revıew on derrida

8/4/2019 revıew on Derrida

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-on-derrida 1/4

Derrida’s Of Grammatology

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) was an Algerian-born French philosopher who made importantcontributions to the philosophy of language, aesthetics, and phenomenology. He taught at theSorbonne from 1960-64, at theÉcole Normale Supérieure from 1960-84, and at various

American universities, including Johns Hopkins, Yale, and the University of California atIrvine. His major works include De la grammatologie (1967, Of Grammatology), L'Écritureet la différance (1967, Writing and Difference), La dissémination (1972, Dissemination),

Positions (1972, Positions), Marges de la philosophie (1972, Margins of Philosophy), and Lacarte postale de Socrate à Freud et au-delà (1980, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond ).

Of Grammatology (1967) is an examination of the relation between speech and writing, and itis an investigation of how speech and writing develop as forms of language. Derrida arguesthat writing has often been considered to be derived from speech, and he says that this attitudehas been reflected in many philosophic and scientific investigations of the origin of language.

He says that the tendency to consider writing as an expression of speech has led to theassumption that speech is closer than writing to the truth or logos of meaning andrepresentation. He explains that the development of language occurs through an interplay of speech and writing and that because of this interplay, neither speech nor writing may properly

be described as being more important to the development of language.

Of Grammatology is divided into two parts. Part I is entitled "Writing before the Letter," andPart II is entitled "Nature, Culture, Writing." Part I describes traditional views of the origin of writing, and explains how these views have subordinated the theory of writing to the theory of speech. Part II uses this explanatory method to deconstruct various texts in such fields aslinguistics (Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics), anthropology (Lévi-Strauss’s TristesTropiques), and philosophy (Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languages).

"Logocentrism" is the attitude that logos (the Greek term for speech, thought, law, or reason)is the central principle of language and philosophy.1 Logocentrism is the view that speech,and not writing, is central to language. Thus, "grammatology" (a term that Derrida uses torefer to the science of writing) can liberate our ideas of writing from being subordinated toour ideas of speech. Grammatology is a method of investigating the origin of language whichenables our concepts of writing to become as comprehensive as our concepts of speech.

According to logocentrist theory, speech is the original signifier of meaning, and the written

word is derived from the spoken word. The written word is thus a representation of thespoken word. Logocentrism asserts that language originates as a process of thought that produces speech, and it asserts that speech produces writing.

Logocentrism is promoted by the theory that a linguistic sign consists of a signifier whichderives its meaning from a signified idea or concept. Logocentrism asserts the exteriority of the signifier to the signified. Writing is conceptualized as exterior to speech, and speech isconceptualized as exterior to thought. However, if writing is only a representation of speech,then writing is only a 'signifier of a signifier.’ Thus, according to logocentrist theory, writingis merely a derivative form of language which draws its meaning from speech. Theimportance of speech as central to the development of language is emphasized by logocentrist

theory, but the importance of writing is marginalized.2



A signifier may be either interior or exterior to other signifiers, according to their relation tothe signified. Logocentrism asserts that speech has a quality of interiority, and that writing hasa quality of exteriority. However, Derrida argues that the play of difference between speechand writng is the play of difference between interiority and exteriority. Writing cannot befully understood if it is viewed merely as an external representation of speech. Logocentrism

is inadequate if we want to understand the full importance of writing.

The play of difference between interiority and exteriority reveals that writing is both exterior and interior to speech and that speech is both interior and exterior to writing. This play of difference between speech and writing also means that interiority and exteriority are erased.The outside is, and is not, the inside. Outside and inside become inadequate concepts todescribe either speech or writing.

According to logocentrist theory, speech may be a kind of presence, because the speaker issimultaneously present for the listener, but writing may be a kind of absence, because thewriter is not simultaneously present for the reader. Writing may be regarded by logocentrist

theory as a substitute for the simultaneous presence of writer and reader. If the reader and thewriter were simultaneously present, then the writer would communicate with the reader byspeaking instead of by writing. Logocentrism thus asserts that writing is a substitute for speech, and that writing is an attempt to restore the presence of speech.

Logocentrism is described by Derrida as a "metaphysics of presence," which is motivated by adesire for a "transcendental signified."3 A "transcendental signified" is a signified whichtranscends all signifiers, and is a meaning which transcends all signs. A "transcendentalsignified" is also a signified concept or thought which transcends any single signifier, butwhich is implied by all determinations of meaning.

The "transcendental signified" may be deconstructed by an examination of the assumptionswhich underlie the "metaphysics of presence." For example, if presence is assumed to be theessence of the signified, then the proximity of a signifier to the signified may imply that thesignifier is able to reflect the presence of the signified. If presence is assumed to the essenceof the signified, then the remoteness of a signifier from the signified may imply that thesignifier is unable, or may only be barely able, to reflect the presence of the signified. Thisinterplay between proximity and remoteness is also an interplay between presence andabsence, and between interiority and exteriority.

" Differance" is a term which Derrida uses to describe the origin of presence and absence.

Differance is indefinable, and it annot be explained by the "metaphysics of presence." InFrench, the verb "différer " means both "to defer" and "to differ." Thus, differance may refer not only to the state or quality of being deferred, but to the state or quality of being different.

Differance may be the condition for that which is deferred, and it may be the condition for that which is different. Differance may be the condition for difference.

Derrida explains that differance is the condition for the opposition of presence and absence.4

Differance is also the "hinge" between speech and writing and between inner meaning andouter representation.

The term "arche-writing" is uded by Derrida to describe a form of language which cannot be

conceptualized within the "metaphysics of presence." "Arche-writing" is an original form of language which is not derived from speech. "Arche-writing" is a form of language which is



unhindered by the difference between speech and writing. "Arche-writing" is also a conditionfor the play of difference between written and non-written forms of language.

Derrida contrasts the concept of "arche-writing" with the "vulgar" concept of writing. The"vulgar" concept of writing, which is proposed by the "metaphysics of presence," is

deconstructed by the concept of "arche-writing."5

Derrida criticizes the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and the structuralist theory of Claude Lévi-Strass for promoting logocentrism. Derrida criticizes Saussure for saying that the

purpose for which writing exists is to represent speech. According to Saussurean linguistics,the articulation of spoken language depends on a mechanism (which Derrida calls a "hinge")

by which ideas are connected to sound-images, and the articulation of written languagedepends on a mechanism by which written words are connected to spoken words.

Derrida criticizes Saussure's theory of language for promoting both logocentrism and phonocentrism. Derrida argues that writing may be either phonetic or non-phonetic. Non-

phonetic writing may be pictorial, ideographic, or symbolic. Writing may also have a multi-dimensional structure which may not be subordinated to the temporality of sound.6 Writing asa linear realization of vocalization may be conceptualized as an unfolding of a kind of

presence, and Saussure's theory of language may therefore be described as a "metaphysics of presence." Saussure teaches that spoken language is a process by which ideas are connectedwith sound-images, but Derrida explains that a single phonetic signifier may have multiple

phonetic values and that these phonetic values may have a range of variation. Derrida arguesthat Saussure does not consider the range of differences which may occur between phoneticsignifiers, and that Saussure's theory of language is inadequate to describe the play of difference between speech and writing. Thus, "grammatology" deconstructs the theory of therelation between spoken and written language which is promoted by Saussure, and insteadexplores the true symbolic power of writing.

Derrida criticizes Lévi-Strauss for not adequately recognizing that logocentrism may promoteethnocentrism. Derrida argues that logocentrism may promote ethnocentrism if it encouragesthe retelling of myths about the origin of language and if it promotes misunderstanding of therelation between speech and writing. Derrida also argues that the structuralist approach toanthropology may encourage ethnocentrism if it is mainly concerned with comparing differentcultures according to their use of writing. An unbiased approach to cultural anthrology mustrecognize that the use of writing may in some cases become a form of cultural or socialdomination, by which those who use writing may attempt to subjugate those who do not use

writing.Derrida provides an extended commentary on Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languagesin order to investigate Rousseau's theory that writing is a supplement to speech. Derridacriticizes Rousseau’s statement that writing is nothing but a representation of speech. Derridaexplains that the function of writing is not merely to substitute for the presence of speech, andthat writing is not merely an effort to recover a missing or lost presence. Writing is not merelya kind of absence, which must reappropriate a kind of presence from other forms of languagein order to restore presence to itself.

According to Rousseau, writing may become a "dangerous supplement" if it is used as a

substitute for speech. Writing may subvert any meaning which may be intended by speech.The substitution of writing for speech also implies that speech is closer than writing to the



original nature of language. Thus, Rousseau argues that writing may corrupt the originalnature of language.

However, Derrida argues that even if writing is viewed as a supplement to speech, writingmay still add meaning to speech, and it may still provide a kind of presence. However, if

writing is viewed as merely a supplement to speech, then it may be viewed as merely anexternal addition to speech.

The argument that writing is a supplement to speech may also suggest that there is a loss of presence in speech which must be supplemented by writing. If an absence expands within the presence of speech, then writing may become a means of recovering whatever presence islacking. Thus, writing cannot properly be viewed merely as absence, just as speech cannot

properly be viewed merely as presence. Speech may occur within writing, and writing mayoccur within speech.

Derrida also explains that writing may occur either before or after speech. Writing may in

some cases express a passion or need which exists prior to speech. The cry of passion, or thecry of need, may be articulated by singing, shouting, gesturing, speaking, and by writing.

revıew on derrida

Documents