In general, deconstruction is associated with such notions as post-structuralism and post-modernism, and it relies on the diversity of reading any text in isolation from the cultural, ideological, moral and political views that the reader may derive from the text's author, assuming that meaning stems from the difference between words rather than the common reference to the things they often signify. Different meanings are, thus, discovered by taking apart the common structure of the words on the page and exposing the axiom that they always have a fixed reference point beyond themselves. That is, texts such as “For Men” and “For Women” that we all see in any shopping mall anywhere may not necessarily refer to W.C. for Men/Women; but to anything beyond that, anything which has to do with men/women: men's/women's perfume, clothes, shoes, pants, suits, jackets—as examples—perhaps!
In general, deconstruction is associated with such notions as post-structuralism and post-modernism, and it relies on the diversity of reading any text in isolation from the cultural, ideological, moral and political views that the reader may derive from the text's author, assuming that meaning stems from the difference between words rather than the common reference to the things they often signify. Different meanings are, thus, discovered by taking apart the common structure of the words on the page and exposing the axiom that they always have a fixed reference point beyond themselves. That is, texts such as “For Men” and “For Women” that we all see in any shopping mall anywhere may not necessarily refer to W.C. for Men/Women; but to anything beyond that, anything which has to do with men/women: men's/women's perfume, clothes, shoes, pants, suits, jackets—as examples—perhaps!
Thank you very much Dr Marwan I think the function of words on the page sometimes it is okey but other times does not function as it should be
In general, deconstruction is associated with such notions as post-structuralism and post-modernism, and it relies on the diversity of reading any text in isolation from the cultural, ideological, moral and political views that the reader may derive from the text's author, assuming that meaning stems from the difference between words rather than the common reference to the things they often signify. Different meanings are, thus, discovered by taking apart the common structure of the words on the page and exposing the axiom that they always have a fixed reference point beyond themselves. That is, texts such as “For Men” and “For Women” that we all see in any shopping mall anywhere may not necessarily refer to W.C. for Men/Women; but to anything beyond that, anything which has to do with men/women: men's/women's perfume, clothes, shoes, pants, suits, jackets—as examples—perhaps!
I think the "men/women" example is interesting as a text for this discussion. Certainly the "differance", the limitation on action that the text attempts to impose (who should enter the facility or be interested in buying the clothes) also attempts to divide the world between genders. One enters the store and sees the world divided by that difference in certain places, even in certain food aisles. There are certain yogurts a man might not want to buy because they are clearly for women. In one sense, then, the world is divided between sexual reproductive organs. In the mall, our identity may be more male or female than usual, and in unexpected ways. And yet, we do not go to a mall to sexually reproduce ourselves; but perhaps this is a sexual reproduction of the economy; perhaps this is where ideology necessarily rises to the surface to surprise us with what it tells us we must do. The text reminds us of who/what we are, as if we forgot, and what we want/where we may not go. This is the confusion in that simple text; we want where we may not go. A host of products and locations offer themselves to us but in disparate ways. I am sometimes slightly aroused when passing the women's sexy clothes, but I dare not betray my prurient interest too obviously. But the store full of men's clothes, there I enter and examine with certitude and impunity. The simple text of the mall is homosexual.
Scott,
Nice interpretation! However, I'm not so sure about homosexual, but words sometimes do refer to a host of other words beyond themselves
Thanks for the very informative contribution, dear Cecilia. You're absolutely right! Nice reading.
Taking up from Cecilia´s hypothesized experience, wherein words act as limited and limiting, I remember walking through Venice one day with my wife. We came to a crossroads with a sign saying "Rialto" and bearing arrows in two opposite directions. We did not know which road to take to get to the Rialto. So we chose one of them at random and did in fact arrive at the Rialto. We later found out that both opposing roads led to the Rialto, but oh the initial anguish of feeling lost!
Dear Nelson,
I think that we have a major problem sometimes with the meaning of words and what they refer to, because the meaning is always slippery and it is never fixed!
Dear Hashem,
But your no-comment is a comment in itself that reflects respect for scholarship. Much gratitude, my dear friend!
We would all love it if there were a fixed meaning to the text. If we seriously entertain what Derrida was suggesting, then we must accept the possibility that there is a synchronic and diachronic network around each signifier that not only creates a difficulty (such as when philosophers try to limit the meaning of terms) with reading the text, but also enables what we know as meaning. If we make the system of meaning rigid, such that A = B and only B, discourse comes to an end. So we must either choose the death of philosophy or the death of discourse. Since one cannot exist without the other, I wonder which one we'll choose.
Thank you, Marwan. Of course the way out of the choice is to jettison Derrida and pretend it isn't a problem.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics