任艷

摘 要：Deconstruction's meaning is often so vague as to be useless. Coined， more or less， by the contemporary French philosopher， Jacques Derrida， the word deconstruction began its life in the late sixties. In that time， however， it has moved from a technical philosophical term adopted by literary critics for their related uses to a word that pops up in offhand remarks by everyone from botanists to the clergy. Now， deconstruction has come to mean "tear down" or "destroy".

關(guān)鍵詞：Deconstruction meaning Derrida psychological textuality

Along with Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger， Jacques Derrida， who died last week in Paris at the age of 74， will be remembered as one of the three most important philosophers of the 20th century. No thinker in the last 100 years had a greater impact than he did on people in more fields and different disciplines. And no thinker has been more deeply misunderstood. To people addicted to sound bites and overnight polls， Derrida's works seem hopelessly obscure. It is undeniable that they cannot be easily summarized or reduced to one-liners. The obscurity of his writing， however， does not conceal a code that can be cracked， but reflects the density and complexity characteristic of all great works of philosophy， literature and art.

What makes Derrida's work so significant is the way he brought insights of major philosophers， writers， artists and theologians to bear on problems of urgent contemporary interest. Most of his infamously demanding texts consist of careful interpretations of canonical writers in the Western philosophical， literary and artistic traditions， from Plato to Joyce. By reading familiar works against the grain， he disclosed concealed meanings that created new possibilities for imaginative expression. Derrida's name is most closely associated with the often cited but rarely understood term "deconstruction." When responsibly understood， the implications of deconstruction are quite different from the misleading things often used to describe a process of dismantling or taking things apart.

The guiding insight of deconstruction is that every structure - literary， psychological， social， economic， political or religious - that organizes our experience is constituted and maintained through acts of exclusion. In the process of creating something， something else inevitably gets left out. These exclusive structures can become repressive， and that repression comes with consequences. In a manner reminiscent of Freud， Derrida insists that what is repressed does not disappear but always returns to unsettle every construction， no matter how secure it seems. Jacques Derrida developed deconstruction as a technique for uncovering the multiple interpretations of texts. Influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche， Derrida suggests that all text has ambiguity and because of this the possibility of a final and complete interpretation is impossible. For Derrida， language or 'texts' are not a natural reflection of the world. Text structures our interpretation of the world. Following Heidegger， Derrida thinks that language shapes us： texts create a clearing that we understand as reality. Derrida sees the history of western thought as based on opposition： good vs. evil mind vs. matter， man vs. woman， speech vs. writing. These oppositions are defined hierarchically： the second term is seen as a corruption of the first， the terms are not equal opposites. He thought that all text contained a legacy of these assumptions， and as a result of this， these texts could be re-interpreted with an awareness of the hierarchies implicit in language. He does not think that we can reach an end point of interpretation， a truth. For Derrida all text？s exhibit 'difference'： they allow multiple interpretations. Meaning is diffuse， not settled. Textuality always gives us a surplus of possibilities， yet we cannot stand outside of textuality in an attempt to find objectivity.

One consequence of deconstruction is that certainty in textual analyses becomes impossible. There may be competing interpretations， but there is no uninterrupted way one could assess the validity of these competing interpretations. Rather than basing our philosophical understanding on undeniable truths， the deconstructionist turns the settled bedrock of rationalism into the shifting sands of a multiplicity of interpretations. One of the principal ingredients of today's ideological soup is "post-structuralism"， so-called because it had its origins in the structuralism of Althusser's days， and continues into a new stage the essential project of structuralism， but breaks with structuralism in certain key features and bases itself upon a certain， characteristic critique of structuralism. Deconstructive reading can be applied to any text. It is a theory of reading， not a theory of literature.

What remains of our argument is a pragmatic choice， a choice that suggests that being a researcher， learner and an effective actor in this world does imply being a discursive creator-one who contributes to and challenges dominant discourses by establishing some powerful allegiances and speaking up， and not through passivity， docility and compliance.

References

1. Wang jianping. Literary Theory， NEU.

2. Derrida， J. （1978） Writing and Difference， London， Routledge.

3. Knights D （1997） Organization theory in the age of deconstruction： Dualism， gender and postmodernism revisited， Organization Studies.

4. Kilduff， M. （1993） Deconstructing organizations， Academy of Management Review.

5. Garrick， J. （1998） Informal Learning in the Workplace： Unmasking Human Resource Development. London： Routledge.

6. Terry Eagleton. （1983） Literary Theory： An Introduction， Oxford： Blackwell.

7. Jacques Derrida. （1987） The Truth in Painting， trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod University of Chicago Press： Chicago.