Deconstruction
    By Mark E. Moore

Hermeneutical deconstruction is a complex literary theory that has woven its way into the fabric of modern thinking. Simply put, it teaches that (1) language is symbolic and therefore incapable of communicating objective truth, (2) that which we perceive as objective truth is mere cultural convention created by hegemenous institutions for the purpose of oppressive, and (3) once this communication is deconstructed, the individual will be liberated to create his/her own meaning system. As a result, deconstruction denies that there can be any foundation for claims to truth and therefore rejects all metanarratives. [1] As a result, all truth is relative to and created by the individual from within a particular situation or culture. As a system, hermeneutical deconstruction is the philosophic foundation for postmodernism, with multiple societal manifestations which deeply impact the Evangelical church.

Description of Deconstruction

Definition and Process

Hermeneutical deconstruction is the subversive free-play of language in written texts in order to create new meanings for one's own existence. Furthermore, it is the process of interrogating the text to unmask its pseudo-objectivity and the political or sexual oppression behind it. It is not merely a dismantling of the text, but of the whole history of Western philosophy (Thiselton, p. 110). This involves a number of progressive steps.

#1: The Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), pointed out that the connection between the signifier and the signified is an arbitrary linguistic symbol. For example, D-O-G, has no meaning in Spanish; P-E-R-R-O has no meaning in English. Both languages have arbitrarily assigned those phonetic and linguistic codes to a certain type of animal. Furthermore, not only is parole (language in actual use) arbitrary, so is langue (the language system of a particular culture; that is, its stock of metaphors and symbols). In other words, what appears to us to be scientific and stable is actually arbitrary and flexible.

#2: Linguistic meanings rest on oppositions and exclusions (what Saussure called differentiation), which retain a trace of their opposition. For example, freedom excludes slavery; yet in a society that is totally free, there would be no concept of, hence no word for, slavery. The use of the word freedom, therefore, betrays that we are enslaved.

#3: Not only is the symbol arbitrary and socially constructed, so are the denotations and connotations of words. In fact, even the meaning of nonverbal objects are socially constructed. For instance, black bow ties are reserved for formal occasions, not because of cosmic order, but because of cultural convention. Hence we have the postmodern slogan, "The world is a text." Thus, all communication as well as cultural conventions are viewed as arbitrary, culturally constructed, and meaningful only from within a particular context. This gives rise to intertextuality--the interplay between society and language which creates even more texts in an endless series of "meaning making."

#4: Language is a product of culture; we can not step out of the boundaries of language; we cannot escape its limits or demands. We are caught in the web of language norms (Lundin, p. 188). Hence, we cannot really think for ourselves with transcendental ideas; largely, language thinks for us. We are imprisoned by language. "One semiotic process leads on to another, and none is grounded in 'reality' or in the external world" (Thiselton, p. 83-84). It is like trying to define a word in the dictionary by another word we do not understand. Thus, Derrida took the difference of Saussure and turned it into "defer-ment," that is, a word meaning mutates with each use. Put another way, "The text does not have a meaning as a reference to something that is signified; the text is an infinite 'play of signifiers' that is brought about by the contingencies of language" (Matthews, p. 223). All communication takes place within the system of langue without ever contacting the external world. Clendenen describes it "like trying to photograph a room, we can never see the whole at once." (p. 132).

#5: The way out of this linguistic prison is to undermine its walls (i.e. deconstruct it). That can be done since language is intrinsically unstable, clumsy, slippery, and full of gaps and self-contradictions due to differentiation. Culler describes the process: "To deconstruct a discourse is to show how it undermines the philosophy it asserts, or the hierarchical oppositions on which it relies, by identifying in the text the rhetorical operations that produce the supposed ground of argument, the key concept or promise" (p. 86). Veith (p. 55) illustrates it with the opening line of the Declaration of Independence. When it says, "All men were created equal . . ." that can be understood to exclude women, who, in fact, were not allowed to vote. In addition, Blacks were not considered "fully human" since they were not considered to be in the category of "men." Thus the assertion of equality can be deconstructed to reveal a great deal of inequality.

