Hello everyone.
I’ve been out of the loop for a while (in terms of academia) now and am wondering if Foucault and the deconsructivists are still so important to current historiographical debates?
the deconstructionists’ arguments, as they apply to historical accountings - and everything else for that matter, still have merit…
-Imp
LOL, many academics have lambasted them. Yes, they are still listened to, but not that much. Our language deconstrusts itself. Now let us see, apply their their theory to this post and see how far you go? Getting the drift? Years ago, I attempted to apply their theory to writings, and more often than not it did not work.
I am just claiming, try the theory out in reality and see how often it works.
Foucault said that if relationships are deconstructed one finds that they are all controlled by power ( 
).
I was wondering if this element is still invested with importance in current historiographical writings, that there is a conspiracy of power.
I could have some of my theories mixed up here.
they have lambasted and insulted them… the deconstructionists’ arguments have not been logically refuted…
yes, I understand that the theory leads to nihilism… but in the grand scheme of things, especially historically speaking, what doesn’t?
ashes to ashes…
-Imp
Kaman,
power is invested in everything… especially interpretation of history…
afterall, who writes history?
the victors
-Imp
Can anyone direct me to some cutting edge interpretations by recent historians regarding current scholarship that employs deconsructivist theory?
Thanks
not exactly sure if this is that which you are looking to find…
encyclopedie-en.snyke.com/articl … raphy.html
-Imp
Yes, Wikipedia, is a very good introduction.
Dear aspacia,
Many academics have lambasted virtually ever single group or movement in theory since day one. This is neither here nor there.
Hence why Derrida’s death caused an international academic scandal…
Languge deconstructs itself. Calling it ‘our’ employs the very same author function Foucault demonstrated was nothing but a method of stabilising the free play of signifiers…
That there is nothing inherently meaningful in anything you’ve said and that only a series of generally tacit agreements and assumptions renders your post meaningful.
As per usual, you’ve tried the whole ‘well, if deconstruction means language doesn’t mean anything then how can it say language doesn’t mean anything?’ criticism, which has been refuted time and again. Of course you haven’t the foggiest idea about deconstruction (it’s the only field in which I consider myself well read, incidentally, so I advise you not to cross me on it lest I destroy the last shreds of your intellectual credibility) so you are clutching at straws and straw men, so I’ll let you off this time.
If this is so then you’ve completely misunderstood the theory. Deconstruction is everywhere (and nowhere) and isn’t something that can or cannot be applied in a given circumstance. Deconstruction is not a theoretical method, had you read Derrida’s lengthy interviews on the subject (primarily in Points…) you’d understand this.
Books are reality. They are as real as you or I. Had you read deconstruction…
The work of Frederic Jameson, Christopher Norris, Richard Beadsworth and Nicholas Royle all appear within the deconstructionist playpen. One of Derrida’s final books Echographies of Television is a deconstructivist take on notions of cultural singularity, teletechnologies, freedom of information etc. etc.
The study of Shakespeare, for one, has been greatly altered by the arrival of deconstructionists on the scene.
someoneisatthedoor,
I do not know why I bother, and again you have started with another insult to intellect. What, cannot help yourself? Insecure to say the least.
I am claiming that those who support deconstruction actually try to apply the theory to everyday text, I have done so. It usually does not work. Grice, in contrast does work. I prefer theories that usually work in everyday functioning.
You do not refute, you insult and bully, and never read what is the actual claim. You know what you know and those who disagree, regardless of the validity of their claim you insult.
Insult for insult, child:
You exhibit the traits of a very insecure child, perhaps a child in a young adults body, but not an academic. Few true academics exhibit the traits you exhibit.
If you disagree, just say so, support your claim without the insults and attempts at patronizing/insulting those who disagree.
You arrogance is only surpased by your ignorance.
You two should mate… have a litter of argumentative, black muslim hating babies.
To both of ya:
I believe if Foucault didn’t die prematurely, his political philosophy would have had much impact in today’s global happenings. I think his observations about societies/governments/power play are unique and breathtaking. These concepts, as explained by him, are most especially undeniable: reason, power and knowledge, public discourse, and the great panopticism.
This is probably true, although there have been many other thinkers to take up where Foucault left off. I mean, the entire field of study called ‘biopolitics’, for instance. Also ‘bio-ethics’ (but not ‘bioethics’, which is different). Deleuze’s control societies, Agamben’s homo sacer, Negri, Zizek, etc.
Also, Foucault is occasionally taken up in the ‘proper’ political science debates. He is frequently compared to Isaiah Berlin, for instance.
As far as deconstruction is concerned, there is quite a lot of variation beneath that banner. Foucault and Derrida, for instance. In any case, I am not sure that this statement is correct;
Perhaps this is more true in historiography, where there has seemingly been a resurgence in forms of ‘realism’ - i.e. Evans, Windschuttle etc. I still doubt it, though.
Aside from his apparent distaste for Aspacia, then (which is probably first and foremost a kind of shock), I more or less agree with SIATD’s response.
For instance, there are thousands of signatories on the UC website dedicated to remembering Derrida. It’s quite irrelevant though, unless you want to argue that it is possible to ‘discredit’ whole chunks of thought simply by declaring them ‘unpopular’. However we could read Aspacia’s comment the other way, too; in which case it would not make this argument, but simply point out, as a matter of fact, that deconstruction is not listened to as much these days. She seems to be searching for a criteria to establish what is ‘worth’ reading today, and what not. In this case, it seems worth rehashing that deconstruction - or rather, the body of works usually lumped together under that title - still forms an important part of contemporary debates. For instance, 4 of the 11 faculty here at UNSW specialise in deconstruction - especially Foucault.
Sure, those that would like to see the end of deconstruction tend to be rather quick in declaring its eminent demise. But they also tend to be under-informed. My question is, how do academics arrive at their seemingly certain opinions of particular authors, when it is these opinions to begin with that prevent them from reading the texts in question with any depth?
The answer, I think, is that there is a certain body of commonly held opinions which guide the reading habits of many academics. This is a kind of pragmatic necessity, given that it is impossible to read every book which may be of relevance to a given subject. All I would say is that, given the importance of attaining decent opinions in order to decide on your reading habits - it is probably better to seek out a second opinion on such contentious fields as deconstruction, rather than simply listening to your posse of like-minded colleagues who, more often than not, are only going to tell you what you want to hear anyway. Which - and here’s the kicker - is a BAD thing.
It is, in any case, something which I find distasteful.
Regards,
James
Good post James,
I really haven’t perused much regarding deconstruction since 1998, learned it in class and in this instance, tended to agree with my classmates and instructor, and did not spend further time on the theory, as I could not make it work in reality.
Currently, I do not work with the Ivory Tower crowd, just the community college.
I will try to find the time to take another look at deconstruction.
Thanks for not resorting to ad hominem attacks, it is appreciated.
We can agree to disagree. This never unsettles my world and insight is appreciated.
Dear aspacia
Tell me aspacia, is it a kneejerk response for you to accuse anyone who demonstrates your ignorance of being insecure? I never maintained I was secure (bit hard to be secure when you are an antifoundationalist) so why do you making this statement as though it proves something?
As I said before (a point you sidestepped because you clearly know next to nothing about this field) if you conceive of deconstruction as a method or theory to be applied to texts (everyday or otherwise) then you’ve totally missed the boat and/or have been taught poorly. As I also said in my previous post Derrida has dealt with this criticism (a common allegation from those who don’t understand deconstruction) in the set of interviews called Points…
Just for the record does citing a book by the most renowned and respected deconstructionist that directly refutes your claim count (in your mind) as an insult, or as a decent move in an argument? Because that’s exactly what I did, like it or not.
This statement simply confirms that you’ve no idea what deconstruction is or what it does. There is no author of action that applies deconstructive theory to a text, as I said in my previous post.
Read Echographies of Television and Lacan’s Ecrits then come back and tell us that deconstruction isn’t everyday…
You haven’t a clue about this topic, so I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere explaining all this to you. But I’ve completed my formal studies for a while and feel like exercising a little mental muscle demonstrating how you’ve misunderstood what you’ve been taught, or you’ve been taught badly.
I did insult you but to be fair your knowledge of this field is a joke.
My refutations (just so you’ve got no excuses for missing them this time) are
- Languge is not ‘ours’ in any consistent sense of the word. See Foucault’s ‘The Author Function’ for the arguments
- The lack of inherent meaning doesn’t equate to the presence of inherent meaninglessness.
- Derrida himself refutes your concerns about ‘everyday deconstruction’ in the series of interviews called Points…
- Deconstruction is not a theory or a method, it isn’t a condition of experience, a prescription for behaviour or a final analysis.
Actually the vast majority of critics of deconstruction have resorted to little more than ad hominem attacks. You remember, the ones that you yourself used in support of your argument?
How ironic, and how telling that you’d criticise me for doing something that you yourself clearly endorse…
I’ve already done this and you were incapable of a decent response (the post to which I’m currently responding) so I don’t really see why I should devote my time to producing criticisms of your claims that you don’t even have the knowledge to understand. But I probably will do anyway, because I’m a little bored and I like talking about deconstruction…
Says she who clearly hasn’t ever understood a single deconstructionist text…
The book to which I referred is a selection of interviews edited by Elisabeth Weber and translated (primarily) by Peggy Kamuf. If you have any desire to find answers to your problems with deconstruction I advise you to purchase this book (it’s widely available) and read the interviews, in particular:
Between Brackets I
“The Almost Nothing of the Unpresentable”
“Dialanguages”
Is There a Philosophical Language (very funny interview, lots of puns and gags)
Once again from the Top: Of the Right to Philosophy
though I do think the whole book is worth reading. It’s less technical than his work on Saussure and Husserl (and Heidegger, Nietzsche, Levi-Strauss, Kant, Plato…) but does directly deal with the habitual criticisms of deconstruction that you’ve repeated. Take it or leave it…
don’t “use” a theory/method/perspective if you don’t like it.
read about it, understand it enough to determine whether or not it fits with your general unspoken paradigm, and them either embrace it, treat it superficially, or reject it outright.
Don’t accept it just because everyone else does. Or, in this case, how much relativism are you comfortable with?
Thanks and many disagree with the theory, but, when I have the time, I will take another look at it. The point is, I did attempt to apply the theory to everyday texts, at least three and the texts did not deconstruct. The professor agreed, as did most of the class. The professor and students may have missed significant parts of it, as none of us really researched it in depth.
There are so many other theories that work and make sense. Hum, if memory serves, English Historiography theory, which explains that many details, for example, a coal powered ship probably represents the advent of industrialization, not just a ship, (in spite of the fact the ship played no important role in the story, but is significant regarding industrialization) or perhaps Feminist theory which turned the Japperwockey into a pissed off woman fighting against the dominant male. This simply made more sense to the students, along with many other theories, and no this was a 600 level, graduate level English class, not a feminist class as we discussed numerous theories.
I am just waiting for the stones. Geez, what happened to the spirit of exchanging ideas without name calling. I still do not understand why so many need to feel superior. Personally, I do not believe in IQ, but hard work. Yes, I am well educated, but do not believe myself more intelligent than my students or most other individuals. Never claimed this. I have simply read more books, and do not appreciate sarcasm.
aspacia,
Are you going to respond to my specific, non-personal criticisms of your post or are you willing to defer to my judgement on this? I didn’t spend years reading deconstruction and working my ass off understanding it in detail for it to count for nothing. Either you will learn something about the field or I’d like you to admit your prior statements were based on ignorance. I wouldn’t normally do this but I’ve read some pretty sound critiques of deconstruction and the ideas you’ve offered smack of the large but thoroughly ignorant anti-s who’ve tainted the name for no good reason and I don’t take kindly to people criticising a field with which I identify myself when they clearly don’t know much about it.
If you were trying to deconstruct a text in the sense that one tries to cook pancakes then you’ve missed the point entirely…