5 ms·

Using deconstruction as a method is stupid, and misses the point entirely. At the same time, this article makes me simultaneously mad and sad, though I am sure

by rmk2 13y ago

Using deconstruction as a method is stupid, and misses the point entirely. At the same time, this article makes me simultaneously mad and sad, though I am sure it will serve to reinforce preexisting biases just fine, especially here. Using deconstruction as a method, independent and decoupled of its own genesis, does not make sense and will yield little of use. The whole point of deconstruction is to oppose another strand of Western philosophy that, depending on country, has reigned for centuries: idealism. Now, I realise it's cool to "show" how much superior and empirical engineering is, but idealism is a root of many causes. It has fundamentally shaped our ideas of the University, of statehood, nation, authorship, race and the sciences. Many of the subsequent movements, starting with Marxism, followed by Nietzsche, the New Left, and deconstruction (which, really, is called poststructuralism) are an undertaking to undo some of the damage idealist reign has caused during its reign. Deconstruction aims to undermine the very hierarchies idealist thought has errected: the nation as the culture of a given, demarkated and distinct people, university as a structure of educating state servants, authorship as the translation of Geist into matter, science as the study of matter, leading to the ultimate victory of ratio and empiricism. If people talk about advanced programming techniques without knowing anything about underlying compiler design, algorithms etc, they are ridiculed and set in their place. If people talk about history of thought without having any idea what they are talking about, they are applauded while people cheer for their (and their own) ignorance. Why is that? Deconstruction without its history is worthless. That, however, also suggests that for a history of thought, for an understanding of our present, deconstruction is indeed relevant.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SimHacker 13y ago
Maybe Chip's colleague Doug should write a book called: "Deconstruction: The Good Parts".
ajani 13y ago
There is some weight in looking at the article as being about deconstruction, what with the title saying so. However, the most important take away, I think, is the effects of isolation on any field of study: "It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred."
- rmk2 13y ago
  I agree with you on the isolation point, though the original article is far from expressing that clearly. This isolation is perhaps part of the reason why so many literary scholars start to include more and more cultural studies, which is usually regarded as a route of the self-imposed solipsism of literary criticism. Cultural studies, then, allows for a more direct interaction (and questioning) of power structures, institutions, ontology, humanity and categories such as history.
Locke1689 13y ago
Despite minoring in philosophy, I fail to see how one can expect anything but a victory for empiricism. I'm reminded of David Hume's justification for the continued use of induction despite no solid theoretical justification for its correctness: we are creatures of empiricism and it is in our very nature to believe in that which works. For all the criticism, I do not often find people criticizing the effectiveness of empiricism.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  I majored in philosophy, and consider "deconstruction" as a philosophical tool for analyzing empirical philosophy. The problem with anyone who majored in philosophy is that they will switch between big-D and little-D while expecting everyone around them to code switch at the same pace. This is also true for any given smartass who never gave a flying fuck about Derrida.
angersock 13y ago
The academics have suffered the fate reserved for those who do not engage with the outside: had they spent time writing books for the common man, had they spent time exposing idealism (ill-defined here as you've left it) and motivating the need for deconstruction, had they done any of these things they would not be viewed with such ridicule. I will even suppose that something useful and important is being done in those fields--nevertheless, at the end of the day, I can point to my computer or bike and say "Engineering and hard science made this possible", and they can't point to a damned thing anyone cares about.
- slurry 13y ago
  I will even suppose that something useful and important is being done in those fields--nevertheless, at the end of the day, I can point to my computer or bike and say "Engineering and hard science made this possible", and they can't point to a damned thing anyone cares about. Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
- quadrangle 13y ago
  Exactly!! If the goal is to fight against entrenched assumptions from past ideology which has caused injustice etc. then most postmodernism is utter failure. The part that has made some worthy progress is pretty much the same as the part that isn't absorbed entirely in the world of postmodern thought. Here's a simple analogy: I am a teacher. My student is failing to learn something. There may be several factors in play, but the first thing I should do is check if I could do better as a teacher. Postmodern academics have mostly failed to be truly sensitive to how their ideas are coming across to others at all, so they aren't even at the point where they could figure out if they need to revamp their teaching approach.
rspeer 13y ago
If Deconstruction were a meaningful thing, if there were actual ways in which it is relevant that one could point to, then there would be a Wikipedia article that says what it is and explains why it is relevant. Say what you want about Wikipedia's internal processes (if you must), but it does an overwhelmingly good job at saying what things are, including schools of thought and beliefs. Even through the edit wars, it can explain the most controversial tenets of religions, where the stakes are much higher than poststructuralism and stuff. But the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction has been an incoherent disaster for over a decade. It's not even much of an edit war, just a stagnant mess. Everyone agrees that it is bad. Nobody agrees on what to do about it. The disagreement is not between literary theorists and sciencey types. The disagreement is between literary theorists and other literary theorists, whose only unified view is that sciencey types should not be writing the article. Occasionally one of them will wholly rewrite the article, at which point everyone else says, basically, "wtf did you just write", and the list of problems gets longer. My personal conclusion is that, while you criticize people who "talk about history of thought without having any idea what they are talking about", the people who do have an idea what they are talking about on this topic don't exist.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  Here are some facts: 1) If one can construct something, one can deconstruct it. 2) Derrida was a guy who existed. If you have an idea for a single Wikipedia page that can resolve these two impossible contradictions, then you are a person who has an idea. (edit: The grandparent poster's error was in making sweeping generalizations about capital D versus little D without mentioning the difference.) (second edit: the Wikipedia page on Deconstruction is the quintessential case of original research?)
  - rspeer 13y ago
    Wat. I don't know what you're trying to say, but "Derrida was a guy who existed" is not, in reality, an "impossible contradiction". It's just true. Your first statement, on the other hand, sounds either meaningless or false. I think I agree with you, though, that the Wikipedia page on Deconstruction is "the quintessential case of original research".
slurry 13y ago
In semi-fairness(?) to trend-following humanities scholars, deconstruction is a little bit passe by now anyway. (It's telling that the article we're talking about is from 1993). Badiou is the big new star, Deleuze/Guattari is much edgier, and Zizek has a stranglehold on the mass teenybopper market. Deconstruction still retains some following but some people kept Yahoo as their homepage all through the 00's. It's useful as an intellectual exercise to analyze the theoretical merits and shortcomings of deconstruction, but because I'm a basically shallow person I'd like to point out that in terms of hipness and relevance we may as well be analyzing the music of Hall & Oates.

