Jacques Derrida's Concepts

“Science” of Grammatology
This is Derrida’s scientific approach to language in opposition to the belief that language cannot be studied scientifically. Here, he brings in the concept on sign which is divided into the signifier (written or spoken mark) and signified (a concept/meaning). A much known example to this is the traffic light. The colors green, yellow, and red are signifiers, and the concepts “go, ready, and stop” are signifieds. When one sees the green (signifier), he gets the idea that he has to “go” (signified). This kind of approach to language is systematic; however, not all written and spoken marks (especially the abstract ones, like “emotion” and “feeling”) have definite and distinct concept. The signifieds to these signifiers are most likely to be similar or the same. Thus, the relationship of signifier and signified is conventional and arbitrary. Also, signifiers don not remain to be signifiers. Sometimes, they become signifieds. An example given by Charles Bressler in Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice is the sentence I have filled the glass with milk. The word “glass” (signifier) means a container (signified). But in the sentence The container was filled with milk, the word “container,” which in the previous sentence is a signified, now becomes a signifier, which means a thing that can be filled.

Logocentrism
This refers to the belief that the center is “logos” (or the Word which is so much related to God). For Derrida, this is the “belief that there is an ultimate reality or center of truth that can serve as the basis for all our thoughts and actions”—the logos. A signified can only be valid if it parallels the thought of God. Logocentrism believes that the signified to a particular signifier can only be considered “truth” if and only if the signified is also the thought of God. As a Christian, I do agree on this.

Phonocentrism
This is also related to Logocentrisim and the metaphysics of presence. This believes that speech is superior to and privilege over writing. There are a number of reasons: (1) speech is closer to thought than writing; (2) in relation to sign, speech is the original signifier, writing, the signifier of the signifier; and (3) speech does not need validation for it has the direct presence of the speaker, writing has none (thus, absence). Thus, the self (the speaker/presence from which one gets direct meaning) becomes the “being (existence).” For me, although speech has the presence and validity, one should still not make writing inferior because writing supplements speech. With this view, writing gives meaning to speech. I am not saying, however, that one must view writing as superior to speech. The point is: Both have truth in them.

Supplement
Derrida believes that there is such an unstable and problematic relationship between the binary oppositions of the Western thought, so he reverses the opposition. This is what he calls supplement. Through this, one may get new meaningful truth. This concept of Derrida truly gives a different and another meaning to a particular text. I was discussing “Lord Randal” with my students in English 4. There is already an establish binary opposition in the poem: Love (Lord Randal) and Betrayal (the lover). However, if Lord Randal was really betrayed by his lover, why was he not that angry? He is supposed to be outraged. Why does he seem to be calm and “just wanted to lie down”? Apparently, he accepts the negative act by his lover. My friend, who studied psychology, told me that a “non-guilty person when punished is outraged.” If this is true then Lord Randal is guilty. He must have been the one who betrayed his lover. So the binary opposition is reversed: Betrayal (Lord Randal) and Love (the lover).

Differance
This is a word coined by Derrida comes from the French word differer that means to defer and to differ. Basically, this idea stands for “Derrida’s what-if questions.” In this view, he believes that “all human knowledge…must spring from difference, not sameness, from absence, not presence.” Charles Bressler then gives two results of differance: (1) on the differ-side: all knowledge should be based on differance (one knows something because it differs from others); and (2) on the defer-side: one must forgo closure (all interpretations are possible). I could not agree more. What else can I say? Derrida is such a great critic and philosopher!