Post on 21-Jan-2016
description
Poststructuralist (Deconstructive) approach to Tariq Rahman’s short story “Bingo”
Jawairia Munir
UMT, Lahore
1
Abstract
The aim of this research study is to apply the three stage model of Poststructuralist /
deconstructive process, as proposed by Barry (2002), on a literary text, i.e. short story. For this
purpose Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo” has been selected and analysed using this model of literary
stylistics theory. Firstly, at the verbal stage contradictory words are selected and analysed in
isolation and their subconscious meanings are identified. Secondly at the textual stage those
statements and utterances are analysed that reflect diversion of ideas on the part of the writer. At
this stage conflicting theme and ideas are focused instead of words in isolation. And finally at the
linguistic stage the surface meaning of the whole short story is called into question and is found
as contradictory to the hidden and unconscious meaning. The deconstructive analysis shows that
various words and phrases in “Bingo” show the slippery and fluid nature of language for
example; the title “Bingo” itself does not adhere to the text. Furthermore, there are other
contradictory statements as “I think this is a race of slaves”, --- They were not slaves it seemed”,
“he took his paw in his big hand”, etc. At the surface level the narrator shows his disliking for
the Bingos but at deeper level he creates a sort of affection and respect for them in the readers’
hearts. So the story is found to say things that are unsaid and sometimes it does not say anything
but everything is said instead.
Keywords: Post-structuralist; deconstruction; deconstructive analysis; verbal stage; textual
stage; linguistic stage; bingo.
2
Introduction
This research study is an application of three stage model of Poststructuralist / deconstructive
process proposed by Barry (2002) on Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo”.
Different literary critics define deconstruction differently but most of them believe that it started
as a reaction against structuralism in early nineties (Mills, 2003). It is closely tied with Derrida’s
deconstruction (Werlock, 2009). Derrida coined this term and he is the major and most
significant representative of this philosophical movement (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2007 that
challenges and contradicts all the past beliefs and ideologies. Deconstruction is one of the most
important features of post-structuralism that applies different tools to analyse the literary texts
(Lashari & Awan, 2012).
The theory of deconstruction was initiated by Barthes (1968) with “The death of the author and
later on became fully popular with the literary works of Derrida (1966) who, in his lecture on
“Structure, Sign and the Play in the Discourse of human sciences”, claims that there are no
absolute or fixed points in the universe; it is decentred and relativistic (Dean, 2005) and man
does a sort of “free play” in it, which Derrida remarks as “liberating” (Barry, 2002) following
Barthes’ analogy who in “The death of the author” announces “freedom” from all textual
restraints (Kafeer, 1995).
Deconstruction is, in fact, based on the philosophy of Nietzsche’s famous remark “There are no
facts, only interpretations” (Barry, 2002; Deleuze, 2006). “Words are containers of meanings”
and meanings can be “put into or retrieved from words” (Sin, 2002). Words can elicit many
different interpretations. In that deconstruction contradicts the fixity of meaning in structuralism.
The major focus of deconstruction is to criticize “Logocentrism” and to refute the origin and
presence of metaphysics (Culler, 1983). There is no textual centre or fixity. The words are
3
pluralistic and multiple in their meanings, referring not only to whatever is present in the text,
but also to what they refer to outside the text (McGuire & Jorgensen, 2010). Deconstruction
finds out the unfixed meanings; finds untruths behind the truths; ambiguities behind the
expressions (Lashari & Awan, 2007). It claims that this is a decentred universe and all reality is
a lie; The truth is not “truth” in “reality” but only propagated as “truth”; It preaches multiple
realities, multiple truths and multiple identities and is against one centre and one consumer
culture. It accepts no past theory of knowledge. All the accepted and established beliefs and
ideologies of the past are challenged as well as rejected. Its proponents claim that deconstruction
is the only construction (Bauman, 1992).
According to the theory of deconstruction culture is relativised. Morality is privatised. What is
right for one may not be right for others. Religion is also considered a private matter (Ven &
Ziebertz, 2012) people have very little association with their fellow beings. Standards of
moralities have become different. Identities are conflicting. It demystifies natural origins and
physical essences (Epstein, 1999) and this process has no limit.
Barry (2002) describes the theory of deconstruction as “applied post-structuralism”.
Deconstruction and post structuralism are often used synonymously in the literary criticism
(Cicora, 2000).
