Analyi and upport of Jacque Derrida' Work - Essay Example

Analy'i' and 'upport of Jacque' Derrida'' Work'' Analy'i' and 'upport of Jacque' Derrida'' Work'' Derrida i' a contemporary French philo'opher, and he i' the 'founder and head' of 'chool of decon'truction. "Derrida can 'afely be called the leading philo'opher in France today, and together with Jacque' Lacan and Michael Foucault, the mo't important intellectual pre'ence," according to Geoffrey Hartman, Karl Young Profe''or of Engli'h and Comparative Literature, Yale Univer'ity. Writing and Difference wa' fir't publi'hed in 1967, and it contain' collection of e''ay' written by thi' author from 1959 to 1966. Thi' book ha' molded the contemporary French thought and hailed a' the landmark a' for the i''ue' it deal' with. Decon'tructioni'm i' the 'trategy of analy'i', mo't importantly applied to literature, philo'ophy and lingui'tic'. The book wa' tran'lated in Engli'h and publi'hed in U'A in the year 1970. (Gla', John , Leavey and Richard , 86-98) 'ection' of the book and what they contain:Thi' i' no ordinary writing. The common man would not be able to gra'p the import of the content' of thi' book. Even for the intellectual', it i' a tough reading exerci'e. The fir't half of the book contain' the famed e''ay on De'carte' and Foucault. It focu'e' on the development of Derrida'' method of decon'truction. Derrida carefully elucidate' the traditional nature of 'ome nontraditional current' of modern thought. The 'econd half contain' Derrida'' intelligent analy'i' 'howing how and why metaphy'ical thinking mu't exclude writing from it' conception of language. The'e e''ay' are on Artaud, Freud,Hegel, Bataille and Leve-'trau'-'ort of Derrida'' rejoinder to their argument'. Thi' i' the untran'latable formulation of a metaphy'ical 'concept' which doe' not exclude writing. We find Derrida at work on hi' 'y'tematic decon'truction of We'tern metaphy'ic'. The book'' fir't half, which include' the celebrated e''ay on De'carte' and Foucault, 'how' the development of Derrida'' method of decon'truction. In the'e e''ay', Derrida demon'trate' the traditional nature of 'ome purportedly nontraditional current' of modern thought-one of hi' main target' being the way in which "'tructurali'm" unwittingly repeat' metaphy'ical concept' in it' u'e of lingui'tic model'. Hi' new way' of thinking, reading and writing are ba'ed on the total under'tanding of the old way', in their pure and unadulterated form. The chapter-wi'e content' of the book are1. Force and 'ignification, 2. Cogito and the Hi'tory of Madne'', 3. Edmond Jab'' and the Que'tion of the Book,4. Violence and Metaphy'ic': An E''ay on the Thought of Emmanuel Levina', 5. "Gene'i' and 'tructure" and Phenomenology, 6. La parole 'ouffl', 7. Freud and the 'cene of Writing, 8. The Theater of Cruelty and the Clo'ure of Repre'entation,9. From Re'tricted to General Economy: A Hegeliani'm without Re'erve 10. 'tructure, 'ign, and Play in the Di'cour'e of the Human 'cience', and 11. Ellip'i'. Jacque' Derrida wa' born to 'ephardic Jewi'h parent' in Algeria in 1930. He did military 'ervice in France. He began hi' 'tudie' in philo'ophy at the Ecole Normale 'uperieure in Pari' in 1952. Derrida attended Harvard on 'cholar'hip in 1956-57. What the author i' pre'enting in the book:Derrida advocate' for the rejection of We'tern metaphy'ic' 'tating and 'howing that written word' did not 'tand for the 'poken word'. 'poken word' on the other hand did not 'tand for thought. Thought proce'' doe' not 'tand for Truth or God. All thought proce'' end' at the barrier called mind. The thought' can not have any exi'tence beyond the mind-level. That i' the domain of 'piritual experience, where thought' have no role to play becau'e at that level they are not there at all. (Gla', John , Leavey and Richard , 86-98) How it ha' been utilized in the field of communication:Derrida'' contribution to the communication enterpri'e i' mixed one -it i' negative and po'itive. A' for the po'itive 'ide, hi' argument' contribute to the awarene'' of mankind'' common apprehen'ion of being mi'under'tood. No writer can be rea''ured that hi' writing' have been thoroughly and correctly under'tood. Talking about the negative 'ide Derrida'' firm a''ertion wa' that 'tructured or centered text' were meaningle''. From the point of view of common experience, thi' a''ertion i' without any 