After covering deconstruction theorists like Derrida and de Man, the primary question I have is what the point of reading literature is for deconstructionists. If all language deconstructs itself, and there is no objective meaning within a text, then why read or write anything at all? This same question arose for me in Intro to Crit Strat with John Pell, and after reading the direct words of Derrida I still perceive deconstructionists to be just as cynical towards language as I did last semester. However, regardless of how cynical this critical lens might appear, I don't believe that any theorist (including deconstructionists) would create an entire theory just to say that language is pointless and doesn't do what we actually want it to accomplish.
Since post-structural theory claims that language deconstructs itself, it would seem as though language does nothing but defer meaning and create ambiguity. When I discussed this question with John back in the fall, the idea came up that post-structural theory is useful to us because it reveals the narratives of the human experience that we value most; we're able to dissect different texts in order to reveal what things are significant to specific authors, and we're exposed to the distinct interpretations of others, even though they don't necessarily reveal an objective meaning. I don't know if this is how Derrida would explain post-structural criticism, so my initial question remains because, other than ambiguity, what can deconstructionist thinkers derive from a text? If language in its nature deconstructs itself, and close readings of a text just defer us even further from meaning, what purpose does reading literature serve for them? It just seems like deconstructionists have dug themselves into a hole where they have little they can say about a text if they hold that the language of a text deconstructs itself...
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI don't think poststructural theorists are inherently cynical in their concern with the elusiveness of text. Rather, I think they're attempting to get to the root of an entirely human issue. Because humans are fallible, it only seems natural that their written and spoken discourse is far from perfect. To assume otherwise would only be subscribing to a falsehood.
Additionally, I choose to see deconstruction as a playful routine. As Derrida writes: "The reading and writing supplement must be rigorously prescribed, but by the necessities of a game, by the logic of play, signs to which the system of all textual powers must be accorded and attuned" (1697). In this way, I think we can follow the play of signs until we construct our own meaning of it. Think about it this way: language may always be elusive, but that doesn't stop us from trying to utilize it. Language is indeed tricky, but it's the most effective tool in our belt. We are able to communicate effectively (at least sometimes), which is good enough for me.
I think the "point" is that discourse is a form of play, and that in this playground, everything can be upended and played with--because we tend to make too much of everything.
ReplyDelete