Movie review - Sitare Zameen Par

This task was given by Megha Ma’am. It is about the movie Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) and R.K. Narayan’s short story Crime and Punishment, and how they are connected to each other.

   

  After reading Crime and Punishment by R.K. Narayan and watching Sitaare Zameen Par (2025), I understood that both the story and the movie teach us something important. They show how teachers should behave with students. A good teacher must be kind, patient, and helpful. Teachers should try to understand their students and help them do their best.

How does the movie show the education system?

          In Sitaare Zameen Par, we see the story of Gulshan Arora, a basketball coach. At first, Gulshan is angry and rude. He only wants to win and does not care about his players, who are special adults with different abilities. Gulshan thinks they are not good enough.

          This shows how, in real life too, the education system and teachers sometimes only look at who is winning or getting good marks. They forget to see the students’ real talents or their problems.

         But later in the movie, Gulshan learns that every player is special in their own way. He starts helping them with love and care. The team does not win the big match, but they feel happy and proud. This is the true success. Op

           In Crime and Punishment, the teacher makes the mistake of hitting a student. Later, he feels sorry because he understands that hurting or scolding does not help the child. It only makes things worse.

What message does the movie give about the role of teachers and parents?

          The movie Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) gives a very deep and meaningful message about how teachers and parents should behave towards children and students. It shows that both teachers and parents have a big responsibility to understand, support, and guide children in the right way. At the beginning of the movie, we see Gulshan Arora, who is a basketball coach. He is full of anger and is only focused on winning. He does not try to understand his team members, who are special adults with different abilities. Like many teachers and parents in real life, he thinks only about success, medals, and achievements. But the movie teaches us that this is the wrong approach. Every child or student is unique. Some may take more time to learn; some may need extra help; some may have hidden talents that are not seen at first. The role of teachers and parents is to be patient, kind, and caring. They should help children feel confident and happy. In the movie, when Gulshan changes his way of thinking, he stops shouting and starts supporting his team with love. His players start trusting him, and even though they do not win the final match, they gain self-respect, joy, and courage. The film also shows that parents should not put too much pressure on their children to always win or get high marks. Instead, they should accept their children as they are and help them do their best in their own way. The movie’s main message is that teachers and parents should look at the strengths of children, not their weaknesses, and they should believe in them, guide them gently, and celebrate their small achievements. This way, children can grow up with confidence, self-love, and happiness. In short, Sitaare Zameen Par tells us that true success is not about winning competitions or getting top marks; true success is helping children discover their abilities and making them feel proud of who they are.

          Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) and Crime and Punishment by R.K. Narayan both teach us about the important role of teachers and how they should treat their students. In both the movie and the story, the teacher or coach first makes a mistake by being harsh and not understanding the needs of the students. In Crime and Punishment, the teacher loses his temper when a student makes a small mistake. In his anger, he beats the student. But soon after, the teacher feels very guilty. He realizes that his punishment did not help the child learn anything. Instead, it hurt the child and made the teacher feel ashamed. The story teaches us that strictness and punishment do not bring good results in education. Instead of helping the student, it creates fear and sadness.

How does it compare with the story?

   

          In Sitaare Zameen Par, we see a similar situation. Gulshan Arora, the basketball coach, starts with the wrong attitude. When he is given the duty to train a team of players with intellectual disabilities, he feels angry and disappointed. He wants to win and does not try to understand his players. He shouts at them, forces them to follow his way, and only cares about success in the match. Like the teacher in Crime and Punishment, Gulshan believes that discipline and toughness will bring good results. But soon, Gulshan begins to notice that his shouting and anger are not helping. He sees how his players feel scared and sad, and how they struggle in their own way. Slowly, he starts to understand their feelings and needs. Unlike the teacher in Crime and Punishment, Gulshan realizes his mistake in time. He changes his way of coaching. He becomes kind, patient, and supportive. He stops thinking only about winning and starts helping his players feel confident, happy, and proud of themselves.

          The biggest difference between the two is that in Crime and Punishment, the teacher understands his mistake after he has already hurt the student, and he can do nothing but feel regret. In Sitaare Zameen Par, Gulshan understands his mistake before it is too late. His change of heart helps the players grow and believe in themselves. Both the story and the movie give the same important message  that teachers should not use punishment, anger, or fear to teach. Instead, they should use love, care, and patience. They should guide students in a way that helps them find their strengths and feel proud of who they are.

             In both the story and the movie, the main character learns that success is not about medals, marks, or victories. The true success of a teacher or a parent is to help the child grow into a confident and happy person. Both works show that every student is different and that teachers should try to understand and support their students instead of judging them. The teacher in Crime and Punishment and Gulshan in Sitaare Zameen Par both begin with the wrong attitude, but they both learn that real teaching comes from the heart with patience, kindness, and care.

What I Felt or Learned After Watching Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) :-

          After watching Sitaare Zameen Par (2025), I felt very emotional and happy. The movie touched my heart and taught me many good things about life, learning, and kindness. It tells the story of Gulshan Arora, a basketball coach who is punished for his mistake and given the job of training a team of players with intellectual disabilities. At first, Gulshan is angry and upset. He does not like this job. He wants to win and feels that his team is not good enough. He shouts at the players, scolds them, and forces them to follow his way. He thinks that strictness and discipline will help the team win. But as time passes, Gulshan starts to see things differently, and this change taught me many important lessons.

                 The first lesson I learned is that every person is special in their own way. In the beginning, Gulshan only saw what the players could not do. He saw their weaknesses and mistakes. But later, he started to see their strengths. He saw that they were hardworking, kind, and full of team spirit. This taught me that we should not judge people only by their weaknesses. We should look at what they can do. Every person has some good qualities, and as teachers, coaches, or parents, it is our duty to find those strengths and help the person grow.

              The second thing I learned is that winning is not everything. At first, Gulshan thought that winning the match was the most important thing. But later, he understood that true success means trying your best, working hard, and feeling proud of yourself. In the movie, the team does not win the final match, but they win in a bigger way they become confident, happy, and proud of their effort. This taught me that it is not always important to win or come first. What is important is that we give our best and feel good about it.

          The movie also taught me about the right way to teach and guide others. Gulshan learned that shouting and scolding did not help the players. When he started to support them with love and care, the players improved. They trusted him and worked harder. This showed me that teachers and parents should not use fear or anger to teach. They should use kindness and patience. When students feel safe and respected, they do better.

         Lastly, I learned that we can all change and become better people. Gulshan started as a rude and angry coach, but he learned from his mistake and became kind and caring. This gave me hope that anyone can change and do good if they want to. Sitaare Zameen Par (2025) taught me that we should always treat others with kindness and respect. That is the true way to help people grow and succeed in life.

Thank you for reading..

Reference :-

Lab Activity: Poststructuralism, Poems, and Gen AI: Deconstructive Reading

This task was given by Dr Dilip sir Barad. It's a it's about the how do deconstruction criticism to over point of view. For further information have link Click here

Sonnet 18 by Shakespeare :

    

     The video explains deconstructive criticism in an easy way by using Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 as an example. Deconstruction is a way of reading texts that was introduced by Jacques Derrida. It focuses on how language creates meaning that is not fixed or clear, but instead full of play and uncertainty. Deconstruction looks at how a text often questions itself and how opposites in the text, like nature and the beloved, or strong and weak, are not as stable as they first seem. In Sonnet 18, the poet compares the beloved to a summer’s day but ends up suggesting that the beloved is better than nature. This creates a hidden power struggle where nature seems to be shown as weaker or less important. The poet also talks about making beauty last forever through his poetry. But deconstruction shows that the poem may not only be about the beloved’s beauty — it could also be about the poet’s own power to give immortality through writing. The video shows that the poem’s meaning becomes unclear or undecidable when read in this way. The opposites, like beloved and nature, start to blur together. The poem seems to praise both the beauty of the beloved and the power of poetry itself. In the end, deconstruction helps us see how language in a text can create many meanings and challenge its own ideas.

Ezra Pound’s poem 

“In a Station of the Metro”:

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;

Petals on a wet, black bough.

          When we read “In a Station of the Metro” through deconstruction, we see that the poem’s meaning is not clear or stable. The poem compares the faces in a metro station to petals on a wet, black tree branch. At first, it seems like a simple, beautiful image, but deconstruction shows that this comparison creates confusion rather than clarity. The word “apparition” suggests that the faces are ghost-like, making us question whether they are real or just images in the poet’s mind. The faces and petals seem connected by the poem’s words, but they are also very different  one belongs to the human world, the other to nature. This creates tension because the comparison both links and separates them at the same time. The poem does not give us a final or certain meaning about what the faces are or how they relate to the petals. Instead, it shows how language itself creates these uncertain images. The poem’s structure, with its short, quiet lines and soft sounds, makes us focus on the words and the feelings they create rather than on any clear message. In this way, deconstruction reveals that the poem’s meaning is full of gaps, undecidability, and shifting ideas, and that language plays with meaning rather than fixing it.

“The Red Wheelbarrow” by William Carlos Williams :-

The Red Wheelbarrow

so much depends

upon

a red wheel

barrow

glazed with rain

water

beside the white

chickens

      At first, “The Red Wheelbarrow” looks like a simple poem that talks about real things a red wheelbarrow, rainwater, and white chickens. It seems like the poet is telling us that these ordinary objects are very important because he starts with the line “so much depends / upon”. But when we read this poem in a deconstructive way, we see that the meaning is not as simple as it looks. The poem names clear things, but these things seem too perfect. The red of the wheelbarrow and the white of the chickens are clean and bright, like in a toy set or a children’s picture book. The poem doesn’t describe any mud, shadows, or dirt  things you would expect on a real farm.

      Deconstruction shows that the poem is not just showing real objects; it is creating an image using words, and that image may not match reality. The meaning of the poem doesn’t really come from the actual wheelbarrow or chickens. It comes from how the words make us imagine them. The poem makes us feel like these objects are important, but it doesn’t say why or how. The words make us believe in the importance, but at the same time, they make us question what is so important about these objects.

        The poem’s short lines and simple rhythm also pull our focus to the sound and shape of the words. We start to notice the language itself rather than the things it describes. In this way, deconstruction shows us that the poem does not have one fixed meaning. The meaning is open, and it changes depending on how we read it. The poem shows how language can both create meaning and make us unsure of that meaning at the same time.

Dylan Thomas’s poem :-

“After the first death, there is no other.”

When we read Dylan Thomas’s poem in a deconstructive way, we see that its meaning is not simple or clear. The poet says in the title and in the poem that he refuses to mourn the child’s death in the usual way. But actually, the whole poem sounds like mourning. This is a contradiction the poet says one thing but does the opposite. This shows that language does not always say exactly what we mean. At the end of the poem, the line “After the first death there is no other” also confuses us. If we call something the “first” death, it makes us think there must be a second, or more. In the poem, the poet keeps changing between talking about big, timeless things  like darkness, the sea, and London’s history  and the personal, sad event of the child’s death. These changes break the flow of the poem and make it hard to find one clear meaning. The poet also tries not to use common, overused words about death, but in the end, he still uses big, formal words, like calling the child “London’s daughter.” Deconstruction helps us see that the poem’s language is full of tension and different meanings. The poet cannot fully control these meanings, and the message of the poem keeps changing, showing that meaning is always open and not fixed.

Thank you for reading...

Reference:-

Barad, Dilip. “Deconstructive Analysis of Ezra Pound's 'In a Station of the Metro' and William Carlos Williams's 'The Red Wheelbarrow.'” Research Gate, 03 July 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381943844_Deconstructive_Analysis_of_Ezra_Pound's_'In_a_Station_of_the_Metro'_and_William_Carlos_Williams's_'The_Red_Wheelbarrow'. Accessed 03 July 2024.

Barad, D. (2023, July 23). How to Deconstruct a Text. Bhavngar, Gujarat, India: DoEMKBU YouTube Channel. Retrieved 7 3, 2024, from https://youtu.be/JDWDIEpgMGI?si=WnmtixfH9lFYj-b

Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism (First Indian Edition 2006 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pound, E. (1913, April). In a Station of a Metro. Poetry: A Magazine of Verse. Retrieved 7 3, 2024, from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/12675/in-astation-of-the-metro

Williams, W. C. (1938). The Red Wheelbarrow. In C. MacGowan (Ed.), The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams, Volume I, 1909-1939. New Directions Publishing Corporation. Retrieved 7 3, 2024, from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45502/the-red-wheelbarrow

Poetry and Poststructuralism: An AI-Powered Analysis.

