A deconstructive reading of Waiting for Godot

 

Deconstruction as a critical outlook concerned with  the relationship between text and meaning was  inaugurated by Jacque Derrida’s 1967 work Of  Grammatology. It is being put to use in humanities  and social sciences such as literary criticism.  Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate  contradictions and oppositions and to show that any  text contains severe contradictory meanings and  therefore has more than one interpretation. As a method of textual analysis, deconstruction involves  close reading of works of different types to reveal  incompatibilities between the explicit and implicit  planes of discourse and limitless interpretation of  meaning in a text.

Deconstructive readers look at the ways a text  says something different from what it intends to  mean or the ways texts don’t always mean what  they say. In fact, deconstructive readers like to read  against the grain. One way to achieve this aim is to  discover conventions and prejudices prescribing  meaning to words. After recognizing existence of  binary oppositions that restrict meaning, assuming a  fixed interpretation, one can explore the text  outside assumptions. In a binary opposition one  element is superior and privileged while another  element is inferior or unprivileged and their effects  govern interpretation of a text. By reversing the hierarchy and creating new binary inversions we  can analyze various levels of meaning that evolve  when binaries are reversed.

 

 

Samuel Beckett has hailed as a great playwright of the  Absurd Theater, a theatrical genre identified by dramatic critic Martin Esslin. Early Absurdist playwrights were categorized by Esslin because of their use of narrative and character in order to expose the meaningless existence in the postmodern world. In his book the Theatre of the Absurd, Esslin states:

 

“'Absurd' originally means 'out of harmony', in a musical context. Hence its dictionary definition: 'out of harmony with reason or propriety; incongruous, unreasonable, illogical'[...] In an essay on Kafka, Ionesco defined his understanding of the term as follows: 'Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose... Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless” (Esslin 1973, p.5).

 

 Esslin employed Beckett as his first example, an Absurdist reading of Waiting for Godot has already been well explored by scholars and practitioners. Another popular reading is deeply rooted in the existential struggle of humanity after World War II. A deconstruction of this play offers the potential to explore Beckett beyond the existential and Absurdist readings that critics and audiences typically use to understand Beckettian plays.

 

Waiting for Godot portrays the events of two consecutive days in the life of Beckett's non-heroes Estragon and Vladimir. As they wait for the Mysterious and ambiguous Godot to arrive, they pass the time by debating about whether to commit suicide. While they wait, the two friends occupy themselves with mundane 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 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.

Derridean deconstruction emphasizes the intentional separation between object and meaning—the signifier and the signified meaning of the object. This process can transform a simple concept like the tree in to something more metaphorical than its everyday meaning. Simultaneously, the tree means life, signified by the hope of spring suggested from the growth of the leaves, and means death, signified by the characters’ suicidal thoughts. Thus, in the case of any symbolism there is endless postponement of meaning, which is known as differance in derridian terminology.

 

As Derrida points in his much celebrated essay ‘The structure sign and play in the discourse of human science’ – the centre is outside the structure. As the play revolves around the enigmatic character Godot and he never appears in the play.

 

More hints:

Waiting for Godot has been the subject of numerous interpretations and analyses

involves challenging traditional notions of binary oppositions, hierarchies, and fixed meanings.

Deconstruction questions the stability of language and meaning. In Waiting for Godot, the characters engage in repetitive and circular dialogues, often leading to ambiguity and uncertainty. The play challenges the conventional understanding of communication by highlighting the instability of language.

The central theme of waiting for someone who never arrives (Godot) emphasizes the interplay between absence and presence

Deconstruction often challenges fixed notions of identity. In Godot, the characters Vladimir and Estragon struggle with their identities (didi and gogo), and their roles seem interchangeable. The play deconstructs traditional notions of stable, fixed identities, suggesting that identity is elusive and fragmented.

Waiting for Godot disrupts the linear concept of time, as the characters repeat the same actions and conversations

Deconstruction involves challenging established norms and conventions. Waiting for Godot challenges traditional theatrical structures and expectations. The lack of a clear plot, resolution, or definitive meaning subverts traditional dramatic conventions, inviting the audience to question established norms in theater.

The play's open-ended conclusion and the constant waiting for Godot can be seen as an example of infinite deferral. Deconstruction would analyze how this deferral challenges traditional narrative structures and expectations, emphasizing the absence of a fixed, conclusive meaning.

