August 2, 2024 - English Studies

“White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida: A Critique

“White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida, translated by F. C. T. Moore, was first written in 1971 and later translated into English in 1982.

"White Mythology " by Jacques Derrida and F. C. T. Moore: A Critique

Introduction: “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

“White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida, translated by F. C. T. Moore, was first written in 1971 and later translated into English in 1982. It was included in Derrida’s collection “Margins of Philosophy.” The essay is a seminal work in literary theory, deconstructing the Western philosophical tradition’s reliance on metaphors and exposing its “white mythology.” Derrida argues that philosophy often disguises its figurative language as literal truth, creating a system of thought that prioritizes presence and clarity over absence and ambiguity. The essay’s relevance to literary theory and literature lies in its exploration of the relationship between language and thought, challenging traditional notions of meaning and interpretation. It encourages readers to question the underlying assumptions of texts and to consider the ways in which language constructs reality.

Summary of “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

Central Theme: Metaphor in Philosophy: Jacques Derrida’s “White Mythology” delves deeply into the pivotal role of metaphor within philosophical discourse, arguing that metaphors are not merely decorative or rhetorical elements but are fundamental to philosophical thinking itself. Derrida asserts that metaphors shape how abstract concepts are understood and communicated, suggesting that the very structure of philosophical reasoning is metaphorically underpinned. This exploration sets the stage for re-evaluating the presumed clarity and objectivity of philosophical language, proposing that metaphors infuse abstract thoughts with material imagery, thereby influencing the interpretation and evolution of philosophical ideas. Derrida highlights the inherent power of metaphors in philosophy, challenging the traditional view of them as peripheral components. He argues that metaphors actively shape and transform philosophical narratives, acting not just as tools of language but as forces that dictate the flow and direction of philosophical thought. This power of metaphor is seen as both creative and destructive, capable of generating new insights while simultaneously obscuring original meanings. This dual capacity underscores the dynamic and transformative impact of metaphors in philosophical texts.

Degradation and Revaluation of Metaphor: The concept of “usure,” or wear and tear of metaphors, plays a crucial role in Derrida’s analysis. He explains that over time, metaphors undergo a process of degradation where their original potency and clarity diminish, similar to how a frequently used coin loses its inscriptions. This degradation, however, is paradoxically also a form of revaluation, where the faded metaphor gains new meanings and applications within different philosophical contexts. This cycle of wear and enrichment reflects the evolving nature of language and thought in philosophical discourse.
Metaphor’s Economic Analogy: Derrida employs an economic analogy to deepen our understanding of metaphor, comparing the use of metaphors to the circulation of currency. Just as coins lose their distinctiveness through wear, metaphors lose their specificity over time and through repeated use. However, like currency that still holds value despite its worn state, metaphors retain a functional and exchangeable quality. This analogy illuminates the transactional nature of metaphors in philosophy, where they serve as mediums of exchange between concrete and abstract realms.
Metaphor’s Role in Masking and Unmasking Philosophical Truths: Derrida posits that metaphors both reveal and conceal truths within philosophical arguments. By transforming the originary sense of words into metaphors, philosophy engages in a dual act of revealing hidden meanings and obscuring direct interpretations. This function of metaphor as a mask and unmasker complicates the straightforward transmission of knowledge, suggesting that understanding in philosophy is inherently mediated by linguistic transformations.

Transcendence through Folklore and Literary Allusions The essay discusses how metaphors can transcend their immediate literary contexts by incorporating folklore and allusions, which enrich philosophical narratives with deeper cultural and historical resonances. This transcendence through metaphor allows for a more nuanced exploration of themes such as nature, divinity, and the human condition, bridging the gap between personal experience and universal truths.
Interplay of Language and Economy in Metaphor Exploring the intersection between economic principles and linguistic structures, Derrida shows how metaphors function like currency within the economy of language. This interplay highlights the commodification of words and ideas, where metaphors not only convey but also trade meanings within the intellectual marketplace. This perspective challenges the traditional separation between linguistic expression and economic activity, presenting a unified field of metaphorical exchange.
Necessity for Metaphor in Philosophical Discourse Derrida argues against the potential reduction of philosophy to mere metaphorology, emphasizing the essential role of metaphors in enriching philosophical discourse without undermining its seriousness. By studying metaphors, philosophers can explore the underlying structures of thought and expression, acknowledging the complexity and indispensability of metaphorical reasoning within philosophical practices.

Challenges in Defining Metaphor within Philosophical Paradigms The difficulty of defining metaphor within philosophical frameworks is a key focus, highlighting the elusive nature of metaphors that escape rigid classification. This elusiveness challenges philosophers to continually reassess the boundaries and definitions of metaphor, ensuring that philosophical inquiry remains open and responsive to the evolving nature of language and thought.
Elliptical Nature of Metaphor in Philosophy Derrida introduces the concept of the metaphorical “ellipsis,” where metaphors imply more than they explicitly state, requiring active interpretation and engagement from the reader. This elliptical quality makes metaphors both intriguing and challenging, as they propel philosophical inquiry forward through the dynamic interplay between stated and unstated meanings.
Natural and Cultural Implications of Metaphor The essay examines the natural and cultural dimensions of metaphor, arguing that metaphors are both innate to human cognition and shaped by cultural contexts. This dual aspect underscores the role of metaphors in reflecting and shaping human understanding, linking individual creativity with collective cultural narratives.

Existential and Systemic Implications of Metaphor Finally, Derrida explores how metaphors influence both individual existential experiences and systemic philosophical structures. By shaping how we conceptualize and interact with the world, metaphors play a crucial role in the formation of both personal identities and comprehensive philosophical systems, highlighting their foundational role in both realms of human experience.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in “White Mythology”
White Mythology	The underlying metaphorical structure of Western philosophy that privileges presence, light, and truth over absence, darkness, and metaphor.	Derrida argues that philosophy often disguises its reliance on metaphors by presenting them as literal truths, creating a “white mythology” that obscures the figurative nature of language. This concept is not explicitly coined in “White Mythology” but is a central theme explored throughout the essay.
Usure	A French term meaning both “wear and tear” and “usury” (excessive interest).	Derrida uses this term to describe the process by which metaphors lose their original power and become worn out through repeated use. He also connects it to the concept of usury, suggesting that metaphors can be exploited and manipulated for profit.
Palimpsest	A manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain.	Derrida uses this term to describe the way in which philosophical concepts are built upon layers of previous metaphors and meanings, with traces of these earlier meanings still present in the current usage.
Heliotrope	A plant that turns towards the sun, also a green stone with red veins.	Derrida uses this term to describe the cyclical relationship between philosophy and metaphor, where philosophy attempts to move beyond metaphor but ultimately returns to it. The heliotrope also represents the idea of writing on stone, suggesting the permanence and authority of philosophical concepts.
Dissemination	The spreading or scattering of something.	Derrida uses this term to describe the way in which meaning is not fixed but constantly shifting and open to multiple interpretations. He also connects it to the concept of usure, suggesting that the meaning of metaphors can be disseminated and dispersed through repeated use.
Metaphor of Metaphor	A metaphor used to describe or explain another metaphor.	Derrida uses this term to highlight the self-referential nature of philosophical language, where metaphors are often used to explain other metaphors, creating a potentially endless chain of signification.

Contribution of “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

· Exploration of Metaphor’s Philosophical Underpinnings

Example: Deconstruction theory — Derrida’s analysis of metaphor challenges the traditional assumptions about language’s transparency and neutrality in conveying meaning. This contributes to the deconstructive approach in literary theory, which interrogates the relationships between text, meaning, and interpretation.

· Introduction of the Concept of ‘White Mythology’

Example: Postcolonial theory — The idea of ‘White Mythology’ critiques the Western philosophical tradition’s claim to universality, revealing how its metaphors are culturally and historically situated. This concept is useful in postcolonial studies to analyze how language and literature perpetuate colonial ideologies.

· Critique of Metaphysical Language

Example: New Historicism — Derrida’s critique highlights how metaphysical language in literature is not a mere reflection of reality but constructs realities. New Historicists utilize this insight to explore how literary texts both reflect and construct the historical and cultural contexts in which they are produced.

· Dissolution of the Binary between Literal and Figurative Language

Example: Feminist literary criticism — By complicating the binary between literal and metaphorical language, Derrida’s work supports feminist critiques of language that challenge patriarchal structures, which often rely on fixed meanings and binaries.

· Metaphor as a Site of Power and Transformation

Example: Psychoanalytic criticism — Derrida views metaphor as a powerful transformative agent in language. In literary psychoanalysis, metaphors are seen as mechanisms through which unconscious desires and conflicts are expressed in the text.

· Metaphors as Cultural and Ideological Artifacts

Example: Marxist criticism — Derrida’s notion that metaphors carry cultural and economic values aligns with Marxist literary theory, which examines how texts reflect, reinforce, or challenge the ideological and economic conditions of their production.

· Impact on Textual Analysis and Interpretation

Example: Reader-response criticism — “White Mythology” influences how readers interpret texts, suggesting that the meaning of metaphors shifts depending on cultural and historical contexts. This variability aligns with reader-response theory, which emphasizes the role of the reader in creating the meaning of the text.

Examples of Critiques Through “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

Critique of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (2007) by Junot Díaz through “White Mythology”: Derrida’s concept of “White Mythology” reveals how the novel subverts traditional narratives of heroism and identity. Oscar, a Dominican-American “ghetto nerd,” challenges the Western archetype of the hero. His struggles with love, family, and cultural identity defy the “white mythology” of individualism and success, revealing a more complex and nuanced understanding of the human experience. The novel’s use of Spanglish and Dominican folklore further deconstructs the dominant cultural narrative, highlighting the marginalized voices and experiences often excluded from mainstream literature.
Critique of A Visit from the Goon Squad (2010) by Jennifer Egan through “White Mythology”: Egan’s fragmented narrative structure and diverse characters challenge the linear, cause-and-effect model often associated with Western storytelling. The novel’s exploration of memory, technology, and the passage of time resists the “white mythology” of progress and certainty, highlighting the inherent instability and uncertainty of human experience. The shifting perspectives and non-linear timeline create a sense of “différance,” where meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present.
Critique of There There (2018) by Tommy Orange through “White Mythology”: Orange’s novel confronts the erasure and marginalization of Native American voices and experiences in American history and literature. The interconnected stories of urban Native Americans challenge the “white mythology” of a unified American identity, revealing the diversity and complexity of Indigenous cultures and communities. The novel’s use of language, incorporating Native slang and cultural references, further deconstructs the dominant narrative, creating a space for marginalized voices to be heard.

Critique of Detransition, Baby (2021) by Torrey Peters through “White Mythology”: Peters’ novel challenges the traditional binary categories of gender and sexuality, deconstructing the “white mythology” of a fixed and stable identity. The characters’ experiences with gender fluidity and transition complicate the traditional notions of motherhood and family, revealing a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of human relationships. The novel’s use of humor and satire further subverts the dominant cultural narrative, challenging readers to question their assumptions about gender, identity, and love.

Criticism Against “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

Complexity and Obscurity of Language

Critics argue that Derrida’s style in “White Mythology” is overly complex and obscure, which can obscure rather than illuminate the philosophical points he is trying to make. This complexity can alienate readers who are not already familiar with his deconstructive method.

Overemphasis on Language at the Expense of Reality

Some critics contend that Derrida’s focus on language and metaphor leads to a form of linguistic determinism that neglects the material aspects of reality. This criticism suggests that Derrida prioritizes language so heavily that the tangible, experiential world becomes secondary or irrelevant.

Perceived Relativism and Lack of Concrete Solutions

Derrida’s approach is often criticized for leading to relativism, where the instability of meaning may imply that all interpretations are equally valid. Critics argue that this undermines the possibility of reaching any solid conclusions or solutions within philosophical and literary analysis.

Inaccessibility to Broader Audiences

The theoretical density of “White Mythology” makes it inaccessible to those not already versed in philosophical discourse. This exclusivity can limit its applicability and influence in broader academic and non-academic circles.

Potential Misapplication of Deconstructive Methods

There is concern that the deconstructive approach advocated by Derrida, while innovative, can be misapplied in ways that strip texts of any definitive meaning, leading to overly skeptical or nihilistic interpretations that negate the author’s intent or the text’s cultural and historical context.

Critique from Empirical and Analytic Philosophers

Empirical and analytic philosophers often criticize Derrida’s work for lacking empirical grounding and for its non-systematic approach. They argue that his philosophical inquiries lack the rigor and clarity that characterizes empirical and analytic methodologies.

Questioning the Originality and Novelty

Some scholars debate the originality of Derrida’s ideas, suggesting that his concepts of metaphor and textual interpretation are not as revolutionary as claimed, and that similar ideas have been explored by other philosophers and theorists.

Extracts with Explanation from “White Mythology” by Jacques Derrida

Extract	Explanation
“Metaphor is never innocent. It governs, for better or for worse, our sense of reality.”	This extract highlights Derrida’s view that metaphors significantly influence how we perceive and interpret reality. He suggests that metaphors do more than embellish speech; they shape our fundamental understanding of the world around us, often in ways we are not consciously aware of.
“The entire history of metaphysics as a metaphoric displacement.”	Here, Derrida conceptualizes the history of metaphysics as a series of metaphorical shifts, implying that philosophical concepts are not static but evolve through the metaphoric language used to describe them. This positions metaphysics itself as a narrative constructed through language, rather than a series of objective truths.
“Philosophy metaphorizes through the nonmetaphorical.”	This statement reflects on the paradoxical nature of philosophical discourse, which often uses what appears to be literal language to express ideas that are inherently metaphorical. It suggests a critical look at how philosophical language claims to be clear and direct while often relying on underlying metaphors.
“White mythology which paints the surface of language with its color, the color of the new spirit.”	Derrida uses the concept of ‘white mythology’ to discuss the implicit assumptions and hidden metaphors within Western philosophical discourse that are presented as ‘neutral’ or ‘universal’. This extract criticizes the way dominant cultural narratives shape and color our understanding of language and truth.
“The metaphor of the sun and its philosophical implications transcend the mere astronomical body to become a central figure in Western thought.”	This extract delves into the metaphorical use of the sun in Western philosophy, where it often represents enlightenment, truth, and knowledge. Derrida examines how this metaphor shapes philosophical discussions beyond its literal meaning, influencing a wide array of conceptual frameworks.

“Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida: A Critique

“Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida first appeared in 1967 as a chapter in his collection Writing and Difference (French: L’écriture et la différence).

Introduction: “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

“Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida first appeared in 1967 as a chapter in his collection Writing and Difference (French: L’écriture et la différence). The English translation, by Alan Bass, was published in 1978. The article is known for its critique of structuralism, its deconstruction of the concept of the “center,” and its playful engagement with language. It is considered a seminal text in post-structuralist thought and continues to be influential in fields such as philosophy, literary criticism, and cultural studies.

Summary of “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

Event of Structure: Derrida discusses an “event” that marks a significant shift in the concept of structure. This event, characterized by “rupture and redoubling,” challenges the traditional notion of structures as having a fixed center. He uses the term “event” cautiously, aware of its implications, to denote a fundamental change in how structures are understood and conceptualized in human sciences.
Historical Context: Derrida asserts that the concept of structure is deeply rooted in Western science and philosophy, dating back to their inception. Structures have always been integral to these fields, embedded in ordinary language and thought. Despite their longstanding presence, structures were historically neutralized by being assigned a center or a point of origin, which served to organize and limit the play within the structure.

Function of the Center: The center of a structure, according to Derrida, plays a crucial role in orienting, balancing, and organizing the elements within the structure. It ensures coherence and stability but simultaneously restricts the potential for transformation and permutation of the elements. The center makes the play within the structure possible but also limits it, creating a paradox where the center is both essential and limiting.
Contradiction in Centered Structures: Derrida points out the inherent contradiction in the concept of a centered structure. The center, while providing coherence and stability, also limits the structure’s flexibility and play. This paradoxical nature leads to the realization that the “center is not the center,” meaning that the center’s role is both within and outside the structure, contradicting the very essence of what a center should be.
Reduction and Play: The history of structural thought is seen by Derrida as a series of substitutions of one center for another, each aiming to achieve a state of full presence and coherence. Concepts like essence, existence, and substance have always been used to stabilize structures, but this stabilization comes at the cost of limiting play and flexibility. Derrida emphasizes that the reduction of structurality to a central point is an illusion that suppresses the inherent play within structures.

Decentering and Language: The shift towards thinking about structures without a fixed center marks a significant change in the human sciences. Language becomes central to this new understanding, as it allows for an infinite number of substitutions and interpretations without a definitive center or origin. This decentering opens up structures to play and indeterminacy, challenging traditional metaphysical concepts of presence and origin.
Role of Ethnology: Derrida uses ethnology as an example of a science that emerged from the decentering of European culture. Ethnology, which studies different cultures, operates within discourse and uses traditional concepts even as it critiques them. This duality highlights the inherent ethnocentrism in ethnological studies, as ethnologists inevitably rely on the very concepts they seek to deconstruct.
Levi-Strauss and Bricolage: Claude Levi-Strauss’s concept of “bricolage” exemplifies the practice of working with available tools and concepts while acknowledging their limitations. Bricolage involves using whatever materials are at hand to create something new, highlighting the necessity of employing inherited tools even as one critiques their adequacy. This method reflects the broader challenge in the human sciences of innovating within the constraints of existing conceptual frameworks.

