Deconstruction in Design: Derridean Philosophy and the Rise of Deconstructivist Architecture

Personal Information :

Name:- Parthiv Solanki

Batch:- M.A. Sem 3 (2024-2026)

Enrollment Number:- 5108240032

E-mail:- parthivsolanki731@gmail.com

Assignment Details:-

Topic: Deconstruction in Design: Derridean Philosophy and the Rise of Deconstructivist Architecture

Paper:- 204: Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies

Submitted to: Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar

Date of Submission: 7 November 2025

Deconstructivist Architecture emerges as one of the most profound intersections between philosophy and design in the late twentieth century. Rooted in Jacques Derrida’s philosophical concept of Deconstruction, this architectural movement challenges the ideals of order, harmony, and rationality that dominated classical and modernist architecture. Rather than seeking coherence or unity, Deconstructivist architects embrace contradiction, fragmentation, and instability as aesthetic and intellectual values. This paper explores how Derrida’s philosophical ideas particularly those of différance, trace, and binary opposition have influenced architectural practice and theory. Through an examination of architects like Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, and Daniel Libeskind, the study highlights how Deconstructivism transforms space into a medium of philosophical inquiry. The architectural form becomes a site of questioning rather than resolution, where meaning remains fluid, deferred, and open to interpretation. Ultimately, the research reveals that Deconstructivist Architecture is not merely a style but a spatial embodiment of poststructuralist thought an architecture that thinks.

2. Keywords

Deconstruction, Derrida, Deconstructivist Architecture, Postmodernism, Fragmentation, Différance, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Structural Instability, Poststructuralism.

3. Introduction

The late twentieth century witnessed a radical shift in both philosophy and art, marked by the emergence of Deconstruction a philosophical movement initiated by Jacques Derrida. In architecture, this philosophical revolution found expression through the Deconstructivist movement, which challenged the conventional notions of order, function, and structural purity inherited from Modernism. Modern architecture, influenced by rationalism and functionalism, aimed for clarity, coherence, and universality best exemplified by Le Corbusier’s dictum “form follows function.” Deconstructivism, by contrast, disrupts these principles. It destabilizes symmetry, rejects linearity, and transforms architecture into a space of questioning rather than conformity.

This architectural approach is not about destruction but reconstruction through deconstruction an attempt to rethink how space communicates meaning. By introducing disjunctions, dislocations, and distortions, Deconstructivist architects invite viewers to experience buildings as texts, open to multiple interpretations. The 1988 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, officially established Deconstructivist Architecture as a movement that connects philosophical critique with artistic experimentation. In this context, Derrida’s ideas serve as both a conceptual foundation and a critical lens through which architecture becomes a site for exploring instability, ambiguity, and the limits of human perception.

4. Theoretical Framework: Derrida’s Philosophy of Deconstruction

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of Deconstruction fundamentally redefined how meaning, language, and structures are understood. Emerging in the 1960s as a critique of structuralism, Deconstruction argued that every system of meaning whether linguistic, philosophical, or architectural is inherently unstable and built upon internal contradictions. Derrida’s key idea of différance suggests that meaning is not fixed but constantly deferred through a chain of differences; no term or structure possesses intrinsic or final meaning.

When translated into architectural theory, this implies that a building like a text is not a closed object but an open field of interpretation. Derrida’s engagement with architecture became particularly significant through his collaboration with Peter Eisenman in the 1980s, especially in projects like Chora L Works (1987). Eisenman, deeply influenced by Derrida, used the philosopher’s concepts to challenge the rigid formalism of modernist architecture. He sought to create forms that resisted totalization, where structure and meaning continually shift and fracture.

Core Derridean concepts such as binary opposition, trace, supplement, and decentering find direct resonance in Deconstructivist Architecture. Traditional architectural binaries such as inside/outside, form/function, structure/decoration are disrupted to reveal their interdependence and instability. The trace becomes an architectural gesture, suggesting the presence of what is absent; the supplement introduces what both completes and displaces the original. In this sense, Deconstructivism embodies a philosophy of spatial différance, where architectural forms become dynamic expressions of uncertainty and multiplicity.

