Contemporary western Theories and Film studies
Contemporary western Theories and Film studies
Paper no: 204
∆ Personal Information:
Name : Maya Batiya
Roll no : 18
Enrollment no :5108230003
Course : M.A.sem-3
Paper no :204
Paper code :22409
Paper name : Contemporary western Theories and Film studies
Topic : Unpacking Meaning: Analysis Derrida's concept of Deconstruction and its Implications for language text, and Identity.
Submitted : Smt.S.B.Gardi, Department of English MKBU.
Email: mayajbatiya2003@gmail.com
Q. Unpacking Meaning: Analysis Derrida's concept of Deconstruction and its Implications for language text, and Identity.
Ans :
1. Introduction :
In parallel with the importance attached to the language phenomenon in 20th century, the meaning phenomenon, apart from being linguistic, has been a philosophical and sociological study subject just as the language and text. In this sense, according to Derrida the language which formalizes the meaning became a problem in aforementioned period. Derrida developed the “deconstruction” concept in order to solve this problem and pointed out that the meaning can be constructed independently. Derrida’s deconstruction concept is in fact a pursuit that suggests postmodernism. This is because of the fact that, Derrida criticizes the Western thought system which is the hegemony of the meaning constructing and legalizing the modernity by mans of deconstruction; and he to liberate the meaning. Moreover the metaphor phenomenon as an auxiliary element for the West thought is on the target board of Derrida.
∆ About Jacques Derrida :
Jacques Derrida (born July 15, 1930, El Biar, Algeria—died October 8, 2004, Paris, France) was a French philosopher whose critique of Western philosophy and analyses of the nature of language, writing, and meaning were highly controversial yet immensely influential in much of the intellectual world in the late 20th century.
• Life and work
Derrida was born to Sephardic Jewish parents in French-governed Algeria. Educated in the French tradition, he went to France in 1949, studied at the elite École Normale Supérieure (ENS), and taught philosophy at the Sorbonne (1960–64), the ENS (1964–84), and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (1984–99), all in Paris. From the 1960s he published numerous books and essays on an immense range of topics and taught and lectured throughout the world, including at Yale University and the University of California, Irvine, attaining an international celebrity comparable only to that of Jean-Paul Sartre a generation earlier.
∆ Derrida's concept of Deconstruction :
In order to do justice to Derrida's theory, which applies to both philosophy and semiotics, we need to accurately define the concepts that shape it. Each section will include several concepts, given that many of them are tightly interwoven making it impossible to define one concept without considering the others.
1 . SIGN, SIGNIFIER, SIGNIFIED
The relationship we find in structuralism between signifier and signified no longer exists. Moreover, there are two ways of erasing the difference between signifier and signified: "one, the classic way, consists in […] submitting the sign to thought; the other, the one we are using here as opposed to the first one, consists in calling into question the system in which the preceding reduction functioned: first and foremost, the opposition between the sensible [perceivable] and the intelligible" (Derrida, 1978, 281).
The Derridian conception of the sign, then, is still tied to the structure of Western philosophy, but the schema in which signifier = signified (the direct relationship between signifier and signified) has been reconceived.
When reading the word "water", we might think of water drops, a lake, the chemical symbol H2O, and so on. We don't necessarily think of a set image of water, a universal mental representation of it. And then, each concept (signifier) to which "water" might refer can trigger another signifier. This infinite chain from signifier to signifier results in a never-ending game and opens the text, displaces it, sets it in motion.
2.WRITING, TRACE, GRAPHIE, GRAM
Words naturally refer to or "reference" other words. Derrida's grammatology advances the idea that writing is originary in the same way speech is; there is a perpetual tension without a power struggle. Consequently:
-Writing cannot be a reproduction of spoken language, since neither one (writing nor spoken language) comes first.
-Conceived in this way, writing is far more than the graphie [written form]; it is the articulation and inscription of the trace.
As for the trace, it is originary, not original: it conveys the impossibility of an origin, or centre. It is the non-origin of origin. It is "the absolute origin of sense in general. […]The trace is the differance which opens appearance [l'apparaître] and signification" (Derrida, 1976, 65). "If the trace […] belongs to the very movement of signification, then signification is a priori written, whether inscribed or not, in one form or another, in a 'sensible' and 'spatial' element that is called 'exterior' " (1976, 70).
Derrida also discusses the trace as arche-writing, "at first the possibility of the spoken word, then of the graphie" (1976, 70).
The concept of the "graphie", or written form, relies on the trace for its existence, and it implies "the framework of the instituted trace, as the possibility common to all systems of signification" (1976, 46). When we associate the trace with the graph (gestural, visual, pictorial, musical or verbal), this trace becomes a gram (letter). Only at this instant does the outside appear (as opposed to the inside), as a "'spatial' and 'objective' exteriority" (1976, 70).
The arche-writing that Derrida is talking about is in fact a broader notion of writing conceptualized in terms of différance. This différance (the a is a trace, a gram) as temporalization is the trace [track] of the written language in the spoken. For instance, punctuation signs are supplemental to speech, not a reproduction of it.