 This blog is about Poetry and Poststructuralism: An AI-Powered Analysis. It is a task assigned by Dr. Dilip Sir Barad. Further information is available at the following link.Click here

Poem 1: Monsoon Reverie :

(Heroic couplets)

The sullen clouds roll in with steady might,

And drown the sun in veils of ashen light.

Each drop that falls upon the thirsty land

Writes fleeting verses with a silver hand.

The trees, like priests, bow low in storm’s domain,

While rivers swell and sing the monsoon’s strain.

A peacock’s cry splits through the dripping air—

A jewel in the storm’s dark, tangled hair.

Yet in this flood, what longing does remain?

The heart finds solace in the pouring rain.

But soon, the rain will fade, and drought will creep—

And dreams, like puddles, vanish in their sleep.

 Poem 2: Existence in Waiting

(Short poem in iambic pentameter, inspired by Waiting for Godot,)

We wait beneath the withered, leafless tree,

For something that we think will set us free.

The sky, a page where nothing new is writ,

Mocks every word we speak, each lamp we lit.

The road ahead is dust; the past is mist,

And meaning’s face is hidden in a twist.

Our boots are worn; our questions, old and dry—

Yet still we stand, and still the hours die.

Perhaps no Godot comes, no end in sight—

But in the waiting, we define our night.

Deconstructing Monsoon Reverie: -

      The poem Monsoon Reverie describes the arrival of the monsoon, its power over nature, and the emotional impact it has on the human heart. On the surface, the poem appears to celebrate the life-giving rains, presenting them as a symbol of renewal. However, when we study this poem through the lens of Deconstruction, we discover that its meaning is not so stable or straightforward. According to Derrida (as explained by Peter Barry), no text has a single, fixed meaning. Instead, meaning keeps shifting because language is made up of signifiers (words) that point not to stable concepts, but to other words  creating endless play and uncertainty.

         In Monsoon Reverie, this uncertainty appears in the way the monsoon is represented. The monsoon seems to bring life, as it quenches the thirsty land and swells the rivers. But at the same time, it causes destruction. The rivers do not just swell they flood. The trees bow as if in surrender to the storm’s power, and the peacock’s cry cuts through the air like a sharp reminder of nature’s violence. The rain is described as writing “fleeting verses,” suggesting that while it creates, it also destroys. The “verses” written by the rain do not last  they are washed away or forgotten. This shows a contradiction: the rain is both poet and eraser.

      If we follow Derrida’s idea of binary oppositions (as explained in M.H. Abrams’ Glossary of Literary Terms), we can see that the poem depends on several pairs of opposites: flood/drought, creation/destruction, solace/suffering, presence/absence. Normally, in such pairs, one term is valued over the other  creation over destruction, flood over drought. But in this poem, the terms collapse into each other. The flood that seems abundant contains the seed of future drought. The solace that rain brings to the heart is temporary because soon the rain will stop, and the land will dry. Thus, the poem undoes its own binary structure  what seems like a clear positive force (the monsoon) contains its opposite (destruction, absence).

           The poem also draws attention to the instability of language itself. The rain’s act of writing fleeting verses is a metaphor for how language, too, is unstable. Just as the rain’s writing disappears, so does the meaning created by words. The heroic couplets a form associated with balance, order, and rational thought are ironically used to describe the wild, chaotic monsoon. This creates a tension between form (ordered couplets) and content (chaotic storm), further showing how the text deconstructs itself. As Peter Barry explains, deconstruction often reveals how a text undoes its own claims through its language, imagery, and structure.

     In the end, Monsoon Reverie presents a monsoon that is both a blessing and a curse, both a creator and a destroyer. The meaning of the monsoon and the poem itself  is not stable. It keeps slipping, as Derrida would say, because it depends on oppositions that the poem itself shows to be false or reversible. The monsoon, like language, offers no final, secure truth.

 Deconstructing Existence in Waiting :-

        Existence in Waiting is a poem inspired by Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, and it explores the condition of waiting for something that may never come. At first glance, the poem appears to express a simple idea: that humans wait in hope for freedom or meaning. But when we apply deconstruction, we see that the poem reveals deep contradictions and tensions within this idea.

      According to Poststructuralist theory (as outlined by Peter Barry and M.H. Abrams), meaning is produced through binary oppositions (such as hope/despair, light/darkness, past/future). The poem sets up these oppositions through its imagery and themes. The speakers stand beneath a “withered, leafless tree,” symbolizing lifelessness or barrenness, but they wait for something that will “set us free,” suggesting hope. They light lamps (symbols of enlightenment or clarity), but the sky remains empty, mocking their efforts. The road ahead is “dust” and the past is “mist” both represent emptiness or absence, so neither past nor future offers meaning.

        In Deconstruction, Derrida encourages us to look at how these oppositions break down. In this poem, waiting, which should represent hope, instead leads to despair. The very act of waiting defines the characters’ night their darkness and confusion. There is no resolution, no arrival of Godot or freedom. The hope for an end only creates more emptiness. The lamps, meant to bring light, are mocked by the empty sky, showing that light and darkness are no longer clear opposites. The poem suggests that light has no power against the dark; both are part of the same void.

         The poem also shows that meaning is deferred — what Derrida calls différance. The characters wait for meaning (represented by Godot or freedom), but it is always postponed. The meaning they seek never arrives because it does not exist outside the act of waiting itself. This reflects Derrida’s view that meaning in language is always deferred; it never reaches a final point because words point to other words in an endless chain.

           Another point of Deconstruction is that a text deconstructs itself — that is, it contains contradictions that undo its message. Existence in Waiting begins by seeming to offer hope through waiting but ends by showing that this hope is empty. The night, the darkness, is not something to be escaped through waiting; it is created by waiting. The very act that is supposed to give meaning actually creates meaninglessness.

