What is deconstruction? This question is difficult to answer. Derrida would criticize this and say, "What is...?" There is something wrong with this syntax itself. It implies that there is something in the world that can not only be understood, but can also be labeled differently. name or label. Deconstruction rejects this rigid definition and describes itself as a critique of metaphysics, a strategy for dissolving the certainty of language and its meaning. These critical theories and strategies include: anti-logocentrism, différance, supplementarity, and intertextuality.

General background explanation

At the end of the 19th century, Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" and demanded a "revaluation of all values." His rebellious ideas have had a profound impact on the West since then. As a trend of thought that questions reason and subverts tradition, Nietzsche's philosophy has become one of the ideological sources of deconstruction. Two other important ideological movements that inspired and nourished deconstruction were Heidegger's phenomenology and European left critical theory.

In 1968, a radical student movement swept the entire European and American capitalist world. In France, the protest movement was called "Mayday". Sadly, this vigorous revolution was short-lived and fleeting. In the ensuing depressive years, radical scholars' irrepressible revolutionary passion was forced to turn to the deep-seated dismantling of academic thought. It can be said that they know that capitalism is deeply rooted and unshakable, but they insist on destroying and dismantling the various foundations of strong development on which it relies, from its language, beliefs, institutions, systems, to academic norms and power networks.

Deconstruction came into being in this context. In order to oppose metaphysics, logocentricity, and even all closed and rigid systems, the deconstruction movement vigorously advocates the dissolution of the subject, the difference of meaning, and the freedom of the signifier. In other words, it emphasizes the free play of language and thought, even if this freedom is just a "dance with shackles." In addition to its inherently rebellious character, deconstruction is a self-contradictory theory. In Derrida's words, deconstruction is not a presence, but a trace. It is difficult to define, invisible, yet present everywhere. In other words, once deconstruction is defined or identified as what it is, it itself will be deconstructed. The two basic characteristics of deconstruction are openness and endlessness. To deconstruct a sentence, a proposition, or a traditional belief is to undermine its purported philosophical foundation and the hierarchical oppositions on which it relies by analyzing its rhetorical devices.

At the same time, we must see that most of the logic, methods and theories used by deconstruction are borrowed from the metaphysical tradition. From this point of view, deconstruction is nothing more than a typical expedient, or a confrontational strategy of using one's own contradictions to attack one's own shields.

Heidegger's exploration of logos

Derrida's deconstruction was first inspired by the German philosopher Heidegger. As one of the leaders of the phenomenology movement, Heidegger took the lead in exploring the problem of existence and logos in the history of Western philosophy in "Introduction to Metaphysics". According to Heidegger, the issue of logos is very important. It not only involves the origin of Western thought and language, but also fundamentally affects the relationship between modern Westerners and current existence. Heidegger made a famous question about this: How did ancient logos become modern logic and then become separated from existence? How can it achieve a dominant position in Western thought in the name of rationality?

By analyzing the fragments of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, Heidegger claimed that he discovered the original meaning of "logos and being". In the manuscripts of ancient people, Logos does not represent logic or idea. It originally represented a state of aggregation in continuous operation. Interestingly, this gathering process coincides with the ancient Greeks’ simple views on existence (Physis). In their minds, existence is an activity of constant emergence, aggregation and dissipation. It can also be said that it means the continuous presence and departure of beings. Based on this, Heidegger determined that Physis and Logos had the same original meaning, but their flesh-and-blood connection was significantly separated by Plato.

Since Plato founded metaphysics, Logos has been forcibly interpreted by Westerners as a "logical statement". In this regard, Heidegger sharply criticized that this historical misinterpretation not only caused the divorce between existence and thought, but also led to the opposition between subject and object in Western thought that has lasted for thousands of years. There is a specific example related to the translation of Parmenides' famous saying "Being and thought are the same": the word "thought" in the sentence was originally written as Noein. Modern Westerners understand it as Juche Thought, which undoubtedly seriously deviates from Parmenides. original intention. Heidegger said that Noein is enlightenment, or a cognitive process of constantly noticing, awakening, and adjusting oneself according to changes in the outside world. Parmenides' so-called "existence and awareness are the same" means that "enlightenment belongs to existence". For the ancient Greeks, enlightenment was not a conscious ability; it was still in a chaotic state where subject and object were not distinguished.

