Well he gets half of the procedure right but misses the point entirely. Deconstruction is a mode of critical reading where you identify a (common sense) 'binary opposition' in which one term is 'privileged' (for example in Of Grammatology the binary opposition is Speech/Writing; for something more relevant here perhaps Hero/Villain), then invert it to show that the privileged term can only exist because of its opposite. By itself that doesn't accomplish anything particularly productive. The next step is to 'displace' the opposition and create a new perspective with new possibilities. The other point to remember is that Deconstruction is a recursive process: once you have inverted an opposition and displaced it, you create a new perspective - but one that is unavoidable and necessarily another binary opposition with a privileged term. (Derrida's argument is that this way of thinking is built in to the very framework of western language.) But that's ok, as long as we gain a productive new perspective. We just have to remember that each perspective is also contingent and not an ultimate truth.
Thank you so much for this video! I am a graduate student in English studying to become an English Professor. I greatly enjoy literary criticism, but struggle with decon. I am going to go through and earn my PhD, so I have to understand it better. Your video simplified this subject and made it much easier to understand. Subscribed! Thank you so much!
Cssaarr deconstruction attempts to dismantle a text, because it assumes that language doesn’t work. But, by using the very tool that it is aiming to criticize, deconstruction invalidates it’s own assumptions that language does not work. Essentially, it deconstructs itself.
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video. Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control. But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another. If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted. To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
+Mark Blasini You are very right, and I've oversimplified here--perhaps to the point to misrepresenting the approach. My goal was to give high school students a chance to dabble in theory, and I hope that it at least gives them a taste. The theory is more playful than fatalistic, and I may come across as vilifying the concept without really meaning to. At least that's what I've gleaned from some comments. Thanks for your astute clarification of the ideas! I appreciate the correction and especially your good-natured and polite presentation of it!
I just came across Derrida's deconstruction theory and what you explained seems to make more sense. Do you have any books or articles I can read to get a more in-depth view on this..Thanks :)
Thank you so much! You are so enthusiastic and you have great and clear explanations too! You helped me more on my project in just a few short minutes than reading an obscure and confusing booklet/package for a few hours!
Entertaining lecture and explanation. Thanks for that! Let's put deconstruction aside for a minute. Regarding the sign on the lift door, if you think about it it is pure genius to write sg like this. It does not matter if the blind person cannot read the sign as its purpose is to stop those who see to use the elevator with a dog.
I remember a text by Derrida from the quote "there is only text" is derived. By reading that letter you can figure out that Deconstruction exists in the first place to point out that we are social creatures with a brain that is wired to figure out associations, thus creating context. It is because of our social nature that we are given constructions that become the carriers of meaning. We are limited by our social environment to discover our individual personality, to find out our true essence as human beings. To deconstruct means to question the social structures we are raised in and to use it against itself in order to cause change. It's fun with these examples but really, it's more fun to consume art that relates to these concepts like David Lynch, Agnes Varda, Andy Warhol, Duchamp, surrealism.
I tried googling for deconstructionism and what it was, but I couldn't find any clear explanation. Then I came across this video. Thanks a lot, it's very clear now!
TheDutchMaurits Glad I could help! This is a thumbnail sketch of the topic, and if you're interested, you should definitely dig deeper. You'll find a lot of extremely complicated texts on it, which are more irritating than helpful, but the one I'm using here--Text and Context by Steven Lynn--is excellent and user friendly. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to deconstruct any actual pieces of literature in this video. I often use music videos in my classroom as fun pieces for applying literary theory; we do Miranda Cosgrove's Dancing Crazy with decontruction because it basically deconstructs itself. Good luck with your continued exploration of the topic, and always feel free to ask me any questions!
I am a masters student of Danish literature and I have been reading many highly academic texts about "dekonstrktion" and I finally got it now. Thanks! I have an exam coming up where I hope to use it.... and after that exam I will leave it forever
Wow, ang video na ito ay talagang nakakatulong sa akin! Matagal na akong interesado sa paksa na ito, at ang iyong paliwanag ay talagang nakatulong sa akin na mas maintindihan ito. Pinapahalagahan ko ang iyong kahusayan at pagkahilig sa paksa na ito. Ako rin ay isang content creator, at nag-eexplore rin ako ng mga katulad na tema sa aking channel. Gusto ko makipag-ugnayan at magpalitan ng mga ideya sa mga taong may parehong interes. Keep up the good work!
As a non-native speaker of English, I think I can provide a different approach which you may not have thought of in the first place. Initially not having been being aware of the term "seeing eye dog" meaning "a leading dog for blind persons", I understood the sign in terms of its literal meaning, "only dogs with seeing eyes are allowed on the elevator" that is. This would, for whatever reason, mean that only sighted dogs are allowed on the elevator and blind dogs are not. Still, I agree with you with regard to the ambiguity expressed in the sense of 'we do not know if humans or anything else than this kind of dogs are allowed'. Anyway, as you can see, the signifier, in this case, is ambiguous in another way as well, even though you probably did not perceive it as what I am trying to explain at first glance. As far as I understand the idea of deconstruction, this can be seen as a perfect example for its application. The meaning you understand by reading these words is only based on a convention which English speaking persons have agreed upon. It, in some way, disguises the meaning which the constituent words as a whole carry for readers unaware of this convention and hides it from native speakers (who have reached a certain level of proficiency, at least). Thus, these groups might have a different understanding, which is solely due to their cultural (particularly linguistic) initial situations. Also, I disagree with what you said around 5:25 ("[...] who is this sign intended to be for? Presumably a blind person [...]"), which is not the case, in my opinion. The sign is rather addressed to sighted persons with dogs in order to keep their pets off the elevator (or the entire building, we cannot know that due to missing additional context). It is probably somewhat safe to assume that an indication for blind persons would not have been conveyed via the visual channel, but rather a different one like the acoustic or the tactile one. In the end, I do agree with what you're explaining in the video on the whole, but I partially interpret it differently. You are most welcome to let me know what you think about my response. Nice video and keep up the good work!
I'm a college student at Green river College and my English teacher asks us to use literary criticism without ever explaining what it it or what each type are. You are saving my grade.
5:20 but obviously there is an implicit context in the statement; if we were to articulate it, it would be something like "if you have a dog, you are only allowed to take it into the elevator if it is a seeing eye dog" (which is obviously a proscriptive message to the sighted with non-eye dogs, since those with eye dogs would probably not be able to read it) and there is much less to pick apart once we clarify the context, or am I missing something?
You discussed our full-semester course work in a very easy and comprehensive way. Thing which most of teachers won't do in formal class... hahahaaha! Your videos helped me soo much. Thank you.
The issue with the seeing eye dog example is that there are multiple cultural cases that are given. Elevators as human transport, and those which may allow dogs. If the mechanism and interface of an elevator is quite implicitly oriented to humans (symbology, licensing, inspection, language), then the 'case' transitions into being a human oriented model of communication, regardless of if dogs or anything else are ever allowed on it. If you extend the 'case' to ask if its for blind people, we immediately resolve that it cannot be (unless there's braile). The 'case' then transitions to being for a seeing human, and is ultimately a negation. The meaning reduces to "No Dogs" and and presents itself with an exception for 1) dogs that wouldnt be able to read the sign and 2) humans that wouldnt be able to read the sign. Implications can resolve to explicit meaning if the model of communication is limited.
