Let us imagine a subject who finds himself in a certain situation which appears to have no escape route; a situation which nails him to a painful existence and brings him closer to extinction with every move he makes. What he needs is Bion’s theory of creative process and the emergence of new thought from within the dominant projection-introjection mechanism. In his Theory of Thinking Bion says that dismantling is as important in creative process as integration, that is, introjection and splitting are as necessary as projective identification and unification. Bion pays special attention to the process of introjection and projective identification and recreates Klein’s paranoid-schizoid position as a way of showing that it has two forms; one is healthy and the other is pathological. For Klein it was only with the attainment of the depressive position that the formless experience was given a form, the thoughts were invested with symbolic meanings. Bion sees introjection and projective identification as the two separate but contiguous halves and the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions as the complementary parts of one another in the creative process. Now, if, following Bion, we think about Klein’s introjection and projective identification in the context of Derrida’s technique of deconstructive reading, we see that deconstruction is a mobile and dynamic mode of critique which moves between fragmentation and integration of the meaning of a text. Although deconstruction, as practised by Derrida himself, adapts itself to the internal dynamics of the text as the object of critique, it still lacks the affirmative and immanent fluidity which is necessary to open up holes, or passages, through which a new truth in touch with the requirements of the present situation can slip. This is because Derrida’s practice of deconstruction is still a negating activity and a transcendence oriented practice, which remains within the confines of the antagonistic relationship between the life drive and the death drive. To become affirmative, deconstructive practice needs to produce and incorporate its own difference from itself, that is, it has to become immanent to itself and the text it interprets.
As a mode of thinking, deconstruction attempts to erase the gap between the life drive and the death drive, but always fails, and this failure eternally confines deconstructive practice to the domain of antagonism between the life drive and the death drive. And if we keep in mind that deconstruction as a mode of thinking has become the dominant way of being creative, we can understand why a critique of deconstruction is a critique of contemporary culture.
Read More here.
- Object-Oriented Psychoanalysis and Derridean Deconstruction (Derridagate)
- Deconstruction and Hermeneutics: Placing Jacques Derrida and Hans-Georg Gadamer in Non-Dialog (Paper) (westernthm.wordpress.com)
- Derrida by Benoît Peeters – review (guardian.co.uk)
- deconstruction. (kseaflux.wordpress.com)
- Deconstructing Difference? (philosophytheology.wordpress.com)
- Preliminary Notes for a Theory of Revolutionary Time (revolutionwithoutjudgment.wordpress.com)
- Pretending (richardcelliott.wordpress.com)
- Deconstruction (halsmith.wordpress.com)
- Finding Ethics in Psychoanalysis (thevisiblewhole.wordpress.com)
- Derrida Today Conference CFP (philosophyinatimeoferror.wordpress.com)
- The problem of “Religion without Religion” (philosophytheology.wordpress.com)