OK I'm really behind on this discussion now, but...
At 15:50 11/02/99 -0600, you wrote:
>At the risk of cuttling loose another fart at the pomo cocktail gathering,
I have a couple of lingering questions left over regarding this thread.
>
>First, I notice that "deconstruct" is pretty frequently used as a verb.
Can anyone tell me what it means? And why it amounts to something
more/different than using a verb like "analyze" or "criticize"? It often
seems more than a little like using "impact" as a verb instead of "affect,"
but maybe I'm missing something useful.
Deconstruct is a verb, yes, but does not mean to analyse but to analyse in a particular way -- that is, with a view to the contradictions inherent within philosophical givens.
In general to deconstruct in this sense is to look for the foundation of an argument or claim on a dichotomy and to demonstrate that those terms are in fact not mutually exclusive but mutually dependent. For example, Jacques Derrida discusses the authenticity of speech in comparison to writing as the foundation for talking about writing, or elsewhere shows that Claude Levi-Strauss' analysis of the incest taboo actually demonstrates that incest is central to 'human' society rather than being excluded from it (yes yes don't tell me that's what L-S sais all the time, I know it). Deconstruction often also proceeds by locating a 'third term' on which a dichotomy depends -- for example, Luce Irigaray says the mother-son dichotomy is dependent on the exclusion of the figure of the daughter.
Now I admit for any of you out there who might be heavily into deconstruction (as I am not) that this is a simplification. But hey it will do as a start and I am off to work now.
Catherine