Thank you TIm Nance for the way you explained Decsonstruction. It was entertaining, fun, and helped me tremendously in gaining a greater understanding of this particularly difficult theory. I am going to give a lesson in a few weeks on deconstruction and may use part of your video to motivate the class. Love it. Great work. Thank you!
I am going to be giving a lesson to about 12 other seniors at my university and teach deconstruction as if they were really in 10th grade. Still thinking of some fun activities.
+Michele Patarino Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Thank you. I have been wrestling with Derrida's Differance for 8 weeks. I had almost given up hope, then I found this. THANK YOU FOR SAVING THIS MENTALLY CHALLENGED AUSTRALIAN POST-GRAD FILM STUDENT! My kids have hope of having a normal parent again soon-ish! I'd love to know if this is your real name and how to find any published works so I can cite you and this enlightening explanation correctly! NO PLAGIARISM HERE!!!! Seriously, thank you. This is truly awesome!
+Sherrina Marshall Warner Lol! Glad I could help! Derrida actually died while I was in the middle of my literary theory class in grad school. It felt kinda symbolic... Timothy Nance is my real name, and I don't have any published writing that will be of any use to you (unless you want my cheesy YA novel and some poetry!), but you can cite this RUclips video. Or I also suggest getting your hands on Text and Context, which I reference in the video. It's a bit pricey, being a textbook, but it's excellent and much more thorough than I am.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
Thanks Tom ,ive been reading this topic for some time now and it really felt like i was reading a language from space, you explained it well in the shortest amount of time.
I'm writing an essay involving deconstruction and Miley Cyrus, and this was the first video I clicked on. When Nance started singing wrecking ball I couldn't believe it and now you're getting quoted!
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) haha, it is totally a proposal! can you please do a video explaining what the heck does derrida( my sworn enemy) means by the cente being the center and not really a center?! :D
Ha! Yeah, I know the feeling. When I was in Literary Theory in grad school, I loathed the man, but I've softened up to him a bit more now. He actually died while I was in the class, and I wasn't absolutely certain that it wasn't my hatred floated across the ocean and killed him. Anyway, the center that he's talking about is a point of reference that is inherent to the text--the idea that everything has an absolute meaning that we're basing all of our understanding upon. But then, he points out that that "center" is really just a figment of our imaginations. There is no point of reference or absolute in language for us to hang meaning on. Therefore, meaning is really pretty wishy-washy wobbly. And we can push and prod any statement until it falls apart and means nothing if we want to.
Tim Nance thank you for replying! i have spend three days in undrestanding the theory of deconstruction and the center and all that blah blah, i almost gave up with a superficial understanding, especially that there is not enough materials to be able to study it more. PS: i will always loathe the guy. i can't forgive him, since he can't possibly apologize to all of us suffering undergraduate students.
Thanks a lot for this video!! So very helpful. I so wish you were my teacher!! Your students are exceptionally lucky to have such a wonderful teacher as you. Your channel, I’m sure, is helping tons of us out here! Thank you for sharing 😊😊🤗
Driving I see an octagonal red sign at the side of the road with the word 'STOP'. I do not arrest my car. Later I explain to the policeperson that the sign 'STOP' is flawed since I need to get to my destination and, any way, the sign is not meant to stop traffic, just to regulate it. Do I win my case in court? (An answer only slightly extended beyond 'yes' would be appreciated).
+Worm Wood Ha, no, you don't. Though sometimes one can win a case on semantics or punctuation because of a misreading (and those cases are always really fun!), the powers that be will not usually recognize deconstruction as an appropriate legal defense. Partially, this is because ignorance is not the same as innocence. If I murder or steal because I didn't know that the law said not to, am I still breaking it and going to bear the consequences? Yep. Same thing with a stop sign. Just because I misread it and argue that it's not conveying the correct idea to me doesn't mean the court has to accept my stupidity (or philosophic cleverness). After all, it's a pretty specific and universal sign, and in order to get my driver's license, I had to correctly identify it and its function on a test. And my philosophic wit isn't going to impress anyone after I use it to justify reckless driving. Also, deconstruction is simply a philosophic view of language, which doesn't make it binding for anyone who doesn't adhere to it. And the officer and judge probably don't. Just like my moral code may differ from the law, but I still have to keep the law or glean the consequences, my philosophical view of signs may differ from the law, but I'd be hard pressed to win a case that the sign isn't clear enough. However, you are correct in recognizing that the law is something we interpret, and often the interpretations both vary and contradict one another. Have you ever sat down to read law code? All the clauses and phrases and legalese are a soupy mess and can readily be deconstructed. That's why a good lawyer can manipulate the outcome of a case--they're often interpreters and deconstructivists as much as anything. And in this vein, here's a story of a person who got out of a ticket due to a missing comma, even though her opponents argued the meaning was "clear enough" in context: mashable.com/2015/07/02/missing-comma-parking-ticket/#oC6MfBLCXqkT So maybe there is hope for your Stop sign run. Let me know how it turns out if you try it.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Thank you for the clarification - I have one parking ticket in my 56 years of driving: kind of timid of me. I mean, I don't think it would be wise for me to drive through STOP signs, (beside them, that is).Thank you very much for your video - greatly enjoyed it and feel enriched by it. I am reading through some of Derrida's stuff to contrast him to Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" and a bunch of Zizek's materialist stuff. Excited about reading Derrida's 'Of Spirit' soon - especially interesting since I have come to appreciate Heidegger through his analysis of Trakl's poem 'A Winter Evening'.I will be sure to come back to see more of your videos.By the way, I have canoed in the Arctic: saw many polar bears, beluga whales, caribou, wolves, muskoxen, among others, but no narwhals. Hope to travel to Iceland soon and see some Unicorns.Signing off, Worm Wood and Whyno(t)ceros. Cheers.
+Worm Wood Ah! Wow! I'd love to spend time in the Arctic! I'm a bit jealous, even without the narwhal! Hope you do get to see them someday. And also, I do love Sartre. Now I'm in the mood to break out some Zizek and Heidegger. If I could just get through this pile of grading! Thanks again for your comments and feedback!
The "seeing eye dogs only" appears (deconstruction? :-) to ignore the entire field of pragmatics and non-compositional semantics -- plus the obvious fact that, in the real world, the sign does work as intended (i.e., people pragmatically assume the most useful reading for the sign, the one you mentioned first). IOW, if deconstruction 'worked', language would 'fail' -- and it ost often doesn't (i.e., the sign usually 'works'). How do you account for that?
