Why is it so difficult to define deconstruction? It's almost

It's not hard to define: deconstruction is a theoretical approach which rejects the decidability of meaning as a response to the supposedly limiting and contradictory nature of structures (in the structuralist sense)

Deconstructionists would be against any kind of attempt at definition it's against their entire approach, but thankfully we're not deconstructionists, are we?

>>8836820
are you just now coming to the conclusion that deconstructivism is totally bullshit (and responsible for the downfall of academic humanities)?

>>8836832
I should add that this definition should be informed by an understanding that deconstructionists tend to hold the erroneous belief that a concept is something that is either a) properly and rigidly defined and essentially platonic or b) is fundamentally undecidable

The critique of structuralism contained within deconstruction is valuable, but it's not terribly nuanced in its understanding of "ideas."

File: 4543ab6e428747e002916b6f7aed6eae8de9e2bda0a5b24b0bc81de9531543f3.jpg (39KB, 412x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 412x600px

>>8836820
It's pure bullshit.

>>8836841
>>8836850
Pseud alert. The emergence and subsequent success of deconstruction in the academy was not a mistake, and in literary theory especially it was precipitated by no less a "patrician" conservative type as T.S. Eliot

That doesn't mean it's "good" or "right" but given the way literary criticism was headed since the new critics there was really no avoiding it. It bears studying, understanding

>>8836847
>but it's not terribly nuanced in its understanding of "ideas."
Isn't it? I think concepts like the metaphysics of Presence, différance and Derrida's attacks on logocentrism/phonocentrism point to the contrary, a rather informed position on the Western metaphysical project.

>>8836853
Bullshit is often unavoidable.

Also I want to add that associating deconstruction with Derrida alone (as I've also done so far ITT) is to fall into the same guruist trap that most students of deconstruction did in the anglo-american academy in the 70s. Whether you love or hate deconstruction, do it critically.

>>8836856
Maybe nuance wasn't the right term to use there. My beef with deconstruction's approach to the concept is that it points to structural problems in language without moving beyond them.

I'm aware that as early as "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" Derrida was saying that these metaphysics are irremovable from our language, and that the point is to allow for freeplay rather than to try and dismantle the metaphysics. Maybe this isn't a fair criticism, I'm something of a novice at the moment.

How do I deconstruct something?

Deconstruction isnt so much a method, a kind of reading, rather its embedded in every reading. This is tied strictly to the concept (for the lack of a better word) of "differance". The same "thing" that opens up the possibility of meaning, always puts in motion the possiblity of a number of different reading.

>>8836878
Your use of "guruist" is really interesting since I'm researching related stuff

Could you recommend some stuff on the history of deconstruction? Either primary sources that give a good insight of how this early phase developed, especially how it went wrong / became cultlike, or secondary sources describing this stuff

>>8836878
This approach is pretty common with the post-structuralists (save for D&G during their AO / ATP days), the way their ideas worked was so "out there" that they were just pointing shit out, unsure of how we could get rid of said things. Look at Foucault and Baudrillard, always diagnosing, never medicating.

>>8836931
critical reading/exegesis

>>8836981
Ever read Rorty's book on this?

What is the added value of deconstruction?

Derrida is a hack, that's all you need to know