Originally Posted November 11, 2006
Since ancient times educated people have sought to twist the meaning of words and language. There has arisen recently, however, a very mysterious and systematic method of twisting language. It is called deconstruction.
The word ‘Deconstruction‘ was coined by Jacques Derrida in the 1960’s for his method of twisting language. The assumption behind deconstruction is that words do not necessarily have inherent meaning or original intent of the
author but whatever the readerput into it. Deconstructionists believe that language was so conditioned by culture and background that it lost nearly all of it’s content in transmission. According to deconstructionists the text on this page means something different to you than it does to me (the author).
Since the message is lost the reader is free to read what he wants into the text. Deconstruction, then, is the method of reading into text meanings foreign to the text or even a message that is diametrically opposed to the author’s intent in such a way that people can be tricked into thinking that the twisted interpretation is the actual intended meaning of the text.
How Deconstruction works.
Deconstruction begins with the idea that a reader wants to put into the text. For example a liberal might want to make the Bible support homosexuality. Then he looks for either words within the text that might have variant meanings that would allow him to shift the meaning of the text or absences of words that might be exploited. Then he frames the interpretation of the entire passage in terms of this piece of text. Deconstruction is essentially the fallacy of equivocation, only deconstruction shifts the meaning of the entire structure of a text from what the author intended rather than just an individual word. Below is a definition found on Wikipedia
Nevertheless, writers have provided a number of rough definitions. One of the most popular definitions of deconstruction is by Paul de Man, who explained, “It’s possible, within text, to frame a question or to undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements.” (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.) Thus, viewed in this way, “the term ‘deconstruction’ refers in the first instance to the way in which the ‘accidental’ features of a text can be seen as betraying, subverting, its purportedly ‘essential’ message” (Rorty 1995). (The word accidental is usually interpreted here in the sense of incidental.) from the articleDeconstruction
Examples of Deconstruction.
I will give two common examples of deconstruction. Both of these are attempts to Biblically justify homosexuality. Deconstruction, however, is not limited to the homosexual controversies in the church. I use these two because they are becoming more common and because they represent obvious cases of trying to make the Bible say the exact opposite of what it really says.
I found the first example in an article in Time Magazine where the author decontructed Leviticus 18. The entire chapter is a list of sexual prohibitions except for one verse ‘ Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.’ The author of the Time Magazine article concluded that this was a ceremonial rule, took it out of context and forced the context to fit his interpretation of this one segment. He concluded that Levitical regulations against homosexuality were ceremonial and not moral. Had he followed sound hermeneutics (rules of intepretation) he would have known that Leviticus 18 was a list which defined sexual immorality. Once he realized that the rite of ‘ passing through the fire‘ was a fertility rite he would then known that this particular rule, in fact does fit into the context of a list of rules defining sexual immorality. Leviticus 18, then, declares that homosexual activity is immoraland not merely ceremonial uncleanness.
The other example was one that was seen prominently in recent political campaigns. This argument argues from absence. These deconstructionists say that Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuals or homosexual activity. This argument, however, ignores the fact that Jesus did speak about sexual matters generally and that he spoke from a very conservative viewpoint. Jesus taught, for example that to remarry after divorce (except in cases of sexual immorality) was sexual immorality because it does not fit in the model of one man and one woman seen in the Garden of Eden. If heterosexual remarriage doesn’t fit how can homosexual relationships fit?! Again context is forced to fit one one piece that was cherry-picked for political convenience.
Concluding Thoughts.
There are more examples that I will comment later, both here or one one of my other blogs. Deconstruction is based on a flawed theory of language. Deconstructionist believe that language is totally conditioned by background that there is no overlap between any two persons interpretation of language. If deconstructionists were consistent with this rather than selective then there would be absolutely no communication whatsoever between two people. Opposite of the view held by deconstructionists is a view held by many modernists–that there is no background at all and that every part of the meaning is fully transmitted. This, however, does not seem to be a realistic model for communication. The most accurate model is one that is the middle of these two extremes.There is some meaning that is unique to individual experience but there is also an overlap in meaning among different persons interpretation of language.It is this overlap that represent word meanings and standard constructions of grammar. It is in this overlap that real communication occurs.