AESTHETICS OR DECONSTRUCTION-WHICH CAN SURVIVE?

A K Awasthi,
Professor of English,
Dr. H S Gour University,
Sagar (MP)

      This paper deals with questions of philosophical values regarding Deconstruction and Aesthetics. Deconstruction begins with two perennial questions: what is text? and what is interpretation ? A text is one individual body saturated with meaning. Interpretation is one aspect of the same body. Thus the basic problem of Deconstruction is to identify individuality itself which is without any particular side and is perfectly natural but that is rather impossibility.

      Aesthetics on the contrary aims at perfect identity of intuition- expression, soul and body through attaining individual grace of unity of our being released from individuality when the conception becomes independent of its subject, relativity of taste and results in strong inspiration to recreate the original so that a convention becomes, history is created, a continuity runs through the ages and finally a culture is formed to cultivate and garner our existence.

      For aesthetics as well as deconstruction individuality is most important though for the latter it is exclusively most significant or independent but for the former it is part of unified whole it is never independent rather it is only a medium (or one stage in a process) to realize the ultimate feel.

      For the nature and function of aesthetic feel Vishvanath says in Sahitya Darpan , "it is pure, indivisible, self manifested , compounded equally of joy and consciousness, free of admixture with any other perception, the very twin brother of mystic experience ( Brahmasvadana Sahodarah ) and the very life of it is supersensuous (Lokottara) wonder." 1 It cannot be an object of knowledge; it is timeless and found only in experience. Instruction is not the purpose of art.

      Religion and art are only two names of two experiences - the intuition of reality and identity. Such view is also held by Neo-Platonists, Hsieh Ho, Goethe, Blake, Schopenhauer, Schiller and even Croce does not refute it. The reality is universal and absolute. The penetrating vision of the lover, the philosopher and the artist goes through the false world of everyday experience to find the reality of love, truth and beauty respectively as three phases of the Absolute (or Aesthetic). They know that the two worlds of spirit and matter - Purush and Prakriti - are one. This absolute Beauty is called Rasa in Indian tradition .When we judge a work of art we speak of presence or absence of beauty. In deconstruction we speak of presence or absence of meaning or opinion. Moreover, we also judge a work of art from the standpoint of activity practical or ethical and such judgement is concerned not with the merit of the work of art but with the meanings as represented. In aesthetic consideration external signs are only for the purpose of communication. One and the same object may suggest many images to different creators but if there is correspondence between form and content, theme and expression, the true critic (rasika ) will enter into the experience of the artist, who cannot be separated from Beauty of his work for Beauty does not exist apart from the artist himself. Thus the author cannot be taken as dead.

     We invite a logical fallacy when we enter into the confusion of form or sign or their logical meaning for the use of language for language's sake or moral value because aesthetics, says Hsieh Ho "is certainly more than meaning". But aesthetic is not the aim of the artist, but when he is in love with his particular subject, he ultimately evolves into aesthetic with his capacity to feel beauty (rasa) , which is not acquired by study. Moreover poet is born not made and beauty of a work of art is independent of its subject. It is not confined to words or meaning

      Through the two main strands of his philosophy-the critique of metaphysics of presence and an open-ended process of interpretation and reinterpretation or lateral dance- Derrida extrapolates 'difference', 'trace' and 'writing' and almost concludes that there is always only interpretation; the concepts of self, being, identity and presence are fabrications; meaning is belated production, almost 'infinite set of refined statements'; tradition is a mess, destruction is at least as important and necessary as creation; no one can control completely the play of floating signifiers and other differential forces across a writing: no final authority over dissemination' and always truth statements miss a part. Given these parameters the theory can only promote relativism or nihilism. Traditional exercise to uncover central arguments of the underlying intention become futile for the shifting nature of contradictory patterns that play superficially upon the text, escalate further along the process and there is no end in view. There can be no finality of meaning when everything is deconstructible.

      Philosophically, Derrida appears to follow a valid argument that content of thought is not determined by the thinker's current consciousness but by the temporarily extended role within the subject's life of the signs of his thought, however, skeptical nature of his approach leads him to evolve a theory of multiplicity of meaning, infinity of judgement and above all an endless journey to discover truth.

      Deconstruction as a practice means an analysis of all the hidden assumptions that are implicit in a concept. It means being aware of all historical components, which have contributed to the evolution of ever changing definition of the subject. It appears an all-affirming exercise in constructing something "other". As it is aesthetics of affirmation, it implies an added emphasis on the "otherness" or "alterity" of the other, "which is an internal fact". Deconstruction, therefore almost becomes a language in itself though it is part of what language is and in being so it is perpetually open to a certain kind of otherness to a constant process of transcendence. Derrida discards cultural nature of our thinking. He employs objective criticism to oppose established orthodoxies. Reason may have a history but rationality is ever changing, unhistorical.

