Advanced Literary Theory

Seminar 5: Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, and Post-Modernism

For our seminar on poststructuralism, there are a lot of texts that you could read. I know that many of them are difficult to read, but try to grasp what you see as the main idea in each. And then we can see how they could be applied to the primary texts. In addition to the excerpts below, I also suggest that you read the short introductions to the other theoretical texts in the anthology to get an idea what they are about. You are, of course, welcome to read any of the other theorists that you might want to learn more about, especially if you think they are useful for your degree thesis: THEORY From Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed: Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Post-Modernism (pp.62-70) From Literary Theory: An Anthology, 2nd ed: Introduction: Introductory Deconstruction (pp. 257-61) Jacques Derrida, Diffrance (pp. 278-99) Barbara Johnson, Writing (pp. 340-47) Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (pp. 355-64) Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation (pp. 365-77)

Questions 1. What was it in the philosophical tradition of Edmund Husserl that Derrida objected to? How did Derrida develop Saussures idea of language meaning being based on difference? What did he mean by Husserls tradition of philosophy being teleological, metaphysical and logocentric? Why has speech been favoured over writing in metaphysical philosophy, according to Derrida? Try to give examples that illustrate Ryans summary of Derridas philosophy: Metaphysics claims that difference arises from identity, but in fact difference generates identity (LTPI 69). 2. Try to explain Derridas concept of diffrance. In what way is it a development from Saussures concept of the diacritical nature of the linguistic sign, according to which the identity of a sign is constituted by its differences form other signs (LTA 258). In what way are signifieds in themselves differential, that is, signifiers themselves? How did Derridas questioning of an original presence of truth (a transcendental signified) clash with the New Critics claim that poetr y embodies ideas that are universal? 3. In what way is diffrance different from difference, according to Derrida? How do you interpret Derridas use of the word assemblage instead of word or concept to describe his neologism (=new word)? (280). Why does diffrance prove Derridas claim that writing is much better than speech to describe our human world? In what way is the subject a function of the language? (289). What is the difference between semiology and grammatology according to Derrida? (289). Look at what Derrida says about the speaking or signifying subject on page 289. How do we become speaking subjects? How is this theory of the subject different from Husserls metaphysical idea of consciousness? In what way did Freud and Nietzsche also question the self-

assured certitude of consciousness [] by starting out with the theme of difference? (290). 4. Some people criticize Derridas theory of deconstruction for being too relativistic in its questioning of transcendent and absolute truth, claiming that it is a new kind of nihilism that is too abstract and theoretical to have any bearing on our every-day life. But on page 294 Derrida himself, in a much quoted paragraph, admits that To think through the ontological difference doubtless remains a difficult task, a task whose statement has remained nearly inaudible. And to prepare ourselves for venturing beyond out own logos, that is, for a diffrance so violent that it refuses to be stopped and examined as the epochality of Being and ontological difference, is neither to give up this passage through the truth of Being, nor is it in any way to criticize, contest, or fail to recognize the incessant necessity for it. On the contrary, we must stay within the difficulty of this passage; we must repeat this passage in a rigorous reading of metaphysics, wherever metaphysics serves as the norm of Western speech, and not only in the texts of the history of philosophy. Here we must allow the trace of whatever goes beyond the truth of Being to appear/disappear in its fully rigorous way. It is a trace of something that can never present itself; it is itself a trace that can never be presented, that is, can never appear and manifest itself as such in its phenomenon. In is a trace that lies beyond what profoundly ties fundamental ontology to phenomenology. Like diffrance, the trace is never presented as such. In presenting itself it becomes effaced; in being sounded it dies away, like the writing of the a, inscribing its pyramid in difference. In your understanding, what is it Derrida is calling for here? What does he mean by stating that Heidegger provokes us to question the essence of the present, the presence of the present? 5. Barbara Johnson writes about the sudden spectacular interest in writing that erupted in France in the late 60s. What were some of its sources? (LTA 341-43). Explain Barthess new way of looking at literature as text instead of work. How can the privileging of the signified resemble the fetishization of commodities resulting from bourgeois idealism? (342). What did Lacan mean by stressing that the unconscious is structured like a language and that there is no one-to-one link between signifier and signified but rather an effect of signified generated by the movement from one signifier to another? 6. Do you understand her interpretation of Edward Taylors poem? In what way is it an example of Derridas logic of the supplment? Do you agree with the argument that writing gives rise to more multiple readings than speech? Can you give examples? In what way can a Derridian reading of a text take seriously the elements that a standard reading disregards, overlooks, or edits out? How can it be true that When one writes, one writes more that (or less than, or other than) one thinks? In what way has Derridas deconstruction of logocentric texts of the west been influential for feminist and postcolonial criticism?

7. Summarize the main ideas and arguments in Lyotards and Baudrillards texts. What are their respective key concepts and how can they be applied in textual analysis? How are their ideas similar or different from those of Derrida? 8. What does Baudrillard mean with the hyperreal and the precession of simulacra? The age of simulation thus begins with a liquidation or all referentials. It is no longer a question of imitation, nor of reduplication nor even of parody. It is rather a question of substituting sighs of the real for the real itself (366). What is the difference between simulation and feigning/pretending? (366). Why does simulation threaten the difference between true and false, between real and imaginary? According to Baudrillard: When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality; of second-hand truth, objectivity and authenticity. There is an escalation of the true, or the lived experience; a resurrection of the figurative where the object and substance have disappeared (369). Give examples of this nostalgia in contemporary culture. In what way is Disneyland there to conceal the fact that it is the real country, all of real America, which is Disneyland (369)? In what way did the Watergate scandal and the Washington Post journalists regenerate public morality and thus further the order of capital? In what way is it similar in function to Watergate? Like Moebiuss spiral, there is no order in the political-social field; the whole system or order from left to right is simulated. This logic of simulation has nothing to do with a logic of facts and an order of reasons. Simulation is characterized by a precession of the model - the models come first, and their orbital circulation constitutes the genuine magnetic field of events. Thus we can each time a bomb goes off have all possible interpretations all are true, in the sense that their truth is exchangeable (371-2). Give examples. Operational negativity: proving the real by the imaginary: proving truth by scandal; proving the law by transgression; proving work by the strike; proving the system by crisis and capital by revolution etc. (372). Why can transgression and violence be less serious a threat to power than simulation? According to Baudrillard, it is now impossible to isolate the process of the real (373) which means that there is no difference between the impact of real events and simulated events. Give examples of simulated events that are taken as real. (WMD in Iraq, for example?)

THEORY IN PRACTICE Do a poststructuralist reading of King Lear according to Ryans suggestions in LTPI (70-81). Do you find Ryans reading convincing, or is he going too far? Do a poststructuralist reading of Elisabeth Bishops Over 2,000 Illustrations and a Complete Concordance according to Ryans suggestions. You are of course free to present your own interpretation and to disagree with Ryan.

Do a poststructuralist reading of The Bluest Eye. Here you may use the suggestions made by Ryan in the first edition of LTPI (on Fronter).