What is deconstruction? This question is difficult to answer. Derrida was critical of this. He said, "What is ...? "There is something wrong with this grammar itself, which implies that there is something in the world, and this kind of thing can not only be understood, but also be labeled with different names or labels. Deconstruction rejects this rigid definition, calling itself a criticism of metaphysics and a set of strategies to dispel the certainty of language and its meaning. These critical theories and strategies include anti-logocentrism, difference, complementarity and intertextuality.
Background description
At the end of 19, Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" and demanded "revaluation of all values". His rebellious thoughts have had a far-reaching influence on the west since then. As an ideological trend of questioning rationality and subverting tradition, Nietzsche's philosophy has become one of the ideological sources of deconstruction. The other two important ideological movements of enlightenment and nourishing deconstruction are Heidegger's phenomenology and European left-wing critical theory.
1968, a radical student movement swept the capitalist world in Europe and America. In France, the protest movement is called "May Storm". Sadly, this vigorous revolution is short-lived and fleeting. In the following years of repression, the revolutionary passion that radical scholars could not suppress was forced to turn to the deep dismantling of academic thoughts. It may be said that they know that capitalism is deeply rooted and hard to shake, but they are determined to destroy and disintegrate the powerful and developed foundation on which it depends, from its language, beliefs, institutions and systems to academic norms and power networks.
Deconstruction is produced under this background. In order to oppose metaphysics, logos center and even all closed and rigid systems, the deconstruction movement strongly advocates the dissolution of subject, the extension of meaning and the freedom of signifier. In other words, it emphasizes the free play of language and thought, even if this freedom is just a "dance with shackles". Apart from its rebellious nature, deconstruction is a self-contradictory theory. In Derrida's words, deconstruction is not existence, but traces. Hard to define, invisible, but everywhere. In other words, once deconstruction is defined or defined as what it is, it will be deconstructed by itself. The two basic characteristics of deconstruction are openness and non-finality. Deconstructing a sentence, a proposition, or a traditional belief is to destroy the philosophical basis it advocates and the hierarchical opposition it relies on by analyzing rhetorical methods.
At the same time, we must see that the logic, methods and theories used in deconstruction are mostly borrowed from the metaphysical tradition. From this point of view, deconstruction is only a typical expedient measure, or an antagonistic strategy of dealing with a man as he deals with you.
Heidegger's exploration of logos
Derrida's deconstruction thought was first inspired by the German philosopher Heidegger. As one of the leaders of the phenomenological movement, Heidegger took the lead in discussing the existence and logos in the history of western philosophy in Introduction to Metaphysics. In Heidegger's view, the issue of logos is very important, which not only involves the origin of western thought and language, but also fundamentally affects the relationship between modern westerners and the present. Heidegger raised a famous question in this regard: how did the ancient logos become modern logic and then get rid of existence? How does it gain the dominant position of western thought in the name of rationality?
Heidegger declared that he had discovered the original meaning of "logos and existence" by analyzing the remnants of the ancient Greek philosopher parmenides. In ancient manuscripts, logos does not represent logic or Idee, but originally represents a continuous running state of aggregation. Interestingly, this gathering in the process of occurrence coincides with the ancient Greek concept of existence. In their minds, existence is an activity that constantly emerges, aggregates and dissipates. In other words, it means the persistence and departure of existence. Heidegger's conclusion is that the original meanings of physics and logos are the same, but their flesh-and-blood relationship is greatly separated by Plato.
Since Plato founded metaphysics, logos has been forcibly interpreted as a "logical statement" by westerners. In this regard, Heidegger sharply criticized that this historical misinterpretation not only caused the disconnection between existence and thought, but also led to the opposition between subject and object in western thought that lasted for thousands of years. A concrete example is related to the translation of parmenides's famous saying "Being is the same as thinking": the word "thinking" in the sentence was originally written as Noein, which was interpreted by modern westerners as the main idea, which undoubtedly seriously deviated from parmenides's original intention. Heidegger said that no cause is consciousness, or a cognitive process of constantly detecting, awakening and adjusting itself according to external changes. Parmenides's so-called "existence and consciousness are the same" means that "consciousness belongs to existence". In ancient Greece, consciousness was not a conscious ability, and it was still in a chaotic state where subject and object were not divided. Heidegger said that it was precisely because the ancient Greeks were under the control of existence that they could constantly realize and truly become human beings.