I don't think the seeing eye dogs only example really works. It is certainly clear enough what it means. The other meanings given, that it excludes other people or blind helpers are absurd. The text is meant to exclude dogs not assisting the blind. The text is really saying no dogs allowed, except for seeing eyes dogs. It is giving a rule and giving an exception to the rule. The sign is privileging human being over dogs. Dogs are not allowed on except if they are necessary for a human being to see. The sign privileges one dog over other dogs. Only seeing eye dogs are useful to human beings and therefore like human beings are privileged to go on the elevator. One could ask if a sighted person had a seeing eye dog would it still qualify? Lets say I got the seeing eye dog for my blind friend, but the friend passed away. Am I allowed to take the dog on as it is technically a seeing eye dog, although it is not functioning that way at the moment? Clearly, if the dog is not a seeing eye dog functioning as a seeing eye dog, it should not be allowed on. So the text is actually saying not all seeing eye dogs are allowed on, but only seeing eye dogs functioning as seeing eye dogs while on the elevator are allowed on. In this interpretation some seeing eye dogs would be excluded. Seeing eye dogs that are just pets would be excluded. It is here in this exception to a rule which is actually not a rule, but an exception to a rule that this sign on an elevator breaks down. It is in the allowing of some seeing eye dogs and the exclusion of others that the text is more open then it means to be. Also being on the elevator door means the door will open and shut some times. When the door opens, the rule/exception is unseen. Does it only mean to be a rule when the elevator door is shut and seen, or does it mean to be a rule all the time. Probably, it means to be a rule all the time. Yet putting it on the door where it is unseen when the doors are open seems to be a deliberate act of sabotage. When the door is open a person rushing to the elevator with their pet dog cannot see it. They are blind to the rule when the door is open and they are actually using the elevator. One can imagine a person holding their dog and blindly rushing to the open elevator and getting in. Once they are in, they will be unable to see the elevator sign and be blind to the fact that they are breaking the rule. Only after the elevator door opens and the go out and the door shuts again and they look back will they see the sign. Too late! They have already broken the rule of no non-seeing eye dogs, a rule that is unwritten anyway. When the elevator door is shut and they can see the sign, they cannot use the elevator. Of course, they have to wait to use the elevator if the door is shut. So the sign defers its meaning when seen by the seeing until the elevator door opens and the seeing are blind to the sign for the rule to take effect. The rule, which is really an exception to a rule, is only in effect when people are blind to it and the door is open. When people see it, it is not in effect. It does not inform the blind whom it is useful to because they do not see it on the closed door and it does not inform the seeing who are blind when it is open. To sum up, the sign is an exception to the rule that Non-seeing eye dogs are not allowed on the elevator. This rule is nowhere seen, so the sign is blind to the rule that it proclaims. The sign is an exception to a rule, but it does not allow exceptions (seeing eye dogs that are not being used as seeing eye dogs. It contradicts itself by not allowing all seeing eye dogs. Thirdly, the sign's position on the door defers its function. It cannot operate while the doors are closed, but only when it is open, when the sign cannot be seen. The text plays a game of hide and go seek with the blind and the seeing. In this way the sign is like the Ten Commandments which gives exceptions "Shalt Nots" telling you what to do by telling you what not to do. Like the Ten Commandments it guides you in a direction with its Shalt and immediately blocks you from going in that direction with its not. Should they not be named the Ten UnCommandments or as the line from the Pirates of the Carribean movie said, aren't they really just Ten Suggestions? Can we not add "Seeing Eye Dogs Only" to these ten and make it the 11th commandment, after all does not a blind man finding a watch need a seeing eye dog to get on an elevator. That is an example of the elevator called "Deconstruction."
I was going to say "of course the elevator sign example doesn't work. THe point of the example is to show that decostructionists are just a-holes" but I think you've got that down.
@@movelea I think deconstruction is not at it's core about childish differences or the ambiguity of what we would call concrete words. It really is about deconstructing dogmatic and oppressive systems of thought. The ones where people say "the way I perceive literature or draw meaning from it is the right way". Or in a political and cultural context, when people believe that rich people are high class poor people are lower class. In other words it deconstructs "truths" in major systems in which those truths are considered a "don't touch" that!
So, I stole lots from this video without giving you any credit because I know my professor will never watch this video or anything, but at least I am letting you know. Thanks a lot! :) Subbed
I see the insanity now in the deconstruction theory. I've seen so many people that live and breathe this theory and the insanity was explained not even a full 3 minutes into the video. Its valid to say that the meaning of something is not always understood but to blatantly go out of ones way to tear down an already confusing text is insane.
Thank you. this video help me. I'm working on an essay & curious, what if we can use deconstruction & dialectic at the same time ?? Deconstruction produces divergence of parts & dialectic produces a convergence whole. What wil be the end result? What the method to combine them will be??
Hey Tim, or anybody. I'm trying to understand the relationship between Deconstruction and Post Structuralism. **Can** deconstruction be applied to nonfiction text? If you apply the same tactics to nonfiction text, what is it called, if not "deconstruction"? Thanks!
this theory is the hardest one i think , im writing a paper about literary theories and writing about deconstrucion is taking all my time , but thank you very much for resuming it , it realy helps ^^
+Radhia Sky It can be tricky to get started with, but once you've gotten the hang of it, deconstruction can be very fun. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions!
Dear Scholar. I request to upload a video teaching geocriticism, spatial Studies of literature , basic methodology, theoretical and practical methods to criticise a literary text. Hope we will hear from you soon. Thanks
I have a report about this thing and Ive been researching about deconstructionist criticism in google for hours and I'm still clueless. But thankfully I found this video, I definitely get it now thankyou so much!
How about this reformulation: "For all statements, truth value cannot be necessarily validated." There's no way to verify this statement as, similarly, there is no means to verify the totality of statements possible. All statements, then, are likely in a limbo, a proposition which itself is in a limbo because it cannot be verified.
I am a poet and a Creative Writing professor I had in college, the one I respected the most, told me I should really read Derrida. Apparently my stuff fits postmodern art quite well. I have still never read Derrida. If I can lend any insight to such an approach though , it is that so much of my own writing is pointing out the silly obsurdities of writing at all. I don't consider myself very "serious". I am just annoyed when smug grammar nazis come along and declare that they understand everything just because they know what a comma splice. Congratulations, but so much of what is avaliable in the written or spoken word is translucent at best. Of course, that last paragraph starts to sound "serious" but it makes me wonder what "serious" is even supposed to mean. Signifier>>>> signified I just don't understand if that really works.
There is also an ironic problem with the term "deconstruction". It is not construction, though it may be destruction to a point. Still, what it is amounts more to the demolition or dismantling of linguistic and literary/rhetorical/poetic constructs than anything else.
i feel like it's a sort of pointing out that something usually presented/perceived in a certain way is apparently something else entirely by its nature. like in "the boys" tv series, when we have a perception that heroes "help and protect people," "the boys" "deconstruct" that idea, and presents/shows a different, new perspective: "heroes are not good people, because heroes are people, too, and people are not always good." deconstructive criticism (simply) points out what, how, and why the idea of "heroes are good people" are not necessarily right, as presented in "the boys." (feels like the text needs to be presenting something in a new perspective, so we can deconstruct it; otherwise, we'd be making things up) there becomes a contradiction between "heroes are good" and "heroes are not good," and because of that, both negate each other, and thus "there is no meaning." this happens because the deconstructionists believe that whatevere the author or text intends to utter, it will not be understood by the reader (seems like kinda fitting into all the orientations of author, text, and reader, but at the same time, not really, too), so we might as well create a new meaning (that's often the opposite of what's in the text) as we ourselves believe. i don't know if i get it right, tho. feels like it's tricky to understand for the sake of being tricky..
I feel like I'm closer to understanding what deconstruction is, but at the same time I'm not sure I fully understand it. Think this is the closest I've been though...good video.
