February 13, 2012
Relating Derrida to Locke: The "Essence" of Words
I was so interested by and absolutely loved Derrida's point about words never simply being representative of one other "word." I think this idea is really the heart of what makes language so complex, a big part of what must have inspired Locke also. That one word can stand for a host of ideas is where we get the essence/substance dilemma, which can be a tricky thing to pinpoint. Derrida's reference to schema and the historically significant (286) reminded me of what Sarah contributed to class last week while we were discussing Locke. She told her story about trying to communicate certain words, but "words" failed her, and she ended up just relating different histories or cultural content in order to convey the "essence" of the word. I think a big problem of our inability to impart this "essence" is the fact that words stand for multiple things. It sort of takes away a quality from the word. The constant defining process can lead to so many trails that have you pouring over a dictionary all day long, yet something is inevitably going to be lost in translation, so to speak. This idea of a word schema is interesting to me, because it suggests that the word may not merely mean what it "means," but what a social surrounding infers it means. So maybe, like Sarah was saying, the only way to capture the "essence" of a word is by relating it to its historical context, the schema in which it existed. I think Locke laid a good solid framework to build upon the idea of a word having "essence," but I don't know that he ever really fully "knew" the essence. I think Derrida does a little more to put it in adaptable context. Even if the "point" isn't "essence," I definitely see the application here.
2 comments:
In other words, by relating a word to the social surroundings, are we not accepting Burke's idea of sociological criticism? If so, then no one word will ever have one meaning, but will instead be thought of in reference to the society/person/situation that it falls in. All words, then, are essentially meaningless without this sociological construct, but also imperfect, as Locke argued. In trying to capture the essence of a word, Locke argues that when only considering the input of the individual, any word will fit, but when trying to verbalize these thoughts, words become very important and often imperfect because the words we chose fail to live up to the essence of what should be described. However, in when considering this argument with Derrida's, I find myself lost in translation. I am struggling to find meaning or importance in Derrida's article, mostly because I do not think I understand it as well as I should. In the very beginning of this piece, we are given not Derrida's voice, but another, once that attempts to explain the basis of this argument. I found the following very noteworthy: "All ideas and all objects of thought and perception bear the trace of other things, other moments, other 'presences'. To bear the trace of other things is to be shadowed by 'alterity', which literally means 'otherness'" (278). So is there no originality, then? If every idea bears traces of other things, where is the originality? I'm reminded by another article we read, where it said we cannot find a difference until we pair two ideas together, first. I keep thinking of the second, and literal meaning of differance, but cannot wrap my mind around Derrida's first explanation of the word. If 'differance' is a middle voice, then aren't traces of the actual/literal meaning embedded in the word? As I said before, there is no originality, so where is the originality of this word? Derrida goes on to say that "Differance can no longer be understood according to the concept of 'sign'". So what is differance??
The one thing I did understand was the idea that every moment in time is not the "present", but instead, moments of the past. Other than that, though, I'm afraid I'm lost.
Rachel and Marianna:
This is a great exchange, and so I couldn't help but jump in for a moment. I really like Rachel's articulation of Derrida's "word schema," since I sometimes think that one of the most useful applications of his concept of "differance" is a demonstration of how elusive this notion of essence necessarily can be (something that our excerpts from Locke's Essay did not consider). In a way, I imagine Derrida wishes to break or disrupt our reliance on essence when it comes to valuing language. Perhaps he sees its greater potential as one of disruption and free-play, rather than concretizing or affirming definitions.
Marianna, when you liken Derrida to Burke, I think I see what motivates you to do that, but I don't know if that is necessarily our only option. In other words, I'm not sure that the kind of linguistic destabilization Derrida argues is necessarily the same thing as sociological criticism of literature. For Burke, various works of literature were themselves strategies, and so we would presumably approach and evaluate them according to attitudes--more complex needs and relationships and expectations. I think Burke's sociological constructs are really intended to act as parameters for approaching and evaluating whole genres, even though he does demonstrate this principle on something smaller, like the proverb. In a way, Derrida's infusion of words with power reminds me more of Foucault.
Either way, I'm not sure that Burke (or Locke, for that matter) would make explicit arguments against originality. And in fact, I'm not sure Derrida's argument is about originality, as much as it is in locating the aspects of language that promote its own deconstruction -- which is kind of a creative process and, when I think about it, perhaps a tool for arguing that language can actually help to create or invent ideas, and not just convey them.
That's my thinking at the moment, anyway.
-Prof. Graban
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.