3.TEXT, TEXTUALITY, CLOSURE, NON-CLOSURE
According to Derrida, the text cannot be explained by its origins (author, society, history; in other words, context) since repetition is the origin. The text is writing, and writing is langue (non-intention). It is langue relative to the discourse that implements it.
However, reading is what makes text and writing possible. Arche-writing is reading that includes writing. Writing is characterized by textuality, which is at once the closure and non-closure of the text: "But one can conceive of the closure of that which is without end. Closure is the circular limit within which the repetition of difference infinitely repeats itself. That is to say, closure is its playing space. This movement is the movement of the world as play…"
∆∆ Deconstruction challenge traditional views of language
When applying deconstruction in the translation process, translators may encounter several challenges. The first challenge is concerned with complexity and ambiguity. Deconstruction emphasizes the complexity and ambiguity of texts, which can pose challenges for translators (Ventui, 1998). Translating such texts requires careful consideration of multiple interpretations and the ability to capture the fluidity of meaning. The second challenge is connected with cultural and linguistic specificity (Wales, 2011). Deconstruction often relies on cultural and linguistic references that may be specific to the source language and culture. Translating these references into a different cultural and linguistic context can be challenging. A further challenge is related to preserving absences and silences (Spivak, 1997). Translating these gaps effectively requires a delicate balance between preserving the original text's openness and ensuring the translated version remains meaningful and coherent. A fourth challenge is associated with maintaining style and tone (Sakai, 2006). Translating these stylistic elements while maintaining the intended effect can be challenging. Translators need to find equivalent linguistic and stylistic devices in the target language to convey the same playfulness, irony, or subversion present in the original text.
On the other hand, deconstructive translations may challenge readers' expectations and familiarity with traditional translation norms (Neubert, 2001). Translators may face resistance or confusion from readers who are not accustomed to the deconstructive approach. Balancing fidelity to the original text with the need to make the translation accessible and engaging for the target audience can be a delicate task. Eventually, deconstruction raises ethical considerations related to authorship, ownership, and the dynamics of power and representation (Miall and Kuiken, 1994). Translators need to navigate these concerns while applying deconstruction in their translation practice.
∆∆ Deconstruction affect our understanding of identity
This post is far from a proof of anything. It is merely a line of thought. An exploration and a consideration. This is merely a sketch of a much bigger project. With that being said, let’s see where it takes us. Jacques Derrida is well-known for deconstructing binary oppositions such as the one between speech and writing. Deconstruction can take on many forms and approaches, but the one I want to use is the style of it we find in works like Of Grammatology and Speech and Phenomena. I’m going to argue that the first principle of logic, the law of identity, can itself be deconstructed. This principle privileges identity over difference insofar as it holds that identities are primary and that differences are always secondary differences between identities. In other words, it holds that difference piggybacks on identity. Logicians often treat this “law” as a pure identity, a full presence, which means that it’s thoroughly rooted in the metaphysics of presence — something Derrida spent a lot of time challenging. Arthur Bradley sums up the metaphysics of presence nicely:
This is another key term (along with logocentrism) that Derrida uses to describe the basic assumptions that underlie western thought. According to Derrida, the western philosophical tradition from Plato to the present day dogmatically posits a pure, full and unmediated presence as the supreme value. To Derrida’s way of thinking, this ‘presence’ can take many forms: the presence of the subject to itself in thought, sight or touch, the presence of something in space and/or time, even a presence which has now been lost or which may be gained in the future. For Derrida, the metaphysics of presence expresses itself through the institution of a series of binary oppositions and hierarchies whereby a superior term will be identified with pure presence and an inferior term with the mediation or loss of that presence: speech versus writing, nature versus culture, the masculine versus the feminine and so on. In the Grammatology, Derrida seeks to deconstruct these binary oppositions by articulating a logic of mediation, difference and deferral that makes them possible in the first place.
Despite how much time and energy Derrida devoted to deconstructing identity, he never, as far as I know, focused his attention directly on the law of identity itself. This is peculiar owing to the fact that all of philosophy’s attempts to establish a primary metaphysical identity (e.g., God, soul, subject, reason, atom, etc.) presuppose the first law of logic. But what if the law of identity fails to be identical to itself, that is, what if “pure” logical identity is thoroughly mediated by a pre-conceptual difference (différance)? It would mean that the category of identity is incapable of living up to its own standards. It means that identity collapses in on itself.
∆∆ The relationship between signifier and signified crucial in Deconstruction
The term "poststructuralism" refers to a critical perspective that emerged during the seventies which has dethroned structuralism as the dominant trend in language and textual theory. In order to understand poststructuralism, we need to examine it in relation to structuralism. Deconstructionist criticism subscribes to the poststructuralist vision of language, wherein the signifier (the form of a sign) does not refer to a definite signified (the content of a sign), but produces other signifiers instead. Derrida (1978, 278) takes issue with the centre inherent in the "structurality of structure". Turning to Claude Lévi-Strauss as a representative of structuralist theory, Derrida uses the prohibition of incest and the oppositions nature/culture and universal/prescriptive to show that this structure can no longer withstand scrutiny: "The incest prohibition is universal; in this sense one could call it natural. But it is also a prohibition, a system of norms and interdicts; in this sense one could call it cultural" .
Derrida thus rejects all of metaphysical history with its hierarchies and dichotomies that have survived to this day, the foundation upon which all of logic (logos, which means language) was laid. Derrida has rejected structuralism, and as a result, the Saussurean schema (the signifier/signified relationship) has been rethought.
∆ The significance of Derrida’s concept of "différance"
The speech/writing opposition, for example, is manifested in texts that treat speech as a more authentic form of language than writing. These texts assume that the speaker’s ideas and intentions are directly expressed and immediately “present” in speech, whereas in writing they are comparatively remote or “absent” and thus more easily misunderstood. As Derrida points out, however, speech functions as language only to the extent that it shares characteristics traditionally assigned to writing, such as absence, “difference,” and the possibility of misunderstanding. This fact is indicated by philosophical texts themselves, which invariably describe speech in terms of examples and metaphors drawn from writing, even in cases where writing is explicitly claimed to be secondary to speech. Significantly, Derrida does not wish simply to invert the speech/writing opposition—i.e., to show that writing is really prior to speech. As with any deconstructive analysis, the point is to restructure, or “displace,” the opposition so as to show that neither term is primary.
The speech/writing opposition derives from a pervasive picture of meaning that equates linguistic meaning with the ideas and intentions in the mind of the speaker or author. Building on theories of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, Derrida coined the term différance, meaning both a difference and an act of deferring, to characterize the way in which linguistic meaning is created rather than given. For Derrida as for Saussure, the meaning of a word is a function of the distinctive contrasts it displays with other, related meanings. Because each word depends for its meaning on the meanings of other words, it follows that the meaning of a word is never fully “present” to us, as it would be if meanings were the same as ideas or intentions; instead it is endlessly “deferred” in an infinitely long chain of meanings. Derrida expresses this idea by saying that meaning is created by the “play” of differences between words—a play that is “limitless,” “infinite,” and “indefinite.”
∆∆ Deconstruction impact the concept of authorship
Deconstruction by its very nature defies institutionalization in an authoritative definition. The concept was first outlined by Derrida in Of Grammatology where he explored the interplay between language and the construction of meaning. From this early work, and later works in which he has attempted to explain deconstruction to others, most notably the Letter to a Japanese Friend, it is possible to provide a basic explanation of what deconstruction is commonly understood to mean. Three key features emerge from Derrida’s work as making deconstruction possible. These are, first, the inherent desire to have a centre, or focal point, to structure understanding (logocentrism); second, the reduction of meaning to set definitions that are committed to writing (nothing beyond the text); and, finally, how the reduction of meaning to writing captures opposition within that concept itself (différance). These three features found the possibility of deconstruction as an on-going process of questioning the accepted basis of meaning. While the concept initially arose in the context of language, it is equally applicable to the study of law. Derrida considered deconstruction to be a ‘problematisation of the foundation of law, morality and politics.’ For him it was both ‘foreseeable and desirable that studies of deconstructive style should culminate in the problematic of law and justice.’ Deconstruction is therefore a means of interrogating the relationship between the two.
∆ Conclusion :
• No text has absolute meaning
• There is always some possibility of some new interpretation
• A text is multilayered
• Language is eternally metaphorical
• He demolished the distinction between literature and non-literature
• There are infinite meanings in the text and hence, there is nothing called “the meaning”
• The necessity of an endless analysis
• Anti foundationlism
• There cannot be a center
• Center is always shifting
• Depends on the reader and the way we read it
• There is no universal meaning
• Meaning is forever ‘deferred’ or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers
•There is nothing outside and beyond the text
• Every text deconstructs itself
• There is not one canonical significance to a text; there are several simultaneous layers of meaning
• The nature of language is such that it cancels meaning
References :
Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Jacques Derrida." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-Derrida. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
Roberts, John. "Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction." Critical Legal Thinking, 27 May 2016, https://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/05/27/jacques-derrida-deconstruction/.
"Jacques Derrida." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-Derrida#ref748407.
"Deconstruction and Différance." Signo - Applied Semiotics Theories, https://www.signosemio.com/derrida/deconstruction-and-differance.asp.
Al-Farhan, Suha M., and Khalid I. Abed. "The Role of Deconstructing as a Part of Translation Process in Literary Text." ResearchGate, 2023, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376075061_The_role_of_deconstructing_as_a_part_of_translation_process_in_literary_text.
Yunita, Desi. "Deconstruction Analysis in Translation Process of Literary Text." BASIS: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, vol. 6, no. 1, 2019, pp. 133-144, https://ejournal.upbatam.ac.id/index.php/basis/article/download/2812/1690/12367.
Words :2745
Images : 2
Thank you.. 🍂🍁🍂