My profesor explains this like explaining sth from outer space I just didnt get it. However, you explained it very well I finally understood what it is about. Thank you.
Some nitpicks, as the postmodern deconstructionists, I feel, are so troublesome to understand, purely because of how poorly they wrote.. The easiest way to explain Derrida to lay people is to start with plato's allegory of the cave, as it's an easy to understand and visual way to explain the idea that we live in a symbolic world behind which an objective reality exists. You will get nowhere unless you explain to them first the idea of the symbolic world. From there, it's easy to shift into Derrida's idea of "Differance," where he asserts we experience the world as those symbols (like in plato's cave) but here there is no moment of clarity when we experience the sun. Rather, the world as its presents itself to us is symbols linked to dictionary definitions (since we use words to interpret reality), and since those definitions necessarily consist of words that are linked to other dictionary definitions, we end up in trapped in a language web, where plato's objective meaning behind the symbol can never be obtained. We're trapped just seeing the shadows cast on the wall, or perhaps the reflections in the pool after leaving the cave. This is Derrida's "differance": all meaning is linguistic because it is derived from "different" words, and since we need more words to understand the words in front of us, the true meaning is always being "deferred" into the future. Thus, truth becomes subjective, rather than objective, because we're always separated from objective truth, and denied the ability to pursue virtue as Plato imagined in his allegory of the cave. No need to go into "sign" and "signifier" or "discourse." This is a battle of Plato's objectivity versus the latest philosopher arguing that objectivity is unobtainable, just that Derrida is using his philosophy of language to make his argument. He's arguing that reality presents itself to us as symbols that we naturally link to a dictionary definition, and than discussing the cognitive consequences of that. That's all he's doing. Extra credit points to the kid who figures out that Derrida's theory presumes it's impossible to have a pre-linguistic encounter with the world, and that this is a significant problem, since language had to come from somewhere. Deconstruction itself arises from a variety of postmodern thinkers in addition to Derrida, most importantly Michel Foucault. Since Derrida doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, but understands it as unachievable and unknowable due to his phenomenology of language causing him to conclude that all meaning is linguistic, there is no point in attempting to carry out the kind of platonic movements towards virtue, or objective truth, as imagined by Plato. All that we can do is understand the subjectivity in which we are trapped--the narrative real. This contributes to the focus on narrative truth over objective truth that is becoming progressively common in our culture today, though I think critics of postmodernism oftentimes overstate its influence on those cultural shifts. It would be more correct to say that the incredible standard of living that industrial civilization allows, combined with the emergence of a digital reality, gave a lot of oxygen to the long litany of people who have been critical of Plato's objective world over the centuries, and the postmodernists were just the right people at the right time. I don't even think Derrida's articulation in favor of subjectivity is particularly robust, and it stands up poorly in comparison to even some of the arguments being made by German idealists in the 19th century, or (rather embarrassingly for Derrida) against Husserl's recently translated works. But here we are. Significantly though, this makes postmodernism (and thus deconstruction itself) a full blown epistemology, radically changing the way we think of knowledge itself. The most annoying consequence of a shift from knowledge as something objective and knowable, to something subjective and narrative, is that the disciplines that have attempted to incorporate postmodernism in themselves, have an annoying tendency to be extremely vague in the meaning of words, since well-defined linguistic meaning is presumably unobtainable, so why should they try? You end up with a cognitive blind spot that focuses on narrative at the cost of the essence of the very pieces that make up that narrative. I also mention this because occasionally you'll encounter conservatives who hate postmodernism, but want to use deconstruction for their own ends, and it never works. It doesn't work because you can't argue for the objective real via a philosophical system that exists to undermine the objective real.
After hours of reading summaries of what Deconstruction means I still had no clue of the concept... but you explained it very well! Thanks!!!
Glad to help!
same here ! thank you it was fun .
and i thought i was the only one jostling....i wish they taught like this in the school/ college....thankyou so much...
Well he gets half of the procedure right but misses the point entirely.
Deconstruction is a mode of critical reading where you identify a (common sense) 'binary opposition' in which one term is 'privileged' (for example in Of Grammatology the binary opposition is Speech/Writing; for something more relevant here perhaps Hero/Villain), then invert it to show that the privileged term can only exist because of its opposite. By itself that doesn't accomplish anything particularly productive. The next step is to 'displace' the opposition and create a new perspective with new possibilities.
The other point to remember is that Deconstruction is a recursive process: once you have inverted an opposition and displaced it, you create a new perspective - but one that is unavoidable and necessarily another binary opposition with a privileged term. (Derrida's argument is that this way of thinking is built in to the very framework of western language.) But that's ok, as long as we gain a productive new perspective. We just have to remember that each perspective is also contingent and not an ultimate truth.
But that's simply repeating Hegel's dialectic - nothing new here, it seems.
I don't what I expected, but for a late night crash course this had me in tears when he came out with the hammer. Thank you.
You're welcome!
😊
😊
Thank you so much for this video! I am a graduate student in English studying to become an English Professor. I greatly enjoy literary criticism, but struggle with decon. I am going to go through and earn my PhD, so I have to understand it better. Your video simplified this subject and made it much easier to understand. Subscribed! Thank you so much!
Deconstruction really needs to be deconstructed !
charly kyoryu agreed
There is no deconstruction without meta-deconstruction, considering it knows its application can't work appropriately unless it is then again applied.
@@jkws0 please, elaborate for a newbie
Cssaarr deconstruction attempts to dismantle a text, because it assumes that language doesn’t work. But, by using the very tool that it is aiming to criticize, deconstruction invalidates it’s own assumptions that language does not work. Essentially, it deconstructs itself.
Are you trying to divide by zero or something
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video.
Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control.
But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another.
If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted.
To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
+Mark Blasini You are very right, and I've oversimplified here--perhaps to the point to misrepresenting the approach. My goal was to give high school students a chance to dabble in theory, and I hope that it at least gives them a taste. The theory is more playful than fatalistic, and I may come across as vilifying the concept without really meaning to. At least that's what I've gleaned from some comments. Thanks for your astute clarification of the ideas! I appreciate the correction and especially your good-natured and polite presentation of it!
Very similar to New Historicism.
To that, I really do agree. One cannot clearly understand deconstruction without studying Frankfurt School's Critical Theory first.
I just came across Derrida's deconstruction theory and what you explained seems to make more sense. Do you have any books or articles I can read to get a more in-depth view on this..Thanks :)
Thanks Mark. That was a very concise yet clear explanation.
One of the best explanations on literary deconstruction.
Thank you so much! You are so enthusiastic and you have great and clear explanations too! You helped me more on my project in just a few short minutes than reading an obscure and confusing booklet/package for a few hours!
+Jason Jia Glad to help!
Thanks, Tim. You're such an enthusiastic teacher.
+Chijioke Azuawusiefe Thank you! I do enjoy my job!
Finally I found somebody who explain deconstruction in a way I can actually understand. Thank You!
Entertaining lecture and explanation. Thanks for that!
Let's put deconstruction aside for a minute.
Regarding the sign on the lift door, if you think about it it is pure genius to write sg like this.
It does not matter if the blind person cannot read the sign as its purpose is to stop those who see to use the elevator with a dog.
After watching 100 of videos and wasting my time you are first one who explaining in easy and great way ...
Loved it sir.
I remember a text by Derrida from the quote "there is only text" is derived. By reading that letter you can figure out that Deconstruction exists in the first place to point out that we are social creatures with a brain that is wired to figure out associations, thus creating context. It is because of our social nature that we are given constructions that become the carriers of meaning. We are limited by our social environment to discover our individual personality, to find out our true essence as human beings. To deconstruct means to question the social structures we are raised in and to use it against itself in order to cause change.
It's fun with these examples but really, it's more fun to consume art that relates to these concepts like David Lynch, Agnes Varda, Andy Warhol, Duchamp, surrealism.
Explained in the easiest way I have ever come across. Thanks.
If I got you at the initial stage of my graduation, I could make my CGPA bigger than what I obtained.Thank you so much for the way you explained.
I tried googling for deconstructionism and what it was, but I couldn't find any clear explanation. Then I came across this video. Thanks a lot, it's very clear now!
TheDutchMaurits Glad I could help! This is a thumbnail sketch of the topic, and if you're interested, you should definitely dig deeper. You'll find a lot of extremely complicated texts on it, which are more irritating than helpful, but the one I'm using here--Text and Context by Steven Lynn--is excellent and user friendly. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to deconstruct any actual pieces of literature in this video. I often use music videos in my classroom as fun pieces for applying literary theory; we do Miranda Cosgrove's Dancing Crazy with decontruction because it basically deconstructs itself. Good luck with your continued exploration of the topic, and always feel free to ask me any questions!
I am a masters student of Danish literature and I have been reading many highly academic texts about "dekonstrktion" and I finally got it now. Thanks! I have an exam coming up where I hope to use it.... and after that exam I will leave it forever
Good luck on the exam!
By the way, a Masters in Danish lit sounds fantastic! What are some of the works you study?
Such a helpful, dynamic video on what's involved in a decon reading!
+Caroline Cacahuète Glad you found it useful!
Wow, ang video na ito ay talagang nakakatulong sa akin! Matagal na akong interesado sa paksa na ito, at ang iyong paliwanag ay talagang nakatulong sa akin na mas maintindihan ito. Pinapahalagahan ko ang iyong kahusayan at pagkahilig sa paksa na ito. Ako rin ay isang content creator, at nag-eexplore rin ako ng mga katulad na tema sa aking channel. Gusto ko makipag-ugnayan at magpalitan ng mga ideya sa mga taong may parehong interes. Keep up the good work!
As a non-native speaker of English, I think I can provide a different approach which you may not have thought of in the first place. Initially not having been being aware of the term "seeing eye dog" meaning "a leading dog for blind persons", I understood the sign in terms of its literal meaning, "only dogs with seeing eyes are allowed on the elevator" that is. This would, for whatever reason, mean that only sighted dogs are allowed on the elevator and blind dogs are not. Still, I agree with you with regard to the ambiguity expressed in the sense of 'we do not know if humans or anything else than this kind of dogs are allowed'. Anyway, as you can see, the signifier, in this case, is ambiguous in another way as well, even though you probably did not perceive it as what I am trying to explain at first glance. As far as I understand the idea of deconstruction, this can be seen as a perfect example for its application. The meaning you understand by reading these words is only based on a convention which English speaking persons have agreed upon. It, in some way, disguises the meaning which the constituent words as a whole carry for readers unaware of this convention and hides it from native speakers (who have reached a certain level of proficiency, at least). Thus, these groups might have a different understanding, which is solely due to their cultural (particularly linguistic) initial situations.
Also, I disagree with what you said around 5:25 ("[...] who is this sign intended to be for? Presumably a blind person [...]"), which is not the case, in my opinion. The sign is rather addressed to sighted persons with dogs in order to keep their pets off the elevator (or the entire building, we cannot know that due to missing additional context). It is probably somewhat safe to assume that an indication for blind persons would not have been conveyed via the visual channel, but rather a different one like the acoustic or the tactile one.
In the end, I do agree with what you're explaining in the video on the whole, but I partially interpret it differently.
You are most welcome to let me know what you think about my response.
Nice video and keep up the good work!
You make it look so simple! Thank you so much; I was really lost.
5:26 it is intended for a person who can see and is with a dog that is not a “seeing eye dog”.
I'm a college student at Green river College and my English teacher asks us to use literary criticism without ever explaining what it it or what each type are. You are saving my grade.
5:20 but obviously there is an implicit context in the statement; if we were to articulate it, it would be something like "if you have a dog, you are only allowed to take it into the elevator if it is a seeing eye dog" (which is obviously a proscriptive message to the sighted with non-eye dogs, since those with eye dogs would probably not be able to read it) and there is much less to pick apart once we clarify the context,
or am I missing something?
You discussed our full-semester course work in a very easy and comprehensive way. Thing which most of teachers won't do in formal class... hahahaaha! Your videos helped me soo much. Thank you.
You summarized Derrida in 15 seconds. I salute you!
The issue with the seeing eye dog example is that there are multiple cultural cases that are given. Elevators as human transport, and those which may allow dogs. If the mechanism and interface of an elevator is quite implicitly oriented to humans (symbology, licensing, inspection, language), then the 'case' transitions into being a human oriented model of communication, regardless of if dogs or anything else are ever allowed on it. If you extend the 'case' to ask if its for blind people, we immediately resolve that it cannot be (unless there's braile). The 'case' then transitions to being for a seeing human, and is ultimately a negation. The meaning reduces to "No Dogs" and and presents itself with an exception for 1) dogs that wouldnt be able to read the sign and 2) humans that wouldnt be able to read the sign. Implications can resolve to explicit meaning if the model of communication is limited.
Thanks Mr Nance!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Helped a great deal!!!!! Keep doing what you do!!!!!
Thanks a lot for clearing out my doubts and helping me sort out my head 😀You truly are a valuable asset to literature lovers.
+Riya Pundir Glad to help! You're very kind.
Thank you TIm Nance for the way you explained Decsonstruction. It was entertaining, fun, and helped me tremendously in gaining a greater understanding of this particularly difficult theory. I am going to give a lesson in a few weeks on deconstruction and may use part of your video to motivate the class. Love it. Great work. Thank you!
+Michele Patarino Glad I could help! Let me know if there's anything else I can do! What level do you teach?
I am going to be giving a lesson to about 12 other seniors at my university and teach deconstruction as if they were really in 10th grade. Still thinking of some fun activities.
Good luck! Let me know what works; I'm always looking for new tricks!
Absolutely. Will do!
+Michele Patarino Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
·
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Thank you. I have been wrestling with Derrida's Differance for 8 weeks. I had almost given up hope, then I found this. THANK YOU FOR SAVING THIS MENTALLY CHALLENGED AUSTRALIAN POST-GRAD FILM STUDENT! My kids have hope of having a normal parent again soon-ish! I'd love to know if this is your real name and how to find any published works so I can cite you and this enlightening explanation correctly! NO PLAGIARISM HERE!!!! Seriously, thank you. This is truly awesome!
