ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF
DERRIDA’S DECONSTRUCTION
IN SAMUEL BECKETT’S WAITING FOR GODOT
ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF DERRIDA’S DECONSTRUCTION
IN SAMUEL BECKETT’S WAITING FOR GODOT
Deconstruction is a literary theory and philosophy of language derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence, where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence. Deconstruction rejects the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic meaning.
Due to the impossibility of pure presence and consequently of intrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted and comprehended from the linguistic point of view and in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture. Derrida says that one member is associated with presence (more highly emphasized) while the other is associated with absence. He proposes “difference” - a perpetual series of interactions between presence and absence - where a concept is constituted, comprehended and identified in terms of what it is not and self-sufficient meaning is never arrived at.
Derrida's theories on deconstruction were influenced by the work of linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure and literary theorists such as Roland Barthes (whose works were an investigation of structuralist thought). Derrida's writings on deconstruction are most strongly associated with literary criticism. However, they have also been applied to music, visual arts, film theory and political philosophy.
Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded. Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several contradictory meanings; that any text has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations together; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida insists that meaning is made possible by the relations of a word to other words within the network of structures that language is.
When asked "What is deconstruction?" Derrida replied, "I have no simple and formalisable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question".1 Derrida believes that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticizes the very language needed to explain it.
1 Derrida, Jacques, Language Against Itself. Deconstruction, Ed. Christopher Norris. USA: Routledge, 1982, p. 4
2 Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology, Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974, p. 5
3 Derrida, Jacques, Positions, translated and annotated by Alan Bass (1st ed). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981, p. 40
Derrida states that “Deconstruction is not a method, and cannot be transformed into one.” 2 This is because deconstruction is not a mechanical operation; it is not a theory, an analysis, a method or a critique. It would be irresponsible to try a deconstruction with a complete set of rules, because this understanding would reduce deconstruction to a thesis of the reader that the text is then made to fit. Deconstruction is not a method and this means that it is not a neat set of rules that can be applied to any text in the same way. Each deconstruction is necessarily different (otherwise it achieves no work) and this is why Derrida states that “Deconstruction takes place, it is an event”. Each example of deconstruction must be different, but it must also share something with other examples of deconstruction. Deconstruction is therefore not a method in the traditional sense but is what Derrida terms "an unclosed, unenclosable, not wholly formalizable ensemble of rules for reading, interpretation and writing."3 2
“Waiting for Godot” presents the events of two consecutive days in the life of Beckett's non-heroes Estragon and Vladimir. As they wait for the ambiguous Godot to arrive, they pass the time by debating about whether to commit suicide. While they wait, the two friends occupy themselves with daily tasks such as taking on and off a pair of boots; taking off a hat, adjusting it and then putting it back on again; and arguing about eating vegetables. On both days, they encounter a master Pozzo who drives his slave Lucky about the stage with a rope around his neck. On the first day, Pozzo is bringing Lucky to the fair to sell him. On the second day, Pozzo has gone blind and needs Lucky to lead him around the stage. Each day ends with a young boy sent as a messenger to say that Godot is not going to come.
“Waiting for Godot” is part of the Theater of the Absurd. This implies that it is meant to be irrational. Absurd theater does away with the concepts of drama, chronological plot, logical language, themes, and recognizable settings. There is also a split between the intellect and the body within the work. Thus, Vladimir represents the intellect and Estragon the body, both of whom cannot exist without the other.
In The Theater of the Absurd, Esslin says“The Theatre of the Absurd strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought.” 4 In this context, Esslin uses senselessness to define Absurdism as a genre where characters intentionally try to abandon meaning in words and actions in order to reveal how modern life lacks significance.
4 Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Overlock Press, 1973, p. 6
5 Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 8
6 Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994, p. 33
7 Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994, p. 37
8 Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994, p. 90
9 Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994, p. 98
In order to achieve a deconstructive reading of this play, by using the theoretical concept of deconstruction as presented by Jacques Derrida, the main goal and also, the main approach, is to identify and interpret the symbols in this play as signifiers. Becket has a lot of symbols used and their specificity can be further analyzed by a deconstruction of the text.
For Derrida, deconstruction is the articulation of the consciousness of nothingness - a theory based upon exploring the difference between something and nothing - or in this case, meaning and no meaning. When Derrida searches for meaning in language, he attempts to understand ideas in relation to their opposites - by residing inside of oppositions and exploring what makes things different.
