Summary: Derrida, Of Grammatology, Chapter 1
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Summary
Derrida discusses the origins of language and how, in his opinion, speech was always prioritized over writing. He states that historical prioritization is now shifting to writing as “language is beginning to let itself be transferred to, or at least summarized under, the name of writing.” Derrida states that writing is used to describe all actions as well as “the essence and the content of these activities themselves,” meaning that all actions are a form of writing even though no actual writing necessarily takes place. He believes that people are starting to understand that writing is a means to conserve the spoken language even when no speaker is present. Derrida believes the signifier refers to the truth, which is already established, and “they are preceded by a truth, or a meaning already constituted by and within the element of the logos.” He refers to this as the “exteriority” of the signifier. Derrida states that linguistics cannot maintain the signifier and the signified without “the difference between sensible and intelligible.” Derrida believes that signifiers emerged with peoples’ beliefs in God; however, there is no truth in those beliefs that are centered around God because truth already existed. Derrida concludes this section by stating that good writing is “comprehended” and “writing in the common sense is the dead letter, it is the carrier of death. It exhausts life. On the other hand…writing in the metaphoric sense, natural, divine, and living writing, is venerated; it is equal in dignity to the origin of value.” Derrida emphasizes this point when he explains that the book “is profoundly alien to the sense of writing.”
Response
Derrida was difficult to understand, at best. I followed his reasoning about writing overtaking speech as people began to realize that writing can encompass speech and allow for speech to live on long past the time of the actual speaker. However, his writing that entered more into the realm of philosophy in its entirety was confusing and difficult to comprehend. I understand that Derrida considered literature and writing and philosophy to be one in the same at this time, but nonetheless, his ideology seemed “profoundly” arrogant at times (perhaps most philosophers fall under that umbrella?) and decidedly intent on confusing readers simply for the purpose of self-enjoyment. My confusion aside, I can understand why Derrida is considered the father of deconstruction. He provided a high-level description of the theory that defined why everything—not just writing, but all actions, whether those actions were written or unwritten—can and should be disseminated, as well as why those disseminations can vary. His thoughts on God and religious beliefs were interesting and undoubtedly controversial at the time (perhaps even today), which underscores his confidence in his theory of deconstruction. Derrida clearly did not write for the scholar who is only first being exposed to deconstruction. I think I would have far more questions for him if he was able to write for an introductory audience and more in the vein of Parker.