What is deconstruction? This question is not easy to answer. Derrida will be critical and say, "What is it?" There is something wrong with this syntax itself, which implies that there is something in the world, which can not only be understood by people, but also be labeled with different names or labels. Deconstruction rejects this rigid definition. It calls itself a critique of metaphysics and a set of strategies to dispel the certainty of language and its meaning. These critical theories and strategies include: anti-logocentrism, divergence, supplementarity and intertextuality.
Background explanation
At the end of 19th century, Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" and demanded that "all values should be re-evaluated". His rebellious thoughts have had a far-reaching impact on the West since then. As a trend of thinking that questioned rationality and subverted tradition, Nietzsche's philosophy became one of the ideological sources of deconstruction. The other two important ideological movements that inspired and nourished deconstruction were Heidegger's phenomenology and European left-wing critical theory.
In p>1968, A radical student movement swept across the capitalist world in Europe and America. In France, the protest movement was called the "May Storm". Sadly, this vigorous revolution was a flash in the pan, and it passed in a blink of an eye. In the depressed years that followed, the revolutionary passion that radical scholars could not suppress was forced to turn to the deep dismantling of academic thoughts. It might be said that they knew that capitalism was deeply rooted and hard to shake, but they were determined to destroy and disintegrate the powerful and developed foundations on which it depended. From its language, beliefs, institutions and systems to academic norms and power networks,
Deconstruction came into being under this background. In order to oppose metaphysics, logos-centered, and even all closed and rigid systems, the deconstruction movement vigorously advocated the freedom of subject dissipation, meaning delay and signifier. In other words, it emphasized the free play of language and thought, even if this freedom was only a "dance with shackles". Deconstruction is also a contradictory theory. In Derrida's words, deconstruction is not a presence, but a trace. It is difficult to define, invisible, but ubiquitous. In other words, once deconstruction is defined or determined to be something, it will be deconstructed itself. The two basic characteristics of deconstruction are openness and non-termination. Deconstructing a sentence, a proposition, or a traditional belief, It is through the analysis of rhetorical methods that it destroys the philosophical foundation it claims and the hierarchical opposition it relies on.
At the same time, we must see that the logic, methods and theories used by deconstruction are mostly borrowed from metaphysical traditions. In this way, deconstruction is just a typical expedient measure. Or an antagonistic strategy of attacking one's own shield with one's own spear.
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 exploring the problems of existence and logos in the history of western philosophy in Introduction to Metaphysics. In Heidegger's view, the problem of logos is very important, which involves not only the origin of western thought and language. It also fundamentally affects the relationship between modern westerners and present existence. Heidegger made a famous question about this: How did ancient logos become modern logic and then separate from existence? How can it achieve a dominant position in western thought in the name of rationality?
By analyzing the remnants of parmenides, an ancient Greek philosopher, Heidegger claimed that he had discovered the original meaning of "Logos and existence". In the ancient manuscripts, logos did not represent Logic or Idee, but originally represented an aggregation state in continuous operation. Interestingly, this aggregation in the process of occurrence coincided with the ancient Greek view of existence. Being is an activity that constantly emerges, converges and dissipates. In other words, it means the continuous presence and departure of the existential. Based on this, Heidegger believes that Physis and Logos have the same original meaning, but their flesh-and-blood relationship has been greatly separated in 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 leads to the divorce between existence and thought, but also leads to the opposition between subject and object in western thought for thousands of years. There is a concrete example related to the translation of parmenides's famous saying "Existence and thought are the same": the word "thought" in the sentence was originally written as Noein, which was interpreted by modern westerners as the subject thought, which undoubtedly seriously deviated from parmenides's original intention. Heidegger said that Noein was consciousness. Or a cognitive process of constantly perceiving, awakening and adjusting oneself according to external changes. parmenides said that "existence and consciousness are the same", which 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 because of the domination of existence that the ancient Greeks were able to constantly realize and truly become human beings.
Remind everyone, When discussing the relationship between man and existence, Heidegger, like parmenides, obviously refused to put man in the first place. He abandoned the subject, opposed logic, and questioned the way of thinking in which subject and object were opposed. At the same time, he repeatedly stressed that man's thought must be in harmony with existence, not separated and conflicted. Heidegger firmly believed that the existence of Greeks meant accepting logos, that is, the naturally generated consciousness in the process of gathering. In other words, where existence occurred, Nature is accompanied by consciousness, and people's thoughts can only depend on existence from the beginning, and change with the change of existence.
However, this beautiful beginning failed to last forever. After Plato, westerners began to confront existence. They became more and more confident that they had the subjectivity and knowledge ability to dominate existence, which was quite different from the original simple and natural ancient Greek thought. Heidegger tried to express this different change with two formulas: at the beginning, there was existence. At the end, man has become a rational animal. The key turning point is that Plato personally translated Physis into an Idee, which abandoned its original meaning of "emergent occurrence" in one fell swoop. Heidegger sighed: "Truth becomes correctness, Logos becomes a statement, and it becomes the place where truth or correctness lies. Ideas and categories have governed western thoughts and behaviors since then. "
Derrida's deconstruction strategy
As a successor of Heidegger's thoughts in France, Derrida was deeply influenced by Heidegger's anti-metaphysics and anti-Logism theory on the one hand, and on the other hand, he absorbed new learning, found a new way and boldly started from the perspective of linguistics and semiotics. This paper puts forward a set of strategies for the erosion and disintegration of logos-centered theory, which gave rise to his deconstruction, which was famous all over the world in the mid-196s. Derrida's deconstruction theory is complicated and inconsistent, and it is difficult to give a clear and recognized unified explanation so far. However, some of the most critical concepts and methods, such as anti-logos-centered theory, delay and substitution, etc. It needs to be explained in detail.
