Editor:
In case no one else takes a stab at clearing up the misunderstanding around “deconstruction,” I’ll give it a shot. (See the Dec. 3 and Nov. 19 “Mailbox” columns).
The thing is, from a deconstructionist perspective it would be hard to claim that there is any “misunderstanding,” as that would suggest there is an essential, fixed understanding to begin with. And my take on things can’t be given any sort of truth-value that is superior to someone else’s. Alas, that’s what you get with deconstructionism. “Deconstruction” is not judging, bashing, blaming or proselytizing. It is challenging the absolute, universal, objective, context-free nature of a text, narrative, or story.
Deconstructionism is most associated with the French writer Jacques Derrida, whose 2004 New York Times obituary describes deconstruction as a “method of inquiry that asserted that all writing was full of confusion and contradiction, and that the author’s intent could not overcome the inherent contradictions of language itself, robbing texts — whether literature, history or philosophy — of truthfulness, absolute meaning and permanence.”
I think what I appreciate most about deconstructionism is that even while it fuels a critical, passionate analysis of many taken-for-granted truths embedded in western European culture, it is precisely what allows for critical, passionate analysis of the phrases associated with “political correctness” (as well as the concept itself). In fact, Derrida has been regarded as a hero by people on the political right and the left. Likewise, he has been criticized by those on the political left and the right. Deconstruction is not a liberal endeavor. And it certainly is not conservative in nature. It is a method of analysis that allows for investigation into the contradictions and paradoxes inherent in “liberal” and “conservative” narratives. In action, deconstruction challenges us to consider the contexts in which any claims of truth or knowledge are presented.
Deconstruction, I believe, offers a rigorous theoretical basis for free exchange, questioning, and engagement with ideology … something I’m guessing your readers support, regardless of their political leanings.
Ronnie Swartz, Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Humboldt State University
This article appears in Cold Shoulders.
It’s mental masturbation by any other name, and ultimately a form of intellectual nihilism.
It is probably just me, but it occurred to me today the root of this area problems (stagnation, obstructionism and general lameness) could be resulting from too many people with backgrounds in the social sciences dominating the public discourse. This letter is timely support of this proposition. Thank you..
Don’t know if I’d call it a problem with social scientists in general, but there is a lot of bad social science that just looks at everything in the abstract and is divorced from any sort of problem solving. Wankers on the far left and the far right love that stuff.
There are many power structures that deserve to be deconstructed. People hold a lot of assumptions in their minds about the way the world works, and there are so many fundamental flaws in a host of world views. The fact that many people don’t see war and violence as purely barbaric behaviour is a prime example.
I’ve always been a fan of Derrida and deconstruction, and I believe that its purpose IS problem-solving. The fundamental concepts behind racism and sexism are more excellent examples of thought patterns and power structures that deserve to be deconstructed. Where would the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements be without deconstruction?
Yeah, let us start buy deconstructing the present day environmentalist movement and the Coastal Commission. These are examples of new harmful power structures.
I mentioned wankers and….speak of the devil!
Trying to credit deconstruction for the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements is ludicrous. Was Susan B. Anthony really a deconstructionist? MLK’s appeal to race-transcendent principles was the opposite of deconstructionism.
"The instant you speak about a thing you miss the mark."
Whether MLK’s approach was intentionally deconstructionist or not, the powers that held races in established segregation were broken down, which is the end result of deconstruction. When you show the inherent flaws in the current system, whatever and whenever that may be, you are essentially deconstructing that system. You can talk about the symptoms or you can search for the source; which do you think your doctor would do? Without deconstruction, we are doomed to keep treating the symptoms, while never discovering the source.