.
Hello everyone.
Good morning and welcome to yet another session
of the NPTEL course; post modernism in literature
. Today's lecture is titled Derrida, deconstruction
and postmodern text .
However, at the outset of our discussion on
Derrida and deconstruction, it is important
to locate the emergence of deconstruction,
as there is a departure from structuralism
modes of thinking, from structuralism modes
of critical practices structuralism our proposed
is a model of reading texts and cultural artifacts.
Overall, it is based on a search for order,
they also believe in our structure which is
inherent to novels, menus, poetry, music,
visual text and all kinds of other our literary
and cultural artifacts.
There is also a way in which is the structuralist,
a seeker ingrids and patterned schemes and
plots in order to analyze, in order to unravel
meanings within embedded, within particular
texts.
And, they also work with the inherent assumption
that every text has a single meaning, and
the text would yield to its meaning once we
unravel its core elements.
So, structural is operate with the assumption,
with the belief that every text has an embedded
meaning which needs to be sort, which needs
to be analyzed through a series of grids and
patterns through a series of particular are
structures, within which meanings and meaning
making processes are are ah are embedded.
Within the larger context, structuralism also
argues that the elements of human culture
also could be located within ah ah particular
structures by way of their relationship to
one another, towards an larger overarching
system.
So, are those structuralism is primarily concerned
with various aspects of language.
We find that it is ago, it has ah gone to
define various other disciplines including
ah anthropology and ah ah various other disciplines
related to human ah relations, human culture
and also the the ah various forms of expressions
in ah genres, ah texts and ah various contexts.
If we ah extend the structuralist approaches,
to narratives theory . We can also see that
they believe in the unpacking of the element
is it constitute a text meaning.
All together, structuralism argues for ah
the foregrounding of various structures which
would eventually lead to a meaning of a text,
which will eventually lead us to a single
truth; the unraveling of the text as they
would call it.
This in case of filigree and our cultural
practices, it could be through a rigorous
and thorough, textual analysis ah by paying
close attention to language and form.
So, here I, some here ah it is also important
to ah note that one of the critical practice
is one of the schools of criticism that emerged
as part of the structuralist movement, is
also ah termed as Russian formalism .
So, beginning with the linguistic term, structuralist
practices have had a very significant effect
in a number of disciplines related to the
humanities and social sciences .
Simon Blackburn has defined structuralism
as a belief that a phenomena of human life
are not intelligible except where interrelations.
These relations constitute a structure, and
behind vocal variations in the surface phenomena
there are constant laws of abstract culture.
Structuralism also eventually becomes one
of the means through which one could begin
to make sense of human culture in general,
and also various patterns of human behavior
and social structures.
However, there is an inherent problem in the
structuralist mode of thinking in the structuralist
political practices, because they are largely
formulaic.
It is, based on particular structures, patterns
and schemes of thought which also runs the
risk of being ready was two particular formulas.
And, a number of critics, a particularly especially
from the late 1950's and 1960's they began
to see the structuralist mode of thinking
as a restrictive and limited practice of viewing
the world.
And, we also know how a number of critics,
this bath began to argue for the need for
the openness of text.
We also saw how in buts, that of the older
what gets for granted is the text connection
with other text and their leaders role in
the production of meaning, which is again
ah ah move away from the structuralist move,
structuralist critical practices .
And post structuralism in that sense could
be seen as an expression of a sense of the
solution meant with the nation state, with
philosophies of emancipation and critical
thinking itself; and this is not totally ah
ah a baseless allegation which is being made
against nation states and philosophies emancipation,
because this is something that the world all
also witnessed, because this is something
that the world also witnessed of the aftermath
of the second world war and also with the
various of kinds of our political unrest and
social ah ah, also with the failure of the
various systems of social hierarchies that
we began to see; especially from the middle
of the 20th century onwards.
And, in the context of our todays discussion
in the context of situating the post structuralist
philosophies, we may particularly recall the
ah civilian unrest in Europe in the 1960's,
and ah in in particular are the 1960's student
rebellions in Paris with a, which number of
the French post structuralist philosophers
were also involved.