Literary critics do not agree on one definition of deconstruction. Derrida (1978) himself
describes that deconstructive reading has a sort of relationship between ‘what the writer
commands and what he does not command’, though this relationship is unperceived by the
writer. However, Hannack & Taylor (2001) define deconstruction as “a methodological strategy
which seeks to uncover layers of hidden meaning in a text which have been denied or
suppressed”. Text is a cultural product resulted as a social interaction and its true meaning is
4
suppressed inside the layers with the analogy of Freudian concept of dreams as the expression of
the unconscious or suppressed desires (Freud, 1900). Deconstruction is the process in which the
literary critics deconstruct the literary and linguistic texts.
Johnson (1980) opines that Derrida’s deconstruction is much closer to the word “analysis”,
which etymologically means “to undo”, and this “deconstruction of a text does not proceed by
random doubt or arbitrary subversion, but by the careful teasing out of warring forces of
signification within the test”. The text is at war with itself and multiple meanings may be
inferred after a close textual analysis (Barry, 2002). Moreover Cuddon (1991) asserts that in
deconstruction a text says “something quite different from what it appears to be saying”. He
further says that literary text may look apparently as giving “single stable meanings” but in
reality they carry plurality of meanings which can be different and contradictory to one another.
According to Barry (2002) “Signs float free of what they designate, meanings are fluid and
subject to a constant slippage and spillage”. He further says that meanings are not “pure” and
“are always contaminated by their opposites”. Deconstruction talks about binary oppositions in
language like day/night, light/dark, male/female, good/bad, in which meaning of one cannot be
determined without the reference of the other. But in deconstruction the polarity of these
common binary oppositions is reversed, in which the second term is more desirable and more
privileged (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2007).
The theory of deconstruction became highly popular (Carroll, 1990) in the literary circles and
many post structuralist literary critics were engaged in the task of deconstructing the texts,
‘reading against the grain’ or ‘reading the text against itself’ the purpose of which is ‘knowing
the text as it cannot know itself’ (Eagleton in Barry, 2002). So, the text is at war against itself
and it uncovers the “underlying unconscious dimension of the author” (Derrida, (1978).
5
Derrida's well known phrase ‘There is nothing outside the text’ is widely quoted and interpreted
by the literary critics. So with Derrida this term came into vogue and many critics began to
deconstruct the texts afterwards following his footsteps.
Barry (2002) proposes these three stages --- verbal, textual and the linguistic to deconstruct the
texts. In the verbal stage the words are studied in isolation, with the concept that they do not
contain pure or fixed meanings, but rather, they represent contradictions and paradoxes in a text.
It reveals binary oppositions and slipperiness of the language being used. In the textual stage
overall meaning of the text is identified. It also analyses shifting meanings, textual contradictions
and the continuity of the texts. The linguistic stage calls into question the trustworthiness and
reliability of language being used in a literary text. It represents in language what it does not
intend to present. It calls into question “the adequacy of language itself as a medium of
communication.
Barry (2002 applies this three stage model on a poem by Dylan Thomas 'A refusal to mourn the
death, by fire, of a child in London'. He identifies the binaries, contradictions and paradoxes used
in this poem revealing “major time shifts and changes in viewpoint, and that there is no smooth
chronological progression (Barry, 2002). There are also many omissions in the poem that do not
tell things we expect to be told. For example the poet does not tell us why he refuses to mourn
the death of that child but at the same time we find him mourning although he claims not to
mourn. Barry further says that the poet “identifies the language trap, and then falls into it”.
Lashari & Awan, (2012) have applied this three stage model as proposed by Barry (2002) on
“The cow” by Firdous Haider (1994). After a comprehensive three stage analysis they conclude
that the text of this story fails to dig out and convey single meaning from the sign, signifier and
6
signified. The language conveys various unstable messages and meanings, so it can be called
chaotic rather than trustworthy.
In the deconstruction of this short story “Bingo” the text will be deconstructed into bits and
pieces and then analysed using “three stages of deconstructive process” as proposed by Barry
(2002).
Tariq Rahman is a well known Professor of Sociolinguistics at the Beaconhouse National
University, Lahore. He is a highly published scholar and has been a guest professor in Denmark
and Spain. He is the author of three collections of short stories. His short stories are brief which
mirror Pakistani society as being prone to social inequality and brutality. The writer develops the
short stories craftily from everyday events reflecting back the foibles and contradictions of
human beings. “Bingo”, which is set in East Pakistan---now Bangladesh, is the most pathetic and
impressive story from these collections. All his short stories are written in English.
