By no stretch of the imagination can I say with confidence that I understand Derrida’s piece completely; however, I think I understand where he is going. The first half seems to set up structuralism as a theory which focuses on finding central concept and expanding outward in search of a pattern. Derrida points out that “The center is not the center.” Rather, the center of a concept belongs to the structure of the concept and cannot be its locus. In place of structuralism, Derrida points to the birth of a new idea where the critic searches for the non center of the piece instead of the unrealistic center; the critic is unconcerned with tracing a pattern from a deduced starting point. I must ask, because I cannot resist adding to his imagery: “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, /Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
On the other hand, I had difficulty in placing Foucault into what Derrida seemed to be addressing. Perhaps I’m broadcasting my ignorance and shouldn’t be making this attempt, but Foucault’s example regarding power sure appears to fit the mold of structuralism. He begins by searching for a pattern connecting power and economics; this search leads him to find a relation between power and force. His analysis results in a conclusion of two answers: “the oppression schema…, and domination – repression or war.” He ends with the idea that the research model he used to come to this conclusion my be “insufficient,” but I fail to see him promoting a theory beyond the search for pattern based on an assumed locus as Derrida seems to be against.
Yes, I had problems analyzing Derrida as well, but I can hold with the idea that the centre is not constant. We need a focal point, don't we? What was the focal point of the last election? The one before that? Same genre, same audience, different focus. The centre changes with the times.
ReplyDeleteDeconstruction doesn't so much look for the center, as point out that because as we perne in our gyres the center cannot hold and is moving with us meaning is inconstant and constantly slips and spills as Barry described in the Post-structuralism article in the text.
ReplyDeleteAs I understood it, Derridas' is actually saying that because the centers that hold language in place are mobile, language is unreliable,and no meaning can be trusted. The goal then isn't to locate the center, the center is irrelevant if its even possible to find it. (I think he goes so far as to suggest that these centers are just illusions...but I'm not as certain of that.) The point then is to demonstrate that certainty is impossible because the center does not hold.