#6: The author of a text is excluded from its meaning since (s)he is merely a prisoner to the same linguistic code and is inaccessible anyway. [2] Hence, the author's intended meaning is impossible to obtain. This leaves the field wide open for the reader to "play" with the text and to create new linguistic meanings as well as new modes of existence. Deconstructionists do not see themselves as destroying the possibility of communication but as liberationists who free texts from the false constraints of Western thinking and from being imprisoned in a single meaning (Osborne, p. 383).

Relation to Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a term describing a new, pluralistic way of thinking. There have always been multiple, competing ideologies. But in postmodernity, truth is existential and situationally relative. As a result, these pluralistic ideologies can no longer compete since there is no single foundation for truth.

The premodern and modern thinker may disagree about how one goes about finding truth. But they agree that there is truth out there. For the postmodern mind, there is no truth out there; truth is created from within each individual. Phillips (p. 262) illustrates the difference with three umpires talking after a game. The first (premodern) said, "There's balls and there's strikes, and I call 'em the way they are." The second (modern) replies, "I call 'em the way I see 'em." The third (postmodern) answers, "They ain't nothin' until I call 'em!" In umpires, this is cute; in culture, this is a callosal shift in the way we "do business." For the premodern, God was the center. For the modern, man is the center. In postmodernism there is no center, only plural possibilities of perspectives (Zustiak, p. 134).

Postmodern philosophers applied the theories of the literary deconstructionists to the world as a whole. Just as the meaning of a text is dependent on the reader, so also reality can be 'read' differently depending on the perspectives of the knowing selves that encounter it. This means that there is no one meaning of the world, no transcendent center to reality as a whole. (Grenz, p. 326)

It may seem odd that a literary theory would result in societal reformation. Yet that is the purpose of deconstruction. It allows individuals to create their own meanings from texts. Furthermore, the world, not merely a document, is the text we work with. In a nutshell, postmodernism is the deconstruction or demolition of rationalistic constructs which we find impossible to live in any longer (Veith p. 39). Key targets for demolition are totalizing discourses (i.e. metanarratives), which are associated with oppression. Thiselton states that, "Deconstructionism in literary theory is often perceived as the strongest philosophical context of post-modernism, and Derrida as one of its most forceful exponents in this dual area" (p. 103). Several events have been suggested as the beginnings of postmodernism. Each illustrates the deconstruction of societal institutions which were perceived as oppressive, rationalistic metanarratives. First, in 1968, students shut down the universities in protest of Vietnam. Second, in 1972, the Pruitt-Igo housing development project in St. Louis was blown up when it became uncontrollable (Veith, p. 39). Third, in 1989, the Berlin wall was torn down. Each of these events betrays the failure of modernism to answer societal problems and our search for new modes of existence. So each was dismantled, opening the possibility of new ideologies and new systems. To quote Johnny Rotten and the Sex Pistols, "If nothing [is] true, everything [is] possible."

Relation to the Social Construction of Reality

Anderson asserts that the social construction of reality (via Berger), is the distinguishing feature between modern and postmodern thought (p. x-xi). This social construction of reality is essentially the implementation in sociology of the principles of literary deconstruction. Glodo captures the heart of both when he says of postmodernism that "Reality is not to be perceived so much as to be conceived or constructed" (p. 151).

Lundin suggests that the broad acceptance of deconstruction in popular culture today is, in fact, due to sociological factors:

The social upheaval of the 1960's worked its way into the patterns of thought of many in a whole generation of young scholars. As a doctrine that celebrates the subversive free play of language, deconstruction may serve nicely the purposes of those who wish to overturn dominant systems of value or truth without getting wounded in the process. In the hands of many of its practitioners, it has become a means of waging the intellectual equivalent of risk-free guerilla warfare. (Lundin, p. 195)

One might suggest, then, that the philosophy of deconstruction spawned the principles of the social construction of reality and in return, the social construction of reality popularized deconstruction. [3] This much is certain, both Derrida and Berger see language as the medium through which reality is created. More than that, both would suggest that language is used by social institutions to perpetuate their hegemenous powers (Allen, 1993, p. 122).

Hermeneutical deconstruction thus becomes political, even revolutionary. Its goal is not merely the deconstruction of language but those social institutions that perpetuate metanarratives. Language is viewed as a tool of oppressive elitists. In order to truly understand what is going on, we must "read between the lines" to decipher the political agenda behind the message. Therefore, "Truth is not found in what is being objectively presented in the text, but in what is not being said, or in what is hidden. The task of the reader or the interpreter is to 'deconstruct' or 'unmask' the text to find the true meaning which is hidden behind the words" (Zustiak, p. 140). Therefore, both social institutions as well as their supporting literature are mere cultural constructions used for control. Thiselton describes it this way:

Bourgeois cultures utilize this confused 'mystification' whereby they and the masses remain subject to the illusion that we encounter 'nature or 'objectivity' in the systems of culture. The task of the semioticist is to unmask this pseudo-objectivity; to 'decipher' a meaning-network which 'conceals' or 'naturalizes' what amount to no more than conventions.

Massive Shifts of Deconstruction

Diogenes Allen said in reference to postmodernism (1989, p. 2), "A massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked off the modern world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of the modern world are collapsing, and we are entering a postmodern world." Allen is referring to the intellectual shift to relativity and the acceptance of pluralism. This is not just saying, "I respect your right to disagree with me," but, "Your interpretation of truth is equally valid to mine or any other." We must not underestimate the callosal implications of this shift. Hermeneutical deconstruction is to modern thought what Einstein's theory of relativity is to physics. All the rules have changed. What we took for granted as foundational truth is now mere personal preference. This is the first massive shift of deconstruction.

The second massive shift of deconstruction is the move from science/philosophy to literature and art as the foundational disciplines. Lundin argues that literature has displaced philosophy as the central discipline of contemporary culture, just as philosophy displaced theology several centuries ago (p. 195). Wuthnow (p. 119) adds that the paradigm for religious knowledge has shifted from the scientist to the artist. Early scientists believe that there were facts to be discovered. Artists believe that there are objects to be created. Hence, God is that which we artistically create rather than that which we scientifically discover.

A word of caution is in order here. While Derrida would have us believe that deconstruction is pure linguistic theory, that is far from the truth. He took the linguistic theory of Saussure and baptized it in philosophy in order to arrive at deconstruction. From Nietzsche he gleaned a suspicion that all society was oppressive and a design with which to undermined the grounds of knowing. Marx helped him reduce that oppression to economic systems. Freud added sexual repression and the subconscious to the equation. In truth, then, deconstruction is a philosophic linguistic theory.

Manifestations and Implications of Deconstruction

The following seven areas are only some of the institutions and disciplines that are affected by deconstruction. My purpose is to (1) show how broad its ramifications are, especially for the Evangelical church and (2) to illustrate how deconstruction and the social construction of reality have worked together to radically challenge these seven fields.

Hermeneutics

This field used to be called, "The science of interpretation." Now even the staunchest conservatives will include "art" as part of the definition. More importantly, the locus of meaning has shifted from the author under rationalism, to the text under structuralism, to the reader under deconstruction. We are no longer searching for truth, we are creating it. The text is no longer interpreted, rather, it is deconstructed and used as a springboard for creating new and more meaningful modes of existence for the reader.

Osborne notes that deconstruction hermeneutics has filtered its way even into the laity of Evangelical churches (p. 384). Sermons and Bible study groups are often more concerned with, "What does this means to me?" than, "What was the author trying to say?" Schneiders describes it this way:

The focus of interest is not so much on what produced the biblical texts as on what the texts, when fully engaged, produce in the reader. Thus, the positivistic objectification of the text which resulted inexorably in the dilemma of the subject-object paradigm of understanding by analysis has begun to give way to a hermeneutical paradigm of understanding by participative dialogue. Interpretation, in other words, is not a matter either of dominating the text by method or of submitting to the text in servile fideism, but of entering into genuine dialogue with it as it stands. Through this dialogue reader and text are mutually transformed.

