4 ms·

Your comment sounds rational to me, but it misses the point of deconstruction to those who believe in it. The fundamental idea of poststructuralist (here it's c

Your comment sounds rational to me, but it misses the point of deconstruction to those who believe in it. The fundamental idea of poststructuralist (here it's called postmodernist) faith is that pretty much all statements are "power-structured" because language defines power thus there should be an effect where the only context which counts is power structure. And it means there's no objective truth, or at least it doesn't have any importance. Statements (and language generally), they believe, create narratives which are presumably either oppressive, or liberating. So there's no honesty in classical meaning when one does deconstruction. Deconstructor must find an oppression, because it is the whole idea, and presumed reason for deconstruction. It's meant to be a revolutionary act which approves itself by destroying old world, and building new one through language modification.

afiori 7y ago
> but it misses the point of deconstruction to those who believe in it. The fundamental idea of poststructuralist (here it's called postmodernist) faith is that pretty much all statements are "power-structured" because language defines power thus there should be an effect where the only context which counts is power structure. And it means there's no objective truth, or at least it doesn't have any importance. Ok, I was trying to stay polite, but I believe this stance is bullshit. No less than saying that sex is the only human motivator. I believe that this kind of deconstruction has a role to play in society, as power and power structure exist and are often (partially ) corrupted. But claiming that this is some kind of universal explanation for societal structure is reprehensible. My comment was trying to find a core of usefulness latent in this.
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  I actually think this theory is not somewhat wrong, but 100% wrong. While human societies are always hierarchical (it's true even for self-proclaimed egalitarist communities), it's not because of language, and won't change because of ideological wordplay.
  - afiori 7y ago
    A softer version of it can be seen as saying that language can be just another tool in the hand of those with power. Something that we know to be factually true since at least last century huge use of propaganda. When then people start claiming that the only reason for hierarchies is power itself it start to degenerate quickly.

afiori 7y ago

> but it misses the point of deconstruction to those who believe in it. The fundamental idea of poststructuralist (here it's called postmodernist) faith is that pretty much all statements are "power-structured" because language defines power thus there should be an effect where the only context which counts is power structure. And it means there's no objective truth, or at least it doesn't have any importance. Ok, I was trying to stay polite, but I believe this stance is bullshit. No less than saying that sex is the only human motivator. I believe that this kind of deconstruction has a role to play in society, as power and power structure exist and are often (partially ) corrupted. But claiming that this is some kind of universal explanation for societal structure is reprehensible. My comment was trying to find a core of usefulness latent in this.

brokenkebab 7y ago
I actually think this theory is not somewhat wrong, but 100% wrong. While human societies are always hierarchical (it's true even for self-proclaimed egalitarist communities), it's not because of language, and won't change because of ideological wordplay.
- afiori 7y ago
  A softer version of it can be seen as saying that language can be just another tool in the hand of those with power. Something that we know to be factually true since at least last century huge use of propaganda. When then people start claiming that the only reason for hierarchies is power itself it start to degenerate quickly.