Disorganized Ramblings

I’ll just be dumping my thoughts here. I may revise them if I read a bit more of Derrida’s stuff. I’ve seen a number of videos and rants by other anime fans complaining about someone else’s application of the word “deconstruction” to anime shows like Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Evangelion, etc, while citing RGU (Utena) as one of the few shows to “deconstruct its tropes.” It is somewhat amusing to see hardlined stances on this issue, because Derrida of all people would definitely have wanted his own theories to be set in stone (might need to watch my use of irony). 

It leads me to wonder if RGU is even deconstructionist, and if not that then what would it be instead? Maybe it will be helpful to look at what deconstruction is, based on my own perspective, one that can’t be considered a meta-stance or objective. Honestly, a show would have to do a bit more than just take apart its tropes, analyse, and commentate on them. This, as some of you may know, is just criticism. Critical analysis involves taking apart the components of a story, analysing, and commenting on them. This is not exactly the same as a deconstruction. A deconstruction involves identifying specific binary opposites looking closely at them, and failing to find meaning or objective direction. 

Binary opposition is thought to give meaning in structuralist theory, while post structuralism serves to undermine this opposition arguing that instead binary opposites be seen as “different” an utterly neutral term with no stakes and no favor. 

The binary opposites, male and female, deconstructed by Derrida himself, remains an important aspect of feminism, and in fact this deconstruction may be mentioned and explored in RGU, but I don’t really think that comprises the primary focus of the show. The binary opposites, control vs liberty, seem to take prevalence in RGU, and as original TV series nears it’s end there really isn’t much of a deconstructivist stance to be seen. Control is almost always painted in a negative light, and the ultimate resolution of the show, that is Anthy telling off Akio and liberating herself, seems to heavily favor the latter option. Utena doesn’t save Anthy by simply taking her by the arm, out of her situation. That would have replaced one controlled structure with another, albeit more benign one. 

Utena saves Anthy by inspiring in her the courage necessary for independence, and the important point is that Utena is not present when Anthy finally stands up for herself, and essentially frees herself from her bounds. 

Perhaps there is a separate binary opposition present, although it’s not exactly clear to me. This might be, prince vs witch. The narrative is sort of presented as, Akio the prince, falls from grace because of the witch. The fact that Utena, also the prince, saves the witch rather than killing her, could be seen as a deconstruction of this opposition, as it would obviously no longer exist. The image of the prince is also called into question. Utena, not being male embodies the prince not through her own nobility, class, or patriarchal identity, but through her heroism and sacrifice. This has been further commented on by scholars. 

So is the show a deconstruction? Tbh it’s complicated, though I would argue that the final resolution of the show is more revisionist than it is deconstructivist. The prince is a pink haired girl, the villain is another image of the prince (patriarchy), and the salvation of the rose bride is her own liberty and independence. Offering and arguing for a better alternative is not the same as french philosophers throwing their hands in the air and announcing their failure to find meaning in the opposition.