Good morning and welcome to yet another session
of the NPTEL course postmodernism in literature.
In continuation with ah the ah series of lectures
that will be having today also we discuss
Derrida, Deconstruction and Postmodern texts.
So, we have ah already taken and look at the
intellectual tradition which foreground that
the method of deconstruction, we also seen
how it departs from other forms of structuralist
enquiries and, we also taken and look at the
various ah tools through which we can employ
deconstruction in different texts and contexts.
The objective of today's lecture is a fore
is to foreground deconstruction as a literary
critical method, as much as Derrida has had
ah ah protects Deccan's the formulation of
deconstruction as a literary theory, as a
method of criticism it is ah rather interestic
note that in the contemporary, this is one
of the most important ah literary critical
ah ah methods which have being used, ah cross
cultures across literary words to engage with
different kinds of texts.
And also different kinds of ah context.
And we calling from the previous ah lectures
it is important to remember the deconstruction
is a school of philosophy, which originated
in France and also attributed to ah rogues
Derrida and, it also have now had an enormous
impact on Anglo American ah criticism.
And ah when we trace intellectual tradition
it is also important to realize that deconstruction
was influenced by ah phenomenology Saussurean,
and a French structuralism and also Freudian
and Lacanian psychoanalysis.
But interestingly though depurative from the
various forms for structuralist enquiries,
it eventually deconstruction eventually merged
as a distinct and a different tool of criticism
and also emerged as a school or a movement
or by itself.
If we look at the diverse kinds of definitions
available about deconstruction, we would began
to notice that the literary and critical definitions
the literary and the definitions from the
from within the frame works of literature
ah criticism and culture, ah dominate the
ideas about deconstruction.
If ah you can look at ah Cuddons dictionary
of literary terms and literary theory published
in 1993.
This is how Cuddon defines deconstruction.
The term to notes a particular kind of practice
in reading and thereby a method of criticism
and a mode of analytical enquiry.
Regardless of how structuralism was originally
conceived as a ah method to protest, the rebel
against the various promises ah made by modernity,
with the solution men with the many ah scientific
rationalist practices.
It is now ah rather a historic accident that
deconstruction has been seen primarily, as
a mode of analytical enquiry and also some
method of criticism.
So, ah he also ah extensively quotes ah Cuddon
also extensively quotes from a Barbara Johnson
and, goes all to clarify the use of the term
deconstruction.
Deconstruction is not synonymous with destruction;
however, it is in fact, much closer to the
original meaning of the word analysis itself,
which etymologically means to undo, a virtual
synonym for to deconstruct.
If anything is destroyed in the deconstructive
reading it is not the text, but the claim
to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying
over the over another, deconstructive reading
is a reading, which analyses the specificity
of a text critical difference from itself.
We have already noted how deconstruction does
not talk about the destruction of meaning,
but about the generation of a meaning by focusing
on certain aspects of text which are not otherwise
readily available, or which are not otherwise
very visible.
Having said this at a ah at the theoretical
level it is also important to see.
How deconstruction works when we apply it
to criticism, when we use it as a method of
critical practice, when we use it as an analytical
ah tool for inquiring.
Keeping in tune with the departures that ah
deconstruction makes as a shift from the linguistic
turn towards deconstructive turn, there is
a way in which deconstruction deconstructive
practices could be located at the level of
language, but when we been taken to use deconstruction
as a mode of enquiry, as a method of analytical
criticism we begin to notice that.
It moves away from the level of language and
language is only a starting point.
So, eventually the way deconstruction works
is a ways in which it begins to critically
dismantle, tradition and traditional modes
of thought.
So, this is the end result which made deconstruction
perhaps more popular than any other forms
of criticism, any other forms of analytical
enquiry, prevalent in the contemporary.
Among the many things that deconstruction
proposes to do, it explores the tensions and
contradictions between the hierarchical ordering
assumed and sometimes implicitly asserted
in the text and other aspects of the text
meaning especially those that are indirect,
or implicit, or that rely on figurative, or
performative uses of tradition.
