Deconstructing Derrida

Jacques Derrida attempts to deconstruct Saussure's structional approach to language by proving that writing is a key element to language. In his essay, he endeavors to show how determination of context cannot be ascertained and that, in regards to written communications, it cannot be excluded. For Derrida, the only way to discover what a text has to offer is to reread, as he believed that a text should be opened to many interpretations, not just a single elucidation.

Summary

Derrida's deconstruction hypothesis introduces the idea that the written word cannot be excluded in the argument of context and meaning. He believes that writing follows in the line of communications. "Once men are already in the state of 'communicating their thoughts,' and doing so by means of sounds...the birth and progress of writing will follow in a line that is direct, simple and continuous." Derrida argued that Saussure's thoughts that writing was individualistic of speech were incorrect. To Derrida, the written word is merely a symbol that symbolizes another symbol that represents the spoken word, and therefore, writing cannot be mutually exclusive from speech.

Writing is seen as a way to communicate to a person (the distant reader) who is absent, yet will eventually receive the message being spoken. He continued on with his argument, stating that the differance of writing that it could live longer than the addressee, that the symbols used could continue on, without needing the addressee there to validate. "A writing that is not structurally readable-iterable-beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing." This differance allows the writing to succeed at being free of the individual's control, in that, posthumous, the writing can stand alone, independent of the individual.

It is here that Derrida mentions the idea of repetition: "Representation, of course, will become more complex, will develop supplementary ramifications and degrees; it will become the representation of a representation in various systems of writing, hieroglyphic, ideographic, or phonetic-alphabetical, but the representative structure which marks the first degree of expressive communication, the relation idea/sign, will never be either annulled or transformed." The words, once written, are subject to those reading it, and its original meaning becomes lost in translation, yet still present. Without the addressee there to validate, the written context is at the mercy of the distant reader, without ever losing its original meaning to the addressee. However, it is the dynamic interpretations of the written word that distances itself from speech, in that, with speech, there are a great deal of hidden cues in tone, voice, and body language that narrows the context of the words for the addressee, while, in writing, the meaning is left to the interpretation of the reader and with each subsequent reading, new meanings are discovered.

Interpretation

Derrida's deconstruction theory on the signature is quite intriguing, and one that, admittedly, makes the most sense to me. Writing continues on, regardless of the actions and the intentions of the addressee. A prime example would be email: there is a great deal of information lost in one email, because there is no sound to signify the words, there are just symbols to be left open to interpretation. However, it is impossible to completely separate the written from the spoken: they are naturally aligned as signified and signifier, a natural progression of language. How else would one communicate with someone else over great distances? Natives and Neanderthals used smoke signals and cave drawings to communicate their thoughts and messages to others. They are just another symbol use to symbolize a sound which symbolizes a concept. Writing is merely another variation of expression on concepts formed in the mind.

Yet with each of these lines of communication, each can be left up to the reader to deduce what is actually being said, and depending on the reader, each reading can be a new and exciting journey through the meanings of the words. Each person who sees a cave drawing can interpret it differently, and each time afterwards see the drawing in a new light. Each reading of a favorite book or viewing of a favorite movie can enlighten the reader to missed symbols and meanings. Writing is not meant be singular, but complex and diverse.

Derrida, Jacques. "Signature, Event, Context." Marges de la Philosophy. Editions de Minuit, 1972. Rpt in Limited Inc. Trans. Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman. Evanston: U of Illinois P, 1988. 1-23.