Derrida & Deconstruction: Flipped Learning (Part - 2)

TOPIC OF THE BLOG:- 

This blog is a part of a thinking activity given by Dilip Barad Sir from The English Department, MKBU, Bhavnagar. Check out Dilip Barad sir's Blog Site (Click Here) for more information and knowledge about Derrida & Deconstruction and Flipped Learning and other works and writers. In this blog I like to give answers of the questions asked by sir (with the help of videos given in the Teacher's Blog (Click here)) and Flipped Learning as per my understanding. 

FLIPPED LEARNING:-

Flipped learning is a methodology that helps teachers to prioritize active learning during class time by assigning students lecture materials and presentations to be viewed at home or outside of class. To know more about Flipped Learning visit this site (Click here).

Here are these questions that arises from the videos:-

VIDEO 1:-

1.1. Why is it difficult to define Deconstruction?

Any term, theme or idea firstly discussed by the inventor of it.  But here Derrida himself refuses to define Deconstruction and says that Terms like this we use in Philosophy and Literary Criticism for that matter and even Deconstruction cannot be defined by anyone with 100% surety. Complexity to define Deconstruction is that it can lead to multiple interpretations, making it difficult to provide a perfect definition.

1.2. Is Deconstruction a negative term?

If we want to conclude whether the term is negative or not, according to Derrida, it is not exactly a negative term. Actually, he is inquiring into the condition or what causes the philosophical system or meaning to stand up on its own and fall down. He is inquiring into the foundation. When any term is made to clear the ideas and give more than one meaning to it, it is not easy to say that it is a negative term.

1.3. How does Deconstruction happen on its own?

Of course, it is true that the conditions which give 'meaning' to the system, that very conditions put a limit to it. So, when the foundations of meanings are inquired, it breakfree the limitations. Thus, an inquiry into foundations destroys the institution. So we can say that deconstruction happens on its own. But if we see, Deconstruction also needs some concentration of the readers and it requires more than just a surface understanding about it. So, it might be also true that at some level deconstruction does not happen on its own but we have to Deconstruct it.

VIDEO 2:-

2.1. The influence of Heidegger on Derrida.

Derrida was influenced by the three major figures Sigmund Freud, Martin Heidegger and F. Nietzsche on his thinking about the concept of Deconstruction. One of the reasons Heidegger has influence on Derrida is Heidegger thoughts about Deconstruction and wants to carry on further, second reason can be considered that the idea of Heidegger is that he wanted to 'dismantle' entire tradition of Western philosophy by pursuing the question of being of beings and Derrida wants to explore this more and also Heidegger's work in ontology, "Being and Time," heavily influenced Derrida's understanding of deconstruction. So, these are some reasons that Heidegger has so much influence on Derrida.

2.2. Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy.

The foundation of Western Philosophy described by Heidegger and by rethinking, Derrida is somewhere also criticizing the idea of Heidegger which has some space in it. For fill the space he is rethinking The foundation of Western Philosophy by describing Logocentrism and Presence, Binary Oppositions, Metaphysics of Presence, etc. which helps us to get clear idea about Deconstruction.

VIDEO 3:-

3.1. Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive).

Ferdinand de Saussure introduced several points that have significantly shaped modern linguistic theory.  He argued that the relationship between the signifier (the sound/image of a word) and the signified (the concept or meaning associated with the word) is arbitrary. In other words, there is no inherent connection between the sound and the meaning of a word. About relational, he says that the meaning of a word arises from its relation to other words in the language system. These concepts help us to understand how language works as a tool of communication.

3.2. How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?

Derrida's deconstruction goes beyond Saussure's notion of arbitrariness. He says that the relationship between the word and its meaning is not natural but conventional one and it's more of a social one. It leads us to so many results if we want to know about something particular like if we want to know about a word so by knowing the meaning of that word one can find other meanings as well. Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness by saying that it is always related within a network of hierarchical and oppositional relationships. Further he says that language is inherently open to multiple interpretations, and there is no ultimate or fixed meaning for a text or a sign.

