Category: Deconstruction
John 1:1 and Philosophy
Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus believed in “the idea that all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos.” Few words are as loaded in the Christian world as logos, but before Christianity, the Stoics understood the logos to be “the account which governs everything.” Heraclitus taught that everything is essentially an idea before it is ever manifest in any other form, and that ideas are the force governing all of existence, motivating all human action.
Anyone that’s ever tried to motivate or lead people will appreciate this seemingly simple notion that power lies in ideas, but where there are ideas there is need for understanding, and that’s where simplicity gives way to complications which I think are what put a self-existent, self-revelatory God in the paradox (conundrum? dilemma?) which binds Him to mankind.
How do you expose people to an idea, have them understand it, accept it, and conceive it to the point that it becomes their reality? I’m tempted to go as far as making a sweeping generalisation by saying all of philosophy is concerned with this question. The interesting thing to me as a Christian, of course, is logos as used in John 1:1. The trouble with ideas is, the minute an idea is expressed, it ceases to be pure in itself; because context comes into play both when it is expressed and how it is perceived.
Unless the expression can somehow be a perfection of that idea, somehow overcome all the particularities of perception to maintain all it’s substance, and not only it’s essence. If this happens, the identifiable event when it is expressed becomes the single indication of an idea’s true nature.
For example if when I said the word “apple,” that word wasn’t just an arbitrary sound linking to some abstract concept in your mind to produce meaning (because we can talk about apples all day without ever having an actual apple in either of our hands, “apple” remaining just an idea). But what if by saying “apple,” the taste, smell, weight and sight of the organic form could be present in that one word, so it ceased to be just an idea?
Is this the logos of John 1:1, a Being and an Event at the same time; concept and communication in the same context? If so, is John 1:1 (and consequently the whole chapter) the definitive Gospel basis for a Christian philosophy? Is it then either implied or evident that there is something in the nature of the Being that demands such an Event? Something like Love can not exist if there is nothing to love, and neither can Knowledge if there is no one to know it?
Contemporary philosopher (and mathematician) Alain Badiou coined the term “Truth-Event” to refer to such an event, describing it as the insistence when an unequivocal Truth becomes known. More specifically;
“The Truth-Event is simply a radically New Beginning; it designates the violent, traumatic and contingent intrusion of another dimension not ‘mediated’ by the domain of terrestrial finititude and corruption.” (S. Zizkek’s The Ticklish Subject)
I have been pondering Badiou’s statements on the issue for days now, especially what this means in light of the John 1:1 logos, and I’m interested in hearing what the readers of this blog think of this;
“As Badiou puts it, Christ’s death is not in itself the Truth-Event, it simply prepares the sight for the Event (Resurrection) by asserting the identity of God and Man – the fact that the infinite dimension of immortal Truth is also accessible to a human finite mortal; what ultimately matters is only the Resurrection of the dead (i.e. human-mortal) Christ, signalling that each human being can be redeemed and can enter the domain of Eternal Life, that is, participate in the Truth-Event. … Christian Revelation is thus an example (although probably the example) of how we, human beings, are not constrained to the positivity of Being; of how, from time to time, in a contingent and unpredictable way, a Truth-Event can occur that opens up to us the possibility of participating in Another Life by remaining faithful to the Truth-Event.” (from The Ticklish Subject by S. Zizek: pg.147)
Deconstructing Ads
While I am not condoning the methodology of the group known as the “Billboard Liberation Front” (BLF) (essentially it is vandalism) there is something interesting about their method of “deconstructing” the marketing machine (sorry fans of Mad Men). This group goes to various company billboard ads altering them to tell a message that they think is the “real” message of the company. Here are some examples:
"She is a thing..."
"Watch your little ones grow" turns into...
..."Watch your little ones burn."
"TO SERVE MAN"
The first ad is for the liquor brand Stella Artois. The man looks at an attractive woman (because alcoholic beverages and beautiful people go together…naturally) and the original caption says, “She is a thing of beauty“. The BLF removed “of beauty” to expose the objectification of the woman in the ad. Now it says, “She is a thing.”
In the second ad Wachovia bank tried to tell people that by giving them their money the consumer could “Watch your little ones grow”. BLF added some flame to the money and reworded the ad to “Watch your little ones grow burn”.
The last one is a McDonalds ad exposing the alien nature of the food they feed us. Very clever.
While their methods may be suspect I think their agenda is correct: we must deconstruct ads (especially during this time of the year)! We all fall prey to them at times, but we are likely going to be better off when we realize the world they are trying to sell us is not real.
