|
Therefore, in a general sense, Derrida’s view as projected in
this book is the rejection of most of the cultural certainties
on which life in the West has been structured ever since the
Enlightenment. This "Enlightenment project" now stands
under scrutiny and suspicion as what it promised in the areas of
emancipation of mankind from economic want and political
oppression has miserably failed. Lyotard, Braudillard, Foucault
join hands with Derrida and Jameson in demolishing this project,
laudable though it may have been at one time, but instead came
to oppress mankind.
One of the major
concerns of contemporary theory, according to Derrida, has been
the question of language. Language here is taken to have no
fixity or correspondence with reality. Everything is a
linguistic construct that conditions and predetermines what we
see, giving rise to infinite webs of meaning. The view that the
sign is not a unit and that the nature of signification is
essentially unstable brought into the debate the questioning of
all overarching truths. This view of ‘truth’ or ‘meaning’
is one way of politically disrupting the governing ideas of our
culture by showing how they have been constructed and how
certain facts, views or contrary opinions have been left out,
pushed aside or marginalised.
This
anti-essentialism was the result of the fluid nature of all
basic givens of our gender identity, our individual selfhood and
all notions of literature. Stereotyping and the view that there
are fixed and reliable essences in the construction of the ‘other’
in areas of race, class and gender now stand challenged as all
these are taken to be contingent categories denoting a status
which is temporary, provisional and circumstance-dependent. To
deny this is to put one’s position beyond scrutiny. Jim Powell,
the author of the book, gives a comprehensive survey of these
radical shifts in human thought and cultural perspective through
an easily understandable explanation of Derridian concepts such
as phallogocentrism, intertextuality, hymen and arch-writing.
He explains how
Derrida’s mode of reading a text with full attention to its
multiple meanings remains at the foundations of the
deconstructive unknotting of the inbuilt instability in all
linguistic structures. Rather than attempting to find a true
meaning or a unified message in a given work, a deconstructive
reading carefully teases out, to use Barbara Johnson’s words,
‘the warring forces of signification’.
Such a critical
practice is, therefore, politically interventionist and far from
dead, as many maintain these days, especially because of the
urge to reject anything that becomes popular or known to the
common critic. A deconstructive reading turns a textlogic
against itself thereby showing the inconsistencies and
contradictions between what the author intends and what the
language actually ends up doing. The text often glosses over or
ignores the inequalities or hierarchies which are silently or
‘absently’ present anyway. For instance, centres of power
are often difficult to name, because they are so integral to our
culture. But Derrida argues that we can locate these centres by
looking at the hierarchies so clear in the binary oppositions of
male over female, nature over culture, game over play.
The privileging of
one term over and above the other reveals the preference for one
term and always works at the expense or exclusion of the other,
subordinated term. For instance, feminists not only question the
position of women vis-à-vis men or Westerners vis-à-vis the
subaltern, but deconstruct the very system of conceptual
opposition which has enabled, and still perpetuates, such
metaphysical and ideological values in Western society.
Deconstruction is one method of exposing, reversing and
dismantling the binary oppositions with their hierarchies of
values. Western thinking pitches one term against another but
fails to see that each term both differs from and defers to the
other term (Derrida’s differance captures both senses
of this movement simultaneously) and thus also fails to
acknowledge that even though ‘good’, for example, is
distinct from ‘evil’, the privileged term ‘good’ also
depends for its meaning on its association with its subordinate
opposite ‘evil’. Therefore, some degree of contamination
between opposite terms cannot be ignored; each is a trace of the
other and clear demarcations are not possible. The obvious
corollary to this is the idea of the unstable nature of meaning.
The unmasking of the problematic nature of centres by Derrida
only indicates how these centres endeavour to freeze the free
play of binary oppositions.
|