+Sherrina Marshall Warner Lol! Glad I could help! Derrida actually died while I was in the middle of my literary theory class in grad school. It felt kinda symbolic... Timothy Nance is my real name, and I don't have any published writing that will be of any use to you (unless you want my cheesy YA novel and some poetry!), but you can cite this RUclips video. Or I also suggest getting your hands on Text and Context, which I reference in the video. It's a bit pricey, being a textbook, but it's excellent and much more thorough than I am.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
Taking a class on Contemporary Literary Theory right now and these videos are saving my life. Thank you for your talent and knowledge!! Subscribed :)
Thanks Tom ,ive been reading this topic for some time now and it really felt like i was reading a language from space, you explained it well in the shortest amount of time.
+Surprise Worship Know what you mean! I spent plenty of hours struggling through its space language in college! It gets easier with practice though!
I'm writing an essay involving deconstruction and Miley Cyrus, and this was the first video I clicked on. When Nance started singing wrecking ball I couldn't believe it and now you're getting quoted!
+Asha Jane Ha ha! Love it! My class usually deconstructs Miranda Cosgrove.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) How does that usually turn out?
A little nudge and the whole thing falls apart.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) My essay is going that way! However you explained it very well thank you!
deconstruction made me lose my sanity, that i'am thinking of marrying every person or every text that could explain it better.
+Aki Sakura Is this a proposal? 'Cause I'm taken.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) haha, it is totally a proposal! can you please do a video explaining what the heck does derrida( my sworn enemy) means by the cente being the center and not really a center?! :D
Ha! Yeah, I know the feeling. When I was in Literary Theory in grad school, I loathed the man, but I've softened up to him a bit more now. He actually died while I was in the class, and I wasn't absolutely certain that it wasn't my hatred floated across the ocean and killed him. Anyway, the center that he's talking about is a point of reference that is inherent to the text--the idea that everything has an absolute meaning that we're basing all of our understanding upon. But then, he points out that that "center" is really just a figment of our imaginations. There is no point of reference or absolute in language for us to hang meaning on. Therefore, meaning is really pretty wishy-washy wobbly. And we can push and prod any statement until it falls apart and means nothing if we want to.
Tim Nance thank you for replying! i have spend three days in undrestanding the theory of deconstruction and the center and all that blah blah, i almost gave up with a superficial understanding, especially that there is not enough materials to be able to study it more. PS: i will always loathe the guy. i can't forgive him, since he can't possibly apologize to all of us suffering undergraduate students.
Aki Sakura Well, best of luck! Here's to surviving!
i’m writing a conclusion for our group project and i’m crying….I REALLY ENJOYED LEARNING FROM THIS
You're the only one on the Internet that made it understandable for me
these 6 minutes were much better than 45 minute Lecture👌❤
I love the way you teaching... This is sooo amazing
Thanks a lot for this video!! So very helpful. I so wish you were my teacher!! Your students are exceptionally lucky to have such a wonderful teacher as you. Your channel, I’m sure, is helping tons of us out here! Thank you for sharing 😊😊🤗
Thank You!
You saved my life. Paper focused and worthy of an A. Thank you!
Tim please can you do a video on Speech Act Theory?
Driving I see an octagonal red sign at the side of the road with the word 'STOP'. I do not arrest my car. Later I explain to the policeperson that the sign 'STOP' is flawed since I need to get to my destination and, any way, the sign is not meant to stop traffic, just to regulate it. Do I win my case in court? (An answer only slightly extended beyond 'yes' would be appreciated).
+Worm Wood Ha, no, you don't. Though sometimes one can win a case on semantics or punctuation because of a misreading (and those cases are always really fun!), the powers that be will not usually recognize deconstruction as an appropriate legal defense. Partially, this is because ignorance is not the same as innocence. If I murder or steal because I didn't know that the law said not to, am I still breaking it and going to bear the consequences? Yep. Same thing with a stop sign. Just because I misread it and argue that it's not conveying the correct idea to me doesn't mean the court has to accept my stupidity (or philosophic cleverness). After all, it's a pretty specific and universal sign, and in order to get my driver's license, I had to correctly identify it and its function on a test. And my philosophic wit isn't going to impress anyone after I use it to justify reckless driving.
Also, deconstruction is simply a philosophic view of language, which doesn't make it binding for anyone who doesn't adhere to it. And the officer and judge probably don't. Just like my moral code may differ from the law, but I still have to keep the law or glean the consequences, my philosophical view of signs may differ from the law, but I'd be hard pressed to win a case that the sign isn't clear enough.
However, you are correct in recognizing that the law is something we interpret, and often the interpretations both vary and contradict one another. Have you ever sat down to read law code? All the clauses and phrases and legalese are a soupy mess and can readily be deconstructed. That's why a good lawyer can manipulate the outcome of a case--they're often interpreters and deconstructivists as much as anything.
And in this vein, here's a story of a person who got out of a ticket due to a missing comma, even though her opponents argued the meaning was "clear enough" in context: mashable.com/2015/07/02/missing-comma-parking-ticket/#oC6MfBLCXqkT So maybe there is hope for your Stop sign run. Let me know how it turns out if you try it.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Thank you for the clarification - I have one parking ticket in my 56 years of driving: kind of timid of me. I mean, I don't think it would be wise for me to drive through STOP signs, (beside them, that is).Thank you very much for your video - greatly enjoyed it and feel enriched by it. I am reading through some of Derrida's stuff to contrast him to Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" and a bunch of Zizek's materialist stuff. Excited about reading Derrida's 'Of Spirit' soon - especially interesting since I have come to appreciate Heidegger through his analysis of Trakl's poem 'A Winter Evening'.I will be sure to come back to see more of your videos.By the way, I have canoed in the Arctic: saw many polar bears, beluga whales, caribou, wolves, muskoxen, among others, but no narwhals. Hope to travel to Iceland soon and see some Unicorns.Signing off, Worm Wood and Whyno(t)ceros. Cheers.
+Worm Wood Ah! Wow! I'd love to spend time in the Arctic! I'm a bit jealous, even without the narwhal! Hope you do get to see them someday. And also, I do love Sartre. Now I'm in the mood to break out some Zizek and Heidegger. If I could just get through this pile of grading! Thanks again for your comments and feedback!
The "seeing eye dogs only" appears (deconstruction? :-) to ignore the entire field of pragmatics and non-compositional semantics -- plus the obvious fact that, in the real world, the sign does work as intended (i.e., people pragmatically assume the most useful reading for the sign, the one you mentioned first). IOW, if deconstruction 'worked', language would 'fail' -- and it ost often doesn't (i.e., the sign usually 'works'). How do you account for that?
A minute in the video and already subscribed bc of how beautifully u explain the complex phenomenas!
I’m like a decade late but thanks for this, sums it up nicely
Which book should i refer for critical theories?
THANK YOU!!! I finally understood deconstruction.
Came to watch the explanation for my exam and end up watching this guy singing wracking ball 😂
this actually helped me more than my professors explanation of deconstruction. now to apply it to my final essay. . .
Thanks, I have often heard the term “deconstruction” .... but it never before occurred to me to find out exactly what it means.
Thanks for sharing your views
I'm so happy and fuzzy 🤭 hahah.. you teach so simply and so well 🙌 we need more teachers like you, won't miss a single class 😅
thank you so much! this really helped me understand this theory after really struggling!
+Orochigirl17 Glad to help! Let me know if you have any questions!