Homiletics

The field of homiletics is also being transformed by deconstruction. Since truth is in personal stories rather than objective truth, preachers are finding their audiences much more moved by stories and metaphors (Glodo, pp. 148-469). In his insightful article, Robert Reid, proposes that preaching shift toward creating an experience rather than making a point. This will likely move the frayed pages of preachers' Bibles from the Epistles to the Gospels.

Ministry: Youth, Music, Evangelism & Missions

In whatever ways clergy encounter their flocks or potential converts, they may find that the old methods no longer work like the text book suggested when they were in seminary. Books by the scores are being written about today's youth culture, labeled "Generation X." They are described as a generation without moorings, values or goals. These are the babies weaned on deconstructionism; these are the products of postmodernism. Music ministries are burgeoning in a culture intoxicated by experience. Evangelism has moved from the city square to the sanctuary with "seeker-sensitive" services, more geared toward creating an experience than delivering a message. Evangelistic apologetics are largely irrelevant. One can lay out an impressive historical defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus only to hear the would-be disciple say, "I'm glad that works for you but I had a bad experience in church as a child and it doesn't work for me." Support for missions is increasingly difficult to muster in the midst of a society that praises pluralism and individualism. If all truth claims are equally valid and situationally determined, then what right do Christians have to impose their Western world view, couched in Christianity, upon some people group half-way around the world?

Counseling and Therapy

Lundin points out how postmodernism has impacted therapy (p. 200). Clients are encouraged to define their lives in whatever ways make sense and allow them to survive. Furthermore, some counselors encourage their counselee to recreate past events (e.g. rape or abuse), with little regard to the historical reality of these events. While the courts have adjudicated this as being immoral (especially for those falsely accused of illicit actions), the deconstruction paradigm would suggest that reality is not what happened historically, but what one creates existentially. If someone feels they were abused, it is a reality for them whether it actually occurred or not.

Higher Education and the Rewriting of History

Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University describes what he calls a crisis of the postmodern university in his article "Does Truth Still Matter?" He points out that we have moved from a universalist position on truth to many particularist versions. The university has for millennia been a place where one sought, dialogued and debated about truth. All such discussion is practically voided with deconstruction since everyone's version is equally valid and the foundation for objective truth is deconstructed. As a result, Animal Rights Advocates, Humanists, Muslim militants, Jehovah's witnesses, White Supremacists, Atheistic Communists, New Agers, etc. all have an equal voice and there is no standard by which each individual perspective can be judged better than another. To make matters more complex, under deconstruction, history can be rewritten to reflect the experiences (real or imagined), of each particularist perspective. The rewriting of history has not merely been a project of Black Americans, Native American Indians, etc. It has also made its way into the Bible through the search for the Historical Jesus. It seems paradoxical that as Robert Funk and the seventy fellows of the Jesus Seminar accused Evangelicals of creating a Westernized Jesus, their book, The Five Gospels, creates the very Christ they were looking for.

Ethics and Law

Mitchell, in his article "Is That All There Is?: Moral Ambiguity in a Postmodern Pluralistic Culture," points out how the moral relativism of postmodernism affects more than just personal ethics. Culturally, the worst epitaph one can receive is no longer "communist," "pervert," or even "bigot." The worst is "intolerant"! It is assumed that each individual has the personal right to determine private behavior without public censure.

Deconstruction has also affected our judicial system. Veith says, "Its tenets shape political discourse and are transforming the legal system" (p. 38). As a case in point, the Menendez brothers clearly killed their parents. That fact is beyond dispute. The trial was not about murder but about the boys' perceived or created reality. Did the "oppression" they experienced justify the murder of their parents? In the eyes of the jury it did. Clearly, this was a postmodern trial from the standpoint of personal experience/reality determining whether a double-homicide was ethically justified.

The Arts, Architecture & Entertainment

Modern art which lacks form and meaning is an expression of postmodern deconstruction. Rather than an artist creating a piece with inherent meaning, (s)he creates a catalyst by which the audience creates their own meaning from the artistic piece. In a rather negative critique of modern art, Black says (p. 135):

Minimalists and nonrealists works could only pass for art in an environment stripped of standards. In fact, I would even say that the plague of ugliness and ignorance that assaults our eyes and ears in virtually every medium today became inevitable once the established principles of form and judgment were removed.

Oden (p. 73), even suggests that architecture can reflect postmodern ideology. Among other things he says it is pluralistic, eclectic, ornamental, and prometaphor.

Entertainment is another fertile area for demonstrating the popular effects of postmodernism. A classic comparison is between Jay Leno and David Letterman.

Leno's like Carson. They both poke fun, but somehow you always know by that little mischievous smile they give with the punch line that they really believe in the things they're poking fun at. But with Letterman everything's pretty much up for grabs. I mean, he can't even take his own guests seriously. He always has this ironic edge of cynicism, like he knows that you know that it doesn't matter what these people have to say. (Reid, p. 1)

The cynical side of postmodern entertainment is epitomized by Saturday Night Live--nothing is sacred and it probably doesn't really matter anyway. The more serious side can be illustrated by comparing the old Star Trek, with The Next Generation. [4]

Evaluation of Deconstruction

Clearly, the philosophical tenets of this highly complex theory of deconstruction have woven their way into popular culture. We live in a very different world than even a generation ago. Some are elated, others appalled, but we will all have to live with it for better or worse. Black (pp. 135-6) is pretty pessimistic when he says:

Civilization appears to be in decline, society is facing the most pernicious crisis of cultural authority in modern history, and the intellectual leaders and opinion makers who are best situation to help us make sense of the apparent chaos and trauma of modern life . . . insist that communication is biased, nonrational and meaningless.

But it is probably not all that bad.

Positive Contributions

1. Deconstruction helps us understand that language is metaphorical, that signs can be polyvalent and that interpretation always takes place within a cultural, historical and philosophical framework.

2. The old, stale rationalist attacks on Christianity have largely lost their force. Issues like the historicity of miracles, the existence of God, accuracy of the transmission of the Bible, the reality of heaven and hell, creation versus evolution, etc. are waning in importance. Evangelicals can spend their efforts on more relational (and some would say more important), issues.

3. There is an existential reality in Christianity that is winsome and our "story" is powerful! Not only is the historical story of Jesus unparalleled in majesty and power, the way he transforms lives today is superlative. Even within the confines of deconstruction, Evangelical Christianity can flourish.

4. In a sense, it is "the word" that creates reality for the Christian at several levels: Creation, Logos, and Scripture. While Christianity claims historic reality and absolute foundation for truth, we do have an affinity with deconstruction and the social construction of reality in that our "world" was created by the Word.

5. Texts are used as vehicles through which we grow. Deconstruction blows away the illusion that once we have read a text, that we are done with it or have mastered it. Thus texts are no longer dormant; they become catalysts for real change.

6. Deconstruction is therapeutic in that people are encouraged to define their lives in whatever ways make sense and help them to survive. While Evangelicals should reject pluralistic relativism, we can not help but appreciate the healing power of words. The Scriptures must be used for healing, growth, and self-development beyond mere talk. Sometimes that will even mean the deconstruction of oppressive systems.

Deficiencies

While there are a number of positive contributions of deconstruction, there are some serious methodological and ideological deficiencies which make it intellectually untenable, especially for Evangelicals.

1. "Inter-subjectivity" is the correct idea that there is a significant level of agreement as to the meaning of these arbitrary linguistic signs. Hence, communication is able to take place since we can "put ourselves in another's shoes."

2. We simply do not live in the kind of world described by deconstruction. First, language requires understandability in order to be effective. It is NOT all about power! "Stubbornly maintaining that readers and writers are shackled and blinded by their own world view so that messages cannot be conveyed and world views cannot be transformed runs counter to experience and reason" (Clendenen, p. 133). Second, we appear to be by nature (or imago dei), rational creatures. Logic and reason cannot be completely displaced by emotion and experience. If our own writings were treated as Derrida suggests, I dare say most of us would be offended. While the continual play of deconstruction may be appropriately applied to nonreferential material like music, riddles, or fables, it is inappropriate to apply it to legal, gospel, epistle, etc. and most genres of the Bible.