Thus, the theoretical framework of Derrida’s Deconstruction provides the philosophical ground on which Deconstructivist Architecture stands. It transforms architecture into a poststructuralist discourse not merely constructing buildings but constructing meanings.

5. From Text to Structure: Transferring Deconstruction into Architecture

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of Deconstruction originated as a critique of Western metaphysics and logocentrism the belief that meaning is stable, centered, and hierarchically organized. However, by the late twentieth century, these philosophical ideas migrated into disciplines beyond language, most notably architecture. The transition from text to structure marked a profound reimagining of what it means to “build” meaning. If, as Derrida argued, “there is nothing outside the text,” architecture too could be understood as a textual practice, capable of being “read,” “interpreted,” and “deconstructed.”

Architect Peter Eisenman was among the first to translate Derridean philosophy into architectural form. His collaboration with Derrida in Chora L Works (1987) exemplifies how linguistic instability could inform spatial construction. In Eisenman’s designs, structures resist closure and coherence. Buildings appear fragmented, displaced, and layered echoing Derrida’s notion of différance, where meaning is perpetually deferred. This approach transforms architecture from a representation of order into an exploration of chaos and multiplicity.

Similarly, Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin and Zaha Hadid’s Vitra Fire Station demonstrate how architectural space can embody deconstructive ideas. Their forms disrupt geometric logic, using sharp angles, slanted walls, and fractured planes to evoke instability and questioning. Through these works, architecture ceases to be a reflection of stability and becomes a philosophical field an arena where form and meaning are continuously negotiated. In essence, Deconstructivist Architecture builds the unbuildable: it gives form to the instability of thought itself.

6. Historical Background of Deconstructivist Architecture

The roots of Deconstructivist Architecture lie in the late 20th century, emerging as a response to both Modernism’s rationalism and Postmodernism’s superficial historicism. While Modernism celebrated functionality, geometry, and minimalism, and Postmodernism revived decorative symbolism, Deconstructivism sought to unsettle both traditions. It rose to prominence after the 1988 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) exhibition, curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, titled Deconstructivist Architecture. This exhibition featured seven key architects Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Peter Eisenman, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Coop Himmelblau, and Bernard Tschumi each exploring fragmentation, distortion, and unpredictability in their designs.

However, the movement’s intellectual roots stretch further back to Russian Constructivism of the 1920s, especially the experimental works of Tatlin and Melnikov, which embraced asymmetry and spatial tension. The term “Deconstructivism” itself plays on “Constructivism” suggesting both a continuation and a rupture. Where Constructivists sought structural clarity, Deconstructivists sought conceptual ambiguity.

By the 1980s, architecture became increasingly interdisciplinary. Philosophers, linguists, and theorists influenced architectural discourse. Derrida’s writings, especially Of Grammatology (1967) and Writing and Difference (1967), provided architects with a new lens to question the metaphysics of structure and meaning. Thus, Deconstructivist Architecture emerged not as a unified style but as an intellectual movement a dialogue between philosophy and design, text and structure, thought and form.

7. Philosophy Meets Design: The Conceptual Parallels

The relationship between Derrida’s deconstruction and Deconstructivist Architecture lies in their shared epistemological rebellion a refusal to accept stability, coherence, and final meaning. Both disciplines interrogate structure: Derrida in the realm of language, and architects in the realm of space.

a. Fragmentation and Différance

Derrida’s concept of différance the endless deferral and difference of meaning finds a visual equivalent in the fragmented geometries of Deconstructivist buildings. Architects like Zaha Hadid employ broken perspectives and fluid forms to create spaces that resist linear interpretation, much like Derrida’s texts resist a single reading.

b. Displacement and Decentering

Deconstruction undermines the notion of a central, fixed truth. Likewise, Deconstructivist Architecture decenters the viewer’s experience. Buildings like Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao shift the axis of perception, replacing equilibrium with tension and instability.

c. The Trace and the Absent Presence

In Derrida’s theory, trace refers to the presence of what is absent a lingering memory of what has been erased. In architecture, this manifests in voids, gaps, and negative spaces that suggest the invisible layers of history and memory. Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin powerfully enacts this idea: its voids signify the loss and trauma of the Holocaust, making absence a spatial experience.

d. Supplement and Excess

Deconstruction challenges the hierarchy between essential and supplementary. Similarly, Deconstructivist Architecture values ornamentation not as mere decoration but as a critical disruption. The “supplement” becomes the structure itself form and function intertwined in contradiction.