Discussion
Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo” is an impressive and pathetic story with the background theme of 1971
war between Pakistan and India. It mirrors contempt and hatred of West Pakistanis against the
East Pakistanis now Bangladesh. The story revolves around two military cadets Safeer and
Tajassur who are under training to become commissioned officers in the army and later on
posted in the East Pakistan during the war of 1971. The narrator is Safeer who is obtuse,
diplomatic, jealous of his fellow cadet Tajassur, and contemptible of all Bengalis. While Tajassur
(a Bengali) is a good-natured and kind hearted person who always suffers due to his lively
nature. To make fun of his Bengali companion Safeer calls him Bingo. Safeer is against
Bengalis and kills several Bengalis and dishonours their girls when in East Pakistan. But one day
he is taken prisoner and a Bangladeshi army officer passes the sentence of death on him. He
7
undergoes a psychological crisis and understands that the Bengalis too were fighting for what
they considered worth preserving. At this juncture he’s taken out of the prison and taken home
by Tajassur, who is now an officer in the Bangladesh army. At Tajassur’s home Safeer
understands the essential humanity of the Bengalis, fall in love with Tajassur’s sister, and
become more understanding. A captain of special services group breaks into the house and kills
Tajassur’s sister and Tajassur. Safeer kills Tajassur’s mother to end her agony at her son and
daughter’s deaths. They go back but by this time Bangladesh is free and the Pakistan Army has
surrendered. Whole the story reflects Safeer’s psychological conflict in liking and disliking of
Tajassur. At the end Safeer shows his deep love for Bingos but at the expense of their death.
In the application of the first stage of verbal analysis, the words are studied in isolation from
other linguistic items and their subconscious or hidden meanings are identified. This analysis
reveals various contradictions and fluidity of meanings in the text under discussion. For example
in “BINGO”
Safeer and Tajassur
Safeer and Tajassur represent two entirely different entities. Although they are two individual
characters, they represent two different worldviews. Safeer is egoist, callous and suffers
superiority complex while his fellow cadet Tajassur is humble, lively and helpful person who is
always ready to please others. Each of the characters can be studied under the shadow of the
other. In the text the character of Tajassur is more desirable honoured and privileged than that of
Safeer. Through these characters the writer represents two conflicting parts of Pakistan (West
Pakistan and East Pakistan). Both these characters portray the actual feelings of their respective
regions and peoples during the war of 1971 between Pakistan and India as a result of which East
Pakistan became Bangla Desh.
8
upto our neck in the soup
The above utterance is unclear although seems to be an idiomatic expression. How can a man get
into the soup upto his neck? But instead he can get into trouble. May be the writer has coined this
idiomatic phrase translating the Urdu idiom (gerdan tk dhans jana) in English under the influence
of his native Pakistani culture. May be the writer is using the soup in place of trouble with the
analogy of helpless chickens that can be found in the soup. This utterance portrays helplessness
of the cadets during training when they could do nothing in response of the punishments that
were inflicted upon them by their seniors.
the whole army spat on its hands and got down to the onerous task of making a soldier out of
him.
Again we find an unclear statement. How can the whole army spit on its hands. When army is
used as a collective noun (given to a group of specific people) it can not possess hands.
Individuals in the army have hands so this statement might be true if it was written as “the whole
army spat on their hands”. Secondly this phrase “spat on its hands” is ambiguous that invites
multiple meaning. It can mean ‘taking an oath’, “preparation to do something” as the players spit
on their hands when they are ready to do something important in the game. It may mean
determination on the part of army to make Tajassur a good soldier. This phrase shows the
floating nature of language in both spillage and slippage of the meanings in the text.
He was a Bingo
The word Bingo in the above phrase is ambiguous. Bingo is the name of the game which is
played by cards. It is the game of chance, a type of lottery. It is used as the simplest form of
gambling in some areas of the world. In the above utterance how can a man be a bingo --- a
game? He is a human not a game. He is called Bingo perhaps because seniors and army officers
9
used to play with and make fun of Tajassur. They used to beat and him out of enjoyment and
sometimes out of embarrassment.
the colonel was as serious as church as he took his paw in his big hand
In the above utterance “his paw” is ambiguous. Paw is supposed to be of a dog or any other
primate, but here it refers to the hand of Tajassur. This word refers to all the humiliation and
disgust of the narrator of the story for his Bengali counterpart.
We better roast your Bingo friends alive
“Roast” is ambiguous. Roast is the word used with reference of food not with that of humans. It
has nothing to do with firing. Roast is to bake, fry or grill food especially meat but how can
humans be roasted alive. Even the animals are not roasted alive. First they are cut into pieces and
then roasted. Furthermore this roast can be taken as the literal translation of an Urdu word
/bhu:nәna/ that can be used as the synonymous of “fire at” someone or something. The word has
been deliberately used to produce the desired effects and impressions.
But where is your conscience?
In the above statement Tajassur invites the conscience of Safeer who hates and humiliates
Bingos and disgraces their girls without any reason. This can be the conscience of Pakistani
people who held themselves superiors to Bengalis. This conscience may refer that both these
characters are at the trial of their consciousness. Both think they are right in whatever they are
doing. Here conscience can be referred to the political consciousness of West Pakistan that was
causing havoc in Bengal. There is another pattern of meaning in this utterance. East Pakistan and
West Pakistan both got independence under one banner. Both are fighting for the same cause to
gain control over the whole country. Whatever each of them thinks right for herself, thinks
wrong for the other. So it is a touching dilemma.
10
Can’t you see that this lovely lush-green land is under hobnailed boots.
‘Under the hobnailed boots’ in the above expression is ambiguous that symbolises different
meanings. It is unbelievable to have a whole valley under hobnailed boots. Firstly there cannot
be a boot so large that can take a whole valley under it. That must be of some giant. Secondly
hobnailed boots are usually worn by army men. It refers to the fact that Bengal was trespassed
by the army against the wishes of her people. It also symbolises the oppression that was enforced
by the military officials of West Pakistan in the East Pakistan.
I got my first girl too one day
The phrase ‘my first girl’ elicits that there were many other girls that followed the first.
Bangla Desh was free and the Pakistan Army had surrendered.
This last line of the story elicits many meanings. Tajassur represents Bangladesh in the story. He
bears all the pains and trials inflicted upon him by Pakistani army and at the end dies at their
hands. His death shows freedom from humility, disgrace and pains that he suffers during his
short life. Similarly Bangladesh was free after suffering so much humiliation and disgrace from
Pakistani army and people. The surrender of Pakistani army at the end portrays the defeat and
surrender of Safeer at the end of story. Safeer does not like Bingos. Throughout the story he
shows his contempt and hatred and disgrace against them but at the end he surrenders before the
love and kindness of Tajassur. He begins loving Bingos but at the expense of their death.
The above discussion shows that language does not reflect whatever is there in the world. Rather
it creates its own world. It is the first step of “going against the grain” to identify the difference
and deference in the text as proposed by Derrida (1978).
In the second textual stage overall meaning of ‘Bingo’ is identified by analysing shifting
meanings, textual contradictions, the tension of ideas, breaks, and the discontinuity of the texts.
11
The title of the story is surprising as Bingo actually denotes a game but in the whole story there
is no mention of this game. Here ‘Bingo’ refers to a person belonging to Bangladesh. This person
has again nothing to do with the game Bingo. So the title does not belong to the story as it does
not refer to any bingo game but the writer is putting his own meaning to it --- that is a man who
belongs to Bengal. The writer shifts the meaning of the word ‘Bengali’ to the word ‘Bingo’ and
assigns it a new meaning. So the word Bingo acts as a container in which any meaning can be
put by the author.
There are certain expressions which are contradictory to one another. In one paragraph Safeer
says about Tajassur that He was a sub-human creature but in the next paragraph he says if one
talked to him he smiled and spoke nicely even afterwards he says he was so lively and soft-
spoken. All the above utterances reveal contradictory notions of the narrator about Tajassur. It
also shows that the text is fluid, floating and is at war against itself. Any meaning can be
retrieved from the text or any other meaning can be given to it. It also shows that text can reveal
contradictory notions about different characters within it.
At another place in the story the writer calls Bengal a Marshland as I went a step further and
called him a Marshland minion. ---- and since all his land was marshland so __ the title while at
another place he says this lovely lush green land is under the hobnailed boots. So the writer’s
view about Bengal is contradictory.