I don't think the seeing eye dogs only example really works. It is certainly clear enough what it means. The other meanings given, that it excludes other people or blind helpers are absurd. The text is meant to exclude dogs not assisting the blind. The text is really saying no dogs allowed, except for seeing eyes dogs. It is giving a rule and giving an exception to the rule. The sign is privileging human being over dogs. Dogs are not allowed on except if they are necessary for a human being to see. The sign privileges one dog over other dogs. Only seeing eye dogs are useful to human beings and therefore like human beings are privileged to go on the elevator. One could ask if a sighted person had a seeing eye dog would it still qualify? Lets say I got the seeing eye dog for my blind friend, but the friend passed away. Am I allowed to take the dog on as it is technically a seeing eye dog, although it is not functioning that way at the moment?
Clearly, if the dog is not a seeing eye dog functioning as a seeing eye dog, it should not be allowed on. So the text is actually saying not all seeing eye dogs are allowed on, but only seeing eye dogs functioning as seeing eye dogs while on the elevator are allowed on. In this interpretation some seeing eye dogs would be excluded. Seeing eye dogs that are just pets would be excluded.
It is here in this exception to a rule which is actually not a rule, but an exception to a rule that this sign on an elevator breaks down. It is in the allowing of some seeing eye dogs and the exclusion of others that the text is more open then it means to be.
Also being on the elevator door means the door will open and shut some times. When the door opens, the rule/exception is unseen. Does it only mean to be a rule when the elevator door is shut and seen, or does it mean to be a rule all the time. Probably, it means to be a rule all the time. Yet putting it on the door where it is unseen when the doors are open seems to be a deliberate act of sabotage. When the door is open a person rushing to the elevator with their pet dog cannot see it. They are blind to the rule when the door is open and they are actually using the elevator. One can imagine a person holding their dog and blindly rushing to the open elevator and getting in. Once they are in, they will be unable to see the elevator sign and be blind to the fact that they are breaking the rule. Only after the elevator door opens and the go out and the door shuts again and they look back will they see the sign. Too late! They have already broken the rule of no non-seeing eye dogs, a rule that is unwritten anyway.
When the elevator door is shut and they can see the sign, they cannot use the elevator. Of course, they have to wait to use the elevator if the door is shut. So the sign defers its meaning when seen by the seeing until the elevator door opens and the seeing are blind to the sign for the rule to take effect. The rule, which is really an exception to a rule, is only in effect when people are blind to it and the door is open. When people see it, it is not in effect. It does not inform the blind whom it is useful to because they do not see it on the closed door and it does not inform the seeing who are blind when it is open.
To sum up, the sign is an exception to the rule that Non-seeing eye dogs are not allowed on the elevator. This rule is nowhere seen, so the sign is blind to the rule that it proclaims. The sign is an exception to a rule, but it does not allow exceptions (seeing eye dogs that are not being used as seeing eye dogs. It contradicts itself by not allowing all seeing eye dogs. Thirdly, the sign's position on the door defers its function. It cannot operate while the doors are closed, but only when it is open, when the sign cannot be seen.
The text plays a game of hide and go seek with the blind and the seeing. In this way the sign is like the Ten Commandments which gives exceptions "Shalt Nots" telling you what to do by telling you what not to do. Like the Ten Commandments it guides you in a direction with its Shalt and immediately blocks you from going in that direction with its not. Should they not be named the Ten UnCommandments or as the line from the Pirates of the Carribean movie said, aren't they really just Ten Suggestions? Can we not add "Seeing Eye Dogs Only" to these ten and make it the 11th commandment, after all does not a blind man finding a watch need a seeing eye dog to get on an elevator.
That is an example of the elevator called "Deconstruction."
Well done!
good job
I was going to say "of course the elevator sign example doesn't work. THe point of the example is to show that decostructionists are just a-holes" but I think you've got that down.
Genius assessment! I couldn't stop laughing. I'll show your response to my friends tomorrow! Lol
@@movelea I think deconstruction is not at it's core about childish differences or the ambiguity of what we would call concrete words. It really is about deconstructing dogmatic and oppressive systems of thought. The ones where people say "the way I perceive literature or draw meaning from it is the right way". Or in a political and cultural context, when people believe that rich people are high class poor people are lower class. In other words it deconstructs "truths" in major systems in which those truths are considered a "don't touch" that!
So, I stole lots from this video without giving you any credit because I know my professor will never watch this video or anything, but at least I am letting you know. Thanks a lot! :) Subbed
+GamelutioN Lol. Thanks. Steal on.
Borrowed*
You know you can cite videos right? Totally legit method of research as long as Mr. Nance is a credible source.
Same @GamelutioN same.
I see the insanity now in the deconstruction theory. I've seen so many people that live and breathe this theory and the insanity was explained not even a full 3 minutes into the video.
Its valid to say that the meaning of something is not always understood but to blatantly go out of ones way to tear down an already confusing text is insane.
Sir, can you give me links on theses/dissertations using deconstruction?Thanks sir for the help...
you are so funny. our doctors need alot of your way in demonstrating, especially the deconstruction theory 😂. big like
Thank you!
Thank you. this video help me. I'm working on an essay & curious, what if we can use deconstruction & dialectic at the same time ?? Deconstruction produces divergence of parts & dialectic produces a convergence whole. What wil be the end result? What the method to combine them will be??
This was a very confusing topic for me but your explanation is very clear and concise. Thanks!
Oh! Does this mean that whenever a person says "Oh my God!" and I say it on my mind, "Your god? You have your own god?", I am deconstructing?
Hey Tim, or anybody. I'm trying to understand the relationship between Deconstruction and Post Structuralism.
**Can** deconstruction be applied to nonfiction text?
If you apply the same tactics to nonfiction text, what is it called, if not "deconstruction"?
Thanks!
You saved my life with your videos, thank you
Thank you so much! It really helps me to understand deconstructions means! 😊😆
this theory is the hardest one i think , im writing a paper about literary theories and writing about deconstrucion is taking all my time , but thank you very much for resuming it , it realy helps ^^
+Radhia Sky It can be tricky to get started with, but once you've gotten the hang of it, deconstruction can be very fun. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions!
Dear Scholar. I request to upload a video teaching geocriticism, spatial Studies of literature , basic methodology, theoretical and practical methods to criticise a literary text. Hope we will hear from you soon. Thanks
Great teacher. Thank youuu. You saved my life in exam
Yes! Thank you! I truly appreciate this video
boy! you rock! that explanation was awesome! thank you
+Ruth Allio Oudri Thanks! Glad it helps!
Thank you so much for breaking this down to a commoners understanding!
I have a report about this thing and Ive been researching about deconstructionist criticism in google for hours and I'm still clueless. But thankfully I found this video, I definitely get it now thankyou so much!
Do u know how to deconstruct the malayalam movie ee.Ma.yau.... By Jose pellissery...its urgent
Sorry, haven't seen it!
Where does deconstruction locate meaning? It is always at work in the work. It is always-already.
I can't thank you enough for this video. You have succeeded in making a talk about theory interesting :)
Yay! Glad you enjoyed it!
Deconstructionist: “All statements are devoid of meaning (except mine here, but please don’t notice that.”)
How about this reformulation: "For all statements, truth value cannot be necessarily validated." There's no way to verify this statement as, similarly, there is no means to verify the totality of statements possible. All statements, then, are likely in a limbo, a proposition which itself is in a limbo because it cannot be verified.