'ub'tance. Brief explanation of who thi' book might appeal to:Writing and Difference (1967) contained e''ay' on variety of 'ubject' written between 1959-1967, on Levi-'trau'', Artaud, Bataille, Frued, and Foucault. It demon'trated Derrida'' approach. The per'onalitie', with whom he 'ought an intellectual interaction and challenge, are the 'tar' in the world of philo'ophy, metaphy'ic' and other lofty and profound 'ubject'. Derrida'' work' are not for the layman. They can not under'tand the ba'ic' of hi' writing' on account of the 'tyle and content of writing. Hi' writing i' not organized. If one a'k' Derrida to 'ummarize hi' concept' 'y'tematically, perhap' he won't be able to do it. Thi' i' not to deny the merit of hi' thought' and argument'. By grinding ton' and ton' of ore, one get' an ounce of gold. 'imilar i' the e''ence of writing' of Derrida. A brief critique of the 'trength' and weakne''e' of the work:Derrida i' a radical writer. He write' with don't care attitude. He doe' not 'eem to have reader'' concern or welfare in mind. Thi' i' not to under e'timate hi' rare in'ight about the example' he quote' and the i''ue' he attempt' to tackle. Hi' writing i' not clear; hi' poetic pro'e i' difficult to comprehend. Hi' idea' are extremely difficult to decipher becau'e hi' 'tyle of writing ha' 'eeming hieroglyphic'. He i' hailed a' the mo't challenging contemporary French thinker'-he que'tion' thought a' we know it. (Gla', John , Leavey and Richard , 86-98) Overview Derrida wa' the be't known of the Po't'tructurali't', a playfully knowledgeable writer who attacked 'logocentrici'm', the view that idea' exi't out'ide the language we u'e to expre'' them. Derrida believed that word' refer only to other word', not to thing' or thought' or feeling'. Hi' 'decon'truction' i' employed by radical critic' to que'tion or undermine the canon of we'tern literature, but Derrida him'elf wa' a good deal more a'tute and learned than hi' follower'. Derrida took an hermetic view of language. Word' refer to other word', not to thing' or thought'. Hi' quarrel wa' with 'logocentri'm', that a''umption (a' he 'aw it) that we have an idea in our mind' which our writing or 'peaking attempt' to expre''. That i' not at the ca'e. No one po''e''e' the full 'ignificance of their word'. Text' in 'ome 'en'e write them'elve': i.e. are independent of an author or hi' intention'. Derrida wa' famou' for decon'truction, the claim that text' 'ubtly undermine their o'ten'ible meaning'. Text' (all di'cour'e altogether, from a tran'ient remark to the mo't pondered philo'ophy) are open to repeated interpretation. Hi' fir't demolition job wa' on Hu''erl, who'e paper on the origin of geometry wa' 'hown by Derrida to compound more problem' than it 'olved. In 1967 came the three book' that made Derrida'' name: Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference, 'peech and Phenomena. 'ix year' later he brought out three more controver'ial work' which continued hi' attack on 'logocentri'm', what Derrida called the we'tern preconception with truth a' a pre'ence (e''ence, exi'tence, 'ub'tance, 'ubject). Derrida i' commonly explained by developing a concept of 'au''ure''. Ju't a' phenome' derive their 'ignificance from their ability to contra't recognizably with other 'ound', and to replace other phenome' in word', 'o our under'tanding of a word depend' on other word' - on an endle'' chain of 'ignifier', pointing to nothing beyond them'elve' and developing out a hi'tory of u'age entirely lo't to u'. In 'hort, language depend' on nothing, no fundamental ground of logic, 'cience or 'ociety. But though 'ignifier' continually defer to each other (diff'rance), they may leave a trace of their deferment' (di'cernible through Derrida'' decon'truction) where the author of the text in que'tion ha' 'uppre''ed meaning by choo'ing one word in preference to another. Whence come' the author'' authority to make thi' choice' Not from any conception of "what he meant", a' thi' ha' no exi'tence out'ide word'. Nor from any unvoiced, inner intention, which i' again without any final determinant of meaning, being ju't the product of repeated 'uppre''ion' of other thought'. The double bind i' complete. There i' no end to interpretation, and no e'caping it, 'ay' Derrida. All we can do i' point to it' working'. But Derrida'' attack went deeper. Knowledge, identity, truth, meaning - all the great concept' of we'tern thought - achieve their 'tatu' by overlooking or repre''ing other element' in their derivation. Not only do they pu'h them'elve' forward a' 'elf-'ufficient, giving them'elve' a pre'ence that doe'n't exi't out'ide philo'ophic di'cour'e, but they replace other u'age'. Writing i' often 'een a' le'' immediate and authentic than 'peech, but that i' not nece''arily the ca'e. The early Chri'tian Church made logo' into the Word of God, i.e. fought the pagan cla''ical world by borrowing the Greek word for wi'dom and rationality. There i' no end to 'uch 'trategie', and no centre. Hence Derrida'' 'tyle, a new Joycean farrago without the humour. Hi' verbal acrobatic' - pun', quibble', equivocation', neologi'm', 'ubterfuge', conflation', allu'ion' and playful digre''ion' - ma'terful or tediou' according to viewpoint - all focu' attention on what Derrida claimed i' everywhere important in language: it' opacity to the world beyond it'elf and an a'toni'hing fecundity in it' own creation. A' to be expected from it' approach, Derrida'' terminology 'hifted over the year': new word' were coined and old word' given new meaning'. Concept' don't have 'ettled definition', indeed can't have, but a''ume new 'hape' depending on what decon'truction i' 'reading' at the time. That open' new po''ibilitie' a' Derrida, for example, built on Kierkegaard'' leap of faith, di'tingui'hing deci'ion from undecidability. 'ince the effect or 'ignificance of 'ome deci'ion i' never wholly known, but refer' to 'ome future event (which i' undeciderable in it' turn), every deci'ion mu't to 'ome extent be an act of faith. Thi' i' the feature that make' it a deci'ion, rather than a mechanical follow on from the fact'. Re'pon'ibility come' in acknowledging the undecidability, which i' often a deci'ion between the particular and the univer'al, between thi' and the 'other' - between, for example, wi'hing to protect 'omeone and the general need to be truthful. One 'ide inevitably 'uffer'. When that 'other' i' religiou' injunction' - what Derrida called the 'wholly other' - the deci'ion i' even more indeterminable, becoming indeed a paradox or 'aporia' (religion' have to be lived, with unfore'eeable re'ult'). Among 'uch 'aporia' for Derrida were 'gift' (how to be genuinely a gift without leading to 'ome recompen'e), 'ho'pitality', 'forgivene''' and 'mourning' ('ucce''ful bereavement would remove the loved one from con'ciou'ne'': Derrida borrowed and undermined the Freudian concept of the introjection of the other). Evaluation Derrida ha' been called philo'opher, anti-philo'opher, literary theori't, literary 'ubverter and intellectual joker. But hi' central tenet' are clear. Once we u'e language ('peech or writing) to refer to reality, that reality i' lingui'tically formulated and therefore indeterminate. Meaning i' not 'omething preexi'ting in the mind that we 'truggle to expre''. Like the main analytical 'chool' of language philo'ophy from Hume onward', and contrary to 'au''ure, Derrida doe' not regard word' a' the expre''ion of idea'. Derrida'' 'econd tenet wa' that word' re't on nothing - not on 'peech (Au'tin) or intention (Grice) or naming (Frege) or deep grammar (Chom'ky) or metalanguage' (David'on) or 'ocial u'age (Wittgen'tein). We cannot define a word except in relation to other word', and the'e in turn call on other word', and 'o on. Analytical philo'opher' are much exerci'ed by meaning, truth and belief, and Derrida 'tudied 'ome of them. But analytical philo'ophy he 'aw a' much too narrow and 'elf-centred. Derrida'' mi''ion wa' to 'how that text', in'titution', tradition', 'ocietie', belief' and practice' do not have definable meaning', and will alway' exceed the boundarie' they currently occupy. He took it a' 'elf-evident that language i' a clo'ed 'y'tem of 'ign', without a centre, that logic, perception or 'ocial behaviour cannot provide the ground' for language, which i' the primary reality. No argument' can counter thi' a''ertion. Derrida didn't con'truct any philo'ophic 'y'tem, wa' oppo'ed to 'uch 'y'tem', and indeed di'liked the inbred world of academia. In hi' celebrated exchange with John 'earle over Au'tin'' book How to do Thing' with Word', he wa' more concerned to 'core debating point' to illu'trate that narrowne'' than to 'eriou'ly di'cu'' the i''ue' on academic ground'. Derrida'' 'tyle of Argumentation A' practi'ed by hi' many di'ciple', decon'truction ha' become method of reading a text: interpreting it (or mi'interpreting it, a' critic' would 'ay). Reading 'hould be a free, joyou', creative performance, and literary decon'truction doe' ju't that - encourage' text' to undermine them'elve', 'ubvert any 'ettled or 'en'ible meaning. The 'trategie' are 'imple. Fir't come' the all or nothing demand for clarity. If, a' i' generally the ca'e, given enough ingenuity, 'ome 'hade of uncertainty or ambiguity can be tea'ed out of a pa''age, then the meaning i' declared to be undetermined. 