روش تحقیق در انگلیسی ( DECONSTRUCTION )

صفحه 1:
DECONSTRUCTION by Stuart Sim 

صفحه 2:
Introduction + Deconstruction is a form of textual practice, derived from the work of the Frenc! philosopher Jacques Derrida, which aims to demonstrate the inherent instability of both language and meaning. * Derrida is possibly best approached as the latest, and in many ways the most radical, exponent of philosophical skepticism * a tradition whose brief has been to undermine the timehonoured assumptions of Western philosophical enquiry » that truth is not a relative notion \ » words have determinate meanings. \ + Derrida’s claim that deconstruction is to be regarded as the heir to Marxism has \ succeeded in provoking fresh controversy. ‎The extent of deconstruction’s influence in its heyday, particularly in academic — ۱‏ م ‎circles in the USA, can be gauged from the following remarks by a US critic:‏ 

صفحه 3:
» There can be no denying that the representation of ‘crisis’ in criticism in the | is the work of deconstruction and those it influenced. » the polemical conflicts which resulted both from this declaration of crisis to whi deconstruction is the rigorously appropriate response and the rising prominence deconstructive techniques sustained the seeming vitality of the institution throug] 1970s and into the 1980s. > no matter which ‘side’ one takes in the battle, the fact is that deconstruction effectively displaced other intellectual programs in the minds and much of the work the literary avant-garde. + Derrida’s keenest followers have arguably been the ‘Yale critics’ Y Geoffrey Hartman ¥ Harold Bloom ¥ Paul de Man ¥ j.Hillis Miller ce ۷ Paul A.Bove ya Derrida himself is at best ambivalent about ‘American’ deconstruction, and ha: attacked it on severaloccasions. 

صفحه 4:
Primary and secondary reading * Derrida’s best-known, and in general most accessible, work is Writing and Diffel + collection of essays which contains two of his most trenchant critiques of structul methodology Y ‘Force and Signification’ ¥ ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ * Some Work’s of Derrida ¥ Grammatology (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976) ¥ Margins of Philosophy (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1982) Y Positions (London: Athlone, 1981) ۲ Y The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond (Chicago and London: University of 4 Chicago Press, 1987) ‎The Truth in Painting (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987)‏ ”ا ‎v ‎Spectres of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International (London: Routledge, 1994). 

صفحه 5:
* The Yale critics and Derrida can be found in action together in Deconstructio: and Criticism, ed. Harold Bloom + Geoffrey Hartman’s Saving the Text is worth exploring as a particularly exuberant example of deconstructionist criticism. * Christopher Norris has also written several useful studies on Derrida and deconstruction, including Deconstruction: ¥ Theory and Practice (London: Methuen , 1982) ¥ The Deconstructive Turn (London: Methuen, 1983) ۷ Contest of Faculties (London and New York: Methuen, 1985) Y Derrida (London: Fontana, 1987) + Henry Staten’s Wittgenstein and Derrida usefully examines Derrida’s work within the context of modern philosophical skepticism ٠ Michael Ryan’s Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation is a pre- Spectres of Marx attempt to find common ground between Derrida and Marx. — 

صفحه 6:
Deconstruction and structuralism One of the most fruitful ways of coming to terms with deconstruction is to consi its relationship to structuralism Deconstruction is to some extent a development of structuralism ۵00 ‏و۵‎ ‎roots in semiotics and Saussurean linguistics Deconstruction rejecting most of the assumptions of structuralism— particularly its systematic approach to texts and methodical forms of analysis. ( Deconstruction also rejects the commitment to binary opposition in structuralism on the grounds that such oppositions always privilege one term over the other signified over signifier for example In a relationship of domination. In ‘Force and Signification’ and ‘Structure, Sign and Play’, Derrida’s antistructuralist credentials are clearly displayed for all to see. To Derrida ‘ultrastructuralism’is a method that always finds exactly what it 54 to look for, and in this sense it is to be regarded as authoritarian and, indee totalitarian in intent 

صفحه 7:
+ totalitarian meaning the reduction of phenomena to a formula that is seen to govern them totally, as is the case with structuralism’s linguistic model * Claude Levi-Strauss is taken to task in similar fashion in ‘Structure, Sign and Play’ Y for his belief that South American Indian myths are to be considered as variations of a centralmyth + itis a case of the theory’s assumptions dictating the nature of the analyst's findings. + There is also criticism of Levi- Strauss for admitting that the incest taboo seems to be both ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ i » thus undermining the binary opposition of nature and culture on which so much of Levi-Strauss’s work depends. + logocentricity, the belief that sounds, and words, are representations of meanings already present in the speaker’s mind. 

صفحه 8:
* Logocentricity in its turn depends on a commitment to what Derrida calls ‘the’ metaphysics of presence’ * the notion that meanings can be fully present to individuals in their minds, with slippage of any kind occurring. * Derrida opposes such beliefs, arguing that ‘meaning is neither before nor after the’ act, the notion of an idea or “interior design” as simply anterior to a work which would supposedly be the expression of it, is a prejudice : a prejudice of the traditional criticism called idealist’ * meaning is not present in a text. 1 ** meaning is a transitory phenomenon fleetingly experienced by the individual reader, which can never be recovered in its entirety nor in any sense fixed as a reference point for subsequent readers. * this suggests that it is not just logocentricity that Derrida is setting himself against, but Western culture’s commitment to rationality and linear thought. 

صفحه 9:
Derrida taking his cue from Saussure’s identification of the signifier as arbitré Derrida contends that linear thought is a constricting convention imposed on rather than the ultimate goal to which all intellectual activity should aspire. Structuralism is squarely within the idealist tradition for Derrida, and structuralists are held continually to commit the logocentrist heresy in their criticism Derrida’s argument is that structuralists are imposing a form on textual material, and that such a practice puts limits on human creativity:he claims ‘Form fascinates’ ‘when one no longer has the force to understand force from within itself. \ That is, to create. That is why literary criticism is structuralist in every age, in io essence and destiny’ 

صفحه 10:
Derrida’s concepts * Derrida’s critique of structuralism, and of the assumptions it involves about the nature of meaning and language, is a powerful one, but it is not always easy to pil down the conceptual basis of his argument. * Critics and theorists are normally expected to use their terms in a consistent way that is one of the heritages of the analytical bias in Western culture. * Derrida, complicates matters by deliberately cultivating multiple reference in his terms » as in the notorious case of différance, a word coined by Derrida from the French word difference which means both ‘difference’ and ‘deferral’. » In speech, one cannot tell which meaning is intended, since the pronunciation is always slippage of meaning he claims that it is operative at all times and all places within discourse. He also claims, somewhat ingeniously, that any term he uses is to be regard under erasure, such that we cannot assume it has the status of a concept 

صفحه 11:
Deconstruction, Derrida insists, has no concepts, and neither is it a form of analysis. Derrida does not see himself as engaged in the business of explication that is, of interpreting obscure meanings for the benefit of the puzzled reader writing supplements to texts in such a way as to make meanings proliferate and the inbuilt imprecision and self-cancelling nature of his terms considerably advances this process. In Derrida’s work, to quote Hartman, ‘interpretation no longer aims at the ۱ reconciliation or unification of warring truths’. { What deconstructionists set out to reveal is ‘the strength of the signifier vis- a-vis a signified (the “meaning”) that tries to enclose it’ thus problematizing the structuralist binary opposition that sees the signified as the dominant partner. Signifiers are to be considered instead as floating and unfixable, and signs as a result forever incomplete. ASK ۲ 

صفحه 12:
Deconstructive critical discourse The critical discourse that results from this theoretical outlook is a heady mixture of wit, word-play, allusion and association of ideas, designed to exploit to the full the indeterminacy claimed to lie at the heart of language. Puns are a particularly favoured weapon because they are considered to have an inherent instability of meaning, being multi- (and possibly indeterminately) referential. Hartman has gone so far as to claim that puns are beyond value-judgement. Near the beginning of Glas Derrida asks: ‘What does the death knell of the proper name signify?’ it signifies the birth of the literary text. The fading of the name leaves no legacy except for the paranomasia of a text. v 

صفحه 13:
+ this movement without term incorporates ‘terms’ that displace the proper ni * The terms are ۷ fixed or frozen particles (glas into glace and classe) ‎coagulations in the stream of discourse‏ ”ا ‎۷ milk-stones (galalithes) ‎¥ body-stones (‘le calcul de la méré refers also to the organic, pathological kidney stone, caillou) ‎* They grow in language as in a culture ‎* they are formed by a process analogous to introjection or incorporation ‎* there is a radical ambivalence about their value, whether they are blockage and detritus, or seminal and pregnant tissue. ‎The letter L, signifying the pronoun ‘Elle’, is a mock-up of such a term ‎so is the reduction of ‘savoir absolu’ to Sa, which could be confused with another pronoun in the possessive case, also pointing to the feminine gender. ‎‘L'a’, similarly, combines in Lacan’s algebraic manner the capital L with what seems to be the petit objet a 

صفحه 14:
+ The point of such writing, with its sudden and unpredictable shifts of topic, register and even language Y is to sever the bond between signifier and signified, word and meaning, on which our discourses so crucially depend. * The argument is that such a free-associative, almost streamof- consciousness method of writing is less authoritarian than traditional criticism + where the critic is seen to mediate between text and reader: the argument is that it creates—rather than recovers, fixes, or closes off—meaning. * Derrida’s writing similarly revels in its ability to defer criticism, analysis and the making of value-judgements. \ + Derrida is at pains, to prevent anything like standard critical discourse from forming. * On the face of it The Truth in Painting is a work of aesthetic criticism, including " 1 chapters on such works of art as Van Gogh’s Old Shoes with Laces. 

صفحه 15:
+ We are treated instead to a series of cunning strategies designed to lead us away from the work in question: What of shoes? What, shoes? Whose are the shoes? What are they made of? who are they? ‘Where to put one’s feet?’ ‘How is it going to work [marcher]?’ ‘what if it doesn’t work?’ ‘What happens when it doesn’t work?’ ‘When-and for what reason-it stops working?’ ‘Who is walking?’ ‘With whom?’ ‘With what?’ ‘On whose feet?’ ‘Who is pulling whose leg? ‘Who is making what go?’ ‘What is making whom or what work?’ KERR KKK KKK KK KKK Derrida’s purpose admirably in delaying, probably indefinitely, the moment of | _ 1 criticism 

صفحه 16:
The politics of deconstruction For all its philosophically serious purpose, deconstructive criticism often looks like creative writing than criticism proper , although it can also be very learned i its breadth of allusion. What deconstruction has been notably successful in doing is making us more keenly aware of the openness of texts and their ability to elude definitive readings . there has been a noticeable tendency in modern schools of literary theory to hold out the promise of revealing what texts really meant . ; Deconstruction is a useful corrective to this all-too-common tendency, although its. anarchic-looking procedures might themselves be seen to have their own socio- political commitments. Derrida has pointedly avoided spelling out these commitments for most of his career , but in Spectres of Marx he proceeds to argue for deconstruction as the. inheritor of the liberationist credentials of Marxism 

صفحه 17:
+ in Spectres of Marx > It will always be a fault not to read and reread and discuss Marx... and to go beyond scholarly ‘reading’ or ‘discussion’. > It will be more and more a fault, a failing of theoretical, philosophical, political responsibility... Therewill be no future without this. » Not without Marx, no future without Marx, without the memory and the inheritance of Marx: in any case of a certain Marx, of his genius, of at least one of his spirits. * The insistence on a plurality of meaning to Marx's intellectual heritage is typically deconstructionist, and has led to Derrida being appropriated to the post-Marxist movement 

صفحه 18:
Conclusion * One's final attitude to deconstruction might well depend on whether one agree: rationality and logocentricity really are the confidence tricks that Derrida insists are. * It might also be objected that if language is as marked by indeterminacy as deconstruction claims, then it is difficult to see how it can establish this indeterminacy through the use of language: + Madan Sarup claims that Derrida can be exonerated from such an accusation: » The usual superficial criticism of Derrida is that he questions the value of ‘truth’ an ‘logic’ and yet uses logic to demonstrate the truth of his own arguments. » The point is that the overt concern of Derrida’s writing is the predicament of 35۹ to use the resources of the heritage that he questions.