Derrida and Deconstruction

Geoffrey Bennington

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

October 3, 2017

-----

So, in a sentence from one of the readings that I suggested that you look at, one
of the most difficult passages in those readings, and in fact, possibly one of the most
difficult passages in the whole of Derrida, Derrida writes this. I’ve tweaked the
translation a little bit.

The general structure of the unmotivated trace has communicate within the same
possibility, and without one’s being able to separate them except by abstraction, the
structure of the relation to the other, the movement of temporalization, and language
qua writing. (OG1, 47)

"The general structure of the unmotivated trace makes the structure of the relationship
with the other, the movement of temporalization, and language [langage] as writing
communicate with each other within the same possibility, and without the possibility
of separating them except by abstraction." (OG2, 51)

The general structure of the unmotivated trace makes communicating in the same
possibility, and without being able to separate them otherwise than by abstraction, the
structure of the relation to the other, the movement of temporalization and language as
writing. (Google)

La structure générale de la trace immotivée fait communiquer dans la même possibilité,

et sans qu’on puisse les séparer autrement que par abstraction, la structure du rapport à
l’autre, le mouvement de la temporalisation et le langage comme écriture. (DG, 69)

I going to propose that sentence as an epigram, and indeed as a kind of matrix for
approaching Derrida in this lecture. I’ll assume on the basis of what he says here that his
most general thought is to do with what he here calls the trace. And that the three areas
or strands that he says are tied up together in that thought can be taken as three possible
ways in to understanding. But, rather than attempt to approach Derrida via the
movement of temporalizaation, which would mean looking closely at some of his most
difficult philosophical writing on Husserl and Heidegger, I’ll begin with language as
writing, language qua writing, route, and try in the later part of the lecture, if we have
time, attempt to say something about the structure of the relation to the other.

I’m assuming no knowledge at all of Derrida’s work, and as always when dealing with
undeniably difficult thinking, I’m going to try to keep things as simple as I think they
can reasonably be kept with, of course, with apologies to those of you for whom it will
be elementary.

Now, prioritizing this way into Derrida, the language qua writing way in, has no
absolute justification over the other two possibilities that he mentions here, but it does
have some definite advantages, especially for those of us who are not formally trained in
philosophy. And I’m going to try to exploit those advantages as much as I can. It also
does have some down sides, especially in that it can tend to leave the mistaken
impression, and often has left that impression, that Derrida is all about language and has
nothing to say about “the real world’. That mistaken view probably focuses in on a
notorious claim in another passage that I suggested that you might read, the famous
claim usually translated there is nothing outside the text, in French, il n’y a pas hors
texte.