Well, deconstructionists have decided to take the pendulum of thought and swing it in the completely opposite direction (and push it really hard). There are a few ideas that I do embrace. The idea of uncertainty is one of them. The philosophical aspect of deconstruction where "[t]here are no facts, only interpretations" (61) really hit home. I have trouble as a teacher in presenting only one interpretation of a text (which later is undermined by the state mandated standardized tests). I am, just as many philosophizers, "skeptical by nature" and question pretty much everything.
I also believe that "meanings are fluid" and that the "meaning words have can never be guaranteed one hundred percent pure" (to a point). I agree with this just simply based on the fact that languages evolve. When a language ceases to change it dies (for example Latin).
I also feel that reality is somewhat relativistic in that it is subject to an individuals interpretations as well as the extent in which the individual is "governed by the system" linguistically (according of couse to the structuralists).
Questions I would like to discuss as a class include:
What is the point of doing either a structuralist or deconstructive analysis of a text when both can be done on the same piece of writing thus "proving" a unified and disunified text?
What happens to power? (not just in the text but in reality which is created either by language or by the readers or interpreters of language)?
My own opinion is that everything stretches. You can look at a text a million different ways, and the amazing thing is that, while any text is capable of being looked at in a myriad of ways, the text itself doesn't change, we do. I don't think that if one literary theory applies more than another that it is proof of anything. I think that the point is the exercise itself (life's a journey, and all that tomfoolery). Even more so, a text can be both unified and disunified, depending on what the reader is looking for, at which angle.
ReplyDeleteThe power, likewise, is shared. We give others our power when we stop paying attention. We can let a text control us, or we can manipulate it for our own uses.
I know that all of this sounds rather diabolical, but I think it has less ominous applications.
I keep thinking about those savvy ancient Greeks who figured out that anything can be argued from any point of view; and words are manipulative.
ReplyDeleteSome times a tree is just a tree.
I like your questions. In answer to the first, I think the deconstructionist answer would be "as a demonstration of the fluidity of language and a reminder that nothing is certain." I'm not sure what the structuralist would say, as they would have to disprove the deconstructionist for their interpretation to be valid. That is, the very fact that the poem can be shown to be simultaneously unified and dis-unified proves the slippage and spillage of meaning and the lack of center in linguistic constructs. Where as the structuralist argument for unity would be undermined by a cogent argument showing underlying dis-unity. Anyone want to tackle the structuralist position? Tell me why I'm wrong? Address question 2?
ReplyDeleteI find the unity/disunity paradox comforting in a way. Like religion and politics, literature is subject to perceptions and the intent of the individual. Of course where does that leave Reality? I think in response to your questions that the point of the using the various approaches proves that nothing is 100% provable, that realities are based on perception and that is variable.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think the greatest source of power is the reader themselves, as without a response from the reader the text is inert.