Deconstruction- what I understand of it.
Let me write this in English because I don't have the same concept vocabulary in Marathi.
Derrida is most widely known for 2 things: Deconstruction, which is a critique of Structuralism, and Differance. So to understand Derrida, first of all, we must understand the Structuralist notion of meaning. According to Structuralists, meaning is contained within a "Sign", which is made up of a "Signifier" and a "Signified".
SIGNIFIED: Take an object, for example: a ball. In our heads, there is a concept image for this object. (something round, something bouncing etc.). This concept image, this concrete object, which we think of, is the SIGNIFIED. Note that this concept image in everyone's mind can be different. Your image of ball might be red, mine can be blue- is the simplest example.
SIGNIFIER: Any word that denotes this concept image, any word which is a phonetic substitute for this concept image (or Signified) is called "SIGNIFIER".
SIGN: The sign is made up of these two things, the Signifier and the Signified.
Now, according to Structuralists, every Signifier relates to a definite Signified. So, when I say "Ball", the only concept image that can be related to this Signifier, is that of the ball. But when we start trying to define abstract concepts, this does not hold true anymore. Take the word "love" or "honesty". Now your concept of honesty/love, might be different from my concept of honesty/love.
If you are the author, you try to express yourself as clearly as possible. You create a whole poem about "love". Because this poem is a set of words, it has "signifiers", right? What is the "Signified" of your poem? It is the ONE DEFINITE meaning that YOU WANT TO EXPRESS. But what happens when I read the poem? I interpret it in a different way, and reach a different meaning. NOW MEANING HAS BECOME A TUG OF WAR BETWEEN THE READER AND THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR TRIES TO CONTROL MEANING, AND THE READER UNLEASHES IT. The author tries to use as many signifiers to suggest the signified, and yet, the signified can never be fully expressed.
According to Derrida, if we are all looking for ONE DEFINITE MEANING behind the text (Signified), but that meaning is perpetually, always, eternally "put off". Like a horizon, it keeps eluding the readers, it becomes more and more distant as we run towards it. मराठीत सांगायचं तर, आपल्याला जो प्रत्येक लेखनामागे एक विवि्क्षित अर्थ अपेक्षित असतो, त्या अर्थाची प्राप्ती सदैव लांबवली जाते.
Derrida also argues that Structuralists have taken for granted, the superiority of Signified over Signifier. He thinks that the history of philosophy is also a history of "Binary thought". There is duality and contrast of concepts throughout culture and philosophy, and one is always considered to be superior to the other. For example: Good/Evil, Man/Woman, Speech/Writing, Sane/Mad, Mind/Body. But in Binary thought, both the concepts are dependant upon each other, and are defined by each other. What is good? Good is something that is not Evil. What is Madness? Madness is something that which is not Sanity. One is the dominant mode, other is the dominated mode. One is superior, other is inferior. One is central, other is marginal. (That is why women/backward casts/immigrants are called Marginalised communities).
Every text makes a subtle argument/rhetoric like this. At the spur of the moment, I am thinking of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The novel makes a subtle argument that women should marry a man who they think is superior to them, in social class, intellect, and personality. Derrida thinks that by default, every text also offers the opportunity for a counter-rhetoric. Every text actually hints at the meaning that it is trying to supress, because it is defined by it... :)Deconstruction is the act of reading a text "Against its grain", against its principle argument, against the direction in which it wants to take you.... I want to use a film as an example "KUCH KUCH HOTA HAI". This film shows that when Kajol is a tomboy and Rani is a very feminine, vulnerable person, Shahrukh falls for Rani. He has no passion whatsoever for Kajol. After the interval, Kajol enters in a saree, long hair and trips/stumbles during Basketball session. SRK now feels attracted towards her.
The film makes an argument that "Gehri dosti ke peeche kahi na kahin gehra pyar hota hai"... I want to read the film against its grain, so I would say that it is not their true friendship which makes love possible at the end. Earlier, as a Tomboy, Kajol was SRK's equal- she even defeated him at the game. Later, she becomes the subservient, vulnerable female figure, which is ideal "wife material", and at that point, he falls in love with her. I would argue that the film journeys from a relationship of equality (friendship) to a relationship of inequality (marriage). This is how I have challenged the basic argument of the film.
Is this deconstruction? Maybe, maybe not. Don't quote me on this, but this is the way I understand it.
Derrida is most widely known for 2 things: Deconstruction, which is a critique of Structuralism, and Differance. So to understand Derrida, first of all, we must understand the Structuralist notion of meaning. According to Structuralists, meaning is contained within a "Sign", which is made up of a "Signifier" and a "Signified".
SIGNIFIED: Take an object, for example: a ball. In our heads, there is a concept image for this object. (something round, something bouncing etc.). This concept image, this concrete object, which we think of, is the SIGNIFIED. Note that this concept image in everyone's mind can be different. Your image of ball might be red, mine can be blue- is the simplest example.
SIGNIFIER: Any word that denotes this concept image, any word which is a phonetic substitute for this concept image (or Signified) is called "SIGNIFIER".
SIGN: The sign is made up of these two things, the Signifier and the Signified.
Now, according to Structuralists, every Signifier relates to a definite Signified. So, when I say "Ball", the only concept image that can be related to this Signifier, is that of the ball. But when we start trying to define abstract concepts, this does not hold true anymore. Take the word "love" or "honesty". Now your concept of honesty/love, might be different from my concept of honesty/love.
If you are the author, you try to express yourself as clearly as possible. You create a whole poem about "love". Because this poem is a set of words, it has "signifiers", right? What is the "Signified" of your poem? It is the ONE DEFINITE meaning that YOU WANT TO EXPRESS. But what happens when I read the poem? I interpret it in a different way, and reach a different meaning. NOW MEANING HAS BECOME A TUG OF WAR BETWEEN THE READER AND THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR TRIES TO CONTROL MEANING, AND THE READER UNLEASHES IT. The author tries to use as many signifiers to suggest the signified, and yet, the signified can never be fully expressed.
According to Derrida, if we are all looking for ONE DEFINITE MEANING behind the text (Signified), but that meaning is perpetually, always, eternally "put off". Like a horizon, it keeps eluding the readers, it becomes more and more distant as we run towards it. मराठीत सांगायचं तर, आपल्याला जो प्रत्येक लेखनामागे एक विवि्क्षित अर्थ अपेक्षित असतो, त्या अर्थाची प्राप्ती सदैव लांबवली जाते.
Derrida also argues that Structuralists have taken for granted, the superiority of Signified over Signifier. He thinks that the history of philosophy is also a history of "Binary thought". There is duality and contrast of concepts throughout culture and philosophy, and one is always considered to be superior to the other. For example: Good/Evil, Man/Woman, Speech/Writing, Sane/Mad, Mind/Body. But in Binary thought, both the concepts are dependant upon each other, and are defined by each other. What is good? Good is something that is not Evil. What is Madness? Madness is something that which is not Sanity. One is the dominant mode, other is the dominated mode. One is superior, other is inferior. One is central, other is marginal. (That is why women/backward casts/immigrants are called Marginalised communities).
Every text makes a subtle argument/rhetoric like this. At the spur of the moment, I am thinking of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The novel makes a subtle argument that women should marry a man who they think is superior to them, in social class, intellect, and personality. Derrida thinks that by default, every text also offers the opportunity for a counter-rhetoric. Every text actually hints at the meaning that it is trying to supress, because it is defined by it... :)Deconstruction is the act of reading a text "Against its grain", against its principle argument, against the direction in which it wants to take you.... I want to use a film as an example "KUCH KUCH HOTA HAI". This film shows that when Kajol is a tomboy and Rani is a very feminine, vulnerable person, Shahrukh falls for Rani. He has no passion whatsoever for Kajol. After the interval, Kajol enters in a saree, long hair and trips/stumbles during Basketball session. SRK now feels attracted towards her.
The film makes an argument that "Gehri dosti ke peeche kahi na kahin gehra pyar hota hai"... I want to read the film against its grain, so I would say that it is not their true friendship which makes love possible at the end. Earlier, as a Tomboy, Kajol was SRK's equal- she even defeated him at the game. Later, she becomes the subservient, vulnerable female figure, which is ideal "wife material", and at that point, he falls in love with her. I would argue that the film journeys from a relationship of equality (friendship) to a relationship of inequality (marriage). This is how I have challenged the basic argument of the film.
Is this deconstruction? Maybe, maybe not. Don't quote me on this, but this is the way I understand it.
posted by Prajakta | 11:25 AM
2 Comments:
hmm a well-written post :) evadhya sopya bhashet Derrida chi olakh karun dilyabaddal dhanyavad. ekhade text muddaam 'against its grain' vachanyachi kalpana sahi vatali. I think its like defining something negatively. Is it so, or does it mean taking into account all possible interpretations evenif they oppose each other :)
I think opposing/opposite interpretations are not what deconstructivists hint at. The argument is that the "text deconstructs itself" through the sheer existence of discourses that the core/dominant discourse must supress, exclude or negate.
Post a Comment
<< Home