So, here the play with language Derridas use
of language, Derridas deconstruction of language,
leads us to a method which would eventually
allow us to dismantle tradition and traditional
modes of short and also disturbing district
all kinds of hierarchical establishments,
all which ah most of the ah ah most of the
reason based, most of the rationality, most
of the thoughts of rationality, the particularly
those of the western tradition have been placed.
In that context the focus is on the opposition
of meaning that emerges as Derrida has extended
extensively pointed out, in his analysis of
the signifier and the signified ah and the
difference within a.
And ah here the opposition works in particular
ways in order to show.
Deconstruction of the text, and here we also
begin to realize that the meaning of the opposition
is not something which is ah which independently
exist, but that is also something with emerges
from the text as Derrida and also the critics
have ah ah have remind that is in multiple
ways.
Deconstructionism is not about entirely moving
away from the text.
Deconstruction is about focusing on the text
and foregrounding the things that the text
does not apparently make visible that readily
and, also about foregrounding the things which
we text perhaps hides through the use of particular
kinds of language of figures of speech, or
ah different kinds of performative functions.
And when we talk about the base in which deconstruction
has contributed to literary theory, it is
important to remember that text played a major
role as ah one of the famous products would
put it a major role in the animation and transformation
of literary studies by literary theory.
And it is also because ah deconstruction is
concerned with the questions about language
about the production of meaning and, the relationship
between literature and, the numerous discourses
that structure human experiences and, it is
histories which are also evident and literary
and cultural text.
In that sense deconstruction also becomes
a very comprehensive and and, all-encompassing
kind of literary theory or critical approach
to engage with multiple kinds of text in contexts
in the postmodern in the postmodern scenario.
And ah it would also be ah not wrong to say
that deconstruction help to bring theory to
the foreground in the study of literature
in American and later elsewhere.
It is also perhaps yet another history that
deconstruction is increasingly being modified
ah for the American market and the simplified
and also, ah it it is also been water down
for in the form of hand books read it used
textbooks on and so, forth.
And though ah as we have pointed out in the
beginning though Derrida resistor all of these
moves, now it is rather inevitable not just
in the western scenario, but also in the non-western
ah critical traditions and non-western ah
right in practices.
Now, let us also take ah closer look at how
this theoretical approach works in different
fields.
And deconstruction is something that could
be used regardless of the disciplinary differences,
and regardless of the different differences
and enjoiner, or in context, or in the cultural
ah settings.
So, if we ah closed examine deconstruction
at work in the feminist ah thinking, we begin
to see some of the ways in which they play
with the opposition, particularly the feminist
ah thinkers the feminist writers and critics
they play with the of they play with the opposition
between the motions about man.
And women they also challenge these ah these
traditionally given understanding the traditionally
given ah meanings, which are attributed to
the ideas of ah men and women.
They also critiqued the essentialist notions
of gender and sexuality, which also forms
ah some of the fundamental aspects of feminist
literary criticism and feminist are thinking,
as Judith butlers ah works have been doing,
they also challenged the claim that feminist
politics requires a distinct identity for
women.
So, by focusing on this opposition ah focusing
on the difference, ah within which the meaning
making process ah meaning making process had
rest it.
So, far the ah feminist thinkers problematize
this difference problematize this distinct
identities, which have been formulated and
engage with the politics which is a to work,
which also produce particular kinds of identities.
So, here the feminist used deconstruction
to also lead us to be convened that identity
is the product, or result of action rather
than source for it.
So, there is no given kind of a meaning this
only certain ah performances which would produce
a particular kinds of meanings, there is no
given understanding of a man or a woman, there
are only certain performative concepts which
are tie with particular kinds of identities.
sHere we also begin to note the interconnectedness
across ah different ah schools of a thoughts,
here we begin to see how there is a there
is unemployment of the linguistic term to
begin with, how that influences the ah the
modes of departure for ah deconstruction and,
how eventually that also enables the various
critical modes, within the feminist ah strands
of sorts.
And this is also been by extension very influential
in ah queer theory, in gain less means studies
as well.
