The Methodology of Deconstruction

In “The Exorbitant. Question of Method” Derrida develops the methodology of deconstruction. According to him, “the writer writes in a language and in a logic whose proper system, laws, and life his discourse by definition cannot dominate absolutely. He uses them only by letting himself….be governed by the system” (1691).Thus for Derrida critical reading should focus on what a writer commands of the patterns of language he uses and, equally important, on what is out of his command. For critical reading to produce a signifying structure, it must not merely reproduce the intentional relationship the author has with history, which is conveyed by language. This encourages a protected reading, whereas Derrida is in favor for an unrestrained open reading. It seems to me that he challenges the totality of outside references, such as history and psychoanalysis in the way they close up a text. Derrida attempts to open up texts to repressed meanings that exist outside of western metaphysical tradition, although never really detached. Hence, what opens a reading to Derrida is the absence of the “supplement” or “substitutive signification” that is only traces that take form in differential references outside the text. Thus, Derrida encourages an intrinsic reading that remains within a text. He proposes a deconstruction of a text by examining language and the text in the most infrastructural sense. By offering double commentary, or dual reading deconstruction seeks out binary oppositions and then inverts them. This also reinforces that a text has multiple interpretations. Contrary to my previous belief, deconstruction does not dismantle or deconstruct a text, but rather shows how the text deconstructs itself by inherent contradictions; interpretation of meaning depends on the identification of binaries and oppositions and then by the dismantling and displacement of them through critical reading. Thus, what seems to be stable or meaningful becomes elusive.

In “Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Bud” Johnson applies Derrida deconstructionist method to Melville’s Billy Bud. Johnson examines the infrastructure in term of binary oppositions and contradictions. First she examines the discrepancy between character and action: Billy Bud the good, innocent, and harmless character kills the evil and malicious Claggart, thus making the latter a victim, and condemning himself. The contradiction and discrepancy between character and action to Johnson is reflective of the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified, and by that she adds a another layer of interpretation in which a character’s inner being is the signified and his outer being the signifier. Whereas most critical readings see the opposition between Bud and Claggart as an allegorical good against evil and Adam versus Satan, Johnson reverts this reading by revealing the tensions that imply that Billy is not as innocent as he seems. She says “far from being simply and naturally pure, he is obsessed with his own irreproachability in the eyes of authority” (2265). Johnson further implies that Billy’s explosive blow to Claggart might be was due to his self-repression and his obdurate insistence on his innocence. She also shows that Claggart there are factors for his adamant hate of Billy Bud since he “perceives Billy only though the distortion of an unfavorable interpretation” (2268). Johnson provides this “reverted reading” through the clash of two readings (in which Bud and Claggart are the readers of each other) rather than two characters. Other oppositions Johnson analyzes is justice/injustice, knowing/doing, performance/cognition.

In relation to Frankenstein, we can also attempt to deconstruct the work in the same way Johnson did of Melville’s Billy Bud: by examining the oppositions that eventually invert within themselves. I would especially like to focus on the Creator/Creation binary. Upon close reading of the text it can be discovered that this binary position is already flawed and unsettled. In the process of creation, Frankenstein thinks about glory as a creator: “a new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” Still, Frankenstein creates a being that is larger and stronger than him, making it very difficult for him to subdue or control his creation, thus destabilizing his position as creator. Furthermore, by giving the Creature life, Frankenstein becomes responsible for his happiness and welfare, yet he immediately abandons the creature, leaving him to find his own way in the world; a deplorable behavior on part of the creator. Victor leaves the creature in infantile condition, absolving himself of any responsibility; yet he is responsible for the Creature and its actions, but Victor only thinks of the Creature as a situation when he starts hurting his family. The Creature was born inherently good, yet it is people’s rejection and Victor’s abandonment that turns him evil. We can see how after his disastrous encounter with the cottagers, the Creature reads Frankenstein’s journal and vows revenge, seeing his creator as a tyrant and tormentor for creating him hideous and then forsaking him. Although it is the Creature the one who wreaks havoc and destruction, it is Victor to blame because of his faults as a creator. These faults can be first seen in the physical appearance of his creation that is described as having yellow skin, eyes sunk into their sockets, and black lips. One can also argue that the monster is Victor’s double and is merely acting out his evil impulses. For instance, when Victor destroys the monster’s bride, he does it on a selfish impulse, for how can he deprive his creature of female companionship when Victor himself is soon to be wed. When the Monster says to Victor that he will be with him on his wedding night, it is clearly a threat to hurt Elizabeth not Victor although he convinces Walton that it was he was the one that would be killed. If the Monster wanted to kill Victor he would have done it on the spot, and judging from the Monster’s actions, it seems that he wants to hurt Victor’s family to make him miserable and lonely. We can see from this point how when it is the creator that has power over his creation, the creation begins to have power over him, because he has forsaken his responsibilities as creator. The Creature in a supplication to his creator reasons with Victor, imploring him to do his duty toward his creation: “All men hate the wretched; how then must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends." Then the Creature becomes in a position of power, and enslaves his creator. In the subjugation of Victor to the Creature, the Creature says: “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master;-obey!” In the end it is the Creature who destroys the creator, yet the death of the Creator entails the death of the creation, thus restoring some balance to the creator/creation binary.