Question

My teacher was doing a deconstructionalist analysis of Emerson's "Nature" but I didn't think this was possibly because he argues to have a transcendental signifier. Am I wrong?

Answer 1

Good question. Let me do some research.

Answer 2

Well, if I'm reading all this right, your teacher is deconstructing the essay itself, not the 'transignifier'.

Derrida himself didn't like "deconstruction" because his idea means something more like "take the sediment out of" or at least brush such sediment to the side so we can see the whole dinosaur fossil and therefore understand the dinosaur. The dinosaur here would be the idea of the transcendental signifier "Nature". The sediment would be all Emerson's complicated explanations and relations that support his argument.

So if we deconstruct the Emerson's prose, we will be left with Emerson's true idea of "Nature" (a dinosaur skeleton) and a very complex, yet necessary arrangement of the bones. We cannot further break down the arrangement of bones (ideas) or we have a different dinosaur.

The dirt here (Emerson's explanations and illustrations) are what is trying to hold the dinosaur (his view of Nature) together in the perfect shape as it existed (the way he saw it). Some of us can't see the dinosaur (understand the full idea) under all the dirt (because of all his explanations). So to see (understand) it better, we dig the bones up (deconstruct the argument).

So once we come down to a few complex (even contradictory) ideas that form the basis of "Nature" we can no longer break them down further or it doesn't make sense - but now we understand what Emerson was talking about a whole lot better.

In short, I would compare a deconstructionalist analysis to a paraphrasing.

In paraphrasing we cut out the examples and other nonsense that isn't the core of what we are trying to say. But, if we paraphrase a complex idea - we may still have a very long paragraph. In deconstructionalism, this is okay - as long as we have no more "stuff" in the way of understanding the idea at hand concisely. That is, as long as everything there is 100% necessary to the idea.

So to deconstruct/paraphrase:

Your teacher is deconstructing the essay, so that you can better comprehend why Emerson thinks Nature is a transcendental signifier (which itself can't be deconstructed).