And here we begin to notice that deconstruction
is not something which could be limited to
particular kinds of text and contexts, but
it is something that opens up the feels of
study, also for the foregrounding of alternative
practices.
And this is also been ah ah heavily used in
critical legal studies, deconstruction has
been applied ah extensively across the various
forms of legal writing, to reveal the conflicts
between principles and a counter principles
and legal theory.
And this is also been a rather influential
turn from the nineteen seventies onwards,
ah the also explode ah fundamental opposition
such as public and private essence and ah
accident or a substance and forms.
Now again we see that the fundamentally the
place mostly where the idea of opposition,
and how that generates meaning, and ah these
a different forms of disciplines these different
forms of critical practices they engage with
this ah the engage with this idea of ah opposition,
the idea of difference to focus on diverse
ah forms of knowledge is which are otherwise
unavailable to us.
And the field of anthropology which is which
also mentions closetize with the practice
of deconstruction, you notice that deconstruction
contributed to an increase awareness of the
role that are anthropological work as play,
particularly in shaping ah rather than describing
the situations, they report on so, here also
we find that the that is a certain ah kind
of from a practical approach that deconstruction
finds in these diverse a fields of knowledge,
in the field of anthropology in the critical
practices employee in the field of anthropology
this, ah deconstructive method has been particularly
influential because, they also contributed
enhance the move towards a greater concern
about the disciplines historical connections
to ah colonialism.
So, in the close reading of the text and the
context and the experiences available the
anthropologist, we are also able to critically
foreground, the things which were not apparently
visible the things which were not available
as readymade objects, rather they could peel
away the multiple layers of meaning which
have already been constructed to engage with
the other forms of ah ah hidden ah meaning
so, the other kinds of hidden cultures and
hidden ah articulations to engage with what
is not been readily available.
So, ah here we are also being let to the possibility
of identifying many deconstructions, it not
the single ah kind of deconstruction that
is available to us, but there is a possibility
of many deconstructions, depending on the
ah fields in which ah ah deconstruction is
employee depending on the context, depending
on the historical ah possibilities and, depending
on the ah methods required by different fields
of study.
So, here we also try to list out some of those
different kinds of deconstructions available.
ah For example, ah there is rhetorical deconstruction
employed by Paul de man, whose also an ah
whose an American critic and and an act of
practition of Anglo American ah literary criticism
and, he is also ah leading he was also a leading
propend end of ah literary critical theory
in the contemporary.
And there is a pedagogical deconstruction
employed by Gregory Ulmer, who is an American
critic who also engaged actively with the
ah novel principles of a hypertext and cyber
language.
And ah then we have political deconstruction
of Michael Ryan, way he uses ah Marxism as
a framework to critique deconstruction, we
have; obviously, the post colonial deconstruction
by Gayatri Spivak, who also initiated ah ah
the ah feminist enquiry into subaltern studies
and subaltern politics.
And there is philosopher ah there is philosophical
deconstruction of ah ah route of Gasche, who
tried to locate deconstruction within various
practices of ah phenomenology.
There is also this feminist deconstruction
of Barbara Johnson who is ah critique ah translator
and a leading theories of comparative literature,
ah she is also interestingly associated with
the Yale school of criticism.
And there are even sub text that we would
we could begin to locate from these available
classifications, there could be for example,
different kinds of ah feminisms, or different
kinds of post colonialisms available to us,
which would lead us to the which would lead
us to the possibilities of different kinds
of deconstructions emerging from within particular
fields of knowledge is as well.
Believe the apparent diversity and the apparent
a differences what is strikingly significant
about these many deconstructions other ways,
in which they begin to talk about textuality
and text.
Irrespective of the field of study text are
available for deconstructive practices, this
is also keeping in tune whether dictum that
everything is a text.
Textuality in ah within the deconstructive
framework is the process of reading and, this
process of reading is what constitutes the
text.
The text is not a readily available entity,
it is not an object by itself, but it is rather
an object which evolved through the process
of reading, which is referred to as textuality.
And there is also leads us to the possibility
of text being un decidable infinite and open
and, this is also something that we ah begin
ah ah started ah allocating in the discussions
regarding a Barthe and Foucault, we also saw
that the text undergoes a change depending
on the kind of freedom and also that the text
needs to be moved away from the authority
to voice of the author.
