Structuralism begins with Saussure in 1915 and his conception of langue, the system of language which makes possible parole, the individual utterance. It is a semiotic conception that finds only an arbitrary relationship between the signifier ( for example, the word "dog") and the signified (the dog itself). The signifier "dog" only functions meaningfully within a complex system of other signifiers. Structuralism attempted to use this model of language to explicate the structures beneath discourse and practice. In Poststructuralism, it became clear that this did not take into account the instability of the system. Signifiers cannot be pinned down to conform to just one signified or necessarily have to conform to that signified, and the signifieds in question themselves become signifiers: the process repeats (unpredictably).
The Structuralist project effectively ended with Derrida's essay "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences". For Derrida, Structuralism, and indeed the entirety of Western Philosophy (perhaps barring the pre-socratics), had been working on the presupposition of a centre, or "transcendental signified" that lent a system or structure a degree of stability that limited what Derrida calls "free play", the constant shifting of meaning, continual displacement. What comes next is deconstruction - broadly, the exposing of metaphysical presupposition in discourse, and unfortunately quite indefinable.
There is what might be called an ethical dimension to deconstruction; in any discourse there is an opposition between the privileged and the marginal, and what the seismic effect of deconstruction does is to continually displace and demonstrate the instability of the privileged's place as the privileged and the marginal's place as the marginal. The problem I find here is the relationship between theory, the world of which deconstruction unquestionably transforms, and practice. Although I might not be placing enough emphasis on the overlapping nature of the world of theory and the world of practice I find it difficult to envision the deconstructive mode of thought penetrating everyday practice, the solidity of which seems necessary for it to work. I am also aware that my difficulty itself has not yet been deconstructed.
Tom Cumming n0276389
Bibliography: Derrida, Jacques, Writing and Difference (Routledge: London, 2001)
Thanks Tom. Ah yes structure,free play and all that jazz! This is nicely done Tom, again a very decisive account of the main issues surrounding Derrida, and the shift from the structural to the post structural. Your last point is interesting if everything is slipping then how on earth can anything stay solid. Is there a deconstructive practice? I suppose for Derrida the question of practice is not primary. He would perhaps say that sure there are all types of practices and habits and conventions but we have to ask why they are there in the first place. For Derrida at least, this is because he is asking what conditions have to be there for any structure or practice to exist. In this instance, there has to be structure and there has to be 'play' or a degree of flexibility. These are the conditions of any structure coming into being. I suppose what you need to try and think to answer your own questions is do practices conform to this logic, whatever those practices might be e.g. horseriding, football, having a cup of tea etc. Are these autonomous structures that are self generated or are they in fact relational with regard to other events. I suppose if we took a mundane practice like going to the shop the extent to which that is a formal structure is dependent on the actual event of going to to the shop. Basically put, there is a convention of going to the shop but we don't go to the shop in the same way every time. So there can be structures but they are not absolute.
ReplyDeleteThanks, i think i understand Derrida slightly better for that. Looking at practices in this way does clear my question up. I'd also say that, continuing to look at this holistically, the formal structure or convention of going to the shop is only possible on the basis of a more encompassing structure; to use an obvious example in regard to going to the shop, the social structure of consumerism. If this is on the right lines then the possiblities of poststructuralism become clearer.
ReplyDelete