Derrida the movie

I feel that by watching Derrida the movie I understand Jacques Derrida’s ideas much more. It was easier to understand his views through watching him. I thought it was probably easier to understand because this movie was not made just for an academic audience but was made for all to view so it was put on a less complex level then some of the readings we have had. I thought that it was interesting to see how resistant Derrida was towards the whole interview process and how he did not directly answer any of the questions that were asked of him. He did say many things that like his readings made me really think. He has a way of thinking that really impresses me and at the same time boggles my mind. When his brother said he doesn’t know how he thinks the way in which he does because we all have brains but Derrida’s works so differently I agreed. I enjoyed seeing his brother and also getting a little background on him like when he discussed being a Jew and being not only isolated from other children but from his own religion. He felt anti-Semitism and a feeling of unhappiness in his own community all at once. Knowing this put him on a more human level to me. Before when I had only read what he was saying it was hard for me to relate, but by seeing him and knowing something personal it almost made his thoughts easier to grasp and understand.
I thought the scene where the camera shows Derrida watching himself on the television was great because it is just like what Derrida thinks. He thinks that everything is a copy of itself and he questions reality. I felt that the film makers were very considerate when filming and editing this film because they made it the way Derrida would want it.
He said many things that made me think, like when he asked do we forgive someone or someone for something? I feel I usually forgive the act that someone does and still feel a sort of animosity towards the person. It takes time to forgive the person I think, much more time then forgiving what they did. He says that one can only forgive the unforgivable. I think that that is something to think about. Does he mean that forgiveness of something small and minute is not forgiveness or not worthy of forgiveness because it doesn’t really matter? I feel like forgiving something that is unforgivable takes a lot more effort so maybe this effort is what he sees as forgiveness. He also said that pure forgiveness is impossible which I agree with because one never really forgets something that deserved their forgiveness and as I said before I feel it is easier to forgive an act then to forgive the person who did the act.
I thought it was funny when Derrida said if there was a documentary about another philosopher he would like to hear about their sex and love life. He said this because it is something that they don’t talk about and that they don’t bring into their work. He thinks that this aspect of one’s life influences their thoughts which I agree with. I also thought that it was funny that he would want to hear about something they don’t talk about because that is exactly what some viewers of this film would want but would not get because he is so resistant to the interview process.
I did not know that Derrida refused to have his picture published for awhile but I understood why once he explained. It would have completely contradicted his work at the time that was discussing taking the author out of the text. He didn’t want that fetish-ization of the author that would have come with his photos. Also when he said he feels photos are the death of someone I understood what he meant. Once that photo is taken the moment is gone. That part of someone’s life is over with.
Overall I enjoyed the movie much more then I thought I would and I am glad we watched it because it made me understand Derrida’s thinking much more then when I just read about it.

Derrida.....the supplement and play issues

One thing I was unsure about was the center. After going over it though I feel I have a much better understanding of it and how Derrida discusses the center. The center is the source of truth, the origin. According to Derrida you have to rethink the center. The center is absent so you must rethink it to understand it. He is not saying there is no center he is saying it is something “within the structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality, the totality has its center elsewhere” (R&W p.196). Strauss’ idea on ethnology is, you believe in something (the center) prior to (outside of) the system to validate it. The center stabilizes the system. This gives understanding to Derrida’s quote on how the center is both within and outside the totality at the same time.
Another part of the center is the metaphysics of presence. This is the study of nature of reality. The study of nature of reality as something that’s present to us. Heidegger feels philosophers do not question what gives a being presence they just assume, to be is to be present. Derrida attacks the center of knowledge as presence. Derrida feels that western society views speech as more privileged over writing. He disagrees and feels both are equal. He is deconstructing the idea of knowledge as presence. His idea of play is a disruption of presence. I liked how in class play was described as a way to understand revolution, it makes you understand it and not the world has just gone crazy. Play to Derrida resists the stabilizing force. The stabilizing force is the center.
Another point that we discussed was the supplement. I am not as sure about this as the other points though. I understand that the supplement is a surplus and is a substitute for something lacking. The supplement substitutes for a lost center. Derrida claims that to account for an absent center one replaces it. You mask the absence of the center to ensure presence. I don’t understand though how Derrida talks about play as disrupting the presence when then he talks about ensuring the presence with the supplement. So his two ideas are to both disrupt and ensure presence????

adding 'post'

