This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's blog for background reading: Click here and Click here .
Derrida and Deconstruction :
Video 1: Defining Deconstruction
- Why is it difficult to define Deconstruction?
- Is Deconstruction a negative term?
- How does Deconstruction happen on its own?
Deconstruction is a challenging concept to define because Derrida’s central question is whether it is ever possible to define anything clearly, rigorously, and once and for all. He argues that every term — especially in philosophy and literary criticism — resists a final, absolute definition. Deconstruction itself cannot be defined conclusively because its nature is to question the limits and conditions of definition. This is why students and scholars often struggle with a fixed, clear-cut definition of deconstruction.
Importantly, deconstruction is NOT a negative term. It is not about destroying or breaking down for the sake of destruction. According to Derrida, it is an inquiry into the foundations and conditions that make a philosophical or intellectual system stand or collapse. It explores why every system contains within itself the possibility of its own limitation or closure. Deconstruction is an examination of the reasons why ideas arise and why no system can ever be completely sealed or final. Its goal is NOT to destroy, but to understand and reveal the deeper conditions, causes, and tensions within any structure.
Derrida’s concept of deconstruction is inspired by Martin Heidegger’s project of Destruktion (de-structuring), which he translated into French as “deconstruction.” In a famous letter to a Japanese professor (who was trying to translate Derrida), he explains this link. The purpose of deconstruction is to transform the way people think — to rethink the foundation of Western thought itself.
Deconstruction happens on its own. It is NOT a deliberate, external act but an internal process within a philosophical or intellectual system. The same conditions that produce a system also impose its limits. An intellectual system built upon distinctions and binary oppositions contains within itself the tensions that undo those very distinctions. The process is automatic — it occurs from within, as the conditions for making a system also enable its disruption.
The concept of différance captures this paradox within language and thought. In French, it is pronounced the same as “difference” but spelled differently (with an ‘a’), highlighting its dual nature. Différance signifies that every structure, based on distinctions, contains traces and tensions that make its boundaries unstable. This is central to understanding how deconstruction operates: the possibility of making a concept also contains the possibility of undoing it.
Discuss :
1.Why is it difficult to define deconstruction?
- Derrida himself questions whether it is ever possible to define anything “once and for all” — this applies to deconstruction too.
- Deconstruction resists a final or fixed definition, because it is about exploring the limits and conditions of any concept, rather than locking it down.
- Students often struggle because we are used to clear, concrete definitions, but deconstruction intentionally operates beyond that.
- It is NOT a method or theory with set rules, but an inquiry into the foundations of ideas, making its definition always open and evolving.
2.Is Deconstruction a Negative Term?
No, deconstruction is NOT a negative term. According to Derrida:
- It is NOT about destroying ideas or breaking down concepts for the sake of destruction.
- It is an inquiry into the foundations and conditions that make philosophical ideas or systems stand and, at the same time, the conditions that can cause them to fall.
- It is NOT a destructive activity, but a way of understanding and questioning the limits of a system.
- Derrida wanted to transform the way people think, focusing on how ideas arise and evolve, making deconstruction a constructive and transformative process rather than a purely negative one.
3.How does Deconstruction happen on its own?
- Deconstruction happens on its own because the very conditions that make a philosophical or intellectual system possible also contain its limits and potential for breaking down.
- In other words, the same elements that build the system also carry within them the seeds for its undoing.
- This means deconstruction is not forced from outside — it occurs naturally from within the system itself, as an outcome of its internal tensions and boundaries.
- Derrida explains this using the concept of différance, where every structure based on differences and binaries contains within itself the potential for its own deconstruction.
Video 2: Heideggar and Derrida
- The influence of Heideggar on Derrida
- Derridian rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy
The seeds of deconstruction can be traced back to Heidegger. In Structure, Sign, and Play, Derrida explicitly acknowledges three philosophers as influences: Heidegger, Freud, and Nietzsche.
Heidegger introduced the term Destruktion, which translates into French as deconstruction, showing a direct link between him and Derrida.
Heidegger argued that Western philosophy had long neglected or repressed the question of Being of beings — focusing only on entities themselves (like a table or person), and ignoring the mode of their existence.
In Being and Time, Heidegger set out to dismantle the Western philosophical tradition and transform the way people think, making the project highly ambitious.
Derrida continued this project of deconstruction, applying it to the foundations of Western philosophy, focusing especially on its underlying assumptions about language and meaning.