Remind everyone that when discussing the relationship between man and existence, Heidegger, like parmenides, obviously refuses to put man first. He abandoned the subject, opposed logic and questioned the thinking mode of the opposition between subject and object. At the same time, he repeatedly stressed that human thought must be in harmony with existence, not separation and conflict. Heidegger firmly believes that the existence of Greeks means accepting logos, that is, the consciousness naturally generated in the process of gathering. In other words, where existence occurs, consciousness naturally occurs, and people's thoughts can only depend on existence from the beginning and change with the change of existence.
However, this wonderful beginning did not last forever. After Plato, westerners began to face existence directly. They are more and more confident that they have the subjectivity and knowledge ability to dominate existence, which is quite different from the original simple and natural ancient Greek thought. Heidegger tried to express this change with two formulas: at first, the aggregation process of existence established human existence; In the end, human beings have become rational animals. The key turning point was Plato's own translation of Physis into Idee, which abandoned its original meaning of "appearance and occurrence" in one fell swoop. In this regard, Heidegger sighed: "Truth becomes right, logos becomes statement, and truth or correctness is there. Concepts and categories have ruled western thoughts and behaviors since then."
Derrida's Deconstruction Strategy
As the successor of Heidegger's thought in France, Derrida was deeply influenced by Heidegger's anti-metaphysics and anti-rhetoric theory. On the other hand, he opened up new ideas and found new methods, and boldly put forward a set of strategies to erode and disintegrate Logocentrism from the perspective of linguistics and semiotics. This gave birth to his deconstruction, which became famous in the mid-1960s. Derrida's deconstruction theory is complicated and inconsistent, so it is difficult to make a clear and recognized unified explanation so far. However, some key concepts and methods, such as anti-logocentrism, variation and substitution, need to be explained in detail.
Criticizing Logos Center According to Heidegger's criticism of Logos, we have roughly understood that the western metaphysical thought tradition originated from Plato's forced misinterpretation of ancient Greek Logos. According to Plato and his disciples, truth originates from logos, that is, the voice of truth or the word of God. This logoism holds that the existence of everything in the world is closely related to its existence. To this end, the most ideal way should be to think directly about "thought" and try to avoid the medium of language. But it's impossible. Therefore, they demand that language be as transparent as possible, so that human beings can naturally become the spokesmen of truth through their own words. In other words, Logogism holds that there is a natural and internal direct relationship between words and meaning (that is, truth, the word of God). Speech is the "natural expression" of the speaker's thoughts and the transparent symbol of his "thinking at the moment". Accordingly, logicism is also called "sound centrism" by later generations. At the same time, writing is traditionally regarded as the second place, a substitute for sound and a medium of media. Even Saussure's signifier is first and foremost a "sound image". As a signifier, words are transformed from sounds.
Another manifestation of the superiority of words over words is the "presence" of the speaker. When the speaker is at the scene, he can accurately explain his "intention" and avoid ambiguity. In contrast, words are just a series of symbols, which are easily misunderstood due to the absence of the speaker.
Derrida's importance lies in his active and effective methods of subversion and deconstruction based on Heidegger's criticism. He claimed that written words were not inherently inferior to language pronunciation. In order to break the traditional prejudice of "phonology center", he tried to establish a kind of "philology" to highlight and confirm the superiority of written words. The superiority of this kind of writing lies in its "repeatability" in the semiotic sense.
Derrida believes that repetition is the premise of the existence of symbols. Only when a symbol can be recognized as "the same" in different situations can a symbol become a symbol. Another necessary condition of sign is that when the listener knows nothing about the original speaker's intention, he can also understand his intention with the help of sign system. In other words, no matter what the speaker's intention is, symbols should be understood and accepted by people normally.
