Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kenaz · 07-30-2003, 09:10 AM

Double post removed after much nagging and harrassment from the missus.

kenaz · 07-30-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Hmmm....

Jake did post up this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deconstructionist tenets

** No one can know the truth about the intentions of an author. Many deconstructionists hold that authors themselves are unconscious of their own intentions.

**No one can know anything about the true nature of reality. Some deconstructionists write that there is no objective reality "out there", and that reality is a social construct.

**No claim of knowledge is priviliged; no method of learning provides authoritative information.

** Language is only a system of arbitrary symbols. Books, essays, etc., all have no meaning outside of the meaning given to them by the reader.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, since Jake does not seem to subscribe to these "deconstructionist tenets", I'd appreciate someone who considers themselves to be "deconstructionist" (say...kenaz?)either confirming, denying or amending these (and...in plain English, if you please).

Since I usually shy away from labels, I don't consider myself to be "deconstructionist" or anything for that matter. But I can give my 2 cents worth about the tenets posted above, and I promise to try do it in plain English

The tenets are applicable to deconstruction only because they are from the various schools of thoughts about poststructuralism/antirealism/postmodernism from which deconstruction is derivative discourse/method. So they are not deconstructionist tenets per se, because they are too general.

Deconstruction actually follows very specific tactics. First one has to identify the binary pair in the discourse, and then show that they are hierarchically ordered, ie. one is supplementary to the other. This is followed by an inversion of the relation such that the supplementary term takes logical priority, thus exposing the instability of the central vs. supplementary binarism. The aim of deconstruction is to demonstrate that complementarity can oft be found in apparently oppositional discourses.

Now coming to Jake�s first and third tenets specifically:

Quote:

No one can know the truth about the intentions of an author. Many deconstructionists hold that authors themselves are unconscious of their own intentions

This resounds of Roland Barthes� �Author is dead� statement. Deconstructionists do not/should not care whether the authors are unconscious of their intentions or not- they are not psychoanalysts. The point is not so much no one can know the truth about the author�s intention rather than it does not matter what the author�s intention is, it is only the reader�s interpretation that matters, which leads right up to the fourth tenet:

Quote:

Language is only a system of arbitrary symbols. Books, essays, etc., all have no meaning outside of the meaning given to them by the reader.

Now I personally do not agree with it completely, because meanings are derived from intersubjective agreement, not pure individual subjectivity. One should not let one�s reading of a text be governed by the author�s intention, but it is useful to know the context in which the author came up with the text when forming one�s interpretation of it. Books and essays do have meaning outside the meaning given by the reader, but the reader can choose whether to partake in the signification system inscribed within the text.

kenaz · 07-30-2003, 10:23 AM

I have no idea why my post appeared twice. Tried to delete one but can't seem to do it.

Moderators??

Clutch · 07-30-2003, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kenaz
I have no idea why my post appeared twice. Tried to delete one but can't seem to do it.
Moderators??

No, I don't think they're the reason. Gremlins, maybe?

godfry n. glad · 07-30-2003, 10:48 AM

First, thanks for taking the time to elucidate for the slow (me).

Quote:

Originally posted by kenaz
Deconstruction actually follows very specific tactics. First one has to identify the binary pair in the discourse, and then show that they are hierarchically ordered, ie. one is supplementary to the other. This is followed by an inversion of the relation such that the supplementary term takes logical priority, thus exposing the instability of the central vs. supplementary binarism. The aim of deconstruction is to demonstrate that complementarity can oft be found in apparently oppositional discourses.

Uh...Okay....

Why binary? Why not trinary? Or, quatenary? Isn't operating on the basis that there is a binary pair in the discourse akin to constructing a false dichotomy?

And... Need one be supplementary to the other? Is that the only possible relationship between the elements of the discourse? If so, why?

Then... Why are "oppositional discourses" seemingly privileged to attract this kind of search for complementarity? Does deconstruction ever entail doing the opposite? Or, delineate other relationships?

Quote:

Now coming to Jake�s first and third tenets specifically:

This resounds of Roland Barthes� �Author is dead� statement. Deconstructionists do not/should not care whether the authors are unconscious of their intentions or not- they are not psychoanalysts. The point is not so much no one can know the truth about the author�s intention rather than it does not matter what the author�s intention is, it is only the reader�s interpretation that matters, which leads right up to the fourth tenet:

Now I personally do not agree with it completely, because meanings are derived from intersubjective agreement, not pure individual subjectivity. One should not let one�s reading of a text be governed by the author�s intention, but it is useful to know the context in which the author came up with the text when forming one�s interpretation of it. Books and essays do have meaning outside the meaning given by the reader, but the reader can choose whether to partake in the signification system inscribed within the text.