Another key theme is language: According to later Heidegger, it is language that speaks, not man, suggesting that meaning emerges from language itself. This decentering of man in philosophy became a central poststructuralist theme, adopted and developed further by Derrida.
Both philosophers sought to reinvent the language used in philosophy, challenging traditional modes of thought. Just as Heidegger claimed the question of Being had been neglected, Derrida asserted that the role of writing had been neglected in favor of speech.
According to Derrida, this preference for speech over writing is called phonocentrism and is part of the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism.
In this way, Derrida both builds upon and reconfigures Heidegger’s legacy, making the seeds of deconstruction traceable to the questions and themes posed by Heidegger.
DISCUSS :
Q:1 The influence of Heidegger on Derrida
Heidegger influenced Derrida deeply. The term deconstruction itself is derived from Heidegger’s Destruktion, showing a direct link. Heidegger aimed to dismantle the traditional Western philosophical focus on beings and instead emphasize the question of Being. He also asserted that it is language that speaks, not man, which inspired Derrida’s ideas about how language displaces the centrality of man in philosophy. In this way, the seeds of deconstruction clearly sprouted from Heidegger’s thought.
Q:2 Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy
Derrida’s rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy builds directly upon Heidegger’s project. Just as Heidegger sought to dismantle traditional thought by focusing on the neglected question of Being, Derrida aimed to expose and deconstruct the hidden assumptions within this same tradition. He did this by challenging its logocentrism — the privileging of speech over writing — and highlighting how language itself shapes and displaces the central role of man. In this way, Derrida reimagines the very ground of Western philosophy, turning it into a space of questioning, reinterpretation, and openness.
Video 3: Saussurean and Derrida
- Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive)
- How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?
- Concept of metaphysics of presence
Understanding Derrida, Saussure, and Related Concepts:
1. Arbitrariness in Language (Ferdinand de Saussure)
- Saussure says that the relationship between a word and its meaning is not natural but conventional.
- For example, the word “sister” has no natural or essential connection with the actual person it refers to. It’s just a social convention—we, as a society, agree to connect this sound pattern or written form with that meaning.
- He calls this “arbitrariness”—that is, any word could be used to signify anything, but convention and consensus fix its meaning.
2. Derrida’s Deconstruction of Arbitrariness
- Derrida takes Saussure’s idea a step further.
- He questions the idea that the meaning of a word is something we hold in our minds.
- Instead, he argues that the meaning of a word is just another word—that words refer to more words, not fixed ideas.
- This leads to his concept of “différance”, which will be discussed in detail in the next unit (5.3).
- So, Derrida is not rejecting Saussure but deconstructing his idea to show how meaning is never fixed—it is always shifting and relational.
3. Metaphysics of Presence (from Heidegger to Derrida)
- This concept comes from Martin Heidegger, and Derrida borrows and critiques it.
- Traditionally, in Western philosophy, “being” is connected with presence.
- If something exists, we say: “The table is.”
- Here, “is” (present tense) is seen as proof of the table’s existence—its being.
- So there is a bias: we associate presence with truth or reality.
- Heidegger questioned this in Being and Time.
- He asked: Why do we associate being only with what is present to us?
- Why can’t something that is absent, or future, or remembered, also be real in some way?
4. Derrida and Binary Oppositions
Derrida points out that Western philosophy, like language itself, is structured by binary oppositions:
- Good / Evil
- Man / Woman
- Light / Darkness
- Presence / Absence
These pairs are not equal. One term is privileged, the other devalued.
For example:
- Darkness is just the absence of light—so it’s seen as lesser.
- Woman is seen as absence of manliness, therefore secondary or derived.
- Evil is seen as lacking goodness, rather than something in itself.
So, this whole system is biased—the term connected with presence or fullness is given importance, and the other term is treated as lacking, inferior, marginal.
5. Logocentrism and Phallocentrism
- “Logos” in Greek means speech, word, reason.
- Logocentrism is the belief that speech is the ultimate form of truth and that presence (especially through speech) guarantees meaning.
- Writing is often treated as secondary, a copy of speech.
So Derrida criticizes this logocentric bias, which is rooted in the metaphysics of presence.
Derrida links logocentrism to phallocentrism—a system that privileges the male.
- In this system, man is considered as having “full presence”—because of the male sexual organ (phallus).
- Woman, in contrast, is treated as lacking, as an absence—again, made secondary or inferior.
