A rchive Date
[ 10-10-2004 ]
Category
[ Philosophy ]
sub-Categoy
[ Jacques Derrida ]
|
[http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/derrida.html
Derrida’s Of Grammatology
Alex ScottJacques Derrida’s Of Grammatology (1967) is an examination of the relation between speech and writing, and is an investigation of how speech and writing develop as forms of language. Derrida argues that writing has often been considered to be derived from speech, and that this attitude has been reflected in many philosophic and scientific investigations of the origin of language. Derrida explains that the tendency to consider writing as an expression of speech has favored speech over writing as closer to the truth or logos of meaning and representation. Derrida argues that the development of language actually occurs through an interplay of speech and writing, and that this interplay means that neither speech nor writing can be assumed to be more central to language, or to be nearer to the origin of language.
Of Grammatology is divided into two parts. Part I is entitled "Writing before the Letter," and Part 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 as linguistics (Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics), anthropology (Lévi-Strauss’s Tristes Tropiques), and philosophy (Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languages).
According to Derrida, "logocentrism" is the attitude that the logos (the Greek term for word, speech, thought, law, or reason) is the center of language and philosophy.1 Logocentrism is the view that speech, and not writing, is central to language. Thus, "grammatology" (a term which Derrida uses to refer to the science of writing) can liberate our ideas of writing from being subordinated to our ideas of speech.
Grammatology is a method of investigating the origin of language which enables our concepts of writing to become more meaningful and profound.
According to logocentrist theory, says Derrida, 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 the spoken word. Logocentrism maintains that speech is closer to the origin of language, and that writing is more remote from the origin of language.
A linguistic sign consists of a signifier and a signified. Logocentrism asserts the exteriority of the signifier to the signified. Writing is conceptualized as exterior to speech, and speech is conceptualized as exterior to thought. If writing is only a representation of speech, then writing is only a ‘signifier of a signifier.’ Writing is viewed merely as a derivative form of language, which draws its meaning from speech. Speech is placed at the center of language, and writing is placed at the periphery of language.
A signifier may be interior or exterior to other signifiers, according to their relation to the signified. Logocentrism asserts that speech has a quality of interiority, and that writing has a quality of exteriority. However, Derrida argues that the play of difference between speech and writng is the play of difference between interiority and exteriority. Writing cannot be fully 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 means that writing is both exterior and interior to speech, and that speech is both interior and exterior to writing. This play of difference also means that interiority and exteriority are erased. The outside is, and is not, the inside. Outside and inside become inadequate concepts to describe speech or writing.
Derrida explains that, according to logocentrism, speech is presence, because the speaker is simultaneously present for the listener, while writing is absence, because the writer is not simultaneously present for the reader. Writing is seen as a substitute for the simultaneous presence of writer and reader. If the reader and the writer were simultaneously present, then the writer would communicate with the reader by speaking 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 also described by Derrida as a "metaphysics of presence." The metaphysics of presence is a desire for a "transcendental signified."2 A transcendental signified is a signified which transcends all signifiers, a meaning which transcends all signs. A transcendental signified is a signified which transcends any single singifier, but which is implied by all determinations of meaning.
Derrida argues that the transcendental signified may be deconstructed by an examination of the assumptions which underlie the metaphysics of presence. For example, if presence is the essence of the signified, then the proximity of the signifier to the signified implies that the presence of the signified may be reflected by the signifier. If presence is the essence of the signified, then the remoteness of the signifier from the signified implies that the presence of the signified may only be remotely reflected by the signifier. This interplay between proximity and remoteness is also an interplay of presence and absence, of essence and appearance, of origin and expression.
Derrida uses the term "differance" to refer to the origin of presence and absence. Differance is indefinable, and cannot be adequately described. In French, 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 is the condition for that which is deferred, and for that which is different. Differance is the condition for difference.
Differance is the condition for the opposition of presence and absence.3 Differance is also the "hinge" between speech and writing, between inner meaning and outer representation.
Derrida uses the term "arche-writing" to refer to 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 condition for the play of difference between written and non-written forms of expression.
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.4
Derrida criticizes the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and the structuralist theory of Claude Lévi-Strass for promoting the tendency toward 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 is a process or mechanism (which Derrida calls a "hinge") by which ideas are connected to sound-images, and the articulation of written language is a process by which written words are connected to spoken words.
Derrida describes Saussure’s theory as an example of both logocentrism and phonocentrism. Derrida says that writing may be phonetic or non-phonetic. Non-phonetic writing may be pictorial, ideographic, or symbolic. Writing may also have a multi-dimensional structure which is not subordinated to the temporality of sound.5 Writing as a linear realization of vocalization is a concept of the unfolding of presence, and Saussurean linguistics is therefore a metaphysics of presence. Saussure teaches that spoken language is a process by which ideas are connected with sound-images, but Derrida explains that a single phonetic signifier may have multiple phonetic values, which may have a range of variation. Derrida argues that Saussure does not consider the range of differences which may occur between phonetic signifiers, and that Saussure’s teaching concerning the origin of language is inadequate to describe the play of difference between speech and writing. Thus, grammatology deconstructs Saussure’s concept of the relation between spoken and written language and explores the true symbolic power of writing.
Derrida criticizes Lévi-Strauss for failing to recognize that logocentrism may become a form of ethnocentrism. Derrida argues that logocentrism may become ethnocentrism by retelling myths concerning the origin of language, and by misunderstanding the relation between speech and writing. Derrida also contends that ethnocentrism is manifested by the structuralist approach to anthropology when it compares different cultures according to their use of writing. The use of writing may become a form of cultural or social domination, 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 Languages to demonstrate how Rousseau views writing as a supplement to speech. Derrida criticizes Rousseau’s statement that writing is nothing but a representation of speech. Derrida argues that the function of writing is not merely to substitute for the presence of speech. Writing is not simply an effort to recover a missing or lost presence. Writing cannot be viewed merely as a form of absence, which must reappropriate presence, or which must restore presence to itself.
According to Rousseau, writing is a "dangerous supplement" when it becomes a substitute for speech. Writing may subvert whatever is intended by speech. Substitution also means that writing is removed or separated from the origin of language. Thus, Rousseau argues that writing may corrupt the original nature of language.
Derrida affirms that even when writing is viewed as a supplement to speech, writing may still add meaning to speech, or may supply a measure of presence. However, when writing is viewed as a supplement to speech, writing is also viewed as an external addition to speech.
Writing as a supplement to speech also implies a loss of presence in speech which must be supplemented by writing. As an absence expands within the presence of speech, writing may become a means of recovering presence. Thus, writing cannot be viewed merely as absence, and speech cannot be viewed merely as presence. Speech may occur within writing, and writing may occur within speech.
Derrida also explains that writing may occur before and after speech. Writing may express a passion or need which exists prior to speech. The cry of passion, or of need, may be articulated as song, as gesture, as speech, and as writing.
FOOTNOTES
1Jim Powell, Derrida for Beginners, (New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1997), p.33.
2Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), p.49.
3Ibid., p. 143.
4Ibid., p. 60.
5Ibid., p. 85.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.
Powell, Jim. Derrida for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1997.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
Copywright© 2002 Alex Scott]
|