Heidegger said that it was precisely because the ancient Greeks were governed by existence that they could continue to realize themselves and truly become human beings.

I would like to remind everyone that when discussing the relationship between man and existence, Heidegger obviously, like Parmenides, refused to put man at the forefront of his thinking. He abandoned the subject, opposed logic, and questioned the oppositional thinking mode of subject and object. At the same time, he repeatedly emphasized that human thought must be in harmony with existence, rather than separated and in conflict. Heidegger firmly believed that Greek existence meant the acceptance of logos, the consciousness that arises naturally in the process of gathering. In other words, wherever existence occurs, awareness naturally occurs, and human thoughts can only rely on existence from the beginning and adapt to changes in existence.

However, this good start could not last forever. After Plato, Westerners began to confront existence. They are increasingly confident that they have the subjectivity and intellectual ability to control existence, which is very different from the original simple and natural ancient Greek thought. Heidegger tried to use two formulas to express this disparate change: at the beginning, the gathering process of existence established human existence; at the end, man has become a rational animal. The key turning point is that Plato personally translated Physis as Idea (Idee), thus abandoning its original meaning of "emergence" in one fell swoop. At this point, Heidegger sighed: "Truth became correctness, Logos became a statement, and became the location of truth or correctness. From then on, ideas and categories dominated Western thought and behavior."

Derrida's deconstruction strategy< /p>

As the successor of Heidegger's thoughts in France, Derrida was deeply influenced by Heidegger's anti-metaphysics and anti-logosism theories on the one hand. On the other hand, he also embraced new learning and found new ways. , boldly starting from the perspectives of linguistics and semiotics, proposed a set of strategies to erode and disintegrate logocentrism. This led to his world-famous deconstructionism in the mid-1960s. Derrida's deconstruction theory is complex and inconsistent in content, and it is still difficult to give a clear and generally accepted unified explanation. However, some of the most critical concepts and methods, such as anti-logocentrism, difference, substitution, etc., need to be explained in detail one by one.

Critical Logos Center Based on Heidegger’s Logos Critique mentioned above, we have roughly understood that the Western metaphysical thought tradition originated from Plato’s forced misinterpretation of the logos problem in ancient Greece. According to Plato and his disciples, truth originates from Logos, the voice of truth, or the word of God. This kind of logosm believes that the existence of everything in the world is closely linked to its presence. To this end, the ideal way would be to think directly about "thoughts" and avoid the medium of language as much as possible. But this is impossible. Therefore, they require that language should be as transparent as possible so that human beings can naturally become the spokesperson of the truth through their own speech. In other words, Logosism holds that there is a natural, inherent direct relationship between speech and meaning (i.e., truth, the word of God). Speech is the "natural expression" of the speaker's thoughts and the transparent symbol of "what he is thinking at the moment". Accordingly, logosm was also called "phonocentrism" by later generations. At the same time, written text (writing) has traditionally been considered secondary, a substitute for sound, a medium of media. Even Saussure's signifier is first of all a "sound image". Written text, as a signifier, is transformed from sound.

Another manifestation of the superiority of speech over words is the "presence" of the speaker. The speaker is present and can accurately explain his "intention" and avoid ambiguity. In contrast, words are just a series of symbols that are easily misunderstood due to the absence of the speaker.

The importance of Derrida lies in the fact that he proposed a positive and effective method of subversion and deconstruction based on Heidegger's criticism against the above-mentioned various precepts of logocentrism. He claimed that written characters were not inherently inferior to language pronunciation. In order to break the traditional "phonetic center" prejudice, he tried to establish a "graphology" to highlight and confirm the superiority of written characters. This superiority of writing is first reflected in its "repeatability" (iterability) in the semiotic sense.

Derrida believes that repeatability is a prerequisite for the existence of signs. A symbol can become a symbol only if it can be recognized as "the same" in different situations. Another necessary condition of symbols is that when the listener has no idea of ??the original speaker's intention, he can also understand his intention with the help of the symbol system. In other words, symbols should be normally understood and accepted by people regardless of the speaker's intention.

