Deconstruction. Jolly good times spent with Derrida

Q: Explain and evaluate two or three key terms from Derrida’s work (eg. Difference, the trace, the supplement, metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, phonocentrism, intertextuality, deconstructions, etc.)

When reading Derrida, it is easy to confuse his philosophy with the positions he is putting in to questions. He often quotes upon earlier philosophers, and what I have found is that Derrida does this not as much to provide evidence for his own philosophical claims, but more to tear apart other philosophies. “Derrida always explains his philosophy through commentary on, and discussions of, other work…”- Barry Stocker,Derrida on Deconstruction, pp. 23

 Derrida goes to enormous trouble to reconstruct the positions of particular philosophical classics. He is a part of the sceptical tradition. He defines his goals as confronting the philosophical with the empirical in order to question the philosophical.

If there is no-thing outside the text, this implies, with the transformation of the concept of text in general, that the text is no longer the snug air-tight inside of interiority or an identity-to-itself ...  but rather a different placement of the effects of opening and closing. (Derrida 1981a, 35-6)

To understand Derrida’s views on language, we certainly need to look at Saussure. For Saussure, no word is meaningful in itself, but only in relation to other words. Thus, a word is meaningless without the entire linguistic system to back it up. Derrida often quote upon Saussure and agreed to some extend; the passages where Derrida finds the most positive aspects of Saussure are to do with difference and the materiality of the signifier. For Saussure, the system of language is not a form of imposed on an already existing set of linguistic value, through its differences from other signs. A word does not have a meaning: a definition must use other words. We can only define words with other words and we can only separate words or signs from other words or signs by reference to difference between words, not the essence within the word. ‘Tree’ means tree because it does not mean any kind of animal object, it does not mean any kind of fruit or vegetable, and so on. But for Derrida that kind of argument already contains a disruption of metaphysical system that is very apparent in Saussure. In Saussure, meaning can only be determined by the differences between the material signifiers, so that we have what Derrida calls an economy, in which it is the exchange and equivalence between different linguistic values that determined meanings, not a structure that is intrinsically metaphysical. He argues that words rely on what is not immediately present for their meaning. Background context is crucial for understanding. Hence, while this essay may mean something in this philosophical discussion, it could well mean something else, say, and essay about global warming. As Robert Miller explained in lecture, for you to fully understands what I have written, you would have to know the entire context of why I am writing, why you are reading, what our cultural understandings are, and so on, hence; there is nothing outside the text.

At each step of understanding we take, the meaning is, according to Derrida, updated and changes, deferred to a later time. Unfortunately, later never comes, as when it does, it too will be superseded by a further later.

Defining deconstruction is an activity that goes against the whole thrust of Derrida’s thought. But let’s give it a go; it is in fact an important part of Derrida’s philosophy, as well as the essay question.  According to Derrida, all previous philosophy is wrong, because each idea has been superseded. Our philosophy is also wrong, because we too will be superseded. However we are prevented from rejecting philosophy, because as soon we engage in it in any way, we are practising philosophy. To understand this Derrida proposes ‘Deconstruction’, which is impossible to define for reasons he himself has given. However, a very general meaning of it can run as follows: deconstruction involves pulling apart meanings, concepts, ideas, and the like, and examining and subverting the foundations and assumptions on which they are based. Or more simply, it is pulling an idea apart to get everything that it relies on for meaning.

Deconstruction however, can be deconstructed. Derrida himself does this, which results in very circular arguments. This should not been seen as a flaw in Derrida’s system, but an integral part of it. What this does show is that there is no idea that cannot be subverted, examined, and pulled apart. In much the same way as linguistic meaning, philosophical certainty is impossible. Deconstruction often involves a way of reading that concerns itself with decentring. According to Derrida, all western thought is based on the idea of a centre; an origin, a truth, a fixed point, and the issues with centres is that they try to exclude. In doing so they ignore, repress or marginalize others, which becomes The Others. In a male dominated society the man is central (and women is the marginalized other, repressed, ignored pushed to the margins, it is also the same case when it comes to religions; if you have a Christ in the centre of its icons the Christians will be central to that culture and Buddhists, Muslims, Jews- anybody different will be in the margins- marginalized pushed to the outside. Deconstruction is a tactic of decentring, a way of reading, which first makes us aware of the centrality of the central term, and then it attempts subvert the central term so that the marginalized term can become central. Derrida claims that deconstruction is a political practice and that one must not pass over and neutralize this phase of subversion too quickly. For this phase of reversal is needed in order to subvert the original hierarchy of the first term over the second. But eventually, one must realize that this new hierarchy is equally unstable, and surrender to the complete free play of the binary opposites in a no hierarchy way. Then you see that both readings and many others are equally possible.

Derrida’s ideas about language and his deconstruction theory, seemed to me at first way to complex an extremely hard to grasp, but after close reading bits and pieces of his texts and others critique on him, I definitely understood more about where he is coming from. It all seem very complex though, but where he states that nothing can really be understood without by the use of words and language, an what we cannot put words on, define and interpret without language, is not known, there might be a lot outside of text, but we won’t understand or know what it exactly is before we can define it with the use of words, words that might never come clear to any of us. It reminds me of that feeling one gets at times, a strange feeling within, you can’t seem to put words on it, explain it, and neither you nor anybody else will be able to understand the feeling you have within. It also resemblance the phrase; the more you learn, the more you see how little you actually know. You will be going on for eternity trying to explain words upon words, but not being able to come up with a final solution, a final word or explanation. You will never be able to know everything, the whole context of any words, languages, texts, things, animals or human beings. It might sound a bit depressing, but I think that is the beauty of it; the mystery. There is some strange kind of beauty in Derrida’s deconstruction theory as well, the fact that it is somehow necessary to pull apart these cultural, religious centres, to make room for others who has been pushed aside for too long. In Barry Stocker’s Derrida on Deconstruction he is saying that Derrida claimed himself to be somewhat of a radical , and being an ex-socialist (if I can ever put that way) I completely fell for his idea of decentring. The only problem is that once you’ve decentred something, the other will take its place and become the centre, so you would be going around in circles, and not really resolving anything. It sounds good in theory, but wouldn’t necessarily work as well in real life. Perhaps a bit similar to communism.