- Derrida invents the word phallogocentrism—combining phallus and logos—to describe this deep cultural and linguistic bias that privileges male, presence, speech, rationality, etc.
So, Derrida’s deconstruction shows us how:
- Language is not stable; meaning is always deferred.
- Western philosophy is based on binary oppositions that are unequal.
- Logocentrism and phallocentrism shape how we understand truth, gender, and presence.
- Metaphysics of presence is the assumption that only what is present is real—an idea that Derrida critiques strongly.
DISCUSS:
Q:1 Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive)
Ferdinand de Saussure introduces the idea that the relationship between a word (signifier) and its meaning (signified) is not natural, but arbitrary. That means, there is no inherent or divine connection between a word and the object or idea it represents. For instance, the word “sister” doesn’t have a natural link to the person it refers to—it’s simply a convention, an agreement among speakers of a language.
This arbitrariness shows that meaning is constructed by society. It is a social product, created through consensus and use, not by any essential or fixed rule.
Saussure also stresses that meaning is relational. We understand the value of a word not by what it is, but by how it differs from other words. For example, we recognize the sound “p” in contrast to “b”, or “s” in contrast to “z”. Meaning is created through a network of differences, not from any positive definition.
Finally, Saussure sees language as constitutive. It doesn’t just describe the world—it actually shapes how we think and understand reality. The system of language determines how we express and perceive our world.
Q:2 How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?
Derrida deconstructs Saussure’s idea of arbitrariness by pushing it further. While Saussure says that the connection between word and meaning is arbitrary and based on social convention, Derrida argues that meaning itself is never stable or final. He points out that the meaning of a word is not a fixed idea in the mind, but just another word—so meaning constantly shifts from one word to another. This endless movement shows that we never truly arrive at a final meaning. In this way, Derrida exposes how language is a chain of differences, and meaning is always deferred, never fully present or complete.
Q:3 Concept of metaphysics of presence
The concept of metaphysics of presence refers to the traditional Western philosophical idea that truth, meaning, and being are connected with presence—that something is real or meaningful only when it is present. Derrida, borrowing this term from Heidegger, critiques this tendency to privilege what is present (visible, spoken, immediate) over what is absent (hidden, written, delayed). In language, this bias appears when speech is valued more than writing, or when "man" is seen as full and primary while "woman" is seen as lacking or secondary. This structure creates hierarchical binary oppositions, where one term is always superior. Derrida exposes this bias to show how Western thought is built on unequal oppositions, and how the idea of full presence is an illusion, since meaning is always shifting and incomplete.
Video 4: DifferAnce
- Derridian concept of DifferAnce
- Infinite play of meaning
- DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer
Derrida’s Concept of Différance
1. Introduction to the Problem of Meaning
Derrida’s concept of différance emerges from his critique of traditional Western thought, particularly its assumption that words have stable, fixed meanings. This assumption is typically reflected in how people use dictionaries: when one looks up a word such as interest, they are presented with several meanings—curiosity, hobby, financial share, advantage, connection, and more. Each of these meanings is itself another word, which requires further explanation. For example, if interest means financial share, one must then seek the meaning of financial or share. This process continues indefinitely.
Hence, Derrida argues that meaning is never final or self-contained. Instead, every word leads to another word in an endless chain of signifiers. What is assumed to be understanding is merely a temporary halt in this chain, prompted by the illusion that a word has been fully grasped.
2. The Two Senses of Différance
The term différance, deliberately spelled with an “a” instead of an “e” (as in the French word différence), plays on two meanings:
- To differ (as in to distinguish one thing from another)
- To defer (as in to postpone meaning)
In French, différance and différence are pronounced identically. This pun emphasizes that the distinction can only be seen in writing, not speech. Derrida uses this orthographic trick to challenge the Western philosophical tradition that privileges speech (as presence) over writing (as absence). Because différance cannot be heard, only seen, it subverts this hierarchy and underscores the importance of writing in the production of meaning.
3. Différance and the Chain of Signifiers
According to Derrida, meaning in language arises not from a direct relationship between signifier and signified but from the difference between signifiers. Words do not have positive meanings in themselves; rather, they gain meaning through what they are not. For instance, the word black is understood only in contrast to what is not black. This notion aligns with Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralist claim that there are no positive terms in language—only relational differences.
