Class with Mason
Derrida's Critique of Logocentrism: The Deconstruction of the World
Mon, 28 Oct 2024
More detailed notes available here: https://www.classwithmason.com/2023/12/derridas-critique-of-logocentrism.html
Ever get the feeling like the world, the way we see it, it's like built on ideas, not just like physical stuff, but like concepts. You know, we'll get ready to like dive in deep, folks, because today we're tackling Jacques Derrida and his wild idea of deconstruction.
Yeah, Derrida really shook things up in philosophy. He said that language isn't just some neutral tool we use, like actually shapes the way we see the world.
So it's not like a mirror just reflecting reality.
Right.
It's more like a lens that like changes things.
Yeah.
I'm hooked already. What sources do we have to like figure this out?
Well, you sent over an article about logocentrism.
Right.
One on Deirdre's critique of structuralism. And that really fascinating story about those Spanish explorers who totally misjudged the Grand Canyon.
Oh, yeah.
Because their language just couldn't handle it.
Yeah. Their language, like, limited what they could even see.
Exactly.
So logocentrism, this sounds kind of scary, but I'm ready.
It's the idea that Western thought has always been obsessed with finding this like stable, unchanging center of meaning. Okay.
It's like we need a solid foundation to build on.
Like a building.
Yeah. Okay. So we latch onto these big concepts like Plato's perfect forms.
Right.
Or Descartes, I think therefore I am.
Yeah. Like those are the bedrock.
Exactly. They become the bedrock for like understanding everything else.
Even the idea that language has these fixed structures, like words have set meanings. It's like we assume there's a logic to language so we all understand each other.
Right. But Derrida's like, hold on a sec. What if that center, that solid ground is actually shaky?
Whoa.
That's logocentrism. And he thinks it might be like a uniquely Western thing.
OK, so where does deconstruction come in?
Yeah.
Is it like just tearing everything down, saying nothing matters?
No, not at all.
It's more like like nihilism.
Yeah. Think of it like watching a movie. You get so caught up in the story. It seems seamless. Right. But then you learned about editing. How all those shots are pieced together. All the cuts to create that illusion.
Deconstruction is like realizing the editing. Yeah. Becoming aware of the editing process of our own thinking.
I love that. And speaking of how we see things, there's that story about the Spanish explorers at the Grand Canyon, right?
Yeah.
They totally underestimated its size. Their language didn't even have the words to describe how massive it was.
Right. It literally shaped what they could see.
Their worldview.
Their worldview. That's language as more than just a neutral tool.
Yeah.
It's got all these cultural beliefs baked in.
So is that why translating is so tricky?
Derrida would say yes. It's not just swapping words. You're trying to bridge different ways of seeing the world.
It's like when you come across a word in another language and there's just no English equivalent.
Exactly.
It's like a glimpse into a whole different reality.
And that challenges this idea of structuralism, which saw language as this neat system. Derrida said, nope, meaning is fluid.
It's always changing.
Always in play, depending on the context.
So dictionaries can only tell us so much. It's like the messy real world use that matters.
Which reminds me of another thing Derrida messed with. The whole speech versus writing thing.
Oh, yeah.
I always thought of writing as just like recording speech.
Yeah, like a second class citizen.
Exactly.
That's the traditional view.
Speech is the real deal.
The OG.
And writing is just the copycat.
But Derrida flips it all around.
Really? How?
I got to hear this.
He says writing has its own power, its own way of shaping how we think. Think about taking notes during a lecture.
Okay.
Even if it's just scribbles, it helps you understand the ideas better than just hearing them.
That's so true. When I do write things down, it's like click.
Right. Writing lets us engage with ideas on a deeper level. It's not just recording. It's actively making meaning.
So meaning isn't this fixed thing out there. It's created in how we use language and even the act of writing itself. But how does this work with like interpreting a book? Do we all get the same meaning?
That's the question Derrida was wrestling with. The old school view is that there's one right interpretation, what the author meant. But Derrida and folks like Roland Barthes said no way. Meaning isn't set by the writer. It comes alive in the interaction.
Between the reader and the text.
Exactly.
