What is Structure? (Derrida)
February 5, 2007 by hanaa
Normally when we think about structure we think about a core. In essence the core is a solid that is unbreakable and dense. This core holds together all ideals and explains away all ambiguity. Then from this core all other ideas branch out creating beams that hold up the different sections the come from the core. According to Derrida this is how cultureworks, taking a set of core ideals that are infallible and disperses them in different societies of that culture. However, Derrida does not see this as a reality of how the world should be viewed.
I think he sees the core as less localized, because there is no one explanation to explain away it all. In some way every theory falls short of completion and the perfect theory is an ideal. In fact they are linked together each theory pulling weight from where the other theories fall short. There is more a of a distribution. Like the metaphor that he used of the chain… instead of a singular bolt holding all theory together, each is intertwined, overlapping.
Ok, your post made Derrida more understandable to me. I definitely agree with the arguement that nothing has an absolute answer according to Derrida. The idea of a chain definitely helped me understand the decentering idea. Chains don’t have a solid core, and that kind of goes along with nothing have a solid answer. Come to think of it, I’d rather smoke one of Bakhtin’s books than read Derrida again. But thank you for making at least a portion of it easier to comprehend.
Hey Aliya,
The idea of center not being the center seems so simple now, doesn’t it? The language is just such a bitch!
I like the way Derrida describes the history of an entire era as the collective event that broke Europe’s egocentric ass, turned them on their ear and made them realize, “Shit! There are OTHERS! Maybe we should get off our high horse now.” Similarly, Derrida’s theory was the event that blew Saussure’s theory right off its axis. Still he knows that his answer isn’t necessarily a center unto itself. Was he perceived as the “bad boy” in the theory world for deconstructing a central truth of society? I’m sure some people think so but I respect him for questioning and for leaving room to say that there is no one truth. As you so eliquently put it, “there is no one explanation to explain away it all.”
PS: The way these guys are flipping each other off left and right, its too bad they’re all dead. It would be great to toss ‘em in a ring together.