The legacy of Derrida

Permabear · 31-08-2016 2:08pm #1

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 02-09-2016 1:35am

Did Jacques Derrida qualify as a philosopher? Methinks that he did not, as he lacked a formally constructed philosophy. He did contribute to the building blocks of theory and philosophy with such conceptualisations as "the other," etc. Rather, Derrida was a brilliant methodologist who applied his deconstruction method to philosophy, linguistics, and culture.

Was deconstruction in-and-of-itself a radically new method? Somewhat so, but not completely so, having many philosophical and methodological antecedents to draw from to form the deconstruction approach, which he coined and popularised meeting both agreement and disagreement as a method by philosophy faculties. Deconstruction was not intended to repeat or conserve classical to post-modern philosophies, rather to examine "how their thinking works or does not work, to find the tensions, the contradictions, the heterogeneity within their own corpus" (Caputo, JD, 1997, Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida).

Permabear · 02-09-2016 10:02am

This post has been deleted.

Torakx · 04-09-2016 4:23pm

When I heard Derrida went to the USA to lecture and did it all in french to annoy everyone, he gained legend status with me instantly

I think it is possible to call deconstruction a method and be correct.
At some stage there is a recurring "mechanic" or underlying method which reveals something previously unseen or noticed.
The method doesn't create anything new, only reveals what was previously unnoticed. A fundamental method of interpretation?

I suppose he was probably not trained as a philosopher, but then all the best philosophers weren't either, in my opinion.

Permabear · 05-09-2016 1:15pm

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919 · 06-09-2016 1:55pm

I dont think there is anything new here. Hegel, for example provoked the same response. I would see this as part of the bigger dispute/differences between analytic and continental philosophy. On a naive level, Derrida certainly discusses philosophers and their thought, as for example his discussion of Bataille's view of Hegels master/slave (Ch 9, Writing and Difference) which is in the continental tradition as far as I can see.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Analytic_versus_Continental_Philosophy

Fourier · 07-09-2016 12:17am

I'm not sure how good his work is in literary theory and other areas of philosophy, but I read his works on the philosophy of science, especially his work on applying deconstructionism to fundamental physics.

He obviously thought hard about most of what he was saying, but I personally found the majority of it to be nonsense in the literal sense. For example he has an essay about General Relativity that is essentially unparsable, where physics terms are used without any regard to their meaning and treated as if they were themes in a novel.

Permabear · 07-09-2016 9:30am

This post has been deleted.

Fourier · 07-09-2016 10:07am

I looked at my notes from time and it was quite a revelation.

Derrida actually said nothing about physics. It's mostly other deconstructionists after him that my memory had unfairly lumped with him. Then I looked up the quotes I did have by him on physics only to find from philosophy articles that these are out of context quotes made by physicists trying to score points in the "Science Wars".

I was utterly wrong above and will make up for it by reading his two major works.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Black Swan · 09-09-2016 4:20pm

Jacques Derrida's deconstruction was emergent, open-ended, sometimes evidencing an emic perspective, and has been frequently used to inform qualitative methods of inquiry. It works well with phenomenological studies that emphasize consciousness and the objects of direct experience. Alternatively, deconstruction as a method has guided studies that cycle through Walter Wallace's Wheel of Science in such a way as to allow for a continuous interaction between deduction and induction that slowly emerges with outcomes that may not have been foreseen at the beginning.

For example, Derrida used his method to deconstruct the Claude Lévi-Strauss "Writing Lesson" found in Tristes tropiques (1961). Lévi-Strauss had concluded that the sudden and unintended introduction of writing by an outside researcher with an isolated tribe led to eventual human domination and corruption. But when reexamining this naturalistic study conducted by Lévi-Strauss, Derrida emerged with a very different conclusion: that writing had not suddenly appeared, rather it had been emerging over time with language, consequently Lévi-Strauss was in error, and had committed a logocentrism where speech was preferred over writing in a self-fulfilling way when explaining a phenomenon. Looking for such things as logocentrisms, dichotomies, etc., have served as tools within the deconstructive toolbox to examine philosophies, etc., by Derrida and others employing his qualitative methods.