It's not like a puzzle with one solution. It's more like a recipe. Same ingredients, but everyone's dish tastes a little different.
I like that. You got it. The text is the framework, but the reader brings their own stuff to it.
Their own experience.
Their own interpretations.
Yeah.
And that creates a unique meaning.
This is blowing my mind. And now we get to this like crazy question Derrida asks. Is this whole logo-centric way of thinking, this search for solid meaning, is it just a Western thing?
That's what he's getting at.
Are you saying some cultures don't even think like this at all?
There's evidence that points that way.
Yeah. Take the K'iche' Maya, for example.
Yeah.
Their whole culture values oral tradition, the way stories change over time.
It's not just about the words.
Right.
It's about sharing and reinterpreting them. Meaning is always being made and remade.
And it makes you wonder, does our alphabet system make us more logocentric?
Hmm. Interesting question.
Whoa. My brain needs a break. We've covered so much. Logocentrism deconstruction. The limits of language. The power of writing.
It's a lot to take in.
Derrida really makes you rethink everything.
He does. And we're just getting started.
Where do we go from here?
Well, now that we've laid the groundwork, I think it's time to see how we can actually use these ideas.
Okay.
How can we use deconstruction in our everyday lives?
I'm ready. Let's do it.
We'll get into that in the next part of our deep dive. Welcome back. You ready for more?
I think so. My brain's still buzzing from our last talk.
Yeah.
We were talking about how different cultures might have like totally different ways of understanding language and reality.
Yeah.
It makes you wonder if anything really gets lost in translation.
That's something Derrida really grappled with. He said translation is never just like a one-to-one thing. There's always interpretation, you know, like the translator is recreating it, adding a bit of their own worldview to the new text.
It's like those optical illusions. You can see two different images depending on how you look.
Exactly. And that's because languages aren't just words. They carry whole cultural histories, you know, assumptions, ways of seeing the world.
So when we translate, we're not just switching out words. We're trying to bridge these huge gaps in perspective.
Sometimes huge. Yeah.
Which brings to mind that famous Dorita quote, and forgive my pronunciation, in the Apado Or text, which I think means there is no outside text.
You got it.
Sounds so cryptic. What did he mean?
It's a phrase that needs a lot of unpacking, but it gets at the core of Derrida's thinking. Basically, he's saying we can never completely step outside of language to access some cure reality. Our understanding is always filtered through language and the culture it comes from.
So even when we think we're being objective, we're still working within a framework.
Exactly. There's no escaping the influence of language.
Even when we talk about stuff that seems beyond language, Like emotions or abstract ideas.
Even our own experiences.
It's like language is the operating system of our minds.
That's a great way to put it.
And we can't just uninstall it and see the world raw.
And Derrida says that's not a bad thing. It's something to be aware of. It means we need to recognize that how we interpret the world is always shaped by the language we use.
Okay, that makes sense. But if there's no outside text, if we're always stuck in language, does that mean everything is relative? That there's no right or wrong?
A lot of people misunderstand Derrida that way. He wasn't saying that anything goes. It's more about being aware of how language limits us.
And how it shapes what we think.
Yeah. We need to be aware of our own assumptions.
Be open to different perspectives.
And question how language is used to create power structures.
So it's not about getting rid of truth. No. It's about understanding how we arrive at truth.
Right. And recognizing that language plays a huge role in that.
This is making me see things in a whole new light. It's like I've been wearing glasses with the wrong prescription my whole life.
I love that analogy.
Now I'm trying on a new pair and realizing the world can look totally different.
That speaks to the power of Derrida's work. He makes us question our assumptions.
See the lenses we use to view the world.
And recognize that there are always multiple perspectives.
OK, so we've talked a lot about how language constructs our reality.
Yeah.
But how does this play out in everyday life? How do we actually use deconstruction?
One way is to question those binary oppositions we use to understand the world. Those either categories.
Like good, bad, male, female.
Nature culture. We tend to think in opposites.
Yeah. With one side being better or more natural.
And Derrida argues that these binaries aren't natural or fixed. They're created and maintained by language.
So deconstruction is about exposing that.
Exposing the power dynamics and showing how they can be challenged, even subverted.