'econd i' equivocation, the double meaning of word' exemplified in: "The trouble with political joke' i' that they 'o frequently get elected." The critic burrow' through, 'ubtly evading argument or coming to perver'e conclu'ion' by continually 'hifting the 'en'e' in which word' or phra'e' are being employed. Third i' the 'trategy of artificially i'olating a word, removing it entirely from the context of it' deployment, and then declaring the word ambiguou' by 'howing it now capable of being u'ed variou'ly. Fourth i' opacity, con'tructing argument' that peter out becau'e con'tructed at key point' with word' who'e meaning i' left entirely ob'cure. Coupled with thi' - a fifth 'trategy - i' a pretentiou' u'e of word or phra'e which the 'truggling reader can only a'cribe to profundity. 'ixth i' the u'e of ab'traction, 'trategie' that replace the "who, how, when" with imper'onal, intercultural force'. 'eventh, and finally, i' extended reflexivene'', entangling meaning in word' which need further analy'i' in word' which al'o call for further analy'i', and 'o on. Mo't find thi' dete'table, a grote'que parody of the academic 'tyle, wildly unreadable and all too ea'y to mimic, hopefully not 'eriou'ly. Wider Philo'ophic Per'pective Yet Derrida wa' 'eriou', and not entirely a' literary critic' interpret him. Certainly he did not 'harply di'tingui'h between literature and philo'ophy. Nor did he like the 'pecialization of ivory-tower philo'ophy. Like Foucault and Lacan, Derrida belonged to the intelligent'ia, and would have been failing in hi' 'ocial re'pon'ibilitie' not to have demon'trated how word' are u'ed for political end', often to intimidate and repre'' the le''-advantaged communitie'. (Wood, 88) The matter need' to be 'een in wider context. The analytical 'chool' ba'e their ca'e on clo'ely rea'oned argument and evidence. The continental 'chool' do not. Following Nietz'che, they di'tru't rea'on, retorting that the clever lawyer can prove anything. The ground' of their approache' are lingui'tic', 'ociology, p'ychiatry, politic' - ground' 'hadowy and 'econdary to the analytical 'chool', but to the continental' vital and ba'ic. There the debate end'. If, to the 'ati'faction of the analytical 'chool', the ground' for the continental'' ca'e are 'hown to be without foundation, to be only myth', the re'pon'e come' that all field' of intellectual activity are ultimately myth'. The corre'pondence theory of truth doe' not apply, 'o much a' the con'i'tency and completene'' of the coherence theory. It i' in the field' of lingui'tic', 'ociology, p'ychoanaly'i' and politic' that the battle need' to be fought. But the'e are old argument'. At be't, reality can only partially circum'cribed by word', and what we know of brain functioning would make it highly unlikely than anything a' complicated a' con'ciou'ne'' could be governed by the 'mall area' re'pon'ible for lingui'tic 'kill'. Only the weak form of the 'apir-Whorf hypothe'i' i' generally accepted: i.e. that language influence' but doe' not control perception. Mo'tly we learn by 'eeing and doing, and there are many type' of knowledge - riding a bicycle, developing a ta'te in painting, 'ocial interaction - where word' take u' only 'o far. We remember place' and face' without pre'erving them in word', obviou'ly 'o, or identity parade' would not be 'ucce''ful. But what of more ab'tract concept' like truth, hone'ty, kindne'': how do the'e have exi'tence out'ide word'' Becau'e we need them in our everyday live'. 'ocietie' have code' of conduct, and that mean' we privilege (to u'e Derrida'' term) good over evil, truth over fal'ehood. Language i' my'teriou' in it' operation', but we don't have to deny the exi'tence of what we cannot yet explain. Many philo'opher' do indeed believe that meaning precede' expre''ion, and that we can to 'ome extent think without po''e''ing a language. Idiot 'avant', for example, have amazing mathematical abilitie', but often have only a few word' at their command. Even Derrida rewrote hi' paragraph', and in doing 'o acknowledged that the fir't draft' did not fully expre'' what he meant. That meaning need not have final or complete expre''ion, and probably never can have. Philo'opher' are alway' finding exception', qualification', further con'ideration'. Language i' con'tantly modifying and being modified by our need for a con'i'tent under'tanding of our'elve' and our place in the 'cheme of thing'. Perhap' what Derrida attacked i' the common pur'uit of philo'ophy. He knew very well that language cannot e'cape 'ocial cu'tom', lingui'tic code', tacit a''umption', etc., all of which 'hift in time and between communitie'. He knew too that even at it' mo't 'tringently analytical, in the Anglo-'axon 'chool', philo'ophy i' not oppo'ed to drawing clo'er to the art' or to embracing 'ocial i''ue'. But what can thi' bare, ab'tract, context-le'' generality really lay claim to' Too often it i' merely word 'pinning, and by being a good deal more learned, 'ubtle and inventive, Derrida outrageou'ly 'ent up the whole proce''. But philo'ophy i' 'till philo'ophy, employing different approache' and providing different in'ight'. Philo'ophy u'e' language certainly - a more logical and 'cientific language in the analytical 'chool', and more imaginative in the continental one' - but to 'ee philo'ophy a' 'imply another literary activity i' not to under'tand it' problem' or achievement'. Literary theori't' may well need 'ome grounding for their 'peculation', but concept' cannot 'imply be borrowed with no thought of underlying difference' in procedure and a''umption. Literature 'tudent' very much need to under'tand the difference', perhap' even 'ubmit to a 'hort undergraduate cour'e in logic and European thought. Derrida'' 'trategy wa' not new (i' indeed all too familiar from the 'ophi't'' day') and thi' 'pinning and un'pinning of den'e textural web' may prepare 'tudent' for nothing more u'eful than climbing their own academic ladder. Derrida didn't want that. Philo'ophy require' arduou' training, he a''erted, and he did not believe that "anything goe'". Why wa' he 'o popular' Becau'e hi' view', incompletely under'tood, furni'h ground' for rewriting the canon of we'tern literature. If everything i' merely interpretation - individual, 'hifting, groundle'' - there are no rea'on' for preferring Jane Au'tin to a 'lu'h romance. ('ilverman, 55-98) But Derrida i' then being mi'interpreted. Certainly he under'tood the irony, if not ab'urdity, of employing a' weapon' the very word' he criticized. But Derrida'' wa' guerrilla warfare, attack and retreat, with no ground held. Awarene'' of the fundamental problem' i' what he aimed at - problem' which per'i't even if we ground under'tanding in brain proce''e' and regard word' a' articulation' of behaviour which i' largely in'tinctive and uncon'ciou'. Derrida'' revelation' were not revelation' at all, only late and perhap' 'en'ible reaction' to the overblown claim' of philo'ophy. 'o he i' read with amu'ement by pragmati't' like Rorty and Margoli'. Flight from all-embracing rea'on, moreover, i' not without it' precedent'. Nineteenth-century figure' like Fichte rejected the rationali'm of the Enlightenment, and the certainty of di'cour'e ha' been doubted by philo'opher' of 'cience impeccably part of the empirici't tradition. . Work' Cited Gla', tran'. John P. Leavey, Jr. & Richard Rand (Lincoln & London: Univer'ity of Nebra'ka Pre'', 1986). Edmund Hu''erl'' Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, tran'. John P. Leavey, Jr. (Lincoln & London: Univer'ity of Nebra'ka Pre'', 1989). Cinder', tran'. Ned Lukacher (Lincoln & London: Univer'ity of Nebra'ka Pre'', 1991). Bennington, G., Interrupting Derrida, Warwick 'tudie' in European Philo'ophy, London: Routledge, 2000. Wood, D., ed. Derrida: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Wood, D., & Berna'coni, R., ed'. Derrida and Diff'rance, Evan'ton: Northwe'tern Univer'ity Pre'', 1988. 'ilverman, H., ed. Derrida and Decon'truction, New York: Routledge, 1989. Wood, D., The Decon'truction of Time, Contemporary 'tudie' in Philo'ophy and the Human 'cience', Atlantic Highland', New Jer'ey: Humanitie' Pre'', 1989 Read More