Nature and Culture Opposition: Levi-Strauss’s work on the incest prohibition demonstrates the collapse of the traditional opposition between nature and culture. The incest prohibition, which is universal yet culturally specific, challenges the clear-cut distinction between what is natural and what is cultural. This example shows that some phenomena defy binary classification, necessitating a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between nature and culture.
Myth and Structure: Levi-Strauss’s study of myths reveals that myths have no absolute center or origin. Myths are composed of transformations and relations rather than fixed points, and the discourse on myths must reflect this acentric structure. Derrida emphasizes that mythological discourse must mimic the fluidity and relational nature of myths themselves, avoiding the imposition of a false center.
Empiricism and Structuralism: Structuralism positions itself as a critique of empiricism, yet it often relies on empirical methods. This duality creates tension in Levi-Strauss’s work, as his structural analyses are presented as hypotheses subject to empirical validation. Derrida highlights this tension, noting that structuralism both critiques and depends on empirical approaches, revealing an underlying complexity in its methodology.

Play and History: Structuralist thought tends to neutralize history by focusing on structures as independent from their historical conditions. This emphasis on discontinuity and chance contrasts with traditional historical approaches that stress continuity and causality. Derrida points out that structuralist analyses often bracket out historical context to capture the specificity of structures, creating a tension between structural analysis and historical understanding.
Ethics of Presence: Derrida contrasts the structuralist nostalgia for origins and presence with a more Nietzschean affirmation of play and indeterminacy. Structuralism often exhibits a longing for a pure, original presence, an untainted starting point. In contrast, the Nietzschean perspective embraces the fluidity and openness of play, rejecting the notion of a stable origin and celebrating the endless possibilities of interpretation and meaning.
Irreducible Difference: Derrida concludes that the two interpretations of structure—one seeking a central truth and the other embracing play—must acknowledge their differences without seeking to reconcile them. This irreducible tension defines the discourse, and any attempt to choose between these interpretations is misguided. Instead, Derrida calls for recognizing and exploring the common ground and differences between these perspectives, understanding that they coexist and define the field of human sciences.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Examples	Explanation
Decentering	The absence or displacement of a central point of reference or organizing principle within a system of thought or representation.	Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics and truth, Freud’s critique of self-presence, Heidegger’s destruction of onto-theology	Derrida argues that the history of Western thought has been dominated by a “metaphysics of presence,” which seeks to ground meaning in a stable, transcendental center. Decentering challenges this logocentric tradition by revealing the instability and contingency of any such center.
Play	The free, creative, and open-ended movement of signifiers within a system of language or representation, unconstrained by any fixed origin or end.	Levi-Strauss’s concept of bricolage, the free association of elements in myth	Derrida argues that play is not simply a characteristic of certain cultural practices but is inherent in the very structure of language. The play of signifiers undermines the possibility of any final, definitive meaning, opening up a space for endless interpretation and reinterpretation.
Bricolage	The creative and improvisational use of readily available materials and resources to solve problems or create new meanings.	The use of myth as a “tertiary code” in Levi-Strauss’s anthropology	Derrida uses the concept of bricolage to describe the way in which language and cultural practices are always constructed from pre-existing elements, rather than being created ex nihilo. This challenges the idea of a single, unified origin of meaning.
Supplementarity	The paradoxical relationship between a lack or absence and the attempt to fill or compensate for it.	The “overabundance of the signifier” in relation to the signified in Levi-Strauss	Derrida argues that the attempt to fill a lack always produces an excess, a surplus of meaning that cannot be contained within the original system. This excess, in turn, opens up the possibility of new meanings and interpretations.
Trace	The mark or imprint left by a past event or presence, which continues to haunt the present even as it recedes into the past.	The “scandal” of the incest prohibition in Levi-Strauss	Derrida uses the concept of the trace to describe the way in which meaning is always deferred and displaced, never fully present or fully absent. The trace is a reminder of the impossibility of full presence, even as it points toward the possibility of new meanings and interpretations.

Contribution of “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida to Literary Theory

Challenged Structuralism: Derrida’s critique of the “center” in structuralist thought disrupted the prevailing notion of fixed meanings in texts. This opened up literary analysis to a wider range of interpretations.
Introduced Deconstruction: The essay laid the groundwork for deconstruction, a method of reading that exposes the contradictions and ambiguities within texts, highlighting how they undermine their own intended meanings.
Promoted Multiplicity of Meanings: Derrida’s emphasis on the play of signifiers and the absence of a fixed center led to the recognition that texts can have multiple, even contradictory, meanings. This encouraged a more open and dynamic approach to literary interpretation.

Questioned Authorial Authority: By emphasizing the instability of language, Derrida’s essay destabilized the traditional notion of the author as the sole source of meaning. This shift empowered readers to engage actively with texts and create their own interpretations.
Expanded Critical Vocabulary: The essay introduced key terms such as “decentering,” “play,” “bricolage,” and “supplementarity,” which have become essential tools for literary critics and theorists.
Inspired New Theoretical Movements: Derrida’s work paved the way for post-structuralism, postmodernism, and other theoretical approaches that challenge traditional notions of meaning, truth, and representation.

Examples of Critiques Through “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

Literary Work	Brief Description	Critique Through Derrida’s Lens
*Heart of Darkness* by Joseph Conrad	A novella exploring colonialism and the darkness within humanity through the journey of Marlow into the African Congo.	Decentering and Play: Conrad’s narrative critiques the ambiguous and shifting centers of meaning within colonial discourse. Marlow’s journey into the “heart of darkness” symbolizes the decentering of European colonial ideologies, revealing the play of meanings regarding civilization and savagery. The novella’s resistance to a fixed interpretation highlights the instability and multiplicity of truths about human nature.
*Frankenstein* by Mary Shelley	A novel about Victor Frankenstein, who creates a creature through an unorthodox scientific experiment, raising questions about creation, responsibility, and monstrosity.	Contradiction in Centered Structures: Shelley’s novel can be analyzed through the contradiction inherent in the concept of creation and origin. Victor’s attempt to play God and create life without a natural center (motherhood) exposes the paradoxes and instabilities in Enlightenment ideals of mastery over nature. The creature’s fluid identity, oscillating between human and monster, exemplifies the play of structural elements within the narrative.
*Waiting for Godot* by Samuel Beckett	An absurdist play in which two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait for someone named Godot, who never arrives.	Absence of Center: Beckett’s play epitomizes Derrida’s idea of a structure without a center. The endless waiting for Godot, who never appears, underscores the absence of central meaning or origin. The play’s circular structure, repetitive dialogue, and lack of progression emphasize the play of absence and presence, questioning the very possibility of fixed meaning in human existence.
*To the Lighthouse* by Virginia Woolf	A novel that explores the lives of the Ramsay family and their guests during visits to the Isle of Skye in Scotland, focusing on themes of time, change, and perception.	Reduction and Play: Woolf’s narrative technique, especially her stream of consciousness and shifting perspectives, can be critiqued for reducing traditional narrative structures and emphasizing the play of consciousness and perception. The fluidity of time and the fragmented experiences of the characters challenge the notion of a coherent, centered narrative, aligning with Derrida’s idea of structures defined by play rather than fixed origins.

Criticism Against “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

Obscurity and Jargon: Derrida’s writing style, characterized by dense language and complex terminology, has been criticized for being intentionally obscure and inaccessible to a wider audience.
Relativism and Nihilism: Some critics argue that Derrida’s deconstruction of meaning and truth leads to an extreme relativism where all interpretations are equally valid, ultimately undermining the possibility of objective knowledge and ethical judgment.
Lack of Positive Proposals: Derrida’s focus on critique and deconstruction has been seen as lacking in positive proposals for alternative ways of understanding language and meaning.

Ignoring Historical Context: Some critics argue that Derrida’s approach neglects the historical and cultural contexts in which texts are produced, leading to ahistorical and decontextualized readings.
Limited Applicability: Derrida’s deconstructive method has been criticized for being primarily applicable to philosophical and literary texts, with limited relevance to other fields of inquiry.

