From the title ‘Pedagogic’, one would assume that the text relates to anything about being a teacher. It’s
a text that is not easy to interpret which makes it an interesting subject to deconstruct. In “Pedagogic”, Cirilo F. Bautista makes use of techniques that make it seem that the text is prepared for deconstruction. The objective of this analysis is to learn more about the possibilities of what the author might want to convey by analyzing the poem using the deconstruction theory.
First, is the interpretation of “I walked towards the falling woods to teach the trees all that I could (1)”.
Here, the narrator is introduced as the protagonist of the text. The second thing to notice are the words “falling woods (1)” the text could have been fine without the word “falling” added to it. The author could have added it just to match the rhythm of the poem, but it turns out that the words “falling woods (1)” makes sense because it might be referring to the philosophical thought experiment titled “If a tree falls in a forest” which is often summarized as a question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” which fits the poem since it essentially gives information on whom the narrator and the trees might be. But deconstructing the statement also shows us the possible interpretations aside from this. Since the word “falling” lacks a lot of modifiers to it, multiple possibilities of its meaning arise: from falling, as in falling in a trap, to move down, or as in falling leaves, or as in falling to the knees. Another word that can be deconstructed here is “teach” because aside from its original meaning that is, to impart knowledge to someone, it could also mean punishment.
The next intriguing line is “They stood with their fingers flaming, / listened to me with a serious mien. (5-6)” Notable is the words “stood with their fingers flaming. (5)” Interpreting this line, it most likely means that the trees are very curious and enthusiastic to learn. Pointing their fingers everywhere and asking him questions like “what is this called” “why does it look like that” etc. Deconstructing this will change its meaning again from the trees being interested with learning to the trees learning how to blame. Because now, they learned how to point their fingers to someone. “I was sure that they were learning- / till one tree spoke, speaking in dolor, / to ask why I never changed color. (9-11)” Interpreting this, it could mean that the trees in the end discriminated against him because he’s different from them. Ignoring everything he has done just because he’s different, he isn’t qualified.
But deconstructing it, learning could mean the word as in the result of punishment which would change the message of the poem. Telling us that punishment is that he punished the trees and that they didn’t learn even after the punishment. Showing us that it’s not how teachers should teach their students. His disappointment that the trees didn’t learn could also mean that they already know everything he taught them. Hence, why they mistake him for a tree.
Pedagogic is a word pertaining to a teacher. This means that the word describes the action of the narrator. That he taught like a teacher. And according to the text, he did teach like a teacher. But what if the title actually pertains to his journey, because of what he did, he learned something. And he calls his journey of teaching the trees to be “Pedagogic” because the title is supposed to describe his experience. These are the potential interpretations one can have when interpreting the meaning of the title.
Like all text, “Pedagogic” falls apart when deconstructed. There are a lot of things that can be interpreted
from this poem. But that’s not all, in part 1 of the discussion, the words “fingers flaming (5)” was explained and interpreted. Then deconstructed like the other parts of the text. Now let’s stop for a second and think, would there be a difference if we deconstruct first before interpreting in comparison to interpreting and then deconstructing? Even more interesting is the question: Can we deconstruct ideas that are in our head? Because if we think about it, the process that we used: First, fingers flaming in its literal form (without interpretation) then, the interpretation where we learn its meaning – even without any words to describe what it is, we already get the idea, and it’s already in our mind. And then, the deconstruction comes. Are we capable of deconstructing it because it’s in our head or because we’ve seen it in paper/language? Do we think of the idea using the language that we know or is it something else? Do humans have their own internal “language” that is used for thinking? Fingers flaming, in its interpreted form, gives us a solid idea of what it is. And that’s what Pedagogic tells us. When deconstructing
a word, the deconstruction returns other words. But interpreting a word, returns ideas.
So the final question would be: Can we deconstruct an interpretation?
By deconstructing a text, the goal is to not point out mistakes in writing but to judge how well a text used
language to convey its meaning from the author to the reader with as little deviation as possible. Every text will fall apart with deconstruction but not all text deconstructs easily. Some texts get a better chance to convey the author’s intended meaning to the reader.
Pedagogic is a well-made poem by its author who most likely took into account the people deconstructing his work. This can be proven by his use of words that are hard to be misinterpreted like “mien (6)” and “dolor (10)”. Although upon deconstructing the text, the poem becomes too blurry to be said that it only has one meaning, it’s still an excellent piece because it teaches us about the potential mysteries of deconstruction.
Deconstructing the text gives us a better way of appreciating the poem. Once again, deconstruction proves to be another way of exploring the ideas of the text and appreciating its beauty.