@@draw4everyone Christ! So we cant know whether anything is true? wtaf
‘A person who says all truth is relative is asking you not to believe him, so don’t’
Deconstructionists arent relativist
@@soi4685 Really?
You are just brilliant - thank you!!!
+Nico Kos You're very kind!
Sir how do we deconstruct poetics?
Very helpful video for me. Thanks for clearing my all doubt .
Thank you so much sir. This video is the only thing that helped me to get the idea regarding Deconstruction properly. WIsh you all the best :)
Thanks a lot! You explained it in such a simple way! Thanks a ton for using great examples!
i think i learned more about deconstructing here than any of criticism classes combined
wow, your explanation is much better than any book I ever read about decontstruction :))))
I am a poet and a Creative Writing professor I had in college, the one I respected the most, told me I should really read Derrida. Apparently my stuff fits postmodern art quite well.
I have still never read Derrida. If I can lend any insight to such an approach though , it is that so much of my own writing is pointing out the silly obsurdities of writing at all. I don't consider myself very "serious". I am just annoyed when smug grammar nazis come along and declare that they understand everything just because they know what a comma splice.
Congratulations, but so much of what is avaliable in the written or spoken word is translucent at best.
Of course, that last paragraph starts to sound "serious" but it makes me wonder what "serious" is even supposed to mean.
Signifier>>>> signified
I just don't understand if that really works.
Hi, Sir! Please continue creating videos like this!!! 🙏😊
There is also an ironic problem with the term "deconstruction". It is not construction, though it may be destruction to a point. Still, what it is amounts more to the demolition or dismantling of linguistic and literary/rhetorical/poetic constructs than anything else.
wouldnt people have some agreeed upon definition of dog on its general properties but the details would vary?
Thank you so much for the explanation!
Thank you so much! This video made me finally understand
how can one deconstruct a social institution? I need help ASAP.
+Leonardo Ocampo In short, look for inherent flaws and contradictions. Sometimes these flaws fall between social value statements and actual outcomes.
i feel like it's a sort of pointing out that something usually presented/perceived in a certain way is apparently something else entirely by its nature. like in "the boys" tv series, when we have a perception that heroes "help and protect people," "the boys" "deconstruct" that idea, and presents/shows a different, new perspective: "heroes are not good people, because heroes are people, too, and people are not always good." deconstructive criticism (simply) points out what, how, and why the idea of "heroes are good people" are not necessarily right, as presented in "the boys." (feels like the text needs to be presenting something in a new perspective, so we can deconstruct it; otherwise, we'd be making things up)
there becomes a contradiction between "heroes are good" and "heroes are not good," and because of that, both negate each other, and thus "there is no meaning." this happens because the deconstructionists believe that whatevere the author or text intends to utter, it will not be understood by the reader (seems like kinda fitting into all the orientations of author, text, and reader, but at the same time, not really, too), so we might as well create a new meaning (that's often the opposite of what's in the text) as we ourselves believe. i don't know if i get it right, tho. feels like it's tricky to understand for the sake of being tricky..
I feel like I'm closer to understanding what deconstruction is, but at the same time I'm not sure I fully understand it. Think this is the closest I've been though...good video.
THANK YOU!!!! You explained it so well. The textbook I'm using for my literary theory class is so dense and dry lol
The hammer part deconstructed deconstruction. I loved that.
My profesor explains this like explaining sth from outer space I just didnt get it. However, you explained it very well I finally understood what it is about. Thank you.
Great. And I liked the way you wrote Deconstruction. I'm going to copy/steal it.
excellent explanation. it was very easy to understand even for me whose first language isn't English.
+CJHere Thanks!
Tyhuu! You explained deconstruction so well.
can you define pi?
Such a wonderful informative video 🙌🏼🙏🏼
Some nitpicks, as the postmodern deconstructionists, I feel, are so troublesome to understand, purely because of how poorly they wrote..
The easiest way to explain Derrida to lay people is to start with plato's allegory of the cave, as it's an easy to understand and visual way to explain the idea that we live in a symbolic world behind which an objective reality exists. You will get nowhere unless you explain to them first the idea of the symbolic world. From there, it's easy to shift into Derrida's idea of "Differance," where he asserts we experience the world as those symbols (like in plato's cave) but here there is no moment of clarity when we experience the sun. Rather, the world as its presents itself to us is symbols linked to dictionary definitions (since we use words to interpret reality), and since those definitions necessarily consist of words that are linked to other dictionary definitions, we end up in trapped in a language web, where plato's objective meaning behind the symbol can never be obtained. We're trapped just seeing the shadows cast on the wall, or perhaps the reflections in the pool after leaving the cave. This is Derrida's "differance": all meaning is linguistic because it is derived from "different" words, and since we need more words to understand the words in front of us, the true meaning is always being "deferred" into the future. Thus, truth becomes subjective, rather than objective, because we're always separated from objective truth, and denied the ability to pursue virtue as Plato imagined in his allegory of the cave.
No need to go into "sign" and "signifier" or "discourse." This is a battle of Plato's objectivity versus the latest philosopher arguing that objectivity is unobtainable, just that Derrida is using his philosophy of language to make his argument. He's arguing that reality presents itself to us as symbols that we naturally link to a dictionary definition, and than discussing the cognitive consequences of that. That's all he's doing.
Extra credit points to the kid who figures out that Derrida's theory presumes it's impossible to have a pre-linguistic encounter with the world, and that this is a significant problem, since language had to come from somewhere.
Deconstruction itself arises from a variety of postmodern thinkers in addition to Derrida, most importantly Michel Foucault. Since Derrida doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, but understands it as unachievable and unknowable due to his phenomenology of language causing him to conclude that all meaning is linguistic, there is no point in attempting to carry out the kind of platonic movements towards virtue, or objective truth, as imagined by Plato. All that we can do is understand the subjectivity in which we are trapped--the narrative real. This contributes to the focus on narrative truth over objective truth that is becoming progressively common in our culture today, though I think critics of postmodernism oftentimes overstate its influence on those cultural shifts. It would be more correct to say that the incredible standard of living that industrial civilization allows, combined with the emergence of a digital reality, gave a lot of oxygen to the long litany of people who have been critical of Plato's objective world over the centuries, and the postmodernists were just the right people at the right time.
I don't even think Derrida's articulation in favor of subjectivity is particularly robust, and it stands up poorly in comparison to even some of the arguments being made by German idealists in the 19th century, or (rather embarrassingly for Derrida) against Husserl's recently translated works. But here we are.
Significantly though, this makes postmodernism (and thus deconstruction itself) a full blown epistemology, radically changing the way we think of knowledge itself. The most annoying consequence of a shift from knowledge as something objective and knowable, to something subjective and narrative, is that the disciplines that have attempted to incorporate postmodernism in themselves, have an annoying tendency to be extremely vague in the meaning of words, since well-defined linguistic meaning is presumably unobtainable, so why should they try? You end up with a cognitive blind spot that focuses on narrative at the cost of the essence of the very pieces that make up that narrative.
I also mention this because occasionally you'll encounter conservatives who hate postmodernism, but want to use deconstruction for their own ends, and it never works. It doesn't work because you can't argue for the objective real via a philosophical system that exists to undermine the objective real.
Thank you,