Huh?

If "it is only the reader's interpretation that matters" then why should meanings need to be derived from "intersubjective agreement, not pure subjectivity." This seems to be contradictory. Perhaps I'm confusing your statement of your understanding of a tenet with your personal opinion, and disagreement with, that tenet as stated?

godfry

godfry n. glad · 07-30-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kenaz
Please understand that it's not that I don't want to reply your request directly, ie. give specific nice examples. But subjugated knowledges only become meaningful when situated within specific genealogical discourses. So what I can offer for a better understanding (if you are interested) is to read the books listed below by Michel Foucault- each a specific genealogical dissection of unitary history, each packed with subjugated knowledges desubjugated because they become tactical forces within Foucault's discourse:...snip>

Thanks for the recommendations...I'm wading through Hayden White's introduction to Metahistory and Alun Munslow's Deconstructing History at the moment. Foucault is for later...

It still sounds as though you (or, more accurately, those post-structuralists you are attempting to represent) are arbitrarily determining, and consequently labelling in a polemical fashion, "subjugated" and "non-subjugated""knowledges". It's an arbitrary redefining of terms to privilege a different set of knowledges. That's all... (And that's pretty good work, if you can get it.)

Also, with regards Foucault... Didn't he write in French? Wouldn't I have to read it, and comprehend it, in French to obtain the truest understanding? Wouldn't the linguistic base be sullied in a translation of his material into English? If so...his knowledge is the ultimate in "subjugated" so far as I'm concerned. It's unavailable to me in an unsullied form...or, if "it is only the reader's interpretation that matters", in my case, my interpretation of Foucault is that he is totally incomprehensible...and that's all that matters, right? If not, then what is it that I'm not comprehending?

godfry

godfry n. glad · 08-04-2003, 08:29 AM

Hellloooo....???

What...Did I commit some faux pas?

Or...<sniff, sniff>...hmmm, I've my deodorant on, so that can't be it....

This happens all too often. I get involved in some thread, establish productive intercourse and begin to ask questions....then wham! Everybody leaves...

Have I come across as mind-numbingly stupid and hence a waste of effort to respond to, or have I asked the decisive question that ends all discussion? Or, perhaps there is some other reason why no one has responded to my questions?

Just curious...

godfry n. glad

kenaz · 08-04-2003, 10:18 PM

Hi godfry,

sorry about the lack of reply on my part, do not think that you are "mind-numbingly stupid"! Have been really busy with work and a new puppy I adopted with my boyfriend.

Here's some quick replies to your questions, sorry I don't have time to elaborate on them.

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Why binary? Why not trinary? Or, quatenary? Isn't operating on the basis that there is a binary pair in the discourse akin to constructing a false dichotomy?
And... Need one be supplementary to the other? Is that the only possible relationship between the elements of the discourse? If so, why?

The false dichotomy and dominant/supplementary relationship is oft inherent in logocentric discourses. Deconstruction does not construct, but rather (yes you have guessed it) deconstruct these dichotomies precisely to highlight the falsity of the polarities.

Quote:

If "it is only the reader's interpretation that matters" then why should meanings need to be derived from "intersubjective agreement, not pure subjectivity." This seems to be contradictory. Perhaps I'm confusing your statement of your understanding of a tenet with your personal opinion, and disagreement with, that tenet as stated?

Yes, the first paragraph is my understanding of the tenet, the second my opinion of it. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

Quote:

Also, with regards Foucault... ...his knowledge is the ultimate in "subjugated" so far as I'm concerned. It's unavailable to me in an unsullied form...or, if "it is only the reader's interpretation that matters", in my case, my interpretation of Foucault is that he is totally incomprehensible...and that's all that matters, right?

How much knowledge or anything for that matter, comes to us unsullied, unmediated, unsocialized, unedited, unbiased?

If it is your opinion that Foucault is incomprehensible based on your interpretation of his texts, then yes, that is all that should matter to you, since you choose not to partake or believe in the signification of the text. But that is a subjective statement, not an objective fact (due to time constraint I shall refrain from delving into the myth of objectivity

).

Peter Kirby · 08-05-2003, 01:03 AM

Celsus, where are you? I thought we were discussing.

