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.