Permabear · 09-09-2016 5:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 10-09-2016 3:49am

Pause indeed, in terms of whether such a short quote may have been taken out of context, or lost something in translation, or if it was referring to early, middle, or late Derrida in terms of his evolution of thought (Derrida, J. Points: Interviews 1974-1994)?

More importantly, to what extent did your post say more about Derrida's riddle of "The One" in contrast to "The Other" that's "always already" there, or not there, or may be there in the past, present, or future (Derrida, J., 1984, The Ear of The Other)? And in like manner, what these concepts say about the content of posts appearing in this thread, and how they reflect upon you, me, other posters, and readers of this thread more than they apply to Derrida? Alternatively, if such concepts, along with others appearing in Derrida's works can be loosely drawn together to aid in the qualitative examination of research problems; i.e., a method? See Creswell, JW (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, wherein such loosely arranged guides can facilitate an emergent, emic research approach that's very open to discovery in our natural world.

It would appear from reading several of Derrida's works that he does not begin each of his examinations with a tabula rasa approach, rather he frequently uses several of the same methods to aid in his emergent inquires: critical dialogue arising from contradictions; widening of frames of reference; challenges of ethnocentrism and logocentrism prevalent in structuralism; and defamiliarizing of customary distinctions all too commonly accepted in Western thought (Johnson, C., 1997, Derrida).

The toolbox was a metaphor that I posted on the spur of the moment, and I have acknowledged elsewhere (more than once in this Philosophy forum in past weeks) that metaphors were distortions of reality, and were not to be taken literally, rather only to foster discussion (Morgan, G., 1996, Images of Organization, pp 4-5). Do you have an alternative metaphor to share with us that fits more with your perception of deconstruction, thereby continuing to foster the use of this metacognitive device to aid our understanding?

This was not a new observation, rather Rapaport, H., 2001, in The Theory Mess: Deconstruction in Eclipse, suggested that there was an "Anglo-American criticism of Derrida" that exhibited "misreadings" and "purposive failures to comprehend."

Permabear · 11-09-2016 2:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 12-09-2016 4:21am

I was not referring to "deconstruction as a metacognitive device," rather "metaphors" as being a metacognitive device per Morgan, G., 1996, Images of Organization, to aid in our discussion.

Permabear · 12-09-2016 10:39am

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 12-09-2016 10:51am

In like manner I see a bit of irony when someone attempts to construct a philosophy for Derrida, who, if still alive, would probably deconstruct it, followed by a deconstruction of that deconstruction, and so forth an so on, thereby falling into the Derridean "abyss" which he mentioned.

Permabear · 12-09-2016 11:01am

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 12-09-2016 11:26am

I watched a 2002 documentary film on Jacques Derrida a few years ago. What was interesting was how he actively deconstructed his own biography while they filmed him. At one point he summarized that the film was more about the film interviewer, cameraman, recording devices, editor, producer, etc., than about the person (Derrida) they were filming. Yesterday I found the film online, but ironically they had edited out those film deconstructive comments made by Derrida that had appeared in the earlier version. They ruined it!

Permabear · 12-09-2016 11:50am

This post has been deleted.

Torakx · 12-09-2016 1:57pm

Wes Cecil does a nice biography(can be found on youtube) of Derrida's life and writing.
It seems to me that Derrida had a very difficult journey through life, constantly being opposed by authorities and the local culture.
I think his formative years can be seen clearly in his thoughts and reactions.

I don't fully understand deconstruction, but I do understand people

My intuition tells me Derrida would have never wanted people to pin down his ideas on deconstruction(his legacy). That might give a sense of ownership to others.
He was contrary to the core. That documentary story also highlights this.
Even his philosophical lesson during that filmed interview was contrary.

For now I can't agree that deconstruction is nothing. It is something!
If you took 100 cases of the use of deconstruction, there would be at least one thing in common.
This would inform me that there is a method or at least a recurring pattern involved that can be viewed as a method when one seeks to repeat the process.
If there was not something like this, then absolutely nobody could ever understand or repeat the process.
Or if there really is no recurring pattern, then this is all just fantasy made to look like reasonable cognition.

Definition for Method.

