نظريه النص : الفلسفي و الايديولوجى تحت المساءله والشك

Abstract

Abstract “The theory of text" is used in contemporary humanities and social sciences to denote a philosopliv ofnteaning that deals with the ways that meaning is constructed by writers, tests, and readers and understoozl by readers. One way of understanding the term is that it involves discovering. recognizing, and uniletstandittg the underlying — and unspoken and implicit ——— assutnptions. ideas, and ji-anleu'ot'ks that form the basis for thought and belief lt has various sltades of meaning in diflbrent areas of study and discussion, and is. by its vetjv nature, difficult to de/inc without depending on "The ternt deconstruction". The term deconstruction was coined by Frencli philosopher ./£|£‘t]llL’.Y Derrida in the l960s. it has been applied to literature, art, arcl1itectut'e, science, ntathetnatics. philosophy, and ps_vcholog\'_ and any other disciplines that can be thought o_/ as involving the act a/' nuirking. It ls highly t'esistun/ to /ormal definition. When asked what dectn1stt'uctiot1 is, Derrida once stated, "I lutre no simple and /ortnalizable response to this question." There is a great deal of con/itston as to what kind o_/‘thing deconstruction is. It is easier to explain what deconstruction is not than what it is The question of deconstruction through and through is the question of the language of concepts. of the conceptual corpus of so<called "\vesterrr"< tnctaphysics. Deconstruct was a structltralist gesture or irt any case a gesture that assumed a certain need jor the structuralist problematic. But it was also an antistructuralist gesture. Structures were to be undone, decomposedt deseditnented all types of structures, strueturalistn being especially at that time do/tiinaterl h_v linguistic models and by a so-called structural linguistics tltltft was also ca/leil Saussurian - socio-institutional, political, cultural‘ and abtwqi all and from the start pltilosopltieal. This is \rlt_\‘. the tnoti/To/‘¢lec'ot1sIrrtcti€¢!Il has been associated with "poststructuralism”. But the undoing, decotnpoeihg and desedintenting of structures. in a certain sense more historical than the structuralist tnoretnent it called into question, was not a negative operation. deconstruction aspires to at its most ambitious. not limited to a linguistico-grammatical model, let alone a mechanical model, These models the/nselves ought to be submitted to a deeonstructive questioning. It is true then that these ”tnoclels” have been behind a number of misunderstandings about the concept and word of "deconstruction" because ofthe temptation to reduce it to these models, All the same, and in spite of appearances, deconstruction is neither an anal_1'sis nor o critique and its. It is not an ana/_1*sis in particular because the

disnutntling of a structure is not a regression toward a simple element, towar an ina'issoluble origin. These values, like that of analysis, are thetnselve‘ pltilosopltetnes subject to cleconstrxtctiott. No more is it a critique, in a genera sense or in Kttntian sense. The instance o/l\'t'inein or of lcrisis ta'ecisi0n, choice, jmlgtnent, discernment) is itself as is all the apparatus of transce/1a'ettta critique. one of the essential "themes" or "objects" of a'econstt'ztetion. Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be tranformed into one. Especially if the technical and procedural significations of the word are stressed. It is n0_ enough to sa_v that deconstruction could not he reduced to so f metlzodological instrutnentality or to a set of rules and transpasa pt'ocedttt'es Not" will it do to claim that each zleconstructive "event" rental singular or, in any case. as close as possihle to sontetlting like an idiom or signature. It tnust also be made clear that tleconstruction is not even an act ‘ an operation. Not only because there \voulal be something "patient" or "passive" about it‘ Not only because it does not return to an indivizhtal of collective subject who would take the initiative and apply it to an object, a text‘, a theme. etc. Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the a'eliheration. consciousness, or organization ofa sub/ect. The word ”cleconstruction". like all other words, acquires its value only /rotn its inscription in a chain ofpossible substitutions, in what is too blithely called a "context". Tthe word has interest only within a certain context, where It replaces and let itself be determined by such other words as ”ecritur8'{. "trace". "differance", "supplement", "h_vtnen", ”pharrnakon", "marge". "entante", ’paret‘g0n", etc. I The rli‘/flculty of de/ining the word "deconstruction" stems from thefa‘t.'t-,- that all the predicates, all the defining concepts, all the lexical .sigt1i/icatiomz H. aml even the syntactic articulations, which seem at one moment I0 themselves to this definition or to that translation, are also deconstruvtedeil a'econstt'1/ctihle. a'irectl_v orotherwise, etc. /ind that goes for the warn‘ tlecottstruction, as/or every word. What zleconstruction is not? everything of course.’ What is zleconsrruction? nothing of course.’