Quotations with Explanation from “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida

Quotation	Explanation
“The center is not the center.”	Derrida challenges the traditional concept of a stable, fixed center within structures. He argues that the center, which organizes and limits the structure, is itself not a fixed point but part of the structure’s play, thus undermining its role as a stabilizing force.
“There are thus two interpretations of interpretation, of structure, of sign, of play. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering a truth or an origin which escapes play and the order of the sign, and which lives the necessity of interpretation as an exile. The other, which is no longer turned toward the origin, affirms play and tries to pass beyond man and humanism.”	Derrida contrasts two approaches to interpretation: one that seeks a definitive truth or origin and views interpretation as a way to recover it, and another that embraces the fluidity and play of meaning, moving beyond the search for a fixed origin or human-centered understanding.
“The notion of a structure lacking any center represents the unthinkable itself.”	This quotation highlights the radical nature of Derrida’s critique. The idea of a structure without a center was previously considered inconceivable because the center was thought to be essential for coherence and organization. Derrida’s deconstruction reveals that this notion is not only possible but necessary to understand the complexity of meaning.
“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.”	Derrida suggests that play, which involves the dynamic interaction of absence and presence, should be considered fundamental. Rather than seeing play as secondary to the concepts of presence and absence, it should be viewed as primary, with presence and absence deriving from it.
“It was necessary to begin thinking that there was no center, that the center could not be thought in the form of a present-being, that the center had no natural site, that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of nonlocus in which an infinite number of sign-substitutions came into play.”	Derrida emphasizes that the center is not a physical or metaphysical fixed point but a function within the structure. This function allows for an endless play of substitutions, indicating that the center is a dynamic and fluid concept rather than a stable and static one.
“Ethnology – like any science – comes about within the element of discourse.”	Derrida underscores that ethnology, and indeed all sciences, are embedded in discourse. This means they cannot escape the influence of language and cultural context. Ethnology, in particular, must acknowledge its position within the very structures and discourses it seeks to analyze and critique.

“The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes: A Critique

“The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes, first published in 1967 in the collection “Image Music Text,” translated by Stephen Heath in 1977, is a seminal essay in literary theory.

Introduction: “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

“The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes, first published in 1967 in the collection “Image Music Text,” translated by Stephen Heath in 1977, is a seminal essay in literary theory. Barthes challenges the traditional notion of the author as the sole source of meaning in a text, arguing that the reader plays an equally important role in interpreting and creating meaning. He asserts that the author’s intentions and biographical context are irrelevant to understanding a work, and instead emphasizes the plurality of interpretations that a text can generate. This essay has had a profound impact on literary studies, shifting the focus from authorial intention to reader response and paving the way for post-structuralist and deconstructionist approaches to literature.

Summary of “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

Destruction of Authorial Voice: Barthes illustrates through Balzac’s Sarrasine that the origin of narrative voice is indeterminable—whether it’s the character, the author, or a broader philosophical voice. This exemplifies his thesis that writing neutralizes the voice and its origin, emphasizing the impersonality and composite nature of the text.
Historical Shift in Authorship Concept: The author as a central figure in narrative and interpretation is a modern construct influenced by English empiricism, French rationalism, and the Reformation. The prestige of the individual or “human person” grew during these periods, reinforcing the author’s prominence in literature and criticism.

Criticisms of Traditional Author-Centric Criticism: Barthes critiques the conventional literary criticism that ties a work’s meaning too closely to the author’s personal life and intentions. He argues that such approaches limit the interpretation of texts by imposing a singular, definitive meaning.
Shift from Author to Language: Influential writers like Mallarmé and Valéry have shifted focus from the author to the language itself. Mallarmé posited that it is language that speaks, not the author, promoting a view where writing supersedes authorial intention.
Modern Scriptors versus Traditional Authors: Barthes contrasts the “modern scriptor” who is born simultaneously with the text and whose identity is intrinsically linked to the act of writing, against the traditional notion of an author who precedes and informs the text.

Text as a Multi-dimensional Space: The text is seen as a multi-dimensional space where various writings blend and clash without any originality. It is a fabric of quotations, making the text a product of cultural intertextuality rather than a creation of a single author.
Role of the Reader: In the absence of the author, the focus shifts to the reader, who becomes the central figure in interpreting texts. The reader creates the unity of the text by synthesizing its multiple writings, making interpretation a personal and subjective act.
Critique of Author-Centric Humanism: Barthes argues that traditional humanism, which emphasizes the author, paradoxically neglects the rights and the role of the reader in interpreting texts. The “death of the author” is necessary to liberate the reader and enable a fuller experience of the text, fostering a revolutionary activity that challenges traditional interpretations and meanings.

Literary Terms in “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

Theoretical Concept/Literary Device	Definition/Explanation	Example from the Essay
Death of the Author	The rejection of the traditional notion that the author’s intentions and biographical context are the ultimate source of meaning in a text. It emphasizes the reader’s role in interpreting and creating meaning.	Balzac’s sentence about a woman: “This was woman herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims…” Barthes argues that we can never truly know who is speaking – the character, Balzac as an individual, Balzac as an author, or some universal wisdom. The meaning is created in the interaction between the text and the reader.
Birth of the Reader	The reader is not a passive consumer of the text but an active participant who brings their own experiences and interpretations to the work, thus creating meaning.	The analysis of Greek tragedy, where the reader (or listener) is the only one who understands the full ambiguity of the words and the misunderstandings between characters.
Text as a Multi-Dimensional Space	A text is not a linear expression of a single meaning but a complex web of different writings, cultural references, and interpretations.	Barthes likens the writer to Bouvard and Pecuchet, eternal copyists who only imitate previous gestures. The text is a tissue of quotations, and its meaning emerges from the interplay of these different elements.
The Scriptor	A term used to replace “author,” emphasizing that the writer is not the originator of the text but merely a participant in the act of writing.	Barthes contrasts the modern scriptor with the traditional Author. The scriptor is born simultaneously with the text and does not exist before it, while the Author is seen as the past of the book.
Performative Writing	Writing is not just a representation of reality but an act that creates meaning through the very act of writing itself.	The example of the “I declare” of kings or the “I sing” of ancient poets. These statements do not describe an action but perform it through the act of utterance.

Contribution of “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes To Literary Theory

· Decentralizing the Authorial Authority: Barthes argues that “writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.” This concept disrupts traditional notions of authorship by removing the author from the center of textual interpretation, promoting a view where the text exists independently of the author’s intentions.

· Elevating the Role of Language: He asserts that “it is language which speaks, not the author.” This shifts the focus from the author as the creator to language itself as the force behind the text, thereby enhancing the study of linguistics and semiotics within literary theory.

· Promoting Reader-Centered Criticism: Barthes challenges the conventional reader-author relationship by stating, “the reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost.” This shifts the interpretative power from the author to the reader, encouraging a more active and personalized engagement with texts.

· Reconceptualizing Textual Origin and Unity: He introduces the idea that a text does not have a single, unified meaning but is a “multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.” This concept has influenced poststructuralist theories by emphasizing the intertextuality and the layered complexities within texts.

· Challenging the Author-Centric Literary Tradition: Barthes critiques the historical and cultural construction of the author figure by claiming, “The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions.” His theory calls for a reevaluation of how literary histories and criticisms are formulated.

· Foundational for Poststructuralism: The idea that “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” is foundational in poststructuralist thought, where the interpretation of a text is seen as an open-ended, decentralized process that challenges the fixed meanings and authoritative assertions traditionally associated with authorship.

· Influencing Modern Literary Criticism and Theory: Barthes’ essay has been instrumental in developing modern literary criticism and theory, particularly influencing areas like deconstruction, reader-response theory, and cultural studies by advocating for a more democratic approach to understanding texts.

Examples of Critiques: “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

Literary Work	Critique through “Death of the Author”
Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow (2022) by Gabrielle Zevin	Rather than focusing on Zevin’s personal experiences or intentions, the novel can be analyzed as a multi-dimensional space where themes of friendship, ambition, creativity, and identity intersect. The meaning is not predetermined but emerges through the reader’s active engagement with the text.
Detransition, Baby (2021) by Torrey Peters	Instead of seeking authorial intent in Peters’ personal life, the novel can be read as a performative act of writing that challenges traditional notions of gender and family. The reader becomes the space where these challenges are confronted and new understandings are formed.
The Employees (2020) by Olga Ravn	Instead of attributing the novella’s commentary on labor and existentialism solely to Ravn’s views, it can be seen as a text woven with multiple writings – corporate culture, artificial intelligence, human emotions. The reader is the one who navigates this complex landscape and creates meaning from these diverse elements.
If I Survive You (2022) by Jonathan Escoffery	Rather than solely focusing on Escoffery’s Jamaican-American background, the collection of interconnected stories can be interpreted as a tissue of quotations from various sources – family history, cultural identity, the immigrant experience. The reader becomes the destination where these narratives converge, creating a nuanced understanding of the characters’ lives and struggles.

Criticism Against “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

Neglecting Authorial Intent: Critics argue that Barthes’ claim that “writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin” excessively diminishes the role of the author’s intentional influence on a text, potentially ignoring how personal context and authorial purpose shape literary works.
Oversimplification of Textual Analysis: By asserting that “a text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture,” Barthes may oversimplify the complexity of textual creation and interpretation, reducing all texts to mere assemblies of pre-existing discourses without originality.

