The notion of Derrida’s deconstruction is hard to understand and is often misunderstood by many people. He is one of the most important postmodern thinkers and his thought does not easily fall under the rubric of postmodernism. We need to make an every effort to see complexities of his thought by looking at both similarities and differences between him and others in the horizon of postmodernism. Indeed, readers of the deconstruction are varied and do not reach the same conclusion regarding Derrida. Often times people hear what others say about him. For those interested in his thought and concerns, his interview will be a good start: “The Villanova Roundtable,” in John D. Caputo, ed. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida (New York: Fordham University Press, 1997).

The most important points of deconstruction, as they relate to biblical hermeneutics, can be stated in the following. Deconstruction is different from destruction, as we see in the case of building construction analogy. Deconstruction in the building business is a necessary step for building a new building; it is done with care and plan. Often there are clear reasons for deconstruction: a lack of function of the building, an outdated design, or the need to have more office space, etc. There may be also blueprints for rebuilding after deconstruction. In this respect, deconstruction does not come suddenly; rather, lots of discussions including resistance or protest precede an actual deconstruction, which is then followed by reconstruction. Therefore, deconstruction presupposes reconstruction in the beginning. Similarly, Derrida's deconstruction can be well understood by the metaphor of this building business. Likewise, Derrida's deconstruction is different from destruction. In contrast, destruction suddenly takes place due to violence or war. Its purpose is ill and evil. So people inside of the building will be killed or injured. Destruction happens apart from the will of people; it does not come with the vision of rebuilding or reconstructing for the people inside of it. If there is a new building or reconstruction following destruction, it is not for the people of the original building or the community involved. It is for invaders or destroyers. This kind of destruction is not meant in the theory of deconstruction advocated by Derrida.

Often deconstruction is understood as something which destroys faith or any commitments to religious work. Some think it may lead to to nihilism or relativism in the sense that any truth claim is valid on its own. However, deconstruction does not tear down faith or destroy the text but its dominant reading when it exercises a dominant power at the sacrifice of other voices. The spirit of deconstruction is not nihilistic because it yearns for a just and diversified world. The theory of deconstruction rejects the coherence of narrative by looking at its internal collapsing system. But showing collapse is not a goal by/for itself. Deconstruction is not a method but a "meta spirit" through which we see the world differently. No reading is final but opens up another reading. It only points to the limitation of certain readings. Deconstruction also emphasizes negotiation and différance because readings are ultimately limited. So the theory of deconstruction denies a closure of meaning: differing and deferring. In this approach to the text and reader, one can argue that deconstruction leads to relativism in the sense that other voices are encouraged (so multiple interpretations). But that is partially ture. But in a close look at the spirit (attitude) of deconstruction, deconstruction is not a friend of relativism because it questions or challenges any claims or readings as such, be they of absolutism or relativism. According to the deconstruction, any textual construction should deconstruct itself as soon as constructed.

Questions for (further) discussion:

1. Why are so many people afraid of "deconstruction"? (let us be specific about things in case by case).

2. The language of deconstruction has strong suspicions about the language of "unity." Are those concerns legitimate? In what sense?

3. Regarding deconstruction and diversity, if deconstruction helps to strengthen the notion of diversity, how does it happen? What does this diversity have to do with unity if any?

For further reading:

Kim, Yung-Suk, "Hermeneutics of Body: Postmodern de(re)construction"

Derrida, Jacques. “Différance” in Margins of Philosophy. trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1982.

______. “Différance” in Deconstruction and Context: Literature and Philosophy. Ed. Mark
C. Taylor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Pp. 396-420.

______. Negotiations: interventions and interviews, 1971-2001. edited, translated, and
with an introduction by Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2002.

______. Of Grammatology. trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1974.

______. Of spirit: Heidegger and the question. trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel
Bowlby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

______. “The Villanova Roundtable” in Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation
with Jacques Derrida. ed. John D. Caputo. New York: Fordham University
Press, 1997.

______. Memoires: For Paul de Man, Trans. Cecile Lindsay, Jonathan Culler, and
Eduardo Cadava. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.