What do I know about Jacques Derrida’s Deconstruction…

I am still trying my best to deliver the concept of deconstruction, even though I am not 100 percent confident in getting the idea of it. If I am correct, it is the way how we work out text. Text is a very broad term and all discourse is open to deconstruction. People may have misunderstand that deconstruction is another long-winded analysis, critique or method towards the ideology, however it is a logically built upon hierarchical dichotomies and binaries. Text can be book, fashion, food and anything that is around us. Sometimes these text don’t actually function as it is as they could mean what they probably don’t mean. All texts can be argued and I would suggest that this deconstruction is an ambivalent theory.

We do tracing and the action of deferring (differ) as we go through this text- these are part of deconstructing text. Words and items do not link directly to our mental concept (signifier). We learn words or texts through other words (in fact I am not entirely sure how we learn another text). However, the concept is that we always appeal to other words that are absent. Therefore, we differentiate one text from the other. For example, the word ‘cow’ is different from ‘bow’ because we deconstruct it through the spelling and their meaning (cow is an animal whereas bow is NOT an animal but a weapon)

The slang is every language is reworked and produced from existing work. Almost everything is iterable which meant that is capable of being repeated. When you are reading a book, the author is absent and there is a radical, ongoing absence of both the sender and the receiver. Thus, this opens to the possibilities of many context continuously.  Therefore, the theory also argues that meanings can change over time. This include taboos, philosophy and some entities. There is no one single context that can completely saturate the particular text and possibly we cannot merely predict every future context to come, nor take into account every reading of text that are possible now.

Hierarchy binary oppositions– you create the absence and presence between each representation. Here is a list of examples:

male vs. female

day vs. night

sun vs. moon

speech vs. writing

nature vs. culture,

sex vs. fantasy

life vs. death

Supplement– the opposite, the binaries, the helper (female, culture, night, death etc are there to show you what the ‘central’ means and represent (eg: we would not understand the concept of male without the existence of female, nature will be a single environment if culture is not born). However, there are margins in every text as the logic of the discourse break down due to undecidables such as twilight (not day & not night), transsexual (nor male nor female), half mortal-immortal (zombies, vampires).

Speech and writing is probably the main concept of deconstruction. Deconstruction suggests that writing is violent and could destroy our memory, destroy the natural link between word and concept in speech (talking, communication) because when you write something- it is unnatural (you give it a thought before writing down and you looked back the writing, it is different). It is not about flipping the binaries over, privileging writing over speech. Rather, it argues that what was seen as derivative of writing is true of all signs. Deconstruction question a logic that places one term over the other, any logic that sees the binary terms as separate. You try to naturalize a perception because you were only focusing on one idea but if there is another binary, you will more likely to change your perception. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s