      The factor of difference is also a seminal principal of nature, not simply limited to meaning, word or language. An affirmation of difference is the affirmation of the principle of nature. It is also interesting to note that though deconstructionists profess the opposite, yet deconstruction itself has become a tradition (of joy of mastery over deconstruction.) of seeking difference of presence and absence and it variably constructs a new metaphysics of nihilistic joy, an endless beyond therefore it offers a rich background to embark upon a new road to metacriticism.

      For Miller as for Derrida, there can be no escape outside the tradition. Miller wrote in the Yale Manifesto, "The deconstructive reading can by no means free itself from the metaphysical reading it means to contest". Further, "Deconstruction attempts to resist totalizing and totalitarian tendencies of criticism. It also resists its own tendencies of sense of mastery over the work. It resists these in the name of an uneasy joy of interpretation beyond nihilism always in movement, a going beyond, which remains in place". 2 Deconstruction seems to aim at enunciating a tradition of metacriticism. Stability of language gives way to flights of meaning. Truth slips away rather truth is illusory from the start or it is pointless. Moreover, when 'escape from tradition' and 'freedom from metaphysical reading' are impossibilities almost preconditions, according to Miller, deconstructive interpretation is endless, 'A going beyond, which remains in place' is as much unreasonable as the 'deconstructive reading' being free from 'metaphysical reading' is an improbability. These are issues that demand deep investigation

      Derrida writes, "A text. is henceforth no longer a finished corpus or writing, some content enclosed in a book or its margins, but a differential network, a fabric or traces referring endlessly to something other than itself, to other differential traces. Thus the text overruns all the limits, everything that was set-up in opposition to writing (speech, life, the world, the real, history, and what not, every field of reference - to body or mind, conscious or unconscious, politics, economics, and so forth)". 3

      Accordingly the 'sign' has no fixed meaning for its meaning is contextual. It is only a 'trace', which is 'not more natural.. than cultural not more physical than psychic, biological than spiritual. It is the starting from which a becoming unmotivated of the sign and with it all ulterior oppositions between physics and its other is possible" 11

      The function of deconstruction has been stated: "the deconstruction rather annihilates the ground on which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated that ground, knowingly or unknowingly. Deconstruction is not dismantling of the structure of a text but a deconstruction that it has already dismantled itself". 4

     It implies from the above that there is no central signifier or the signified. Deconstruction is not a method but a 'vigilant practice' or process to explore a 'textual division'. It is affirmation of the fact (but not rights of language or rhetoric over reason) that language is independent of the concept of presence of God, the logos, phone and subjectivity. Deconstruction is dissemination. Interpretation is sterile. Dissemination is a fertile process, produces numerous signs so far hidden, leading to infinity-to Truth that may exist at a bottomless abyss, wherein the signifier and the signified presumably meet, i.e. knowledge and activity of knowledge, the knower and the known. Does it imply that Derrida is heading towards exploring two types of meaning-central and specific? What does central signifier indicate-centrality or specificity of meaning? Obviously he appears to be using a wrong word at a right place.

      Deconstruction is a rationale and Derrida uses rationality as a tool to affirm interrelationship of apparently opposite concepts. Perhaps he wants to affirm an essential unity or likeness between thought, language and universe and this he proves by displacing and deconstructing the difference between presence and absence. But the practical difficulty is that it is hard to disbelieve the very custom, belief or tradition, the distinction between right and wrong, which provide us the very ground that makes us think.

      To resolve this problem we may start from where Derrida chose to extend the viewpoints of Being and Language as enunciated by Husserl and Heidegger. For Husserl "meaning of language derives wholly from the self-conscious intentions of the speaker. In the beginning is being-determined in presence and prior to language." 5 According to Heidegger language speaks of Being as thinking, hearing, even remaining silent. "Being first appears as such; it is the light in and advent of Being itself". 6 The truth of Being as expressed in language requires proper silence. "Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while, in fact, language remains the master of man". 7 "Poetry, seeming a utopian form of thinking allows Being to shine forth as present and locatable". 6 He defines truth as "the unconcealedness of its Being". 8 All art is essentially poetry and the "nature of art on which both art-work and the artist depend, is the setting-itself-into-work of truth". 9 Derrida goes beyond these positions to affirm "language is a social practice within which the conscious thought of the speaker has no privileged position in the testimony of meaning". 10

      Both Husserl and Heidegger impart significance to Being but Derrida considers it an effort to re-appropriate metaphysics they intended to overcome. Their conception of Being also comes close to the Indian conception of Sabda Brahman or Advaitin's Nirakar Brahman who is indescribable. But Derrida adopts thorough objectivism and displaces history, which leads to affirm the logic of the illogical. The significance of Being as Being is displaced. He overemphasizes the mastery of language over man and undermines interrelationship. The question arises which he is unable to answer: How will language exist as Being without any one first becoming an instrument of it's being?

