Deconstruction & Justice? Two Different Approaches

This week’s food for though touches on the deconstructivist approaches to law and society which view law, society and justice not necessarily as fixed and discrete categories, but also as concepts that are “always becoming”.

Derrida claims “Deconstruction is Justice”. Derrida claims “unpredictable and without warning in the silenced, supplemental, marginal excluded, and degraded elements of text (P.171, Pavlich). I believe what he means by this is that deconstruction consists in any attempt to try re-conceive the difference that divides our self- reflection or self-consciousness but also the re-conception of difference and more importantly, that deconstruction works towards preventing the worst violence. It attempts to render justice. He also explains how communication is misunderstood. What one person may be saying, another person understands differently. With that being said he explains that language and communication are key factors in law, and if there is no understanding there may be different interpretations and meanings to what is actually being conveyed.

In terms of my opinion in regards to Derrida’s statement I would have to disagree with the statement that “deconstruction is justice”, the reason being is because in my opinion they both have the same very concepts but they also have different approaches. Justice is the concept of being fair and just, while deconstruction is the thought of differences between words rather than their reference to the things they stand for. Like previously said, different meanings are discovered by taking apart the structure of language used and putting assumptions and different meanings to what is being said.

I agree with Derrida’s view on deconstruction is justice. Both deconstruction and justice are both based on looking forward. For example, a lawyer may be interrogating and accused person, he questions and undermines the accused. If we were to put the concept “deconstruction is just”, Derrida would proceed to believe that this procedure of our justice system is either just or unjust.

Both justice and deconstruction present good key concepts, but I believe that to put the two concepts together cannot be done as they may have some sort of the same meaning but both end up at two different approaches.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Musing

One response to “Deconstruction & Justice? Two Different Approaches

  1. You note that “I believe what he means by this is that deconstruction consists in any attempt to try re-conceive the difference that divides our self- reflection or self-consciousness but also the re-conception of difference and more importantly, that deconstruction works towards preventing the worst violence. It attempts to render justice.”

    This is remarkably similar to the explanation offered by the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Derrida, which states that

    “Derridean deconstruction consists in an attempt to re-conceive the difference that divides self-reflection (or self-consciousness). But even more than the re-conception of difference, and perhaps more importantly, deconstruction works towards preventing the worst violence. It attempts to render justice.”

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/

    Be sure to provide proper citations. For a blog post, you can actually embed hyperlinks that take readers directly to online content.

    Otherwise, this is an interesting discussion.