So, ah in when we begin to ah locate ah text,
the idea of textuality, within the process
of reading what emerges as extremely significant
is a point that language does not refer to
any external reality.
It can on the contrary assert several contradictory
interpretations of one text.
So, ah these terms which are being foregrounded
in this aspect of in in these ah various aspects
of deconstructions which is textuality.
The process of reading the possibility of
ah multiple interpretations, they are all
not just limited to the concerns of the book,
but rather they have an overarching ah fire
reaching implication because, these interpretations
are also based on the political and social
implications of language, it is not limited
to a connection between the author and the
text, as it was conventionally ah thought
to be on the other hand, it is also based
on the context which produce particular text.
And more importantly it is also based on the
context of from which particular kinds of
interpretations and particular kinds of readings
have been done.
It is also in that sense depending on where
the read it as situated, not just on the basis
of where the author are situated.
And ah pushing this a bit ah more we also
see that, it is all the difference the meaning
of the difference or the postponement of meaning
is also something which would affect, ah range
of things suggest history politics economics
and even reality itself.
This is perhaps the postmodern impress that
we have in the idea of deconstruction itself,
because it is and all-encompassing are a framework
which would allow us to reinterpret, which
would allow us the possibility of a multiple
interpretations of everything not just books
not just a text, but also history politics
economics and even the idea of reality itself.
And this difference or the idea of the postponement
of meaning is the basis of writing itself
has Derrida would ah put it, Derrida in fact
and expensively worked on the binaries of
a speech in writing and also had engaged with
the idea of difference, as we have already
noted and all of this interestingly, they
form of basis they form of framework for understanding
not just what we are traditionally understand
as text.
But also across various disciplines, which
normally would not be seen as subject to any
kind of textual reading.
This reduction of ah this reductive understanding
of textuality or rather, this extensive understanding
of textuality would enable us to to elevate
deconstruction to ah ah level that would also
enable us to engage with postmodernism through
particular frameworks and particular ah paradigms.
Now, I am going back to the attention that
deconstruction as a practice pay to ah the
rhetorical and performative aspects of language,
but continues to play a significant role because,
it was this particular attention on language
and text on the various aspects of language
the performative and the rhetorical aspects
of language, that encourage critics to consider
not just what a text ah says, but also the
relationship.
Now when we say relationship, but not just
always a positive relationship it could also
be a potential conflict inherent in that.
So, the relationship or the conflict between
what a text says and what it does.
So, here as we I have pointed out one of the
earlier sessions, deconstruction is not something
that we to a to a text, but it is always already
it is always already inherent within a text,
the text has the capability to deconstruct
itself.
So, there is a possibility of looking at a
text and, decoding what it says and also about
what it does through the process of language
through the ah through the analysis of the
performative aspects and rhetorical aspects
of language.
And ah if ah deconstruction also implies a
close reading of text, how would we begin
to differentiate, then new critics from the
deconstruction us.
And ah in the earlier session also be noted
how deconstruction has all has often been
seen as another version of new criticism and,
we also had ah indicated that it is not.
ah Because new critics see literature as a
freestanding ah self-contained object and,
in the process of new criticism meaning has
to be found in the complex network of relations
between ah it is parts for example, allusions,
ah images, ah rhythms and sounds.
And ah this process of close reading this
method of closed textual analysis is being
done to make sense of the ambiguities and,
this is what makes new criticism difference
a different from ah deconstruction.
So, new criticism when it was prevalent as
a method particularly in the American academia,
it was also adopted in the ah academic and
intellectual circus worldwide because, it
help them to make sense of the ambiguities,
which also I had a fit in very well with the
aims of ah ah the syllabi or curricula, the
ah ah critical practices ah ah so on and so,
forth it was about.
It was rather a neat process of doing a textual
analysis in order to make sense of the text.