Again we find contradictory statement about the Bengali people. Safeer and other Pakistani
Army officials treated the East Pakistan as their colony. As Safeer says “I think this is a race of
slaves”. And later on we find a Bengali Major blaming Safeer to treat them as slaves when he
was caught a prisoner in the following way: “You are colonists like French in Algeria and the
12
Belgians in Congo”. But later in the story we find a contradictory statement from Safeer as “They
were not slaves it seemed”.
In the other paragraph there are again contradictory statements. At one place Safeer says I hated
these Bengali bastards. I hated them all --- and later on when he finds his Bengali companion
Tajassur standing before him he states I put my arms around his neck and almost stifled him --- I
kissed him on the cheek. All the above examples show how the text contradicts itself and how the
writer’s attitude shifts from one idea to the other. It also reveals the disunity of the text in the
guise of unity.
The linguistic stage calls into question the trustworthiness and reliability of language being used
in a literary text. It represents in language what it does not intend to present. It calls into question
“the adequacy of language itself as a medium of communication” (Barry, 2002).
The story’s title Bingo was given to a Bengali to show the contempt and humiliation of West
Pakistanis against Bengali people but after reading the story Bingo incites our love and affection
towards them. The reader can declare in praise --- What a Bingo he is! It compels the readers to
sympathise with the people of Bengal at their suffering during the war of 1971.
In the story the narrator Safeer relates all the incidents according to his own point of view. He
exhibits all his hatred and contempt against his Bengali friend but inwardly he impresses the
readers by describing his good qualities. He is employing the rhetorical strategies in his
narration.
Bingo is full of lines that reveal Pakistani army’s hatred, disdain and rather sarcasm towards
Bengalis. They made fun of Bengalis. They called them “Bingos” out of mockery and contempt.
We find Safeer repeatedly saying:
“Bingos were dirty ---- stubborn Bingos----or-----bloody Bingos”
13
He does not even consider them humans and calls them Apes, inhuman, animals---- or----dogs
They looked like animals--- their animal faces scared me --- whimpered like dogs--- stupid
wretch cried out in fear--- chickens with the heads cut off--- an expert in bringing in Bingos as a
net brings in fish --- but actually in spite of all this hatred and inhuman attitude against Bingos
the story compels its readers to think that Bengalis are also very much humans. They are not
animals and should not be treated like that. They are lovable and very kind hearted people. They
are also worthy of respect as any other nation and are inferior to none.
The story reveals the writer’s stance that Bengali people should not be blamed at their demand of
independence. In fact their demands were not dealt with suitably that led them to declare Bangla
Desh as an independent state. In this way he took a different position on this issue from other
Pakistani writers. In one of his interviews Rehman suggests to read the hamood Rehman
Commission report regarding this issue. He says that reading this report we can see why “bones
were crushed for raising slogans”. He further states “we cannot mend those bones but we should
confront the ghosts of our past” to learn a lesson.
“Bingo” portrays misery and disgrace of the people of Bengal at the hands of Pakistani army.
The whole story describes the miserable events. The degree of misery increases as the story
proceeds further and heightens at the end with the cutting deaths of Bengalis and Tajassur
himself along with his whole family. But the ending line of the story shows the end of miseries
and suffering of Bengali people which reads --- Bangla Desh was free---.
“Bingo” is written in the form of dialogues and in the English that is typically spoken and
written in Pakistan. Therefore it is full of expressions such as
“Staff and seniors are allowed to nab him by the neck”,
“He was quite a kid and kids can’t get serious about politics and such like grown up things”
14
“That’s a fat-headed thing to say”
“We had better roast your Bingo friends alive.”
“Major Ali Ahmad was an expert in bringing in Bingos as a net brings in fish”
“I was given a blow on the head which made everything go dark in front of me”.
The language inevitably shows the stamp of Pakistani culture and local, indigenous habits of
speech both in form and use.
He has used military jargon that runs throughout the story. It adds flavour to the textual
language. It also adds to the authenticity and effectiveness of linguistic impressions.
Conclusion
Deconstructive analysis of Tariq Rahman’s Bingo shows that the meaning of language is not
fixed but rather it is fluid. It conveys multiple meanings which can be quite opposite of one
another. De Saussure’s idea that word cannot give meaning in isolation is questioned as the data
analysis shows that words can give meanings in isolation and that can be multiple meanings.
