Pied piper of deconstruction 

M. S. Nagarajan | The Hindu | October 01, 2006

http://www.hindu.com/lr/2006/10/01/stories/2006100100130500.htm

  
THE French intellectual Jacques Derrida was born in Algeria on July 15, 1930 of 
Jewish parentage and died on October 8, 2004 at a private hospital in Paris, 
reportedly of pancreas cancer, leaving behind his wife and three sons. 

  He is the accredited patriarch of the much-debated philosophical system of 
enquiry known as deconstruction. This movement has grown so widely — and wildly 
— that there is not a single discipline in the arts or the social sciences that 
has not felt its massive impact. 

  Seminal paper 
  
The paper "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" 
Derrida presented at the Johns Hopkins University seminar in 1966 shook the 
literary academy off its complacency, dismantling radically all previous 
notions about the phenomenon of art and literature, leading it to fresh woods 
and pastures anew. 

  When all others (liberal humanists) believed in such axioms as literature is 
timeless, it contains moral truth, it is essentially human, a piece of 
literature has a meaning of its own, capable of being interpreted and 
explained, Derrida said, much to their chagrin, that a text has no meaning, it 
does not say what it believes it says. There is an inherent contradiction in 
any piece of communication since language, by its very nature, is slippery and 
dynamic, fluid and unstable. Hence, words do not stand for concepts; words do 
not — in fact, cannot — signify anything in particular, or for that matter, 
anything at all! Meanings are proliferated and disseminated in endless ways. 
Any attempt at capturing the meaning of an utterance has in it the seeds of its 
undoing. Every meaning undermines itself. This is what Derrida means when he 
says, "language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique". 

  By way of expounding his theory, Derrida sought recourse to terms such as 
`aporia,' `difference,' `bricolage,' `logocentrism,' etc., all of which have 
now admittedly grown into systems of thought and the vocabulary of criticism. 

  Inspiring 
  
It is not surprising that this anti-historical movement inspired young aspiring 
academics. Works, even classics, came in for radical revisionist re-readings, 
aided and abetted by high-powered journals, the policy of which was to promote 
dazzlingly new rhetorical reinterpretation of works. 

  Derrida did not have the advantage of an uninterrupted formal education. From 
his early years, he was passionately — though eclectically — interested in the 
Continental philosophers, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Camus whose works he devoured 
ravenously: his appetite for these writers was impulsive. After a late 
graduation in France, he studied for a time at Harvard, and later taught at the 
University of Paris for a number of years. 

  He was adored as a Parisian intellectual; his articles in learned journals on 
the philosophy of language became focal points of interest. His charisma 
rendered him a cult figure in the world of analytical and linguistic 
philosophy. His fame so spread in Europe and the U.S. that he came to be in 
great demand as a Visiting Professor in many of the highly visible metropolitan 
Universities. He had a strong following at the English Department in Yale with 
Paul de Man and Hillis Miller becoming his fervent followers. Admiringly, they 
came go be called Yale critics! 

  Time of disfavour 
  
However, there was a time in the late 1980s, when he fell into disfavour with 
his admirers, as it became known that his chief protégé Paul de Man was a 
regular contributor, in his early years, to Belgian journals, which carried his 
pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic writings. Derrida openly defended his friend's fascist 
ideas, and this led to a widespread scandal from which there was no recovery. 
  
This was grist to his detractor's mill. With the growing interest in 
postcolonial theories and culture studies, there has been a steady and 
noticeable decline in the fortunes of deconstruction and the dominance of the 
deconstructionist approach to literary study. 
  
Prolific writer 
  
Derrida was a prolific writer, with some 40-plus books to his credit, written 
in French and translated into English. His writings Of Grammatology (translated 
by Gayatri Spivak), Writing and Difference, Speech and Phenomena, Margins of 
Philosophy, Dissemination, Positions are all difficult, turgid, obscure and 
even impenetrable in the density of their prose. 
  
The detractors of Derrida — and they are a legion — accuse him of nihilism, 
since he is wholly consumed by, and obsessed with, language cut off from the 
world of reality. Is not human civilisation built upon the solid bedrock of 
shared enquiry and belief? 
  
Remember his forbears were Nietzsche, Husserl, and Heidegger! Those who attack 
Derrida raise a very simple, yet, valid question; how can Derridean 
deconstruction find its place within an institution it seeks to subvert?
   

                
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ 
countries) for 2¢/min or less.





--
This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to 
[email protected]

If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank 
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to