Deconstruction is on the other hand, they
see the works and terms of that un decidability,
there was an unfinalizability about meaning
about a different ah attributes of the signifier
and the signified right at of the right at
the outset, they also thus reject the formalist
view new critics are also part of ah formalism,
ah they reject the formalist view that are
work of literature is demonstrably unified
from beginning to end, that are work of literature
is organized around a single center that ultimately
can be identity.
While ah the new critics operate with the
belief that there is a unified center, there
is a structure which needs to be decoded.
The ah deconstructionist begin with the rejection
of this idea of a unified center itself.
And if the idea of the center itself is rejected
the possibility of finding a unified meaning
also becomes a few because there is no way
in which one could begin to find a meaning
find an ultimate meaning find the core of
the text which is not there in the first place.
So, contrary to be new critics expectation
of making a sense of the ambiguities, what
the decons construction is is to reveal the
incompatible possibility is generated by the
text, and thus it also becomes impossible
to for the reader to settle on any permanent
meanings, rather to look for permanent meanings
itself is a futile attempt, when we talk about
deconstruction.
And this is also completely rejects any kind
of authority which is being invested, either
to the author or to the critic who wants to
foreground a single meaning.
Here we again find the privileging of the
reader which, we started talking about right
through a discussions of births ah death of
the author and focus what is an author.
So, what are the theoretical implications
of such a process here, we here we also ah
ah reiterate some of the things that, we us
that we highlighted during our discussions
of Barthe and Foucault ah deconstruction is
also about shifting the centre of a piece
from the author to the reader.
This shift is extremely important we would
see in the various readings that, we undertake
as part of this a courses part of a discussions
on post modernism and, the author is a it
it is not always about the death of the author,
it is not always about the dismissal of the
author, but it is also it is primarily about
the removal of the author as the authoritative
voice.
Whether the author is there or not the authority
that he has over a text no longer access and
this a trade could also be a seen as something
that ah deconstruction shares, with the reader
response criticism, in a week deconstructive
practice we also analyzed what was left out
of a text and how that influence the piece
as much as what was actually written into
a piece.
So, what was actually written is not privileged
over what was left out on the other hand,
what was actually written becomes ah peal
of meaning a layer of constructed meaning
which could be peeled away to reveal what
was left out of a text.
The meaning making possibility or the impossibility
of ah ah ah attributing a single meaning rests
on what was left out of a text and ah for
example, ah will they analyzing what was left
out maybe, we would be able to expose the
cultural biases, in the text a particularly
the ones written from ah ah privileged the
point of you and this is also something that,
we would begin to ah notice time again ah
time and again in the feminist readings and
also in the post colonial readings which are
very popular in the post modern ah scenario.
Let me also share with you an example from
Stuart hall, where he tried to deconstruct
the popular.
Stuart hall could deconstruct as one of the
pioneers of the ah method of cultural studies,
were talking about popular in the context
of popular culture ah Stuart hall ah reminds
us that popular has an obvious definition,
that which cells.
And this is based on commercial success on
the generation of revenue, but the question
is how many records exactly do you have to
cell to be regarded as popular, as an any
particular definition for the various from
context to context we could think about multiple
ways ah ah in which we could respond to this
a question.
And there is no one way of talking about commercial
success, there is no one way of talking about
that which cells.
So, it is a contested definition to begin
with and, there is also ah ah very different
kind of a definition which could be attributed
to the term popular.
If we talk about a popular uprising, if we
talk about the popular ah upheaval, it is
also referring to a revolutionary resistance
and opposition may be an opposition which
is also based on authentic working class experience,
but how do we begin to identify the authentic,
that is also yet another big question to which
there are no single answers.
Stuart hall is not trying to solve the problem
of the many definitions which are inherent
in the term popular on the other hand, he
is trying to deconstruct the term popular,
the meanings which are being attributed to
the popular to arrive at the futility of a
descriptive account.
And this is what makes deconstruction all
the more postmortem because, not only is a
process of description of process of lack,
there is something in lacking in it, but it
was also of futile it in because, there is
no single proper definition or a proper description
that exist within the language.
It is all are based on differences, it is
all based on performances as different kinds
of a theoretical frameworks with tell us.
Here also some useful a step search tips to
engage with ah ah particular text through
ah deconstructive method of criticism, this
is not a comprehensive list, this is not a
must follow list of the steps for doing ah
deconstructive criticism, this just ah ah
random ah sample of a set of steps set of
questions, which could be asked to a different
kinds of texts and contexts.
First of all ah deconstructive method or deconstructive
ah critical practice would not be possible
without questioning the common sense or the
prevailing wisdom, which is also being seen
as the truth, which is also part of be ah
ah universalizing essentializing ah world
view because, it is very important to unhinge
oneself from the traditional interpretations
to be able to engage with the text from a
fresh paradigm to ah peel away the many constructed
meanings and access, the things which are
not being readily accessible or available
to us.
ah Secondly, since the deconstructive ah ah
critical practice also has the power to expose
a cultural ah biases, we should also be alert
to the various forms of biases which are inherent
within text within particular cultural or
constructs and, ah this is perhaps you know
one could even begin to think about, the western
or euro centric bias which is perhaps present
in a particular text and to see, how this
ah bias could be exposed to particular kinds
of readings and rereading.
Thirdly is to analyze sentence structure this
could also be seen as the ah closed reading
or a closed texual analysis why ah many also
get confused about whether deconstruction
is another version of a new criticism and,
here we particularly pay attention for example,
to the arrangement of the subject when the
object and, ah as the subject being the initiator
of the action and the object being the recipient.
ah If I could give a very simple example a
statement, he took her to the store, he bought
her earrings, he found some food she would
like here the subject is he took her to the
store, he bought her earrings, he found some
food she would like.
If we analyze the linguistic parts, if we
analyze the different parts of language in
this, we also find that the object is to go
to the store bought her earrings and found
some food, she would like and here the initiative
of action is always the male protagonist.
We also find that ah denial of age that is
also a denial of agency, for the object who
is only the recipe end of these various actions.
So, this could pass of as a simple harmless
innocent ah sentence, but when we approach
this from ah deconstructive angle, when we
approach this from ah ah critical practice
enabled by deconstruction, we begin the see
that there is a way in which language exposes
some of the patriarchal biases, some of the
denial of agency which is inherent in this
text.
And this sentence cannot be isolated from
the general ah meaning of the story because,
this general meaning of the story or the novel
ah whatever that this is part of this on the
other hand, becomes one of the ways in which
one could begin to expose the various biases,
to expose the various forms of ah privileges
which are a being hidden in the text, which
are also being passed of as something very
common, which is part of common since as part
of essential universal truth.
So, deconstruction that sense also sees us
to be a mere textual analysis and, it also
it becomes a very a political and also a socially
concern kind of critical analysis.
And once we begin to open up these words and
sentences and infinite amount of ah possible
interpretations and possible meanings begin
to emerge and, the final step is to play with
this possible meanings, rather and rest respect
to once to a one particular world view because,
that is what deconstruction is also protesting
against.
And ah b is a multiple dreamings which are
being made available should be the result
of the closed actual analysis that one is
doing, and it is not again I reiterate it
is not an attempt to make sense of the ambiguities,
but it is an atom to open up the text, open
up language, to various multiple interpretations
which would even be in conflict with one another.
ah
Quick comparison between the 2 text Jane Eyer
and wide Sargasso sea will also be useful
to understand deconstruction in practice.
Jane ah Jane Eyre as we know is a ah very
popular Victorian novel authored by charlotte
Bronte, it was written in 1847 and wide Sargasso
sea is a twenty th century text, author in
1966, for the uninitiated Jane Eyre is the
novel about the protagonist Jane Eyre herself
and, it is in the form of a bildungsroman,
it is about her childhood about her coming
into ages of women and her relationships that
and complications which are involved in it
and, how she is also highlighted as an embodiment
of virtue.
As ah symbol of ah Victorian women hood and,
how she also finds her place within relationships,
within the society and, within the structure
of family by foregrounding her own character
as the angel in the house.
These are the the madwoman in the attic who
is also being present as a count of all to
Jane Eyres character.
Without going into the ah details of the story
because time does not permit us to do.
So, wide Sargasso sea by ah is a work which
foregrounds the story of this madwoman in
the attic, who was close to being in Jane
Eyre by charlotte Bronte, here we find the
1966 novel deconstructing the 1847 novel to
generate a new text and, how is this being
made possible, ah first of all we can see
that three different way in which we can look
at the transition the ah the departure that
wide Sargasso sea makes from Jane Eyre.
ah first of all Sargasso sea is a feminist
critique of Victorian values which Jane Eyre
also embodies, it supposed ah suppose colonial
criticism of a western colonization, which
is in a certain way ah being celebrated in
Jane Eyre text and, the text and also the
many critics of Jane Eyre, there are also
rather oblivious to this inherent celebration
of colonization the colonial practices of
the west, which were also evident in the relationship
between ah in the man woman relationship,
which was in Jane Eyre and ah it also also
postmodern wide Sargasso sea is postmodern
at various levels because, it engages with
the story in from different perspectives.
It engage it wide Sargasso sea sees us to
be the story of Jane Eyre it sees us to be
the story of madness the madwoman in the attic,
it becomes a engagement with madness, with
marginality, with otherness with relationships
with marriage, the institution of marriage,
with displacement, exile and identity crisis.
These are not new elements that began to invent
from Jane Eyre, but rather these were the
things which were always ah already present
in the text Jane Eyre all that did in wide
Sargasso sea was to expose the gaps, was to
just peel away the multiple layers of constructive
meanings, to expose the buyers is inherent
in it, to expose the various agendas the various
political, ideological agendas the various
ah patriarchal centric biases which were inherited
the text.
By allowing a playoff all these multiple conflicting
elements and identities in the text wide Sargasso
Sea, by engaging with feminism in post colonialism
in particular ways wide Sargasso sea, becomes
a typical postmodern text itself.
In the nutshell what wide Sargasso sea ah
seeks to do is ah it is not to ah present
itself as a complementary work to Jane Eyre,
rather it discovered the gaps and, wrote back
of feminist and the postcolonial text.
And postmodern frameworks I would say enabled
how to do so.
The gaps she also in in wide Sargasso sea
we find the foregrounding of the gaps available
within the text and, which is ah this is also
being made possible after ah deconstructs
to Jane Eyre, after having read between the
lines of the novel, wide Sargasso sea is a
novel which comes into being, after having
deconstructed Brontes novel, in order to create
another novel, but the totally different likes
different perspective which is largely non
western.
And here ah these are the multiple ways in
which be novel bytes Sargasso sea also becomes
postmodern, it engages with the ah place with
postmodern intertextuality, fragmented, narrative,
multiple narrators the problematization of
englishness as a ah national and cultural
identity that may or may not be dependent
on race.
It also exposes the various historical racial
and, social hierarchies ah on which the western,
civilization unfortunately rests.
So, whether we are talking about toward holds
deconstruction of the popular, or the ah and
simple subject object analysis of a ah simple
sentence, or the deconstruction of a particular
novel, what is postmodern about deconstruction.
So, as we wind up todays lecture, I also leave
you with your understanding that deconstruction
is also a practice.
A critical practice which is a inherent to
be understanding of postmodernism.
And also that it is possible to engaged with
the many postmodern text, through the interplay
of deconstruction.
And ah here what essentially makes deconstruction
postmodern is a factor red joined hands with
other strands of post structural and post
modern thinking like we, ah just now ah so
how post modern could be could be linked with
the post colonial and, the feminist ah modes
of thinking and modes of critics, eventually
what deconstruction enables us to do.
Just like postmodernism drast is to inspire
a suspicion of established intellectual categories
and, it is skepticism about the possibility
of objectivity.
This is where deconstruction begins to make
sense, in the postmodern scenario.
As one of the most efficient tools as as one
of the most efficient analytical critical
tools available to approach, text and various
a context.
So, as we wind up today's session I also leave
you in anticipation of the ah discussions
on intertextuality that we shall be introducing
in the following lecture that is all we have
for today.
Thank you for listening and I look forward
to seeing you in the next session.