From that it shows that language is pluralistic in nature. Deconstruction rejects De Saussure’s
theory of signification that sign, signifier and signified contain single fixed meaning. It
propagates that one signifier can represent many signified concepts. So the application of three
stage deconstructive model proposed by Barry (2002) on Bingo reveals this pluralistic nature of
language. These three stages of textual analysis are verbal, textual and linguistic. The application
of these three stages on “Bingo” reveals that language is not fixed nor it contains a single stable
message. Rather it pluralistic in nature. It contains several meanings that make it ambiguous. Its
fluid nature makes it flexible and its meanings can go on and on till infinity. Thus, in that
context, The verbal level shows the slippery and fluid nature of language. The ideas are floating
and the words do not represent what they are meant to represent. The textual stage also shows
15
that there are various utterances that are contradictory to one another. Whatever the writer says in
one statement is contradictory what he says in the other statement. Then there are concepts that
do not adhere to the text and its meaning like the concept of “Bingo”. Then there are
contradictory and ambiguous statements as “I think this is a race of slaves”, They were not
slaves it seemed”, “he took his paw in his big hand”, upto our neck in the soup”, etc. All this
analysis shows the unfixed nature of language. Finally the linguistic stage reveals the things
unsaid in the literary text. At a surface level the narrator shows his disliking for the Bingos but at
the deeper level the story creates a sort of affection and respect for them in the hearts of the
reader. So the story is found to say things that are unsaid and sometimes it does not say anything
but everything is said instead (Lashari & Awan, 2012).
16
References
Barry, P. (2002). Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester:
University Press.
Bertens, H. (2003). Literary theory: the basic. London and New York: Routledge; Taylor &
Francis Group
Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. New York: Routledge Publishing, pp 150-172.
Carroll. D. The States of "Theory": History, Art, and Critical Discourse. London: Columbia
University Press
Cicora, M. A. (2000). Modern Myths and Wagnerian Deconstructions: Hermeneutic Approaches
to Wagner. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp 218
Connors, C. (2010). Literary Theory: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications. Pp. 227
Cuddon, J. A. (1991). Dictionary of literary terms and literary theory. 3rd Ed. London: The
Penguin Publishers.
Culler, J. (2007). On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. London:
Cornell University Press, 307 pp.
Dean. C. L. (2005). A prolegomenon to the study of the Mystical elements in the anti
Essentialism in post-structuralism, Postmodernism, feminism and queer Theory.
Australia: Gamahucher press.
Deleuze, G. (2006). Nietzsche and Philosophy. London: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Ed. Trans. Gayatri Spivak Chakarvort. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press. 154; 244
17
Edgar, A. & Sedgwick, P. (2007). Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge
Publishing, pp 447.
Epstein, M. (1999). Transculture in the Context of Contemporary Critical Theories in
Transcultural Experiments: Russian and American Models of Creative Communication,
New York: St. Martin’s Press (Scholarly and reference Division), pp. 79-90
Freud, Sigmund, (1900). ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’ in Rivkin and Ryan, ed. Literary
Theory: An Anthology, 2002, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Hancock, P. & Tyler, M. (2001). Work, postmodernism and organization. 1st Edition. London:
Sage Publications, p 41
Kafeer, D. (1995). Philosophy and Literature. Retrieved on 15th may, 1913 from
http://faculty.risd.edu/dkeefer/reports.htm
Mcguire, D. & Jorgensen, K. M. (2010). Human Resource Development: Theory and Practice.
London: Sage Publications, pp 45-56
Rybicki, J. (2003). Post-structuralism. Retrieved on 13th May, 2013 from
http://www.ap.krakow.pl/nkja/literature/theory/post-structuralism.htm
Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.
Sin. K. K. (2012). Myths and misconceptions in translation teaching. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching
Translation and interpreting 4(pp. 213-230) London: John Benjamins Publishing.
Smith, J. K. A. (1976). Jacques Derrida: Live Theory. London: Continuum International
publishing group.
Ven, J. A. & Ziebertz, H. (2012). Tensions Within and Between Religions and Human Rights.
BRILL, pp 255.
18
Vincent, L. B. (1983). “Extension of subversion.” In deconstructive criticism: An advance
introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.
http://thecurrentaffairs.com/watchaks-tv-online-aks-channel-pakistan-aks-tv-shows.html
Werlock, A. H. P. (2009). Companion to Literature: Facts on File Companion to the American
Short Story. New York: Infobase Publishing, pp 842
19