As much as I disagree with the conclusions reached in subsequent volumes, I can recommend N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God, "Tools for the Task," pp. 29-144 for an extensive discussion of the philosophy of history. If the library doesn't have it, it would be worth purchasing, because the treatment of Judaism (pp. 145-338) therein also seemed good.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman · 08-05-2003, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Hellloooo....???

What...Did I commit some faux pas?

Or...<sniff, sniff>...hmmm, I've my deodorant on, so that can't be it....

This happens all too often. I get involved in some thread, establish productive intercourse and begin to ask questions....then wham! Everybody leaves...

Have I come across as mind-numbingly stupid and hence a waste of effort to respond to, or have I asked the decisive question that ends all discussion? Or, perhaps there is some other reason why no one has responded to my questions?

Just curious...

I get the same feeling all the time. All the time. You just got to relaxez vous.

"Binary" is with regard to true/false, right/wrong dichotomy. Such binaries are common in western culture eg good and bad, cowboys and indians etc. This oppositional binary device is fundamental to meaning in western thought and deconism challenges the explanatory value of these structures.

Deconism take apart these structures in a three stage process:

1. Reveal an assymetry in the binary opposition and in the implied hierarchy.
2. Reverse the hierarchy
3. Displace one of the terms in the opposition and provide expanded definitions.

Look at this example:

Quote:

In his book, On Grammatology, Derrida offers one example of deconstruction applied to a theory of the father of structuralism, Claude L�vi-Strauss. Following many other Western thinkers, L�vi-Strauss distinguished between "savage" societies lacking writing and "civilized" societies that have writing. This distinction implies that human beings developed verbal communication (speech) before some people developed writing.

Although the development of writing is generally considered to be an advance, after an encounter with the Nambikwara Indians of Brazil, L�vi-Strauss suggested that societies without writing were also lacking violence and domination (in other words, savages are truly noble savages). He further argued that the primary function of writing is to facilitate slavery (or social inequality, exploitation, and domination in general). However, his claim has been rejected by historians as incorrect. There is abundant historical evidence that both hunter-gatherer societies, as well as later non-literary tribes, had significant amounts of violence and warfare in their culture.

Derrida's deconstruction begins with taking L�vi-Strauss's definition of writing at its word -- what is important in writing for L�vi-Strauss is not the use of markings on a piece of paper to communicate information, but rather the use of communication to dominate and violate. Derrida further observed that, based on L�vi-Strauss's own ethnography, the Nambikwara really do use language to dominate and violate. Derrida thus concludes that "writing," in fact, comes before "speech." That is, he reversed the opposition between "speech" and "writing," while using an idiosyncratic definition of "writing."

Derrida was not making fun of L�vi-Strauss. He was using his deconstruction of L�vi-Strauss to question a common belief in Western culture, dating back at least to Plato: that interpersonal communication is somehow more natural and better than other forms of communication.

Source

Quote:

arbitrarily determining, and consequently labelling in a polemical fashion, "subjugated" and "non-subjugated""knowledges". It's an arbitrary redefining of terms to privilege a different set of knowledges. That's all...

Yeah, deconstructionists have been accused of being irresponsible arbitrary in their methods.

07-30-2003, 10:23 AM	#63
kenaz Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Niflheim Posts: 31	oops I have no idea why my post appeared twice. Tried to delete one but can't seem to do it. Moderators??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2003, 09:10 AM	#61
kenaz Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Niflheim Posts: 31	Double post removed after much nagging and harrassment from the missus.

08-04-2003, 08:29 AM	#67
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Hellloooo....??? What...Did I commit some faux pas? Or...<sniff, sniff>...hmmm, I've my deodorant on, so that can't be it.... This happens all too often. I get involved in some thread, establish productive intercourse and begin to ask questions....then wham! Everybody leaves... Have I come across as mind-numbingly stupid and hence a waste of effort to respond to, or have I asked the decisive question that ends all discussion? Or, perhaps there is some other reason why no one has responded to my questions? Just curious... godfry n. glad

08-05-2003, 01:03 AM	#69
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Celsus, where are you? I thought we were discussing. As much as I disagree with the conclusions reached in subsequent volumes, I can recommend N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God, "Tools for the Task," pp. 29-144 for an extensive discussion of the philosophy of history. If the library doesn't have it, it would be worth purchasing, because the treatment of Judaism (pp. 145-338) therein also seemed good. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.