Break It Down Now! The Fun and Games of Deconstructionist Theory · 6:29pm Apr 4th, 2016
I'm an English major (shocking, I know) who's studied quite a bit of literary theory. I've learned about all sorts of things, from feminist and Marxist theory to postcolonial and queer theory, but nothing interests me quite so much as deconstructionist theory. However, for some strange reason, most people seem to find it confusing. I mean, just because most of the terminology was created by French guys who throw around terms like "differance" and "panopticon" without a second glance doesn't mean it's "hard," per se. I think I can boil it down into three key points: the distribution of power, the creation of dichotomies, and the contradiction inherent to words. To demonstrate what I mean, let's deconstruct the subtitle of the show: "Friendship is Magic."
First, the distribution of power. Deconstructionists are really interested in the way people in power choose the words that define society. For example, Michel Foucault noticed how people who in the past would have been thought of as prophets or mystics are now considered mentally unhealthy and put into mental institutions. They're the same people, but the powers that be have changed the way they're viewed just through the words used to describe them. In the same way, let's look at that first word in the title: "Friendship." Who decides what the word "friend" means? After all, Twilight was perfectly content with the way her relationships are set up in the pilot. She has people she interacts with: Twinkleshine, Moondancer, Spike, Celestia, Shining Armor, and Cadance. Yet because she's an introvert, because she cares about her studies more than she cares about ponies, her relationships are discounted. It's extroverts who have the power here to define what is or isn't "friendship," and Twilight's version is considered improper. On another note, it's really interesting to me how Celestia's exhortation is to "make some friends." "Make friends" is an active verb, yet Twilight doesn't actually take any action to do so. She doesn't actually make any friends; instead, she is "made friends of." Each time Twilight meets a new pony, it's that new pony who defines what the meaning of their friendship is. Applejack calls her "part of the family;" Rainbow Dash calls her "a laugh;" Rarity calls her "the best of friends, you and I," and so on. Again, Twilight is never allowed to define her own friendships, make her own boundaries. Her wishes and desires are trampled over in pursuit of society's definition of what "friendship" should be.
Next, the inherent contradiction of words. Deconstruction mainly exists as a response to an earlier theory called "structuralism," which tries to create a one-to-one relationship between a word you've used and the thing you're referring to in real life. Deconstructionists, however, notice how the choice of word is entirely arbitrary, and in fact can contradict itself in its own definition. For example, let's look at that last word, "Magic." What does it mean by that? In our universe, "Magic" means something that cannot be understood, something mystical and powerful and spiritual. This seems to be what they mean in the title. At the start of the story, Twilight doesn't understand friendship, and in fact, it's something which can't be taught. She only learns it through a sudden, serendipitous "spark." It's clearly magic, something that transcends normal understanding and changes her almost completely. Great, so magic is something beyond understanding. ...Except in Equestria, "magic" is something that can be understood. Twilight's special talent is magic; she has diligently researched it since she was very young. Magic is, in fact, the most basic, simple day-to-day experience which everypony understands, be they earth pony, unicorn, or pegasus. And clearly, friendship is magic in this sense, too. Twilight learns friendship by interacting with ponies in her normal routine. She already knew everything about it, but just needed to spend time with ponies to really get it down. So magic is simple and easy to understand. ...Wait, we just contradicted ourselves. How can magic be both understandable and impossible to understand? How can it be something she learned and something she didn't learn? The word, the very concept, is a false one. It refers to nothing. (Oh, and I can do this for "friendship," too. In the pilot, "friend" refers to everyone from Spike, her closest confidante whom she's known for his entire life, to one of the ponies at her party, a pony she literally has not met or learned the name of. The word "friend" refers to both someone she knows and someone she doesn't know; a contradiction.)
Finally, the creation of dichotomies. A dichotomy is a black-and-white separation; if something is A, it cannot be not-A, and vice-versa. Because we're so immersed in our language, we don't notice that these dichotomies are false. To show what I mean, let's look at the word I haven't discussed yet, "is." (Seriously, I'm going there.) The word "is" works to establish a truth about the world. "Friendship," whatever that is, has the property of, or is the same thing as, "magic." Ignoring for a second that I already disproved that either of those words mean anything, notice what this claim implies. All friendships must be magic; if it isn't, it's not a "true" friendship. Does that mean all friendships must be like the ones on the show? What are the requirements that make a friendship magic? An emotional spark binding you together? A series of difficult trials that force you to cooperate and learn each other's strengths and weaknesses? Meeting people who embody specific virtuous traits? Tons of friendships don't have that; in fact, tons of friendships in the show don't have any of those. For example, Maud's friendship with the non-Pinkie main characters, or Moondancer's friendship with Twilight. Are those friendships actually magic then, despite not having the same characteristics as the central friendships? Or are they not real friendships? Either answer has its own problems. Instead, a deconstructionist would argue that the dichotomy isn't realistic. You can have friendships that aren't magic, or magical relationships that aren't friendships. Friendship is not, in fact, magic.
So there you have it. That's sort of the basis behind deconstructionist analysis. We look at the way words relate to each other and notice the inherent power dynamics and inconsistencies demonstrated therein. I... think the ultimate goal is to be a nihilist and say, "Words have no meaning, everyone's just talking around each other, and there's no purpose in communication," but I don't really agree with that. I just think it's fun to toy around with language like that. 
In writing this post, I noticed a curious problem. In the second part, where I show that words are contradictions, I demonstrate that "magic" means both "magic" and "not-magic," thus truly meaning nothing. However, in the very next paragraph, I discuss breaking out of dichotomies, which is exactly what "magic/non-magic" is. Don't those two methods conflict with each other?
Sort of. They're part of the same coin. When you have that struggle between two definitions of a word, you can either show they contradict (like "magic" and "non-magic"), or you can show that the two meanings actually exist along a spectrum (like "magical friendships exist" and "non-magical friendships do not exist"). Basically, you can do either one, depending on what you're trying to prove. For the "magic" one, I'm trying to show that the word "magic" doesn't have a coherent meaning; in the "friendship is magic" one, I'm trying to show that the relationship between friendship and magic doesn't work by showing the spectrum within "friendships with magic" and "non-friendships without magic." Hope that makes sense!
This post would blow Twilight's mind.
3848534
Seriously, isn't that fun? Got anything else you'd like me to deconstruct?