西方文论关键词 解构

Deconstruction

解构的来龙去脉和前因后果,并不始于德里达。为从广角观察解构的脉络及其种种而不失细察,本文以解构的首要意义贯穿全文的上、下两篇。解构看到:对人类健康生存的奴役和践踏,往往来自某些威风凛凛的"真理"体系;解构的首要意义,在于它揭示了西方本体论为稳定"真理"体系所依赖的"逻各斯中心"的症结所在,主张以"自由游戏"走出此种结构/体系的禁锢。上篇从柏拉图的二元对立、本体论的两个假设(以"逻各斯"为其象征)说起,追溯解构的先驱尼采、海德格尔如何思辨本体论的"真理体系",进而讨论德里达如何承继"尼采式转折"形成他自己的语汇和方法,以及和当代的符号概念的关联。下篇详述文学创作、文学与文化批评中的解构,以及解构和拉康心理分析、文本理论、符号概念的关联。作者还指出:耶鲁学派不仅是缺乏力度的解构,而且因德曼的误导,形成和德里达解构的重大区别。德曼的伪解构,因为曾经影响广泛,造成当代解构的许多问题。本文对其中几个关键问题做了分析。本文的最后一部分讨论解构的中西比较。作者认为:理解解构这样的西学概念类似于翻译,先要在西方的语境中体味,方能找到解构和中国各种思想在意向上异和同的关联。归根结底,我们在解构中发现的是一种并非陌生的智慧。在中西共存于资本主义全球化的世界,解构是一种不受"光明进步"宏大叙述所讹诈的内省力。

Deconstruction,through its development and its multifaceted manifestations,has acquired a scope and complexity far beyond Derrida himself.This article,divided into Part I and Part II,comprehensively explores such complexity while maintaining its focus on the primary significance of deconstruction.Deconstruction is motivated by this perception: the repression and oppression of human existence often come,ironically,from certain formidable systems of "truths." The primary significance of deconstruction therefore lies in how it problematizes Western ontology's "logocentrism" on which the stability of systems(or structures) of "truths" is maintained,and in how it initiates "freeplay" in order to achieve freedom from the imprisonment of such systems.In Part I,the author traces the development of deconstruction,by starting with a critique of Plato's dialectical reasoning based on binary opposition,and of the two assumptions of "truths" in Western ontology(with Logos as its symbol),revisiting how Nietzsche and Heidegger critique(deconstruct) the ontology that sustains the "truth" tradition,and then by moving to the discussion of how Derrida continues the momentum of the "Nietzschean turn" with Derridean strategies and vocabulary,and of how Derrida's deconstruction is intricately connected with the concept of sign.In Part II,the author describes how deconstruction manifests itself in literary texts and in literary criticism,and surveys other theories related to deconstruction,such as Lacanian psychoanalysis,theories of text and semiotics(the concept of sign).The author also gives a map of the Yale School of deconstruction and argues that this kind of deconstruction,especially in the figure of Paul de Man,is significantly different from Derrida's deconstruction.It is,in fact,a fake deconstruction.Based on this survey,the author discusses several specific problems that have emerged from the wide range of contemporary practices in the name of deconstruction.In the final portion of the article,the author suggests that deconstruction,when entering into the space of China-West comparative studies,should be explored in those similarities and differences concerning intentions in two very different civilizations.In the final analysis,deconstruction is not a wisdom alien to us.In a world where China and the West share the same fate of globalization,deconstruction is a welcome in-sight that allows us to reject the blackmail of grand narratives that are invoked in the name of modern "progress."