The above two essential characteristics of symbols, namely "repeatability" and "regardless of the speaker's intention", verify the superiority of Derrida's discourse. On a larger scale, the whole word includes the whole language symbol system, so it is also the basic condition for the existence of narrow words. This is what Derrida called "arch writing". Once the concept of meta-writing is established, it will inevitably break the phonological center theory of Logogism.
We know that the whole western metaphysical tradition, from Plato's idea to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" and then to Hegel's "absolute idea", is based on westerners' rationality and self-awareness. In the eyes of modern westerners, with the development and prosperity of western civilization, their subjective consciousness has been endowed with supreme lofty status and leadership. Derrida dared to take the world by storm and launched a tenacious attack on the basis of this powerful ideological tradition, which undoubtedly has positive critical significance.
As we all know, the traditional Logocentrism is embodied in the binary opposition of hierarchy. In this regard, Derrida severely condemned in his "Position": "In the traditional binary opposition, the two pairs of projects are not peaceful, but in an obvious hierarchical order. One of them occupies a mandatory position in logic and value, and it dominates the other. "
Please look at the following two familiar opposites: speech/writing, nature/culture, man/woman, soul/body, consciousness/unconsciousness, reason/madness, truth/fallacy, advanced/backward, enlightened/ignorant, west/east, subject/other, master/slave, and so on. In each pair of projects, the former is often superior to the latter and exists at a higher level. In other words, they represent or belong to logos, so they are also the center, benchmark or so-called "first principle" to establish the relationship between them. The latter is based on the former, and they are obviously subordinate, negative, negative and secondary.
In view of binary opposition and its hierarchy, Derrida issued a mobilization order for disintegration: "To deconstruct binary opposition, at a specific moment, we must first reverse this hierarchical order." He not only spoke fiercely, but also initiated a number of deconstruction efforts. One of the most successful examples of language deconstruction is the ruthless destruction of the project by "words". As Derrida said, words are not inferior to words, but as "meta-writing" words, which in turn generously contain words.
It should be noted that Derrida's deconstruction efforts are not the first time in history. Long before him, we have seen Freud's similar contributions in the field of psychology. The goal of Derrida's deconstruction is "speech/writing" and Freud's deconstruction is "consciousness/unconsciousness". Similar to Derrida's efforts, Freud's psychology proves that unconsciousness is a broader field of thinking, which includes consciousness, and consciousness is only a part of unconsciousness. In other words, the unconscious is our real psychological reality. The obvious difference is that Freud's practice of reversing binary opposition is not Derrida's deconstruction in a strict sense, because it "has neither neutrality nor reformed the traditional old order".
In Derrida's view, deconstruction is more than simply reversing their original opposing positions. The fundamental problem is that deconstruction holds that there are only some differences between the two opposites, and there is no hierarchical order of which is superior and which is inferior. Moreover, there is a great deal of mutual penetration and tolerance between the two opposites. In the view of deconstructionists, anything conscious has passed the initial unconscious stage, and unconsciousness is a kind of repressed or delayed consciousness. Consciousness and unconsciousness permeate each other, and there is no clear boundary. It can even be said that there is a vague zone of pre-consciousness between the two.
According to Saussure's linguistics, symbols consist of two parts: concept and sound. Concrete things in reality are reflected and embodied in people's minds (concepts/signified), and then expressed through concrete language symbols (signifiers, that is, signified). This leads to two important opposites in structural linguistics: signifier/signified. It is not difficult to see that in these two opposites, we can refer to initiative and dominance.
According to traditional linguistics, there is a one-to-one correspondence between reference and objective things in reality. What they express in words is words. The signifier includes not only words, but also words. However, writing, as the only reason for the existence of signifier, is to express words. This reflects the traditional philosophy of emphasizing words over words. In this regard, American critic Leach made an accurate explanation in Deconstruction Criticism:
The signifier of a symbol corresponds to the signified of a concept. In other words, sound represents a complete concept. It's all realized by people. For example, this pronunciation refers to the concept of "chair" and reflects people's minds. The real chair is not there.