3. "The doctrine that all texts are pluralistic in meaning, and that this plurality is irreducible and infinite, is at best a very particular version of semiotics, and at worst a particular philosophy of language which masquerades as semiotics" (Thiselton, p. 100).

4. It is inappropriate to exclude the author from the meaning of the text. Semiotic signs only have meaning in parole. In other words, it is the actual use of signs that give them meaning and it is the author that uses the signs to signify something specific in his/her thought or world. Hence, meaning must be tied to the author.

5. Deconstruction ultimately deconstructs itself (especially as a formal theory). As an example, "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement.

6. "Rather than generating dialogue, a postmodern view of truth ultimately makes genuine dialogue impossible. Religious diversity does not require that one view all competing truth-claims as equally true. As Alan Bloom reminds us, 'openness' does not necessarily require relativism in truth" (Phillips, p. 262). Van Leeuwen (p. 69) echoes this same objection in relation to feminism, "Postmodern feminism risks undercutting the entire feminist project. For if there is only diversity and pluralism, who can dare say what is 'right' and 'true' for all women?"

7. Deconstructionists cry for justice and fairness. But that is a plea for ethical behavior which is "obliviated" through pluralism. When all standards are removed, it is not possible to appeal for any kind of standard behavior.

8. The fruits of deconstruction are sour. It often leads to nihilism, chaos, rage, rebellion, etc. What is worse is that there is no bearings in this sea of turmoil. Even Jesus, deconstructed, looks no different than Buddha or any other self-determinant psychology or religion. Christianity, as it stands, is an enemy of deconstruction, for "anyone who holds to view of truth, goodness, or meaning as in some important respects connected to reality is ipso facto an enemy of pluralism, a dogmatist, and an oppressor" (Allen, 1993, p. 123).

Conclusion

Hermeneutical deconstruction is a complex literary and philosophical theory. Yet its voice has been heard in popular culture and is likely here for an extended stint. Ideologically and methodologically it is untenable, especially for Evangelical Christians who espouse the ultimate metanarrative. Nonetheless, deal with it we will! If we are as wise as serpents, we may even find it a useful tool for constructing a Christian reality in a postmodern world.



. . . . . . . . . .

[1] A "metanarrative" is a story or philosophy that claims to explain all life or claims to be the answer for people. Christianity, for example asserts itself as the one true religion (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). [return]

[2] Derrida's theory applies primarily to written text when the author is absent from the reader and when the reader is excluded from the contextual situation of the original communication. It is this separation, according to Derrida, that makes written communication impossible. [return]

[3] This is obviously an overstatement. However, there is enough truth in this statement to make it provocative. [return]

[4] Stanley Grenz, "Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology: Star Trek and The Next Generation," Evangelical Review of Theology 18 (Oct '94): 322-334, makes a number of insightful comparisons. For example, in Star Trek, Spok was the ideal man because he was logical and unemotional. His counterpart, in The Next Generation is Data, who is actually an android who desires emotion because that is the very thing that would make him human. Counselor Troi is a new addition to the crew of The Next Generation, because decisions are no longer made merely by logic, but by intuition and feeling as well. In the old show, Captain Kirk was the hero who always saved the day. In the new series, each week a different team member is highlighted. In other words, we all get to participate as team members. In the old show, there was a sense of dominion over the new cultures discovered. In the new show there is no sense of the superiority of the Federation. There is a deep appreciation for pluralism. In fact, the crew of the new Enterprise is much more diverse in gender, color, AND SPECIES. In the original Star Trek, the question of God was absent. In The Next Generation, God is represented by Q, a capricious, selfish, arrogant, obnoxious, sometimes benevolent being who has a disdain for human weakness and yet a morbid curiosity as he uses them for living experiments. The power of this illustration is that the tenets of postmodernism are subconsciously embedded in the popular media. [return]

top | home