Olivia's Garden Enter Sebastian Act 4 Scene 3

Act 4 Scene 3

Olivia's Garden 

Enter Sebastian 

 

Summary

Sitting in Olivia's garden, Sebastian is enjoying the bliss of being loved by a beautiful and rich countess, although he is still thoroughly confused about why all this has happened to him. As he sits alone, he admires the lovely pearl which Olivia has given to him, and he wonders why Antonio did not meet him at The Elephant Inn, where they had agreed to meet. All of this seems truly like a dream; yet, looking at the pearl, he holds tangible proof that this is not a dream at all. He wishes that Antonio were with him to advise him; he heard that the sea captain did stay at the inn. Yet where is he now? And he wonders if the beautiful Olivia is mad — and, of course, there is another possibility: perhaps he himself is mad.

Olivia enters with a priest and tells Sebastian that she wants him to accompany her and the priest "into the chantry" (a private chapel). There, "before him / And underneath that consecrated roof," Sebastian will "plight [Olivia] the fullest assurance of [his] faith." Sebastian agrees to marry Olivia; the marriage will be kept secret until later, when they will have a splendid, public ceremony, befitting Olivia's rank. They exit, arm in arm, for the private ceremony, as the fourth act comes to a close.

Analysis

The audience can readily sympathize with Sebastian's confusion and astonishment over the course of events that have taken place, and at the same time they can vicariously experience the great bliss of being loved. Sebastian tries to question reality, but he looks at the pearl that has been given him, and we must remember that Olivia is a person of great beauty; one could easily fall in love with her on first sight. For some modern critics, Sebastian's love for Olivia might strain one's belief, but we must remember that this is a romantic comedy, set in faraway Illyria, and Sebastian himself questions the plausibility of the events. The mistaken identities are, of course, a stock element of romantic comedies, and the forthcoming marriage between Olivia and Sebastian will provide the basis for all of the complications that will be unraveled in the next act.

 

 

 

 

Read More

A Room in Olivia's House Act 4 Scene 2 Feste and Maria

 Act 4 Scene 2

A Room in Olivia's House  

Feste and Maria 

Summary

In order to fully appreciate this scene, you should recall that Olivia gave Sir Toby and the household staff orders to take care of Malvolio and the "midsummer madness" that turned him into a grinning zany, tightly cross-gartered, and garbed in yellow stockings. They locked him in a dark room, and now Maria and Feste prepare to pull a few more pranks on the supercilious, overbearing Malvolio. Feste disguises himself as a parson and plans to make a "mercy call" on the "poor mad prisoner." He will assume the role of Sir Topas, the curate. The interview is a masterpiece of low, broad comedy.

Feste, as Sir Topas, knows just enough Latin phrases to lace them into his interview, along with pedantic nonsense and pseudo-metaphysical drivel concerning the philosophy of existence. The imprisoned steward, of course, is extremely relieved to hear what he believes to be the parson's voice, for he fondly imagines that his deliverance from this darkened room of a prison is near. This is not the case, however; he will "remain in his darkness" for some time to come.

When Feste slips out for a moment, Sir Toby suggests that Feste use his natural voice to speak with Malvolio; things have taken a turn for the worse, and he wants to release Malvolio and end this charade. He is afraid that Olivia might turn him out of the house, and he "cannot pursue with any safety this sport to the upshot."

Feste is having too much fun, though, to pay much attention to Toby's fears; he enters Malvolio's room, assumes his ecclesiastical voice, and tries to convince the steward that there are two visitors in the room instead of one. Malvolio pleads that he is not insane, and finally Feste is persuaded to bring Malvolio some ink, a pen, and some writing paper so that he can "set down to [his] lady" proof of his sanity.

Analysis

Once again, disguise is used to create comic effect. This time, Feste disguises himself as a parson and appears before Malvolio. The disguise utilizes a black gown, the same type of gown that Malvolio had worn earlier. The comedy is multifold: Malvolio thinks that with the appearance of the parson some light will be shed upon his insanity, but actually, Malvolio will have to remain in darkness for some time to come. As Feste says: "There is no darkness but ignorance," and certainly Malvolio was ignorant to think that Olivia could ever be attracted to him.