by rmk2 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

SimHacker 13y ago

Maybe Chip's colleague Doug should write a book called: "Deconstruction: The Good Parts".

ajani 13y ago

There is some weight in looking at the article as being about deconstruction, what with the title saying so. However, the most important take away, I think, is the effects of isolation on any field of study: "It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred."

rmk2 13y ago
I agree with you on the isolation point, though the original article is far from expressing that clearly. This isolation is perhaps part of the reason why so many literary scholars start to include more and more cultural studies, which is usually regarded as a route of the self-imposed solipsism of literary criticism. Cultural studies, then, allows for a more direct interaction (and questioning) of power structures, institutions, ontology, humanity and categories such as history.

Locke1689 13y ago

Despite minoring in philosophy, I fail to see how one can expect anything but a victory for empiricism. I'm reminded of David Hume's justification for the continued use of induction despite no solid theoretical justification for its correctness: we are creatures of empiricism and it is in our very nature to believe in that which works. For all the criticism, I do not often find people criticizing the effectiveness of empiricism.

dvanduzer 13y ago
I majored in philosophy, and consider "deconstruction" as a philosophical tool for analyzing empirical philosophy. The problem with anyone who majored in philosophy is that they will switch between big-D and little-D while expecting everyone around them to code switch at the same pace. This is also true for any given smartass who never gave a flying fuck about Derrida.

angersock 13y ago

The academics have suffered the fate reserved for those who do not engage with the outside: had they spent time writing books for the common man, had they spent time exposing idealism (ill-defined here as you've left it) and motivating the need for deconstruction, had they done any of these things they would not be viewed with such ridicule. I will even suppose that something useful and important is being done in those fields--nevertheless, at the end of the day, I can point to my computer or bike and say "Engineering and hard science made this possible", and they can't point to a damned thing anyone cares about.

slurry 13y ago
I will even suppose that something useful and important is being done in those fields--nevertheless, at the end of the day, I can point to my computer or bike and say "Engineering and hard science made this possible", and they can't point to a damned thing anyone cares about. Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons
quadrangle 13y ago
Exactly!! If the goal is to fight against entrenched assumptions from past ideology which has caused injustice etc. then most postmodernism is utter failure. The part that has made some worthy progress is pretty much the same as the part that isn't absorbed entirely in the world of postmodern thought. Here's a simple analogy: I am a teacher. My student is failing to learn something. There may be several factors in play, but the first thing I should do is check if I could do better as a teacher. Postmodern academics have mostly failed to be truly sensitive to how their ideas are coming across to others at all, so they aren't even at the point where they could figure out if they need to revamp their teaching approach.

rspeer 13y ago

If Deconstruction were a meaningful thing, if there were actual ways in which it is relevant that one could point to, then there would be a Wikipedia article that says what it is and explains why it is relevant. Say what you want about Wikipedia's internal processes (if you must), but it does an overwhelmingly good job at saying what things are, including schools of thought and beliefs. Even through the edit wars, it can explain the most controversial tenets of religions, where the stakes are much higher than poststructuralism and stuff. But the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction has been an incoherent disaster for over a decade. It's not even much of an edit war, just a stagnant mess. Everyone agrees that it is bad. Nobody agrees on what to do about it. The disagreement is not between literary theorists and sciencey types. The disagreement is between literary theorists and other literary theorists, whose only unified view is that sciencey types should not be writing the article. Occasionally one of them will wholly rewrite the article, at which point everyone else says, basically, "wtf did you just write", and the list of problems gets longer. My personal conclusion is that, while you criticize people who "talk about history of thought without having any idea what they are talking about", the people who do have an idea what they are talking about on this topic don't exist.

dvanduzer 13y ago
Here are some facts: 1) If one can construct something, one can deconstruct it. 2) Derrida was a guy who existed. If you have an idea for a single Wikipedia page that can resolve these two impossible contradictions, then you are a person who has an idea. (edit: The grandparent poster's error was in making sweeping generalizations about capital D versus little D without mentioning the difference.) (second edit: the Wikipedia page on Deconstruction is the quintessential case of original research?)
- rspeer 13y ago
  Wat. I don't know what you're trying to say, but "Derrida was a guy who existed" is not, in reality, an "impossible contradiction". It's just true. Your first statement, on the other hand, sounds either meaningless or false. I think I agree with you, though, that the Wikipedia page on Deconstruction is "the quintessential case of original research".

slurry 13y ago

In semi-fairness(?) to trend-following humanities scholars, deconstruction is a little bit passe by now anyway. (It's telling that the article we're talking about is from 1993). Badiou is the big new star, Deleuze/Guattari is much edgier, and Zizek has a stranglehold on the mass teenybopper market. Deconstruction still retains some following but some people kept Yahoo as their homepage all through the 00's. It's useful as an intellectual exercise to analyze the theoretical merits and shortcomings of deconstruction, but because I'm a basically shallow person I'd like to point out that in terms of hipness and relevance we may as well be analyzing the music of Hall & Oates.