In his book Writing and Difference, Derrida identifies “The consciousness of having something to say as the consciousness of nothing [...] It is the consciousness of nothing, upon which all consciousness of something enriches itself, takes on meaning and shape.”5
Applying the theory of deconstruction to the text gives us the possibility to reinvent Beckett’s concepts, giving to individual words new meanings that can be oppositional to their normal definitions. Derrida’s concept of difference can be associated with Beckett’s method of reinventing ideas by their opposite. Opposition has a great impact and importance for the characters – Saturday is not Sunday, a turnip is not a carrot, going is always compared with staying.
The concept of time is presented in terms of opposites - night/day, yesterday/tomorrow, dawn/dusk to create an atmosphere of waiting. The characters question the flow and importance of time:
Vladimir: Will the night never come?6
Vladimir: Time has stopped.7
Vladimir: Let us not waste our time in idle discourse8
Pozzo: What time is it?...Is it evening?9 3
The audience is waiting for something to happen, but the way in which Beckett presents time – it transcends meaning - the audience subconsciously begins to transform the concept according to Derrida's difference. So, time becomes a signifier. Deconstruction, then, is the process of identifying and exploring the meaning of multiple signifiers in relationship to each other. Therefore, at the moment when the audience perceives that time signifies existence, they start to interpret everything that happens in the play with the inscribed meaning of signification.
According to Derrida, the signifier is the actual word or object which signifies a meaning, which is called the signified. The deconstruction emphasizes the intentional separation between object and meaning - the signifier and the signified meaning of the object.
A simple object, such as the tree, amplifies its meaning, by amplifying its importance the way in which Beckett has his characters place upon it. At the beginning, the tree is just there - the only image on the street; it suggests a meeting place for the two men to wait. So, when the tree grows four or five leaves, the meaning signified by the tree also grows. This process can transform a simple concept like the tree into something more metaphorical than its normal meaning. In the end, the tree takes on even greater meaning when they try, but ultimately cannot, hang themselves. At the same time, the tree means life (the hope is suggested by the leaves growing) and death (implied by the characters idea of committing suicide).
Derrida also maintains that there is no pre-existent truth, “transcendental signifier,” or “logos” to which we can appeal to find meaning. Derrida’s deconstruction affirms the importance of duality, of the relation between terms rather than the choice of one term over another. The pauses and silences that are present in the play, the impossibility of the language to communicate, the repeated actions without a meaning are just images of Derrida’s view of deconstruction.
The deconstruction takes place during the process of creating the text. The continuous repetition in the play manifests Beckett’s uncertainty about the stability of his expressions. Like all unstable systems, his text fails to complete and have a meaning. The quest of Vladimir and Estragon for absolute meaning remains futile. The so wanted God does not show himself, the past remains under question, and the future like a shadow. Because of the permanent repetition, we lose significance and the play becomes a spiral with no end. The characters either repeat their own actions and words (intra-textual references) or those of others (inter-textual references). These frequent references break the structure of the play into fragments, everything is deconstructed.
The characters become frustrated and nervous. They know that if Godot comes, he can answer their questions and he can give them a direction to follow. Godot is the solution, the “logos” which can tie up the fragments in their narrative and brings it to a conclusion. They pretend to be real characters playing a real game, yet denying continuously their existence by commenting on their own words and behavior - a deconstruction of text and performance happens. The audience is in a confusing position; Beckett moves away from the modern concepts of consistency, order and construction and comes close to deconstruction.
Who is Godot and why isn’t he there? His divine existence can only be defined in the connection of language or in a series of arbitrary rules and does not have a pair in reality. “Much has been written about who or what Godot is. My own view is that he is simultaneously whatever we think he is and not what we think he is: he is an absence, who can be interpreted at moments as God, death, the lord of the manor, a benefactor, even Pozzo.”10
10 Worton, Michael, Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text – The Cambridge Companion to Beckett, Ed. John Pilling, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 70 - 71
In conclusion, trying to analyze “Waiting for Godot” from Derrida’s deconstruction theory is not only against what he said, that there is no method, but also it means an endless complexity of searching interesting ideas about the way symbols and meanings work together in the play. That’s why deconstruction failed as a methodology, it has no clear features that can be listed or applied. Becket did not know, or refused to tell us who Godot is, so the possibilities to analyze the play are endless. 4
Bibliography:
1. Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1994
2. Derrida, Jacques Positions. translated and annotated by Alan Bass (1st ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981
3. Derrida, Jacques, Language Against Itself. Deconstruction, Ed. Christopher Norris. USA: Routledge, 1982
4. Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology, Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974
5. Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1978
6. Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Overlock Press, 1973
7. Worton, Michael, Waiting for Godot and Endgame: Theatre as Text – The Cambridge Companion to Beckett, Ed. John Pilling, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 70 - 71