Deconstruction is a reaction against patterns of structuralists. It dismantles the idea of ‘structure’ to present it as concept which has been used to determine the way of understanding; rules of how we articulate meaning and readings by outlining an authority. Deconstruction is primarily a post-structuralist position in its objective approach to accept structure. It questions assumptions about how the universe has searched for a definitive; philosophically there is no definite meaning, research and findings. The art of deconstruction questions the essence of the majority as everything is a processed for ‘un-picking’. In regards to this thought in relation to structure it suspends the assumed connection between mind and meaning with the understanding that method provides us with object to join them (Norris, 2002). In early writing Barthes and others present structuralism as a code of language. In 20th century linguistics this form of understanding can no longer be the definitive outcome to interpret meaning due to the variety of language and culture fusing together. From this understanding we can recognise how these significations are apparent; assumptions present a belief in the method of being able to explain language and culture (Norris,2002). It presents a position of power: object position: habit of thought. This can be seen as a ‘self-blinding’ process of thinking as it conceptualises thoughts through metaphors (Norris, 2002). Deconstruction refers to a technique developed by Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man and many others. It includes a broader and in some cases more technical sense to the way in which a text can be read and in turn, can be shown through a set of philosophical claims about language and the meaning within a text. Due to the broadness of the term and the popular use of it, the term to 'deconstruct' now has negative connotations for demonstrating the incoherence of a certain something.
Jacques Derrida has had a huge influence on contemporary political theory and political philosophy. Derrida's thinking has inspired Slavoj Zizek, Richard Rorty, Ernesto Laclau, Judith Butler and many more contemporary theorists developed a deconstructive approach to politics. Because deconstruction examines the internal logic of any given text or discourse it helped many authors to analyse the contradictions inherent in all schools of thought, and as such it has proved revolutionary in political analysis, particularly ideology critiques. In Europe, deconstruction is read and understood as a direct response to structuralism, therefore being named as a 'poststructuralist' approach. Deconstruction does not challenge this view about the cultural construction of human subjects, however, names the attempt to reduce human thought 'antihumanist' and is therefore, viewed as sticking to histories old codes and conventions. Due to this theory, deconstruction was viewed as an antihumantist theory within the United States and ironically, was misunderstood. Changelings of this activity are outlined further from Critics such as Geoffrey Hartman who uses the idea of moving ‘beyond formalism’; seeking freedom of thought and literacy. He rejects the idea of absolute because of the notion of there being no absolute to justify. He opens up the analysis of sensation to point of principle; theory is so far valid if it is valid at all. It place construction upon ‘immediate’ data of perception (Norris, 2002:16). It is the act of exploding what theorised data projected upon the linguistic choices being made. In relation to performance reading this notion works in the same format. It is a process of exploding the formalities of constructed understanding to outline that this is just a projected illusion. The key focus to deconstruction is the notion of decentring the codes for language. Language is determined by facts or information. Using deconstruction to reconstruct meaning generates our own text as we have the act of ‘free...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document