Many thanks to my one reader for considering my query.
Today in class, we talked about Jacques Derrida, and Deconstruction. The readings and following discussion caused me to think of two questions, which I will pose to you, hypothetical reader:
1) Mark Taylor contends that Deconstruction is all about realizing that every system leaves something out at the end of the day, like a jigsaw puzzle with too many pieces. Only by leaving behind our obsession with systemizing can we avoid throwing certain ideas (and certain people) away like garbage. Is that always the case with systems of thought? Theodicy somes to mind.
2) Derrida says that Deconstruction is not a "method," rather, it's really just about reading texts very closely. Whereas a method of interpretation is something laid over a text like a chemical that changes it, Deconstruction just reveals what is already there (in Derrida's case, a system of binary oppositions in which one part is always preferred to the other, for instance, themes of light and dark, where light is assumed to be preferable). As we interpret texts, including the Bible, do we apply methods of interpretation that are foreign to the text? If so, is that acceptable? How reliable are the results which are obtained? Is it possible to study the Bible in such a way that we can merely see what is already there? Or is that a fool's errand?
About Me
- Andrew Smith
- I am currently residing in Nashville, TN, where I am pursuing the PhD degree at Vanderbilt University. My special area of interest is Baptist history. I'm ordained in the Baptist tradition and I am trying to figure out how to be true to that call.
2 comments:
Yes, of course we use methods that are foreign to the text and that cant be avoided. I am not sure that you can read and see only what is already there. We all bring to much baggage to it.
I think from a postfoundationalist view, we will always apply methods of interpretation to text... and everything else... that are foreign to the text or the experience or whatever. We interpret all things through the lens of our own previous exposures and experiences. What you see as in the text and what I see as in the text might be two completely different things based on our personalities and experiences and influences... and regardless of what we do, we will never read or hear the texts as the original audience, although I think it's worth the effort to try.
By its very nature, I would say that interpretation is taking something which is and expressing it in another form, which is always outside the original thing to be interpreted. If I am translated Czech to English, then I am taking the Czech language and interpreting it using my knowledge of English, which is foreign (ha.. foreign) to the Czech language. Even if I could actually speak English and Czech, the English translation would probably not fully express the message of the Czech. Something gets lost in the interpretation. I think there is a pattern there... that our interpretation, although close to the original, never quite measures up to the real thing.
I think I mean all of that, but it's late here. Maybe it makes sense anyway.
Post a Comment