MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGIAL SEMINARY
Deconstructionism
A REPORT
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE
DR 35090 ADVANCED BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
BY
MATTHEW MCCURLEY
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
January 29, 2018
Introduction
The essential component of hermeneutics is an analysis of dictums that allows one to properly interpret a text. The maxims used to interpret are themselves an issue of interpretation.
This brief paper will analyze one such method known as Deconstructionism. To do so, we begin with an overview of what Deconstructionism is. Next, Deconstructionism as a hermeneutic is analyzed. Furthermore, we consider its impact on biblical hermeneutics before concluding with a discussion of its future relevance. The thesis of this paper is that Deconstructionism is a sober, but frivolous exploration of textual interpretation.
Deconstructionism – An Overview
Deconstructionism is a critical method that questions traditional methods of textual observation by way of repeated questioning. The history of Deconstructionism coincides within the larger movement of Poststructuralism. Poststructuralism was a reaction to early twentieth century Structuralism.
Structuralism sought to understand the essence of being within the analysis of structural institutions. One of the main tenets of Structuralism was the relationship between what is referred to as the signifier and the signified. An example of this is found in the relationship of an image of a tree and the idea it conveys. The father of Structuralism, Ferdinand Saussure, argued that the idea of the tree (the signifier) is dependent upon the sign (the signified) and the very existence of the sign is dependent upon its surroundings and institutions. Furthermore, he believed that language itself is a sign that does not belong to the speaker but to the assimilation process regarding the speaker.1
1. Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, Charles Bally, et al., eds., (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1959), 14.
1 One of the main appeals of Structuralism was its ambition to merge the concept of being with empiricism. Paul Francois-Tremlett, author of Lévi-Strauss on Religion: The Structuring
Mind, said, “Structuralism seemed, if only fleetingly, to offer the chance to establish the human sciences as sciences, in a fashion not dissimilar to the kinds of claims that are being made today about neo-Darwinian theory.”2 French anthropologist, Claude Lévi-Strauss proposed that the methods of Structuralism could be applied to language or any field of study in order to figure out underlying codes of meaning.3 Poststructuralism was a conspicuous reaction to the linguistics of
Saussure, Strauss, and Structuralism.
Among the reaction was a notable shift on how to practice hermeneutics. Whereas structural linguistics analyzed text from the perspective of its author, Poststructuralism sought to understand text from the orientation of its reader. It undermined and critiqued the idea of
Structuralism that language and thought could be understood through the structure of binary oppositions.4
In 1966, French philosopher, Jacques Derrida was invited to present a paper on
Structuralism at Johns Hopkins University.5 Instead of supporting the method, he subverted it;
Lévi Strauss in the audience no less.6 Derrida and his synthesis of thought is referred to as
2. Donovan Shafer, “The Legacy of Structuralism: An Interview with Paul Francois-Tremlett,” Bulletin for the Study of Religion 41.3 (2012): 42.
3. Christopher Norris, Deconstructionism (London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004), 37.
4. Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 52.
5. Ibid.
6. Paul Fry, “Deconstruction I” (video of lecture for Introduction to Theory of Literature, ENGL 300, Spring 2009, Yale University, September, 1, 2009), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np72VPguqeI.
2 Deconstructionism and was an extension of the broader Poststructural movement.
Deconstructionism is best represented by examining three of his more prominent works:
Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences, Différance, and Of
Grammatology.
In Structure, Derrida proposes that the metaphysical idea of being and presence is historically a part of what he describes as structure. All western science and philosophy can be said to exist within this idea of a structure. He describes the fixed origin of the structure as its center.7 Derrida claims that the concept of the center existed for two reasons: 1) to provide some sort of stability for concept of structure and 2) to make sure and limit what he refers to as the freeplay of ideas.8 The freeplay of ideas merely describes different types of thought and philosophies.
Derrida believes that the system of structure and its center actually served to limit different types of thought rather than provide a place for them to develop. Derrida describes the center:
Thus, it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which governs the structure, while escaping structurally. This is why classical thought concerning structure could say that the center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center else- where.9
7. Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. Richard Macksey (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1970), 249.
8. Ibid., 247-48.
9. Ibid., 248.
3 The center shaped the concept of structure and was thought to simultaneously exist within the structure and outside it.10 Derrida argues this is a contradiction because something cannot be the center of its totality if its totality simultaneously exists elsewhere.11 The tension of this contradiction creates what he describes as the force of a desire.12 The violence generated by the force of desire is one thing Derrida suggests Deconstructionism can safeguard against.13
Derrida argues that an event occurred which ruptured the western idea of structure and its center.14 Derrida notes three individuals who precipitated the rupture with their critical thinking.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticism of being and truth, Sigmund Freud’s critique of self-presence, and
Martin Heidegger’s abolishment of metaphysics each contributed to the “rupture” of structure.15
Derrida anticipates his critics and acknowledges the irony that even as one criticizes metaphysics, one cannot escape metaphysics.16 Each argument is touched with the very language, syntax, form, and logic its seeks to critique.17 Derrida argues that the concept of “sign” is an illustration of this.18 Derrida proposes two ways to erase the irony.
10. Ibid., 248.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. As a French child during the time of Nazism, Derrida was exposed to profound suffering and violence. His childhood and what he experienced may have contributed to an eagerness to create a way of thinking of which no one system could ever oppress another.
14. Ibid., 247.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 250.
4 The first way to erase the difference is the long-established practice of deriving the signifier to thought.19 The idea is that the original signifier existed before the beginning and outside of the structure. The concept of the privileged signifier explains the genesis of the structure and reinforces its idea of a center. The other option is to question the structure, or system, itself.20
Questioning the structure and systems that reinforce it is the essence of Derridan thought.
In another of his important works, Différance, Derrida examines the French verb “to differ.” He notes that the verb may indicate either distinction or deferment.21 Derrida invents a new word to illustrate his point that because different words may possess the same meaning, there is no way to ever truly know the truth about anything. He creates the new word,
“différance,” by inserting an a to distinguish in a graphical sense what one cannot do phonetically.22 Derrida defines his new words as indicating distinction and deferment.23 In effect, différance and difference sound the same, look different, and indicate the same meaning.
Derrida uses différance as a way to illustrate the endless repetition of thought and ideas. He is careful to point out that in no way does différance reduce to ontological or theological reassignment.24 The endless repetition of thought and ideas unites chance and necessity in never
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. “Differance,” Jacques Derrida, http://projectlamar.com/media/Derrida-Differance.pdf.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
5 ending calculus.25 Derrida argues that because one can never be certain about the truth of anything, one must always question the ascendency of presence.26
Derrida explains how différance can be understood in a pragmatic way. First, one must remember that an image or sign is never present in itself.27 This action allows one to appreciate différance as a possibility rather than a concept.
In Of Grammatology, Derrida begins with a brief explanation of logocentrism.
Logocentrism is an extension of ethnocentrism that dates from as far back as the pre-Socratics to
Heidegger and generally considers that writing and language are an extension of reality itself.28
Historically, logocentrism imposed itself upon the world in three forms: a) writing, b) the history and fundamentality of metaphysics, and c) science.29 Derrida seeks to deconstruct all significations that have their source as logos or what is thought of as the truth.30
Grammatology is a denouncement of systems that prefer speech over writing. In a broader sense, Grammatology is a deconstruction of any binary driven system that privileges one idea over another. In Of Grammatology, Derrida interacts much with French philosopher, Jean
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., 263.
28. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976), 3.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., 11.
6 Jacques Rousseau. He considers Rousseau to be quintessential of the logocentric epoch that ruptured.31
Rousseau privileges the natural; the voice one hears when he retreats into himself.32 He affirms speech as a natural expression of oneself and thereby to be privileged over writing.33
Writing is a break with that which is natural.34 Derrida is quick to note that Rousseau is inconsistent because his proposition that speech is better than writing cannot occur if not for his own writing.35
Derrida takes issue next with Rousseau’s understanding of nature and its imitation.
Rousseau analogizes nature and imitation with that of speech and melody.36 Speech is natural expression but melody is not.37 Rousseau cites the screams of children as natural speech but song and melody as something that is learned and imitated.38 Melody and tune are artificial constructs of the passionate voice that is naturally within.39
31. Ibid., 162.
32. Ibid., 17.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., 36.
35. Ibid., 160.
36. Ibid., 196-97.
37. Ibid., 197.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
7 Rousseau believed that just as writing perverted speech so harmony distorts melody; the degradation is analogous.40 Derrida notes the ancient meanings of the words to prove that harmony and melody are essentially the same and not bifurcated.41 He laments the exhaustive work Rousseau must engage in to separate the two according to his binary principle.42 Rousseau fails to understand that what he considers binary is in fact merely supplemental; endless substitutions and replacements. Derrida cites this as a blind spot that Rousseau does not see.43
Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, Differance, and Of
Grammatology illustrate the rationale for Deconstructionism, how to actuate it, and its function.
In summation, Derrida argues that when one analyzes a text, the emphasis should be on the reader’s interpretation versus that of the author’s. The author, context, language, etc. are not important because there resides an infinite amount of possible meanings for the reader to choose from; the best interpretation is whichever the reader determines is preferred. Deconstructionism acts as a perpetual inquest of what a text may or may not intend.