Interpreting Derrida: Deconstruction
Let me state from the beginning what this post is communicating and what it is not communicating. On one hand, it is going to present my understanding of “deconstruction” as it is associated with Jacques Derrida. This does invite people to challenge my interpretation of Derrida and limited dialog regarding the implications of Derrida’s approach. On the other hand, it is not a forum for chasing the “demonic Parisian” back into his philosophical hole. In other words, I don’t care if you like Derrida or hate him (I myself am influenced more by Gadamer than Derrida), that isn’t the subject being addressed. The subject being addressed is simple: What is deconstruction?
I hope that is clear.
OK, now let me see if I have this deconstruction thing understood and I’d would greatly appreciate any insight into where I am wrong. Deconstruction, in the words of Derrida, is partially “to not naturalize what isn’t natural–to not assume that what is conditioned by history, institutions, or society is natural.” This does not mean Derrida doesn’t believe in meaning or truth. It does mean that we must not assume perspective equates to universal. We cannot assume that any human understanding is somehow transcendental. We are contextualized beings and we understand/express things contextually.
This can be understood in positive or negative terminology.
James K.A. Smith presents it positively saying that deconstruction is “a deeply affirmative mode of critique attentive to the way in which texts, structures and institutions marginalize and exclude ‘the other’, with a view to reconstructing and reconstituting institutions and practices to be more just”. (Jacques Derrida, Live Theory, 12).
As I have read Derrida this view of him that Smith presents has become more evident. It is not an appeal to some sort of moral relativism or the assertion that everything is essentially what the readers wants it to be since meaning falls apart in the end. Rather, it is an allowing of the unnatural side of things deemed natural to expose themselves by reading a text with both eyes open to possible prejudices inherit within.
As regards a negative analysis one Jack Reynolds says the following:
Deconstruction is parasitic in that rather than espousing yet another grand narrative, or theory about the nature of the world in which we partake, it restricts itself to distorting already existing narratives, and to revealing the dualistic hierarchies they conceal. While Derrida’s claims to being someone who speaks solely in the margins of philosophy can be contested, it is important to take these claims into account. Deconstruction is, somewhat infamously, the philosophy that says nothing. (See full article here)
He understands it to exist only within other attempts at metanarrative (therefore, it cannot be a metanarrative itself, since deconstruction cannot exist as some sort of free floating approach to the world). It is for Derrida the natural exposure of the internal contradictions and false assumptions buried within communicative acts (or “writing” as he calls them). Again, we must balance the act of seeing deconstruction as, yes, a slap in our epistemological face but also not pure relativism. Derrida expected to be understood. Derrida had an opinion. Derrida saw some form of right and wrong. But he knew that his views and those of others are not bullet proof and that language and communication have limits that is pressed expose inconsistencies. We must realize though that communication is still possible even as it deconstructs itself. It is just not perfect.
Derrida “Defining” Deconstruction
Since I have been trying to understand what Derrida meant by “deconstruction” (see here) it was fun running across this video on YouTube where Derrida is asked about deconstruction. In contrast with the quotation I shared that presented deconstruction as parasitic, Derrida says that it is, “to not naturalize what isn’t natural–to not assume that what is conditioned by history, institutions, or society is natural.”
When reading a text then this does not mean Derrida sought to denounce meaning, or that he did not see understanding as possible, but in some sense it appears that he asks us to read text with a critical eye. I see value in this aspect of deconstruction. When reading The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, or The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, it would do a committed capitalist or communist well to deconstruct these text.
I know this doesn’t encapsulate deconstruction, but it is a valuable insight.
Is Deconstruction Merely Parasitic?
Derrida: One Confusing Philosopher
Over the last several weeks I have been wrestling with a definition for deconstruction as used by Jacques Derrida and his followers. I almost quit until I read this piece, again, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (read the whole article here):
Deconstruction is parasitic in that rather than espousing yet another grand narrative, or theory about the nature of the world in which we partake, it restricts itself to distorting already existing narratives, and to revealing the dualistic hierarchies they conceal. While Derrida’s claims to being someone who speaks solely in the margins of philosophy can be contested, it is important to take these claims into account. Deconstruction is, somewhat infamously, the philosophy that says nothing.
Maybe I am now beginning to understand why Derrida refused to define deconstruction. If he defined deconstruction it would become something rather than nothing or it would become an overarching, guiding metanarrative itself rather than merely a critique of all such things. We can argue for or against his success in this matter, but this seems to make the most sense to me.
If you have read any Derrida, and you think you agree with what I presented here or you totally disagree, you opinion is very valuable to me. I need input.