I would love to continue to explain and try to define Derrida’s ideas, but if I did, I would be going on for the entire eternity; there is not such a thing as a final word.

RESOURCES.

·         Derrida on Deconstruction; Barry Stocker; Routledge Philosophy Guidebook

·         Ethics,politics,subjectivity; Simon Critchley; Verso,1999

·         Interview: Jacques Derrida

Author(s): G. Scarpetta, J. L. Houdebine and Jacques Derrida

Source: Diacritics, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Winter, 1972), pp. 35-43Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/464504 .

·         At the Intersection: Kant, Derrida, and the Relation between Ethics and Politics

Author(s): Marguerite La Caze):Source: Political Theory, Vol. 35, No. 6 (Dec., 2007), pp. 781-805Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452600 .

·         Document Phil1087 No.8 2010; Robert Miller

Will To Power.

Anything that is living and a dying body, will have to be incarnate 'will to power.' It will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant- not from any morality or immorality, but because it is living and because life simply is will-to-power. Exploitation belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function, it is a consequence of the will-to-power, which is after all will-to-life.

From the 1890's the philosopher F. Nietzsche exerted a profound and enduring impact on society, he reckoned he could provide a persuasive account on e.g religion, science & philosophy. Nietzsche was not a typical happy chap, he did not at all have a positive view on life and it's challenges and felt rather sickened about his life on plant earth, and so should any other sensitive and honestly aware person be. And therein lies a great danger, Nietzsche felt. If we get sickened by life by looking at it in it's true colours, which we should,otherwise we would be deceiving ourselves, seeking comfort in imaginary religious ideas, wishful thoughts etc.
So, Nietzsche thought; we have to change our values, change from being weak, decadent, soft-hearted, sentimental and timid, to having courageous, self-assertive, risk taking, achievement taking obstacle overcoming values. We are going to have to become the type of person who relishes playing hard ball with life for our own self-created causes.
Therefore, Nietzsche introduced the hypothesis; that nature in essence is nothing but will-to-power. The will-to-power describes what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in man: achievement, ambition, the striving to reach the highest possible position in life. Will-to-power is an explanation for all human behaviour. It is an impulse, conscious or unconscious, to become superior or dominant over other people, aspects or objects in order to distinguish yourself.
Robert M mentioned in lecture 'that every moral act the is always a feeling of self-satisfaction, an awareness that one is good, righteous and superior to the bad. You would argue that when Susan B Anthony, the American civil rights leader fought for women rights in the 1800's did it to gain equal rights between men and women, to help her fellow women in suffrage, not to gain power and feel superior to anybody else. You would also instantly argue that Maximus Gullermo Manus and his comrades in the Norwegian resistance movement, who were risking to get exposed by Gestapo and their lives , by sabotaging against the Nazi's during WW2, did it for peoples freedom and peoples rights. and every other war-hero that died on the battlefield, fighting for their countries freedom. But according to Nietzsche, is is the contrary; self-sacrificing for their cause or truth is still in accordance to will-to-power.
Will-to-power work by self-depiction. The martyrs get a great feeling of power via their belief that they were in the right. It gives them a sense of superiority, the society would also put them higher than themselves, and give their heroes superiority.
Nietzsche then goes on discussing the 'innocence of becoming.; he rejects the idea that the weak and weary are in such a condition because of the long period of domination and oppression they have endured at the hands of the ruling classes. The blaming of others for the conditions that one happens to be in is nothing more than finding a scapegoat. People need to find others responsible for their miserable condition because they don't want to feel as though there is no reason that they are what they are.
Nietzsche sees this idea as a product of the priestly class, who wanted to invent a right for themselves to take revenge upon those who were their oppressor. in other words responsibility for one's station in life and one's actions is a product of the revenge and ressentiment of those in a state of subjugation. The fact of matter, as Nietzsche claims, is that no-one is responsible for the situation into which a person finds oneself born, or th qualities that a person has: 'that no one has given man his qualities,neither God, nor Society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself....that no one is to be held responsible for the fact that anyone exists at all....'- Nietzsche; The Will to Power, ibid pp 402
The innocence to becoming is the idea that all existence is innocent. To hold someone or something responsible for one's happen-to-be condition is merely to make sour grapes out of those who find themselves in a more favourable circumstances.

Did Nietzsche manage to debunk traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims by providing us with the will-to-power hypothesis? Nietzsche contributes to the sociological discussion on for example culture, theory and being . He highlights how much of humans are being socially conditioned. His dislikes for sociology is clear, he argues that instead of there being positive effect on mankind, these sociologists of the future will produce a weakening and impoverishment on mankind.
Patrick Asper explains that 'one can divide Nietzsche's argumentation into three parts: (1) an explanation of how values emerge, (2) an explanation of how values emerge and (3) a normative critique of values.
By using this form we manage to expose the pattern which makes Nietzsche's arguments even more powerful.
Personally, I believe Nietzsche debunked the traditional way of thinking, maybe it is because I do think people are in accordance to will-to-power. There is always a deeper meaning why we do what we do.
But as discussed in class, there can be different levels of will-to-power, even though you still get a feeling of being in the right when doing something good, the difference lies in how you benefit from it.