Therefore, the symbol represents the absence. We don't need to present the real chair, we just need to delay or delay the appearance of the real chair with sound or chair text. "When we use symbols, physical objects and the presence they refer to are just an illusion, and the real presence is just a linguistic symbol that replaces them." This phenomenon of delaying meaning or physical existence through a series of symbol chains is what Derrida called "delay". In this regard, Derrida explained:
Symbols, as substitutes for objects, are subordinate and temporary. The subordinate attribute is because the symbol comes from the original presence and exists as a substitute for absence. In the process of pointing to the final and absent movement, the symbol is only an intermediate station.
From this inference, Derrida came to a famous conclusion: language symbols are nothing more than a series of different games that are constantly postponed.
In addition to delay, another important meaning of delay is to be different. Saussure believes that the relationship between signified and signified has no legitimacy and is purely arbitrary. Moreover, both the signifier and the signified are "a series of linguistic symbol systems composed of sound differences and conceptual differences". On this issue, British critic Eagleton explained in Introduction to Literary Theory that "the meaning in language is just a difference. For example, cat is cat because it is made up of differences different from cap and bat. There is no inherent one-to-one opposition between the signified and the signified in language. "
Moreover, there is no fixed and obvious electrical difference between signifier and signified. If we want to know the meaning of a word, "the dictionary will tell us more words to explain it, and the meaning of these more words will let us keep looking up." Therefore, meaning is actually the difference between a series of symbols without termination. "In other words,
Meaning does not exist in a symbol, it is scattered in a series of endless symbol chains, and will not be easily captured and located in a particular symbol. Meaning is always delayed: one symbol points to another symbol, and another symbol points to another symbol, and it is endless.
Saussure's concept of symbolic arbitrariness strongly supports Derrida's argument. The arbitrariness of symbols breaks the myth that language symbols are external "truth". In other words, the origin of truth is just a symbolic game of a series of language symbols. Therefore, Derrida concluded in Chinese Literature that arbitrariness gives us enough reasons to rule out the hierarchical order and natural affiliation between symbols. "With the appearance of symbols, we have no chance to meet pure reality."
Derrida said that difference is neither a concept nor a word; it is a fabricated word. In French, difference and difference are pronounced the same. If we want to distinguish them, we must rely on the spelling differences of words, which in itself is a perfect irony of logicians' argument that words are superior to words. Derrida has a vivid metaphor for the difference, saying that it is like a bundle of grass, with "complex organizational structure, different branches and different meanings, each spreading in different directions." At the same time, each flower is closely related to other flowers or meanings, forming a staggered structure. "It should be noted that as one of the characteristics of divergence, rambling has two meanings, namely time delay and spatial difference, and it also contains a kind of' Latin difference'. In other words, no one can completely control the flowing symbolic game, and no one can restrain the differences of words. In Derrida's view, language is regarded as an endless game of delay, and meaning can only be produced from countless alternative meaning differences.
As the "presence" as the destination of meaning no longer exists, the definite meaning of symbols is extended layer by layer, spreading in all directions like seeds, so there is no center at all. Derrida believes that broadcasting is the inherent ability of all words, which will disintegrate the text forever and expose the disorder and repetition of the text.
Once Derrida completed the deconstruction of traditional binary opposition, he naturally embarked on the road of "substitution" in post-structuralist linguistics. His so-called "substitution" mainly comes from Rousseau's statement about "supplement". Rousseau has a series of famous expositions in Confessions. For example, he said: "Language is telling, and words are only the supplement of words." He added that education is a supplement to nature, while masturbation is a supplement to normal sexual behavior. If masturbation can replace normal sexual activities, then there must be similarities in essence between the two. In other words, the essence of masturbation is to focus on an imaginary thing that you can't possess and entertain yourself. Conversely, normal sexual activity can also be regarded as a kind of masturbation.
In philology, Derrida quoted Rousseau's theory of "supplement" and made a deep critical reform on it, thus giving him his own alternative theory. He pointed out that words need to be supplemented by words, which shows that the words themselves are not complete. And the substitution he said is essentially a series of endless language substitution. In his view, Rousseau's "supplement" not only shows that writing is a supplement to writing, but also proves that writing itself is a substitute. This is because in daily life, "children quickly learn to use language to replace their shortcomings ... because they soon realize that by using language, others can do things for themselves without doing them themselves ..."
Derrida further analyzed the substitution phenomenon in Rousseau's Confessions: Rousseau replaced the existence of Mrs. Warren by kissing the bed, the curtain and the furniture. Even though Mrs. Warren was present and sat in front of him face to face, he still felt that it was not enough and asked for something to add. "One day at dinner, she just put a piece of meat in her mouth. I shouted that it was hairy and threw up on the plate. I eagerly grabbed it and swallowed it. " Derrida expressed his own views on this, saying that Mrs Warren was actually a body double herself, and she was body double of Rousseau's subconscious mother image. In a word, body double is actually an endless extension series, which makes the presence constantly delayed.
As far as intertextuality deconstruction is concerned, words are not the reflection of external objects, but an endless game of a series of symbol delays and differences. Text is no longer a representation of the external world. On the contrary, in Derrida's deconstruction, the objective world has also been textualized. In other words, the whole world is reduced to a text. Derrida also believes that reading and writing have infiltrated our world of knowledge and experience, and our world has nothing but explanation. The interpreter can't go beyond explanation, because he is imprisoned in the cage of language and has to face endless symbolic games composed of rhetoric and differences, so his explanation is endless.
On this premise, Derrida put forward his concept of intertextuality: a work does not belong to a certain writer or a certain era, and its text runs through all eras, with traces of different writers' texts. Therefore, the interpretation and reading of a text can only be open and varied. Any new text is intertextual with the previous text, language and code, and the traces of the previous text penetrate into the author's works through sublation. Not only that, the philosophical thought of western metaphysics still lurks silently in the language system. Intertextuality is not only the intertextuality of language, but also the intertextuality of cultural thought.
As for intertextuality, American critic Richie believes that text is not a complete natural system, and it is inextricably linked with other texts. "Words and language, grammar, vocabulary and sporadic fragments of history blend with each other. History is like a hodgepodge of countless incompatible and irreconcilable ideas and beliefs, and words are the export of this' cultural salvation army' ..." Obviously, tradition is a chaotic hemp thread, and any text is an intertextuality of other texts. Another American scholar, Paul Bowie, believes that literary works are also an explanation. The so-called literary history is the destructive deconstruction of a series of texts to other texts. Poetry in the history of literature is actually an explanation of other poems. This intertextuality occurred before the compilation of literary history. In other words, the original historical text became the object of later literary criticism, so the history of literary criticism should devote itself to this accumulated intertextuality and gain insight into the value of poetic tradition with its openness. Through such a process, the text can be presented as an explanatory discourse in the discourse interpretation system.
Lacan's view of deconstruction: unconsciousness and language
When discussing Derrida's deconstruction, it is necessary to briefly mention his contemporary French psychologist Zhike? Jacques Lacan. Derrida's deconstruction efforts in linguistics directly echo Lacan's psychological/subjective deconstruction theory. It can be said that they are a wonderful intertextual relationship, or an example of mutual interpretation. Lacan's deconstruction view is mainly reflected in his classic analysis of the relationship between language and psychology. The key point is that Lacan believes that unconsciousness is the structure of the whole language, so he revised Saussure's formula:
attached drawing
In Lacan's view, the whole language and cultural system existed long before we were born. When we learn a language, this potential language and cultural system gradually imposes its whole structure and order on us. In other words, we unconsciously entered a group of pre-existing complex networks. It is this network that teaches us to speak, think and act, and forms the so-called self-consciousness according to everyone's social status and responsibilities. What is self and subject? For Lacan, this has become a passive and interactive process.
Traditional western linguistics holds that there has always been a natural one-to-one correspondence between signifier and signified. After Lacan's deconstruction, we find that this correspondence has long since ceased to exist. Between the original signifier and the signified, there is a huge and complex cultural language system standing above us. It ruthlessly cancels the correspondence and replaces it with an indelible gap, in which the signifier becomes a constantly sliding symbol. Moreover, Lacan further elaborated Freud's theory of dream interpretation. In his view, psychological distortion becomes a sliding signifier, while Freud's dream formation becomes Lacan's language rhetoric, and unconsciousness becomes a potential writing system.
Yale school of deconstruction
If French deconstruction theory is profound, American deconstruction pays more attention to its operation and application in actual texts. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, Yale University in the United States formed a famous "Yale School". It usually refers to four professors who are keen on deconstruction criticism, namely Paul de Man, hillis Miller, harold bloom and Geoffrey Hartman.
De Man's most creative view is that he inherited and developed Nietzsche's rhetoric theory and made it an important deconstruction strategy. In The Fable of Reading, De Man pointed out that rhetoric is not an ornament of eloquence and persuasiveness, nor is it a dispensable component in the text. In fact, rhetoric is the unique essence of language itself. Its characteristic is to doubt, reject and deny the existence of external truth. Therefore, the task of a literary critic is not to find a clear and definite meaning, but to face a text without center and definition forever, in which rhetoric repeatedly causes "the intersection of multiple ambiguous and uncertain meanings".
Miller's deconstruction thought is mainly reflected in his reading and analysis of specific novels. He believes that "all words are code words. They are constantly delayed, unlike other words. Every word points to another word in the interchangeable word chain, which is passive and rootless. " However, the rhetoric of words makes the meaning of words variable. When one meaning is selected, other potential meanings are flashing at the same time, which makes the selected meaning unstable and always slips to other meanings. And our reading of the text is a maze of tracing the source, finding the etymology, observing its semantic differences and substitution. In Miller's view, the result of this semantic diffusion reveals the endless interpretation possibilities of the text. Miller's deconstruction strategy is to carefully select some key rhetoric, concepts or article themes, and analyze the destructive power released when they appear repeatedly in different situations, thus disintegrating the hierarchical order and authoritative classics on which the text depends, and exposing its suppression of marginal concepts and "illegal" traditions. In As a Parasitic Critic, he reveals that every work is parasitic on the previous work, which is not only a reference, imitation, absorption and reference for the previous work, but also makes the previous work parasitic on the new work. The previous text is not only the basis of the new text, but also should constantly adapt to the spirit of the new text. The context of the new work gives a new interpretation to the previous works.
Bloom boldly put forward the concept of "misreading" the previous work from the perspective of Oedipus complex. Facing the historical texts of predecessors, only through misreading can contemporary writers rebel and transcend history and establish their own image as "strong" poets.
Hartman's uniqueness lies in that after Derrida, he completely eliminated the boundary between literature and philosophy, and then regarded literary criticism as something equal to literary texts. In his view, literary criticism is not a passive job, it is as distinctive in thinking and creativity as literary creation. It is this creativity that makes literature and criticism communicate with each other and blend into one. Literary criticism also has the nature and function of touching human emotions. As a typical representative of their harmonious integration, essays are not only literary criticism, but also literary works.
label
In the history of western criticism in the 20th century, deconstruction theory has its unique contribution. First of all, it eliminates the logos-centered theory that has occupied people's minds for a long time, breaks the binary opposition of hierarchy, and puts forward the view that there is no hierarchy and center, but only the difference between concepts. Secondly, it reveals the relationship among signifier, polysemy and infinite delay, and fully recognizes the openness and intertextuality of the text, for which it also emphasizes the important role of readers and critics.
Deconstruction is naturally a theory full of loopholes and irrationality. It opposes centralism with non-centralism, just like sawing off the historical trunk connected with its own blood. The paradoxical logic of metaphysics did not lead to the success of deconstruction, but plunged it into another historical dilemma, namely illusory truth, uncertain meaning and loose and arbitrary explanation. In a language that is always threatened by deletion, how many original meanings can readers think about? Even deconstructionists are hard to say clearly. Over-emphasis on language games, infinite exaggeration of rhetoric and metaphor, and disregard of objective facts are the reasons why deconstruction has been criticized. Therefore, we should take an independent critical attitude towards deconstruction, take its essence and discard its dross.