Furthermore, meaning is always deferred because it depends on a series of substitutions—each word refers to another word. This process of endless deferral denies the possibility of ever arriving at a final or absolute meaning. Derrida refers to this deferral and differentiation as différance, which becomes a foundational condition for the possibility of language and communication itself.
4. Différance and the Metaphysics of Presence
Western philosophy has long been governed by what Derrida calls the metaphysics of presence—the belief that truth or meaning is something immediate, stable, and fully present. This is closely linked to logocentrism, the idea that there exists a central, transcendental signified (a fixed meaning or truth) that all language points toward. Différance undermines this belief by showing that meaning is never present in full but is always postponed and dependent on other signs.
Derrida’s critique also extends to phonocentrism, the privileging of speech over writing. Speech is associated with presence (the speaker is physically present), while writing implies absence (the writer and reader are not co-present). By emphasizing that différance is only perceptible in writing, Derrida reverses the traditional hierarchy and elevates writing as the primary mode of signification.
5. Différance as a Force
Derrida emphasizes that différance is not a concept, idea, or even a proper word. It is a force—a condition that makes possible both deferral and differentiation. All acts of communication, understanding, and signification rely on this force. While language gives the illusion of stable meaning, différance constantly destabilizes it, ensuring that meaning is always in process, never fixed.
6. Conclusion
Différance is a strategic term that exposes the limits of traditional thought. It undoes the binaries of speech/writing, presence/absence, and positive/negative meaning. Neither wholly positive nor negative, différance occupies a paradoxical space—it is both a word and a non-word, both an explanation and a disruption. Mastering this concept is essential for engaging with Derrida’s deconstruction and for understanding how language functions in poststructuralist theory.
Discuss:
Q:1 Derridean concept of DifferAnce
Derridean Concept of Différance:
Différance is a term coined by Derrida to show that meaning in language is never fixed. It combines two ideas:
- To differ – meaning arises by distinguishing one word from another.
- To defer – meaning is always postponed, never fully present.
It is not a concept or idea but a force that makes both differentiation and postponement possible. We think we understand a word by looking it up, but each word only leads to more words. Thus, meaning keeps shifting. Différance also highlights the privileging of speech over writing—since différance can’t be heard, only read, it challenges that bias.
Q:2 : Infinite play of meaning
Infinite Play of Meaning (in Derrida’s Concept of Différance):
According to Derrida, meaning in language is not stable or final. Each word leads to another word, creating a chain of signifiers. This results in an infinite play of meaning, where the true or final meaning is always deferred—never fully present or fixed. Language does not bring us to a central truth but keeps us moving away from it. This endless movement and postponement of meaning is made possible by différance.
Q:3 : DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer
Correct.
Différance = to differ + to defer
- To differ → We understand a word by how it is different from other words.
- To defer → The meaning of a word is always postponed; it never fully arrives.
Derrida combines both ideas in the term différance to show that meaning is never fixed—it constantly shifts through differences and delays.
Video 5: Structure, Sign and Play
- Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
- "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."
The discussion on ‘difference’ provides a significant understanding of the concept and clarifies the distinction between the spoken and written forms of the word. In reading Structure, Sign and Play, one is particularly struck by the statement: “Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique”. This assertion captures the essence of deconstruction and forms a central point in the essay.
Structure, Sign and Play is a pivotal text in contemporary literary theory, marking the inauguration of poststructuralism in 1967. Poststructuralism should be understood not as an outright rejection or denial of structuralism, but as an effort to move beyond it by critically engaging with its limitations. In this context, the essay operates as a critique of Claude Lévi‑Strauss, the eminent anthropologist who popularized structuralism.
The assertion that language contains within itself the requirement for its own critique summarizes the inquiry that deconstruction undertakes. Structuralism initially emerged as a challenge to metaphysical thought and to the scientific paradigm that dominated Western knowledge. It positioned itself as a method that critiqued the assumptions of both science and metaphysics. However, Derrida questions how Lévi‑Strauss, in formulating structuralism, ends up relying upon the same assumptions inherited from metaphysics and scientific discourse.
This paradox is evident when one observes that structuralism, on the one hand, aims to critique metaphysical and scientific thinking, and yet, on the other hand, employs the very assumptions it attacks. Similar instances have appeared throughout the history of philosophy — for example, Nietzsche’s attack on the earlier tradition of Western thought led Hegel to label him the “last metaphysician,” and, subsequently, Derrida criticizes Hegel as the “last metaphysician” as well. In all such instances, criticism operates within the boundaries of the very tradition it aims to oppose. Criticism, Derrida argues, can never fully stand outside the inherited legacy it seeks to critique, precisely because language itself contains those assumptions.
