Derrideanism and the postmodern perspective (1 Viewer)

[adrenaline rush]

This may be quite late still choosing a topic (not to mention unprepared) but I am interested in discussing/arguing the application of Derrideanism to historiography. However I am having trouble grasping the idea of Derrida. If anyone could direct me to any resources (that won't confuse me any further than i already am?)
More specifically;
1) How does internal structure influence the outcome of text?
2) What is Derrida's relationship to binary opposition?

 

[xeuyrawp]

1) How does internal structure influence the outcome of text?

According to Derrida?

I think that Derrida would argue that structure is hugely important in meaning. He would argue that most historians emphasise content, and that would be wrong.

2) What is Derrida's relationship to binary opposition?

Again, I think he'd just argue that binary opposition is a far too extreme form within history. I think he'd say that many historical pieces emphasis 'x or y' far too much.

However I am having trouble grasping the idea of Derrida. If anyone could direct me to any resources (that won't confuse me any further than i already am?)

Do you think you're doing something too complex, then? If you're this late, maybe move onto something you actually understand?

 

[adrenaline rush]

I went and borrowed a couple of books on postmodernism and I'm pretty sure I get the big picture of the subject and where Derrida stands (your explanation helped heaps btw). I've decided to just broaden my idea towards general postmodernism (with just a bit of Derrida? )

Thanks! (Now I just need a question :rofl: )

 

[BronwynKate]

He will be a lot easier once you try and get in grips with his work! And apply his work to a wide variety of situations in everyday historical life and work. You do have all your life to understand the theories which guide our world.

Derrida said that what comes in the book or literary source first you will remember first and what comes last you will remember last.

A similar historian there is Noah Chomsky. I do consider him a postmodernist.

The historian has a power over the reader (this is Foucault).

So the reader is persuaded to take the historian's view of content when she did not look at it in her own hand.

I would think Derrida would emphasise the 'why' of history as much as the 'how' and more than the 'what' and 'where'.

Hope you can engage in a spirit of Derridean enquiry/inquiry (I never know which!).