Ultimately, Deconstructivist Architecture transforms Derrida’s linguistic play into a spatial dialogue. Buildings no longer merely serve physical purposes; they provoke intellectual reflection. They question how humans inhabit, perceive, and interpret the built environment. In doing so, they make Derrida’s philosophical statement “meaning is always deferred” a lived, architectural experience.

8. Key Figures and Architectural Case Studies

Deconstructivist Architecture found its most expressive form through a group of visionary architects whose designs translated Derridean philosophy into spatial experience. Each of these figures embodies a different dimension of deconstruction in architecture from fragmentation and fluidity to textual complexity and memorial space.

8.1 Frank Gehry and the Fragmented Form

Frank Gehry is often seen as the face of Deconstructivist Architecture. His buildings reject symmetry, linearity, and predictable form, replacing them with chaotic yet dynamic compositions. Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (1997) is a masterclass in fragmentation a building that seems to explode outward in metallic waves. The titanium panels curve and twist unpredictably, producing a sense of movement and transformation.

Gehry’s designs visually represent Derrida’s différance meaning and form that are perpetually deferred and redefined. His Walt Disney Concert Hall (2003) in Los Angeles furthers this idea: its layered curves resemble folded pages or deconstructed fragments of sound, symbolizing architecture as a living, interpretive act. Gehry transforms instability into aesthetic power, demonstrating that chaos can itself become an ordered experience of meaning.

8.2 Zaha Hadid and the Fluid Dynamics of Space

Zaha Hadid revolutionized the architectural imagination by introducing fluid geometry and non-linear space. Her designs dissolve the rigid boundaries of form, creating continuous, flowing surfaces that evoke motion and transformation. In projects such as the Vitra Fire Station (1993) and the MAXXI Museum (2010), Hadid’s work embodies a philosophy of flux rather than fixity.

Her structures reflect Derrida’s challenge to binary oppositions inside/outside, structure/ornament, stability/movement by blurring these boundaries. Hadid’s architecture is not simply visual but philosophical: it transforms static space into a dynamic text. The viewer, like the reader of a Derridean text, must navigate layers of uncertainty and reinterpretation. As critic Patrik Schumacher notes, “Hadid turned deconstruction into an art of movement and multiplicity.”

8.3 Peter Eisenman and Architectural Textuality

Peter Eisenman stands as the most directly philosophical practitioner of Deconstructivism. Deeply influenced by Derrida, he viewed architecture as a textual practice rather than a functional craft. His designs emphasize displacement, layering, and non-referential form, creating structures that seem to question their own existence. In his House VI (1975), walls and stairs are deliberately misaligned; some lead to nowhere, others cut through living spaces defying practical use. This architectural absurdity is not error but theory: a spatial manifestation of Derrida’s idea that meaning is unstable and self-contradictory.

Eisenman’s collaboration with Derrida on Chora L Works (1987) explicitly explored the intersection of language, philosophy, and architecture. Together, they examined Plato’s concept of chora (space/receptacle), transforming it into an experiment in spatial writing. Eisenman’s buildings thus become architectural essays, performing deconstruction through structure.

8.4 Daniel Libeskind and the Architecture of Memory

Daniel Libeskind’s architecture represents the emotional and historical dimension of deconstruction. His most iconic work, the Jewish Museum in Berlin (1999), is an architectural embodiment of absence and trauma. The structure’s jagged, lightning-bolt shape symbolizes the rupture of Jewish life and culture in Germany. Inside, voids and empty corridors echo with silence, evoking the Derridean trace the haunting presence of what has been erased.

Libeskind’s design rejects harmony and continuity, using emptiness as a metaphor for collective memory. His architecture deconstructs history, forcing visitors to confront the fragmentation of identity and humanity. The Jewish Museum, in this sense, transforms Derrida’s abstract concepts into a visceral experience of loss, remembrance, and philosophical reflection.

9. Core Principles of Deconstructivist Design

Deconstructivist Architecture is not a uniform style but a philosophical and aesthetic movement defined by key design principles that parallel Derrida’s concepts of différance, trace, and decentering. These principles destabilize traditional architectural values such as symmetry, order, and functionality.

9.1 Fragmentation

Fragmentation is the cornerstone of Deconstructivist design. Instead of treating a building as a single, unified whole, architects divide it into parts that appear disjointed or incomplete. This reflects the Derridean rejection of totality and coherence. In Gehry’s and Libeskind’s works, fragmentation becomes a method of revealing the hidden instability within systems whether aesthetic, social, or historical.

9.2 Non-linearity

Traditional architecture follows linear, logical progressions of form and function. Deconstructivism subverts this by introducing disjointed geometries and unpredictable spatial sequences. Zaha Hadid’s projects, with their intersecting lines and curvilinear flows, embody non-linearity as both a design strategy and a philosophical stance mirroring Derrida’s non-linear approach to textual interpretation.

9.3 Distortion and Dislocation

Deconstructivist buildings often appear twisted, tilted, or disrupted. This intentional distortion dislocates the viewer’s sense of balance and orientation. Peter Eisenman’s misaligned structures or Hadid’s angular compositions evoke a state of perceptual tension a visual metaphor for Derrida’s dismantling of metaphysical certainties. The goal is not confusion but critical awareness of how we perceive structure and meaning.

9.4 Ambiguity and Multiplicity

Ambiguity is central to both Deconstruction and Deconstructivism. Derrida questioned stable meanings; architects translate this into spaces open to multiple interpretations. A Deconstructivist building can be read as sculpture, as philosophy, or as an emotional landscape. In this multiplicity lies its power to resist closure and provoke thought. Zaha Hadid once remarked that her architecture seeks “to liberate space from constraint.” Similarly, Derrida’s deconstruction liberates language from hierarchical meaning. Both pursuits celebrate ambiguity as a space of freedom and possibility.

10. Derridean Concepts Reflected in Architecture

The philosophical foundation of Deconstructivist Architecture lies in Jacques Derrida’s key concepts différance, trace, binary opposition, and supplementarity. These ideas, when transposed into architectural language, reconfigure how buildings are conceived, constructed, and experienced. Architecture becomes not just a physical structure but a textual space, where meaning is deferred, fragmented, and constantly reinterpreted.

10.1 Différance and Spatial Play

Derrida’s concept of différance (a deliberate misspelling of “difference”) refers to the endless deferral of meaning the idea that understanding is never complete, always postponed through a chain of interpretations. In architecture, différance manifests as spatial indeterminacy spaces that resist singular interpretation or fixed function.

Zaha Hadid’s Heydar Aliyev Center (2012) illustrates this principle vividly. The building’s flowing curves blur distinctions between wall, floor, and ceiling, creating an environment where boundaries dissolve and meaning “slides.” Similarly, Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao invites perpetual movement and reinterpretation: no single angle captures its entirety. These spaces compel the visitor to become an active “reader” of architecture experiencing différance as spatial play.

10.2 Trace and Presence in Built Forms

For Derrida, every presence carries the “trace” of what is absent meaning depends on what has been excluded or erased. Architecture, too, embodies traces: voids, gaps, and absences that give form to memory and loss. Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin is perhaps the most profound example of this idea. Its empty voids and dead-end corridors serve as architectural traces of the Holocaust making absence visible and tangible. The building’s broken geometry signifies a history that cannot be fully reconstructed. In this way, Deconstructivist Architecture transforms Derrida’s metaphysical trace into a spatial and emotional experience of history’s silences.

