Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida

First published:De la grammatologie, 1967 (English translation, 1976)

Type of Philosophy: Epistemology

Context

A fundamental poststructuralist document, Of Grammatology introduced deconstruction to the field of critical theory and defined the rupture with traditional Western philosophy that occurred during the late 1960’s in Western Europe. In it, Jacques Derrida drew upon and modified ideas from key Western philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, producing a new understanding of Western philosophy. In Of Grammatology, Derrida moved beyond Heidegger’s destruktion, which disclosed the mechanisms of a system, to introduce deconstruction and analyze systems on their own terms, seeking their internal contradictions. Though Derrida began by analyzing the work of philosophers such as Edmund Husserl and investigating specific aspects of culture, in Of Grammatology he merges various analytic strands and demonstrates their application to all areas of Western culture. Issuing from a literal burst of writing that produced two other significant texts, La Voix et le phénomène: Introduction au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Husserl (1967; “Speech and Phenomena,” and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, 1973) and L’Écriture et la différence (1967; Writing and Difference, 1978), Of Grammatology clarifies Derrida’s attempt to reinvigorate philosophy and infuse it with a sense of creativity and innovation.

In the preface to Of Grammatology, Derrida suggests the work’s general separation into theory and application. He avoids the implication of a bounded structure, alerting the reader that the work proceeds in relation to an axis, rather than in strictly linear order. The metaphor introduces the broader notion of writing or philosophical elaboration that breaks with the tradition of unified, predetermined direction. In that sense, the introduction begins Derrida’s strategy of merging commentary and process that permeates Of Grammatology, permitting him to analyze or deconstruct both his own text and the concepts under scrutiny.

Speech/Writing

Part 1, “Writing Before the Letter,” proceeds along several interwoven courses, all of which converge on what he terms “logocentrism,” the fundamental dependence of Western philosophy on a notion of original and essential truth as a fixed point, a definitive source from which all thought and meaning evolves. Derrida identifies that center point as a “transcendental signified,” a stable source of all meaning, the basis for all subsequent assumptions of natural order, leading to the development of hierarchies in Western culture. Hierarchies, in his analysis, draw their priorities through a system of binary oppositions such as good/evil, day/night, in which the first member of the pair is valued over the second and considered its polar opposite, its antithesis. He bases his analysis on the fundamental philosophical bias for speech above writing, citing the Western tradition of assigning values to sign systems as primary evidence.

The analysis precisely defines deconstruction in that Derrida applies Western philosophy’s specific logic to reveal its inner contradictions. Rather than imposing a new set of oppositions for the old, he applies the system’s own syllogisms to argue that the basic paired terms are not polar opposites, but in fact overlap, each unit or term being and containing part of the other. He neither argues for writing as superior to speech, thus merely constructing a new binary system, nor proposes to destroy or supplant the old structure or its basic units. He simply demonstrates the internally flawed logic of binary pairs and their assumed opposition, demonstrating instead a free play of difference.

Starting with the Greek philosopher Plato, Derrida analyzes speech’s privileged status as a reaffirmation of the notion of an identifiable origin or source of meaning. The requirement for an identifiable origin, a speaker, in order for speech to occur forms the central idea of Western philosophy, which Derrida identifies as a “metaphysics of presence.” A system that requires a fixed origin or truth source and depends upon binary opposition favors presence; speech requires presence as a condition of origin, thus shares status with truth, thought, or logos. Writing and absence acquire negative value as opposites to speech and presence. Their parallel status acquires even greater negative value by association with origin’s binary opposite, death. Derrida depicts the “metaphysics of presence” as both corollary and basis for Western religious metaphysics, forming a mutual corroboration at the core of Western culture.

Structuralism Deconstructed

Continuing his deconstructive process, Derrida expands Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralist analysis of linguistic systems, developing an internal critique of both structuralism and the “transcendental signified.” Derrida employs Saussure’s own analysis to reveal the fundamental flaw in this phrase and to clarify structuralism’s metaphysical dependence. In Saussure’s sign structure, an essential concept or meaning, a signified, is represented by a signifier, the utterance or sound that refers to it. Derrida argues that Saussure’s structure repeats the metaphysical operation. The signified occupies an inner or intellectual position, a center, and the signifier occurs outside, separate from the intellectual process, yet connected by reference. Writing, for Saussure, is a degraded representation, referring not to the signified, the central meaning, but by duplication, to the signifier, speech. Thus, Saussure considers writing to be a threat to meaning because it disguises the role of speech, seeming to replace it but representing only the sound, not the meaning.

