Re: misc responses

There are a few things wrong with Ray Schneider's essay that I think
have been repeated quite often on this list.

First, deconstruction isn't new. Derrida was introduced to the US in
1966 during a conference at Johns Hopkins University. So it's "new"
only in the sense that something 35 years old is new. It would be more
accurate to say "chaos theory" is new and being widely disseminated, and
chaos theory is just the thing you get when you cross the humanities
with the sciences. Silly (most of it that I've read, anyway).

Second, it's not that widely disseminated today. If you take a literary
theory course at a college or university, you're sure to learn about it.
 But if you're doing research on virtually any topic in English
literature, and read criticism written in the last five years, it's
unlikely you're going find a straight deconstruction of a text. You're
more likely to find some kind of historical or cultural research or
feminist or gay criticism (more likely mixtures of all of these). Fact
is, deconstruction is more widely disseminated by those who are hostile
to it than by those who advocate it. Hare brained essays like this one
keeps deconstruction in the public eye far more than any critics I've
read.

Third, there's a difference between Derrida (meaning, deconstruction as
a theoretical construct) and "deconstructionists" (meaning, critics who
practice deconstruction). I think some "deconstructionists" probably do
fit the mold described in that guy's essay. But that's not Derrida.
 Schneider's description of deconstruction:

"Is it really some kind of discovery that language can be interpreted in many ways and distorted
beyond all recognition if one is determined enough?"

probably does fit some of the worst deconstructions of texts that I've read. But it's not descriptive of Derrida at all, and it certainly doesn't describe every deconstruction of a text I've read. Some have been remarkably insightful. I really wonder if he has read much of what he's criticizing. I can't help but wonder where he's getting his information. Since his field is math and computer science and his Ph.D. is in "information technology," I suspect he hasn't. He claims to be a "truthseeker," but I find it doubtful that he's worked that hard to seek the truth about deconstruction. All he does is repeat worn out clichés using warmed over rhetoric. There is nothing original or insightful in his piece.

There are intelligent critiques of deconstruction out there. This isn't one of them.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Dec 11 13:58:12 2002