The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences. Jeffrey Nealon & Susan Searls-Giroux. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003.
“Once the author’s privilege has been debunked, meaning is then no longer found but rather produced. The question we ask of the text is no longer “what did the author really mean?” but rather “how does this text produced meanings?”… Meaning is always more slippery and multiple than any given author’s intention… It is precisely the “multiplicity of meanings” that, according to Foucault, institutions saw as dangerous and sought to reduce. Conflating “meaning” narrowly with the author was but one mechanism to challenge the proliferation of meanings. We should note further that with the death of the author came the death of the literary critic, who alone could unlock the mysteries of the authorial intention. The opening up of multiple meanings challenged both the sovereignty of the author as well as that of the professional “expert” – another mechanism for managing the proliferation of discourse, for authorizing who can speak to what issues.” (p. 18-19) [bold inserted by me]
About taking critical theory class… I do not totally regret attending it (nor do I regret my marks). But with it, came many struggles with the ideas discussed and proliferated within the class. The professor, Dr. Susan Searles-Giroux herself, taught from her book, as we explored issues of authority, gender, identity and other important themes within basic critical theory for English literature. Some things seemed rather logical to me – for example, deconstructing Disney can never be a bad thing. In fact, questioning ideas promoted in any popular cultural media and texts is the essence of engagement and critical thinking. However, while I admit that the writer and the reader are both human and are therefore fallible, when applying these kinds of theories to the Word of God… The result is disturbing…
I wonder what other effect this can have that can be called good. Before discussing the negativity of theological deconstructionist readings, however, I do wish to look at a couple positive aspects. Within the church (universal) and the church culture, there have been various cultural things promoted that are not necessarily biblical and therefore are questionable and may be put under the lens of deconstruction. For example, the fact that before the 90s, Jesus felt figures in Sunday Schools had light brown (if not blonde) hair, white skin and blue eyes. Things such as cultural myths which arise out of specific necessity or because of people’s desire to control/find stability. Grey areas such as these (if I may call them such) – to drink or not to drink, to smoke or not to smoke, to have white Jesus or not to have white Jesus… while not affecting salvation per se, still can affect church community and outreach strategies. Deconstruction of cultural media such as Max Lucado or Janette Oke, therefore, is arguably allowable. And even cultural constructions such as “WWJD”, “PUSH” and “FROG” are up for critique, parody and questioning.
However, what is disconcerting is the way Foucault and Derrida tend to show up in theological circles. And as much as I admire critical thinking, the effect of deconstruction on interpretation and one’s views about Scriptures is disturbing. Admittedly, men did physically write the Scriptures, and also the “robot” take on Scriptural inspiration seems illogical or odd. Still, if Scriptures becomes questionable because of men and their fallibility (deconstructed or not), one begins to wonder about the power of the message, the Messenger or the faith as a whole. Take away the infallibility of Scripture and the sovereignty of God – and what do we have that is so different from other faiths? Other than the fact that it “works”? Foucault and Derrida, therefore, should be approached carefully then, as a believer – especially in regards to the Word of God. The Bible, as we call it, or the Word of God, after all, is not merely another text to be analyzed and reduced to a set of cultural-specific implications or suggestions. I find that alot of deconstructionist literature concerning theology and the Bible are linked to progressive, radical thinking. For example, acceptance of homosexual relationships or Third-wave feminism. As G.K. Chesterton once said, the first thing a vacuum salesman does to get you to buy his product is to denigrate the old version. To justify one’s desires or impulses, for certain believers, it is much easier to ease the conscience with theories which undercut the authority of the Scriptures.
There is this sense in deconstructionism too – that neither the reader nor the writer has authority. Multiplicity of meaning becomes available then, with that kind of textual approach. However, as I consider this matter deeper, it seems to me like a man who is sawing off the very branch of the tree that he is standing on. Although many find issues with blind faith – does not this kind of thinking seem rather illogical? Perhaps it is just me… At any rate, as I sat in critical theory, growing more cynical by the minute listening to the professor, I began to wonder why I was there listening to her at all. If truly authority is called into question – why am I paying around 400 dollars to listen to someone who doesn’t have the authority to tell me what is right and wrong academically, theologically, socially or anything else? It is indeed a kind of suicide of the brain then – or perhaps just another new piece of propaganda – and somewhere out there, someone is benefiting from this?
Setting aside academia, the theological issues abound then. As deconstructionists, can we as Christians deconstruct deconstructionists? Should we propogate “multiple meanings” or allow the One who has created all meaning to authorize His final answers to life? At this point, I think that perhaps we should reread what I just called the Scriptures: the “WORD” of “GOD”. As such, Christians who are looking to the deconstructionist theories for freedom should be aware – for when they question the Word of God, they aren’t questioning Paul or any other writer of the Scriptures per se, but rather, God Himself.
