GeekinthePink

I feel somewhat relieved to have an answer to that age-old adage: If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a noise? I think, by comparing it to our text alone, I can say no, it does not have a sound. Although we are not speaking language here, I was comparing the question to the idea of the signified and the signifier in particular; specifically, if something we try to speak is not juxtaposed against the signifier, it does not fulfill its true characterization, and therefore does not mean what is intended. The postmodern deconstruction of language makes perfect sense— that missing counterparts destroy language.
This definition of our linguistics system is highly related to our postmodern world. Indeed, our thoughts, “shapeless and indistinct mass,” are considered primitive; hence, we must deconstruct them and define the separation between both parts to put them toward usable matter to communicate. Upon initially reading this, I was really annoyed because, if we spend all this time deconstructing language, doesn’t real literature suffer? But I thought harder about it, and if there is even a small problem with our language and it could be fixed through deconstruction and possibly reconstruction, then it should be addressed. It’s kind of like a car. If there’s something wrong in one part of the engine and you are not sure what it is, you have to take apart that whole part. And in the meantime, it is more of a mess than before, and it temporary doesn’t work at all, but once you fix that piece and put it back, the car runs much better than before.
Comparing this idea to James Stirling’s addition to the Tate Gallery, he utilizes the new postmodern idea of ‘disharmonious harmony’, although he also includes purpose for the building. Defining his style as pluralism, he creates his addition with specific functionality—designed for classrooms and other uses. So in essence, he utilizes postmodern ideas of deconstruction yet moves toward a purpose and definite efficiency, which is the opposite of what I first thought when I read about postmodernism. I thought the whole purpose was to deconstruct—and then leave it open to criticism and ridicule. But I am glad to see there is a positive trend in postmodernism (or at least, for me to see the light through the darkness sometimes associated with it).