According to Barry, post-structuralists believe that structuralists do not follow through in their views on language. I believe that by adding ‘post’ in front of structuralism it is implying that it has connections to the structuralist idea but has modified it in some way. It is a criticism of structuralism and is implying a end to those beliefs and a new, reformed idea in post-structuralism.
Both try to understand texts through language and view language as a system but what each view is based on and what they look for differs from each other. Structuralism is a more scientific based idea that derives from linguistics. It wants to make logical deductions and reach reliable conclusions. Post-structuralism on the other hand is a more philosophical idea. It feels you can not know everything for certain and it calls into questions things that we usually take for granted. There is also an argument about a fixed point or a center. I believe if I am correct, that post-structuralism believes that without a fixed point you have no certain standard to measurer things by. They believe there is no fixed point and that’s why they can question things more. Also on page 72 in Barry I found the compare list he gave very helpful in seeing the differences between the two ideas:
Structuralism vs. Post-structuralism
-Parallels/echoes -Contradictions/paradoxes
-Balances -Shifts/breaks in:
-Reflections/repetitions tone, time, person,
-Symmetry attitude, viewpoint, tense
-Contrasts -Conflicts
-Patterns -Absences/omissions
-Linguistic quirks

The effects of each are different as well. Structuralism’s effect is to show textual unity and coherence where post-structuralism’s effect is to show textual disunity. Since post-structuralism is a philosophy based idea I feel that is obviously the influence for it to look for ‘disunity’ in a text.
As said in class, deconstruction is post-structuralism put to practice. It is reading a text against itself. In Barry it says, “a deconstructive reading uncovers the unconscious rather then the conscious dimension of the text […]” (71) which is a very philosophical approach. It looks to complicate and question the text. So obviously post-structuralism has a direct effect on deconstruction and without structuralism there would be no post-structuralism.
Another issue I found interesting was addressed on pg 63 in Barry where it talked about the distinctions between structuralism and post-structuralism within attitude and language. It said that structuralism believes the world is constructed through language. We get our ideas of reality through language. Post-structuralism doesn’t really buy this. They feel that “the verbal sign is constantly floating free of the concept it is supposed to designate.” You need opposites to make meaning of a word. They give the example of night. Without referencing to day you would not know night. I agree with this because yes you would know that it gets darker outside at a certain time and you can attach the word ‘night’ to this but without experiencing day and light, night would have no real meaning to you.

Structuralism

#2- “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.”

Saussure feels that there is no meaning between a word and what it designates (Barry p40). He feels all words are arbitrary. This helps explains structuralism because structuralism is, “the belief that things can not be understood in isolation- they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of” (Barry p39). This makes sense to me because when you think of words you think of them in categories. You say dog to someone and it means nothing on it’s on, the concept you have of a dog is based on other words and larger categories such as animal, pet, furry. You have an idea of dog based on other words. No word on its own means anything. Barry used the example of hut. Hut means nothing until you put it into a category with such things as house, shed, mansion etc. then you can grasp the idea of it.

Saussure looks at patterns and functions of language. Language constitutes our world. By calling someone a terrorist or freedom fighter as Barry uses as examples, you have constructed them in a certain way. Language is powerful because of words but words mean nothing alone, they need each other to give meaning to each other.

I understand structuralism much more then I do the previous theories or so I feel. I understand that words alone mean nothing. Take it back to before language. If you said the word tree to someone, it would have absolutely no meaning. Since we have language though, you can say tree and use other words to describe it and give it an actual meaning.

Structuralism focuses on structures that are usually abstract and puts literary works into them. It looks at the bigger picture rather then the work of art as an individual.

The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary because it’s just a word. It means nothing alone. “Meanings are attributed to things by the human mind, not contained within them” (Barry 39). We give the meanings; the word has no meaning until we label it with one. I like the example of the hut; it gives me a better understanding of a complex idea. This theory almost scares me in a way to think that words as individuals mean nothing until they are put into larger structures together. I never thought in such a complex way about words and language I just always assumed every word had its own meaning but now I realize in fact it needs other words to do so.

trying to make sense of it all

I think the trouble I am having with these beginning theories is that I can not understand how to take the author out of the text since in every English class I have always been taught to analyze the authors life and how it influenced his/her writing. I have had to look at their schooling, family, wealth, mental health etc and relate it in some way to their work. I feel now these beginning theories are telling me to focus in the language itself not the author or the individual. I also am having a problem with how these theories, liberal humanism in particular, seem to contradict themselves. In my understanding, liberal humanists feel that good art is independent from economic factors BUT they also feel authors are formed by their social classes. I may be wrong here but I don’t understand how they can feel social classes form the author because then all work would have some economic influence, so is any art good?

I just feel there is a lot of “flip-flopping” going on. Marxists believe that texts are products of class struggle but Engels who is a Marxist feels the author’s opinions should be hidden. Well if texts are products of social class then the authors opinion is bound to influence his work because that what he is stuck in.

I may be getting all this confused, I’m not sure which is why I’m writing about it. I feel like I have a better grasp on structuralism though so we’ll see :)