Derrida’s basic critical maneuver is to accept Saussure’s sign-based analysis but then call attention to the fact that Saussure must rely on writing to communicate his analysis. This maneuver introduces the suggestion that speech may not be sufficient even for Saussure. More crucially, Derrida also acknowledges Saussure’s claim that signs of meaning, signifiers or spoken words, acquire meaning by their difference from other signs or groups of sound, instead of through any inherent meaning in the sound. Thus, “cat” refers to a concept of the specific animal because its sound is different from “bat” or any other word in the language. Its meaning is not exclusive, however, since gato refers to the same concept within a different language.

Derrida accepts the notion of language as reliant on meaning through difference as Saussure develops it, but then insists that if such is the case, there can be no direct or “natural” connection between speech, the signifier defined by difference, and a stable, fixed concept. Following Saussure’s logic, the signified gains meaning by its difference from other signifieds; it, too, is defined by difference. Its meaning is not fixed but constantly reliant on other meanings. Derrida coins the term différance to suggest this continual deferral of essential meaning produced by différence, or constant difference. However, Derrida points out that the graphic signs, or writing, that Saussure must use to explain his linguistic structure also derive meaning by their difference from other signs. The written signs are, then, not opposites, but merely different aspects of the constant interaction of difference that produces language. Derrida identifies this ongoing contingency, the reliance between signs, as “arche-writing,” an intangible negotiation of difference that makes meaning possible but constantly latent and deferred.

By the end of part 1, Derrida has worked through two deconstructive maneuvers: He has identified the central concept that forces meaning into oppositions or binaries, and he has subverted the binary order, suggesting writing is vital to the expansion of meaning. His suggestion of “arche-writing” and Saussure’s self-contradiction implies a further step, anticipating the extension of his analysis in the second part of the work.

Nature and Culture

In part 2, “Nature, Culture, Writing,” Derrida clarifies logocentrism’s ultimate implications and completes his deconstruction by reference to philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Derrida establishes Rousseau’s dependence on a nature/culture opposition and carefully demonstrates the binary’s precise conformity to the “metaphysics of presence.” The connections to religious, moral, and aesthetic codes in Rousseau’s parallel of speech/writing with his nature/culture opposition corroborate Derrida’s depiction of fundamental hierarchy as institutionalized throughout Western culture.

In a conclusive deconstructive maneuver, Derrida then applies Rousseau’s own analysis to reveal meaning’s inherent instability. Accepting writing’s depiction as “supplemental” to speech, Derrida notes that Rousseau acknowledges speech’s deficiency by identifying a supplement that, by definition, completes.

Rousseau’s opposition thus overturns itself, allowing Derrida to observe that speech and writing, in fact, contain aspects of each other, requiring each other for existence. Accordingly, they no longer can be considered opposites but must be recognized as an example of the constant play of meaning and difference expressed in “arche-writing.” In that sense, both speech and writing may be placed under “erasure,” signifying their individual inadequacy and mutual necessity. It is not so much that their relationship cannot be articulated, but rather that there is no specific relationship; it constantly redefines itself.

As Derrida elaborates Rousseau’s nature/culture opposition, he draws the parallel with that of Claude Lévi-Strauss, disclosing logocentrism’s historical persistence and emphasizing its precepts’ universal application through Western culture. Introducing anthropology allows Derrida to elaborate the impact of logocentric systems as inevitably producing a “violent hierarchy,” predisposed to exclude and marginalize devalued opposites. He typifies that violence by the ethnocentrism and implicit colonialism that grants status to phonetically based language as a “natural” link to speech, to the detriment of any other system, such as Asian pictographic writing.

Thus, though Derrida does not proceed through Of Grammatology in strictly linear fashion, his various analytical strands describe logocentrism’s pervasive function not only as a standard for linguistic discourse but also as a determining structure for all aspects of Western culture. Simultaneously, he demonstrates in practice rather than definition the deconstruction process by first locating the metaphysical biases central to Western cultural discourse from Plato through Lévi-Strauss. Further, he avoids origin-based linearity both in method and discourse, blending analyses of various positions, for example, moving backward from Lévi-Strauss to Rousseau, rather than arguing an evolutionary influence.

Upon identifying the basis for a structure, Derrida then applies the system’s own logic, as in the case of Rousseau and Saussure, to overturn basic oppositional premises, suggesting the primacy of the degraded terms. Finally, he demonstrates the absence of opposition, arguing that each term in a binary, as speech and writing, is both inadequate and present in the other. By extension, he proposes a movement from the linearity of linguistics into grammatology, an exploration of difference and referentiality in arche-writing, the crucial switch to the free play of différance, the difference and deferral of final meaning.

