Thread by @brockbahler

W/ the recent slanderous takes on #deconstruction, friendly reminder:
Derrida coined deconstruction
He was inspired by Heidegger’s Destruktion of the history of philosophy
Heidegger was shaped by Luther’s destructio
Deconstruction is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation.

Disclaimer #1: There are many iterations & variations of what ‘deconstruction’ has come to mean. It would be reductive to try to encapsulate all of them here. Indeed, the very meaning of the term suggests that texts & words have multiple meanings

Disclaimer #2: there are HUGE distinctive differences between Luther, Heidegger & Derrida. For one thing, Derrida, a Jew who experienced the effects of anti-Semitism and colonialism, would want nothing to do with Luther’s blatant anti-Judaism or Heidegger’s Nazism.

Scholars, traditions, religions often take ideas from one thinker they disagree w/ & use for a new purpose. But there is a certain spirit that is continuous in Luther > Heidegger > Derrida. Most notably, for ALL of them, deconstruction is a *positive* phenomenon

Luther was inspired by Erasmus’s “to the sources!” Luther’s critique of the tradition was initiated by an *appreciation* for tradition. He thought the trad. had become so dependent on philosophical interpretations that they had stopped looking at what their texts actually said.

For Luther, then, “destructio” was BOTH a method of critiquing the tradition but also a passive event, namely, what God does to us. A key point here is that this ‘destructio’ is ultimately positive. Destruction results in edification; our own unmaking results in a new creation.

Heidegger extracts ‘destructio’ from Luther’s theological context & applies it to his analysis of Western philosophyl tradition, accusing the trad. of getting so comfortable w/ a well-worn def. of Being it ultimately conceals how being is actually revealed in our everyday lives.

Like Erasmus’ “to the sources” Heidegger [& Derrida] was inspired by Husserl’s “to the things themselves.” That clarion call ushered in the field of phenomenology. He thought a stronger foundation for philosophy could be attained by an *appreciation* for everyday experience.

A “destruction” was in order. But not one that despises tradition, but one that invigorates it with new life, one that “should stake out the positive possibilities in that tradition” (BT 22). Destruktion sought to refreshingly open up the tradition to innovation and creativity.

So Derrida develops deconstruction. He offered many def. At times, he speaks of deconstruction as passive, as something that happens: texts turn in on themselves, are self-contradictory, & it is precisely from this undecidability that we gain meaning—interpretation is a risk

My favorite example is hospitality, a term Derrida discussed. "Hospitality" comes from the Latin hospes, which we get ‘hospitality.’ But it can also mean ‘foreign.’ Hospes is a combo of two Latin words: hostis & potis. Hostis is where we get the word ‘host’ but ALSO hostile.

Hostis originally meant stranger, but also went on to mean guest, or enemy, or army (as in the KJV 'Lord of hosts'). Potis is were we get the word power. SO hospitality hinges on the paradox of having power to let someone in my house and giving up my power so they enjoy my things

A radical, pure notion of hospitality (like a Platonic Form) would then be incomprehensible, as if I invited you to my house and then gave you the keys – like the Bishop in Les Miserables who gives Jean Valjean the candlesticks after he stole his silverware.

And hospitality hinges on the dynamic, vulnerable risk of inviting the stranger who might actually be an enemy. That dynamic is most beautifully articulated in the words of Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker who recently survived a hostage situation.

https://twitter.com/bensilverstein/status/1484194090082263051?s=20&t=F7pmTCN2zMCuNAmDRZQPtw

But Derrida also spoke of deconstruction as a positive method for reading like Luther and Heidegger. as Catherine Keller summarizes: “To deconstruct is not to destroy but to expose our constructed presumptions.”

Say you have a favorite book you’ve highlighted. Over time you become so used to the portions you highlighted that *that* becomes the text, a kind of myth of the full text. A deconstructive reading wonders: what have I missed from the parts that I didn’t highlight?

But Derrida saw deconstruction as an act of justice. Consistent w/ the Jewish trad of midrashic interpretation which seeks to discern meaning by reading between the lines, deconstruction asks: Who is missing from this text? What voices have been silenced from this trad?

What are ways in which our reading of texts/traditions have become calcified that they've been reduced to an algorithm, to a mechanic one-size-fits all law, a hardened past? Deconstruction is an act of justice speaking through the cracks of the law, inviting us to an open future.

As John Caputo summarizes, deconstruction is an attempt to open texts and traditions with new life. It is not an attempt to destroy texts/traditions but to preserve them. The conservation of our traditions requires an inherent progressive openness to an unknown future.

Now before you call this postmodern relativism, one more connection btwn Derrida & Luther: they were both inspired by Augustine. Augustine was shaped by a tradition that thought a good book SHOULD have many meanings not unlike the Jewish trad which says ‘the Torah has 70 faces.’

In Confessions bk 12 Auggie doesn’t think original authorial intent is primary. Thinking abt Genesis, he says not only is it impossible to know Moses’ mind, but he might have intended multiple meanings & might not even have been able to foresee all the meanings in his own text.

Even if we could get the original intent, that’d be useless in itself as it just gives us a bare fact. The goal of reading is not Truth; the goal is the Good. He concludes that many interps. of the Bible should be permitted so long as they contribute to “the fullness of charity.”

So when @kkdumez @bethallisonbarr @socofthesacred or @jemartisby and so many other beautiful people asking important questions are slandered for “deconstruction,” I have to say, well none of them are citing Derrida (& none of them are really proposing anything all that radical!).

But the spirit of their work IS deconstructive: Projects that don’t want to destroy tradition but take it more seriously by reevaluating & innovating it w/ new life, through a concern for justice, for voices that have been silenced due to a calcified tradition. Here I stand.