Read More

Act 4 Scene 1 The Street Before Olivia's House Enter Sebastian and Feste

                                     

Act 4 Scene 1

 The Street Before Olivia's House

Summary

The scene opens on the street in front of Olivia's house. Sebastian and Feste are talking, and we realize that Feste has mistaken Sebastian for Cesario. Feste insists that his mistress has sent Feste to him, meaning Cesario. Sebastian is annoyed at the jester's persistence; "Thou art a foolish fellow," he says, and gives him a generous tip to send him on his way — or else he will give Feste "worse payment," meaning a kick in the rump if he doesn't leave him in peace.

Sir Andrew, Sir Toby, and Fabian enter, and Sir Andrew assumes that Sebastian is the "cowardly" Cesario; Sir Andrew strikes him, whereupon Sebastian promptly beats Sir Andrew, asking, "Are all the people mad?" Feste says that he is going to report to Olivia all that has happened, and she will not be pleased to learn that her favorite suitor, the reluctant Cesario, has quarreled with Olivia's uncle and with Sir Andrew. Sir Toby, meanwhile, decides that it is time for him to act; he grabs the young upstart (Sebastian) by the hand in an effort to save Sir Andrew from greater injury.

Olivia arrives, assumes that Sebastian is Cesario, and pleads with him to go into the house. She severely reprimands Sir Toby and sends him away, out of her sight, and he exits, taking the other two with him. She apologizes for the "pranks of [these] ruffians," and while she is talking, Sebastian is speechless. He cannot believe what is happening: he is being wooed in the most ardent of terms by a beautiful young countess; if this be a dream, he says, "let fancy still my sense in Lethe . . . let me sleep." Olivia is insistent: "Come, I prithee," she says, and begs him to marry her. Without hesitation, Sebastian accepts: "Madame, I will," he says, and off they dash to look for a priest to perform the ceremony.

Analysis

This scene begins by re-emphasizing the comic ramifications inherent in the various mistaken identities and disguises. Feste has been sent by Olivia to Cesario (Viola) to deliver a message, but he delivers it to Sebastian, because Viola's twin brother looks exactly like her. Thus this is the first case of a very natural and very understandable case of mistaken identity; the comedy here lies in the fact that Sebastian does not know what Feste is talking about, and Feste feels that "Nothing that is so is so." They talk at cross purposes, and we (the audience) know why. This is yet another case of dramatic irony used for a delightful comic effect.

Even more comic, however, is the fact that Sir Andrew, an innate coward, is convinced that Cesario (Viola) is frightened of him — which is actually true. However, this man is Sebastian, and thus this is a completely different matter. Consequently, when Sir Andrew begins striking Sebastian, Sebastian returns the blows double-fold until Sir Toby has to restrain Sebastian. Again, the comedy here derives in large part from the stage action coupled with the comedy of mistaken identities — a theme that is now almost absurd.

When Olivia arrives and discovers her uncle physically "man handling Sebastian, whom she thinks is Cesario, her anger at her uncle will affect the comic subplot against Malvolio because Sir Toby will be out of favor with his niece and will no longer feel the freedom to torment her steward.

By the time that Sebastian has been mistaken by Feste, then beaten by Sir Andrew, then restrained by Sir Toby, and then addressed in terms of soothing and passionate love by a beautiful noble lady, whom he has never seen, the youth is ready to believe that he is in the strangest country of the world, or else he has gone mad. In contrast, Olivia is delighted at the sudden turn of events; she believes that Cesario (Viola) finally loves her.

Read More

Act 3 Scene 4 Olivia's Garden Enter Olivia and Maria summary and analysis

Act 3 Scene 4

Olivia's Garden, Enter, Olivia and Maria

Act 3 Scene 4, Olivia's Garden, Enter, Olivia and Maria, summary and analysis,Twelfth Night,shakespeare twelfth night,twelfth night summary,twelfth night characters,

Summary

Olivia and Maria are in the garden, and Olivia is making plans to entertain Cesario; she sent him an invitation, and he has promised to come to visit her. She is very excited at the prospect and wonders how to treat him, how to "feast him." She is afraid that he will think that she is trying to "buy" him. Where is Malvolio, she wonders; he is usually grave and polite and can be counted on to calm her nerves.

Smiling foolishly, Malvolio enters. His whole appearance has changed since we last saw him; his dark clothes are gone, as is his dour appearance. Maria's forged love note has changed him from being "sad and civil" into being a merrily smiling fabrication of a courtier; he complains a bit about the cross-gartering causing "some obstruction in the blood," but he suffers gladly — if it will please Olivia. Smiling again and again, he kisses his hand and blows his kisses toward Olivia. She is dumbfounded by his unexplainable, incongruous dress and behavior, but Malvolio doesn't seem to notice. He prances before her, quoting various lines of the letter which he supposes that Olivia wrote to him, and in particular, he dwells on the "greatness" passage. Olivia tries to interrupt what he is saying, but to no avail; he rambles on and on until she is convinced that he must be suffering from "midsummer madness."

A servant announces the arrival of Cesario, and Olivia places the "mad" Malvolio in Maria's charge; in fact, she suggests that the whole household staff should look after him. Meanwhile, Malvolio, remembering the orders which Maria inserted into the letter, spurns Maria, is hostile to Sir Toby, and is insulting to Fabian. He finally drives them all to exasperation and fury, and when he leaves, they make plans to lock him up in a dark room, a common solution for handling a lunatic in Elizabethan days. Olivia won't mind, says Sir Toby: "My niece is already in the belief that he's mad."

Sir Andrew enters, and he carries a copy of his challenge to Cesario. He is exceedingly proud of the language, which, we discover as Sir Toby reads it aloud, is exceedingly stilted and obtuse and, in short, is exceedingly ridiculous. Sir Andrew's spirits are high, and Maria decides that the time is ripe for more fun: she tells him that Cesario is inside with Olivia. Sir Toby adds that now is the time to corner the lad and as soon as he sees him, he should draw his sword and "swear horrible." According to Sir Toby, "a terrible oath, with a swaggering accent sharply twanged off, gives manhood." Offering his services, Sir Toby says that he will deliver Sir Andrew's challenge "by word of mouth." He is sure that Cesario, clever young man that he is, will instantly see the harmless humor in the absurdly worded challenge; it couldn't possibly "breed . . . terror in the youth." And thus the practical jokers exit — just as Olivia and Cesario enter.

This scene-within-a-scene is very much like ones we have already witnessed: Cesario pleads that his master, Duke Orsino, should be considered a serious suitor, and Olivia changes the subject to Cesario himself, as she gives him a diamond brooch containing a miniature portrait of herself. Cesario accepts it politely and courteously, and Olivia exits.

Sir Toby and Fabian enter and stop Cesario before he can leave for Orsino's palace. Sir Toby tells Cesario that Sir Andrew, his "interceptor," is waiting for him and is ready to challenge him to a sword fight. Cesario panics (remember that he is Viola, who knows nothing of violence and dueling). Sir Toby continues: Sir Andrew is a "devil in a private brawl," for he has killed three men already ("souls and bodies hath he divorced three"). Cesario, says Sir Toby, can do only one thing to defend himself against Sir Andrew: "strip your sword stark naked." Such advice is alarming. Cesario begs Sir Toby to seek out this knight and find out what offense he has committed, and so Sir Toby exits, ostensibly to go on his assigned errand, leaving Cesario in the company of Signior, a title Sir Toby impromptly bestowed on Fabian, all in the spirit of their practical joking. These two exit then, just as Sir Toby and Sir Andrew enter.

Sir Toby describes in vivid, violent language Cesario's fierceness. Sir Andrew quakes: "I'll not meddle with him"; he is even willing to give Cesario his horse, "grey Capilet," to avoid the duel. Fabian and Cesario return, and Sir Toby taunts both Cesario and Sir Andrew into drawing their swords, all the while assuring them that no real harm will come to either of them.

At this point, a true swordsman enters. It is Antonio, and mistaking young Cesario for Sebastian, he tells Sir Andrew to put up his sword unless he wants to fight Antonio. Sir Toby draws his sword and is ready to take on Antonio when a troop of officers enters. Antonio has been recognized on the streets, and Orsino has sent out his men to arrest him. Dejectedly, Antonio turns to Cesario (who he believes to be Sebastian). He asks him for his purse back, and when Cesario naturally denies having ever received it, the sea captain is both saddened and enraged by this apparent ingratitude. He denounces this youth, "this god," whom he "snatched . . . out of the jaws of death . . . [and offered the] sanctity of love." "Sebastian," he tells Cesario, "thou . . . virtue is beauty, but the beauteous-evil / Are empty trunks o'erflourished by the devil."

As the officers lead Antonio away, Viola is almost ready to believe what may be possible: Sebastian maybe alive! It is possible that this man saved her twin brother, Sebastian, and Antonio may have just now confused her with Sebastian because of her disguise. Breathlessly, she prays that "imagination [should] prove true / That I, dear brother, be now ta'en for you." Viola exits, and unwilling to miss their fun, Sir Toby and Fabian easily convince old Sir Andrew that Cesario is a coward, and the three of them set out after Orsino's page.

Analysis

This scene is not only the longest scene in the entire play, it is also longer than the entirety of Act IV and the entirety of Act V. Likewise, there are many divisions within this scene in terms of several different groupings of characters on the stage and several uses of mistaken identities. Malvolio is mistaken for a madman by Olivia, Olivia is mistaken for a true love by Malvolio, Viola is mistaken for a man who allegedly insulted Sir Andrew, Viola is mistaken for a man with a "heart of stone" by Lady Olivia, and Viola is mistaken for her brother Sebastian by Antonio.

Before Malvolio arrives, Maria warns Olivia (and the audience) that Malvolio is "possessed," that he is out of his mind and that his sanity has been taken over (possessed) by devils. When Malvolio does appear, we are not disappointed. As in other scenes in Twelfth Night, the staging is an extremely important part of the total effect. As Maria goes out and returns, ushering in Malvolio, the change in the steward is dramatic. Instead of being "sad and civil," he smiles broadly and continually; he kisses his hand to the Lady Olivia, and instead of being dressed in sober black, he is in yellow stockings with tight cross-garters in a contrasting color. Malvolio keeps on referring to various lines of the letter which he supposes that Olivia wrote to him, but since Olivia did not write the letter, she has no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, Olivia does not realize that Malvolio is quoting; she assumes his talk to be the ravings of a madman, and she wishes that he would leave her sight and be treated for his madness.

Meanwhile, on the stage, the only one present who does know what Malvolio is referring to is Maria, who is probably behind Malvolio laughing uproariously. Knowing the contents of the letter (since she wrote it), Maria very cunningly asks Malvolio some questions that cause him to continue quoting from the letter; this, of course, heightens the impression that he is raving.

As Malvolio insists on quoting line by line from the letter, and as he returns time after time to the "greatness" passage, Olivia becomes more and more confused, for she thinks that he is madly rambling. Finally, feeling compassion for her steward, she thinks that "this is very midsummer madness."

Sir Toby's delight in practical jokes is again illustrated as he plans some good sport between Sir Andrew and Cesario (Viola). He is, of course, working always under the assumption that no harm will come to either party since the challenge and his arrangements will "so fright them both that they will kill one another by the look, like cockatrices." Sir Toby, of course, is right. The duel between Sir Andrew Aguecheek and Cesario (Viola) is one of the high points of the comedy of this play. Equally absurd is the fact that the pretended duel is fought over Lady Olivia, whom Cesario (Viola) has rejected and who is not even aware of the foolish Sir Andrew's intentions. In fact, part of the high comedy involves the egotistical absurdity of Malvolio's thinking that the high-born Lady Olivia would stoop to love him and, in addition, the foolishness of Sir Andrew's thinking that he has enough of a romantic chance with this lady to enter into a duel upon her behalf. The absurdity of Sir Andrew's and Cesario's dueling for the love of Olivia is one of the most ludicrous duels in the history of the stage. Then to add to the absurdity, Antonio comes on stage to defend "Sebastian" (Viola disguised as Cesario) and finds himself dueling with the fat, belching Sir Toby.

The various elements of the plot are slowly being brought together. Viola now realizes that she has been mistaken for her brother, thereby preparing the way for Sebastian to be mistaken for her by the Lady Olivia.

Read More

Act 3 Scene 3 A Street Enter Sebastian and Antonio Summary and analysis

Act 3 Scene 3

A Street 

Enter Sebastian, and Antonio

Act 3 Scene 3 A Street Enter Sebastian and Antonio Summary and analysis,Twelfth Night,shakespeare twelfth night,twelfth night summary,twelfth night characters, 

Summary

Sebastian, Viola's twin brother, and Antonio, the sea captain, enter. They are strolling down a street not far from Duke Orsino's palace, and Antonio is explaining that because of his fondness and concern for Sebastian, he simply could not let him wander around Illyria alone, even though he knows that it is risky for him to accompany Sebastian. He knows that he is likely to be arrested on sight if he is recognized, but he had no choice: he likes Sebastian so much that he cannot bear to think of any harm coming to him.

Sebastian is very grateful for the risk which Antonio is taking, and Antonio tells him that it is best that already he should be taking precautions. He asks to be excused so that he can take cover. He gives Sebastian his purse, and they arrange to meet in an hour at a tavern called The Elephant. Thus Sebastian, with a purse full of money in hand, goes off to see the sights of the town.

Analysis

In a comedy dealing essentially with romantic love, this scene continues to investigate another type of love — the manly love that Antonio feels for young Sebastian; he loves young Sebastian enough to follow him into the enemy's country, where he himself is in danger of being arrested and severely punished if he is discovered. But it is not merely love that Antonio feels for Sebastian; it is also jealousy, for Antonio says:

And not all love to see you, though so much
As might have drawn one to a longer voyage, 
But jealousy what might befall your travel. (6-8)

The trust and affection that Antonio has for Sebastian is also seen at the end of the scene when Antonio gives his purse of money to Sebastian in case the young man wants to purchase something. This gift of money will later become an important part of the plot when Viola, dressed as Cesario, is mistaken by Antonio for Sebastian. Thus, another purpose of the scene is to bring Sebastian into the same city where Viola is, thus setting the stage for further complications involving mistaken identities. The plot is rapidly reaching the point of complication where Shakespeare will have to begin unraveling it.

Read More

Twelfth night Act 3 Scene 2 A Room in Olivia's House summary and analysis

 Act 3 Scene 2

A Room in Olivia's House 

Enter Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and Fabian

Act 3 Scene 2,A Room in Olivia's House,Enter Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and Fabian,Twelfth Night,shakespeare famous,shakespeare twelfth night,twelfth night summary,shakespeare taming,viola twelfth night,twelfth night viola

Summary

At Olivia's house, Sir Andrew is becoming angry and frustrated. He is making absolutely no progress in winning the affections of Olivia; he is convinced that she bestows more favors on "the count's serving man" (Cesario) than she does on Sir Andrew. He tells Sir Toby and Fabian that he saw Olivia and Cesario in the orchard, and it was plain to him that Olivia is in love with Cesario. Fabian disagrees; he argues that Olivia is only using Cesario as a ploy to disguise her love for Sir Andrew and thereby make Sir Andrew jealous. Fabian thinks that Sir Andrew should have challenged Cesario on the spot and "banged the youth into dumbness." He laments the fact that Sir Andrew has lost his chance to prove his valor before Olivia's eyes. Now Sir Andrew will "hang like an icicle on a Dutchman's beard" unless he redeems himself by some great and glorious deed. Sir Toby agrees. He proposes that Sir Andrew challenge Cesario to a duel. They themselves will deliver the challenge. Sir Andrew agrees to the plan and goes off to find a pen and some paper, and while he is gone, Sir Toby and Fabian chuckle over the practical joke they have just arranged. They are sure that neither Sir Andrew nor Cesario will actually provoke the other into a real duel.

Maria arrives onstage with the news that Malvolio "does obey every point of the letter." He is sporting yellow stockings; he is cross-gartered, and he "does smile his face into more lines than is in the new map . . . of the Indies."