The Vietnam war which had unforeseen consequence,
and also altered the grammar of ah animation
slaves, the grammar of politics in the 20th
century and also a number of other geopolitical
disasters .
So, the mid-20th century began to pose a crisis,
and the need to move away from the structuralist
or modes of thinking; from structuralist critical
practices became all the more imminent there.
And ah, it is, it is important to also see
how the post structuralist began to depart
from the structuralist modes of thinking.
Here, we have some of the fundamental ah ways
in which post structuralism began to radically
differ from structuralist space of thinking.
Here, it also becomes important to note that
it becomes in, that it is impossible to make
sense of post structuralism; that it becomes
impossible to define post structuralism without
any reference to the structuralist modes and
the structuralist methods.
ah, for example, if the structuralist thinkers
considered the individual as sacred, we see
our completely radically different proposition
being put forward by the post structuralist.
They locate the subject; there is a cultural
construct, it is not, there is nothing sacred
about the individual, but everything becomes
a social construct.
The mind is located as a realm of meaning
in the structuralist practices.
But; however, in the post structuralist form
mind is a site where interactions are situated
as symbolic beings.
And, ah why the structuralist critics believed
in the universal laws and essences which they
also are thought, I had given the fundamental
premise for our framing and locating particular
structures of language of culture and of various
other ah forms of social realities.
The post structuralist began to feel, began
to argue that truth is local, language creates
reality.
There is no other inherent, always already
present reality other than the one created
by language .
Structural is believed in the inherent ah
universal meaning is that precede the text.
And, on the other hand was; post structuralist
argued that, meaning is intertextual.
It is determined by social discourse, and
this is not a fixed meaning.
This is not a fixed to scores or a fixed or
entity; it changes with history.
And, these are the, and and interestingly
all of these promises which are associated
with post structuralism; can also be associated
with post modernism.
I am here, and we are; get time and again
every I too late need to see post structuralism
and post modernism as interrelated phenomena,
and ah there are also ways in which the postmodern
attendance, the postmodern ideas could be
identified as an offshoot of a number of post
structuralist ideologies and post structuralist
principles.
Consequently, ah as as noted earlier, when
we begin to identify post structuralism, an
expression of the disillusionment with the
worldview endorsed by structuralists practices,
we also begin to see a number of intellectual
movements, and number of our critical movements
against this dominant structure of structuralism.
Ah in that sense particularly from the 1960's
onward we find the number of thinkers, a number
of philosopher particularly from the French,
ah ah post structuralist, ah ah opposing the
structuralist practices by their, but with
the with the kind of a new ideology; is the
the new frameworks that they begin to fold
on.
And, in this context particularly, for this
lecture; we shall be focusing on Derridas
of grammatology published in 1967.
There are also a number of other philosophers
and thinkers who began to challenge the structuralist
modes of thinking, ah such as Michel Foucault,
Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze, ah Frederic Jameson
from a Marxist point of view Julia Kristeva,
ah Zizek and Jean ah Baudrillard.
And, these are also interestingly some of
the writer's ah whom we shall be taking a
look at in the context of discussions related
to post modulus.
Here, we are again being alerted to the fact
that, a post structuralism has close contiguities
with post modernism.
So, it becomes as we have noted multiple times
in the introductory sessions, it becomes rather
impossible to understand or locate post modernism
without a clear understanding of post structuralism.
And, our simultaneously it becomes difficult
to understand post structuralism without engaging
with structuralism in order to see how post
structuralism departs, how post structuralism
moves away from the dominant tenets of structuralism.
In this context, what becomes more relevant
for today's discussion is a deconstructive
turn that Barthes and Derrida began to propose
from the 1960's onwards.
And, here we also realized that, and this
was also evident in our discussions ah ah
related to ah Barthes that is of the order;
let Barth and Derrida are among ah the earliest
ah ah thinkers who began to make the first
moles in rebelling against the structuralist
reading of text.