What both poems show through Deconstruction :-

    Through Deconstruction, we see that both Monsoon Reverie and Existence in Waiting contain deep internal contradictions:

• In Monsoon Reverie, the monsoon’s life-giving power also contains destruction, and its poetic creation is also erasure. The flood contains drought within it.

• In Existence in Waiting, hope contains despair, and light is powerless against darkness. Waiting does not lead to freedom, but defines emptiness.

   Both poems set up oppositions (like flood/drought, hope/despair) that they themselves break down. Both poems show that meaning keeps slipping it is never final, because it depends on unstable signs and contradictory ideas. This is the key insight of Poststructuralism and Deconstruction: texts are not unified, coherent wholes. They are made up of shifting, uncertain meanings.

          As Peter Barry writes, “Deconstruction shows that texts deconstruct themselves, exposing the instability of the meaning they try to create.” And as M.H. Abrams puts it, “Deconstruction demonstrates that every text can be seen to undermine the very oppositions and certainties it appears to build on.”

Deconstructive Analysis of Monsoon Reverie :-

*(Using Peter Barry’s three-step model of deconstruction from Beginning Theory)

 Introduction to the poem and method

       Monsoon Reverie is a short poem in heroic couplets that describes the arrival of the monsoon, its impact on nature, and its emotional resonance for the human heart. On the surface, the poem appears to celebrate the monsoon as a symbol of life, renewal, and poetic inspiration. However, when we apply Deconstruction, as outlined by Peter Barry in Beginning Theory, we find that the poem’s language, imagery, and structure contain internal contradictions that undermine this simple message.

Peter Barry suggests that deconstructive reading proceeds through three stages:

1)  the Verbal Stage, which examines ambiguous or contradictory words and images .

2)  the Textual Stage, which looks at contradictions in the overall argument or structure .

3) the Linguistic Stage, which focuses on the inherent instability of language itself.

 Apply this method to Monsoon Reverie: -

1) Verbal Stage :

       In the verbal stage, we focus on specific words, images, or phrases that contain contradictions or multiple meanings.

     One of the most striking images in the poem is when the rain “writes fleeting verses with a silver hand.” This phrase suggests that the rain is like a poet or artist, creating beauty on the thirsty land. The word writes implies creation and inspiration. However, the adjective fleeting introduces contradiction the verses created by the rain are not permanent; they are temporary, easily washed away, or forgotten. Thus, the image combines both creation and erasure at once.

      Similarly, the description of the peacock’s cry as “a jewel in the storm’s dark, tangled hair” seems to present beauty within the storm. A jewel traditionally symbolizes something precious and lasting. However, this jewel is lost in the “tangled hair” of the storm, suggesting that beauty is overwhelmed, hidden, or consumed by chaos.

      Another key word is solace. The poet says, “The heart finds solace in the pouring rain.” Solace usually means comfort or relief, but the poem immediately undermines this by stating that the rain will fade and drought will follow. The solace, therefore, is short-lived or false.

     The poem’s individual words and images promise one thing (creation, beauty, comfort) but simultaneously signal their opposite (destruction, loss, sorrow). This reveals a deep internal tension at the level of language and imagery.

2) Textual Stage :

     At the textual stage, we look at how the overall argument or structure of the poem contradicts itself.

   The poem begins with what seems like a celebration of the monsoon. The rain is welcomed as a force that nourishes the land, swells rivers, and inspires poetic imagery. It is depicted as both a physical and spiritual renewal  a blessing to the earth and to the heart.

      However, as the poem progresses, this positive image collapses. The rain that brings solace also signals the approach of drought:

“But soon, the rain will fade, and drought will creep—

And dreams, like puddles, vanish in their sleep.”

         The poem’s structure moves from celebration to loss, from hope to inevitability of absence. The monsoon’s gifts are shown to be temporary, and the flood contains within it the promise of drought.

    There is also a formal contradiction. The poem uses heroic couplets, a form traditionally associated with balance, control, and order. Yet, this form is used to describe a force — the monsoon — that is wild, overwhelming, and uncontrollable. The structure (heroic couplets) attempts to impose order on chaos, but in doing so, it reveals that chaos cannot truly be contained.

      The poem’s structure sets up the monsoon as a source of renewal but simultaneously shows that this renewal is fragile and fleeting. The poem undoes its own argument by showing that what gives life also ensures loss.

3) Linguistic Stage :-

     At the linguistic stage, we focus on the instability of language itself, as Deconstruction teaches us that meaning is never fixed because language is made of signifiers that endlessly refer to other signifiers.

     The poem draws attention to the act of writing and meaning-making through the image of the rain as a writer. The rain “writes fleeting verses,” but these verses like language are impermanent. The metaphor suggests that language, like rain, creates meaning that is always in danger of being washed away or forgotten.

        The key terms in the poem  such as solace, dreams, and verses  do not provide stable meaning.

• Solace points to comfort but also to transience and the certainty of future sorrow.

• Dreams suggest hope or imagination but are reduced to puddles that “vanish.”

• Verses suggest artistic creation, but these verses are “fleeting”  temporary and unstable.

      The heroic couplet form attempts to create linguistic order and finality, but it fails to stabilize the storm’s meaning or power. The couplets end-stopped lines seem neat, but the ideas they contain are messy and contradictory.

          The poem shows that its own language cannot stabilize meaning. Its key terms and metaphors undermine themselves, revealing that meaning is endlessly deferred, shifting, and undecidable — just as Derrida and Barry argue for all texts.

Poststructuralist Deconstruction of Existence in Waiting :-

Introduction: Belsey’s Poststructuralist Approach

    In Critical Practice, Catherine Belsey demonstrates how Poststructuralism challenges the idea that literary texts convey fixed, stable meanings. Instead, texts:

• Depend on binary oppositions (such as light/dark, presence/absence, hope/despair), which are shown to be unstable and contradictory.

• Contain slippage of signifiers, meaning that words (signifiers) never fully secure a single meaning (signified).

• Produce meaning through difference, but this difference constantly defers meaning, leading to ambiguity and undecidability.

 Examples from Belsey’s analysis:-

• The Red Wheelbarrow: Meaning is deferred. We do not know what “so much depends” upon the wheelbarrow. The poem’s simplicity conceals instability of reference.

• In a Station of the Metro: The comparison of faces to petals connects and separates at once, creating unstable meaning.

• Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?: The poem tries to immortalize beauty, but language itself is unstable and cannot preserve it permanently.

Belsey argues that a Poststructuralist reading shows how a text deconstructs itself, exposing the fragility of its own claims.

Detailed Poststructuralist Reading (Belsey’s Method Applied)

1) Slippage of Signifiers and Deferred Meaning:-

   Belsey’s reading of The Red Wheelbarrow highlights how the phrase “so much depends” invites significance but never tells us what that significance is. Similarly, in Existence in Waiting, the poem centers on waiting for “something that we think will set us free.”

    The word something is deliberately vague. The signifier points not to a fixed signified, but to an unknown or absent object.

     Godot is referenced explicitly, invoking Samuel Beckett’s figure who never arrives, a signifier for meaning or salvation that is forever deferred.

The line:

“And meaning’s face is hidden in a twist”

suggests that meaning is obscured, concealed within confusion or paradox. Just as in The Red Wheelbarrow, where meaning is postponed by the absence of clear connection, here meaning is masked and inaccessible.

    The poem’s key terms  something, freedom, Godot, meaning  offer no stable reference. They defer meaning endlessly, pointing only to other signifiers or to absence.

2) Collapse of Binary Oppositions :-

       Belsey emphasizes that Poststructuralist reading reveals how binary oppositions in a text are not stable. In In a Station of the Metro, the comparison both unites and divides faces and petals.

In Existence in Waiting, we see similar binary pairs that break down:

• Hope / despair: The poem begins with waiting  typically associated with hope for future change. However, this hope collapses as the poem shows the waiting produces only emptiness:

“no Godot comes, no end in sight.”

Hope transforms into despair. The binary blurs.

• Light / dark: The act of lighting lamps should symbolize light overcoming darkness. But:

“The sky... Mocks every word we speak, each lamp we lit.”

The light fails. The opposition between light and dark collapses; light has no power over darkness.

• Past / future: The past is “mist” (uncertain, insubstantial); the future is “dust” (lifeless, barren). Both represent forms of absence rather than clear, distinct temporal zones. The binary of past/future breaks down as both are shown to lack meaning.

 Like Belsey’s reading of Shakespeare’s sonnet  where the opposition between summer’s day and immortal beauty fails to preserve the beloved’s image these binaries fail to deliver stable meaning.

3) The Poem’s Self-Deconstruction :-

        In Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?, Belsey shows that Shakespeare’s attempt to immortalize beauty through verse fails because language itself is unstable.

     Similarly, Existence in Waiting proposes that in the act of waiting, we give meaning to our existence:

“But in the waiting, we define our night.”

However, this definition is not positive or hopeful  it is night, a symbol of darkness, emptiness, and the absence of clarity. The act that should provide meaning (waiting) instead defines absence.

    The poem begins by offering the promise of meaning or salvation through waiting, but ends by showing that waiting itself produces the night  the very absence of meaning and certainty. The text undoes its own argument, revealing that what should give purpose only generates emptiness.

Final Reflection :-

   Following Belsey’s Poststructuralist method, Existence in Waiting exposes how:

• The signifiers it relies upon (e.g., something, Godot, freedom, meaning) do not fix meaning but endlessly defer it.

• The oppositions that structure the poem (hope/despair, light/dark, past/future) collapse, showing their instability.

• The poem deconstructs its own logic: the waiting that should produce meaning defines only emptiness.

•  The poem mirrors the Poststructuralist insight that meaning is always produced through difference, always deferred, and always undermined by the contradictions within the text itself.

Thank you for reading..

Reference :-

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory, 3/E. Viva Books Private Limited, 2010.

Barad, Dilip, Deconstructive Analysis of Ezra Pound's 'In a Station of the Metro' and William Carlos Williams's 'The Red Wheelbarrow', Researchgate.net, Accessed 4 July 2024. 

Belsey, Catherine. Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). OUP Oxford, 2002.

An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Naraya

An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Naraya  My Experience Before and After Watching the Movie

 This blog was given by Megha Ma’am. It is about the short story “An Astrologer’s Day” by R. K. Narayan. In this blog, I have discussed the story and my experience before and after watching the movie.

Introduction :-

             Sometimes, stories are more than just words on paper. They create a world in our minds. When we read, we build scenes, faces, sounds, and emotions with our imagination. And then, when we watch the same story as a movie, it either matches what we imagined or surprises us in new ways. This happened to me with An Astrologer’s Day by R. K. Narayan.

         In this blog, I want to share my personal journey how I imagined the story while reading it, and what changed for me after watching its movie adaptation. 

 About R. K. Narayan

  R.K. Narayan (Rasipuram Krishnaswami Iyer Narayanaswami) was born in 1906 in Madras . He is one of the greatest Indian writers in English. His stories are not about kings or heroes. They are about common people schoolboys, shopkeepers, teachers, clerks, and in this case, an astrologer. He writes about their small struggles, their dreams, their mistakes, and their moments of joy. And yet, these small stories touch something big in our hearts.

          Narayan’s language is easy to read, but his stories are full of deep meaning. He received many awards during his life, including the Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan. His work is loved not only in India but across the world.

About An Astrologer’s Day

        An Astrologer’s Day is one of Narayan’s most popular short stories. The beauty of the story lies in its simplicity and surprise ending. The story shows us just one evening in the life of an astrologer who sits in a market and tells people’s fortunes.

      The astrologer is dressed in a saffron turban. He has sacred ash on his forehead. He looks wise and holy. People believe in him and pay him to hear about their future. But what they don’t know is that this man is not truly gifted with any powers. He simply uses his cleverness, quick thinking, and understanding of human nature to guess what people want to hear.

      On this particular evening, something unexpected happens. A stranger comes to him and challenges him to tell his fortune. The astrologer, thinking it’s just another customer, begins his usual tricks. But as they talk, the truth is revealed  the astrologer has a dark past. Years ago, he had stabbed a man in a fight and fled, thinking he had killed him. That stranger in front of him now is that very man.

        What follows is a tense and clever conversation where the astrologer manages to save himself once again. The story ends with a twist that leaves the reader amazed at how fate works in strange ways.

