Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read, though I don't think I understood it all. In a graduate seminar I took, someone gave an hour-long explanation of deconstruction, but he didn't do a very good job, hence I am still a little confused about it.
One thing that really stood out to me was the problematic nature of the word "deconstruction" itself. We have this same issue in folkloristics: not everybody is pleased with the term "folklore," because it is surrounded by a great number of assumed contexts. These implicit assumptions about the nature of folklore influence both public opinion of folklore and what folklorists think they ought to be studying (for example, should we limit ourselves to "traditional" genres or explore emergent forms like internet folklore?).
Anyway, I found this thought-provoking and enjoyable. :)
So... Derrida just tries to show these contradictions, not resolve them. Interesting. I just read an essay by French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, in which he put forth the idea that people use myths (and folktales, and other narratives) to mediate or resolve supposedly irreconciliable oppositions. There may be something to that, as folk narratives contain many dichotomies, but maybe the narratives are working towards an impossible ideal?
Comments 8
One thing that really stood out to me was the problematic nature of the word "deconstruction" itself. We have this same issue in folkloristics: not everybody is pleased with the term "folklore," because it is surrounded by a great number of assumed contexts. These implicit assumptions about the nature of folklore influence both public opinion of folklore and what folklorists think they ought to be studying (for example, should we limit ourselves to "traditional" genres or explore emergent forms like internet folklore?).
Anyway, I found this thought-provoking and enjoyable. :)
Reply
Reply
So Hegelian aufhebung leads to a
higher term.
For Derrida this is not so.
there is no 'higher' term.
there is no basic contradiction
either.
the basic assumption can often
be shown to be a necessary assumption
for the opposite.
that is what got lost in my first
reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment