Deconstruction: fad or philosophy?

AuthorKeller, David R.

Disseminate, v. [f. L. disseminat- ppl. stem of disseminare to spread abroad, disseminate, f. Dis- I+semen, semin- seed; cf. F. disseminer (14th c. in Littre).] 1. trans. lit. To scatter abroad, as in sowing seed; to spread here and there; to disperse (things) so as to deposit them in all parts. 2. fig. To spread abroad, diffuse, promulgate (opinions, statements, knowledge, etc.). 3. intr. (for refl.) To diffuse itself, spread.

Dissemination, n. The action of scattering or spreading abroad seed, or anything likened to it; the fact or condition of being diffused; dispersion, diffusion, promulgation. (1)

**********

Academic conversations are now frequently sprinkled with the word 'deconstruction.' Like other novel neologisms--Kierke--gaard's 'leap of faith,' (2) Haeckel's 'ecology,' (3) Kuhn's 'paradigm shift,' (4) or Rawls's 'veil of ignorance, (5)--the use of deconstruction more often than not strays far and wide of its original, intended meaning.

In part, this equivocation is due to historical accident: the North American intelligentsia was introduced to Jacques Derrida's thinking more through departments of English and Literature than departments of Philosophy. (6) As a result, the philosophical foundations of deconstruction have been blurred and seemingly forgotten. 'Deconstruction,' a term appropriated by Derrida from Martin Heidegger, (7) is now taken to be a vaguely defined relativistic method of literary criticism which holds that any interpretation of a text is as good as another, rather than a rigorous metaphysics and epistemology. For example, the following definition of deconstruction recently appeared in the program of a highly reputable acting company: "Deconstruction--a theory about language and literature that developed in the 1970s, and is characterized by the notions of textuality and intertext. Briefly, deconstruction says that all the world is text and that because of context, no text's content can really be read or interpreted." (8) As well-intentioned as this author may be, this amorphous type of definition of deconstruction--now prevalent--obscures the rigorous philosophical foundations of the theory.

My purpose is to make clear the philosophical foundations of Derrida's theory of deconstruction. Most precisely, deconstruction is Derrida's critique of Plato's metaphysics. To understand deconstruction, we first briefly recapitulate Platonic metaphysics. Second, using Derrida's meticulous reading of the Phaedrus, we examine the way Plato represents writing (grammata) as a drug (pharmakon). Third, we turn to Derrida's critique of Plato. Fourth and finally, we reassert the philosophical status of deconstruction and reassess the contribution of Derrida to Western Philosophy.

One caveat: many original theories carry with them a new vocabulary, and Derrida's deconstruction is no exception. For a basic Derridean glossary, see the Appendix.

  1. An Ordered Cosmos: Platonic Metaphysics

    Plato's ontological vision is perfectly teleological, rigidly hierarchical, and beautifully ordered. All that exists is oriented towards an ultimate, eternally unchanging telos which absolutely and ultimately entails the meaning for every existent thing's Being (in the verbal sense). This telos dictates why acorns grow up to be oaks, tadpoles grow into frogs, babies become adults. It explains why acorns, tadpoles, and adults that do not do this are perversions of nature, things that do not manifest what they are supposed to, beings that do not fit into the teleological structure of the cosmos.

    This telos can be thought of as the Good, the Idea, the Eschaton or the Transcendental Signifier. It is the Sun in the Allegory of the Cave, (9) the realm of the Forms: "It is there that true being dwells, without color or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul's pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof," Socrates says. (10) True knowledge is knowledge of the Forms; metaphysics is the way we are able to gain true knowledge, to see the universe's ontological structure, to see its telos. Via metaphysics, Plato determines that this absolute embodiment of Being is unchanging, because to change is to need to become different, and the telos is perfect and in need of nothing else.

    But anyone familiar with life on earth knows that everything changes. We are subject to disease and death. Why? Because this corporeal realm in which we are stuck is merely a corruption, an imperfection of the incorporeal plane of the Forms. Corporeal entities are imperfect representations of its super-temporal Form, and consequently change form. A human is an imperfect (less true) rendition of the ideal Form Human, which is God or the Idea of Homo sapienness.

    A table is an imperfect rendition of the Ideal Table which embodies complete Tableness. The earthly table will inevitably collapse, as living things will inescapably die. Ideality is immateriality, and substance inhibits any temporal being from completely manifesting its ideal Form, although this is the direction living beings move in during their life--to actualize their potential (to use the Aristotelian terminology (11)). An acorn grows into an oak, but dies and never fully achieves its perfect form. Substance is itself unstable; it is capricious/not eternal.

    This bifurcation of Being into two realms--one "sensible" and the other "eternal"--is the action of binary opposition. The logic of true identity--that is, of identifying what things are--is based on binary opposition, the principle of which is non-contradiction. A thing is either true or false, this or that, real or artificial, present or absent, immaterial or material, but never both at once.

    This logic sets the stage for Western thought as a whole. As Barbara Johnson comments, the two terms resulting from the dichotomy "... are not simply opposed in their meanings, but are arranged in a hierarchical order which gives the first term priority, in both the temporal and qualitative sense of the word." (12) Thus the antinomies are positioned consistent with the teleological structure. Earth is inferior to Heaven, representation to actuality, falsity to truth, play to seriousness, writing to speech.

    Implicit in this system is a scale for determining truth-value. Beings higher in the hierarchy have a higher truth-value than beings lower down. The Form of Table is more true than corporeal renditions of tables; the Form sets the ontological standard for Tableness. Worldly representations are less perfect, less true in terms of tableness than ideal incorporeal Tables. In turn, a painting of a table is ontologically lower than the physical table itself; namely, since it is a lower-order representation of Table, it has in turn less truth-value than the table itself. The painting is merely an image of a table, a third-order table.

    We must understand that to the Greek mind there was a close relationship between "presence" (ousia) and "truth" (aletheia) in the sense of being "opposed to lie, mere appearance." (13) Logos is living speech (14) that discloses truth, in the presence of other orators and the subject being discussed, say, a work of art or table. So, within the logic of binary opposition, things that are present have a higher truth-value than things that are absent.

    This ontological framework is quite amazing, since it identifies an eternal realm which is beyond our (sensible) perception. How can such a metaphysical realm be delineated? By rigorous dialectic ratiocination, by adhering to the logocentric belief that if we think hard enough we can always comprehend the "answer," the "origin," the root of things, the telos. No wonder 'logos' has an apophyseal connotation; it means "discourse discloses." A discussion of some topic will reveal true answers about that topic.

    All this has profound effects when contrasting "speech" with "writing" (grammata) which is adumbrated in the fact that 'logos' and 'speech' are synonyms. In terms of logocentrism, spoken "words" are present whereas written words are only representations of absent speech; speech (logos) has a higher truth-value than its representation--writing. Writing's truth-value is diminished by a lack of presence, origin, of the authority of its antecedent speech. (15)

    Therefore, in the framework of Platonic metaphysics, logos provides the ontological antecedent for grammata as required by teleology. Writing's low position on the Platonic totem-pole results from the possibility that it can represent artifice as truth, absence as presence, fraud as authority, the unreal as real. Indeed, Plato has Socrates throw the stories (the books: bibliois) of Hesiod and Homer out of his utopian Republic because of their "incorrect" portrayals of the gods. According to Socrates, seduction, lechery, debauchery, horse-play, etc., are not ways "true" gods behave: "we must set up a censorship over the fable-makers, and approve any good fable they make and disapprove the bad; [t]hose which Hesiod and Homer...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT