Derrida 4 dummies

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Those people who flamed you were morons, Tom.  It's much more simpatico here at 
pynchon-l. *-}
Sorry I don't have the specific cite; I'll post it tomorrow, but see D's early article (late
60s?) called I think, "Structure, Sign and Play*.  The talk that got the deconstructuve ball
 rolling,  It lays out his basic idea, which was a reaction to structualist dominance in lit and 
social sciences throughout mid-centruy, that structuralists were themselves falling victim 
to the tyranny of the very notion of structural thought.  

Risking outraged cries of *but that's not it at all* from certain quarters, I offer tentatively 
this very general understanding: Derrida sez when we think structurally, like in binary
opposites (e,g, black/white, up/down. boy/girl) we always value one term over the other.
  When semioticians consider the basic structural paradigm of signs, namely, sign = 
signifier + signified, D. sez we give too much power to the signified (i.e. the concept) and 
not enough to the signifier (i.e. the material outward form of the sign).  This is, I think, 
the basis of logocentrism, and a Bad Thing.  We forget that all signifieds must be perceived
 through a form, a signifier.  There is no pure *concept* without a body.  Since all of the 
concepts in language ultimately refer to entire constellations of potential signifiers, the 
attempt to *fix* meaning univocally only occurs by the agency of an outside or external 
power, force, Authority, rather than to any inherent *essence* or *presence* in the 
concept. .  Somehow we think we avoid this trap when we *speak* as opposed to when 
we write, but the *presence* of speech is equally an illusion, according to Derrida.  That's 
why *writing* (in an extended sense of any form of inscribing: graphic, oral, even 
conceptual) is considered as being logically prior to *speaking* in his philosophy (in 
contrast to *common sense* notions of the relationship of speech to writing).

Rather than note the Derridean classics,
there's a slender book by Derrida called LIMITED, INC (nice title) where he and Ordinary 
Language philosopher John Searle (in absentia) slug it out.  I think it's accessible, and 
enjoyable (actually quite funny in places).
A little more difficult to get through but very illuminating, is Barbara Johnson's 
discussion of the Derrida/Lacan contretemps over Poe's **Purloined Letter* in Johnson's 
book THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE.

johnny duncecap
*****************************************
Tom S. writes:

>What's needed is a "Derrida for Dummies" so that those of us not in
>the mainstream of academic criticism might get a grasp. A few years
>ago in rec.arts.books I made the very foolish request that someone
>encapsulate the premise of decon & got flamed for weeks thereafter
>on the basis that unless I was willing to devote my life to the study,
>I would never understand a summary ...
>
>