Derrida and Authorial Intent

This is from the link Diego posted:

> What is deconstruction and what does it do? There is a problem here
>
> in that Derrida often goes out of his way to disown any summary
>
> treatment of the topic or any attempt to define (and so delimit)
>
> deconstruction in adequate conceptual terms. Nevertheless one can
>
> offer at least some attempt at a working definition. What typically occurs
>
> in a deconstructive reading is that the text in question is shown to
>
> harbour contradictory logics which are standardly ignored - or concealed
>
> from view - on other, more orthodox accounts. Very often it is a matter
>
> of locating certain clearly-marked binary oppositions (as for instance
>
> between nature and culture, speech and writing, concept and metaphor,
>
> or philosophy and literature) and showing that their order of priority
> is by
>
> no means as stable or secure as the text seeks to maintain. That is to
>
> say, there is a counter-logic at work whereby those distinctions can be
>
> shown to break down, or to generate a reading markedly at odds with the
>
> authors overt intent. Not that intention is simply ruled out as
> irrelevant
>
> for the purposes of a deconstructive reading. On the contrary, it offers
>
> an indispensable guardrail (Derrida [1967b] 1975: 158) which saves
>
> interpretation from running wild in endless subtleties of its own
> ingenious
>
> devising. However, this leaves open the possibility that texts may mean
>
> something other - and more - than is allowed for by any straightforward
>
> appeal to the warrant of authorial intention.
>

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 12 11:14:55 2003