6

Deconstruction literally should mean "destroying something" or "tearing something apart" or something like that—something that is opposite to "construction". Why he has chosen this term for his text analysis approach? Seems to me that his approach could be called "language inadequacy and reader's importance", or something like that. I mean, you never get to that meaning from "deconstruction".

Is there an explanation?

Mechanical snail
  • 197
  • 6
Saeed Neamati
  • 1,769
  • 15
  • 18
  • 1
    Yes, "opposite to construction" is an accurate reading of Derrida. "Tearing something apart" is *precisely* what you are doing as a deconstructionist, wading through the multiple layers of possible interpretation and alternative meanings. Your description ("language inadequacy and reader's importance") is quite the same as deconstruction. You have to deconstruct to figure out what those things are, or realize that they exist at all. – Cody Gray - on strike Jul 27 '11 at 04:09
  • It is also deconstruction in a "mechanical" sense: taking a given (literary, critical, political) "machine" -- for instance: critique, words/writing, forgiveness, aporia, terror, etc.; just to name a few -- and finding out through a cautious "disassembly" how it works. – Joseph Weissman Jul 28 '11 at 00:12
  • Thus, and based on @Michael's answer, I think we can use "decomposition" also as a synonym for what Derrida had in mind. Thanks :) – Saeed Neamati Jul 29 '11 at 07:00

2 Answers2

6

Derrida attempted to answer this question in his Letter to a Japanese Friend. I don't think you're going to find a better explanation as to his intentions than the one found there.

Michael Dorfman
  • 23,267
  • 1
  • 44
  • 69
1

Wikipedia's article on deconstruction seems to cover this quite well.

Though Derrida supposedly intentionally did not try to pin down a specific meaning to the term, it comes down to something like 'a very rigorous analysis', which can metaphorically feel like pulling things apart radically.

Mitch
  • 3,283
  • 1
  • 22
  • 30