3.3. Concept of metaphysics of presence.

The concept of the "metaphysics of presence" is a main idea in Derrida's philosophy and his critique of Western metaphysics. Derrida's critique of the metaphysics of presence is part of his broader deconstructive project, in which he wants to challenge the traditional binary oppositions and hierarchies that have structured Western philosophy. The metaphysics of presence is somewhere related to logocentrism, a term Derrida uses to describe the privileging of speech over writing. Further he described this with the idea of absence and centering.

VIDEO 4 :-

4.1. Derridean concept of DifferAnce.

The Derridean concept of "DifferAnce" (spelled with an "a" instead of "e") is a central idea in Derrida's philosophy. DifferAnce is a play on words, combining the French terms "difference" (difference) and "differer" (to defer). Meaning that the presence or fulfillment of meaning is continuously postponed or deferred. In short, meaning is never fully present or immediately graspable. DifferAnce is a crucial element of Derrida's deconstructive method, which involves questioning and destabilizing established meanings, binary oppositions, and hierarchies.

4.2. Infinite play of meaning.

For this concept first we can see this with the help of dictionary that one word lead us to another word rather than towards the meaning of the word. We never arrive at center of meaning, we move away from it. Saussurean 'sign' is equal to 'signifier' which 'signifies' some meaning; but Derriean 'sign' is 'FREE-PLAY' of signifier, signifying nothing. What we find in dictionary is not meaning but the group of other words which lead us to more words.

4.3. DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer.

Derrida combines the two terms DIFFER and DEFER and made new term. Derrida is drawing attention towards difference between speech and writing and also privileging of speech over writing. It is both negative and positive, at the same time DifferAnce neither positive nor negative.

VIDEO 5:-

5.1. Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.

"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" is an essay by Jacques Derrida, first presented as a conference paper in 1966. In this work, Derrida described the nature of language, meaning, and knowledge in the context of the human sciences and their relation to philosophy. Derrida deconstructs the notion of a fixed structure with a stable center, highlighting the multiplicity of meanings and interpretations. In short, he opens up different windows for interpretation through this idea.

5.2. Explain: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."

Language is the primary tool we use to critique and understand the world, but at the same time, it is also the very medium through which our understanding and critique take place. Structuralism began as the critique of the assumption science as well as metaphysics. The relations between words and concepts create complex networks of meaning. The lack in the language - the missing or the blind spot in language demands for the critic to fill it. It can be done only through language. The lack continues to be there. In short, Language can destroy the meaning of a word and also can be understood by it.

VIDEO 6:-

6.1. The Yale School: the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.

Paul de Man, J Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman are four 'hermeneutic mafias' of Yale University who propagated the thought of Derrida worldwide. This group played a significant role in popularizing and applying deconstruction, a philosophical approach developed by Jacques Derrida, to literary criticism and theory.  They argued that literary texts are not stable entities with fixed meanings but are open to multiple interpretations and always deferred.

6.2. The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction.

The Yale School focused on the use of language, rhetoric, and literary devices to explore how meaning is produced within the text. They questioned the traditional aesthetic and formalist approach to literature, and also challenged historicist and sociological approaches to literature. They were particularly interested in the Romantic period and explored how Romantic literature challenged conventional notions of meaning and representation, aligning well with their deconstructive interests.

VIDEO 7:-

7.1. How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?

Each of these schools has its unique ideas and beliefs. New Historicism emerged as a response to the limitations of traditional historicist approaches. New Historicists have drawn on deconstruction to question and decenter dominant historical narratives, revealing how the past is constructed and contested through language. Cultural Materialism is concerned with the material conditions and power structures that shape culture and literature. Feminist theorists have engaged with deconstruction to challenge traditional gender hierarchies and patriarchal norms in literature and culture. Marxist critics have found points of convergence with deconstruction in their shared interest in critiquing dominant ideologies. Postcolonial theorists have engaged with deconstruction to interrogate the colonial legacies and the power dynamics inherent in colonial and postcolonial discourses. (got a little help from Chat GPT)

To Read the first part of this topic click here.

NOTE:- If you have any suggestion or wants to say something please comment below or contact me on my social media.