Deconstructive criticism is a mode of criticism that was developed during the 1960s (1967-present) by Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). Jacques Derrida is arguably the most well-known philosopher of the contemporary period. He was a French philosopher credited with being the father of deconstructionism. Experts consider Derrida to be a vital contributor to the fields of modern philosophy and literary criticism. Derrida questioned the central-seeking tendency of western philosophy and developed this mode of criticism. A method of reading and theory of language that seeks to subvert (bring down), dismantle and destroy any notion that a text or signifying system has any boundaries, margins, coherence, unity, determinate meaning, truth or identity. Deconstructive criticism rejects the traditional assumption that language can accurately represent reality. Deconstructionist critics regard language as a fundamentally unstable medium. Since literature is made up of words, literature possesses no fixed, single meaning.
J. Hillis Miller, Paul de Man, and Lucy Irigary are some of the literary critics of deconstructive criticism. Derrida questioned Saussure’s concept of signifier and signified. According to Saussure; sign = signified/signifier, but Derrida views language as not a reliable means of communication. It contains pluralities of meanings. He questioned the centre-seeking tendency of culture, religion, philosophy and truth. Western philosophy was centred only on the process of finding the truth. But Derrida expressed that neither there is hierarchy nor there is a centre. Every literary piece is the interpretation of an interpretation. So, there is no final interpretation. The text is only the play of the signifier. In the absence of a final signified, signifiers float.
Paul de Man supported Derrida’s concept and viewed that there is only a chain of resistance in theory. One theory rejects the other and proposes the new. Deconstructionist critics tend to emphasise not what is being said but how language is used in a text. According to Derrida, “language is not the reliable tool of communication we believe it to be, but rather a fluid, ambiguous domain of complex experience in which ideologies programs without our being aware of them.”
Derrida not only presented his view about language but also talked about the concept of presence and interpretation of the literary text. Multiple meanings, a contrastive form of language, floating nature of language, and disability are the major concepts of Derrida. By using the difference, he refuted (overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof) the structuralist idea.
DECONSTRUCTING LANGUAGE
Generally, it has been considered that language communicates our desires. However, Derrida viewed that language as slippery and self-contrastive. That’s why it doesn't communicate what we wish to communicate. Structuralism shares similar assumptions to reader-response criticism of how meaning is made, but instead of focusing on the response itself, structuralism seeks to expose the system of the meaning that inspired the response. Saussure attempted to distinguish the surface elements of the language (parole) and the way an individual understands the language (langue). Saussure’s “structural approach to linguistics exposed the arbitrary (unpredictable) relationship between the signifier (a word, an image) and the signified (the concept that the signifier is pointing to)”. To understand deconstruction one must first understand structuralism. Deconstruction attempts to “expose the gaps and inconsistency that exist in the structure of language”.
Language is ambiguous because of the multiplicity of meanings. According to Saussure, language is made up of signs and sign = signified/signifier. A signifier is a sound language whereas a signified is the concept image. Derrida says that there is no bond between the signifier and the signified. It is so because of vagueness and ambiguity. Every expression doesn't have its signified rather it consists of a chain of signifiers. Words don't have a final signified because of the lack of solid and stable meaning. For Saussure, we understand the language because of difference, but Derrida coined the word “difference” which refers to plural meanings. One meaning is to defer (postpone) and the next is to differ. It means the difference itself has multiple meanings. So, it is impossible to understand the language on the basis of the relationship between signifier and signified.
In this way, deconstruction presents language as unstable, ambiguous, vague and slippery. It is because of these natures of language, language fails to communicate.
DECONSTRUCTING OUR WORLD
Language is a medium through which cultural ideologies are transmitted (carried). It is through language we learn to conceive (believe/think) and perceive (become conscious of) our world and ourselves. Deconstructionists consider language as the ground of our being or the foundation from which our experience and knowledge of the world are generated. In this sense, we can say that human identity is a product of language. Jacques Derrida questioned western philosophy right from Plato down to the present. Western philosophy is based on the meaning of existence and presence. This logo-centric tendency of western philosophy is questioned by Derrida. (The history of Western metaphysics is the history of logo-centrism.) Since the ancient Greek period, Western Philosophy has been grounded on being, i.e. search for the meaning of existence.
Derrida calls western philosophy logo-centric because it valued centre. According to Derrida, language is more slippery and ambiguous than we think. He asserts that the western discourse is phono-centric (phono sound). It is because all the great philosophers and thinkers beginning from Plato gave priority to speech (spoken form of language) rather than writing. They considered that speech was born first, and writing was developed later. So they considered speech as primary, original, authentic and reliable. They put speech at the centre and writing at the margin. Derrida rejects such a phono-centric idea and raises a big question about the history and thoughts of the western world. He dismantles the hierarchy of speech and writing and puts them in the same place. He proposes that speech has no life without writing. So, speech and writing are dependent on one another, having equal importance. He further explains that due to the unstable nature of language, it is impossible to get the meaning of the word. As language itself is ambiguous how can it present a stable reality? Derrida views that there are multiple vantage (advantage) points from which the world can be interpreted. Every discourse is the product of language and our conceptual viewpoint. Deconstruction has also been called a post-structuralist theory because it emerged as a reaction against structuralism.