The above-mentioned two necessary characteristics of symbols, namely "repeatability" and "irrespective of the speaker's intention", verify Derrida's claim that words are superior. On a larger scale, the overall text includes the entire linguistic symbol system, so it is also the basic condition for the existence of speech and writing in the narrow sense. This is what Derrida calls "arch-writing". Once the concept of meta-writing is established, it will inevitably break the phonetic center theory of logosm.

Disintegrating the Two Oppositions We know that the entire Western metaphysical tradition of thought, from Plato’s ideas, to Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”, to Hegel’s “Absolute Idea”, has nothing to do with it. First, it is not based on Western rationality and self-awareness as the benchmark and center. From the perspective of modern Westerners, their subjective consciousness has been given the supreme status and leadership role as Western civilization has developed and grown stronger. Derrida dared to brave the disapproval of the world and launched a tenacious and unremitting attack on the foundation of this powerful ideological tradition. This move undoubtedly has a positive critical significance.

As we all know, traditional logocentrism is concentrated in hierarchical binary oppositions. Derrida severely condemned this in "Standpoint": "In the traditional binary opposition, the two opposing items do not coexist peacefully, but are in a distinct hierarchical order. One of them is in logic, value One aspect occupies a mandatory position, it dominates the other. "

Consider these two familiar oppositions: speech/word, nature/culture, man/woman, soul/body, Consciousness/unconsciousness, reason/madness, truth/falsehood, advanced/backward, enlightened/ignorant, West/East, subject/other, master/slave, etc. In each contrasting item, the former is often superior to the latter and exists at a higher level. That is to say, they represent or belong to logos, and are therefore the center, benchmark, or so-called "first principle" that establishes the relationship between the two. The latter is based on the former, and they are obviously subordinate, negative, negative, 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, the first thing is to overturn this hierarchical order." Not only did he speak fiercely , and took the lead in launching many deconstruction efforts. One of the most successful examples of linguistic deconstruction is the ruthless destruction of the opposition "speech/writing". As Derrida said, writing is not only not inferior to speech, but as "meta-writing", writing also generously includes speech.

It should be noted that Derrida's deconstruction efforts are not the first of its kind. Long before him, we have seen similar contributions from Freud in the field of psychology. The target of Derrida's deconstruction is "speech/writing", while Freud's disintegration is "consciousness/unconsciousness". Similar to Derrida's efforts, Freund's psychology has proven that the unconscious is a broader realm of thinking, including consciousness, which is only a part of the unconscious. In other words, the unconscious is our true psychological reality. The significant difference is that Freud's method of reversing the binary of opposites is not Derrida's deconstruction in the strict sense, because it "neither neutralizes nor reforms the traditional old order."

According to Derrida, deconstruction is not just a simple reversal of the original opposition between the two. The fundamental problem is this: deconstruction assumes that there are only some differences between the two opposites, but no hierarchy of superiority and inferiority. Not only that, there are a lot of mutually penetrating and mutually inclusive relationships between the two opposites. In the eyes of deconstructionists, anything that is conscious has passed through the initial stage of unconsciousness, which is a repressed or delayed consciousness. Consciousness and unconsciousness interpenetrate each other, and there is no clear boundary between them. It can even be said that there is a pre-conscious zone between the two.

Inventing the concept of "difference" Saussure's linguistics believes that symbols are composed of two parts: concept and sound. Specific things (referent) in reality are reflected and embodied (concept/signified) in the human mind, and then expressed by specific language symbols (signifier, that is, signifier). This gives rise to two important oppositions in structural linguistics: signifier/signified. It is not difficult to see that in these two oppositions, the signifier plays an active and dominant role.

Traditional linguistics believes that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the signified and the objective things in reality (referent). Their expression in language is speech. Signifiers include not only speech but also words. But the only reason words exist as signifiers is to express speech. This reflects the concept of traditional philosophy that emphasizes speech and despises writing. In this regard, American critic Leitch gave an accurate explanation in "Deconstructionist Criticism":

The signifier of a symbol corresponds to the referent of the concept. In other words, sound represents a complete concept. They are all known to people. For example,

This pronunciation refers to the concept of "chair" that reflects people's minds. The actual chair was not present.

Therefore, the symbol represents an absent presence (an absent

presence). We don’t need to present the physical object of the chair, we only need to use the sound or the text chair, which postpones or delays the presence of the physical object. "When we use symbols, the presence of physical objects and referents is just an illusion, and what is really present are only the linguistic symbols that replace them.

"This phenomenon of deferring meaning or physical presence through a series of symbolic chains is what Derrida calls "delay" (to

defer). In this regard, Derrida explained:

p>

As a substitute for the real thing, the sign has a subordination and a temporary nature. The subordination is that the sign is derived from the original presence and exists as a substitute for the absence of presence. In the process of movement, the sign is just a halfway station of mediation.

From this, Derrida comes to a famous conclusion: the sign of language is nothing more than a series of postponed games of difference.

In addition to delay, another important meaning of différance is difference (to

differ). Saussure believes that the relationship between the signified and the signified is purely arbitrary. Both the signifier and the signified are "a series of linguistic symbol systems composed of sound differences and conceptual differences." Regarding this issue, the British critic Eagleton explained in "Introduction to Literary Theory", "Language." Meaning is simply a difference. For example, cat is cat because it consists of differences from cap and bat. There is no inherent one-to-one relationship between the referent and the signifier in language. "

Moreover, there is no fixed clear distinction 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 this The meanings of more words make us continue to look up. So meaning is actually the difference between a series of endless symbols." To put it another way,

Meaning does not exist in a certain symbol, it is scattered sporadically in a series of endless symbols Within the chain, meaning cannot be easily captured or positioned on a specific symbol. The meaning is always suspended and continuously delayed: one symbol points to another symbol, and another symbol points to other symbols, endlessly. .

The concept of arbitrariness of signs proposed by Saussure strongly supports Derrida's argument. In other words, the arbitrariness of signs breaks the myth that language signs are the embodiment of external "truth". The origin of truth is nothing more than a series of symbolic games of linguistic symbols, so Derrida concluded in "Gramology" that arbitrariness gives us sufficient reason to exclude the hierarchical order and natural affiliation between symbols, "With the With the emergence of symbols, we no longer have the chance to encounter pure reality."

Derrida said that difference is neither a concept nor a word, it itself is a made-up word. In French In , difference and différance have the same pronunciation. To distinguish them, we must rely on the difference in spelling. This is in itself an excellent irony of the argument of verbal superiority to literal logos. Regarding difference, Derrida. There is a vivid metaphor that says it is like a bundle of flowers (sheaf), which has a "complex organizational structure, different flower branches and different meanings of words, each spreading out in different directions." At the same time, each flower branch is closely connected with other flower branches or meanings, forming an intertwined structure. It needs to be noted that as one of the characteristics of difference, dispersion, in addition to the two meanings of delay in time and difference in space, In addition, it also means "difference" (Latin word "differe"). In other words, no one can completely control the flow of symbolic games, and no one can constrain the differences of words. In Derrida, language is seen. It becomes a never-ending game of delay and difference, and meaning can only be generated from countless alternative meaning differences.

Since the "presence" as the destination of meaning no longer exists, the definite meaning of the symbol. It is differentiated layer by layer and refers to all directions, sowing everywhere like a seed, so it has no center at all. Derrida believes that sowing is the inherent ability of all words, and it will endlessly disintegrate the text. Expose the messiness and repetition of the text.

About "substitution" Once Derrida completed his deconstruction of traditional binary oppositions, he naturally embarked on the path of "substitution" in post-structuralist linguistics. The so-called "substitute" mainly comes from Rousseau's statement about "supplement". In this regard, Rousseau once made a series of famous statements in his "Confessions": "Language is narration, and words are only." It is a complement to words. "He also said that education is a supplement to nature, and masturbation is a supplement to normal sexual behavior. If masturbation can replace normal sexual activities, the two must have something in common in nature. That is to say, masturbation The essence of sexual intercourse is to focus on an imaginary object that one cannot possess for self-entertainment. On the other hand, normal sexual activities can also be regarded as a kind of masturbation.

In "Language". "", Derrida quoted Rousseau's statement about "supplement" and carried out in-depth critical transformation of it, thus forming his own substitute theory. He proposed that speech needs the supplement of words, which shows that speech itself is incomplete. And what he calls substitute is essentially a series of endless verbal substitutions.

