5 ms·

Here is my take on deconstruction, based on an MA in anthropology from a good university and some further interest and reading: First of all, Deconstruction sh

Here is my take on deconstruction, based on an MA in anthropology from a good university and some further interest and reading: First of all, Deconstruction should be credited to Heidegger, not the French. The French of the 50s and 60s read Heidegger, stole and (further) obfuscated some good ideas, then wrote books without citing him for political reasons (he was member of the Nazi party throughout the war, in good standing at the beginning and bad standing at the end, but he never rebelled or retracted publicly -- complicated person...) Then the students and readers of these French guys think the (derivative) French guys invented the idea. There are two ideas of deconstruction I find useful. The first is basically Nietzsche, and I paraphrase it thus: Every metaphysics hides an implicit morality of the universe, and every morality hides an implicit and very down-to-earth will to power, and this will to power is a good thing and the drive of Life itself manifesting in human ideas. N's big example is Judeo-Christianity, and how by inventing a selfless morality a bunch of folks took over Western Civilization in very concrete ways. So when the Libertarians have an "objective" system that shows that markets are best in an objective way, or the counselors/ psyches have an "objective" system that shows that depth psychology is best, they are all just protecting their jobs. I extend this to our modern science loving era as: any supposedly scientific system that explains things but can't be rigorously tested just becomes wishful thinking to support the vested interests of a social group. This is basically all the social sciences, from econ to psych to anthro, and in all cases I think you can point directly to the group whose jobs or power the supposed "science" supports. (Owners in the first case, counselors who want more billable hours, locals fighting off outsider meddling, etc). And, yes I know about multivariate regression and survey data, and all I can say is what a joke. Now that I have rambled too long, idea 2: I think one of the best things about Heidegger (who is fucking brilliant if you can get through his ridiculous prose) is that he asks us to question not whether something is an X or a Y, but rather to get "meta" and start examining what makes it possible for us to go through life assigning things too ontological categories (X or Y) in the first place. Because the mechanism of ontology -- that everything has a "being", that it "is" something -- is not a given, even though it comes so naturally linguistically. Anyway, I should get on with my life now....