Analysis

Essentially, this scene serves to advance the subplot, which will culminate when the cowardly Sir Andrew will try to engage Cesario in an actual duel. The first part of this scene reveals that Olivia's love for Cesario is even apparent to someone as dense as Sir Andrew. The mere fact that he has made no progress in his courtship with Olivia does not surprise us. What is astonishing, however, is that he still thinks that he has a chance to win the affection of Olivia. She is obviously far too sensitive and intelligent for this foolish and zany knight, but Sir Andrew is nevertheless jealous of the favors which he has observed Olivia giving to Cesario. To add unity to the scene, we hear that Malvolio is completely following the instructions in the forged letter. Thus, if Sir Andrew is foolish in his belief that he will obtain Olivia's hand, then Malvolio is extremely egotistical to also think so. And as we will see by his dress and demeanor, he will ultimately be revealed as being as foolish as Sir Andrew.

Read More

DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences 

Derrida, in his “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” talks about a certain “event” or the “rupture” in the history of thought. I believe this event has reference to the series of deconstruction pioneered by thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. They were criticizing the concept of a “center” in the philosophical systems of the West, the center which assures theunity of a discourse. I could speak a little about Martin Heidegger since I read a few things about him. Heidegger was critical of metaphysics, whose source of unity or “center” was the concept ofessence. For example, when Heidegger spoke about “truth,” his language was no longer of “connaturality” between the mind and the objective real things, but rather of the mind’s encounter with the unfolding of the thing’s Being. There was no longer a presupposition of an objective essence of a thing that could measure the truthfulness or falsity of an idea. Rather, Heidegger says that truth is the projection of a thing’s Being to an observer’s mind. In effect, truth is but the mind’s determination about the present state of an outside reality. Truth is one’s interpretation or consciousness of a thing or reality. 

Heidegger’s criticism against metaphysics counts among the events which Derrida refers to when he spoke about the rupture. Derrida was well aware that there are emerging philosophical thoughts that question the existence of a “center” which in the history of metaphysics was equated with essence and presence. Derrida even says, and I think Heidegger has also said the same, that the center or essence has received several names in the history of metaphysics. It was once called as arche, telos, energeia, ousia, consciousness, trascendentality, God or the Spirit. The rupture was basically the moment or event when these previously held cornerstones of metaphysical – or philosophical – thinking are stripped of their previously held privileged status. 

The talk about the strong center is a basic requirement for a durable building. Carpenters have their so-calledcornerstone which holds the entire structure, and without which the entire structure collapses. In our mention of structuralism in our past lectures for example, the meaning of a story rests on a kind of structure or unity that can actually be discerned even in seemingly varied plots of novels or stories. The structure remains more or less the same even if the details are changed. 

Yet, with the rupture that Derrida talks about, thedurability and even thepossibili ty of a center is questioned. Derrida, taking his cue from Strauss contends about theillusionary character and even theimpossibility of the center. Derrida noted Strauss’ mythological studies that point out the weaknesses of the epistemological search for unity of a structure. Derrida observes that Strauss’ work criticizes structuralism as it becomes the critique of itself. He cited for example Strauss’ work on The Raw and the Cooked where Strauss uses the concept of a “reference myth.” This “reference myth,” the Bororo myth, is supposedly the center of the structure of his mythology. However, Derrida observes that theBororo myth deserves no more than any other myth its referential privilege. Then, he surmises that the 

Bororo myth was favored by Strauss not because of its special character but rather by its 

irregular position in the midst of a group of myths. This is in itself a criticism of the concept of a structure for in the search of a center, it was shown that there is no valid basis for choosing a particular center. The choice of a center is ultimately still an arbitrary choice. 

1 

Pointing out the origins of the critique or denial of a center, Derrida also realizes that words are but mere signifiers void of any real content. The sign is denied of a presence. Language could no longer demand for a unifying center. As already mentioned, the center becomes an impossibility not just because of the breadth of the reality that it tries to signify, but rather also because of the language’sfreeplay character. Signs are polysemic or not just polysemic, but its signification is unlimited or undefined. It is the nature of language to defy pre- defined signification. Once the message is out, it becomes susceptible to infinite interpretation. 

Hence, here is the entry of post-structuralism. Derrida drags the name of Strauss in order to show that structural analysis of reality is already under investigation and is already facing a possible criticism. 

