There is very little support of Post-Structuralism/Deconstructionism in America. I can't say that I have ever had a teacher that thought it was that worthwhile. I've heard American newpapers call it the "French Disease." Others complain it leads to a dead end. That it leaves no room for development or philosophical progress. Another common criticism is that it is more beneficial to the Right than the Left, simply because unlike a Modernist Progressive doctrine that validates a humanistic, secular, scientific worldview, Post structural readings of cultural can validate all worldviews and in effect throws it's hands up in determining if there is any way of objectively determining if there is a good one out there.
To take a literary practice and apply it to ethics is misleading, but tempting. When we look at issues of identity: race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality..etc i feel it is a good tactic to apply a measure of deconstruction to our readings of the signs of such identity markers. There is no certain way to know if someone is gay. well of course you can ask, "are you gay" but I'm talking much more texturally. But even an affirmative answer doesn't say much. There is still the issue of intent, what does "gay" mean to that person? I realize this radical uncertainty is unnecessary but I feel it is a more thorough reading of the semiotics of identity. The terms we use to identify ourselves are themselves not ours, they are borrowed, traded, politicized, historicized; they mean nothing certain. Such readings hollow out any essential characteristics of men, women, gays, straighties, whites and blacks ,,etc. To develop an ethic based on uncertainty suspends judgment, which is dangerous at times. It asks to suspend your intuition when it comes to social cues, to the natural world...can't you read?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The thing that puts me off about the post-structuralism/deconstructionism is the jargon. I wonder if it is necessary when talking to the world as opposed to other post-structuralists/deconstructionists.
Your example of asking someone if he's gay is a good example, begging the questions "What do you mean by gay? If he says yes, what does he understand by your question? What does he mean by gay?"
For as you say (and as you could say with less jargon) the terms we use are borrowed and have history.
I'm still quite satisfied with Wittgenstein's view that meaning is defined by use. It doesn't have the depth of PS/D but it's so much crisper.
Post a Comment