gruseom 13y ago
That's interesting, but you lost me on the connection to Heidegger and I would like to hear more specifically about what he took from Nietzsche.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  I didn't get anything like this out of Heidegger that I didn't get out of Wittgenstein, but that's probably too inside baseball. (seriously) Can you rephrase your question after skimming this wikipedia article[0]? edit: I find it almost impossible to have longer conversations about this topic without knowing a little bit more about the order in which the reader first encountered each writer. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
  - forkandwait 13y ago
    > I didn't get anything like this out of Heidegger that I didn't get out of Wittgenstein, I think that is an important point, actually. Both f'ing brilliant.
jseliger 13y ago
Good comment. Here is my take on deconstruction, based on an MA in anthropology from a good university and some further interest and reading Here is my take, which is a "meta" idea about institutions rather than a direct comment on the merits of deconstruction; I'm writing this when I should be writing my dissertation in English Lit, but so it goes: Since at least the 18th Century, writers of various sorts have been systematically (key word) asking fundamental questions about what words mean and how they mean them. Dr. Johnson is a good place to start with this. We eventually start calling such people "critics." In the 19th C this habit gets a big boost from the Romantics and then from people like Matthew Arnold. Many of the debates about what things mean and why have inherent tensions, like: "Should you consider the author's time period or point history" or "Can art be inherently aesthetic or must it be political?" One can formulate others. Different answers predominate in different periods. In the 20th C, critics start getting caught up in academia; the idea of the research university gets started in Germany, then spread to the U.S. through Johns Hopkins in the 19th C. Professors of English start getting appointed. In research universities, professors need to produce "original research" to qualify for hiring, tenure, and promotion. So English professors move from being primarily philological in nature towards being critics. The first people to really ratchet up the research on original works game are the New Critics, starting in the 1930s. They predominate until the 1950s, when Structuralists seize the high ground. In the 1970s, Deconstructionists (otherwise known as Post-structuralists) show up. In each case, newly-minted professors need to get PhDs, hired by departments (often though not always English), and get tenure by producing original research. One way to produce original research is to denounce the methods and ideas of your predecessors as horse shit and then set up a new set of methods and ideas, which can also be called "assumptions." But a funny thing happened to the critical-industrial complex in universities starting around 1975: the baby boomers finished college. The number of students plummeted. Colleges had all these tenured professors who can't be gotten rid of. So they stopped hiring (see Menand in particular). And they never really did so en masse again. At the same time, in the 1980s and 1990s court decisions struck down mandatory retirement (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/silver_lining/2011/04/please_take_the_gold_watch_please.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/silver_lining/2011/04/ple...). Instead of getting a gold watch (or whatever academics gave), professors could continue being full profs well into their 70s or even 80s. Life expectancies lengthened too. Consequently, the personnel churn that used to produce dominant new ideologies in academia. The relatively few new faculty slots went to people who believed in Deconstructionist ideals. Deconstructionism itself has some interesting ideas, like this one: "he asks us to question not whether something is an X or a Y, but rather to get 'meta' and start examining what makes it possible for us to go through life assigning things too ontological categories (X or Y) in the first place" and others, like those pointing out that a work of art can mean two opposing things simultaneously. The problem, however, is that its sillier adherents—who are all over universities—take a misreading of Saussure Deconstruction to mean that nothing means anything, except that everything means that men, white people, and Western imperialists oppress women and everyone else, and also capitalism is evil as long as we're at it. History also means nothing because nothing means anything, or everything means nothing, or nothing means everything. There was some blowback against this (Paglia, Falck, Windschuttle), but the sillier parts of Deconstructionist / Post-structuralist nonsense basically won, and the institutional forces within academia mean that that victory has been depressingly permanent. The people who would normally produce intellectual churn have mostly been shut out of the job market, or have moved to the healthier world of ideas online or in journalism (http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Economy-of-Letters/141291 http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Economy-of-Letters/1412...), or have been marginalized as much as possible (Paglia). The smart ones also go for MFAs, where the goal is to produce art that someone else might actually want to read. Few important thinkers have emerged from the humanities in the last 25 or so years. Many have in the sciences (http://edge.org/ http://edge.org/). Works not cited but from which this reply draws: Menand, Louis. The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Paglia, Camille. “Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf.” Arion Third Series 1.2 (1991/04/01): 139-212. Paglia, Camille. Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays. 1 ed. New York: Vintage, 1992. Falck, Colin. Myth, Truth and Literature: Towards a True Post-modernism. 2 ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Windschuttle, Keith. The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past. 1st Free Press Ed., 1997 ed. New York: Free Press, 1997. Star, Alexander. Quick Studies: The Best of Lingua Franca. 1st ed. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. Cusset, Francois. French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States. Trans. Jeff Fort. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 2008.

gruseom 13y ago

That's interesting, but you lost me on the connection to Heidegger and I would like to hear more specifically about what he took from Nietzsche.

dvanduzer 13y ago
I didn't get anything like this out of Heidegger that I didn't get out of Wittgenstein, but that's probably too inside baseball. (seriously) Can you rephrase your question after skimming this wikipedia article[0]? edit: I find it almost impossible to have longer conversations about this topic without knowing a little bit more about the order in which the reader first encountered each writer. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
- forkandwait 13y ago
  > I didn't get anything like this out of Heidegger that I didn't get out of Wittgenstein, I think that is an important point, actually. Both f'ing brilliant.