Criticizing Logos Center According to Heidegger's critique of Logos, we have roughly understood that the tradition of western metaphysical thought originated from Plato's forced misinterpretation of the ancient Greek Logos. In Plato's and his disciples' view, truth originated from Logos, that is, the voice of truth, or the word of God. This Logism holds that the existence of all things in the world is closely related to its presence. To this end, The most ideal way is to think directly about "thought" and try to avoid the medium of language. But this is impossible. Therefore, they demand that language should be as transparent as possible so that human beings can naturally become the spokesman of truth through their own speech. In other words, Logistism holds that there is a natural and inherent direct relationship between speech and meaning (that is, truth, God's word). Speech is the speaker's thought. " It is a transparent symbol of his "thinking at the moment". Accordingly, Logistism is also called "phonocentrism" 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 a kind of "sound meaning" at first. It is transformed from sound.
Another manifestation that words are superior to words is the speaker's "presence". When the speaker is on the spot, he can accurately explain his "intention" and avoid ambiguity. In contrast, words are just a series of symbols, which are easily misunderstood because of the speaker's absence.
Derrida's importance lies in his criticism based on Heidegger. In view of the above-mentioned logos-centered precepts, this paper puts forward an active and effective method of subversion and deconstruction. He claims that written words are not necessarily inferior to language pronunciation by nature. In order to break the traditional "phonetics-centered" prejudice, he tries to establish a kind of "philology" to highlight and confirm the superiority of written words. The superiority of this kind of words is first manifested in its "repeatability" in the semiotic sense.
Derrida believes that, Repeatability is a prerequisite for the existence of a symbol. Only when a symbol can be recognized as "the same" in different situations can it become a symbol. Another prerequisite for a symbol is that when the listener has nothing to gain from the original speaker's intention, he can also understand his intention with the help of the symbol system. In other words, the symbol should be independent of the speaker's intention. It can still 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 words. On a larger scale, the overall words include the symbol system of the whole linguistics. Therefore, it is also the basic condition for the existence of words and characters in a narrow sense. This is Derrida's so-called "arch-writing". Once the concept of meta-writing is established, it will inevitably break the Logogism's phonetic center theory.
We know that the whole western metaphysical thought tradition, from Plato's idea, to Descartes' "I think therefore I am" and then to Hegel's "absolute idea" All of them are based on westerners' rationality and self-consciousness. In the eyes of modern westerners, their subjective consciousness is endowed with supreme lofty status and leading role with the development and prosperity of western civilization. Derrida dares to take the world by storm and launch tenacious and unremitting attacks on the foundation of this powerful ideological tradition, which undoubtedly has a positive critical significance.
As we all know, the traditional logos centralism, Concentrated in the hierarchical binary opposition, Derrida sternly condemned it in his Position: "In the traditional binary opposition, the two pairs of projects are not peaceful, but in a distinct hierarchical order. One of them occupies a mandatory position in logic and value, and it dominates the other."
Please look at the following two opposites that everyone is familiar with: speech/writing. Conscious/unconscious, rational/crazy, truth/fallacy, advanced/backward, enlightened/ignorant, west/east, subject/other, master/slave, etc. In each pair of projects, the former is often superior to the latter and exists at a higher level. That is to say, they represent or belong to logos, so they are also the center of establishing the relationship between the two. They are obviously subordinate, negative, passive and secondary things.
Aiming at 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 practiced it. He took the lead in launching a number of deconstruction efforts. The most successful example of linguistic deconstruction is the relentless destruction of the project by "words/characters". As Derrida said, words are not inferior to words, but as "meta-written" words, in turn, they include words in a generous way.
It should be noted that Derrida's deconstruction efforts are not unprecedented. As early as before him, We have seen Freud's similar contribution in the field of psychology. Derrida's goal of deconstruction is "words/words", while Freud's goal is "consciousness/unconsciousness". Similar to Derrida's efforts, Freudian psychology has proved that unconsciousness is a broader field of thinking, which includes consciousness, and consciousness is only a part of unconsciousness. Or, unconsciousness is our real psychological reality. The significant difference is that, Freud's practice of reversing the binary opposition is not Derrida's deconstruction in the strict sense, because it "has neither neutrality nor reformed the traditional old order".
In Derrida's view, deconstruction is not just simply reversing the original opposition position of the two. The fundamental problem is that deconstruction recognizes that there are only some differences between the two opposites, and there is no hierarchical order of which is better or worse. Not only that, between the two opposites, There are still a lot of mutual infiltration and mutual tolerance relationships. In the eyes of deconstructionists, anything that is conscious has passed the initial unconscious stage, and unconsciousness is a kind of consciousness that is suppressed or delayed. Consciousness and unconsciousness permeate each other, and there is no clear boundary between them. It can even be said that there is a vague area of pre-consciousness between them.
Saussure linguistics, who invented the concept of "delay", Symbols are composed of two parts: concept and sound. In reality, concrete things are reflected and embodied in people's minds (concept/signified), and then expressed by concrete language symbols (signifier, that is, signifier). This has produced two important opposites in structural linguistics: signifier/signified. It is not difficult to see that in these two opposites, The signifier plays an active and dominant role.
According to traditional linguistics, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the signified and the objective things in reality. Their expression in language is speech. The signifier includes not only words, but also words. However, as the only reason for the existence of the signifier, It is to express words. This reflects the traditional philosophy's concept of emphasizing words over words. In this regard, American critic Leitch made an accurate explanation in Criticism of Deconstruction:
The signifier of a symbol corresponds to the signified of a concept. In other words, sound represents a complete concept. They are all realized by people. For example, the pronunciation
refers to the word "chair".