Deconstruction.

“An utterance can have Intentionality, just as a belief has Intentionality, but whereas the Intentionality of the belief is intrinsic the Intentionality of the utterance is derived.” –John Searle

Derrida’s deconstruction places a direct focus on the relationship between words and meanings. Deconstruction can be defined in many ways, as many philosophers have defined and even re-defined the term (how ironic since the concept itself calls for such process with other text), though it is widely agreed that the concept of deconstruction is to “take apart, to undo, in order to seek out and display the assumptions of a text” (Barker, 87).

With his use of deconstruction, Derrida has welcomed the challenge to take on the status quo. However, with leaving everything open to interpretation and reevaluation, “meaning has the potential to proliferate into infinity” (Barker, 90). Additionally “one of the central problems faced by the process of deconstruction is that it must use the very conceptual language it seeks to undo” (Barker, 36). The problem becomes that when interpreting text over and over again, the meanings change. This can bring about suggestive implications which then undermine social, economic, and political institutions. Though, with our postmodern state this is already an ongoing situation. Derrida’s notion calls into question the fundamental aspects of society, even questioning the ways in which we act and the explanations we provide of how we understand and have come to understand ourselves.

Essentially, “deconstruction seeks to expose the tension between what a text means to say and what it is constrained to mean” (Barker, 36). By way of deconstructing, every text has meaning beyond the word itself. Furthermore, the words around, or supplemented, add to or can substitute meanings. For instance, a dog is a dog because it is not a cat. However, “the meaning of  dog is unstable” (Barker, 86). Derrida suggests, “one of the definition of what is called deconstruction would be the effort to take this limitless context into account, to pay the sharpest and broadest attention possible to context, and thus to an incessant movement of recontextualization.”

Deconstruction adheres to the notion of deconstructing the language of philosophy. With such, comes a change in meaning, resulting in disproportionate and even biased explanations of previously held universals. In other words, deconstruction strips away universals, leaving behind an array of suggestions and possibility. Derrida seems to be pushing to call into question fundamental norms and dominating discourses held by societal guidelines. Derrida was correct when he suggested that language is subjective, but isn’t that the point … how can it not be?

Derrida brings forth new ideas and ways of looking at text, however his proposed notion of deconstruction is seemingly arbitrary: meanings can be manipulated. On the other hand, by taking historical context into effect, a more fixed meaning can be presented. Context seems to be the critical aspect. Derrida has stated that “there is nothing outside the text,” meaning that everything is context. Critics of Derrida have used this statement by the philosopher to place a stigma upon his concept of deconstruction. Language is an extension of intent, purpose, or meaning; therefore context is of utmost importance.

Here is an example reiterating the importance of context, though in a humorous and trivial way, using a very common profane word: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=588ngaryDJo)

Round and round in a circle to find meaning, and then deconstruct meaning, create a new one, and even reevaluate that.  It sounds slightly chaotic and somewhat redundant. To look at something in a different or more meaningful way is not necessarily deconstructing it, but opening up one’s mind and reflecting upon point of view. To deconstruct text is still arbitrary, as John Searle, Derrida’s critic, points out, “It [writing] has enormous meta-cognitive implications. The power is this: That you cannot only think in ways that you could not possibly think if you did not have the written word, but you can now think about the thinking that you do with the written word. There is danger in this, and the danger is that the enormous expressive and self-referential capacities of the written word, that is, the capacities to keep referring to referring to referring, will reach a point where you lose contact with the real world. And this, believe me, is very common in universities. There's a technical name for it, it's called "bullshit." But this is very common in academic life, where people just get a form of self-referentiality of the language, where the language is talking about the language, which is talking about the language, and in the end, it's hot air. That's another name for the same phenomenon.”

Derrida said it best himself, “needless to say, one more time, deconstruction, if there is such a thing, takes place as the experience of the impossible.”

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3^rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd. 2008. 

John Searle Quotes. Brainy Quote, 2011. 4 August 2011. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_searle.html>

Stephens, Mitchell. Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction. The New York Times Magazine, 1994. 4 August 2011. <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Jacques%20Derrida%20-%20NYT%20-%20page.htm>

Using Proper English. YouTube. 3 August 2009. 4 August 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=588ngaryDJo>