How I Imagined the Story Before Watching the Movie

       When I first read An Astrologer’s Day, the words created vivid images in my mind. Narayan’s descriptions are simple, but they are so powerful that I could easily picture the entire scene. Let me share what I saw in my imagination.

The Market :-

         I imagined a busy, colourful market at night. There were rows of small shops and stalls, each lit with oil lamps. The lamps flickered in the evening breeze, casting dancing shadows on the faces of the sellers and buyers. The street was narrow, filled with people moving around, bargaining, buying, and chatting. I imagined the smell of groundnuts being roasted, the sweet scent of incense, and the dust of the street rising with every step.

The Astrologer

              Under a large tamarind tree sat the astrologer. I saw him wearing a saffron turban, his forehead marked with white ash. His beard was neatly trimmed. His eyes were sharp, always looking around for customers. His hands moved confidently as he spread out his charts, shells, and papers. He looked peaceful on the outside, but inside, he was alert, always ready with clever words.

        I imagined him lighting a small lamp near his feet, creating a small circle of light that made him look more mysterious. His voice was smooth and calm, the kind of voice that makes people trust him.

The Stranger :-

           When the stranger appeared, I imagined him as a tall man with a rough, sunburned face. His eyes were dark and deep, filled with pain and anger. His clothes were simple and dusty. His voice was loud and harsh when he challenged the astrologer. I could feel the tension between them as they spoke.

What Happened When I watched  the Movie

After reading the story and building this world in my mind, I watched the short film adaptation . Watching the movie felt like stepping into someone else’s imagination of the same story.

The Market

       The market on screen was very close to what I had imagined. It was crowded and noisy. The oil lamps gave it that warm, flickering glow. The shops, the sellers, the people moving around  it all felt real. The sounds I had imagined in my head were now alive . The film captured the lively and chaotic atmosphere of the marketplace beautifully. The small details, like the smoke rising from food stalls or the movement of people, added to the realism.

The Astrologer

         The actor who played the astrologer looked just like I had pictured. His turban, his ash-marked forehead, his beard it was all there. But the film added something more. His facial expressions, the way his eyes shifted, the way he held his breath for a moment when the stranger questioned him  these small things showed his inner fear and quick thinking in a way that words can only suggest.

        His voice, too, added a new layer. It was calm, but with a hint of worry when the stranger pressed him for answers.

The Stranger

       The stranger in the movie matched my mental image quite well. He looked rough and tired. His eyes carried the weight of his past. His voice was challenging and angry. On screen, his presence felt even more dangerous, because I could see the way he leaned forward, the way he stared at the astrologer, the way his hands moved as he spoke.

        The film built up the tension slowly. The conversation between the astrologer and the stranger felt more intense because I could see their faces up close. The background music added to the suspense. When the twist came, the relief on the astrologer’s face was clear. The way the camera focused on his expression made the ending more powerful.

Comparing My Imagination and the Movie

          It was interesting to see how close or different the film was from what I had imagined. Here’s how I felt:

Aspect My Imagination Movie

     Market Crowded, noisy, full of smells and lights Matched well  sounds, lights, and crowd shown beautifully

     Astrologer Mysterious, clever, sharp-eyed Looked the same, but expressions and voice added more emotion

   Stranger Rough, angry, dangerous Matched my image; felt even more tense on screen

        Twist Surprised me; made me think Felt stronger; relief and irony shown clearly

          Reading the story gave me the freedom to imagine everything my own way. Watching the movie filled in the details I might have missed. Both experiences were valuable and enjoyable.

What the Story and Movie Made Me Think About

     Both the short story and the movie left me thinking about some deep ideas:

Fate and Destiny

         The astrologer and the stranger meet again, not by choice, but because of fate. Life brings them together at the right (or wrong) moment. This shows how we can never fully escape our past.

Cleverness as Survival

         The astrologer survives not because of luck alone, but because he uses his mind. His quick thinking and understanding of people save him both in the past and present.

Appearance vs. Reality

        The astrologer appears wise and holy, but inside, he is just a man hiding from his mistakes. This reminds us not to judge people by how they look.

Irony of Life

         The man who tells others about their future does not know his own. He believes he killed a man, but that man stands before him. Life’s irony protects him in the end.

What We Learn from An Astrologer’s Day

          The story An Astrologer’s Day teaches us that we cannot escape from our past it will catch up with us one day. It also shows that life is full of surprises, and we should be ready for anything. The astrologer saves himself not with magic, but with cleverness and quick thinking. The story reminds us not to judge people by how they look because people may be hiding secrets. Lastly, it shows that destiny is powerful, and sometimes things happen that are beyond our control.

Thank you for reading...

Reference :- 

“An Astrologer’s Day – Hindi Short Film.” YouTube, uploaded by Pocket Films, June 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkfrjYFQozA. Accessed 28 June 2025.

Narayan, R. K. Malgudi Days. Indian Thought Publications, 1943.

Flipped Learning Activity: Derrida and Deconstruction.

This blog is given by Dr. Dilip Sir Barad as part of flipped learning activities on Derrida and Deconstruction. For further information Click here.

Video :1 

   Deconstruction is hard to define because meaning in language is never fixed. Derrida questions whether we can ever fully define anything, as meanings always shift depending on context.

    It is not a negative or destructive activity. Derrida says deconstruction is not about breaking things just to destroy them. Instead, it's about closely examining ideas and finding hidden meanings or contradictions.

     Deconstruction often happens on its own because language naturally has gaps, limits, and contradictions. Even when a writer tries to be clear, the text may reveal other meanings.

    Derrida asks deep questions about how we define things. He refuses to define deconstruction in a strict way, just like other terms in philosophy and literary theory.

     He is influenced by Heidegger, who also questioned the foundations of Western philosophy. Derrida believes the whole structure of Western thought should be re-examined and transformed.

     In his 1983 letter to a Japanese friend (Professor Izutsu), Derrida explains how meaning and language change across cultures and translations.

   He also challenges binary oppositions (like good/evil, speech/writing) and shows how these opposites are not always stable or fair.

    Derrida’s key idea is “différance”, which means that meaning is based on both difference (how words differ from others) and deferral (how meaning is always delayed). So, meaning is never complete or final.

Questions :-

Why is it difficult to define Deconstruction?

Answer : - 

        Because deconstruction does not believe in one fixed meaning. It says that meaning keeps changing. That’s why we cannot give one simple or final definition.

Is Deconstruction a negative term?

Answer :-

       No, it is not negative. Some people think it breaks things, but it actually helps us understand things in a better and deeper way.

How does Deconstruction happen on its own?

Answer :- 

         Deconstruction happens by itself because language is full of different and hidden meanings. When we read closely, we find those meanings without trying too 

hard.

Video : 2

   The seeds of Deconstruction come from Martin Heidegger, especially from his book Being and Time (Sein und Zeit, 1927).

Important thinkers who influenced Derrida include:

1. Martin Heidegger (1889–1976)

2. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)

3. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

Key Themes and Ideas:

   Heidegger believed that the question of “being” was repressed and ignored in Western philosophy. He wanted to bring it back to focus.

    Derrida continues this idea by saying that Western thought is built on hidden assumptions, especially the belief in fixed meaning.

       In postmodern thinking, man is decentered meaning does not come from a single source or truth but from multiple, shifting structures. This idea is seen in Heidegger and Nietzsche.

   Logocentrism and phonocentrism (preference for speech over writing) are signs of how Western philosophy gives more value to presence over absence. Derrida critiques this as part of the metaphysics of presence.

Heidegger and Derrida’s Shared Goal:

   Heidegger used the term “destruction” to describe his process of breaking down traditional philosophy. This concept was later translated as “deconstruction” by Derrida.

     Heidegger aimed to dismantle the whole tradition of Western philosophy by rethinking the question of Being.

     Derrida follows this path, using language, meaning, and structure to continue questioning the foundations of Western thought.

Questions  : 

The influence of Heidegger on Derrida

Answer :- 

        Heidegger said we must rethink what it means to ' be.'Derrida learned from him and said we must also question how language creates meaning.

Derridean rethinking of the foundations of Western philosophy.

Answer : - 

         Derrida challenged fixed ideas like truth vs. false, speech vs. writing. He said meanings are not stable and always change. So, he broke the old rules of philosophy and brought new ways to think.

Video : 3

    Derrida’s Deconstruction is influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea that meaning in language is arbitrary and relational  any word (sign) gains meaning only in relation to other words, not by itself.

 Derrida challenges the “metaphysics of presence”  the belief that meaning or truth is found in what is present and stable. He says we should not always trust what is said to be true or original.

    Phonocentrism and logocentrism are part of this metaphysical thinking. They give more value to spoken words over written words, assuming that speech is more “true.”

  Derrida says Western philosophy is based on binary oppositions like:

Good vs Evil

Man vs Woman

Presence vs Absence

    These opposites are not equal  one side is usually treated as superior, and the other as inferior (e.g., evil is just a lack of good, or woman is seen in relation to man).

    Derrida introduces the term “différance”, which combines to differ and to defer. It shows that meaning is always unstable  it changes depending on what it is compared to, and is always delayed.

       He points out that meaning is not fixed but created through difference and absence (e.g., the meaning of “cold” comes from the absence of “hot”).

     The idea of phallogocentrism combines phallocentrism (male-centered thinking) and logocentrism. Derrida criticizes this because it privileges male-centered authority in language and philosophy.

Questions: 

Ferdinand de Saussureian concept of language (that meaning is arbitrary, relational, constitutive)

Answer : 

Meaning is arbitrary: There is no natural connection between a word (like “tree”) and the thing it refers to.

Meaning is relational: Words get meaning by being different from other words.

Meaning is constitutive: Language does not just reflect meaning it creates meaning.

How Derrida deconstructs the idea of arbitrariness?

Answer :- 

Derrida agrees meaning is arbitrary, but he adds that: Meaning is never fixed.It always depends on context and other words.So, meaning is always shifting and unstable.

Concept of metaphysics of presence

Answer :- 

           Western thinking believes that truth or meaning is present.Derrida says this is wrong.We always depend on language, and language is never pure or present.

Video : 4

    Critique of Speech over Writing: Derrida challenges the traditional Western philosophical tendency to privilege speech over writing, arguing that speech is often considered to have a more immediate "presence" of meaning.

 DifferAnce as a Core Concept:

       It's not a concept or idea, but a "force" that makes differentiation possible.

   It combines two French words:

 "différer" (to differ/distinguish) and "déferer" (to defer/postpone).

      It means both "to differ" (spatial distinction) and "to defer" (temporal postponement).The term itself cannot be pronounced differently, only spelled differently, highlighting its written nature.

      Throughout Western philosophy, there's a tendency to assume a "final meaning" or "transcendental signified" can be grasped.

    Derrida argues that meaning is always postponed and that a final meaning is a "myth."

       One word leads to another, and the meaning is constantly deferred; it never comes out of a dictionary fully.

  Metaphysics of Presence:

   "Differance" is a "symptom of the metaphysics of presence."The concept of "difference" itself is not a negative term but contrasts with the binary opposition of negative and positive.Western philosophy tends toward "phonocentrism," which prioritizes speech and its perceived presence.

 Saussure and the Sign:

    Saussure stated there are no positive items in language. A Saussurean sign is equal to a signifier, which signifies something.

     Derrida's "Differance" leads to the "free play of signifiers," meaning nothing is definitively signified.

      Speaking is seen as a "practice of presence" in Western philosophy, while writing is considered a "practice of absence."

    In deconstruction, writing is considered "primary" and speaking "secondary."

 Derrida's Purpose:

          He draws attention to the fact that we often take for granted that we understand things. He questions the "privilege of speech over writing."

Questions: 

Derridean concept of DifferAnce

Answer :-

       DiffeAnce is a word made by Derrida. It means:

To differ: Words get meaning by being different from other words.

To defer: Meaning is always delayed. We never get full meaning right away.

Infinite play of meaning

Answer :-

    Because meaning keeps changing and shifting, it is never final. Words always connect to other words, so meaning goes on like a chain.

 DIfferAnce = to differ + to defer

Answer :-

Derrida combined these two ideas:

Differ - meanings come from differences between words

Defer - meaning is always postponed So, meaning is never complete, only a part of an endless process.

Video : 5 

Structure, Sign & Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.

      'Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.''language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique' (This appears to be a repetition).

      A paper read at the colloquium on "Structuralism" at Johns Hopkins university - "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" (1966)

    Structure, Sign and Play is one of the very important documents contemporary literary theory.

  Therefore is known as post-structuralism. 1967 Post-Structuralism is not outright rejection of criticism of structuralism but going beyond by critiquing Structuralism.

  Ex -:  Buddhism it set out as a critic of Vedanta and it actually ends up sounding more like Vedanta.

       language demands critic. so any philosophical statement will always contain a blind spot which ask for criticism.

     Deconstructive writing is most of the time auto-critical.Similar cases that have happened in the past (eg. Friedrich Nietzsche C1844-1900).

   Heidegger said Nietzsche is the last metaphysician.Criticism has been levied against tradition using the same assumption that tradition is always out side of tradition.

      Derrida pushes the destabilized motion of the centre in the point of a "rupture" in the history of thought on Structurality.

      When using the same language and the same assumptions that we find assumptions Structuralism appeals to they project what is science & metaphysics.

     The essay "A Critique of The Levi-Strauss & Edmund anthropologist made Structuralism. Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) - French Anthropologist.

 Structuralism Anthropology (1958)Structuralism began as a critic of the assumption of Science as well as metaphysics. The centre is paradoxically within the structure and outside it elsewhere. The centre is not the centre.

         Structuralism is using the same assumption that we find in metaphysics and Science.Structuralism is a criticism of Science and metaphysics on other side using the same assumption.

Questions :-

Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

Answer :-

        Every system like religion or science has a structure with a center that gives it meaning. But this center is not natural or permanent.Meanings are always changing and moving.

Explain: "Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique."

Answer :-

    This means that Sometimes, words are unclear, have more than one meaning, or even contradict each other.Because of this, language makes us question itself.

Video : 6 

  The Yale School - the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.

The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction.

 During 1970s - the Yale School has been the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories.

Few people are associated with this Post-essay

 1) Paul de Man (1919-1983)

 2) J Hillis Miller (1918-)

 3) Harold Bloom (1930)

 4) Geoffrey Hartman (1929)

 Main four people make deconstruction popular.Yale School is responsible for bringing deconstruction in the literary criticism.

Some most important characteristics

 1) Firstly, looking at literature as rhetorical or figurative construct.They showed that literature can create multiplicity of meaning by focusing on various figures of speech.

2) Secondly, the question both the aesthetic as well as formalist approach to literature and also question the historical or Sociologist approach to literature.

    Paul de man's work, materiality of Signifier. When we say red red rose that we feel and red rose, the materiality of it is similar to actual red rose.

     Paul de Man argues that aesthetic is the very illusory effect of language and so is social and historical. One so both real.

      In "Blindness and Insight": Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (1971) Paul de Man sought to deconstruct the primacy of symbol over allegory and metaphor in romantic thought. Paul de Man shows that it is metaphor but it's allegory that is very important in Romanticism.

Questions : 

The Yale School: the hub of the practitioners of Deconstruction in the literary theories

Answer :- 

     The Yale School was a group of famous literary critics in Yale University who used Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction to study literature.

Main members:

Paul de Man

J. Hillis Miller

Harold Bloom

Geoffrey Hartman

 They helped spread Deconstruction in American literary studies, especially during the 1970s and 1980s.

The characteristics of the Yale School of Deconstruction

Answer :-

1) The looking at literature rhetorical or figurative construct.

2) The question both the aesthetic as well as formalist approach to literature and also question the historicist or sociologist approach to literature 

3) important characteristics of yale school is their preoccupation with Romanticism.

Video :7 

     Here other critical schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism, Postcolonial Theories used Deconstruction.

  Yale School was primarily preoccupied with rhetorical and figurative analysis of literary text and in deconstructing that.

      Postcolonial theories fascinated by its ability to show that the texts or discourse of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narratives.

     Feminist theories - in interested because it deals with how to subvert the binary between male and female to subvert patriarchal discourse.

       Cultural materialist - interested in it to emphasize the materiality of language - language is material construct and it has got ability to unmask the hidden ideological agendas. The text is historical and history is textual .

Questions :-

How other schools like New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonial theorists used Deconstruction?

Answer :- 

New Historicism : Uses Deconstruction to show that history is not fixed and can have many meanings.

Cultural Materialism: Uses Deconstruction to find hidden power and unfair control in culture.

Feminism : It deals with how to subvert the binary between male and Female to subvert patriachal discourse. 

Marxism : Uses Deconstruction to show how language supports rich people and hides class struggle.

Postcolonial theories: Fascinated by its ability to show that the texts or discource of the colonizers can be deconstructed from within the narratives .

Thank you for reading..

Reference :- 

Barad, Dilip. “Deconstruction and Derrida.” Dilip Barad: Teacher Blog, 21 Mar. 2015, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2015/03/deconstruction-and-derrida.html.Accessed 26 June 2025.

Barad, Dilip. “Flipped Learning Network.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 11 Jan. 2016, blog.dilipbarad.com/2016/01/flipped-learning-network.html.  Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE-MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.1 Derrida and Deconstruction - Definition (Final).Avi.” YouTube, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-3BPNk9gs. Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE MKBU. “Unit 5: 5.2.1 Derrida & Deconstruction – Heidegger (Final).” YouTube, uploaded by DoE MKBU, 22 June 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=buduIQX1ZIw.Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE-MKBU. 5.2.2 Derrida & Deconstruction – Ferdinand de Saussure (Final). YouTube, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7M9rDyjDbA.Accessed 26 June 2025.

DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.3 Derrida and Deconstruction – DifferAnce (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJPlxjjnpQk. Accessed 26 June 2025.

  DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.4 Derrida & Deconstruction – Structure, Sign & Play (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOV2aDwhUas. Accessed 26 June 2025.

 DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.5 Derrida & Deconstruction – Yale School (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_M8o7B973E.Accessed 26 June 2025.

 DoE‑MKBU. Unit 5: 5.6 Derrida & Deconstruction: Influence on Other Critical Theories (Final). YouTube, uploaded by DoE‑MKBU, 13 July 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAU-17I8lGY.Accessed 26 June 2025.