In his opinion, Rousseau's "supplement" not only explains that words are a supplement to speech, but also proves that speech itself is a substitute. This is because in daily life, "children quickly learn to 'use speech' to replace their Insufficient...because they soon realized that by using language they could make others do things for them without having to do it themselves..."

Derrida further analyzes Rousseau's "Confessions" Substitution phenomenon in: Rousseau resorts to supplementary behaviors such as kissing the bed, kissing the curtains, and kissing the furniture to substitute for Mrs. Warren's presence. Even in the presence of Mrs. Warren, sitting face to face with him, he still felt inadequate and asked for supplements. "One day at dinner, as soon as she put a piece of meat into her mouth, I shouted that there was hair on it and spat the meat onto the plate. I grabbed it eagerly and swallowed it in one gulp." Derrida commented on this Takami said that in fact, Mrs. Warren herself is also a substitute. She is a substitute for Rousseau's subconscious mother's image. In a word, the substitute is actually an endless series of extensions, which makes the presence continuously differentiated.

About intertextuality Deconstruction believes that words are not a reflection of external objects, but a never-ending game of postponement and difference of a series of symbols. The text is no longer a representation of the external world. On the contrary, in Derrida's deconstruction, the objective world is also textualized. In other words, the entire world is summarized into one text. Derrida also believes that reading and writing permeate our world of knowledge and experience, and that our world has nothing but interpretation. The interpreter cannot go beyond interpretation because he is imprisoned in the cage of language and must face an endless symbolic game of rhetoric and difference, so his interpretation is also never-ending.

Under this premise, Derrida put forward his concept of intertextuality: a work neither belongs to a certain writer nor to a certain era. Its text runs through various eras, with Textual traces of different writers. Therefore, the interpretation and reading of a text can only be open-ended and vary widely. Any new text is intertextual with the previous text, language, and code, and the traces of past texts seep into the author's work through his sublation. Not only that, Western metaphysical philosophical thoughts are silently lurking in the language system. Intertextuality is not only the intertext of language, it is also the intertext of cultural thoughts.

Regarding intertextuality, the American critic Richie said that a text is not a complete natural system, but is inextricably related to other texts. "Texts are intertwined with fragments of language, grammar, vocabulary and history. History is like a hodgepodge of countless diverse, mutually incompatible and irreconcilable ideas and beliefs, and text is this 'cultural salvation army' The exit..." It is obvious that tradition is actually a bunch of clueless twine, and any text is an intertext of other texts. Another American scholar, Paul

Bové, believes that literary works themselves are also an interpretation, and the so-called literary history is a series of texts that destructively deconstruct other texts. Poems in literary history are actually interpretations of other poems. This intertextuality precedes literary historiography. In other words, the original historical text became the object of later literary criticism, so the history of literary criticism should be committed to this accumulating intertextuality, using its openness to gain insight into the value of the poetic tradition. Through such a process, the text can serve as a discourse of interpretation and be presented in the system of discourse interpretation.

Lacan’s view of deconstruction: the unconscious and language

When discussing Derrida’s deconstruction, it is necessary to briefly mention the French psychologist Jean-Jacques Lacan who was his contemporary. Jacques

Lacan. Derrida's deconstruction efforts in linguistics directly echo Lacan's psychological/subjective deconstruction theory. It can be said that the two are a pair of wonderful intertextual relationships, or examples of mutual explanation. Lacan's view of deconstruction is mainly reflected in his classic analysis of the relationship between language and psychology. The key point is that Lacan believes that the unconscious is the structure of the entire language, so he revised Saussure's formula:

Attached Picture

According to Lacan, the entire language and culture system existed before we were born. When we learn a language, this potential language and culture system gradually imposes its entire structure and order on us. us. In other words, we unconsciously enter a set of pre-existing complex networks. It is this network that teaches us to speak, think, act, and respond to each person's social status and responsibilities, forming the so-called self-awareness. What is self and subject? In Lacan, this becomes a passive, interactive process.

Traditional Western linguistics claims that there has always been a natural, one-to-one correspondence between the signifier and the signified. After Lacan's deconstruction, we find that this correspondence no longer exists. Between the original signifier and the signified lies a huge and complex cultural and linguistic system that towers above us. It ruthlessly cancels correspondence and replaces it with an ineradicable gap in which the signifier becomes a constantly sliding sign. Not only that, Lacan also further elaborated Freud's theory of dream interpretation.

