Excerpt from Scooby-Doo: A New Critical Analysis (forthcoming)
And thus the Mystery Machine manifestly symbolizes the violent pathos of writing. The “gang” ceaselessly divests their enigmatical foes of their native alterity and diminishes them to a repetition of the same, artifacts of representation. The repetitive structure of the series suggests an eternal return, the human destiny of sublation on an infinite scale; but, ironically, no perfect repetitions occur. Even this structure always already is subverted by Dionysian revelry, reflected blatantly in Scooby and Shaggy’s playful, culinary bacchanal. The gang’s Apollonian crusade is problematized; not even essentialist demarcations between man and beast are spared.
Still Eating Oranges
Destruktion and deconstruction
The theory of deconstruction developed by Jacques Derrida has been enormously influential. In brief, it calls for the subversion and dismantlement of philosophical and social structures, hierarchies and oppositions, in order to avoid “violence”. But the concept was not original to Derrida: its core was borrowed from Martin Heidegger’s idea of destruktion, the end result of that thinker’s large-scale critique of Western metaphysics. Derrida removed destruktion from its original context and expanded it beyond Heidegger’s intentions, which arguably weakened it. Deconstruction is fatally Eurocentric and self-contradictory. However, Heidegger’s less ambitious project of destruktion, while ultimately flawed, is not prone to these same failings.
stilleatingoranges said: Hi. Your recent post about conflict was an interesting read, but your conclusion about Derridean philosophy is horribly flawed. That plot structure doesn't undermine it at all--it obviously contains violence, because there are differences between the acts. For Derrida, ALL difference is violence. So, reading the will to power into that kishotenketsu thing is absolutely no problem.
Hey, Oranges. That’s an interesting objection. However, you’ve missed the point. The idea was that difference is only violence if your thinking is built on the will to power. Under that system, yes; the kishōtenketsu structure remains violent. But to look at it that way begs the question: whether the will to power can be considered the most fundamental element of being is what’s at issue.
This writer’s claim was that an equally viable candidate can be considered to exist within the kishōtenketsu structure, which constitutes much Eastern writing and even logic. It inundates their culture and thought, just as ideas of conflict and supremacy—at least partly thanks to the three-act plot structure—inundate the West. For your objection to work, you’d first have to demonstrate that the will to power describes being more accurately than any possible system derived from kishōtenketsu. To pull that off, you’d need to maintain a multicultural perspective free from the Eurocentric bias that defines so much of Western philosophy.
As an aside, whether or not difference turns out to be violence, deconstruction makes no sense if stated from a worldview based on kishōtenketsu rather than the three-act structure. This is because the worst violence—the thing that Derrida seeks to avoid with deconstruction—does not necessarily exist within such a system. The worst violence can be thought of as the climax of the three-act structure, the part in which one thing wholly defeats another; but kishōtenketsu contains no such climax. It is comparative to the last. Events co-exist without one being forced to suffocate the Other, so to speak.