Deconstruction examples?

Question

From originator of successful practices to practitioner to subsequent practitioner practice changes and often fails due to ignoring the basics.

The practices of the subsequent practitioners no longer resemble the originators practices.

Example One-Business

People in the 80s said they practiced Deming’s concepts and met with some large successes-notably Ford’s Taurus. Today, Ford varies far from Deming’s practices and they suffer financially.

In politics, both Republicans and Democrats have strayed from their roots to the middle and now frustrate everyone.

Are these two occurrences examples of Deconstruction or is this something else?

julio

Answer 1

I would have to say that they both could be, but they also both might not be.

I see deconstruction as a kind of analogue to post-modernism or as an anti-structuralism. Instead of trying to root out every fine kernel of meaning in language, it observes that language itself is a pretty subjective thing. People who use the same term often don't mean exactly the same thing by it, and people who speak or write are often not so precise as to always choose the very best of those somewhat relative terms.

So it is likely that no text will ever say EXACTLY what its author means. Everyone will get something a little different from it, and the more removed you are from the author the more removed your interpretation may very well be.

Which starts to sound like your examples, but here's the rub: either of your cases are deconstruction only if those groups were TRYING to adhere to their original ideas. If Ford decides that it would be cheaper to ignore one of Deming's ideas, it is no longer suffering from destruction, it is just picking a new direction to go in. It's deconstructive if a baker reading a recipe is vague on what a 'pinch' of salt is, but not if the baker decides that salt is unnecessary.

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth. Hope that helps!

Answer 2

From the limited information that you provide, I lean toward saying they are not deconstruction. I use deconstruction here from the post-structuralism of Derrida, but if you intend it from another Yale School individual, I know little of their work.

So, I think in this format the easiest things to point out about deconstruction is that as a "thing" (Derrida constantly points out that it is not a method, concept, etc.) it may be better comprehended as the word "de-sedimentation" (which is a term that Derrida uses simultaneously with deconstruction; however, the media and scholars held tight to "deconstruction"). If you think of a snow globe (the little dome-shaped 'toy' filled with water that you flip to have it 'snow' inside the dome), you can consider the "end state" (after you shake and let it settle) of the globe as "sedimentation". This is how language, writing, and text is typically considered (as stable, set, and in a given place). In contrast, Derrida would contend that all writing undermines itself (i.e., deconstruction is an element of writing, it is not something people do to it--though people can notice that it is there or not notice it there within the text). So, for Derrida, it is as if meaning (which is often considered as the "sedimentation" of stability) is actually never fixed or stable; it is always like the "snow" in the snow globe perpetually unsettled, unfixed, and unstable (i.e., de-sedimentation or deconstruction). Simultaneously, it is not simply relativity for there is always a relational component whereby the meaning of one component (a flake in the dome) is "known" only in relation to the positioning of other meanings (the other flakes, the dome, any objects in the dome). This is as simple as I can try to describe it in this brief context.

I think it necessary to comment on the previous answer as well: he/she states that "no text will ever say EXACTLY what is author means." This statement presupposes the intent of the intent of the author as well as, and probably more importantly, the fact that there is an author. Derrida argues in his book, Limited Inc, that the author is merely a manifestation of the text. In addition, we could claim that "authorship" is simply a convience for determining the context of the construction of the text (yet the construction is never singular and always a multiplicity, so it can never "an author").