct that English expressions vary geographically. But I feel confident that an idiom like this must be universal. There's an important difference between WP:ENGVAR and unidiomatic English. And I don't doubt that Derrida, in trying to express linguistic concepts that have no natural grounding in the language, stretches French beyond the confines laid out by L'Académie, which makes translation all the more difficult. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Is my phrase "I will have a look to it" grammatically incorrect? No, not grammatically incorrect, but idiomatically incorrect. One could say I will see to it, but that means something entirely different. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen your new examples: "falling in pieces" "falling in sleep" "falling in depression". No, "falling to pieces" (of a person having a nervous breakdown) or "falling asleep" "falling into a depression" Milkunderwood (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am using English as a first language since 1995 and I am aware that I still have a lot to learn. However, I don't think that the main issue of this article is related to idioms. The subject which is semiotic / semiological becomes even more complex as Derrida focuses on the interpretation and on the receiver of the information. If you read the text of any given legislation, you will find that idioms are rare but the texts are frequently difficult to understand due to their complexity. The complexity of legal texts are caused by the attention that the authors gave to all potential interpretations. Legal texts are complex because they are intended to provide only one interpretation unless they are designed to mislead or to create a biased application of the law. Deconstruction is complex as it is intended to find the meanings and possible interpretations of a text or any other creation; it is also intended to find hidden meanings (intentional or non-intentional). When works like Derrida's theories of Deconstruction have to be explained / discribed, we enter the problem of "meaning" and "hermeneutics". I think that idioms are only secondary stylistic issues... A native English will understand the meaning of "I will look to it" even if he would have said "I will look at it" instead. I agree that there are some stylistic issues here, but they are secondary. The main problem with the article is that it is not properly structured and this is what should be considered first.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Christophe, I apologize for sounding argumentative. As I said in the beginning, I had not initially even been aware of which editors had contributed the various phrasings in this article. This section title, "Is this article a joke?", is not mine, and I would not have titled it that way myself; I merely responded here because the OP had expressed my own general reaction to the difficulty in interpreting unidiomatic English in an article that by its nature is already difficult enough to comprehend. A quick glance though the different comments on this talk page reveal a general frustration by many other readers. I agree with you that unidiomatic phrasings, whether yours or those of any other contributor, are not the most significant issue with the article as it presently stands. The "To-do list" posted in 2005 at the top of this talk page is still largely unaddressed, and the comments posted by Maunus in the "Essay" section immediately below this are probably the most important criticisms. My own comments have been concerned only with "needs to state in clearly intelligible language". Milkunderwood (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"I do not believe in pure idioms. I think there is naturally a desire, for whoever speaks or writes, to sign in an idiomatic, irreplaceable manner." Jacques Derrida --Christophe Krief (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be. My impression here is that idiom is being used in two different senses. In any event, for an article in Wikipedia we do not want to engage in Humpty-Dumpty-speak. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Put another way, effective communication from speaker/writer to hearer/reader requires that the two can share and agree upon a basic vocabulary and its meaning. As I understand it (which is not very well), Derrida's position may be that we each attach our own unique meanings or "idiomatic" constructs to language - both speaker/writer and hearer/reader. (Don't hold me to this; I do not understand the article.) But the point is that in an encyclopedia article, we have to try to optimize effective communication by using "clearly intelligible language" that does not require the reader to attempt to "deconstruct" our explication. We are not seeking, to use Humpty Dumpty's term, "impenetrability". Milkunderwood (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you will understand the translation of the French article (See below). I still think that idioms are only secondary issues... Instead of defining the subject generally in the introduction and then deeper in developing the article. We have a text which is lacking a descent structure, making it difficult for anyone to fully understand Deconstruction. Your relation with Humpty Dumpty is only increasing confusion when we need to clarify the problem...--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision(s)

Hello, all:

I recently came to this article to see what it looked like, and I was fairly surprised at how long it was. I understand no one wishes to make a statement on deconstruction in a generalized, reductionist statement, etc. But, there comes a point where too much information provides no information. I want to direct everyone looking to better this article to a lecture on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8SSilNSXw . Derrida talks of how deconstruction cannot be directly pinned down, as he did for almost his entire career. From what I see, this article tries to pin down deconstruction. I understand the dedication put into this article, but I believe it becomes self-defeating. It also ironically becomes something it wasn't intended to be.

(willsy) 2:55pm 26 September 2012 (GMT)

I believe the above suggestion for substituting the intro for the translation from the French can be a good start. Furthermore, perhaps a simple sentence conveying something like "the actual definition is hard to give[references], but with out being too specific one could say deconstruction is..." could perhaps be a good compromise between those who want to make this article readable by someone and those who insist in deconstruction being "undefinable".

Syats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Though I worry that a statement as simple as "the actual definition is hard to give" is in itself actually anti-deconstruction. Deconstruction is avoidant of definitions. The heart of deconstruction is that language, definitions, and the black/white terms used for both are in fact traps. This article (and any writing about deconstruction) in inherently difficult because, from a deconstructionist point of view, language is the wellspring of reductionist thinking. It seems really important to have an early segment that at least cursorily mentions this paradox in 'defining' deconstruction.

I would also really like to see a segment of important terms in deconstruction such a Différance.

(3Bliss) 3:15pm 04 January 2013 (GMT)

Rewrite framework

The article reads as if it is translated without editing for ambiguities and contradictions. The below is a helpful dictionary presentation: deconstruction noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Method of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from the work of Jacques Derrida, that questions the fundamental conceptual distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western philosophy through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and literary texts. Such oppositions are characteristically “binary” and “hierarchical,” involving a pair of terms in which one member of the pair is assumed to be primary or fundamental, the other secondary or derivative; examples include nature/culture, speech/writing, and mind/body. To “deconstruct” an opposition is to explore the tensions and contradictions between the hierarchical ordering assumed in the text and other aspects of the text's meaning, especially its figurative or performative aspects. The deconstruction “displaces” the opposition by showing that neither term is primary; the opposition is a product, or “construction,” of the text rather than something given independently of it. The speech/writing opposition, according to which speech is “present” to the speaker or author and writing “absent,” is a manifestation of what Derrida calls the “logocentrism” of Western culture—i.e., the general assumption that there is a realm of “truth” existing prior to and independent of its representation by linguistic signs. In polemical discussions about intellectual trends of the late 20th century, deconstruction was sometimes used pejoratively to suggest nihilism and frivolous skepticism. In popular usage the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought. See also postmodernism; poststructuralism. wblakesxWblakesx (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Over-reliance on primary sources

Any section that is more than 50% direct quotes from primary sources should be summarily deleted. No last meal, no priest, no cigarette, just delete, bang, done. There is wayyy too much first-hand interpretation in this article, and very scanty analysis of secondary sources. It's just sa in this condition.OttawaAC (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Introduction

I see I am not the first to be completely confused by the introduction, but it has not improved. Would someone who understands this subject provide a clear, concise summary? Thank you.

The introductions by Chrisophe Krief and Settdigger were comprehensible and an improvement on the current state. Why were they reverted?

108.49.162.160 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, the introduction is written in the style of someone who has no idea what they are talking about but hopes if he keeps it confusing enough no one will notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathcliff (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my introduction... I gave up my quest to keep it published following an edit dispute. An administrator blocked the article with the present introduction online and I did not want to engage in another edit war. I like the freedom of edition that offers Wikipedia and I think that it should be preserved at any cost... However, with the present article on "deconstruction", we are stock not due to convergence of ideas, but due to some editors which are abusing this freedom of edition to impose a poor content, a poor article. When 2 or 3 editors have different views which are sensible and representative of the subject, we need to ensure that all these views are expressed. In the present situation we have 2 or 3 editors who think that this article should be a deconstruction of "deconstruction" creating a non-sense and a barely understandable article. We need someone who have an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Christophe-Krief, This seems to be the major problem w/ Wikipedia in general, what you discuss, and it always has been. The only way to help this article is to start over, but there would be too much blow-back. Just read the source material is all that can be said to anyone who doesn't wish to read this article (and still wants to know something on the subject), and many more like it on Wikipedia. (User:willsy) 5:31PM, 12 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.244.204 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Christophe-Krief's introduction was vastly superior to the current parody of academic deconstructionism. This whole article needs to be rewritten using good secondary sources; the over-quotation from primary sources is entirely inappropriate. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see here, the current consensus supports the kind of pruning and rewrite that Christophe Krief attempted back in July 2012. Maybe now would be a good time to try again. I would do so myself, but I'm not nearly well-versed enough on the subject. --Amlz (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the version proposed by Christophe Krief is vastly superior to what is here.JQ (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, all of the versions of the introduction (and article) that I have seen -- including that by Christope Krief -- are just terrible. At the least a BA, MA or PhD in the humanities should teach you how to write. If you are a graduate of the humanities and this is how you learnt to write then your should burn your degree. Which universities teach you to write this bullshit? A list would be useful so that I can recommend against them. Such poor writing isn't acceptable in any other topic on Wikipedia and were it to appear it would be subject to a summary deletion. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Taking reference from “Of Grammatology” French version, Derrida first used the term “Deconstruction” Page 25 (“Les Editions de Minuit”, 1967 ISBN 978-2-7073-0012-6).

In this page Derrida states that the occidental history of sign is essentially theological and that we must abandon these roots to shake our cultural inheritance. Derrida starts a metaphysical approach of semiology. He states that the concept of sign and deconstruction work are always exposed to misunderstanding. He uses the term "méconnaissance" probably in reference to Jacques Lacan who rejected the belief that reality can be captured in language. In the same page Derrida states that he will try to demonstrate that there is no linguistic sign without writing.

The "Deconstruction" in Derrida's "Of Grammatology" relates essentially to understanding the idea of logos and its influences on occidental philosophy. Derrida criticizes Rousseau (Etudes sur l'origine des langues" and Saussure for their belief that writing is only a recording of the speech. Derrida believes that writing has its own existence, he uses Researches from Peirce to make his point....[...] I have stopped page 70 of the 425 pages. This is my second reading of this research from Derrida. My first reading was in 1995. I am taking notes relevant to "Deconstruction" in order to help improving this article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please give us proper quotations to support that Derrida explicit says: "that we must abandon these roots to shake our cultural inheritance." Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.138.92 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

FAO "User IP 89.152.138.92" "that we must abandon these roots to shake our cultural inheritance." is my translation from the French version. I have reinserted as a footnote the reference to Lacan and to Page 25 from "Of Grammatology" because it gives the reader a precise lead on the subject, so I don't understand why you removed it.

FAO "User IP 89.152.138.92" I have removed your paragraph about Platonism as such example should not be part of the intro on "Deconstruction" and also because you are using "What we call". In semiotics there are, if I keep it simple, "signifier/signified" relation but this relation cannot be defined as "what we call". I know that we want Wikipedia to be readable by everyone, but the use of "what we call" does not help in this context. Maybe you should review your example and insert it as a footnote, as I agree that it could help the readers' understanding of Deconstruction. However, keeping it directly in the intro would contribute in overloading it with information not fully relevant to the subject and this is against Wiki standards. --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• INTRODUCTION AS PER VERSION (11:23, 22 April 2013‎)

If no objection by 29 April 2013. I will remove the tag "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tag removed--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Personally only "Over-quotation" makes sense here...someone should try to paraphrase it (it looks clear to me and it doesn't look personal opinions, only Derrida quotes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.138.92 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)