thestig, 4/19

I haven’t been able to escape the concept of deconstruction discussed in class on Derrida. Essentially, the point of deconstruction is to figure out why things are the way they are: from the root of a text to its final product. This is an important concept and tool to be able to master because it will help solve all sorts of problems throughout life. In CMC 100, we deconstructed everyday advertisements to figure out what social and cultural forces were coded into the photographs, graphics, typography, etc. Deconstruction is not limited to this discipline. In understanding a financial decision, one can deconstruct the proposal to see what may or may not be profitable. In deconstructing, one can see layers of expenditures, and be able to come to these realizations. I think deconstruction is a natural tendency. We want to understand the root of our decisions because it makes us feel like we are control of our actions; it gives us something to justify our actions with. And when we deconstruct, we find “difference.” Difference in meaning, difference in justification, etc. I thought Derrida’s point, as reflected upon in class, that we must, as the critic, get in the middle of the text and get a full understanding of the derivatives of the meaning is important if one is to survive in our capitalist society. Otherwise, we are going to fall into the hands of the capitalist who uses all sorts of persuasive techniques to disrupt ones individuality. As critics, we will be able to show what things are not; a theory that DeSaussure introduces and would compliment here: all we know is what it is not. We “trace” the elements of a text, understand what the text is not, and come to a conclusion about what the text actually is for ourselves. At this point, and only at this point, can one be a free consumer.