Summary
Summary Derrida and Deconstruction
These notes include the content of the entire third year course on Deconstruction.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Course Overview Term 11. Introduction to Structuralism
2. Introduction to Deconstruction (i.e. Post-Structuralism)
3. Writing and Logocentrism
4. Meaning and Iterability
5. Grafts
6. Institutions and Inversions
Tutorials
1. Reading as a woman
2. Letter to a Japanese Friend
3. Engorged Philosophy
4. Post-Modernism
,1. Introduction to Structuralism
Definition of Structuralism (ST):
An interdisciplinary approach to all branches of human knowledge that rejects all ontological
and epistemological sources of meaning in favour of an anti-metaphysical approach that posits
that all humanistic pursuits are the product of deep structures that precede human
consciousness
What does this mean?
o ST rejects ontology and metaphysics (being, eternal essences, source of meaning comes
from above)
o Example of proto-structuralist: Marx and material structures in the world that produces
meaning (meaning from below)
o ST rejects epistemology (Cartesian and Kantian that consciousness is the source of
meaning/truth)
o Example: Freud and the unconscious mind and its hidden structures that determines who we
are
o Instead: meaning does not come from above (ontology) or within (epistemology)
= For ST, the source of meaning and truth is the hidden and pervasive structures of society
(comes from below/without)
What is structure?
o Unconscious + material (instead of conscious and metaphysical)
o Deterministic instead of humanistic = language determines thought e.g. words are the
product of a linguistic, scientific structure that determines our meaning and thought
(paradox: although language determines us, it still needs us to exist)
o Meaning arises out of differences of constituent parts of the system (not inherent
essences) e.g. 0 and 1 in binary code are nothing on their own, but are only meaningful in a
system of differences = produces a complex symphony
Even our identities have meaning in this way (system of differences)
o Every element of the system can be systematically plotted on a Cartesian co-ordinate system
(complex, logical, all-encompassing) >>> mathematical
o Structures are dynamic (not static) >>> cf. synchronic analysis (now) vs diachronic analysis
(change over time)
o These structures can be found in all disciplines e.g. humanities >> make more
scientific/objective cf. History = used to be humanities, now a social science
o The goal of structuralists was to put the humanities on a more objective, scientific base
Two influential structuralists
Ferdinand de Saussure Claude Levi-Strauss (cf. Gasche reading)
o Father of Structuralism o Complex mythical structures are composed
o Ideas cannot exist before words (inversion of mythemes
of Platonic thought) o Mythical archetypes (like sun or water) do
o Words = signs not have stable/inherent meaning, no
cross-cultural significance
, o Signs link a concept (signified) and sound o Mythemes are individual units whose
image (signifier) meaning arises from difference and
o Signified + signifier = arbitrary relation (if structure (can be plotted on Cartesian co-
not, we would only have one language) ordinate system)
o Signs can only be meaningful in a system of
differences
Two ironies of structuralism?
ST asserts that meaning is not humanistic/product of human desire (rather deterministic)
but their obsession to organize thought and practice in a system reinforces a metaphysical
desire for order (is their desire creating structure instead of structure creating them?)
Derrida’s criticism: ST rejects all centres (metaphysics and epistemology) but structure is the
new centre = they are not as radical as they claim to be, still recourse to metaphysics
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE (1857-1913)
o Asserts that language is a system of signs
o The sign is a union of the signified (concept, tree in the world) and the signifier
(sound image, “tree”)
o The linguistic sign is arbitrary, man-made = there is no inevitable or natural link
between the signifier and the signified
o If the relation was natural = there would not be different languages, only one language
o Two exceptions to the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign
Onomatopoeia: sound of the signifier is mimetic or imitative
Combinatory/complex words e.g. typewriter: two meanings of “type” and “writer”
related to the signified BUT both sound sequences are still distinctly arbitrary
o However, this does not mean that language is mere nomenclature for a universal set of
concepts/names for universal, static concepts
Language is not static but dynamic
If it were mere nomenclature, it would be easy to perfectly translate from one
language to another language, but translation is never perfect
Each language articulates or organizes the world differently, different conceptual
planes e.g. Eskimos have 20 different words for snow
Meaning is the result of the fact that both the signifier and signified are purely
relational or differential entities (this follows from ST premises + arbitrary nature):
“in all cases, then, we discover not ideas given in advance but values emanating from
the system…concepts are purely differential, not positively defined by their content
but negatively defined by their relations with other terms in the system. Their most
precise character is that they are what the others are not”
Examples: 8:25 Geneva to Paris train has identity because of its difference to other
trains, chess pieces have meaning because of their differences, different
pronunciations or dialects have the same signifiers and gain meaning if we
understand them to be different from other linguistic possibilities
Identity is wholly a function of differences within a system
, Saussurian Distinctions
1. Langue: deep structure of language that produces ideas, system of difference, can be
plotted on a graph
o This is Saussure’s focus = what ST wants to plot, removes time and context
o Speech recognition (phonology) = functional differences
o Value = meaning by difference (possible forms)
o Mouton in French and English = different values
o Derrida: Langue is the institution of language
o Synchronic analysis (vertical axis): “snapshot view”, system in a particular state (how
Saussure wants to plot)
o Paradigmatic relations: linguistic substitution (same categories, test in GL for category)
o Syntagmatic relations: sequential, syntactic possibilities of putting words together (rules for
combining words
2. Parole (opposite of langue): actual manifestations of this system in speech or writing,
speech acts, specific instances of speech or writing
o Voice recognition (actual sounds, recognizing someone’s voice, phonetics)
o Signification = used in an utterance (actual use)
o Mouton in French and English = same signification in the world
o Derrida: Parole is the event of language
o Too contextually complex for Saussure
o Diachronic analysis (historical axis): Change over time/evolution of language (might belong
to parole?)
*Example to illustrate distinction: George and Susan saying: I am tired
The “I”: langue (different from other pronouns) + parole (context, George or Susan speaking)
o Why are synchronic and diachronic analyses methodological fiction?
Synchronic cannot be a complete snapshot because of contextual variations (differences in
English, for example) but there is enough overlap. Diachronic analysis is actually looking at
words in different synchronic states e.g. understand previous definitions of “gay” based on
synchronic snapshots of past English
How do languages change then? We use words differently (diachronic signification, value
change) = however, this is not interesting for ST because they want to focus on formal
system of language and not context/parole
Consequences of Saussure’s Language Theory
o Prior to ST: meaning given by God, now meaning is created via language/a function of its
structure
o Language does not find reality or truth, rather creates it
o Language is contingent on langue – system of differences (closed system = all signs only refer
to other signs)
o Organisational recursion evident: we are both the products and producers of language i.e.
we are determined by society but society is created by us
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller 21692483. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R149,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73918 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now