      Therefore solution lies in locating the natural centre in Being as the subject. The truth of the world is that life is vast; life is complex and wrapped in the space-time relativity so it is impossible to come out of duality of subject's life and stand out thoroughly objective. The basic condition of our existence is that any object or man exists only in relation to another being aware of it within Space and Time. It implies that subject cannot be discounted, as it is the centre of all that is or has been. Moreover, it is pertinent to examine if knowledge can exist without a centre as, for example, who will know? What will be known? Therefore Husserl's emphasis on the self-conscious intentions of the speaker is more appealing.

      The fundamental problem of Deconstruction is that there is no escape outside the tradition. It cannot be free from metaphysical reading and 'a going beyond nihilism' is imminent where whole truth is inconceivable. But it appears that something is missing in the body of approach. We observe the universe and find that everything has a centre of its own in addition to interrelated gravitational pull or convergence but the same is missing here. As every meaning revolves round Being, Deconstruction has to be Being-centric. Borrowing the concept of Being from Shaiva aesthetics, which was enunciated as Pratyabhijna Darsan by Abhinavgupta and extended as the Dance of Shiva by Anand Coomaraswamy, may do this. This is known as the philosophy of recognition. It is based on the principle of eternal freedom. Therefore all activity is a journey from freedom to freedom. It is sound ( sabda -paravak ) or Vibration (spand ) or call it word in limited sense that is the beginning and which is always moving. The Being is a state as well as activity manifest in nature or man as 'cit' (knowledge oriented faculty) and ' anand ' (activity oriented faculty). Both the faculties interact and cause all activity, allow thinking to deconstruct itself into ' Sabda'( word), ' artha' (meaning), 'bodha' (intuition) and recognize rasa (aesthetic emotion) itself or Being. Language ( paravak) - manifest or unmanifest- is fundamental. Sound and intuitionalization are poetic expositions of the same reality. The aesthetic emotion (rasa) is tasted only as ' Sadharanikaran' by the 'sahradaya' and the poet comes in the role of Shiva (Absolute). ' Sadharanikaran ' and 'sahradaya' are the process and state respectively of ' Shivatva' , the eternal Being. The poet feels the essence of 'Vak' and the same is expressed in poetry. The critic also follows the same process to recreate the poet in him. Thus the whole process postulates a Being centric approach to Reality that fills the gaps of Deconstruction, which by all parameters is a theory of nature. It has a well-defined strong parallel with ' Samhar' (destruction, peace, evolution, transformation) one of the five eternal states of Shiva called ' panchkriya '. As the floating layers of meaning are deconstructed in an effort to uncover the truth, similarly man removes (destroys) the layers of impurity ( mal shodhan ) from thinking in order to discover Truth or Being.

      The whole activity is an exercise to achieve the union of distinct and opposite, subject and object ( aham and idam, vibration and recognition, nirvikalp and savikalp jnana , i.e. knowledge without imagination and knowledge with imagination. All art is experience that originates in the subject and that is the celebration of life, the creative process. The idea of difference is not simply a word nor a concept but only difference of being or being of difference. It is crucial. It is a bottomless state. If it were only a tool to arrive at a theme, that would have saved deconstruction from falling into confusion of infinity or abyss or alluring illusions of beyond. For Shaivites difference is only a process of removing impurities of understanding, therefore the subject being the centre is not deconstructible. Moreover knowledge is knowledge; it is all; it is Being. It is indivisible. There is no question of one knowledge overcoming another.

      Being -and its pure ideal self-present identity- (Husserl also subscribes to this) is the centre of all. Art is the expression of the highest enjoyment of self-centered bliss. For Heidegger too, poetry is the "inaugural naming of being and essence of all things" D.C.p.63. For Shaivites the universe is only one poetry (uni+verse) of Shiva who is manifest in the forms of creation, preservation, destruction, diffusion of illusion and grace. If we add 'grace' to Derridan philosophy, the end point will shift from bottomless abyss to unconcealment of entity as truth or recognition of being. Then Hillis Miller would not be forced to find joy in interpretation beyond nihilism but will find joy in looking beyond human activity. Then only an imminent fall into the abyss of infinity can be suspended. Given a phenomenon of ever evolving relativity of meanings and implications there arises a certain meaning in the subject to the extent of corresponding relativity that determines the end point of art as human activity. There is infinity or multiplicity of meaning when the direction of art is beyond human activity.

      The universe alone is complete art and its creator the perfect artist. This is evident. It is wonderful, mysterious, systematic, orderly, rational, emotional, and purposeful, etc. all at once, but only to the extent it is observed or revealed. Human language is inadequate sign to reveal truth for it comes from the subject whose experience is limited. The adequate sign is not available to man. Moreover, language is confined to its structure and meaning circulates within that which is supplied by the subject. All the rest is ignorance, which has to be dispelled, the purpose of all activity. It is logical to assume therefore that art is not without meaning or use because "all activity human or revealed is directed to an end beyond itself," says Coomaraswamy. 11 The subject is the centre occupying the transcendental position- the end point of the other and Me. Bloom also says, "everything comes from him and everything returns to him; Signs are filled with-by his unconscious, yet willful misprisions". 12

      Further, we note that the joy of a beyond, of the inconceivable makes Miller "uneasy". For him any "beyond" is already "in place" inside. But what is it? Mystery? No convincing answer. For there can't be any going beyond it. But going by the Shaiva aesthetics even the seemingly uncertain has a certainty as observed in nature- the return of seasons, physical laws, nature and function of organic and inorganic matter and bodies. The uncertainty principle remains valid only to the extent one is ignorant of facts as revealed. Human effort continues to gain knowledge, remove ignorance, and inches towards probable certainty. To say, that certainty does not exist is illogical. Moreover it is related to human product - activity-, which is certain in its relation to Being. Man takes decisions. He knows and understands

      But above all academic exercise, it is not irrational to find a historical justification and correspondence between development of such thoughts and advancement of science. It appears that all the branches of knowledge in the west have been evolving in interrelated correspondence keeping with advancing steps of science. For it is the theory of physics -'the ever expanding universe -that is reflected in the theory of deconstruction. The nature of reality is indecisive in physics. Its correspondence is seen in the theory of language, which does not support reflection of Being- centric universe. It is here that the psyche of language acquires significance. Nomadic character of race can only produce floating signifiers or a constant journey into infinity. It shows that if life is an incident, a chance, then uncertainty becomes the fundamental principle and culture cannot acquire substance to support life or language. If physics is the language of science, whose nature is indeterminate and meaning uncertain, inconclusive, infinite, then deconstruction is only the new found language of western criticism with similar end points however, the same may acquire meaning, and certainty may be discovered, if only gaps could be filled with Shaiva aesthetic elements.

      Then only Deconstruction may be regarded as the first step towards organizing the first principles of universal criticism, otherwise what Vincent B. Leitch does in his book, serves a warning. He offers no conclusion for an obvious fear that 'any settled arrangement of this nature can be deconstructed' and pushed to fragmentation. It is inherent dilemma and reflects "ensuing crisis of Deconstruction." Such dread of an approach can be illustrated by the Indian myth of Bhasmasur - one who destroys all including himself. The concern of the author is that Deconstruction is 'becoming predictable and rigid' - that it is now a 'method', which declares the 'death of the author 'because he is not privileged. On the contrary he decentres his own text as a reader or Voyeur. For this reason, today deconstruction is "no longer busy being born"; (it) is busy dying". 13

     Thus psyche of the Western culture especially that of the English (nation as well as language) is constantly in search of something that is substantial, deep, and meaningful. They are in search of that which is significant by absence. So all - art, science, philosophy, etc-is inconclusive as it stands today, Uncertainty, directionlessness, purposelessness are at the levels of exemplification. Evidently, theoretical warbling of existentialism, realism, naturalism or impressionism not only prosper but also settle in psyche, which gives rise to words, images and expression conducive to such concepts. Accordingly, the human psyche creates structures of language in the mind and the language acquires all those elements as the raw materials, which characterize its psyche, that becomes the word or verb and it carries forward disjointedness as against the integrated and whole.

      Thus, Indian aesthetics aims at discovering the 'satchitanand' in art or the overpowering beauty of expression in literature , which has the power to move and sublimate the reader. Deconstruction decentres the 'Being' therefore all meaning, but aesthetics is being-centric and holistic. Deconstruction does not recognize any eternity or universality except finite expression. Aesthetics, however, begins with eternal values or the concept of 'shivam' in all art.

      In an age of endless analysis where finality is never a destination, deconstruction only exposes the contemporary sensibility, where science is never complete or no view is valid more than once. Does this not precipitate uncertainty and frustration, aimlessness and ever-changeability in overall social phenomenon? If these are fundamentals, then how and why should man have a chance to survive? If these are no fundamentals then what should be fundamental? In such case aesthetics, not deconstruction, will answer with definiteness and explain the purpose of life. For man is never interested in getting lost in wilderness. Even though reality appears to be ever changing, as deconstruction will also profess, but, what is constant, is the ongoing process of change which is not caused by any known agency and without which no change is possible. The same argument does not apply to the deconstructive process for it is voluntary and cognitive. Such nature of reality is fundamental to the concept of 'Being' and that itself is the centre and proper domain of aesthetics.