Are, here its again important to recall Barthes
we have textuality where he argues for an
openness and aimlessness of meaning making
and narrative process .
And, here we begin to see how the departure
from the structuralist mode, and also the
connection the interconnection between different
ah theories in different texts, and become
important in understanding post structuralism
and thereby post modernism.
And, it is in a similar mode that we begin
to understand and ah and unpack the idea of
deconstruction .
Deconstruction in a broad sense could be considered
as an offshoot of post structuralism, and
many critics have also felt that; since the
Derrida is the person who is associated with
the term and the movement deconstruction;
it is also about Derridas what against the
entire western tradition of rationalist thought.
And, that is a very significant at a point
in statement to make, because Derriida was
outraged by the totalitarian arrogance implicit
in the claims of reason .
So, again it became to begin to note that
Derridas problems, Derridas quarrels seems
to be with the ideas of ah rationality, and
with the ideas of reason.
And, this sort of an eccentric outburst, ah,
if we may collapse of against the ideas of
reason against the foregrounding of rationality
was not entirely out of place, because Derrida
was living during a time when the world itself,
the when the world had begun to witness a
number of atrocities in the name of rational,
in the name of ah rationality and in the name
of reason.
Particularly, if you recall the various events
that followed the second world war; if we
think about the aftermath of the second world
war, the atomic bomb and the effects that
it had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about the
events related to holocaust, about the various
kinds of atrocities privileged in different
parts of the world, in the name of scientific
rationalism, in the name of ah different ah
forms, of attempts to make reason of the modern
nation as states, it could all be traced back
to the various progressive ideas projected
by the enlightenment ideas of reason and rationality
. So, Derrida could not be isolated in blaming,
reason and rationality for a being the fundamental
reasons, the fundamental promises in perpetuating
this kind of violence in this kind of ah totalitarian
arrogance.
Here, we find Derrida going against the entire
western traditional rationalist thought, by
arguing doing against the essentialist notion
of a certainty of meaning and.
So, we can also find our number of intertextual
ah references as in when we discuss, this
is all this is also something that barked
began to foreground in his, that with the
author and what a Foucault later.
Our problem crisis in our number of us works
including in in waters an author and, ah what
Derridas deconstruction does, in in the fundamental
sense is to critique the relationship between
text and meaning.
With, and how he goes about this, and how
this begins to affect the meaning making process
in the post structuralist po postmodern world
is something that we shall be taking a look
at shortly .
There is nothing outside the text; is the
post structuralist dictum associated with
deconstruction.
And here, when Derrida tells us that there
is nothing outside the text, he uses the term
text in a semiological sense of extended discourses.
Here, he talks about all practices of interpretation
including a language, and language here is
not seen as the only form of interpretation
there could be other forms which is what deconstruction
would eventually lead us to.
And, one of the popular ways of understanding
the construction is to see there is a series
of readings of text with an ear to what runs
counter to the structural unity, or intended
sense of a particular text.
So, in some sense, the deconstructive turn
which argues that there is nothing outside
the text also shares the same belief with
the structuralist ah ah modes of thinking,
that there is a structural unity or an intended
sense for a particular text, but we need to
make ah an alternative reading or a better
sense of the text by paying attention to what
runs counter to these ah unities or these
intended center, the, these intended ah meanings.
In other words, what deconstruction ah, I
would eventually propose to do is to is to
ah encourage a kind of reading which would
also peel away like an onion; the layers of
constructed meaning.
So, away from the structuralist modes, deconstruction
also believes that there is no single meaning.
In the contrary, there are layers of constructed
meanings which could be peeled away one after
the other, and this also, this also argued
foreground solution that meaning making process
is not an end by itself; it also for grounds
the notion again shared by barthe that there
is no single meaning making process, but but
on the contrary, the process of meaning making
process itself becomes another kind of a meaning.
And, here, we are also moving away from the
single idea of truth, the single idea of author
intended meaning and also again giving the
text or a context, or any kind of a ah ah
cultural literary product into the hands of
the reader for him or her to make his or her
own particular interpretations based on his
or her experiences and all different sorts
of frameworks that they chose to employ .
