Page 83 - DENG501_LITERARY_CRITICISM_AND_THEORIES

Unit 7: Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences-Jacques Derrida

own arguments, it must be recognised that they are always intertwined with the arguments of Notes
whomever, or whatever, he seeks to deconstruct. For example, Derrida argues that his critique of
the Husserlian 'now' moment is actually based upon resources within Husserl's own text which
elide the self-presence that he was attempting to secure (SP 64-66). If Derrida's point is simply that
Husserl's phenomenology holds within itself conclusions that Husserl failed to recognise, Derrida
seems to be able to disavow any transcendental or ontological position. This is why he argues that
his work occupies a place in the margins of philosophy, rather than simply being philosophy per se.
Deconstruction contends that in any text, there are inevitably points of equivocation and
'undecidability' that betray any stable meaning that an author might seek to impose upon his or
her text. The process of writing always reveals that which has been suppressed, covers over that
which has been disclosed, and more generally breaches the very oppositions that are thought to
sustain it. This is why Derrida's 'philosophy' is so textually based and it is also why his key terms
are always changing, because depending upon who or what he is seeking to deconstruct, that
point of equivocation will always be located in a different place.
This also ensures that any attempt to describe what deconstruction is, must be careful. Nothing
would be more antithetical to deconstruction's stated intent than this attempt at defining it through
the decidedly metaphysical question "what is deconstruction?" There is a paradoxicality involved
in trying to restrict deconstruction to one particular and overarching purpose (OG 19) when it is
predicated upon the desire to expose us to that which is wholly other (tout autre) and to open us
up to alternative possibilities. At times, this exegesis will run the risk of ignoring the many
meanings of Derridean deconstruction, and the widely acknowledged difference between Derrida's
early and late work is merely the most obvious example of the difficulties involved in suggesting
"deconstruction says this", or "deconstruction prohibits that".
That said, certain defining features of deconstruction can be noticed. For example, Derrida's entire
enterprise is predicated upon the conviction that dualisms are irrevocably present in the various
philosophers and artisans that he considers. While some philosophers argue that he is a little
reductive when he talks about the Western philosophical tradition, it is his understanding of this
tradition that informs and provides the tools for a deconstructive response. Because of this, it is
worth briefly considering the target of Derridean deconstruction - the metaphysics of presence, or
somewhat synonymously, logocentrism.

Deconstruction must hence establish a methodology that pays close attention to these
apparently contradictory imperatives (sameness and difference) and a reading of any
Derridean text can only reaffirm this dual aspect.

7.2.1 Metaphysics of Presence/Logocentrism
There are many different terms that Derrida employs to describe what he considers to be the
fundamental way(s) of thinking of the Western philosophical tradition. These include: logocentrism,
phallogocentrism, and perhaps most famously, the metaphysics of presence, but also often simply
'metaphysics'. These terms all have slightly different meanings. Logocentrism emphasises the
privileged role that logos, or speech, has been accorded in the Western tradition. Phallogocentrism
points towards the patriarchal significance of this privileging. Derrida's enduring references to the
metaphysics of presence borrows heavily from the work of Heidegger. Heidegger insists that
Western philosophy has consistently privileged that which is, or that which appears, and has
forgotten to pay any attention to the condition for that appearance. In other words, presence itself
is privileged, rather than that which allows presence to be possible at all - and also impossible, for
Derrida. All of these terms of denigration, however, are united under the broad rubric of the term
'metaphysics'. What, then, does Derrida mean by metaphysics?

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 77