Permabear · 14-09-2016 1:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 16-09-2016 2:12pm

If you read several of Derrida's inquires into the works of others you will see recurrent patterns in terms of how he deconstructs. To reiterate C . Johnson (1997, Derrida), Derrida frequently evidences the following approaches when deconstructing: critical dialogue arising from contradictions; widening of frames of reference; challenges of ethnocentrism and logocentrism prevalent in structuralism; and defamiliarizing of customary distinctions all too commonly accepted in Western thought. If you don't want to call them "methods," you can call them patterns, or reoccurring approaches of inquiry, or whatever label you wish to use, no matter what Derrida claims in quotes featured in this thread.

I've heard this argument numerous times by qualitative researchers who identified themselves as purists, claiming that qualitative was not a method per se, rather an unstructured and emergent form of inquiry that was unique by researcher and problem investigated. Derrida's claims that deconstruction was not a method were no different than these claims by the qualitative research purists. But if you go back and review their published works, you will see frequent recurring patterns in terms of how they address a research inquiry.

Permabear · 17-09-2016 8:57pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 18-09-2016 9:53am

Christopher Johnson (1997) suggested that such "animosity towards Derrida" occurred because he deconstructed the ethnocentrism and logocentrism prevalent in structuralism, which, when Derrida first deconstructed Saussure, Levi-strauss, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Grammatology and other works, was the accepted and prevalent Anglo-American philosophy. And more importantly, Derrida "defamiliarised the customary distinctions" all too commonly accepted in Western thought, challenging them all without regard to the long accepted positions of past and contemporary philosophy.

Furthermore, Herman Rapaport (2001) suggested that Derrida's attack on Western thought had been rejected by many established members of the Anglo-American philosophical community, which had been compounded by "misreadings" and "purposive failure to comprehend" Derrida's positions that were highly critical and radically opposed to theirs. Of course they would reject Derrida if he attacked their philosophical foundations (structuralism and modernism) that they built their careers upon, whether he used his deconstruction or other approaches.

I've seen a similar battle (although certainly not of the same magnitude) in my field of interest between diametrically opposed scholars in terms of the impact and interpretations of new empirical data, potential paradigm shifts, evolving theories, differing explanations and predictions associated with the rapidly advancing technology of computer facilitated human learning, simulations, and performance in recent years. I've not only read most of the highly critical opposing positions, but have witnessed one opposing position paragon getting very personally abusive with another at a conference; i.e., emotions overshadowing intelligent debate.

Sources:

Johnson, C (1997), Derrida. London: Phoenix.
Rapaport, H (2001), The Theory Mess: Deconstruction in Eclipse. New York: Columbia University Press.

Permabear · 19-09-2016 11:35am

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 25-09-2016 11:24am

One paramount aspect of Derrida's approach to his deconstruction of philosophical positions that was quite memorable to me was his treatment of dichotomies, or binary oppositions that were frequently evidenced in Western and other thought about the world. Derrida suggested that such oppositions were sometimes unbalanced, with one preferred over the other, and frequently in a hierarchy accordingly, with such preferences adversely affecting the objective examination of phenomena in a self-fulfilling way.

For example, speech before writing, or the historical subordination of writing found in the structuralist positions of Ferdinand de Saussure and Claude Lévi-Strauss, as well as those going back in Western thought to Plato, were challenged by Derrida. In the Lévi-Strauss "Writing Lesson," which became a foundation for his structuralist philosophy, Derrida not only disclosed this unbalanced binary opposition which he called a Lévi-Strauss logocentrism, but in the process tore apart the methodology he used in the field with the Nambikware tribe (Lévi-Strauss, 1955, Tristes Tropiques). Derrida suggested that there may have been a multiplicity of variables beyond the oversimplistic dichotomy used by Lévi-Strauss.

Consequently, I gather from Derrida that we should always be cautious when examining dichotomies found in philosophies, theories, and what Thomas Merton referred to as theories of the middle-range (e.g., models, paradigms, conceptual frameworks of theses, etc.).

In supposedly more simple discussions, can you see the fun we could have with the right or wrong dichotomy applying Derrida's guidance?

Permabear · 29-09-2016 6:43pm

This post has been deleted.

The legacy of Derrida

Comments