Let us take a closer look at the man behind
this movement Jacques Derrida, who lived from
1930 till 2004.
He could be considered as one of the most
elusive the controversial and influential
our figures; it like a tree had intellectual
figures of the 20th century.
He was also an academic celebrity.
His a work, though it was primarily at the
level of language and discourse, we also find
that it had ah, it eventually had ah very
significant influence on a number of discipline
centers philosophy, literature, under law
and our political theory and social theory.
His ah writing has been described as playful,
elliptical and sometimes obscure.
And they also, his writings also does also
ah displayed a very high degree of self-practical,
self-reflexivity which is a very, which is
a rare, ah feature to be a seen in contemporary
writings.
As I want the critics would put it, the way
he makes this argument is they are given itself;
that was the self referentiality, that was
a self-reflexivity with which he wrote has
our works . Derrida was obsessed with the
functioning of language.
In that since he was also immensely influenced
by the linguistic ah turn, in the structuralist
mode of thinking he was immensely influenced
by the various theories put forward by ah
ah Saussurean.
So, whenever begin to locate a Derridas work
from a linguistic turn, we also begin to notice
a Derridas earlier work was built upon the
Saussurean notions of language and signification
.
So, what do we understand by the Saussurean
notions of language and signification?
So, show believed that language was a system,
in which various components existed in relation
to each other . So, in order to identify the
structures inherent in language; it was also
important to make sense of this relation between
each other.
He also spoke a about the link between the
signifier and the signified, the signifier
being the word and the signified being the
concept, a mental concept that we have about
the sign; and this relation, this link between
the signifier and signified.
So, should argue that it is a purely arbitrary.
It begins to participate in the meaning making
process by conventional repeated use.
And, this is something that we notice with
every language, every feature of language,
and the way in which the sign the signifier
and the signified are connected to each other
.
So, here ah if we take the apple as an example,
the apple is the sign; the object the object
of the thing.
And the signifier is the the physical existence
of this object in terms of the sound, the
word or an image associated with this are
thing on this object the apple.
Ah, red, leaf, ground, apple could be various,
could be the various signifiers associated
with this object.
The signified or the contrary is that mental
concept, their mental ah image that we have
about this particular object.
It could be a fruit, it could be ah related
to the idea of temptation, it could be even
the ah brand of computer.
There are multiple ways in which the signifier
and the signified operates in relation to
one another in order to signify the sign,
the object all are thing .
This was a fundamental promise that ah Saussure
had a put forward.
This also had ah led to the emergence of a
linguistic turn in the during the structuralist
phase.
So, what does that imply?
How do we make sense of this linguistic a
turn, the the relation between the signified
and the signifier to talk about the other
structures, which are involved in in the other
disciplines in other genres, in and also in
other contexts and text . Firstly, this begins
to imply that, there is no content without
form; content is a function of form, and ah
that that is how we begin to also extend the
relation between the signified and signifier
to other contexts and secondly, since content
is the function of form, it becomes possible
to uncover the basic principles of organization
or the grammar of a text .
It could be a novel or film or a poem.
And, since there is a belief that all texts
are based on a particular organizing principles
on particular grammar, and this grammar also
follows ah, this grammar also follows specific
rules that function like language.
And, here there is a parallel being drawn
to the structures within language, and the
structures which are inherited and all other
texts and contexts.
What do we mean when we say that we all follow
specific rules that function like language?
Because language ah functions based on opposition,
difference and relationality, or this could
again be related with the the notion the idea
of the signifier and the signified, together
helping us to make sense of the site.
But this lead to the final proposition that
culture itself has an underlying organization
or structure where different elements are
combined to generate meaning . So, structuralism;
when we extended to other disciplines in other
contexts also involves the understanding of
the structures which are involved in making
a particular culture or in making ah, or in
ah, ah generating particular discourses and
cultural contexts or particular ah or, or
particular kinds of disciplinary contexts
.
And these premises are very important in order
to employ a structuralist mood of thinking
in order to employ any form of critical practice
based on structuralism.
And this as we ah pointed out right at the
outset of this lecture that, this was also
one of the ways in which the structuralist
ah tried to make sense of the culture that
it was important that, that they also argue
that it is possible to unravel the hidden
meanings of our culture, of a particular practice
by engaging with the ah, the the relation
between different structures, different organizing
principles because they all had in the first
place combined together to generate meaning.
We find Derrida initially agreeing with these
propositions, but what makes him different?
What makes, what enables him to take a deconstructive
turn from a linguistic turn is the fact that
he took them to radical extremes; and how
did he do that?
He shared this assuring belief that, if the
relation between signifier and signified is
arbitrary all language is relational.
But here comes a twist of the turn the Derrida
employs.
If this is the case, if this relation is arbitrary,
and if all language is relational; then the
process of reading is a movement from one
signifier to another.
As we have already noted, this object or this
image imply signifier suggests red, leaf,
round and apple.
So, when we talk about the apple, and when
we begin to describe it in shape a in, in
terms of its color; we begin to use another
signifier which is red, and this has yet another
signified.
And when we talk about the shape of the apple,
we talk about now the signified which is round;
which the meaning of which, this could be
located in yet another signified.
In this sense what Derrida begins to tell
us is that the process of reading therefore,
is a movement from one signifier to, because
in order to define in order to describe a
signified; we would be using a number of signifiers.
And in then in this process we can never come
to the end of signification and discover the
meaning, which is embedded within structures
or within languages because this is an impossible
task because, when we get to the end; we are
faced not with the signified, but with yet
another signifier .
And this, in this search for meaning; this
process of reading, which Derrida says is
a movement from one signifier to the to another;
eventually lead us to a single signified after
which we can rest the case.
On the contrary, it leads us because there
is a need to talk, need to bring up yet another
signifier because this is a rather endless
process.
And, this example would show us, we need various
signifiers to talk about the signified.
And, again, in making the sense of the signifier;
we may have to use yet another signifier.
The significance of the construction, the
significance of a deconstructed turn in this
reading process needs to be situated within
this complexity; within this problematization
of the reading process of a movement from
one signifier to another, because there is
an impossibility to locate the end of signification
and discover the true meaning .
And here, in this process, we also begin to
notice that every signifier refers to other
words or signifiers in an endless postponement.
The term, the Derrida uses is deference of
meaning.
So, just ah, just when we move from one signifier
to another signifier; from one word to another
word, there is also a postponement of meaning
that takes place.
So, in that sense to code Derrid, we never
arrive we only travel along the path of meaning
making for example, when we begin to describe
a cat, we can use a number of the signifiers
number of these words such as animal, organism
whiskers, tail.
And, we only realize that there is no end
to this process, there is no final signified
that we can look at, but we only have a more
signifiers along with this chain of signification;
and this chain is an endless chain . So, there
is no final signified because even that final
signified will consist of more signifiers,
ok.
This is how we make sense of language, this
is how we make sense of the meaning making
process itself.
And further building on Saussures assumption,
the meaning is the result of difference; because
according to Saussure, when we talk about
um cat, how do we understand the meaning attributed
to cat because it is also different from the
other sets of words such as bat, hat or fat
. And, building on this assumption that meaning
is a result of difference .
The difference of one word from the other,
Derrida take this a bit further and argues
that every signifier is made up of an absence.
Here, a Derrida begins to engage with the
absence, and be he begins to problematize
arguing that every word carries within it;
words that we are aware of as being different,
and every signifier accordingly is a series
of differences from other significant other
signifiers; the absences constitute the meaning.
It is not the presence of these ah, it is
not the presence of the term, ah cat presence
of the word cat, but the absence of all the
other words that begin to constitute the meaning
of the word cat .
And these absences, according to Derrida are
very crucial to locate the meaning.
Because the meaning of cat, if we continue
to use that as an example it is a result of
absence rather than the mere presence of different.