For Derrida language functions as the ground of being from which our knowledge is generated. As the language itself is self-contradictory, the world is presented in the same way. A deconstructive reading of the word asserts that there are multiple perspectives from which the word can be interpreted.
DECONSTRUCTING HUMAN IDENTITY
Language is self-contradictory and there is no direct relationship between signifier and signified. Deconstructing theory presents the idea that human identity is unstable because of the unstable nature of language.
The human experience is fostered by the language they use. The language itself is ambiguous, unstable and self-contradictory. Since each of us has our own desires, fear, dreams, hopes, and so on, no individual can have an identity. The word identity refers to a singular unit and since we all differ in our beliefs we can possess an identity.
Even if the word identity indicates one or a single identity, the deconstructive theory presents the concept that our identity is multiple and fragmented. We have hope, fear, anxiety, intention and so on. It means from one situation to the next our identity changes and we have to act in a different way. Not only that, we change our ideology as well. As a result of this, yesterday’s identity becomes different from today's. It is only deconstructive theory that makes us understand how these differences operate in human life.
Deconstructive reading can be applied to any text. It is a theory of reading, not a theory of literature. Derrida generally deconstructs philosophical writing, showing the metaphysical (theoretical) contradictions and the historicity of writing which lays claim to the absolute.
DECONSTRUCTING LITERATURE
A deconstruction is a tool for literary interpretation. While interpreting any literary piece, one has to be aware of the fact that the language of the text is dynamic, ambiguous, and unstable. The existence has no fixed ground and the identity of the characters is fragmented. The meaning of a text is not a stable thing which readers get from it. Rather the meaning is created by the reader in the act of reading. The meaning of the text cannot be considered final; all kinds of text (including literary ones) consist of multiple, conflicting, overlapping, dynamic, and fluid meanings. This is because the signified always slips away from the signifier. The signified is deferred, postponed, or pushed away further. All our interpretations are ideological readings because all interpretations are produced by our cultural values and beliefs. Therefore, both literary and critical texts can be deconstructed.
In every literary piece, there is no unified meaning. Meaning is produced by the play of language because of which different readers produce different meanings. It means there lies undecidability of meaning in the text. In the same way, the text lacks fixed existence or centre. Undecidability doesn’t mean that the reader is unable to choose among possible meanings, or the text is meaningless. Rather, the reader and text are linked in the chain of language. Characters in the literary text deserve different identities. When they change their place, position and dress; their identity becomes different. A deconstructive reading of literature should find tension, contrast, ambiguity, and undecidability in a literary piece. Deconstructing a literary text is to reveal what ideology it consists of. A deconstructive critic looks for meanings in the text that conflict with its main theme, focusing on self-contradictions of which the text seems unaware.
In this way deconstructive readers must focus on the self-contradictions of the text itself seems unaware. In the same way language as well as human identity is shown to be floating without containing fixed image and identity.
A DECONSTRUCTIVE READING OF THE GREAT GATSBY
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of the very popular novels that contain unstable meaning; no fixed ground of being and fragmented identity of all the characters. The novel contains ambiguity, self-contrast and fluidity of meaning as well as identity.
The Great Gatsby has inconsistent ideological projection. It lies at the level of past and present, innocence and decadence, West and East. The world of Gatsby has selfishness, drunkenness, and vulgarity. People move from place to place without containing a single identity. In the same way, the relationship between characters does not last long. It is so because they are guided by superficial values. There is a hierarchy of class, gender, and so on. People are concerned only with social status and amusements. Hopelessness as well as poverty is indicated through the Valley of Ashes. The activities of Jordan, Nick and Gatsby are superficial. Nick has a sense of loneliness. Wherever he goes, he doesn't find his identity. So, at the end of the novel, he seems to be ready to return back to the midwest.
Among all the characters, Gatsby is a significant part of the corrupt world. Despite the fact that he has all the qualities of a romantic hero, his economic development evokes the American romantic ideology. Neither Gatsby nor Daisy have the willingness to stay constant. They are representative of the shallow decadence of the Americans. The novel fails to give a single unified meaning for the reason that the language of the novel is self-contrastive. The spiritual emptiness of modern America creates an unstable position between the past and present. Readers feel that the novel is only an interpretation of an interpretation. Daisy’s identity is superficial as it is of Nick and Gatsby. The most contrastive ideological presentation is the characterisation of Gatsby. It is very difficult to call him in one word. He has been shown as a devoted lover, a brave soldier, a carefree host, a quarrelsome boy, etc. Daisy’s identity as well is not fixed. She shows one nature and attitude when she is with Tom, but changes her nature and attitude when she is with Gatsby.
This is how the novel The Great Gatsby is rich for deconstructive analysis. It is so because the novel contains an unstable presentation of meaning and fragmented identity of the characters.
Comments
Post a Comment