Practically, we can inquire as to why structures undergo strong criticisms in our time. Poststructuralism can be said to be a reaction or even a hoped corrective to the weaknesses inherent in structuralism. First, structuralism cannot deny the fact, that the structures it imposes are arbitrary structures. It can even be noted that even the “center” as authority that is operational in our ordinary dealings are not really objectively present in reality but rather are alsoconstructions and in themselves can even betyrannical and offensive to 

human persons’ freedom. I remember one heated debate among my co-teachers who were 

discussing about the need for a textbook in a classroom instruction. The pro-textbook teachers are structuralist in their belief about the textbook as an assurance for a quality instruction. At least, they argue, a textbook assures us that the teacher is telling the students the things that the students need to know. The textbook somehow assures that the lessons are in line with the demands for orthodoxy. However, the unbelievers of textbooks find the imposition of the use of textbooks offensive to their academic freedom. The textbook limits the teacher. The textbook dictates to the teacher. The textbook diminishes the interest for research. It kills the teachers’ eagerness to update their lessons. The structure, in this case, has become both arbitrary and tyrannical. 

Another example is the implementation of the U-turn slots in our main avenues. The structuralist agendum behind this is the smooth flow of the metropolitan traffic. But for taxi drivers, the structure is a disservice for them. It requires them to burn more gas as they take extra meters just to reach the next turn. They complained that in the past, they could just simply cross the street and save more gas in the process. Of the taxi drivers I consulted about the value of the U-turn slots, majority of them claimed that these structures did less help than to reduce their much needed income. 

I also remember a friend of mine who is a Secondary School teacher. Their school is currently applying for an accreditation and hence several structures were implemented. They have weekly meetings, they are asked to regularly submit several reports, and they are required to attend several other activities. These are structures that are thought to be assurances of the quality of education that the school would offer. But on the part of the teachers, these structures are arbitrary (for one, they were unsure whether the implementation of auniform improves their performance in class). The structures are arbitrarily imposed, and in effect, have also become tyrannical. 

2 

With these growingcriticisms against structures, many people have begun to shy away from it. Many people, for example, hate the structure that implements the use of IDs. These IDs are rather perceived as means for a more efficient control and manipulation. Structures for all their value, are oftentimes arbitrarily implemented and they can oppress the people. Hence, oftentimes, structures are criticized. 

Derrida warns us about these problems of structures, and he suspects that the potential consequence of oppressive structures is the total rejection of it. He saw the birth of poststructuralism that denies any center and any form of control. Though, he calls this growing phenomenon as a birthing of a monstrosity, he recognizes that poststructuralism is something that can hardly be prevented or avoided. 

In this so-called manifesto, Derrida tries to show to us that indeed the denial of our structures is coming. It comes from the perspective of freeing people from the tyranny of structures. It liberates those who were once excluded because of structures. Poststructuralism is a liberation for those whom the structures regard as abnormal, as insane, as sick, as sinful, as weak, as ugly, and many other pejorative categories. With the denial of structures, the lesser members of the old society are freed of their old stigma, and so they would welcome the coming of a freer society. In this free society everything is possible. Hence, Derrida calls itfreeplay. Everything is acceptable. Anything can be done. A poststructuralist criticizes a basketball game saying: why should these idiots fight for just one ball when they could get a ball for each? Why should they limit themselves to that rectangular court when in fact there are wider spaces at the sides? For poststructuralists, there is freedom in not limiting oneself to structures. The more a person adheres to structure, the more a person limits himself, and hence, the more he loses his opportunity to grow and perfect himself. 

Derrida believes that there is no way to prevent this increasing appreciation of a non- structured existence. It would come regardless of the vehement objections of big institutions and authorities. Freeplay is growing, and it has become the more acceptable paradigm or rule (if we are allowed to use these terms in poststructuralism) in our contemporary time. 

However, Derrida is also worried about the possible outcome that freeplay would bring. If poststructuralism is an undeniable force, it remains to be seen as to what kind of a community an absolute freeplay would bring. If a basketball game would no longer be played in the way it’s done today, and should there come a time when anyone who wills to play could just simply enter the court, bring his/her own basketball and play his/her own undefined game, what kind of basketball games would we then have? If every driver could simply drive in our streets in an absolute freeplay that is, disregarding the structures we set through our traffic rules, what kind of traffic would we have? 

Derrida is aware that poststructuralism or the denial of structures is coming. But should this denial of structures become absolute, what kind of civilization would we have? Derrida could hardly find any better description than to call it amonstrosity. 

Read More