As discussed earlier in relation to différance, the final, ultimate meaning of any concept can never be fully captured. It can only be promised and deferred indefinitely. Hence, every philosophical statement contains within it a deferred, unavailable finality, making absolute interpretation or conclusive meaning impossible. In this sense, when a philosopher sets out to critique another system, that philosopher inevitably uses the same language, ideas, and assumptions as the system being criticized. This is why Derrida maintains that structuralism ultimately falls prey to the very forces — science and metaphysics — that it aims to dismantle.
A parallel example can be found in the context of Buddhist and Vedāntic thought. Buddhist philosophy, which emerges as a critique of Vedānta, ultimately ends up sounding akin to the very Vedānta it contests. The critical endeavor, in other words, often finds itself repeating or resembling the object of its attack. According to Derrida, this occurs because of the nature of language itself. Language is marked by a fundamental lack, wherein the final, stable meaning is always deferred and can never be fully captured. This permanent deferral creates an internal demand for ongoing critique.
Consequently, every philosophical statement contains within it a blind spot that invites critical examination. The same applies to deconstruction itself, which is why deconstructive writing is almost always auto‑critical and self‑evaluatory. In questioning the Western philosophical tradition, deconstruction necessarily questions itself. This is precisely what is meant by the assertion that language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.
DISCUSS :
Q: 1 : Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.
Derrida’s essay “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” marks the beginning of poststructuralism by questioning the very foundations of structuralist thought. He argues that although structuralism aims to critique metaphysical and scientific assumptions, it ends up relying on the same ideas it intends to dismantle. In other words, any criticism operates within the boundaries of the language and ideas it inherits, making it impossible to step completely “outside” the tradition. This is because language itself contains within it a “lack” — the final meaning can never be fully captured, only promised and deferred. As a result, every philosophical statement contains within itself the necessity for its own critique. This paradox is central to deconstruction, making it an ongoing, self‑critical practice that exposes the limits and instabilities of structure, sign, and play.
Q:2 : Explain: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."
“Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique” means that every language we use contains its own limitations, assumptions, and hidden meanings. Because of this, it always demands to be questioned and examined. In other words, any statement we make is built upon a language that already contains certain ideas, rules, and traditions. We can never completely step out of that language to judge it from the outside. So, whenever we try to critique an idea or a theory, we must use language — and that language itself needs to be critiqued, because it already carries its own prejudices and gaps.
This is central to Derrida’s idea of deconstruction: every text or theory contains within itself the seeds for its own questioning, because its language can never be fully stable or absolute.
Video 6: Yale School
- The Yale School : the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories
- The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction
Characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction
The Yale School of Deconstruction emerged in the 1970s as a pivotal force in introducing Jacques Derrida’s ideas to the United States and beyond. Prior to this, deconstruction was largely confined to the domain of Continental philosophy, but through the work of the Yale School it became a central force in literary criticism, marking a shift from New Criticism. This group, often called the “Yale Hermeneutic Mafia,” consisted of four critics — Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom, and Geoffrey Hartman — who brought deconstruction into mainstream literary discourse.
One key characteristic of the Yale School is its focus on the figurative nature of language. These critics argued that language is primarily a rhetorical or figurative construct, making it an unreliable tool for conveying literal meaning. Figures of speech create ambiguity and open texts to a multiplicity of interpretations. For example, in a metaphor such as “My love is like a red, red rose,” the literal sense is irrational, but the figurative sense produces deeper, varied meanings.
Secondly, the Yale School questions both the formalist and the historicist approaches to literature. According to its proponents, language is not a transparent medium for accessing external reality, making both aesthetic and social readings of a text problematic. Aesthetic experience, as Paul de Man suggests, is an illusion resulting from mistaking the materiality of the signifier for the signified.
Finally, the Yale School is notable for its reinterpretation of Romantic literature. In contrast to traditional readings that emphasize metaphor, de Man and others highlight the role of allegory and irony, especially in Romantic texts. De Man argues that the Romantic desire to reconcile subject and object operates not through metaphor but through allegory, making Romantic poetry a site of “undecidability” where multiple, contradictory interpretations coexist.
In these ways, the Yale School of Deconstruction significantly reshaped literary criticism, introducing a radical skepticism about the nature of language and its role in producing meaning.