In his case, psychological distortions become sliding signifiers, the formation of Freudian dreams becomes Lacanian rhetorical figures, and the unconscious becomes a potential writing system.

Yale School of Deconstruction

If the French deconstruction theory is profound and abstruse, then American deconstruction pays more attention to its operation and application in actual texts. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, a famous "Yale School" was formed at Yale University in the United States. It usually refers to four professors who are keen on deconstructive criticism, namely Paul de Man, J.Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom and Hart. Geoffrey Hartman.

De Man’s most creative insight is that he inherited and developed Nietzsche’s rhetorical theory, making it an important deconstruction strategy. De Man pointed out in "The Fable of Reading" that rhetoric is not an embellishment of eloquence and persuasion, nor is it an optional component of the text. In fact, rhetoric is the unique and essential essence of language itself. Its characteristic lies in doubting, rejecting and denying the existence of external truth. Therefore, the task of the literary critic is not to find clear and definite meanings. He will always face a centerless and undefined text, in which rhetoric repeatedly creates "the intersection of multiple ambiguous and uncertain meanings."

Miller's idea of ??deconstruction is mainly reflected in his reading analysis of specific novels. He believes that "all words are lingo. They are constantly delayed, differentiated and distinguished from other words. Each word points to another word in a chain of mutually replacing words, without source or root." The rhetorical nature of words makes words multi-meaning and changeable. When one meaning is selected, other potential meanings also flash in, causing the selected meaning to be unstable and always slipping to other meanings. When we read the text, we need to trace the source, find the etymology, and observe its maze-like semantic differences and substitutions. In Miller's view, the result of this semantic diffusion reveals endless interpretation possibilities for the text. Miller's deconstruction strategy is to carefully select certain recurring key rhetoric, concepts or article themes, and analyze the destructive power they release when they are repeated in different situations, thereby dismantling the hierarchical order and authoritative classics on which the text relies. , exposing its suppression of fringe ideas and "illegal" traditions. He revealed in "The Critic as a Parasite": Every work is parasitic on the work of its predecessors. It not only quotes, imitates, absorbs and learns from previous works, but also allows previous works to be parasitic on new works. middle. The previous text both serves as the basis for the new text and is constantly adapted to suit the spirit of the new text. The context of the new work gives new interpretations to the previous works.

Bloom boldly proposed the concept of "misreading" of previous works from the perspective of Oedipus complex. Facing the historical texts of their predecessors, only through misreading can contemporary writers rebel and transcend history and establish their own image as a "strong" poet.

The uniqueness of Hartmann is that, following Derrida, he completely eliminated the boundaries between literature and philosophy, and then treated literary criticism and literary texts equally. In his view, literary criticism is not a passive work. It is as distinctively thoughtful and creative as literary creation. It is this kind of creativity that enables literature and criticism to communicate with each other and integrate into one. Literary criticism also has the nature and function of touching human emotions. As a typical representative of the harmonious fusion of the two, the essay is both a literary review and a literary work.

Conclusion

In the history of Western criticism in the 20th century, deconstruction theory has its unique contribution. First, it eliminates the logocentrism that has long occupied people's minds, breaks the hierarchical binary opposition, and puts forward the view that "there is no hierarchy or center, only differences" between concepts. Second, it It discovers the inter-reference, polysemy and infinite differences between signifiers, and fully realizes the openness and intertextuality of the text. For this reason, it also emphasizes the important role of readers and critics.

Deconstruction is a theory full of loopholes and strong arguments. It opposes centrism with acentrism, which is like sawing off the historical trunk that is connected to itself. The paradoxical logic of metaphysics did not lead to the success of deconstructive ideas, but instead caused it to fall into another historical dilemma, which is false truth, uncertain meaning, and boundless arbitrary interpretation. How much of the original meaning of language and words that are always under the threat of deletion are there for readers to think about? Even the deconstructionists themselves find it difficult to explain clearly. Overemphasis on language games, infinite exaggeration of the role of rhetoric and metaphor, and disregard of objective facts are the reasons why deconstruction is often criticized. Therefore, when dealing with deconstruction, we should adopt an independent critical attitude, take its essence and discard its dross.