In Understanding Deconstruction

We are introduced to the concept of deconstruction as the idea of language being inherently flawed in its articulation of the true meaning of a communication. The theory seeks to further challenge the notion of interpreting cultural texts (written word, cinema, visual arts etc) within a preconceived structure of meanings and relationships within language. These ideas formed the basis of structuralism which relied heavily on language being an infallible method of human communication. What followed was the challenge that language itself was a human idea, therefore it’s infallibility in communicating a message was open to interpretation and potential misunderstanding. This formed the basis of post-structuralism; a theory beyond the original understanding which deconstruction plays a major part in. In his excellent video about post-structuralism[1], academic Tom Nicholas cites the example of a reaction to a message or voicemail that was intended to mean one thing and was interpreted by the receiver as something completely different. The language is constant and well understood, but the meaning behind the use of each word and the assembled message can be misinterpreted. In trying to placate the reaction, we find ourselves trying to be more specific about what we mean – the only way we can do that is to continue to explain using the same language. The many possible interpretations of writing can exist at the same time, restrained by the core use of words, i.e. the core of the subject is understood. As with Barthes’s Death of the Author where he argues that the true intent of the author cannot every be truly understood, post structuralism challenges the viewer to become part of the creation of the meaning.

Nicholas’ treatment of deconstruction is interesting as it points to events and visual references that I had not considered until now. One of the examples was the deconstruction of the narrative around Apartheid and how the word itself was steeped in the European way of viewing racism in South Africa. Far from being an accurate way of separating the European ideals from the horrors of what was going on ‘over there’, the suggestion by deconstruction was the inherent presence of racism in that ideal. By pinning a label on racism, the very people using it could alternatively be revealing their own racial prejudices that stemmed back to the days of colonialism. I started to think about more recent examples where deconstruction of an event could yield an alternative interpretation. One thing that came to mind was an event that occurred at the start of the global COVID-19 pandemic that caused outrage among many people via social media platforms. A small group of famous Hollywood actors led by Gal Gadot, produced a video of them singing John Lennon’s Imagine [2]. The reaction to the video was brutal, with people immediately accusing the actors of turning the spotlight onto themselves and being detatched from the reality of the pandemic, which at the time meant millions of people across the world being locked down. When I watched the video, I found it to be achingly embarrassing. None of them could really sing, the video was recorded using mobile phones and as a result looked to me like many other pointless social media posts. My structural assessment of the video was not unlike other people’s and I recognised a solidarity in its derision in the media. In deconstructing it though, we consider the fact that like many, the actors were confined to their homes also. We have a perception of them as being somehow attention-seeking because of what they do as a profession, yet don’t necessarily consider that their profession is entertainment. The use of Imagine, perhaps Lennon’s most famous solo record and regarded as having a socialist theme and messages of human unity was clearly intended to be galvanising. Yet the opposite seemed to be the case, with many citing the terrible singing and production as sacrilegious. Whatever the motives behind the video, it can be interpreted as trying to make people feel better (Gadot was self-isolating with symptoms at the time), engendering unity and strength (even famous people aren’t safe). Like the racism discussion, perhaps the general interpretation is more about our having made these people famous and the resentment of what we perceive to be their world that is so different from our own. Deconstruction suggest that we should challenge what we think we know. In this case, we think we know celebrities because we are responsible for their creation, but in actual fact we cannot really know how they feel under the same set of circumstances that we are experiencing.

The 21st century technology and availability of information through 24/7 news coverage and social media has meant that we are presented with multiple cultural texts about the same subject. Does this help support the idea of post-structuralism or is it simply making more structures by which our interpretation of a subject is informed? Personally, I believe that the amount of information doesn’t absolve us from challenging what we see or read, but instead makes it even more important to take the time to do so.

References

[1] Nicholas T, 2019, ‘Poststructurualism: WTF Derrida, Deconstruction and Poststructuralist Theory Explained’, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2eb52fUgTk

[2]Gadot G, 2020, Instagram Post, https://www.instagram.com/tv/B95M4kNhbzz/?hl=en

[3] Caramanica J, 2020, ‘This ‘Imagine’ Cover is No Heaven, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/arts/music/coronavirus-gal-gadot-imagine.html