Deconstructionism made an extensive impact on academia in the mid to late twentieth century. To appreciate the significance of Deconstruction, one need look no further than the hallowed grounds of Yale University. Gregory Jones-Katz traces deconstructive reading habits to the X.Y. and Z undergraduate courses offered at Yale in the 1970s and 80s.44 Jones-Katz
40. Ibid., 199.
41. Ibid., 210.
42. Ibid., 212.
43. Ibid., 163.
44. Gregory Jones-Katz, “XYX, or, the ABCs of Deconstruction,” Raritan 36.3 (Winter, 2017): 54.
8 documents that professors Geoffrey Hartman and Paul de Man taught Yale undergraduates how to discredit a text through reflexive analysis and persistent questioning of dualisms and foundational truths.45 The undergraduate courses were known as: Lit X (Narrative Forms), Lit Y
(Introduction to Literary Theory), and Lit Z (Reading and Rhetorical Structures).46
During the fall of 1975, Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstructionism, began teaching at
Yale and students embraced his oft-used phrase, “there is nothing outside the text.”47 Jones-Katz notes, “By the early 1980s, Lit Y’s semester-long semi chronological process of cycling through suspicious hermeneutics had helped produce an atmosphere in which deconstructive reading practices of all kinds flourished in New Haven.”48
The acme of Deconstructionism in the famed Linsly-Chittenden Hall of Yale faded almost as quickly as it emerged. In 1983, de Man died of cancer and not long after, Derrida transferred to University of California-Irvine.49 Although short-lived, its impact was nonetheless substantial in that it briefly held a distinguished place among one of the world’s most prestigious universities; pedagogically teaching a tradition of mistrust and an aversion to originality and authenticity.50
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 67.
48. Ibid., 60.
49. Ibid., 69.
50. Ibid., 70.
9 Derrida and Deconstructionism remain influential in contemporary academia even as some dismiss them as illogical.51 Analytic philosopher, John Searle offers, “As far as I can tell, Derrida knows next to nothing of the works of Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and so on.”52 Vanhoozer writes that Derrida’s critics understand him as nihilistic, an anarchist, and one who enjoys the vagueness of meaning.53 Still, Derrida maintains his partisans. As recently as 1991, Christopher
Norris noted the trajectory of Deconstruction from academia to post-modernity commentary and all the way into pop culture.54 The allure of Deconstructionism remains primarily because it parallels the post-modernity pursuit of self.
Deconstructionism as a Hermeneutic
At this mark in our analysis, we consider how Deconstructionism functions, differs from other hermeneutics, and what it offers by way of positive and negative impact. First, how
Deconstructionism functions. As considered in the previous section, Deconstructionism performs never-ending repetitions of the play of differences referred to as differánce. Differánce deconstructs, or undoes, a text by discarding any relevance to authorship, context, or cultural factors.
To understand how Deconstructionism works, let us deconstruct the following text from early American author, Washington Irving. Irving recalls his marvelous introduction to a fried cake we commonly refer to as a doughnut when he writes, “Sometimes the table was graced with
51. Vanhoozer, 50.
52. John R. Searle, “Literary Theory and Its Discontents,” New Literary History 25 (1994): 637.
53. Vanhoozer, 50.
54. Norris., 134.
10 immense apple-pies, or saucers full of preserved peaches and pears; but it was always sure to boast of an enormous dish of balls of sweetened dough, fried in hog’s fat, and called dough-nuts, or oly koeks: a delicious kind of cake, at present scarce known in this city, excepting in genuine
Dutch families.”55
A Deconstructionist reading of Irving’s text may: a) discredit Irving as insignificant; his place as America’s first true author notwithstanding, b) disregard the time of the writing; less than sixty years after the Revolutionary War, and c) disregard the mention of the scarcity of a
Dutch item called dough-nut; thereby missing robust discussion of trade, class, and invention.
A Deconstructionist’s analysis of Irving’s text may leave him with nothing beside the base commonality between the mention of dough-nuts and the Boston Kreme Dunkin’ Donut he holds in his hand. The aforementioned demonstrates not only how Deconstruction works but ways that it may differ from other hermeneutics that would take into account the perspective and context of the author.
The Impact of Deconstructionism on Biblical Hermeneutics
The breadth of Derridan work exists to deconstruct any system of thought that claims to know truth. It is evident then that Deconstructionism can have an immense impact on biblical hermeneutics. Before analyzing its impact and whether or not Deconstruction and biblical hermeneutics may coexist, a definition of biblical hermeneutics is needed.