Undermining the Historical and Cultural Context: The removal of the author might lead to the neglect of the historical and cultural contexts in which a text was produced. This view is encapsulated in Barthes’ statement that “the author is never more than the instance writing,” which critics argue could detach the text from its deeper social, historical, and political meanings.
Practical Limitations in Literary Studies: Barthes’ idea that “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” challenges the practical application of author-centered research, which is vital in understanding genre developments, historical influences, and biographical interpretations in literary studies.
Ambiguity in Reader-Centric Approach: While emphasizing the reader’s role in interpretation, Barthes arguably underestimates the need for a structured approach to reading. His focus on the reader as the central figure might lead to excessively subjective interpretations, where “the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced,” potentially causing a lack of clarity and consensus in literary analysis.

Potential for Relativism: The statement that “the reader is without history, biography, psychology” could promote a form of interpretive relativism where texts may be understood in infinitely varied ways, challenging the establishment of any coherent or shared meanings.
Impact on Literary Standards: Barthes’ ideas might challenge traditional standards of literary value and criticism, as removing the author could also diminish the criteria for evaluating the literary quality and impact of texts, given that “writing can no longer designate an operation of recording, notation, representation, ‘depiction’.”

Extracts with Explanation from “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

Extract	Explanation
“Writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.”	This statement highlights Barthes’ central thesis that writing eliminates the traditional role of the author as the singular voice behind a text. It emphasizes the view that a text emerges from a multitude of cultural and linguistic influences, rather than from a single, identifiable source.
“It is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality… to reach that point where only language acts, ‘performs’, and not ‘me’.”	Barthes argues that the act of writing prioritizes language itself over the personal expression of the author. This extract supports the idea that language operates independently of the author’s intentions, suggesting that the meaning of a text is derived from language as a system rather than from the author’s subjective input.
“The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.”	This extract underscores the concept of intertextuality, which posits that all texts are essentially compilations of other texts, without any original content. According to Barthes, a writer does not create unique content but rather reassembles existing cultural and literary materials.
“The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”	Barthes posits that for the reader to have freedom in interpretation, the authority of the author must be diminished. This radical shift repositions the reader as the central figure in the creation of textual meaning, advocating for a more democratized approach to reading and interpretation.
“A text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation.”	This highlights the multi-dimensional nature of texts, which Barthes believes are composed of various writings that interact within a text. This view challenges the notion of a single, unified meaning and instead suggests that texts are open to a range of interpretations influenced by diverse cultural dialogues.

“Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida: A Critique

Introduction: “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

“Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida first appeared in 1990 in a collection of essays titled “Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice,” translated by Mary Quaintance. The essay is a dense and challenging exploration of the relationship between law and justice, deconstructing the traditional notions of legal authority and questioning the very foundations of the legal system. Derrida’s signature style, characterized by complex sentence structures and philosophical depth, is evident throughout the essay, making it a quintessential example of deconstructionist thought. Its literary significance lies in its ability to provoke critical thinking about the nature of law and justice, challenging readers to rethink their assumptions about these fundamental concepts.

Summary of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

Police Violence in Democracy vs. Absolute Monarchy:

“In democracy, on the other hand, violence is no longer accorded to the spirit of the police… it is exercised illegitimately, especially when instead of enforcing the law the police make the law.”

“In absolute monarchy, legislative and executive powers are united. In it violence is therefore normal, in keeping with its essence, its idea, its spirit.”

Degeneration of Democracy:

“Democracy is a degeneracy of droit and of the violence of droit; there is not yet any democracy worthy of this name.”

“Benjamin indicates the principle of an analysis of police reality in industrial democracies and their military-industrial complexes with high computer technology.”

Violence as the Foundation of Legal Contracts:

“Every juridical contract, every Rechtsvertrag… is founded on violence, there is no contract that does not have violence as both an origin and an outcome.”

Decay of Parliamentary Institutions:

“When the consciousness of the latent presence of violence in a legal institution disappears, the institution falls into decay.”
“The parliaments live in forgetfulness of the violence from which they are born. This amnesic denegation is not a psychological weakness, it is their statut and their structure.”

Non-Violence Possibilities:

“Benjamin does not exclude the possibility of non-violence. But the thought of non-violence must exceed the order of public droit.”
“Union without violence… is possible everywhere that the culture of the heart gives men pure means with accord in view.”

Mythic vs. Divine Violence:

“To this violence of the Greek mythos, Benjamin opposes feature for feature the violence of God. From all points of view, it is its opposite.”
“The mythological violence of droit is satisfied in itself by sacrificing the living, while divine violence sacrifices life to save the living, in favor of the living.”

Critique of Modern State and Law:

“Nazism leads logically to the final solution as to its own limit and because the mythological violence of right is its veritable system.”
“Benjamin would perhaps have judged vain and without pertinence… any juridical trial of Nazism and of its responsibilities, any judgmental apparatus, any historiography still homogeneous with the space in which Nazism developed up to and including the final solution.”

Philosophical and Historical Implications:

“History is on the side of this divine violence, and history precisely in opposition to myth.”
“The radicalization of evil linked to the fall into the language of communication, representation, information.”

Decidability and Divine Justice:

“It is neither equally possible nor equally urgent for man to decide when pure violence was effected in a determined case.”
“All undecidability is situated, blocked in, accumulated on the side of droit, of mythological violence… all decidability stands on the side of the divine violence that destroys le droit.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Example
Mystical Foundation of Authority	The idea that the authority of law is based on a kind of irrational belief or faith, rather than on reason or logic.	Derrida argues that the decision of a judge, even if based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately rests on a “leap of faith” that cannot be fully justified by reason.
Deconstruction of Justice	The process of analyzing and exposing the contradictions and inconsistencies within the concept of justice, revealing its inherent instability and impossibility.	Derrida questions whether justice can ever be fully achieved, given the inherent limitations of language and the law. He suggests that justice is always deferred, always to come.
Aporia	A state of perplexity or deadlock, where reason and logic cannot provide a clear answer or solution.	Derrida uses the concept of aporia to describe the fundamental undecidability of legal questions, where there is no single “right” answer that can be definitively determined.
Force of Law	The power of law to compel obedience, even in the absence of moral or ethical justification.	Derrida explores the paradoxical relationship between force and law, suggesting that law is both necessary for maintaining social order and inherently violent in its enforcement.
Undecidability	The state of being unable to be definitively determined or resolved.	Derrida argues that legal decisions are always undecidable, in the sense that there is no single “right” answer that can be determined with absolute certainty. This undecidability opens up the possibility for alternative interpretations and contestations of the law.

Contribution of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida to Literary Theory

Introduction of Deconstruction in Legal Context:
- Derrida extends deconstructive analysis from literature and philosophy to legal theory, challenging traditional views on the foundations of law and authority.
Interrogation of Law and Violence:
- He critiques the intrinsic relationship between law and violence, suggesting that the foundation of law is rooted in an original act of violence, thus destabilizing the perceived neutrality and objectivity of legal systems.
Critique of Democratic Institutions:
- Derrida examines the degeneration of democratic institutions, arguing that modern democracies conceal their foundational violence, leading to a critique of liberal parliamentary systems.

Concept of Undecidability:
- He introduces the notion of undecidability within legal judgments, paralleling similar concepts in literary theory that challenge fixed interpretations and embrace textual ambiguity.
Mythic vs. Divine Violence:
- Derrida contrasts mythic violence, which founds and conserves law through sacrificial acts, with divine violence, which disrupts and transcends legal systems, providing a framework to analyze power dynamics in texts.
Temporal and Historical Dimensions of Law:
- By discussing the historical evolution and decay of legal institutions, Derrida’s work encourages a diachronic analysis of texts, exploring how meanings and interpretations change over time.

Deconstruction of Enlightenment Rationality:
- His critique of the Enlightenment’s faith in reason and universal law parallels literary deconstructions of Enlightenment ideals, questioning the coherence and universality of rational discourse.
Ethics and Justice Beyond Law:
- Derrida’s exploration of justice as an ideal that transcends legal frameworks resonates with ethical criticism in literary theory, prompting reconsiderations of moral implications in literature.
Influence on Post-Structuralist Legal Theory:
- The work’s impact on legal theory parallels its influence on literary theory, promoting a post-structuralist approach that views laws, texts, and meanings as constructed, contingent, and open to reinterpretation.

Examples of Critiques of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

Literary Work	Critique through “Force of Law”
Hamlet	Derrida’s concept of “undecidability” can be applied to Hamlet’s constant hesitation and inability to act. Hamlet’s dilemma is not just a psychological one, but a reflection of the inherent undecidability of moral and ethical questions. There is no single “right” course of action, and Hamlet’s struggle is a testament to this fundamental uncertainty.
The Trial (Kafka)	Kafka’s portrayal of a legal system that is opaque, arbitrary, and ultimately absurd resonates with Derrida’s critique of the “mystical foundation of authority.” The law in “The Trial” is not based on reason or justice, but on an irrational power that is beyond the comprehension of the individual.
Antigone (Sophocles)	Antigone’s defiance of Creon’s edict, based on her belief in a higher moral law, can be seen as a challenge to the “force of law” that Derrida describes. Antigone’s actions raise questions about the limits of legal authority and the importance of individual conscience in the face of unjust laws.
The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare)	The conflict between Shylock and Antonio in “The Merchant of Venice” can be interpreted through Derrida’s concept of the “aporia of justice.” The law in the play is unable to provide a just resolution to the conflict, as both Shylock and Antonio have legitimate claims that are irreconcilable. The play highlights the limitations of the law in dealing with complex ethical dilemmas.

Criticism Against “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

· Obscurity and Complexity:

Derrida’s dense and intricate writing style is often criticized for being excessively opaque, making it challenging for readers to fully grasp his arguments.

· Lack of Practical Application:

Critics argue that Derrida’s theoretical approach lacks concrete solutions or practical applications for real-world legal and political issues, making his ideas difficult to implement in practice.

· Relativism and Undecidability:

Derrida’s emphasis on undecidability and the instability of meaning is seen by some as promoting a form of relativism that undermines the possibility of reaching definitive conclusions or establishing clear ethical standards.

· Neglect of Positive Law:

Some legal theorists criticize Derrida for focusing too much on the foundational violence and mythical aspects of law while neglecting the positive, constructive role that law can play in society.

· Overemphasis on Violence:

Derrida’s analysis is often seen as overemphasizing the violent origins and enforcement of law, potentially overshadowing the law’s capacity for justice, order, and social cohesion.

· Historical and Contextual Oversights:

Derrida’s philosophical and deconstructive approach is sometimes criticized for lacking sufficient engagement with the historical and socio-political contexts that shape legal systems and practices.

· Complexity of Ethical Implications:

His ideas on justice and ethics, which transcend legal frameworks, are considered by some as too abstract and complex, making it difficult to derive clear ethical guidelines from his work.

· Influence on Legal Interpretation:

While influential, some critics argue that Derrida’s work complicates legal interpretation to the extent that it might lead to excessive skepticism or cynicism about the possibility of justice within legal frameworks.

· Ambiguous Stance on Non-Violence:

Derrida’s treatment of non-violence and its place in legal and ethical systems is seen by some as ambiguous, leaving readers uncertain about his stance on how non-violent principles can be effectively integrated into legal practice.

Quotations with Explanation from “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida

Quotation	Explanation
“There is no such thing as law (droit) that doesn’t imply in itself, a priori, in the analytic structure of its concept, the possibility of violence.”	Derrida argues that violence is an inherent part of the concept of law, suggesting that law’s authority is always underpinned by the potential for coercion.
“Justice in itself, if such a thing exists, outside or beyond law, is not deconstructible. No more than deconstruction itself, if such a thing exists.”	This highlights Derrida’s belief in the transcendence of true justice beyond the reach of deconstruction, implying that while laws can be deconstructed, justice as an ideal remains intact.
“The law is always in the process of being made, or at least of being interpreted and reinterpreted.”	This underscores the fluid and dynamic nature of law, emphasizing that legal systems are continuously evolving through interpretation.
“What is proper to a foundation is to inaugurate something that remains, and the inaugural act must be repeated as a means of conservation.”	Derrida illustrates how foundational acts, like the establishment of law, require continual reaffirmation to maintain their authority and relevance.
“The undecidable remains caught, lodged, at least as a ghost – but an essential ghost – in every decision, in every event of decision.”	He emphasizes the presence of inherent uncertainty and ambiguity (the undecidable) in every decision-making process, which challenges the notion of absolute certainty in law and justice.
“The interpretation of the final solution, as of everything that constitutes the set and the delimitation of the two orders (the mythological and the divine), is not in the measure of man.”	Derrida suggests that some historical events, like the Holocaust, surpass human capacity for comprehension and interpretation, lying beyond the realm of traditional legal and ethical frameworks.

“Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin: A Critique

“Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin, first published in 1924 and later translated and included in “Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays” (1990).

Introduction: “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

“Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin, first published in 1924 and later translated and included in “Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays” (1990), explores the essential relationship between an author and their created hero. Bakhtin emphasizes that this relationship is not merely a matter of individual authorial characteristics but is built upon a necessary foundation. He contends that an author’s reaction to the hero encompasses both an understanding of the hero’s reactions and the author’s own comprehensive response to the hero as a whole. This comprehensive reaction, which is not based on isolated self-manifestations, is what Bakhtin identifies as specifically aesthetic. The author’s reactions to the hero’s self-manifestations are grounded in a unitary reaction to the hero’s entire being, assembling cognitive-ethical determinations and valuations into a unique, concrete, and meaningful whole.

Summary of “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Foundation of the Author-Hero Relationship:

“For a proper understanding of the author’s architectonically stable and dynamically living relationship to the hero, we must take into account both the essentially necessary foundation of that relationship and the diverse individual characteristics that it assumes in particular authors and in particular works.”

The article emphasizes examining the essential foundation of the author-hero relationship and only outlining its individuation modes.

Author’s Reaction to the Hero:

“Every constituent of a work presents itself to us as the author’s reaction to it and that this reaction encompasses both an object and the hero’s reaction to that object.”

The author’s reaction to the hero is a unitary reaction to the whole of the hero, creating an aesthetic reaction that assembles the hero’s characteristics into a unique whole.

Creative Principle of the Relationship:

“This comprehensive reaction of the author to the hero is founded on a necessary principle and has a productive, constructive character.”

A relationship founded on a necessary principle is inherently creative and productive, determining the structure and determinateness of the object.

Struggle of the Author with the Hero:

“The artist’s struggle to achieve a determinate and stable image of the hero is to a considerable extent a struggle with himself.”

The process of shaping the hero involves removing masking layers imposed by the author’s reactions and life situations to achieve an authentic valuational attitude.

Objective Creation of the Hero:

“An author reflects the hero’s emotional-volitional position, but not his own position in relation to the hero.”

The author creates the hero without turning the creation process into an object of examination and reflection.

Unreliability of Author’s Confession:

“When an artist undertakes to speak about his act of creation independently of and as a supplement to the work he has produced, he usually substitutes a new relationship for his actual creative relationship to the work.”

The author’s comments on their process of creating a hero are often unreliable due to various external factors affecting their statements.

Author’s Active Role:

“An author is the uniquely active form-giving energy that is manifested not in a psychologically conceived consciousness, but in a durably valid cultural product.”

The author actively creates and structures the hero’s image, rhythm, and meaning-bearing features.

Importance of Understanding Author’s Reaction:

“Only when we have understood this essentially necessary, comprehensive, creative reaction of the author to the hero, will it be possible to introduce strict order into the form-and-content determination of the various types of the hero.”

Understanding the author’s creative reaction is crucial for systematically classifying and endowing heroes with univocal meaning.

Misunderstandings in Literary History:

“Complete chaos still holds sway in this regard in the aesthetics of verbal art and especially in literary history.”

The article criticizes the lack of order and validation in hero classifications and the unprincipled combination of different perspectives and evaluations.

Author-Hero Relationship in Aesthetics:

“The general formula for the author’s fundamental, aesthetically productive relationship to the hero is a relationship in which the author occupies an intently maintained position outside the hero with respect to every constituent feature of the hero.”

The author maintains an external position relative to the hero, allowing them to collect and consummate the hero as a whole.

Complexities and Deviations in the Relationship:

“Now we shall say a few words about three typical cases of deviation from the author’s direct relationship to the hero.”

The article outlines cases where the author’s relationship deviates due to autobiographical elements, resulting in different dynamics between the author and the hero.

Literary Terms in “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Term/Device/Concept	Definition	Explanation
Author-Hero Relationship	The dynamic and foundational interaction between the author and the hero in a literary work.	This relationship is essential for understanding the structure and meaning of the hero within the context of the work, shaped by the author’s creative vision.
Architectonically Stable	A term describing the stable structural relationship in a work of art.	Refers to the necessary foundational elements that maintain the integrity and coherence of the author-hero relationship.
Unitary Reaction	The comprehensive response of the author to the entirety of the hero.	The author’s reaction is not to isolated aspects but to the hero as a complete, unified character, essential for aesthetic creation.
Productive Reaction	The creative and constructive nature of the author’s interaction with the hero.	This reaction generates the hero’s character and the narrative structure, contributing to the overall meaning of the work.
Consummation	The process by which the author completes or finalizes the hero as a character.	Involves the integration of the hero’s traits and actions into a cohesive whole, giving the character depth and completeness.
Transgredience	The aspect of the author’s vision that goes beyond the hero’s self-perception.	The author sees and knows more about the hero than the hero knows about themselves, providing a fuller picture of the character.
Intonating	The way the author imbues every aspect of the hero and narrative with their evaluative response.	The author’s emotional and ethical reactions to the hero’s actions, thoughts, and experiences are woven into the narrative.
Empathy (Einfuhlung)	The author’s ability to project themselves into the hero’s perspective.	Essential for creating a believable and relatable hero, the author empathizes with the hero to understand and depict their inner world accurately.
Aesthetic Love	The author’s compassionate and understanding attitude towards the hero.	This love is not romantic but is a profound appreciation and acceptance of the hero’s existence, crucial for their full portrayal.
Ethical Objectivity	The impartial evaluation of a character’s actions and moral stance.	The author maintains a balanced perspective, considering the hero’s ethical decisions without personal bias.
Excess of Seeing	The additional perspective the author has compared to the hero.	The author can see aspects of the hero and their circumstances that the hero cannot, enriching the narrative with deeper insights.
Outward Appearance	The external, visible aspects of a character as described by the author.	Focuses on how the hero is perceived physically and the significance of their physical traits in the narrative.
Ideal History	The conceptual history of the author-hero relationship as presented in a work of art.	Rather than a chronological or psychological history, it is the meaningful and idealized depiction of the relationship within the narrative.
Biographical Method	An approach that analyzes literary works through the author’s life experiences.	This method is critiqued by Bakhtin for often conflating the author’s personal experiences with the artistic creation of characters.
Sociological Method	An approach that examines literature in the context of social and historical factors.	This method looks at how the author’s social environment and historical context influence the creation and development of literary works and characters.
Aesthetic Event	The unique interaction between the author and hero that gives rise to the narrative.	An event characterized by the presence of two non-coinciding consciousnesses (author and hero), essential for the creation of a literary work.
Creative Activity	The author’s active process of forming and shaping the hero and narrative.	Involves the author’s imaginative and constructive efforts to bring the hero to life within the literary work.

Contribution of “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin in Literary Theory

Author-Hero Relationship: Introduced the concept of the author-hero relationship as a fundamental element of literary analysis, emphasizing the author’s active role in shaping the hero’s identity and meaning.
Aesthetic Reaction: Highlighted the importance of the author’s comprehensive aesthetic reaction to the hero, which transcends individual self-manifestations and encompasses the hero as a whole.

Consummation of the Hero: Emphasized the author’s role in consummating the hero by providing a unitary and unique perspective that goes beyond the hero’s own self-perception.
Transgredient Moments: Introduced the concept of transgredient moments, aspects of the hero and their world that are inaccessible to the hero’s consciousness but are revealed and shaped by the author.
Outward Expression and Interiority: Explored the relationship between the hero’s outward appearance (exterior) and their inner life (interiority), highlighting the author’s role in shaping and revealing both.

Aesthetic Objectivity: Contrasted aesthetic objectivity with cognitive and ethical objectivity, asserting that aesthetic objectivity encompasses and transcends these other forms.
Influence on Literary Studies: Bakhtin’s ideas have profoundly influenced literary studies, particularly in areas like character analysis, narrative theory, and the study of authorial intention.

Additional Contributions:

Dialogism: While not directly addressed in this specific article, Bakhtin’s broader concept of dialogism (the idea that language and meaning are shaped by interaction and multiple voices) is closely related to his understanding of the author-hero relationship.

Influence on Cultural Studies: Bakhtin’s work has also had a significant impact on cultural studies, particularly in the analysis of how cultural meanings are created and negotiated through various forms of representation.

Examples of Critiques: “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Literary Work	Critique through Bakhtin’s Lens
The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald)	Nick Carraway, the narrator, struggles to find a stable position outside of Gatsby. He is both fascinated and repelled by Gatsby’s illusions, ultimately unable to fully consummate Gatsby as a hero. This results in a fragmented portrait of Gatsby, with his exterior and interiority never fully aligning.
Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoevsky)	Raskolnikov, the protagonist, is an example of a hero who “takes possession” of the author. Dostoevsky’s own moral and philosophical struggles are deeply embedded in Raskolnikov, making it difficult for the author to maintain a fully objective, consummating perspective.
Hamlet (William Shakespeare)	Hamlet is a self-conscious hero who constantly reflects on his own actions and motivations. This self-awareness makes it challenging for Shakespeare to fully consummate Hamlet as a hero, as Hamlet continuously surpasses any external determination imposed upon him.
Don Quixote (Miguel de Cervantes)	Don Quixote is a hero who creates himself as an author, interpreting his own life aesthetically through the lens of chivalric romances. This self-authorship leads to a comical disconnect between Don Quixote’s self-perception and the reality of his situation, highlighting the potential dangers of an overly subjective approach to self-creation.

Criticism Against “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Complex and Dense Prose:
- Bakhtin’s writing style is often criticized for being overly complex and dense, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp his ideas without extensive effort and background knowledge.

Lack of Practical Examples:
- The theoretical nature of the text can be challenging for readers who seek practical examples or concrete applications of his concepts to specific literary works.
Ambiguity in Key Concepts:
- Some of Bakhtin’s key concepts, such as “transgredience” and “aesthetic love,” are seen as ambiguous and not clearly defined, leading to varied interpretations and potential misunderstandings.
Overemphasis on Authorial Control:
- Critics argue that Bakhtin places too much emphasis on the author’s control over the hero, potentially downplaying the hero’s agency and the reader’s role in interpreting the text.

Neglect of Reader Response:
- Bakhtin’s focus on the author-hero relationship tends to overlook the importance of reader response and how readers’ interpretations contribute to the meaning of a literary work.
Idealization of the Author:
- Bakhtin’s portrayal of the author as a nearly omniscient figure with a comprehensive vision of the hero may be seen as an idealization that does not reflect the more collaborative and fragmented nature of actual literary creation.
Insufficient Attention to Social and Historical Contexts:
- While Bakhtin acknowledges the influence of social and historical contexts, some critics believe he does not give enough weight to these factors in shaping the author-hero relationship.

Potential for Misinterpretation:
- The abstract and theoretical nature of Bakhtin’s work can lead to diverse and potentially conflicting interpretations, which may detract from its overall clarity and impact.
Limited Scope of Analysis:
- By focusing primarily on the author-hero relationship, Bakhtin’s analysis may be seen as limited in scope, neglecting other important aspects of literary studies, such as genre, narrative structure, and intertextuality.
Elitist Perspective:
- Some critics view Bakhtin’s approach as elitist, prioritizing high literature and complex theoretical constructs over more accessible and varied forms of literary expression.

Neglect of Psychological Processes:
- Bakhtin’s framework is critiqued for not adequately addressing the psychological processes involved in both the creation and reception of literary works, which are crucial for a holistic understanding of literature.

Quotations with Explanation from “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Quotation	Explanation
“Every constituent of a work presents itself to us as the author’s reaction to it and that this reaction encompasses both an object and the hero’s reaction to that object.”	This quotation highlights Bakhtin’s idea that every element in a literary work reflects the author’s engagement with both the narrative’s objects and the hero’s interactions with those objects.
“What makes a reaction specifically aesthetic is precisely the fact that it is a reaction to the whole of the hero as a human being, a reaction that assembles all of the cognitive-ethical determinations and valuations of the hero and consummates them in the form of a unitary and unique whole that is a concrete, intuitable whole, but also a whole of meaning.”	Bakhtin emphasizes the importance of the author’s comprehensive and cohesive reaction to the hero, creating a unified and meaningful character that integrates cognitive and ethical aspects.
“The artist’s struggle to achieve a determinate and stable image of the hero is to a considerable extent a struggle with himself.”	This quote underscores the internal conflict an author faces in trying to create a consistent and stable portrayal of the hero, reflecting the complexities of artistic creation.
“An author creates, but he sees his own creating only in the object to which he is giving form, that is, he sees only the emerging product of creation and not the inner, psychologically determinate, process of creation.”	Bakhtin points out that the author can only perceive their creative process through the final product (the literary work), not through the internal psychological journey that led to its creation.
“In order to find in a given work the author so conceived, it is necessary, first, to single out all those moments or constituent features which bring about the consummation of the hero and the event of his life and which are in principle transgredient to his consciousness.”	This statement emphasizes the need to identify all elements that complete the hero’s character and life events, highlighting those aspects beyond the hero’s awareness, thus defining the author’s role.
“The general formula for the author’s fundamental, aesthetically productive relationship to the hero is a relationship in which the author occupies an intently maintained position outside the hero with respect to every constituent feature of the hero.”	Bakhtin defines the essential author-hero relationship as one where the author remains external to the hero, allowing for an objective and comprehensive portrayal of the character and narrative.

“Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin: Critique of the Essay

Art and Answerability by Mikhail Bakhtin, was published in the miscellany Den’ iskusstva (The Day of Art) in 1919 and later included in the collection Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M.M. Bakhtin in 1990.

Introduction: “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Art and Answerability by Mikhail Bakhtin, was published in the miscellany Den’ iskusstva (The Day of Art) in 1919 and later included in the collection Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M.M. Bakhtin in 1990. The article explores the relationship between art and life, emphasizing the necessity of their interconnectedness and mutual answerability. Bakhtin criticizes the mechanical separation of art and life, where art becomes self-indulgent and life remains prosaic. He argues that true inspiration arises from the integration of art and life, where both are accountable to each other. This accountability fosters a unity within the individual, where artistic experiences enrich life and life’s concerns inform artistic creation. The article contributes to literary discourse by challenging the notion of art as an isolated realm and highlighting the importance of art’s engagement with the complexities of human existence.

Summary of “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Definition of a ‘Mechanical’ Whole: The text defines a “mechanical” whole as one where constituent elements are connected only in space and time through external means, lacking an internal unity of meaning: “A whole is called ‘mechanical’ when its constituent elements are united only in space and time by some external connection and are not imbued with the internal unity of meaning” (Bakhtin).
Superficial Unity of Human Culture Domains: It is argued that the domains of science, art, and life achieve genuine unity only when an individual integrates them meaningfully into their life, though often this integration is merely superficial: “The three domains of human culture—science, art, and life—gain unity only in the individual person who integrates them into his own unity. This union, however, may become mechanical, external” (Bakhtin).

Disconnection Between Art and Life: The text highlights a prevalent issue where art becomes overly self-sufficient and detached from everyday life, failing to be accountable for its influence on life: “Art is too self-confident, audaciously self-confident, and too high-flown, for it is in no way bound to answer for life” (Bakhtin).
Concept of ‘Answerability’: Bakhtin introduces the crucial concept of “answerability,” which demands that individuals integrate their artistic insights into their lives meaningfully, ensuring that such experiences have a real impact: “I have to answer with my own life for what I have experienced and understood in art, so that everything I have experienced and understood would not remain ineffectual in my life” (Bakhtin).
Critique of ‘Inspiration’ as an Excuse: The misuse of “inspiration” as a justification for ignoring life’s demands is criticized. True inspiration should engage with life, not dismiss it: “Nor will it do to invoke ‘inspiration’ in order to justify want of answerability. Inspiration that ignores life and is itself ignored by life is not inspiration but a state of possession” (Bakhtin).

Demand for Mutual Answerability Between Art and Life: The text advocates for a reciprocal responsibility between art and life, emphasizing the need for a deeper integration and mutual accountability within the individual: “Art and life are not one, but they must become united in myself—in the unity of my answerability” (Bakhtin).

Literary Terms in “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Key Theoretical Concept	Definition
Answerability/Mutual Accountability	The ethical responsibility that art and life have towards each other. Art should address life’s concerns, and life should be enriched by art.
Mechanical Unity	The artificial separation of art and life, where they exist as isolated realms with no interaction. Bakhtin criticizes this as detrimental to both.
Inner Unity	The ideal state where art and life are integrated within the individual, enriching and informing each other. This is achieved through mutual answerability and ethical responsibility.
Guilt/Liability to Blame	The ethical dimension of the relationship between art and life. Both are held accountable for their shortcomings and failures, fostering responsibility and engagement.
Inspiration as Possession	Bakhtin’s critique of inspiration as a divine or otherworldly force that separates the artist from life. He advocates for grounded inspiration rooted in lived experience and answerable to it.
Note:	While not explicitly coined in this essay, Bakhtin’s later works would introduce and elaborate on key concepts like dialogism, polyphony, and carnivalesque, which are foundational to his literary theory and philosophy of language. These are not included in the table.

Contribution of “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin in Literary Theory

· Introduction of Answerability (Otvetstvennost):

Bakhtin introduces the concept of “answerability” as a fundamental aspect of the relationship between the creator (the artist or writer) and the audience. This notion emphasizes that creators are ethically responsible for how their works engage with and impact the world.

It shifts the focus from viewing texts as autonomous artifacts to seeing them as active participants in ethical and moral dialogues. This has profound implications for how texts are analyzed and critiqued in literary studies.

· Interrelation of Art, Life, and Ethics:

Bakhtin challenges the traditional separation of art from the practical and ethical concerns of daily life, arguing that art and life are deeply interconnected and should inform and respond to each other.

This perspective encourages a holistic approach to literary analysis, one that considers texts not just as aesthetic objects but as life-oriented ethical engagements.

· Dialogism and Polyphony:

While “Art and Answerability” does not explicitly detail Bakhtin’s later developed theories of dialogism and polyphony, it lays the groundwork by emphasizing the multiplicity of voices and consciousnesses within a text.

The idea that a work of art must be answerable to life itself foreshadows his theories where texts are seen as a dialogue among various voices, each with its own integrity and perspective, which must be acknowledged and addressed.

· Critique of the Author-God:

Bakhtin’s concept challenges the notion of the author as an omnipotent ‘creator-god’ who stands apart from his creation. Instead, he posits that the author is deeply embedded within the world his text enters and is answerable for its ethical implications.

This critique has influenced post-structuralist theories of authorship and the “death of the author,” promoting a view of the author as one voice among many in the interpretative process.

· Foundation for Ethical Criticism:

The concept of answerability provides a basis for ethical criticism in literary studies, which evaluates texts based on the ethical questions they raise and the ways they engage the reader in moral dialogue.

This aspect of Bakhtin’s thought is particularly relevant in contemporary critiques that explore the moral dimensions of literature, from post-colonial studies to feminist and disability studies.

Examples of Critiques: “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Literary Work	Critique through “Art and Answerability” Concepts
The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald)	This novel could be critiqued for its portrayal of the Jazz Age as a time of superficial glamour and excess, where art (parties, fashion) serves as an escape from the harsh realities of life. The characters’ pursuit of wealth and social status ultimately leads to disillusionment and tragedy, suggesting a lack of mutual answerability between art and life.
The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger)	Holden Caulfield’s alienation and cynicism can be interpreted as a critique of the “mechanical unity” between art (phoniness, conformity) and life. Holden rejects the artificiality of the adult world, seeking authenticity and connection, but his inability to find them reflects the lack of inner unity between art and life.
Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad)	The novella’s exploration of colonialism and its devastating impact on both colonizers and colonized can be seen as a critique of the lack of answerability in art and life. The atrocities committed in the name of progress and civilization highlight the consequences of a disconnection between art (ideals, rhetoric) and the lived realities of exploitation and violence.
The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood)	This dystopian novel portrays a society where art (religion, propaganda) is used to control and manipulate individuals. The subjugation of women and the suppression of their creative expression reflect a lack of mutual answerability, where art serves as a tool for oppression rather than a means of liberation and connection.

Criticism Against “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin:

Oversimplification of Art and Life: Bakhtin’s dichotomy between art and life might be seen as overly simplistic, as the boundaries between the two are often blurred and complex.
Idealistic Notion of Unity: The concept of “inner unity” between art and life could be considered idealistic and difficult to achieve in practice, given the diverse and often conflicting nature of human experiences.

Limited Scope: The essay primarily focuses on the relationship between art and individual life, neglecting the broader social and political dimensions of art’s impact and responsibility.
Neglect of Formalist Concerns: Bakhtin’s emphasis on the ethical and moral dimensions of art might be seen as neglecting the aesthetic and formal aspects that are crucial to understanding and appreciating artistic works.
Eurocentric Perspective: The essay’s focus on Western art and philosophy might limit its applicability to other cultural contexts with different artistic traditions and values.

Ambiguity of “Answerability”: The concept of “answerability” itself is open to interpretation and can lead to varying and even conflicting understandings of the responsibilities of art and artists.

Quotations with Explanation from “Art and Answerability” by Mikhail Bakhtin

Quotation	Explanation
“Art and life are not one, but they must become united in myself—in the unity of my answerability.”	This encapsulates Bakhtin’s central thesis, emphasizing the necessity of integrating art and life within the individual through a sense of ethical responsibility and accountability.
“The poet must remember that it is his poetry which bears the guilt for the vulgar prose of life…”	This highlights the mutual responsibility of art and life, suggesting that art’s shortcomings are reflected in the prosaic nature of everyday life.
“…the man of everyday life ought to know that the fruitlessness of art is due to his willingness to be unexacting and to the unseriousness of the concerns in his life.”	This emphasizes that life’s prosaic nature can also be attributed to the lack of engagement and depth in everyday concerns, thus impacting the quality and effectiveness of art.
“Inspiration that ignores life and is itself ignored by life is not inspiration but a state of possession.”	Bakhtin critiques the notion of inspiration as a detached, otherworldly force, arguing that true inspiration arises from engagement with the complexities and realities of life.
“A whole is called ‘mechanical’ when its constituent elements are united only in space and time by some external connection and are not imbued with the internal unity of meaning.”	This describes the artificial separation of art and life, where they exist as isolated realms with no meaningful interaction or influence on each other.
“The individual must become answerable through and through: all of his constituent moments must not only fit next to each other in the temporal sequence of his life, but must also interpenetrate each other in the unity of guilt and answerability.”	This emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to life, where art and life are integrated into a unified whole, each informing and enriching the other through a shared sense of responsibility and accountability.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31