The sentences appear to become increasingly entangled, to lead nowhere, and ultimately to add up to nothing. My own comments are presented as questions or are in parenthesis. Derrida sets up the scene for this text right away in the quote from Montaigne: His focus is directed inward, at the workings of our minds, away from the objects our minds are supposed to interpret.
Lacan was one of the few French attendees to lecture in English; Lacan makes a point of this gesture at the beginning of the lecture, titled "Of Structure as the Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever".
The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man.
Derrida is dealing with structuralism, a type of analysis which understands individual elements of language and culture as embedded in larger structures. The archetypal examples of structuralism come from Ferdinand de Saussurewho showed how phonemes and words gain meaning only through relations with each other.
Derrida dealt directly with Saussure in a related book titled Of Grammatology. Derrida admires the reflexivity and abstract analyses of structuralism, but argues that these discourses have still not gone far enough in treating structures Summary of structure sign and play free-floating or 'playing' sets of relationships.
In particular, he accuses structuralist discourses of holding on to a "center": Whether this center is "God", "being", "presence", or "man" as it was at the colloquiumits function is the same, and the history of structures is a history of substitutions, one center after another, for this constant position.
Derrida suggests that this model of structure will end—is ending—and that a newer and freer though still unknown thinking about structures will emerge. An 'event' has perhaps occurred[ edit ] Where's the center? The essay begins by speculating, "Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an 'event,' if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural—structuralist—thought to reduce or suspect.
The "center" is that element of a structure which appears given or fixed, thereby anchoring the rest of the structure and allowing it to play.
In the history of metaphysics specifically, this function is fulfilled by different terms which Derrida says are always associated with presence: This central term ironically escapes structurality, the key feature of structuralism according to which all meaning is defined relationally, through other terms in the structure.
From this perspective, the center is the most alien or estranged element in a structure: Derrida locates the beginning of this process in the writings of earlier philosophers, who continued to use the pattern of metaphysics even as they denounced it in others.
Reciprocal destroyers[ edit ] Derrida depicts NietzscheFreudand Heideggerthree of his greatest influences, as ultimately trapped within a destructive spiral of denunciation. Derrida argues that these theoretical moves share a common form: But all these destructive discourses and all their analogues are trapped in a sort of circle.
This circle is unique.
|Deconstructing Derrida: Review of "Structure, Sign and Discourse in the Human Sciences"||The necessity of commentary, like poetic necessity, is the very form of exiled speech.|
|The stability of this Levi-Strauss tries to account for this and fails by saying that he has provided an outline structure of South American mythology which may be subject to reinterpretation.|
It describes the form of the relationship between the history of metaphysics and the destruction of the history of metaphysics. It is these differences which explain the multiplicity of destructive discourses and the disagreement between those who make them.
It was within concepts inherited from metaphysics that Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger worked, for example. Since these concepts are not elements or atoms and since they are taken from a syntax and a system, every particular borrowing drags along with it the whole of metaphysics.
This is what allows these destroyers to destroy each other reciprocally—for example, Heidegger, considering Nietzsche, with as much lucidity and rigor as bad faith and misconstruction, as the last metaphysician, the last "Platonist.
And today no exercise is more widespread.
All we can do is refuse to allow either pole in a system to become the center and guarantor of presence. There exists no veritable end or term to mythical analysis, no secret unity which could be grasped at the end of the work in decomposition.A Guide to Jacques Derrida’s “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” Summary.
So Derrida is Here the key terms would be Structure, Sign, Play, and Substitution. In his essay Struture, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Science, Derrida firstly describes the idea of freeplay, which is a decentering of systems within the systems themselves.
Summary Of Derrida S Structure Sign And Play Roundtable Discussion Structure, Sign and Play - Jacques Derrida ‘ Structure, Sign and Play ’, is a paper which involves the author - Derrida, encouraging the use of several different perspectives to view a . Play is always play of absence and presence, but if it is to be thought radically, play must be conceived of before the alternative of presence and absence (SSP ).
Derrida wrote “Structure, Sign and Play” to present at a conference in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins University in In the conclusion of his essay, Derrida observes that there are two ways to interpret structure, sign, and play.
One seeks to decipher a truth or an origin, and avoids play. The other affirms play and tries to pass beyond man and humanism. Jacques Derrida first read his paper “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences ()” at the John Hopkins International Colloquium on “The Language of Criticism and the Sciences of Man” in October articulating for the first time a post structuralist theoretical paradigm.