|
postmodernism
or
post-structuralism
55
,
currently very influential
55
Postmodernism (= post-structuralism) — the ideological current of
modern western philosophy, which succeeded positivism and structuralism and
is characterized, as distinct from the latter currents, by ardent negation of any
positive knowledge, rational explanations of reality and, above all, of any
generalizing schemes or theories claiming to logically explain reality and thus
discover its laws. Postmodernistic invectives are against any dogmatic
metaphysics and taxonomic mindset which go by the principles of causality,
identity, truth, etc. and restrict spontaneity of thought and imagination. The chief
representatives of this school are such thinkers of the XX century as Jacques
in the USA and Europe. Like narratology, deconstruction
stemmed from structuralism, their common forerunner, and, like
narratology, it was designed to oppose it. Deconsruction rejects
the confinement of reality (and literature for that matter) within
the framework of a logical structure. Yet deconstruction does not
transgress the domain of the text as such, striving to shift the
focus (centre) within its signs without particular regard to an
addresser or an addressee.
Deconstructive criticism was completely formed as a literary
trend with the issue in the 1960s of ‘The Yale Manifesto’, the
collection of contributions by Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man,
Harold Bloom and some others. Another principal work which
lay the foundations for deconstruction was ‘Of Grammatology’
[
Derrida
, 1976].
Deconstructors proceed from the following assumptions.
There are two issues which baffle structuralists and
positivists.
First, if the ‘subject’ (human consciousness) is itself to be the
‘object’ of analysis, how can this subject be situated in regard to
itself as an investigator?
Second, if the structuralist hypothesis that knowledge of the
world and self, regardless of the organizing discipline (physics,
psychology, literature) is ultimately language, whether natural or
invented, then in what way can language be the implement of
understanding itself? [Berman,1988]
The conclusions from these questions are as follows. What
language points to is itself; what exists are ‘texts’. The idea of a
knowable reality independent of language is rejected. It is
impossible for a writer, scientist or critic and interpreter for that
matter to stay outside a text (by a text they actually mean any
baggage of previous knowledge, historical or cultural
background, stereotyped situations).
According to J. Derrida, since Plato, Western thought has
Derrida, Michel Foulcaut, Giles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Francois Lyotard,
Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Umberto Eco, to mention but a few. Here also
belong, to a certain extent, Roland Barthes and Julie Kristeva.
used various concepts — such as ‘substance’, ‘essence’, ‘end’,
‘cause’, ‘form’, ‘being’ and so on — in order to centre discourses
and to permit distinctions between truth and falsehood. This
desire for a centre within an opposition, or a privileged position
for one term over another, is called centration or logocentrism.
For example, speech, in Rousseau and others, is placed
hierarchically above writing. Hence the hierarchical opposition
speech — writing (phonocentrism); other hierarchical oppositions
being, e.g., male — female; West — East, etc. Logocentrism
structures reality, but in fact reality is fluid dialectic juxtaposition,
rather than a rigid metaphysic structure.
Since language is a universal means of creating and
interpreting texts, it is a tool for centration, creating concepts and
ideas (‘truths’). It is also a product of culture and history, since
words bear the layers of cultural and historical meanings,
overshadowing their ostensibly objective referents. This idea is
proved by the fact that one and the same text lends itself to
different diachronic interpretation. Moreover, the primary
discourse of a text can be supplanted by secondary ones as
various readers interpret texts differently, because they prefer
(privilege) certain meanings and ideas, suppressing others.
Many deconstructors, among them Paul de Man and J. H.
Miller, even deny referentiality of the language, i. e. the capacity
of language signs to denote referents (real objects), and assert its
allegorical and metaphoric essence.
Deconstructors are averse to texts with clear ideological
messages; they seek for their inner contradictiveness, the ways
texts may deconstruct themselves. In interpreting texts the
deconstructor’s aim is to oppose the intrusion of the author’s
privileged ideas on him. His method of achieving this is
decentration of sense — shift of accents and ‘deconstruction’
which implies two steps: destruction (of the original sense) plus
reconstruction. Thus new secondary signified are generated for
one and the same signifier in a text; the suppressed marginal
motives are accentuated, while the apparent sense of the text is
suppressed. A prominent Yale deconstuctor Barbara Johnson
demonstrated impressive aberrations of the original sense of a text
as
she
deconstructed
(shifted
accents
in)
E. A. Poe’s ‘The Purloined Letter’ via a reading of Derrida’s
deconstruction of Jacques Lacan’s reading of the story. By doing
so she showed that both readings of Poe unconsciously ‘privilege’
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