Derrida’s Impact

This most widely known study from Derrida’s large body of work remains, for many, a vital point of access to his discourse. Of Grammatology’s publication in 1967 generally coincided with Derrida’s 1966 appearance before the International Colloquium on Critical Languages and the Sciences of Man at The Johns Hopkins University, where he analyzed structuralism’s internal flaws, generating immediate controversy. Of Grammatology vastly expanded that presentation and coalesced many of the deconstructive ideas he had developed in his previous writing. Derrida stated subsequent to the English-language publication of Of Grammatology that the work represented a significant event in his own development, in that it brought coherence to his perception of the interrelation of Western culture and writing. The work also retains a key position in the introduction and development of poststructuralism.

Because it appears to follow a “traditional” book structure, many experts view Of Grammatology as Derrida’s most accessible work. That view runs counter to the central purpose not only of the work but also of Derrida’s deconstructive perspective. It also risks overlooking the fact that the work does not stand separate from Derrida’s writing as the one “traditional” work. Rather, the work tends to use its position within a recognizable textual tradition and its implicit susceptibility to customary analytical reading as a deconstructive device; the text illustrates the discourse. Of Grammatology enacts many of the ideas and theories detailed in Derrida’s previous writing, but, perhaps inescapably, eludes thorough development without a reading of Derrida’s other works. In that sense, Derrida succeeded in producing a work with the apparent structure of a traditional book that resists a sense of containment, confinement, closure, and definitive meaning. In that sense, the work’s significance may also lie in its position as a deconstruction of the book both as a tradition and as a self-contained product.

Principal Ideas Advanced

•The notion of stable, identifiable truth underlies all assumptions of Western philosophy.

•The basic premise relies upon definition in the form of binary opposites, in which the first is always superior to the second, as right/wrong, life/death.

•The most extensive and basic of all binaries is that of speech/writing.

•The application of the binary structure inevitably represses, subjugates, and persecutes the inferior term.

•The effect of such structures extends beyond philosophy and linguistics to form the basis for all Western cultural operations.

•The structuralist recognition of meaning by difference retains a flawed dependence upon a stable signified.

•Identifying the play of difference at the level of the signified reveals the constant deferral of meaning through play of difference, or différance.

•The ongoing play of difference that produces meaning and maintains a continual potential is a nonmaterial “arche-writing” that affects all meaning in culture.

•Perceiving meaning as constantly deferred and produced by the play of difference allows a movement from a restrictive linguistics to grammatology, the study of arche-writing.

Bibliography

Johnson, Christopher. Derrida. New York: Routledge, 1999. An excellent biographical introduction to the thoughts of the philosopher, clearly presented and requiring no special background. Bibliography.

Lamont, Michele. “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida.” American Journal of Sociology 93, no. 3 (1987). Serves as a brief synopsis of the life of Jacques Derrida and his importance to French and North American philosophy. Contains an appendix that includes a list of secondary sources.

Morag, Patrick. Derrida, Responsibility and Politics. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate, 1997. Morag’s examination is directed toward the foundations of legal, moral, and political authority and at the questioning of form itself as it relates to the ethico-political significance of deconstruction.

Norris, Christopher. Derrida. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. This text introduces Derrida in a post-Kantian light without delving too far into technical detail. Norris covers a broad spectrum of ideas while focusing on the subtle logic that surrounds Derrida’s reasoning. Its emphasis on the philosophical importance of ontology presents the reader with a solid foundation for further inquiry.

Powell, Jim. Derrida for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers, 1996. Powell offers a superb introduction to the thought and life of Derrida. Recommended for readers who are approaching Derrida’s ideas for the first time.

Sallis, John. Deconstruction and Philosophy: The Texts of Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. This text represents the first attempt to compare Derrida’s deconstruction to Western philosophy up to and including Heidegger. Includes a work by Derrida previously unavailable in English.

Salusinszky, Imre. “Jacques Derrida.” In Criticism in Society. New York: Methuen Press, 1987. Focuses on the application of Derrida’s deconstruction to education. Includes an introduction to the main ideas of grammatology and deconstruction.

Whitford, Margaret. “Jacques Derrida.” In Makers of Modern Culture, edited by Justin Wintle. New York: Facts on File, 1981. Summarizes the life, work, and philosophical significance of Derrida.