10.3 Binary Opposition and Structural Instability

Derrida’s deconstruction dismantles binary oppositions such as reason/emotion, form/function, or presence/absence that structure Western thought. Deconstructivist architects translate this critique into structural instability. They deliberately blur distinctions between inside and outside, order and chaos, structure and ornament. Peter Eisenman’s Wexner Center for the Arts (1989) exemplifies this destabilization. The building fuses old and new grids, creating visual and spatial dissonance. Columns that do not meet the ground, walls that intersect illogically all destabilize the very principles of architecture. The structure thus becomes a metaphor for Derrida’s philosophical project: to expose the fragility of systems that claim stability.

10.4 Supplementarity and Design Evolution

In Derrida’s thought, the supplement is something that adds to, yet also replaces, an origin revealing that the “original” was never complete. This concept revolutionizes architectural design by legitimizing improvisation, mutation, and reinterpretation. For instance, Gehry’s use of digital modeling allows continuous evolution of form, where each revision supplements rather than replaces the previous one. Similarly, Hadid’s parametric designs function as supplements to the architectural tradition expanding its vocabulary while revealing its limitations. The supplement thus becomes a creative force: architecture evolves not by perfection, but by deconstructing itself.

11. Critical Interpretations: Philosophy or Aesthetic Trend?

Deconstructivist Architecture has been celebrated for its intellectual depth and criticized for its ambiguity. Scholars and architects remain divided over whether it represents a philosophical revolution or merely an aesthetic movement exploiting the allure of chaos. Supporters, such as Mark Wigley and Peter Eisenman, argue that Deconstructivism embodies a genuine philosophical inquiry architecture as critical theory in form. Buildings no longer represent stability but expose the tensions between form, meaning, and perception. In this view, Deconstructivism is the architectural equivalent of Derrida’s textual analysis: a material expression of conceptual instability.

Critics, however, such as Kenneth Frampton, claim that Deconstructivism risks becoming a visual style divorced from its theoretical roots. They argue that while early works by Eisenman and Libeskind engaged deeply with Derridean thought, later designs by Gehry or Hadid often emphasized aesthetic spectacle over philosophical rigor. The movement, according to detractors, was co-opted by capitalism turning deconstruction into a brand rather than a critique. Nonetheless, the critical tension itself is meaningful. The debate mirrors Derrida’s own assertion that meaning can never be pure or final. Whether seen as theory or trend, Deconstructivist Architecture continues to provoke thought, challenging the notion that buildings must be functional, orderly, or transparent in meaning.

12. Deconstructivism vs. Modernism and Postmodernism

To understand the philosophical depth of Deconstructivism, it is crucial to contrast it with Modernism and Postmodernism, the two dominant architectural paradigms that preceded it.

Modernism: The Pursuit of Order

Modernist architecture, influenced by figures like Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, was rooted in rationalism and functionalism. Its central belief “form follows function” celebrated order, geometry, and clarity. The Modernist building was meant to embody truth and universality, mirroring the Enlightenment faith in reason. Deconstructivism, by contrast, rejects order as illusion. It exposes the fractures beneath modernist ideals of purity and perfection.

Postmodernism: The Play of Symbols

Postmodernism, emerging in the 1970s, reacted against Modernism’s austerity by reintroducing ornament, historical reference, and irony. Yet, Postmodern architecture often relied on surface play mixing styles for visual pleasure. Deconstructivism diverges sharply from this approach. While Postmodernism celebrates eclectic meaning, Deconstructivism interrogates the possibility of meaning itself. It does not decorate; it destabilizes.

Deconstructivism: The Architecture of Questioning

Deconstructivism thus represents a radical philosophical break. It neither worships function (like Modernism) nor celebrates irony (like Postmodernism). Instead, it questions the foundations of architectural meaning, seeking to reveal instability, multiplicity, and paradox. Buildings become sites of intellectual engagement structures that think, doubt, and reinterpret themselves. As Wigley summarized in his MoMA exhibition catalogue (1988), “Deconstructivism is not about the destruction of building, but about the building of destruction the construction of disjunction.” This inversion captures Derrida’s essence: creation through deconstruction.

