This blog post is a part of the Flipped Learning task assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad. As part of this activity, I watched a series of videos and answered related questions through Google Forms. In this blog, I have included all my answers along with the embedded videos for each.
For more information you can visit here : click here
What is flipped learning ?
Flipped Learning is a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group pace is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.
Video no.1 : Defining Deconstruction
Questions :
1) Why is it difficult to define deconstruction?
Deconstruction is hard to define because Derrida questions the very idea of “definition.” He asks:
Can we truly define anything?
What are the limits of definition?
He believes meanings are never fixed and always depend on oppositions and exclusions. So, deconstruction itself resists definition it’s a method of questioning meaning and interpretation.
2)Is deconstruction a negative term?
No, deconstruction is not negative or destructive. According to Derrida, it is a critical inquiry into the foundations of thought systems, not an attack on them.
It examines hidden assumptions and binary oppositions (like speech/writing), and reveals how systems are built. He also suggests moving from rigid Western logic to more open, flexible ways of thinking, like in Japanese-French traditions.
3. How does deconstruction happen on its own?
Deconstruction happens within a system, not from the outside.
The same structures that build a system also expose its limits. For example, systems based on binary logic contain contradictions. These oppositions can reverse or collapse, causing the system to undo itself.
So, deconstruction reveals how meaning breaks down from inside the system.
Video no.2 : Heideggar and Derrida
Questions :
1. The influence of Heidegger on Derrida
Heidegger had a strong influence on Derrida’s thinking, especially in how he questioned the foundations of Western philosophy. Heidegger talked about the “Being of beings”—meaning, instead of focusing only on things (beings), we should ask what it means to be.
From Heidegger, Derrida learned to:
Question the traditional way of thinking in the West.
Focus on the role of language in shaping our thoughts.
Realize that language displaces humans we are not the center of meaning anymore.
See how philosophy needed a new language to think differently.
Derrida admired how Heidegger tried to change philosophical language, and he took it further by developing deconstruction, which looks at how meaning breaks down inside language itself.
2. Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy
Derrida rethinks Western philosophy by challenging its basic ideas and hidden structures. He believes:
Western philosophy is built on binary oppositions (like speech/writing, reason/emotion).
These oppositions are not natural or stable, but created by language and culture.
For centuries, writing was seen as secondary to speech but Derrida argued that writing is equally important and has been wrongly ignored.
Derrida says that philosophy pretends to search for truth, but actually depends on language, which is always shifting. So, meaning is never fixed and this is where deconstruction begins.
He questions the “center” of thought, such as reason or presence, and shows that these centers are just constructed ideas. Through deconstruction, Derrida reveals the gaps and contradictions within philosophical systems.
Video no.3 : Saussurean and Derrida
Questions:
1. Saussurean Concept of Language and Arbitrariness
Ferdinand de Saussure explained that the relationship between a word (signifier) and its meaning (signified) is not natural, but conventional.
For example, the word "sister" has no natural link to the person we call sister. It is only through social agreement (convention) that we use this word for that meaning.
This idea is called arbitrariness meaning, any word can be used to refer to anything, technically. The signal and meaning are connected by social conventions, not by nature. And since conventions are made by society, they can vary.
2. How Derrida Deconstructs the idea of Arbitrariness?
Derrida questions Saussure’s idea of arbitrariness by going one step further. He says:
We usually think that a word brings a meaning to our mind.
But actually, the meaning of a word is not some fixed idea in our mind.
According to Derrida, the meaning of a word is just another word.
So, meaning is not fixed or stable it keeps moving from one word to another. This process is called “différance” (a term Derrida invented), which means that meaning is always delayed and different, never fully present.
3. Concept of Metaphysics of Presence
Heidegger first talked about the “metaphysics of presence,” which means that Western philosophy always values presence over absence.
For example:
We understand the word “woman” as what is not man.
So, woman is seen as absence of manliness, and therefore less than or inferior.
This shows how our thinking (like language) is based on binary oppositions such as man/woman, reason/emotion, speech/writing where one side is always privileged and the other marginalized.
Derrida deconstructs this binary structure, saying that these oppositions are not equal but hierarchical. The second term (like woman, emotion, writing) is seen as derivative, weak, or inferior compared to the first term.
Video no.4 : DifferAnce
Questions:
1. Derridean Concept of differAnce
Derrida is questioning what we mean by "understand".
He shows that when we look for meaning in a dictionary, what we find is not the meaning itself, but a group of other words.
“One word leads to another word, and that word leads to yet another,” and finally, we never come out of the dictionary unless we stop due to an illusion that we have understood.
Derrida draws attention to the difference between speech and writing. He questions the privilege of speech over writing.
He says we can only read difference, not hear it, which is why he uses the word ‘différAnce’ with an 'A'.
So, what is this ‘a’ in différance?
It shows that difference is not an idea or concept, but a force a force that:
- Makes differentiation possible
- Makes postponing possible
Différance is both negative and positive at the same time. It is neither positive nor negative, so it is a strange word—or a non-word.
Derrida uses the idea of différance to question logocentricism, the belief that speech (presence) is superior to writing (absence).
His book ‘Of Grammatology’ shows that writing can also be considered primary, not secondary.
2. Infinite Play of Meaning
Derrida challenges the idea that meaning can ever be final or fixed.
He says meaning is always postponed.
According to him, the idea of ultimate or final meaning is a myth.
This is called the "infinite play of signifiers":
A word does not point to a fixed meaning.
Instead, it points to another word (signifier), and this chain continues endlessly.
In Saussure’s view, a sign = signifier + signified.
But in Derrida’s view, a sign is a "free play of signifiers" signifying nothing, which means the chain of meaning never stops.
So, you can never ever reach the ultimate or final meaning.
3. Différance = To Differ + To Defer
The sense of the word ‘différance’ comes from a French pun.
For example:
“How do we know that something is black? Only by contrasting it with what is not black.”
So, Saussure says, there are no positive items in language only negative ones.
In French, one word is used to define both ‘differ’ and ‘defer’.
Derrida combines two terms: differ + defer, and this is what he calls "differAnce".
It’s a pun: it means both:
- To differ (to be different)
- To defer (to postpone)
So, meaning is both differentiated and postponed at the same time.
That’s why, “You can never pronounce it differently (speak), but you can only spell it differently (write).”
Video no.5 : Structure, Sign and Play
Questions :
1. Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
This paper was presented by Derrida in 1966 at the Johns Hopkins University Colloquium on Structuralism.
It responds to structuralist thinkers like Claude Lévi-Strauss (author of Structural Anthropology, 1958).
Derrida critiques Structuralism for attacking metaphysics and science, yet unknowingly depending on their assumptions.
“Structuralism begins as a critique,” yet “the center is paradoxically within the structure and outside it.”
Derrida says: “The center is not the center.”
This means that any system that tries to criticize or move beyond metaphysics still uses the same language and logic of metaphysics.
Example: “Buddhism critiques Vedanta, but eventually starts resembling it.”
This happens because of language. When philosophers try to build a new system, they must use the same inherited tradition and language, which includes the same assumptions.
“Criticism never goes outside the tradition; it must work within it.”
Derrida pushes the idea of the ‘center’ to the point of rupture breaking the illusion that any structure can have a stable, fixed foundation.
“The center has no natural site, no fixed locus; it is only a function.”
Instead of being fixed, the center is always shifting because it is part of a system of infinite substitutions of signs.
So, meaning is never fixed, and this creates a world where “the absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of signification infinitely.”
2. “Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.”
According to Derrida, language is not a neutral tool; it always carries hidden assumptions from the tradition it belongs to.
“In language, ultimate meaning is always deferred and missing.”
Because of this, language cannot guarantee fixed or clear meaning.
That’s why language demands critique it contains within itself “a blind spot” that needs to be exposed.
Every philosophical statement we make using language carries something unspoken or hidden, which asks for criticism.
This is why deconstructive writing is auto-critical:
“It questions itself.”
Video no.6 : Yale School
Questions :
The Yale School: the hub of practitioners of Deconstruction in literary theories
Yale University played a central role in the spread of Jacques Derrida’s idea of Deconstruction in America and, from there, to the wider world.
This movement became popularly known as the Yale School of Deconstruction or sometimes even humorously labeled as the “Yale Hermeneutic Mafia.”
Key figures associated with this school include:
- Paul de Man
- J. Hillis Miller
- Harold Bloom
- Geoffrey Hartman
Though each of them came from different scholarly backgrounds, they all adopted Derrida’s ideas in literary criticism, making Deconstruction both famous and controversial in America.
Characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction
1. Literature as Figurative and Rhetorical Construct
They viewed literature not just as a reflection of reality or moral truth but as a rhetorical and figurative text.
Language in literature is full of figures of speech, like metaphors, symbols, allegories, etc.
This figurative language leads to multiplicity of meanings.
Literary texts create ambiguity, not fixed meaning, which opens the possibility for multiple interpretations.
2. Critique of Aesthetic, Formalist, and Historicist Approaches
Yale critics challenged:
- The aesthetic view (beauty or moral message)
- The formalist view (structure and devices)
- The historicist/sociological view (context or history)
They questioned the idea that a literary text has a fixed or final meaning based on these approaches.
Paul de Man’s example:
He explains a common mistake people make when interpreting language, such as “a red rose.”
We imagine the real rose, but in fact, we are reacting to the word/image, not the real object.
This is called “the materiality of the signifier mistaken for the materiality of the signified.”
De Man argues that aesthetic experience is an illusion created by language, not by reality.
Therefore, aesthetics is not pure, but socially and historically constructed.
3. Preoccupation with Romanticism
Yale critics showed a strong interest in Romantic literature, especially how readers often read meanings into texts rather than finding meanings from texts.
Paul de Man, in his essay Blindness and Insight, argued that Romanticism and criticism are based on rhetorical illusions.
He deconstructs the tendency to prefer:
- Symbol over allegory
- Metaphor over metonymy
This challenges the traditional hierarchy in literary theory, showing how what we privilege is often based on blind spots in our thinking.
Video no.7: Other Schools and Deconstruction
How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism, and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?
While the Yale School focused on rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary texts, other theoretical approaches adapted Derrida’s deconstruction in unique and powerful ways to support their own critical goals:
- Postcolonial Theorists
Postcolonial critics were fascinated by deconstruction because it reveals that the discourse of colonizers can be challenged from within.
They used Derrida’s idea to show how colonial texts contain contradictions that undermine their own authority.
Deconstruction exposes how the language of empire is unstable and self-deconstructing.
- Feminist Theorists
Feminists found deconstruction useful to subvert the binary opposition between male and female.
This binary supports patriarchal ideologies, and deconstruction helps reveal how this structure is not natural but constructed.
Feminist critics used it to challenge dominant narratives and to show how language enforces gendered power structures.
- Cultural Materialists
Cultural materialists are interested in deconstruction because it helps emphasize the materiality of language.
Language is not just symbolic it is a material and social construct.
They use deconstruction to unmask hidden ideological forces in texts, showing how language carries power and politics.
According to them, texts are historical, and history is textualwe understand history through texts, and texts are shaped by history
- Marxist Critics
Marxists use deconstruction to critique capitalist ideologies hidden in literary and cultural texts.
They analyze how language and texts reinforce class distinctions and how these meanings can be disrupted.
References
“Barad, Dilip. “Deconstruction and Derrida.” Dilip Barad: Teacher Blog, 21 Mar. 2015,
Barad, Dilip. “Flipped Learning Network.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 11 Jan. 2016, blog.dilipbarad.com/2016/01/flipped-learning-network.html. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE-MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.1 Derrida and Deconstruction - Definition (Final).Avi.” YouTube, 22 June 2012,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-3BPNk9gs. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.2.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Heidegger (Final).” YouTube, uploaded by DoE MKBU, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=buduIQX1ZIw.Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE-MKBU. 5.2.2 Derrida & Deconstruction – Ferdinand de Saussure (Final). YouTube, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7M9rDyjDbA.Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.3 Derrida and Deconstruction – DifferAnce (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJPlxjjnpQk. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.4 Derrida & Deconstruction – Structure, Sign & Play (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOV2aDwhUas. Accessed 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.5 Derrida & Deconstruction – Yale School (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_M8o7B973E.Accessedhu 26 June 2025.
DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.6 Derrida & Deconstruction: Influence on Other Critical Theories (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU-17I8lGY.Accessed 26 June 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment