Deconstruction vs. Hermeneutics

Framing

This debate concerns competing approaches to interpretation and meaning. Derrida's deconstruction emphasizes undecidability, aporia, and the impossibility of final meaning, while Gadamer's hermeneutics seeks understanding through tradition, dialogue, and fusion of horizons. The debate played out in a famous 1981 encounter in Paris.

Positions

Position A: Deconstruction

Derrida argues that metaphysics and foundationalism must be relentlessly critiqued. Meaning is always deferred (différance), never arriving at final presence. Architecture as "the last fortress of metaphysics" must be deconstructed.
Key texts: coyne-derrida-for-architects

Position B: Hermeneutics

Gadamer argues that understanding is possible through engagement with tradition and the hermeneutic circle. Interpretation is not destructive but productive, enabling fusion of horizons between past and present.
Key texts: kidder-gadamer-for-architects

Key Texts

• coyne-derrida-for-architects — deconstruction position
• kidder-gadamer-for-architects — hermeneutics position