DISCUSS:
Q:1 The Yale School: the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories
The Yale School of Deconstruction emerged in the 1970s as a pivotal center for the spread of Derrida’s ideas. It “became very fashionable” and “very popular or unpopular” in America, making deconstruction “a real new thing” after New Criticism. The group included “the four names — Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman” — who were called the “Yale hermeneutic Mafia” for introducing deconstruction “into literary criticism in a big way” when it was largely confined to philosophy. In this way, Yale became “the hub of the practitioners of deconstruction” and shaped its role in literary theory.
Q:2 The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction
One important characteristic is its focus on the “figurative component” of language. The Yale critics argued that language is “a very unreliable tool for communication of meaning” because it is “a very problematic entity” due to its figurative nature, creating “a multiplicity of meanings.”
Secondly, it questions both “the aesthetic approach” and “the historicist or sociologist approach” to literature. They argue that “language does not take you directly to society” and that “a language is not a transparent medium of communication.” Even the “aesthetic” experience is treated as an “illusionary effect of language.”
Thirdly, the Yale School is noted for its “preoccupation with Romanticism.” Paul de Man shows that in Romantic poetry it is “the allegory” and not the “metaphor” that is central, challenging traditional readings. This leads to “two interpretations of a text” and a state of “undecidability” about its meaning.
Video 7: Other Schools and Deconstruction
- How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?
Yale School of Deconstruction:
- Focused on the rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary texts.
- Emphasized the multiplicity of meanings and internal tensions within texts.
- Argued that texts can never be reduced to a single, fixed interpretation.
Postcolonial Theory:
- Utilizes deconstruction to reveal and dismantle the narratives of the colonizer.
- Exposes hidden ideological assumptions within imperial texts.
Feminist Criticism:
- Draws upon deconstruction to challenge patriarchal discourse.
- Subverts gender binaries, especially the male–female divide.
Cultural Materialism:
- Combines deconstruction with Marxist and historicist approaches.
- Focuses on the materiality of language and its role in exposing hidden ideologies.
New Historicism:
- Influenced by deconstruction’s emphasis on textuality.
- Sees texts as historical entities and history itself as a textual construct.
- Emphasizes the “reciprocal concern” between the historicity of texts and the textuality of history (Louis Montrose).
Overall Significance:
- Deconstruction has shaped a range of critical approaches beyond its original context.
- Its methods and ideas have become central to understanding literature, ideology, and history.
DISCUSS :
Q:1 How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?
Postcolonial theorists: Post Colonial Theory are fascinated by deconstruction’s ability to show that the texts or the discourse of the colonizer can be actually deconstructed from within, that the narratives of the master can be dismantled and the ideological assumptions behind the text can be exposed.
Feminists: Similarly feminists are also very much interested in deconstruction because it deals with how to subvert the binaries, especially the binary between male and female, and deconstruction provides tools for subverting this patriarchal setup or patriarchal discourse.
Cultural Materialism: Cultural materialists … are interested in the emphasis on the materiality of language which Dera keeps on emphasizing, that language is a material construct and it has got ability to unmask the hidden ideological agendas and programs.
New Historicism: New historicism is interested in reciprocal concern between textuality of history and historicity of text … text itself is a historical entity, it has got a historical context, it's shaped by history, at the same time what we understand as history is also through text.
Marxism: “Cultural materialism also uses many ideas from Dera” — including the focus on language as a site for exposing “hidden ideological agendas and programs.”
References :
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Definition (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/gl-3BPNk9gs?si=dzBJqiW3U800l3z9
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.2.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Heideggar (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/buduIQX1ZIw?si=x7PLTLbZrwX56N1b
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.2.2 Derrida & Deconstruction – Ferdinand de Saussure (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/V7M9rDyjDbA?si=ZjuD65TegBFOxPy-
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.3 Derrida and Deconstruction – DifferAnce (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/WJPlxjjnpQk?si=1lY14LrRY8SzZkAP
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.4 Derrida & Deconstruction – Structure, Sign & Play (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/eOV2aDwhUas?si=jPueDUt0crhGyGxQ
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.5 Derrida & Deconstruction – Yale School (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/J_M8o7B973E?si=qIB1rYMT55_6fHrO
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.6 Derrida & Destruction: Influence on other critical theories (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 years ago, https://youtu.be/hAU-17I8lGY?si=9zs6rY3zHk9j-FtZ
THANK YOU !
