Well as I said it is not an easy read. As Derrida says in the article, the term decontrustion is itself deconstructible. This looks like going around in a circle. But it isn't. It is an undefined end. If I speak in Hegelian terms, there is thesis and anti-thesis and then synthesis. And this synthesis is a form of 'aufhebung'. The synthesis is a lifting to a higher level.
Deconstruction just tries to show how these terms are reflectant upon eachother, how terms completely opposite are in the end based on the opposite they try to represent. So not in the direct way. Well an opposite can only be an opposite if you define the base.
No he shows that the basic assumption is a defining assumption for the complete opposite leading to a contradiction.
And Derrida doesn't try to resolve those contradiction, on the contrary. This is his philosophy to show them they are there and non resolvable.
This gives an interesting intake. Also in the field of your experience. If you talk bout a 'story' and you there are several very reasonable explanations your can 'weave' to one without making it completely evident. Then you got it.
Sidenote: I cannot do this. someone who has done a good job is David Lynch in Lost Highway. But that is prob another story.... :)
So... Derrida just tries to show these contradictions, not resolve them. Interesting. I just read an essay by French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, in which he put forth the idea that people use myths (and folktales, and other narratives) to mediate or resolve supposedly irreconciliable oppositions. There may be something to that, as folk narratives contain many dichotomies, but maybe the narratives are working towards an impossible ideal?
Not sure about fairytales. You would know better. If there is a case of resolvement. Where one option is chosen or it is lifted to a higher level. thesis - antithesis - synthesis. Then it is what I above referred to as 'aufhebung'. And that is something Derrida opposes.
If a dichotomy is kept, it would be in line. I think most fairy tales are in the first category. But I would be very interested in reading those in the second. But this may also depend on what 'version' you read of a fairy tale.
You're right about the different versions of fairy tales having an impact on your interpretation; it's like that with all folklore, actually, because one of the key ways to distinguish between folklore and other media/art forms (for example, novels or TV shows) is that folklore is always changing, because it's always being performing by different people (the "folk" of a given group).
In most fairy tales, however, you can see a pretty stable set of oppositions. According to Bengt Holbek, a Danish folklorist, the three main oppositions are male/female, young/mature, and high/low social status. He believes that most of the actions in fairy tale plots focus on one of these oppositions. For example, when the hero meets the princess, it's an expression of the male/female opposition. When a young man overcomes a dragon, or passes a test given by a witch and thus gains some magical object, it shows a movement from youth to maturity (because the powers gained usually allow the hero to establish himself as a member of adult society, in the exaggerated expression of marrying a princess and becoming king). There's also often a movement up in social status; the hero starts as a peasant, and ends up marrying into royalty.
By the way, I'm saying "hero" mostly because the stories featuring male protagonists tend to be the best known. I, however, generally prefer working with female-oriented stories, because I find them more interesting in a lot of ways.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that the main oppositions in fairy tales serve as a conduit for movement of the characters. That's one way to look at it, at least. There are also oppositions like nature/culture, normal
Sounds you are looking for just those that are crossing the classical line. Heroine instead of Hero. :-) If Derrida would write on this subject he would choose just those stories probably.
Actually, Levi-Strauss was pretty harsh on fairy tales; he thinks their oppositions are weak, and more diluted than the "stronger" oppositions found in myths. I disagree, because I don't think you can necessarily compare the content of genres that have different functions and forms, and especially because I don't like making value judgments like that.
As Derrida says in the article,
the term decontrustion is itself
deconstructible.
This looks like going around in
a circle.
But it isn't. It is an undefined end.
If I speak in Hegelian terms,
there is thesis and anti-thesis
and then synthesis.
And this synthesis is a form of
'aufhebung'. The synthesis is a
lifting to a higher level.
Deconstruction just tries to show
how these terms are reflectant upon
eachother, how terms completely opposite
are in the end based on the opposite
they try to represent. So not in the
direct way. Well an opposite can only
be an opposite if you define the base.
No he shows that the basic assumption is
a defining assumption for the complete
opposite leading to a contradiction.
And Derrida doesn't try to resolve those
contradiction, on the contrary. This is
his philosophy to show them they are there
and non resolvable.
This gives an interesting intake. Also in
the field of your experience. If you talk
bout a 'story' and you there are several
very reasonable explanations your can 'weave'
to one without making it completely evident.
Then you got it.
Sidenote: I cannot do this. someone who has
done a good job is David Lynch in Lost Highway.
But that is prob another story.... :)
Reply
So Hegelian aufhebung leads to a
higher term.
For Derrida this is not so.
there is no 'higher' term.
there is no basic contradiction
either.
the basic assumption can often
be shown to be a necessary assumption
for the opposite.
that is what got lost in my first
reply
Reply
Reply
You would know better.
If there is a case of resolvement.
Where one option is chosen or
it is lifted to a higher level.
thesis - antithesis - synthesis.
Then it is what I above referred to as
'aufhebung'. And that is something
Derrida opposes.
If a dichotomy is kept, it would be in
line. I think most fairy tales are in
the first category. But I would be
very interested in reading those in
the second. But this may also depend on
what 'version' you read of a fairy tale.
Please comment, rahter curious actually.
Reply
In most fairy tales, however, you can see a pretty stable set of oppositions. According to Bengt Holbek, a Danish folklorist, the three main oppositions are male/female, young/mature, and high/low social status. He believes that most of the actions in fairy tale plots focus on one of these oppositions. For example, when the hero meets the princess, it's an expression of the male/female opposition. When a young man overcomes a dragon, or passes a test given by a witch and thus gains some magical object, it shows a movement from youth to maturity (because the powers gained usually allow the hero to establish himself as a member of adult society, in the exaggerated expression of marrying a princess and becoming king). There's also often a movement up in social status; the hero starts as a peasant, and ends up marrying into royalty.
By the way, I'm saying "hero" mostly because the stories featuring male protagonists tend to be the best known. I, however, generally prefer working with female-oriented stories, because I find them more interesting in a lot of ways.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that the main oppositions in fairy tales serve as a conduit for movement of the characters. That's one way to look at it, at least. There are also oppositions like nature/culture, normal
Reply
that are crossing the classical
line. Heroine instead of Hero. :-)
If Derrida would write on this
subject he would choose just
those stories probably.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment