On Jacques Derrida (original) (raw)

Jacques Derrida, " Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences " 1 (1970

Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an " event, " if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural—or structurality—thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term " event " anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling. It would be easy enough to show that the concept of structure and even the word " structure " itself are as old as the epistémé—that is to say, as old as western science and western philosophy—and that their roots thrust deep into the soil of ordinary language, into whose deepest recesses the epistémé plunges to gather them together once more, making them part of itself in a metaphorical displacement. Nevertheless, up until the event which I wish to mark out and define, structure-or rather the structurality of structure—although it has always been involved, has always been neutralized or reduced, and this by a process of giving it a center or referring it to a point of presence, a fixed origin. The function of this center was not only to orient ; balance, and organize the structure—one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure—but above all to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the freeplay of the structure. No doubt that by orienting and organizing the coherence of the system, the center of a structure permits the freeplay of its elements inside the total form. And even today the notion of a structure lacking any center represents the unthinkable itself. Nevertheless, the center also closes off the freeplay it opens up and makes possible. Qua center, it is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements, or terms is no longer possible. At the center, the permutation or the transformation of elements (which may of course be structures enclosed within a structure) is forbidden. At least this permutation has always remained interdicted 2 (I use this word deliberately). Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which governs the structure, while escaping structurality. This is why classical thought concerning structure could say that the center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center. The concept of centered structure—although it represents coherence itself, the condition of the epistémé as philosophy or science—is contradictorily coherent. And, as always, coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire. The concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a freeplay based on a fundamental ground, a freeplay which is constituted upon a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which is itself beyond the reach of the freeplay. With this certitude anxiety can be mastered, for anxiety is invariably the result of a certain mode of being implicated in the game, of being caught by the game, of being as it were from the very beginning at stake in the game. 3 From the basis of what we therefore call the center (and which, because it can be either inside or outside, is as readily called the origin as the end, as readily arché as telos), the repetitions, the substitutions, the transformations, and the permutations are always taken from a history of meaning [sens]—that is, a history, period—whose origin may always be revealed or whose end may always be anticipated in the form of presence. This is why one could perhaps say that the movement of any archeology, like that of any eschatology, is an accomplice of this

THE STUDY OF STRUCTURE AS A CRITICAL THEORY: THE ANALYSES OF JACQUES DERRIDA AND GERARD GENETTE

VEDA PUBLICATIONS, 2022

Jacques Derrida and Gerard Genette are the versatile critics of the 20th and 21st centuries. Both the critics deal with the 'Structuralism'. Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher, deals with semiotics that discusses the significance, representation, reference and meaning. His lecture 'Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences' is an advanced theory of Literature. Jacques Derrida's theory is about Post Structuralism. Gerard Genette is a French Literary Theorist and Critic. In his Literary Theory. Structuralism is examined with the underlying invariant structure. The literary conditions may change but never the literary structure. The structure is an assessment of Literature. The structure appeals to all times. The action, theme, plot, the narrative and the different components of Literature are universal. This is how the theories of Jacques Derrida and Gerard Genette appeal to the readers on the whole by culminating at the same point. This article provides the structures of Literature by striking a parallel between Gerard Genette's structuralism and Jacques Derrida's Structure, Sign, and Play.

Legacies of Derrida

This article considers the legacies of Jacques Derrida in and for Anglo-American sociocultural anthropology. It begins with a survey of Derrida's own engagement with themes that have historically been foundational to the field: (a) the critique of sign theory and, with it, the questions of language and law in Lévi-Straussian structuralism; (b) the question of the unconscious; (c) the critique of the performative and its consequences for the idea of ritual; (d ) the rereading of Marcel Mauss's concept of the gift, and of economy more generally; and (e) the analysis of the metaphysical basis of law, in both religious and ostensibly secular formations. It then considers the state of the field at the time when it was being infused with different forms of poststructuralism and explores the competing claims made by these discourses in relation to deconstruction. Finally, after tracing the convergences and divergences between Derridean deconstruction and theory in sociocultural anthropology, it treats two main examples of works produced against and under the influence of Derrida's thought, respectively.

Jacques Derrida’s Contribution to the Development of Contemporary Literary Theory

Jacques Derrida contribution on the development of contemporary literary theory is based on his writings on deconstruction. It goes without saying that Derrida's deconstruction has been associated with postcolonial theory, feminist theory and most strongly on literary criticism. Derrida's theory on deconstruction arose out of the influence of Ferdinand de Saussure and this is evident in his book Of Grammatology. Derrida thus analyzes the concept of 'sign', which for Saussure had the two separate components of sound and meaning, that is, the signifier and the signified respectively. Saussure viewed language and writing as two distinct systems of signs and that writing was served the sole purpose of representing the former. As opposed to Saussure's viewing of language as consisting of signs, Derrida followed a different path of viewing language. He talked of Saussure's view of language as being regulatory, that is, being restricted to the 'signs' alone. He further refers to this as a 'hierarchizing teleology' to the advantage of linguistic and instead of viewing language as consisting of signs the way Saussure had viewed, he speaks of 'mark'. Language is normally viewed as being restricted to humankind but when viewed as a mark, this restriction is put to test and when viewed as a mark, the linguistic sign can be repeated in the absence of not only the subject but also of a specific addressee. According to Derrida, language was supposed to be viewed as a possibility of it, prelinguistic, working everywhere there is a relation to something else. This was to mean that identity was established through the interplay of differences inside a system of signs. This notion of the language going back to the prelinguistic is brought about by the fact that there is coupling in the linguistic sign. For instance, we cannot speak of speech without also acknowledging that there is writing. Coupling is also observed in instances like body/soul,

Contributions of DERRIDA in the Field of History

Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher, born in Algeria on July 15, 1930. Derrida is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction,1 which he discussed in numerous texts, and developed in the context of phenomenology. He is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy.2 During his career Derrida published more than 40 books, together with hundreds of essays and public presentations. He had a significant influence upon the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, anthropology, historiography,3 linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, religious studies, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. His work still has a major influence in the academe of Continental Europe, South America and all other countries where continental philosophy is predominant, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology (especially concerning social sciences), ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. He also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music, art, and art criticism. Particularly in his later writings, Derrida addressed ethical and political themes in his work. Some critics consider Speech and Phenomena (1967) to be his most important work. Others cite of Grammatology, Writing and Difference, and Margins of Philosophy. These writings influenced various activists and political movements. He became a well-known and influential public figure, while his approach to philosophy and the notorious difficulty of his work made him controversial. The present paper tries to study the impact of Derrida‘s deconstruction theory on historiography.

Derrida's Voice and Phenomenon: An Edinburgh Philosophical Guide (Edinburgh University Press, 2014)

2014

Among French intellectuals of the late twentieth century, Jacques Derrida stood apart as one of the most controversial and influential. Published in 1967, Voice and Phenomenon marks a crucial turning point in Derrida’s thinking: it is the culmination of a fifteen-year long engagement with the phenomenological tradition, and it introduces the concepts and themes that would mark the project that would become deconstruction. This Philosophical Guide is designed to introduce the reader to the historical context out of which Derrida is working (including and especially Husserl’s thought), to provide the reader with careful, critical commentary of Derrida’s text, and to demonstrate how the concepts explicated in Voice and Phenomenon would pave the way for Derrida’s future works. It is designed to be clear enough for an undergraduate, but rigorous enough for a graduate student or professor. Derrida’s Voice and Phenomenon: An Edinburgh Philosophical Guide thus provides an essential toolkit for those approaching Derrida for the first time.