“Deconstruction: I do not think it means what you think it means!” - Sean Davidson

“Deconstruction: I do not think it means what you think it means!”

I’m pretty sure one thing it does not mean is a cynical, angry interlude on the way to militant progressivism.

At least it wouldn’t have meant that for Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher who coined the term. Deconstruction, for Derrida, seeks to highlight the internal contradictions and covert power dynamics at work in various forms of discourse. It’s not necessarily to deny truth or to reduce everything to text. It’s just to draw attention to those points where truth is falsely claimed and violently imposed as an unconditioned absolute. I’m pretty certain that Derrida would be as critical of liberal or progressive ideological constructions as he would of conservative or fundamentalist variations. 

Deconstruction isn’t about manning the barricades. It’s about learning to slow down, to attend closely to the ‘what” and “way” of language, and to be self-reflexive about one’s practice of truth and meaning.

This has important implications for theology. To practice deconstruction in connection with theological discourse is not to give up on truth or to free oneself to pursue the absolute on other terms. It’s to become better aware of the conditions that occasion our theology. Too often we behave as if we can get the truth whole, final and unmediated. Deconstruction helps us to guard against that pretension even as we engage with truth word-wise in communities of discipleship.

If you pay close attention to Derrida, he doesn't try to disprove theological/ontological/metaphysical claims. Nor does he try to prove them. He is a master of deferral, but there is openness to truth and meaning in his practice of deconstruction. The point of deconstruction is to unmask claims to truth that pretend to stand on their own, independent of conditions and contexts, including the very language in which the claims are made.

The pop version of "deconstruction" fails to appreciate these dynamics as it pertains to its own discourse. For the post Evangelical, deconstruction tends to be practiced as an intermediary stage doubt and cynicism in the service of militant progressivism. This is a form of deconstruction that Derrida himself would have deconstructed.

I do appreciate there have been very real abuses in the church. When I express irritation, it’s not with the recoil from abuse. I get that and have lived through enough of it to have my own struggles and misgivings. What troubles me is the strident reactionary and rationalistic spirit as recourse. I can understand that to an extent given the experience of abuse. But not as a concerted strategy for moving forward in faith, hope and love. There’s too much about this spirit, and the hard-progressive line that often goes along with it, that seems fueled by the very thing that’s being resisted.

Another way to say it: post Evangelicals practice “deconstruction” like it’s a version of Cartesian methodical doubt. They doubt in the interests of absolute certainty.Derrida’s original practice provides a much needed corrective—it not only helps to critique institutionalized problems, but also reactionary solutions. It forces us to consider genuine alternatives that are less about ideological tactics and posturing and more about participation in gospel.

Comments

[Eric H Janzen]

I would like to hear more on this. Just saying...

eric h janzen

[Randy C. Hicks]

Helpful, very much so. Thank you.