Hermeneutics, in general, includes: a) exegesis of the text, b) interpretation of the text, c) what occurs when one reads, understands, or applies the text, and d) the conditions and criteria
55. Washington Irving, A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty ... (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1836), 132.
11 necessary for responsible interpretation.56 A concise definition for biblical hermeneutics may be:
A responsible and contextual interpretation of scripture and the process involved in doing so.
Deconstructionism is diametrically opposed to biblical hermeneutics. When one attempts to apply Deconstructionism to biblical hermeneutics the result is catastrophic. One such example is found in Jean-Luc Nancy’s work Dis-Enclsoure: The Deconstruction of Christianity.57 Nancy begins with the acknowledgment that he has no desire to save religion or return to it.58 He appreciates the rupture from reason and structure provided by Heidegger and Nietzsche.59 Nancy understands Christianity to be the classical structure and the means by which the structure ruptured. Christianity is simultaneously at the heart of the dis-enclosure and at the center of the closure.60 Because Christianity was necessary in order to deconstruct itself at the time of the rupture, it must also be utilized after. Nancy justifies this thought in that every thought is in some respect Christian.61
Nancy proposes a reopening of Christianity that is void of reason and espouses the freeplay of different concepts and ideas. No dogma, no cult, no prayer, no structure, simply sober and
56. Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 3-4.
57. Jean-Luc Nancy, Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity, tr. Bettina Bergo, Gabriel Malenfant, and Michael B. Smith (New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 2008).
58. Ibid., 1.
59. Ibid., 3, 6.
60. Ibid., 10.
61. Ibid., 142.
12 joyous thought.62 Nancy proposes a deconstructed Christianity that is counterintuitive to the truth that biblical hermeneutics seeks to interpret from biblical authors.
Conclusion
This brief paper sought to analyze the critical method known as Deconstructionism. We presented a simplistic working definition of Deconstruction. We supported the definition with analysis of the history of Deconstructionism, including its beginnings in Poststructuralism.
Furthermore, we informed the reader of how Deconstructionism functions and relates or differs with other hermeneutics. Finally, we considered the positive and negative impact
Deconstructionism has biblical hermeneutics. Because of its origin, aim, and obstinate incongruence with biblical hermeneutics, we find Deconstructionism to be a sober but frivolous exploration of textual interpretation.
What is the future of Deconstructionism? Moreover, what if Deconstructionism has its way? To answer the questions, we must first acknowledge that in a sense, it has. Paul de Man, the famed and notorious Yale Deconstructionist, scintillated that his Lit Z course had demonstrated how teaching the enterprise of Deconstructionism could be pedagogically successful.63 The future of Deconstructionism is now; existing in the perpetual deconstruction of much thought, tradition, fashion, and policy.
62. Ibid., 157.
63. Jones-Katz, 69.
13 Bibliography
Calano, Mark Joseph T. “Derrida and the “Death of God.” Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture 18.2 (2013): 62-103.
Capretto, Peter. “The Wonder and Spirit of Phenomenology and Theology: Rubenstein and Derrida on Heidegger’s Formal Distinction of Philosophy from Theology.” The Heythrop Journal LV (2014): 599-611.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976.
Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. Richard Macksey, Eugenio Denato. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1970.
Fry, Paul “Deconstruction I” (video of lecture for Introduction to Theory of Literature, ENGL 300, Spring 2009, Yale University, September, 1, 2009), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np72VPguqeI.
Horner, Robyn. “Theology after Derrida.” Modern Theology 29.3 (July 2013): 230-47.
Irving, Washington A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty ... London: Bradbury & Evans, 1836.
Jones-Katz, Gregory “XYX, or, the ABCs of Deconstruction.” Raritan 36.3 (Winter, 2017): 54- 70.
Nancy, Jean-Luc. Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity, translated by Bettina Bergo, Gabriel Malenfant, and Michael B. Smith. New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 2008.
Norris, Christopher, Deconstructionism. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.
Prewitt-Davis, Elijah. “Liberating Deconstructions: The Messianic in James Cone and Jacques Derrida.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 64.2-3 (2014): 101-07.
Saussure, Ferdinand de, Course in General Linguistics, Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, eds. New York: The Philosophical Library, 1959.
Searle, John R. “Literary Theory and Its Discontents,” New Literary History 25 (1994): 637-67.
Shafer, Donovan, “The Legacy of Structuralism: An Interview with Paul Francois-Tremlett,” Bulletin for the Study of Religion 41.3 (2012): 39-43.
Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.
14
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
“Differance,” Jacques Derrida, http://projectlamar.com/media/Derrida-Differance.pdf.
15