 

 

From work to text by Roland Barthes summary

 

Roland Barthes can be considered both a structuralist in his early phase and a post-structuralist in his later phase. The works such as "Elements of Semiology and Mythologies", and "The Fashion System" belong to structuralism where as  "The Pleasure of the Text", "Change the Object Itself" and "From Work to Text", come under  post-structuralism. As a structuralist he is concerned with the human world and tries to uncover it through detailed observational analysis and as a post-structuralist he is concerned with the philosophical position of the work and began to explore a far reaching possibilities of a work of art. He draws our attention to the fact that concept of language has undergone a sea change over the years. 

 

WORK	TEXT
Ø  Limited meaning	Different layers of meaning
Ø  Monistic approach	Multiple approach
Ø  Closed entity	Methodological/ open, wide implication
Ø  Relevant in structuralism	Poststructuralism
Ø  Only has signified	Signifiers
Ø  Moderately symbolic	Radically symbolic
Ø  Fixity of meaning	Multiplicity
Ø  Readerly	Writerly

In the essay, "From Work to Text" Barthes states his position clearly and emphatically in the light of structuralist and post-structuralist approach to language and meaning. The approach to literature studies has become interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary approach to criticism necessarily involves not only two disciplines but it offers endless possibilities for Interpretation. This approach gives rise to the study of intertextuality -a term employed by both structuralists and post-structuralists.

 

In this approach to criticism, a text is regarded as a 'stratified' structure (in layers) containing echoes and references to other texts. Here, the critic is expected to respond to the intertextual potential of a text in taking out its parts layer by layer. Instead of the monistic approach adopted by the New critics, Barthes wants to make a combined approach such as Marxism, Freudianism and Structuralism and so on to the study of literature. 

 

Having said this, Barthes comes to the central point of his essay, he explains the fundamental opposition between Work and Text. he states that there cannot be "a material separation of works and texts." The difference is that "the work is concrete, occupying a portion of book-space (in a library, for example – it’s a closed entity like religious books as it conveys limited sense ), the Text, on the other hand, is a methodological field (more purpose, actively used by readers in general and scholars in particular)." The work can be seen in several places such as book stores, card catalogues and on course lists . Barthes notes that:

 

It is difficult to describe the Text for it defies the classification on the basis of genre. A poet, a novelist, an essayist and even an economist all are said to have written 'texts.' In the words of Barthes, "The Text is that which goes to the limit of the rules of enunciation (rationality, readability and so on)" (415). 

 

If we take each linguistic unit as a sign, then the "work" itself functions as a general sign. A sign consists of a signifier (sound image) and a signified (the concept). The field of the Text' is that of the signifier and the 'work' closes itself on a signified. Barthes brings out the difference between the 'work' and the Text' in relation to  language: "The work (in the best of cases) is moderately symbolic (its symbolism has certain limitations), but the Text is radically symbolic.

 

Etymologically the text is a cloth, and 'textus' from which the text derives, means 'woven’ (different colourful things can be made). Like all structuralists and post structuralists Barthes believes in multiple meaning or polysemy of interpretation. Hence the 'Text' does not have fixity of meaning. On the other hand, it has potentiality for meaning. Barthes like other post-structuaralists directs his attention primarily to how a piece of literature exemplifies the language system. In other words, he treats literature as 'Text.' It is in this sense he says that the 'Text' is plural. The 'Text' yields to plurality of meaning. 

 

Barthes rightly acknowledges that each 'text' is an inter text' of another 'text' but at the same time maintains that the originality of the 'text' should not be missed upon the readers. It is the plurality of the 'text' that distinguishes it from 'work.' In the words of Barthes: 

 

The Text, on the other hand, is read without the father's signature. The metaphor that describes the Text is also distinct from that describing the work. In another essay, "The Death of the Author," Barthes denies the author and banishes it from the text.

 

The 'text' is said to act upon the reader and makes him reproduce the 'text' in the process. This is a great innovation. He is of the opinion that while the work gives the reader pleasure and Enlightenment, where as the 'text' gives him enjoyment (jouissance). What he tries to suggest is that while the reader or the critic reads a 'work,' he derives pleasure out of it but very rarely he creates the 'work' himself. On the other hand while reading the 'text' the reader or the critic re-creates the 'text' for himself and enjoys it. Barthes proclaims the death of the author and pleads for the meaning derived from interpreting a writerly text. Hence as a poststructuralist Roland Barthes prefers Text over work, mainly considering the endless and far reaching possibilities offered by any text.