In her response, Ioana asks:
"Why is the concept of 'Man' as cultural construct not addressed or, at most, addressed only by implication?"
I have several responses: first, as Geoff mentioned, the nature of gender relations means that deconstructionist comments/attacks on feminine identity also deconstruct male identity. Like Keenan's public and private sphere, male/female identity cannot exist without female/male identity. Because the feminine subject is subjugated by the masculine, male identity is defined by this dominant relationship. Remove the subjugated side of the dichotomy and the dichotomy falls apart. One cannot exist without the other. Of course, this assumes that these two are separate entities, existing on separate ends of the dichotomy...Next, I'll start with a quote from Geoff:
Feminism's "disempowerment" of women by stripping them of their "woman" status seems absurd, as feminism does not leave women without new status/labeling/"subjectness. I would argue that the act of critique creates a new space which in itself offers a definition for women.
I fully agree (I also apologize for the continued italics, Blogger seems to be broken at the moment). Deconstruction's goal is suppossedly to fully deconstruct/undermine/destroy a structure or metaphysical assumption. While you could argue that this would create a blank space, I'd argue that this argument is pointless; Derrida himself has admitted that "true" deconstruction is impossible, meaning that his work falls somewhat short and therefore must be different (despite the sameness). In fact, the creation of the term "deconstruction" to describe Derrida's work most likely holds him back; by attaching a signifier to his work, Derrida is limited and contained. In this case, the question becomes not "what is the result of ideal deconstruction" but "what is the result of all deconstructive work that has been done and can be done." In the creation of a "deconstruction," writers are forced to "construct" a "deconstructive text," which simultaneously deconstructs a structure/metaphysical assumption and re-builds/structures/constructs it into something different and (ideally) better. Take for example deconstructive architecture; by subverting the idea of "purely functional" architecture, deconstruction revealed the artistry inherent within the field and allowed it to bloom independently, allowing for works such as those of Frank Gehry (horrible example, I know, but it's the one everyone here is most familiar with), that can both convey meaning outside of its intended use and subvert the implied end results of urbanization and gentrification.
Deconstruction (as it is actually utilized) cannot exist without a (re)construction, and therefore must create a new subject in its attack on the old both to act as a instrument for agency to act through and to take the place of the old subject. What's interesting is that it is both new yet exists in the same space as the old (or perhaps displaces the space of the old to somewhere else; the location of the space is irreleveant here, as most (if not all) variables), both a deconstruction and a reconstruction. It is effective because it is able to frustrate dichotomies in both its creation and its methods.
Well, I need an ending, and this appears to be it. My response seemed to become less of a response to the reading and more towards the section, but if not here then in section. I look forward to hearing responses.
I fully agree (I also apologize for the continued italics, Blogger seems to be broken at the moment). Deconstruction's goal is suppossedly to fully deconstruct/undermine/destroy a structure or metaphysical assumption. While you could argue that this would create a blank space, I'd argue that this argument is pointless; Derrida himself has admitted that "true" deconstruction is impossible, meaning that his work falls somewhat short and therefore must be different (despite the sameness). In fact, the creation of the term "deconstruction" to describe Derrida's work most likely holds him back; by attaching a signifier to his work, Derrida is limited and contained. In this case, the question becomes not "what is the result of ideal deconstruction" but "what is the result of all deconstructive work that has been done and can be done." In the creation of a "deconstruction," writers are forced to "construct" a "deconstructive text," which simultaneously deconstructs a structure/metaphysical assumption and re-builds/structures/constructs it into something different and (ideally) better. Take for example deconstructive architecture; by subverting the idea of "purely functional" architecture, deconstruction revealed the artistry inherent within the field and allowed it to bloom independently, allowing for works such as those of Frank Gehry (horrible example, I know, but it's the one everyone here is most familiar with), that can both convey meaning outside of its intended use and subvert the implied end results of urbanization and gentrification.
Deconstruction (as it is actually utilized) cannot exist without a (re)construction, and therefore must create a new subject in its attack on the old both to act as a instrument for agency to act through and to take the place of the old subject. What's interesting is that it is both new yet exists in the same space as the old (or perhaps displaces the space of the old to somewhere else; the location of the space is irreleveant here, as most (if not all) variables), both a deconstruction and a reconstruction. It is effective because it is able to frustrate dichotomies in both its creation and its methods.
Well, I need an ending, and this appears to be it. My response seemed to become less of a response to the reading and more towards the section, but if not here then in section. I look forward to hearing responses.
No comments:
Post a Comment