I love the French philosopher Derrida’s classic and famous assertion that “There is nothing outside the text.” Everything is a text, I infer he connotes, and the notion opens all sorts of language phenomenon to interpretation. If there is only text, each language event or text event reverberates off of every other, and the relationship between these events is as important as the text in and of itself.
I am probably misinterpreting Derrida’s intention, but I think he would be fine with that. In fact, he would probably say it would be impossible not to misunderstand, so I might be wrong. I bring this up because his inspiration informs much of my theory and criticism, and because I want to point out, in advance, from whom and just how much I am borrowing when I make my outrageous statements.
Jacques Derrida wrote and conducted careful, close, and inspirational readings to find where texts contradicted their structural unity and authorial intent in the second half of the twentieth century. My lame translation of borrowed structures is just an explanation that he wrote theory that pointed out how complicated other theories were, to the point of showing how these theories contradict themselves or reinforce their points successfully, in turn. In effect, Derrida’s efforts seduce you away from what you think the original text means and into accepting what Derrida thinks it means, while illustrating that you probably misunderstand him too. When critics employ Derrida to enforce their power relationship over texts, we are trying to draw attention to our own ideas, but also to the simple fact that most text is very confused and confusing, especially when it tries to be simple.
Aporia is one of Derrida's great concepts. Aporia is like a point reached in criticism where you see there are so many ways to interpret the text that the reading can go no further. Finding the aporia is like deciding when to close the book and say “I cannot go on” and it is the point where the text diverged from it’s own intent irrevocably. Many people have already reached this point of divergence with this text but I am hoping my structural integrity is enough to propel you onward.
Derrida also believed in phenomenological historocity as indicative of structure. Structure without genesis is incomplete in his estimation. Complexity is claimed instead of hollow claims that a text exists with no past. Understanding intention then seems important when considering the structure. Intention is another level of complexity that seems inaccessible, but can be found in biographical criticism, and should be a consideration, alongside New Criticism that focuses on the text as is, which ultimately reflects the reader as much as it says something about the texts implicit denotation.
Then there is also differance to consider, or something not present in operation in a text. In my opinion differance is brought to a text by the reader, and is variable to the extreme. The reader cannot get what a second reader gets out of a text, so considering the text as whole without considering the reader or audience is incomplete. You can consider the writer’s intention, the times as indicated by other books co-existing at the time, and other factors that are not present in the text, as important to interpretation. Your personal context and the context provided by other readers deserves consideration. This is a move away from considering text complete as is.
So we have diverse language backgrounds that result in confusion. When you share symbols you have understanding. The Book Guru in me says simply: look for those who have read the same books as you and you will find friends.
My own critique of Deconstruction is that the theory is fantastic. The theory does not exist to be criticized but is an invitation to think critically at it’s very core. Deconstruction, to me, is a claim that every reading is valid, but only some readings are interesting, and yet I think it is more than resaying of the text or a crossing out where the lattice work is more important than what is said, as the French philosopher Focoult claims. (It’s cool that he’s French, trust me, no one who eats only freedom fries is still reading this). Deconstruction is a resaying of “the complete text” with complete reference and complete intertextualization desired, and inherently recognized as impossible. It is important to demonstrate that you don’t understand a text, that more could be going on than you inferred, and most likely far more than the author ever intended. This, I love.
But Deconstruction seems to be about power at some point, perhaps the point where criticism seems more interesting than the original text. But Deconstruction is a relationship to a primary and then a secondary text, with an admission that there are unconsidered texts that influence future readers of the primary and secondary texts, ad infinitum, so that confusion and misinterpretation seems dominant over understanding. To read is to confuse all other texts, all future texts, and to add context of your own is to confuse the matter even more.
Deconstruction may be a bias towards recognizing one’s ultimate Socratic lack of absolute understanding as in itself the only wisdom, but that is loaded with my personal bias. The canon may exist, but there are more people who misunderstand it from my perspective, most likely, than who get it. This leaves many readers feeling misunderstood when we face texts. In response Deconstruction is a personal power play that makes us feel like we are understood and therefore understand that which we recognize implicitly cannot be fully understood. Try or try not, there is no do, to mangle Yoda.
You can get it, but then try to tell someone what you have, and it is gone, absolutely.
No comments:
Post a Comment