Jacques Derrida

The next time a person asks me about what an English major studies I'll begin with a quote from Derrida: "Well, a text is not simply an alphabetic note or a book."

"Jacques Derrida (/ʒɑːk ˈdɛrᵻdə/; French: [ʒak dɛʁida]; born Jackie Élie Derrida; postmodern philosophy. (July 15, 1930 – October 9, 2004) was a French philosopher, born in Algeria. Derrida is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction, 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 post-modern philosophy.

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, applied 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." --Wikipedia 2017 April 2

This week we had two articles to read on Derrida. I chose to write about the interview:  "Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition: A Conversation" by Gary A. Olsen (1990). I refreshed my memory about deconstruction by re-reading "Post-structuralism and deconstruction" in Peter Barry's book Beginning Theory. I wanted a general understanding before proceeding.

I found the interview much to my liking and of particular interest was the way in which Derrida responded to questions in general. For each of Olsen's questions, Derrida began his reply by first explicating them in terms appropriate to make an answer to. I got the impression very quickly that questionable issues do not lend themselves to specificity and that a question attempts to frame a response that may be met with a concise answer but not so in the case of Derrida. Often his replies opened up the question to a broad range of considerations which he then responded precisely where suitable. His answers became an enlightening journey through his thought process and his knowledge. Derrida's frequent use of the word "simply" or should I say the phrase "not simply" emphasizes the complex lens through which he understands language. Conclusively, I claim that the value of Derrida's philosophy as associated with deconstruction is demonstrated clearly during his interview by Olsen.

Although Olsen's intent attempted to get Derrida to voice his opinion on how composition might best be taught in universities, Derrida responded in a very Derridean way: "'I would not rely on a model in which composition instructors are confined simply within one discipline; nor would I rely on a model in which they are simply dispersed, scattered among a variety of disciplines'" (2). I thought to myself how perfect an answer since any model or discipline is a structure within which composition (a structuring process) takes place. Structures imply a center that deconstruction has shown not to exist. So, the answer necessarily includes the lack of a center in which composition should take place. Subject to the complexities of Derridean thought, the author states "Derrida fully endorses . . . a" "writing-across-the-disciplines model" (2). So, we do get an answer albeit taken as a compromise or as an enrichment, to our preconceived notions.

Derrida touched on something of interest to me when questioned by Olsen: "if all of our knowledge and facts and reality are created by social groups, by discourse communities, then rhetoric is the key to it all . . . What are your thoughts about social constructionism?" (14). In my preface to my post on Locke, I asked the following: "What truth has the power to stand unchanged against reality? At least with well-founded rhetoric, one may find themselves as a great crusader who sheds light into the darkness of reality. What then when technology provides alternatives to unassailable reality? Shall rhetoric be the way, the truth, and the light?" And although I presumed that due to technological advancements artificial realities would soon be equivalent to what we now consider reality when I asked the questions, and despite the fact that I assumed my questions novel, I found that 'social constructionism' had already considered similar questions.

The guest's answer took place over some pages and boils down to reality not being equal to rhetoric. Derrida first responded, "that philosophy or thinking is [not] simply a cause of shared values" (15). His statement implies that things outside of the human sphere of control, such as biological ontogeny, broadly speaking, nature, and first-hand experience, impact philosophical consideration. To include what Olsen suggests by social constructionism Derrida divides the question into two. He says: "about rhetoric becoming the central paradigmatic, epistemic activity," "as . . . a formal superstructure or technique exterior to the essential activity, [that r]hetoric is something decisive in society" (15). He then states that he would be suspicious of what [he] calls "'rhetoricism'"--a way of giving rhetoric all the power, thinking that everything depends on rhetoric as simply a technique of speech" (15). This reply made me think of Burke and how most of what we know is a symbolic system and how rhetoricism is a technique used to manipulate that system without reguiring a differentiation between what is real and what is not. Undoubtedly, rhetoric has limited influence over the senses and first-hand observable experience. Derrida further distances rhetoric from reality by justifiably aligning it with speech acts by stating "speech acts, or performative speech acts, depends on conditions and conventions which are not simply verbal. What [he] calls writing or text is not simply verbal" (15). By breaking down Olsen's question into a question about Rhetoricism and about rhetoric Derrida successfully navigates the interviewer's assumptions and helped me to understand my concerns in the process.