Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

DECONSTRUCTION, Group 7 Vio Ainna Nilasari (121811233031) …

- - - - Human utterances are rarely as clear and simple as the structuralist formula signifier + signified seems to imply. Any given signifier can refer to any number of signifieds at any given moment.
      - According to deconstruction, the word tree never reaches the point when it refers to a concept or a signified. Our concept of the tree consists of all the chains of signifiers we have come to associate with it over the course of our lives. And each signifier in those chains is itself constituted by another chain of signifiers, and so on.
      - For deconstruction, language does not consist of the union of signifiers and signifieds, it consists only of chains of signifiers.
  - - - If we believed that all objects were the same color, we wouldn’t need the word red (or blue or green) at all. Red is
        red only because we believe it to be different from blue and green. So the word red carries with it the trace
        of all the signifiers it is not (for it is in contrast to other signifiers that we define it).
    - - Play of signifiers continually defers, or postpones, and meaning
      - The meaning it seems to have is the result of the differences by which we distinguish one signifier from another.
    - - We tend to conceptualize our experience in terms of polar opposites – each of which we understand by means of its opposition to the other, called binary oppositions.
        
        The term in the pair is always privileged, or considered superior to the other.
      - To deconstruct this binary opposition and learn something about the limitations of the ideology it supports, let’s consider the ways in which the objective and the subjective are not really opposites.
- - - - We don’t really have an identity because the word identity implies that we consist of one, singular self, but in fact we are multiple and fragmented, consisting at any moment of any number of conﬂicting beliefs, desires, fears, anxieties, and intentions.
    - - Thus, if we’ve invented our “identity,” then we can reinvent it
- - - - For Derrida, there is no concept beyond the dynamic instability of language, which disseminates an infinite number of possible meanings with each written or spoken utterance.
      - Derrida calls it logocentric because it places at the center (centric) of its understanding of the world a concept (logos) that organizes and explains the world for us while remaining outside of the world it organizes and explains.
      - For deconstruction, then, language is the ground of being, but that ground is not out of play: it is itself as dynamic, evolving, problematical, and ideologically saturated as the worldviews it produces.
        
        Language is no longer seen as a product of our experience but rather as the conceptual framework that creates our experience.
        
        Thus, deconstruction is called a poststructuralist theory, not only because it emerged in the wake of structuralism’s popularity but also because it constitutes a reaction against structuralism’s orderly vision of language and human experience.
        
        There is no center to our understanding of existence. There are, instead, an innumerable number of vantage points from which to view it, and each of these vantage points has a language of its own, which deconstruction calls its discourse.
- - - - to reveal the text's undecidability
        
        to show that the “meaning” of the text is really an indefinite, undecidable, plural, conflicting array of possible meanings and that the text, therefore, has no meaning, in the traditional sense of the word, at all.
      - to reveal the complex operations and limitations of the ideologies of which the text is constructed.
        
        to shows us something about the ways in which ideologies operate in our own view of the world as well.