DECONSTRUCTING DECONSTRUCTION
An actual
deconstruction conducted by Derrida - say the deconstruction of Saussure's
theory of language, specially the quotation from Derrida where he reveals Saussure's
theory of language as logocentric and contaminated by the metaphysics of
presence.
Agreeing with Saussure on the essentially differential nature of all
meaning, Derrida goes on to point out that despite Saussure's insistence on
that purely differential nature of the sign, Saussure maintains a rigorous
distinction: between the signifier and the signified and the equation between
the signified and the concept leaves open in principle the possibility of
conceiving a signified concept in itself. The give access to the signified and
seems subordinated to the concept of meaning that it communicates. SO,
Saussurean’s theory is shown as making a neat distinction between the signifier
and the signified and arranging them in a hierarchy: signified signifier.
This as
Derrida shows later is a fallacy signified cannot be conceived independently of
the signifies. The only concrete entities in terms of which we can talk about
signifies are the signifiers themselves. Thus, he reverses the hierarchy in
Saussure's theory and shows the theory to be contaminated with the traditional
notion of presence. Then what is the linguistic model according to Derrida?
Instead of Saussure's signified, Derrida would start with the written letter:
marks-on-blanks, as the basic unit---the a priori given. Everything else he would
see as imported from outside or generated in a reader's interaction with these
mark. "Ultimately man finds in things nothing but what he himself has
imported into them "says one of his dedicated followers, J.H. Miller.
So, just as Saussure's model of language takes a certain signified presence as
its starting point and is thus labeled logocentric, similarly, Derrida's model
which takes the written sign for granted, can be labeled 'graphocentric'--centred
on the marks- on-blanks.
As the
process of signification continues over years, these marks accumulate
"traces" of meanings. Any signification that difference has activated
in a signifier in the past remains active as a "trace" in the present
instance as it will in the future, and these traces accumulate like sediments
giving the meaning of that word a diversity. Thus, whenever we try to ascertain
the meaning of a word, Miller would have us believe, we encounter a number of
meanings present in a state of "vibratory suspension", which will not
permit us to accept any one meaning as the only meaning of the word. But what
sets this process of difference into motion? If a human mind learning language
starts with these marks-on-blanks, then, what sets into motion the system of
differentiation through which at least a couple of meanings are created which
can then through mutual differentiation inbreed other meanings and create a
complete I , system?
This is one
of the basic questions about language, which the deconstructionist cannot
satisfactorily answer without committing a heresy. In order to answer it,
Derrida offers the notion of difference. Combining the ideas
'difference-differing-deference' difference denotes both a 'passive' difference
already in place as the condition of signification and an act of differing
which produces other differences. How does that passive difference arise in the
first place? , To answer this Derrida would ask us to believe in an impossible
process in which difference originates in the process of differing without the
differing terms having - any kind of a priori signification. All this adds up
to say that just as Saussure's theory is based on the logo centric model,
similarly Derrida's theory of difference is based on the graphocentric model.
Derrida's deconstruction of Saussurean linguistics is also dependent on an
origin, ground and end. His origin and end are his graphocentric premises and
the impossible notion of difference in which he sees the origin of meaning.
To say that
Derrida's critique of Saussure harbors the same limitations is nothing new. Deconstruction
critiques a fallacy even while harboring the same fallacy itself. Then, why
should anyone read deconstruction seriously if it remains a fault-finding
exercise without suggesting any positive remedy?
If You Want More Notes
For UGC NET Prepration So Mail Us : Myexamsolution@gmail.com
WhatsApp Us :
8130208920
Very helpful thank you!
ReplyDelete