Give me an example. I want to see how this works in the real world.
Let's go back to speech versus writing, which we talked about before. Traditionally, speech has been seen as the more authentic form.
The real deal.
While writing is just a copy.
Less trustworthy because it's not spoken directly.
But Derrida flipped that on its head.
We talked about that.
Right. He said writing has its own power. It can be more subversive. A written text can reach more people.
Last longer.
It can be reinterpreted over time.
And challenge norms that speech might not.
Exactly. So by deconstructing this binary, we see the limits of assuming one form of communication is better.
Each has its own pros and cons.
Right. And this has real implications. Think about legal stuff where written contracts matter more than oral agreements. Oh, yeah. By deconstructing this hierarchy, we can question it and push for a more balanced approach.
That's so cool. It shows how these big philosophical ideas actually matter in the real world. This whole conversation has really opened my eyes.
It has.
It's like I'm seeing the world in a whole new way.
That's great. And that's what Derrida was all about. He wanted us to question our assumptions.
To be aware of how we see the world.
And recognize that there are always multiple perspectives.
So it's not just about understanding Derrida's theories.
Right.
It's about applying them to our lives and becoming more aware of the information we're taking.
Especially in today's world.
With all the media and everything.
Exactly. We're bombarded with messages. Derrida gives us tools to analyze them.
To avoid being passively shaped.
To think for ourselves.
My brain needs a break. We went from questioning the foundations of thought.
I know, right?
To exploring how language shapes reality.
It's a lot.
It is.
But we're not done yet.
Oh, there's more.
In the next part, we'll explore what all this means for how we understand ourselves and our place in the world. Stay tuned.
Okay, we're back for the last part of our deep dive into Derrida and deconstruction. This whole conversation has like really shifted my perspective on language. It's not just words and grammar anymore. It's about how those words shape how we see the world, even ourselves.
That's the heart of it. Derrida's work challenges us to see language as this active force, right? Not just a tool.
Yeah. It shapes our thoughts, perceptions, even our identities.
We talked about how deconstruction can help us question those binary oppositions.
Yeah.
And become more critical of information.
Be more aware.
But I'm curious about the bigger picture. How does this affect how we see ourselves in the world?
That's where difference comes in. Difference. Yeah, it's a tough one to explain. But basically it means that meaning is never fully present. It's always deferred, always in process, like a word in a dictionary. It only makes sense in relation to other words and those words to others and so on.
So it's like an endless chain of meaning.
Always shifting, always evolving.
Like how the way we interpret history changes over time.
Exactly. As new evidence comes up and societal values change.
Derrida said this applies not just to language, but to our identities too.
We're not these fixed beings.
With one true self.
Right. We're constantly being shaped by our experiences, relationships, the stories around us.
So instead of trying to define ourselves in these rigid ways, we should be okay with the fact that we're complex and always changing. Embrace the fluidity.
Yeah.
It's like we're all works in progress, always being written and rewritten.
this connects to the idea of play in language too right derrida saw language as a playground where meanings can be explored challenged reimagined think about a comedian taking a phrase and twisting it for laughs or a poet using words in unexpected ways to make you feel something new it's recognizing that language is alive we can shape it and it shapes us
It's not about finding the right answer then. Nope. It's about playing with language to see what new meanings we can create. This has been mind blowing. I'm looking at the world in a whole new way. And I think that's the power of Derrida's work. He makes us question everything we thought we knew.
About language and meaning and to embrace the ambiguity.
The fact that there can be multiple perspectives.
It's not always about finding the answer. It's about asking better questions, being open to the fact that we're always learning.
So what's the one thing you want listeners to take away from all this?
I think the most important thing is to remember that language is powerful. It shapes how we think, how we see things, even who we are. By understanding how language works, we can become better thinkers, better communicators, more in control of our own lives.
That's powerful stuff. I think we could all use a reminder of that. Definitely.
And that's just the beginning. There's so much more to explore in Derrida's work, so keep digging and see what you discover.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive into deconstruction. We hope you learned something new and that you'll keep thinking, keep questioning, and keep playing with the power of language. Until next time.