So, here we find an interesting claim between
the words absence and difference.
And the meaning Derrida begins to argue and
take us along those lines arguing that, meaning
depends as much on the absence of words as
on the presence of cat.
It is in this interplay of ah ah between the
concepts of absence and difference that we
needs to ah, ah we begin to understand the
meaning of deconstruction, and the method
of the deconstructive process.
To be able to theorized this effectively,
we can say that Derrida makes the twin moves
of one; meaning as based on difference and
absent a presences.
And secondly, meaning as being perpetually
defer.
So, the terms difference, absent, presence
and deference become extremely important.
And, when we talk about ah the absent our
presence ah it is it is it is important to
ah also understand what is the intense .
It shows something that is not here, but make
this alert to the fact that something is not
here.
So, the absent presence and an engagement
with it becomes very important to understand
the deconstructive practices foreground, foregrounded
by Derrida.
Here, Derrida also does something very playful
and interesting.
He coins an entirely new word pronounced difference,
but with an a.
This a French term which he coined, in order
to make sense of the these twin moves that
he means, makes of difference, and of deference;
because in order to make sense of meaning,
in order to engage with the process of writing
it is important to locate language, it it
is important to locate the meaning making
process, as based on difference and also on
deference.
And, for this he coins this new term ah difference
with an a and argues that all writing is difference;
and it is a writing of this difference that
he begins to define, he begins to articulate,
he begins to our theorize and problematize
in, this in, this work on ah, in his work
on of grammatology.
And grammatology is also ah ah term that he
uses to talk about a study of this difference
.
In Derridas sequential work of grammatology
published in 1967 and later translated by
ah, translated into English by ah Gayathri
Chakravarthis play back in 1976.
Ah, it its considered as the greatest contribution
ah by Derrida.
Derrida discusses the aspects of deconstruction
and off difference with an a, and of grammatology.
And, he also continues this discussion, he
also talks about these aspects these notions
in a number of his other works.
And, to quote one of the modern theorist,
Derridas chief contribution has been to show;
how language is fundamentally slippery based
on self contradictory, unfinalizable conditions
of difference and deference .
His arguments have focused on the need to
pay closer attention to the way in which meaning
is a produce temporarily, than with any finality
through contradictions and ambivalence, and
have consistently reveled against any authoritative
or authoritarian meaning.
When we talk about the postmodernist reading
practices, when we talk about the difficulty
of meaning making process in the postmodern
reading.
It also needs to be understood within the
context of this rebellion against any authoritative
process of meaning a making.
And, here again, we begin to see that Derrida's
notions of deconstruction, Derrida's ah engagement
with the unfinalizable conditions of difference
and deference .
Student: .
Also becomes a postmodern premised, which
is also yet another defines against all kinds
of finality, all kinds of attempts to make
ah, to to identify and foreground a single
authoritative meaning; ah significantly a
strain of these are the Slovenian; we have
located in in all the text that we have discussed.
So, far because this rebellion; against a
single unified meaning is that the heart of
postmodernist thought .
As we begin to wind up today's lecture, let
us quote from Raman Selden.
As Derrida typically writes, the task of deconstruction
was to discover the other in philosophy.
The result is a questioning, now common practice
in radical sections of humanities of notions
of identity, origin, intention and the production
of meaning .
In today's ah lecture, we have article in
look at the intellectual context which produced
the significance of ah deconstruction as a
method; and how the deconstructive takes off
or moves away as a departure from the Saussurean
ah linguistic turn.
We have also seen how post structuralism as
a mode of engagement ah with meaning, becomes
ah continuous with the postmodern thoughts
with the postmodern engagement with meaning.
In the following ah lecture, lecture we shall
be taking a look at how deconstruction as
a method operates; how deconstruction seeks
to discover the other, and how it helps the
it, it enables the questioning of the notions
of identity origin intention and the production
of a meaning in the postmodern text and context.
That is all we have for today.
Thank you for listening.
I look forward to seeing in the next session
.
