Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,510
edits
Deconstruction/Analysis: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(basepage category) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Analysis}}{{trope}}
Deconstruction is similar to a valid arguing tactic called ''Reductio Ad Absurdum''. It takes the opponent's argument and logically follows it through to an absurd or indefensible conclusion. [[
Its meaning in contemporary literary theory can be traced to [[Jacques Derrida]] who deployed the term to describe the process by which the connotations and context behind a work are explored and analyzed in (often excrutiatingly fine) detail<ref>More correctly, "deconstruction" refers to the fact that the context and connotations behind a work are necessarily contradictory and artificial, and a "deconstructive reading" is the process of demonstrating this through close analysis.</ref>
In literary theory and criticism, deconstruction was proposed by Jacques Derrida as a means to settle (or rather, to permanently unsettle) the long-running debate about how to arrive at a ''correct interpretation'' of a text. Through deconstructive reading Derrida showed that one could formulate perfectly licit arguments against all other serious readings of a text, because in close analysis there will inevitably arise certain elements (aporia) in the text that have no disambiguating function within the text itself, meaning that the only way to resolve the meaning of a given text is to cite outside sources for authority, all of which would be texts themselves and thus aporetic (open to further deconstruction). This discovery gave rise to one of Derrida's most quotable quotations, "''il n'ya pas de hors-texte''" - there is nothing outside of the text - meaning that all texts draw their meanings from their relationships with other texts, but that ultimate meaning is ultimately elusive. Hence [[Death of the Author]].
Line 10:
In academic textual analysis, on the other hand, deconstruction is often taken much further, to the point of completely breaking down the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic structure of paragraphs, sentences, and individual words, as well as digging up the extended and detailed history underlying the appearance and use of symbols, ideas, grammar, and even questioning typographical and publishing conventions, in order to show that ultimately there is no single correct interpretation of the text in question.<ref>In fact, it is common for a deconstructive reading of a text such as a novel or essay to be significantly longer than the text itself. Deconstruction is probably, at least in part, what helped to create the perception of literary theorists as absurd hair-splitters; though it's arguably no more absurd that building ever more powerful particle accelerators in order to focus in on the very fine physical systems that make up the world as we know it.</ref>
{{tropesubpagefooter}}
| |||