Podrán comunicar al Director General de la Oficina Internacional del Trabajo una decla-

Derrida is commonly known as the leading figure of deconstruction thought. And although he is not the only philosopher to propagate these ideas, his name and ideas are strongly linked to this issue (cf Stravridis 2006). Deconstruction revolves around the way one interprets and understands texts as Kretchmar (2008:2-3,7) states

Texts, according to postmodernists, refer to everything – texts in the traditional sense, a performance, a film, a conversation. Deconstructing a text involves turning the logic of the text against itself, so that the inherent contradictions and paradoxes are uncovered. Some view deconstruction as merely destructive, but Derrida believed it was also affirmative in that it identifies and affirms ‘the Other’ excluded from the text.

Deconstruction immediately breaks any power plays, any quest to create a “Us vs Them” dichotomy. It searches for the lost voices, for the elements that may have been overpowered by the powerful, by those in control. It challenges the ideas of objectivity: that a person can read or live without nay influences (cf. Leithart 2008:33-50; Kretchmar (2008:2-9). At its very basis is a rejection of modernity’s ideals; and thus I would call it an antidote to the control of modernism.

In the Caputa and Derrida’s (1997) book "Deconstruction in a nutshell", Derrida is interviewed by Caputa, in which the common myths about postmodernism and Deconstruction are discussed, and the myths dispelled, especially regarding the perception that Derrida is advocating an absolute relativism, Caputa (1997:36) argues that it is not uncommon to portray Derrida as the devil himself:

…a street-corner anarchist, a relativist, or subjectivist, or nihilist, out to destroy our traditions and institutions, our beliefs and values, to mock philosophy and truth itself, to undo everything the Enlightenment has done - and to replace all this with wild nonsense and irresponsible play.

This view, this demonization, is a common one among conservatives, moderns and Christians who view anything as postmodern as pure relativism, which is at complete odds with their understanding of the Christian Worldview37. Caputa calls those who portray Derrida in this light irresponsible critics who are ironically avoiding their integrity in academic responsibility. As the conversation with Derrida unfolds within this book, this myth is exposed (Caputa 1997:36). In fact, Caputa (1997:37-8) argues that:

…the following axiom, which governs what I call a certain "axiomatics of indignation" that Derrida seems to provoke: the most fundamental misunderstanding to beset Derrida and deconstruction is the mistaken impression that is given of a kind of anarchistic relativism in which "anything goes." On this view, texts mean anything the reader wants them to mean; traditions are just monsters to be slain or escaped from; the great masters of the Western tradition are dead white male tyrants whose power must be broken and whose name defamed; institutions are just power-plays oppressing everyone; and language is a prison, just a game of signifiers signifying nothing, a play of differences without reference to the real world. Thus the dominant reaction that Derrida provokes among his critics, who do not content themselves with simply disagreeing with him, is indignation. (Italics added)

And so by not acknowledging that Derrida is not advocating a relativism of ‘anything goes’, his critics (across both the philosophical and theological fields), claim a self- righteous ethical, moral view. This ethical view is one of a ‘self approving good conscience’ (Caputa 1997:37-8). And the more that Derida’s thoughts move from the academic halls to the streets, to politics, to ethics, to general Christian ethical living, the stronger the response, and the sooner the closing of the laager to anyone thinking of these ideas. And this type of thought needs to be confronted wherever it is encountered, as

37 _{For an Extreme view of this which borders on neurotic fundamentalism, see}

www.discerningtheword2.co.za

Caputa states “ Ergo, we, the Good and the Just (self-authorized and self-knighted, to be sure) - that is what "we" almost always means - must stamp it out.” (Caputa 1997:37-38)

Often times the most ironic fact is that those critics who so strongly oppose Derrida and the postmodern thoughts he encourages have never read any literature about postmodernism or by Derrida (cf. Caputa 1997:32-38). In this authors opinion, the contempt, the anger, the unwillingness to learn is not based on their understanding, but it based on passed down, second-hand, malicious knowledge, often spread by those who do not care to understand a new way of doing things38. In some ways, it is the typical modern response which labels the “us” and the “them”, and never shall the two meet. Consequently, one of the modern paradoxes and problems is strongly proved; the belief that the “us” group can never be wrong.

Caputa (1997:37-8) would agree with this assessment; he goes even further by saying that:

…their condemnation of Derrida violates on its face the very "values of reason, truth and scholarship" with which they so self-righteously cloak themselves, in the name of disinterestedly "protecting" [a university which was considering awarding Derrida an honorary doctorate] from itself. As if anyone asked them! Derrida himself argues that Deconstruction is “not simply positive, not simply conservative, not simply a way of giving the institution” (Caputa 1997:5). He goes on to say that Deconstruction is made of “...not the mixture, but the tension between memory, fidelity, the preservation of something that has been given to us, and at the same time, heterogeneity, something absolutely new, and a break” (Caputa 1997:6).

38 _{Again, to see this angry perspective, see www.discerningtheword2.co.za}

Derrida contends that the justice he envisions (that which is beyond description) resounds beyond the philosophical debates, and finds it home in the biblical notion of justice and its quest for singularity (cf. Caputa 1997:20). Derrida also contends that religion, that which is set on dogma’s, hierarchical structures, and rituals needs to be deconstructed, and this should often be done in the name of faith (cf. Caputa 1997:20-24).

Clawson (2008) agrees with the above, arguing that deconstruction is not all about the practice of tearing down and destroying (an idea that many Moderns and modern Christians have made it out to be); rather it is more about understanding and justice. A good deconstruction will involve discovering, investigating and understanding any underlying assumptions (and one could add worldviews to this) present in an idea, system, or belief. For Derrida, and anyone attempting to deconstruct, the ultimate goal needs to be justice (the one thing that cannot be deconstructed), “For as one seeks better understanding one is able to better love the Other” (Clawson 2009)