Page 109 - DENG501_LITERARY_CRITICISM_AND_THEORIES

Unit 9: Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’—Jacques Derrida: Critical Appreciation

Rather than arguing a specific point based on the evidence he gives, Derrida writes what at certain Notes
points almost resembles an ultra-brief history of structural and post-structural thought. It is in this
essay, too, where he introduces a number of terms that are essential for an understanding of his
own theories (such as his concept of "play"). Most of Derrida's theoretical constructs, however,
although obviously alluded to, are not mentioned explicitly. While spending a good amount of
time describing what he elsewhere called "logocentrism", for example, Derrida never explicitly
formulates these thoughts in "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences".
As in most of his writing, here, too, Derrida applies much of what he writes about to the way he
writes (It is no secret that it is exactly this practice of writing that makes it so difficult to read
Derrida.). As usual, he "means" much more than merely what is perceivable on the surface of his
text. Accordingly, this essay simultaneously deals with several topics that are never actually
named. The basic deconstructive procedure of detecting, questioning and upsetting dichotomies,
for example, is performed on the traditional metaphysical concept of "structure", but not put in the
foreground. In reading this one -- much as any other -- of Derrida's texts, we thus have to act
exactly as he advises us to in his own readings of other texts: Look for meaning not only in
declarative and prescriptive passages of texts, but in the margins, the gaps, "between the lines".
In "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences", Derrida starts off hinting at
an "event", a "rupture", that brought about a revolutionary change in the history of the concept of
structure. (He later goes on to state that this rupture marks the transition from structuralism to
post-structuralism, along with all the ideas and theories that led to it.) Derrida then goes on to
recapitulate what, up to that point, the general ideas of structure where. He shows that the whole
history of the concept of structure itself can be seen as functioning within one system, one structure,
namely that of metaphysics (part of which is logocentrism). What all those concepts have in
common is that they imagine structures as organized around a center. But since this center -- be it
God, freedom, man, happiness, consciousness, etc. -- can not be affected by the structure surrounding
it, it has to be seen as residing outside of the system, as not actually being in the center. Although
constituting the axis around which everything revolves, the center - i.e. the source, goal, and
explanation of All - is not part of the system it defines, it is not located in its center.
At the time "when language invaded the universal problematic" (a recurring hint in Derrida's
writing at Sausurre's theories), it was necessary to begin to think that none of the structures
discussed have centers, and it is this moment when, according to Derrida, the "rupture" referred
to in the opening paragraph occurred. The simple fact that signs define themselves by their
relationship to other signs implies that there can not be "a center" - neither within nor without the
system (or 'structure'), since this ultimate sign (the 'transcendental signifier') could not be defined
without reference to yet another sign.
Derrida goes on to list a number of influential thinkers who were important in propagating this
shift from structuralist to post-structuralist thought (among them Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger).
What all the new theories and concepts had in common is that -- even though they claimed to be
aware of the predicaments -- they still operated from within a metaphysical system. The new
generation of philosophers articulating them were for the most part quite ignorant of the fact that
it is impossible to escape the metaphysical system, as long as one does not want to abandon the
concept of the sign altogether.
This general transition from a belief in structures with centers to a belief in decentered structures
has, according to Derrida, relevance in connection with what is generally called "human sciences".
Ethnology, he argues, is an academic discipline that could only be born within a metaphysical
system (that of ethnocentrism) that had a center (Europe). After "the rupture", of course, these
perspectives had to be revised. In giving a more detailed example, Derrida discusses the theoretical
work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who -- surprisingly early -- thought and argued in accordance with
much of what Derrida formulated much later, but was clearly positioned within a metaphysical
system. Derrida analyzes Lévi-Strauss' treatment of the nature/culture dichotomy, as well as his
studies of mythology. At the same time - in good Derridaen fashion - he takes the opportunity to
examine Lévi-Strauss' methods and modes of arguing. This instance is a good example of how
Derrida usually treats texts he works with on multiple layers, and how he works his theories into

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 103