13. Cultural and Psychological Dimensions of Spatial Deconstruction

Deconstructivist architecture transcends aesthetics by entering the cultural and psychological domains of human experience. It challenges the traditional notion of architecture as a means of stability and order, instead emphasizing uncertainty, fragmentation, and multiplicity. Culturally, it reflects the postmodern condition a world of shifting meanings, hybrid identities, and unstable narratives. Just as Derrida’s philosophy dismantles fixed interpretations in language, Deconstructivist spaces dismantle the illusion of structural permanence. Psychologically, these fragmented forms evoke a sense of displacement and wonder, pushing the viewer to confront their perception of space and meaning. Buildings such as Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum Berlin or Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum Bilbao create emotional encounters where memory, history, and identity are constantly negotiated through architectural form.

14. Influence of Derrida on Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Jacques Derrida’s intellectual impact on architecture extends far beyond the formal movement of Deconstructivism. His ideas of différance, trace, and supplementarity inspired architects to view design as a process of interpretation rather than representation. This shift influenced not only the physical aesthetics of buildings but also the philosophical discourse surrounding architectural theory. Peter Eisenman, in particular, collaborated directly with Derrida, exploring how textual deconstruction could translate into spatial form most notably in their Chora L Works project. Derrida’s critique of metaphysical presence encouraged architects to reject the pursuit of a singular “truth” in design, embracing instead multiplicity, contradiction, and openness to reinterpretation. Thus, contemporary architecture began to echo Derridean ethics: every structure is a text to be read, revised, and questioned.

15. Relevance of Deconstructivist Architecture in the 21st Century

In the 21st century, Deconstructivist architecture remains profoundly relevant as it mirrors the complexities of globalization, digital transformation, and cultural pluralism. The digital revolution has enabled architects to push the boundaries of form and abstraction through parametric and algorithmic design practices that resonate deeply with the Derridean notions of instability and transformation. Moreover, the Deconstructivist approach aligns with contemporary debates about sustainability, inclusivity, and the democratization of urban spaces, as it encourages critical questioning of established norms. Architects today employ deconstructive principles not merely for visual experimentation but as a form of cultural critique dismantling traditional hierarchies of design, power, and meaning. Thus, Deconstructivism continues to function as both an aesthetic and philosophical mode of engagement with modernity.

16. Conclusion: The Space of Thought and the Architecture of Meaning

Deconstructivist architecture emerges as more than an artistic style; it is a spatial manifestation of Derrida’s philosophical revolution. By translating deconstruction into built form, architects have reimagined space as an open field of meaning, where structure and instability coexist. The movement blurs the line between thought and matter, theory and construction, suggesting that architecture like language is never complete or fixed. Each fragmented wall, dislocated axis, and distorted geometry becomes a metaphor for the instability of meaning itself. Ultimately, Deconstructivist architecture invites both architects and spectators to inhabit the very space of thought a terrain where questioning replaces certainty, and where architecture becomes a living discourse rather than a static object.

Words: 3,853

17. References

Astbury, Jon, et al. "Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum is a "foreboding experience."" Dezeen, 20 May 2022, https://www.dezeen.com/2022/05/20/daniel-libeskind-jewish-museum-deconstructivist-archit ecture/. Accessed 4 November 2025.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Hopkins, Owen. "Dezeen's introduction to deconstructivist architecture." Dezeen, 3 May 2022, https://www.dezeen.com/2022/05/03/deconstructivist-architecture-introduction/. Accessed 4 November 2025.
Johnson, Philip. Deconstructivist Architecture. Museum of Modern Art, 1990.
Libeskind, Daniel. Breaking Ground: Adventures in Life and Architecture. Riverhead Books, 2004.
Naas, Michael, et al. "Jacques Derrida (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 22 November 2006, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec. Accessed 4 November 2025.
Sharma, Khyati, et al. "CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DECONSTRUCTIVISM; A STUDY OF ITS APPLICATIONS AND IMPACT ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT." International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1,2023, https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23A1544.pdf?fbclid. Accessed 4 November 2025
Wigley, Mark. The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida’s Haunt. MIT Press, 1993.

Parthiv Solanki

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

Assignment: Paper 204: Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies