Derrida And Deconstruction - TA

   Thinking Activity

            Derrida And Deconstruction

This blog is a part of a thinking activity given by Dilip Barad Sir from The English Department, MKBU, Bhavnagar. In this particular  blog I am going to give deconstructive reading  on Samuel Backett’s play Waiting For Godot and also try to  deconstruct the Play.

                   

Jacques Derrida 

Jacques Derrida was one of the most well known twentieth century philosophers. He was also one of the most prolific. Distancing himself from the various philosophical movements and traditions that preceded him on the French intellectual scene, he developed a strategy called “deconstruction” in the mid 1960s. Although not purely negative, deconstruction is primarily concerned with something tantamount to a critique of the Western philosophical tradition.

   Deconstruction is generally presented via an analysis of specific texts. It seeks to expose, and then to subvert, the various binary oppositions that undergird our dominant ways of thinking of presence or absence, speech or writing, and so forth.

Deconstruction has at least two aspects: literary and philosophical. The literary aspect concerns the textual interpretation, where invention is essential to finding hidden alternative meanings in the text. 

The philosophical aspect concerns the main target of deconstruction: the “metaphysics of presence,” or simply metaphysics. Starting from an Heideggerian point of view, Derrida argues that metaphysics affects the whole of philosophy from Plato onwards. Metaphysics creates dualistic oppositions and installs a hierarchy that unfortunately privileges one term of each dichotomy.

The deconstructive strategy is to unmask these too-sedimented ways of thinking, and it operates on them especially through two steps reversing dichotomies and attempting to corrupt the dichotomies themselves. The strategy also aims to show that they are undecidables, that is, something that cannot conform to either side of a dichotomy or opposition. Undecidability returns in a later period of Derrida’s reflection, when it is applied to reveal paradoxes involved in notions such as gift giving or hospitality, whose conditions of possibility are at the same time their conditions of impossibility. Because of this, it is undecidable whether authentic giving or hospitality are either possible or impossible.

In this period, the founder of deconstruction turns his attention to ethical themes. In particular, the theme of responsibility to the other leads Derrida to leave the idea that responsibility is associated with a behavior publicly and rationally justifiable by general principles. Reflecting upon tales of Jewish tradition, he highlights the absolute singularity of responsibility to the other.

Deconstruction has had an enormous influence in psychology, literary theory, cultural studies, linguistics, feminism, sociology and anthropology. Poised in the interstices between philosophy and non-philosophy.  It  is not difficult to see why this is the case. What follows in this article, however, is an attempt to bring out the philosophical significance of Derrida’s thought.

Waiting for Godot: A Deconstructive Study

Samuel Beckett’s  play  “Waiting  for  Godot”  from Derridean deconstructive perspective in terms of deconstruction. Therefore, the present study tends  to  interpret  the  different  facets  of  the  text.  Derridean deconstructions are simply relevant to the nature of the deconstructed play.

The central theme of "Waiting for Godot" revolves around Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot, who never appears in the play. Despite Godot's absence, the two homeless vagabonds find themselves trapped in the illusion of a world centered around the concept of Godot, embodying messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism. This philosophical approach involves privileging certain ideologies, religious beliefs, or political systems that claim authorized legitimacy. Messianism, a dominant form of human thought according to Jacques Derrida, is characterized by a belief in a future to come, often associated with Christian hope.

In the play, the term "Godot" signifies both theocentric and anthropocentric messianic logocentrism. It symbolizes a powerful force akin to Jehovah from "The Old Testament," evoking fear and wrath, as well as the Jesus Christ from "The New Testament," suggesting the possibility of redemption through a Second Coming.

Godot becomes a symbol of salvation, donation, rebirth, and promise, connecting the waiting tramps to these theological concepts.

However, the tramps are mentally ensnared in the illusory world of the metaphysics of presence and messianism. They unquestioningly accept Godot as a dominant source of redemption and salvation, attempting to uncover meaning, origin, and truth within the assumed messianic framework of Godot's logos.

"Waiting for Godot" lends itself well to a deconstructive study, a literary approach associated with the work of Jacques Derrida. Deconstruction involves examining how language, meaning, and binary oppositions function in a text, revealing inherent contradictions and challenging traditional interpretations.

The play presents binary oppositions such as waiting vs. action, hope vs. despair, and presence vs. absence. Deconstruction challenges the stability of these oppositions, showing how they interpenetrate and deconstruct each other.

The absence of Godot becomes as significant as his potential presence, blurring the lines between the two binary categories. A deconstructive study of "Waiting for Godot" would unravel the layers of meaning, challenge binary oppositions, question the stability of messianic logocentrism, and explore the illusory nature of the world presented in the play. It invites readers to question assumptions and recognize the inherent instability and fluidity in the text's meaning and interpretation.

Thank You… .