jseliger 13y ago

Good comment. Here is my take on deconstruction, based on an MA in anthropology from a good university and some further interest and reading Here is my take, which is a "meta" idea about institutions rather than a direct comment on the merits of deconstruction; I'm writing this when I should be writing my dissertation in English Lit, but so it goes: Since at least the 18th Century, writers of various sorts have been systematically (key word) asking fundamental questions about what words mean and how they mean them. Dr. Johnson is a good place to start with this. We eventually start calling such people "critics." In the 19th C this habit gets a big boost from the Romantics and then from people like Matthew Arnold. Many of the debates about what things mean and why have inherent tensions, like: "Should you consider the author's time period or point history" or "Can art be inherently aesthetic or must it be political?" One can formulate others. Different answers predominate in different periods. In the 20th C, critics start getting caught up in academia; the idea of the research university gets started in Germany, then spread to the U.S. through Johns Hopkins in the 19th C. Professors of English start getting appointed. In research universities, professors need to produce "original research" to qualify for hiring, tenure, and promotion. So English professors move from being primarily philological in nature towards being critics. The first people to really ratchet up the research on original works game are the New Critics, starting in the 1930s. They predominate until the 1950s, when Structuralists seize the high ground. In the 1970s, Deconstructionists (otherwise known as Post-structuralists) show up. In each case, newly-minted professors need to get PhDs, hired by departments (often though not always English), and get tenure by producing original research. One way to produce original research is to denounce the methods and ideas of your predecessors as horse shit and then set up a new set of methods and ideas, which can also be called "assumptions." But a funny thing happened to the critical-industrial complex in universities starting around 1975: the baby boomers finished college. The number of students plummeted. Colleges had all these tenured professors who can't be gotten rid of. So they stopped hiring (see Menand in particular). And they never really did so en masse again. At the same time, in the 1980s and 1990s court decisions struck down mandatory retirement (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/silver_lining/2011/04/please_take_the_gold_watch_please.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/silver_lining/2011/04/ple...). Instead of getting a gold watch (or whatever academics gave), professors could continue being full profs well into their 70s or even 80s. Life expectancies lengthened too. Consequently, the personnel churn that used to produce dominant new ideologies in academia. The relatively few new faculty slots went to people who believed in Deconstructionist ideals. Deconstructionism itself has some interesting ideas, like this one: "he asks us to question not whether something is an X or a Y, but rather to get 'meta' and start examining what makes it possible for us to go through life assigning things too ontological categories (X or Y) in the first place" and others, like those pointing out that a work of art can mean two opposing things simultaneously. The problem, however, is that its sillier adherents—who are all over universities—take a misreading of Saussure Deconstruction to mean that nothing means anything, except that everything means that men, white people, and Western imperialists oppress women and everyone else, and also capitalism is evil as long as we're at it. History also means nothing because nothing means anything, or everything means nothing, or nothing means everything. There was some blowback against this (Paglia, Falck, Windschuttle), but the sillier parts of Deconstructionist / Post-structuralist nonsense basically won, and the institutional forces within academia mean that that victory has been depressingly permanent. The people who would normally produce intellectual churn have mostly been shut out of the job market, or have moved to the healthier world of ideas online or in journalism (http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Economy-of-Letters/141291 http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Economy-of-Letters/1412...), or have been marginalized as much as possible (Paglia). The smart ones also go for MFAs, where the goal is to produce art that someone else might actually want to read. Few important thinkers have emerged from the humanities in the last 25 or so years. Many have in the sciences (http://edge.org/ http://edge.org/). Works not cited but from which this reply draws: Menand, Louis. The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Paglia, Camille. “Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf.” Arion Third Series 1.2 (1991/04/01): 139-212. Paglia, Camille. Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays. 1 ed. New York: Vintage, 1992. Falck, Colin. Myth, Truth and Literature: Towards a True Post-modernism. 2 ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Windschuttle, Keith. The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past. 1st Free Press Ed., 1997 ed. New York: Free Press, 1997. Star, Alexander. Quick Studies: The Best of Lingua Franca. 1st ed. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. Cusset, Francois. French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States. Trans. Jeff Fort. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 2008.