Deconstructing Derrida

Prashant Parikh
Aug 25, 2017 · 3 min read

Derrida offers two things, a “philosophical outlook” and a “method,” even though he would not accept either term. The outlook is a kind of idealism because it implicitly takes language, a human construct, as the source of “reality.” The method, to be described below, is called deconstruction. Roughly, we may say that Derrida = Saussure + Heidegger.

Method of deconstruction:

1. Start with a binary opposition, preferably one that is common in (philosophical) discourse such as speech/writing, presence/absence, conscious/unconscious, man/woman, serious/nonserious, etc.

2. Let a be its first term and let b be its second term. Assume a dominates b. The sense of “dominates” here is socially dominates. Let a/b stand for a dominates b.

3. Consider an entailment of a and of b. Call it b′. For example, speech and writing entail iterability (i.e. repeatability).

4. Because a and b entail b′, b′ can be said to dominate a and b: it is their precondition. But here the sense of “dominates” is logically dominates. Because b′ dominates a, we can write b′/a. This is called displacement as a/b has become b′/a. Since speech entails iterability, iterability/speech.

5. Set b = b′, that is, make the entailment a meaning of b. For example, make iterability a meaning of “writing.” From b′/a and b = b′ we get b/a. This is called reversal as a/b has become b/a.

6. We can summarize the method thus: a/b → b′ → b′/a → b/a. This has some affinity with Heidegger’s way of introducing a third term (e.g. The Origin of the Work of Art).

Critique of method:

a) Step #2: It is just assumed that the first term dominates the second. The relationship may be quite complex depending on what aspect of a and b one considers. For example, it is not obvious that speech dominates writing or that conscious dominates unconscious. This depends on the context. So one cannot just write a/b.

b) Step #4: Displacement: The sense of “dominates” is arbitrarily shifted from a social sense to a logical sense. a/b and b′/a involve different kinds of domination.

c) Step #5: Reversal: It is arbitrarily stipulated that b = b′. The move begs the question. For example, the entailment iterability cannot just be made the meaning of “writing.” Otherwise it could also be attached to “speech.” Derrida is aware of this. Toward the end of Signature Event Context he writes: “To leave to this new concept the old name of writing is tantamount to maintaining the structure of the graft, the transition and indispensable adherence to an effective intervention in the constituted historical field.” But he would himself say this is mere ideology.

d) If the method were valid, it would apply also to Derrida’s key term différance. Consider the opposition différance/presence (step #1). For him, the first term clearly dominates the second (step #2). Now, presence entails something we can talk about (step #3). This entailment dominates différance (step #4). We can arbitrarily say the entailment is a meaning of “presence” (step #5). So the hierarchy has been reversed because we can now say that presence/différance under this new meaning of “presence.” But this subverts Derrida’s critique of logocentrism.

)
Prashant Parikh

Written by

Prashant Parikh does research in philosophy, linguistics, and artificial intelligence and writes occasionally on art and politics.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade