“Deconstructing Derrida: Below The Surface Of Differance” by W. T. Jones: Summary and Critique

1. The Deep Divisions in Interpreting Derrida

• W. T. Jones begins by identifying the stark divide in opinions about Jacques Derrida’s philosophy, especially his concept of differance. He highlights how Derrida himself anticipates multiple interpretations of his texts, embracing the endless deconstructive possibilities they generate (Jones, 1992, p. 230).
• Jones acknowledges that this openness also leads to polarized views, with supporters lauding Derrida’s depth and critics dismissing his ideas as mere linguistic gymnastics (p. 231).

---

2. Philosophical Archaeology: A Methodological Approach

• Jones employs what he calls “philosophical archaeology” to analyze Derrida’s work. This involves deconstructing texts to uncover the metaphysical assumptions that shape their composition (p. 231).
• By applying this approach to differance, Jones aims to reveal the underlying conflict in Derrida’s worldview, characterized by a tension between foundationalist and anti-foundationalist tendencies (p. 232).

---

3. The Tension Between Nostalgia and Radical Skepticism

• Jones argues that Derrida’s philosophy oscillates between rejecting foundational truths and expressing a deep nostalgia for metaphysical closure (p. 241).
• For instance, Derrida’s notion of “trace” suggests the possibility of something beyond language, contradicting his broader thesis that “there is no outside-text” (il n’y a pas de hors-texte) (p. 244).
• This ambivalence, Jones suggests, reflects Derrida’s struggle to reconcile his Saussurean view of language with the metaphysical yearnings embedded in Western philosophy (p. 245).

---

4. Comparisons with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein

• Jones contrasts Derrida with Nietzsche, arguing that Nietzsche’s response to the absence of metaphysical foundations is one of joyous affirmation, symbolized by the “dance” of the Overman (p. 236). Derrida’s dance, by contrast, is marked by anxiety and a reluctance to let go of metaphysical constructs (p. 237).
• Similarly, Jones draws a parallel with Wittgenstein, who approaches the “abyss” of language with practical solutions aimed at eliminating metaphysical confusion, unlike Derrida’s infinite “play” around unresolved philosophical problems (p. 247).

---

5. Derrida’s Ambivalence Toward Foundationalism

• Jones identifies Derrida’s conflicted stance toward foundationalism. While Derrida rejects the possibility of determinate reference, he simultaneously hints at metaphysical claims, such as the concept of “Heideggerian hope” in differance (p. 246).
• This duality, Jones contends, undermines Derrida’s professed anti-foundationalism and reflects unresolved tensions in his philosophy (p. 247).

---

6. The Broader Implications of Derrida’s Thought

• Jones situates Derrida within a larger cultural and intellectual context, arguing that differance challenges not only traditional metaphysics but also the foundations of Western inquiry itself (p. 249).
• He notes how Derrida’s ideas resonate with movements like radical feminism and postmodern literary criticism, while cautioning against their potential to dismantle objective inquiry and rational debate (p. 250).

---

7. Critique of Derrida’s Philosophical Therapy

• Jones concludes that Derrida’s deconstruction fails as a form of philosophical therapy. Instead of resolving metaphysical anxieties, Derrida perpetuates them through endless textual play, leaving his philosophy spinning in unresolved contradictions (p. 248).
• This, Jones argues, makes Derrida’s work both appealing and divisive, as it resonates with those seeking to critique Western traditions but alienates both foundationalists and pragmatic anti-foundationalists (p. 249).

1. Deconstruction as a Tool for Analyzing Textual Contradictions

• Jones demonstrates how Derrida’s method of deconstruction reveals the inherent contradictions within philosophical texts, including Derrida’s own.
  • This highlights deconstruction’s capacity to expose the instability of meaning in language (Jones, 1992, p. 230).
  • Literary theorists can apply this approach to dissect the ambiguities and multiplicity of meanings in literary texts.

---

2. Critique of Logocentrism and its Literary Implications

• The critique of logocentrism underscores the centrality of language in shaping meaning and challenges the traditional privileging of speech over writing.
  • This theoretical shift influenced post-structuralist literary theory, emphasizing the textual nature of meaning-making (p. 236).

---

3. Bricolage as a Framework for Literary Composition

• The concept of bricolage, or assembling fragmented elements into a coherent whole, parallels postmodern literature’s focus on intertextuality and pastiche.
  • Jones’s analysis shows how bricolage reflects broader metaphysical and cultural concerns, enriching its relevance for postmodern literary theory (p. 231).

---

4. Contribution to the Debate on Reference and Meaning

• By critiquing Derrida’s notion of differance and the concept of “trace,” Jones engages with the question of whether literary texts can ever point to a fixed meaning.
  • This debate resonates with theories of intertextuality, where meaning is seen as relational and perpetually deferred (p. 244).

---

5. The Role of Play in Literary Interpretation

• Derrida’s idea of “play” in language, as critiqued by Jones, affirms the infinite interpretive possibilities of texts.
  • This concept challenges the New Critical notion of a singular “correct” interpretation and supports the post-structuralist view of texts as sites of indeterminacy (p. 237).

---

6. Reinforcement of Anti-Foundationalist Literary Theories

• Jones situates Derrida’s work within the broader anti-foundationalist tradition, critiquing metaphysical absolutes.
  • This aligns with literary theories that reject universal truths in favor of contextual, fluid, and fragmented narratives (p. 249).

---

7. Influence on Feminist and Postcolonial Literary Criticism

• The deconstruction of phallogocentric structures resonates with feminist literary criticism’s critique of patriarchal language systems.
  • Jones notes how Derrida’s destabilization of hierarchical binaries supports radical critiques of established literary and cultural paradigms, including postcolonial theory (p. 250).

---

8. Ethical and Political Dimensions in Literary Theory

• By engaging with the political implications of Derrida’s philosophy, Jones opens a pathway for exploring how deconstruction challenges institutionalized power structures in literature.
  • This is particularly relevant for Marxist and postcolonial literary theories that interrogate dominant ideological frameworks (p. 250).

---

9. Encouragement of Meta-Criticism in Literary Studies

• Jones’s critique of Derrida demonstrates how critical approaches can and should analyze their own theoretical assumptions.
  • This meta-critical perspective encourages literary theorists to interrogate the foundations of their methodologies and interpretive practices (p. 241).

1. Overemphasis on Derrida’s Ambivalence

• Critics argue that Jones disproportionately focuses on Derrida’s alleged ambivalence toward foundationalism, possibly overstating Derrida’s “nostalgia” for metaphysical closure.
• This interpretation might oversimplify Derrida’s intent, which is often to embrace contradiction as a productive aspect of thought.

---

2. Misrepresentation of Deconstruction

• Jones is criticized for framing deconstruction as primarily a linguistic exercise, rather than recognizing its broader implications for ethical, political, and social critique.
• By reducing deconstruction to a “dance around the abyss,” Jones may overlook its transformative potential in various disciplines.

---

3. Limited Engagement with Derrida’s Broader Corpus

• Jones bases much of his critique on differance and a limited selection of Derrida’s texts, potentially neglecting the evolution of Derrida’s ideas in later works.
• Critics argue this selective reading risks creating a skewed or incomplete picture of Derrida’s philosophy.

---

4. Binary Framing of Derrida’s Philosophy

• By framing Derrida’s work as a conflict between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, Jones may impose a dualistic structure that Derrida explicitly seeks to deconstruct.
• This binary framing could misinterpret Derrida’s approach to metaphysical concepts as inherently oppositional.

---

5. Undervaluation of Playfulness in Derrida’s Work

• Jones’s critique diminishes the role of play and irony in Derrida’s philosophy, interpreting it as avoidance of serious inquiry.
• Critics argue that Derrida’s “play” is a deliberate strategy to disrupt entrenched philosophical hierarchies rather than a retreat from meaningful engagement.

---

6. Overreliance on Western Philosophical Comparisons

• Jones heavily contrasts Derrida with figures like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, potentially sidelining Derrida’s engagement with other intellectual traditions.
• This focus may restrict the broader applicability of Derrida’s ideas beyond the Western philosophical canon.

---

7. Lack of Acknowledgment of Deconstruction’s Practical Applications

• Critics highlight Jones’s failure to acknowledge how deconstruction has been applied in disciplines like law, feminism, and postcolonial studies, where it has provided valuable critical tools.
• This omission risks portraying Derrida’s work as purely theoretical and detached from real-world implications.

---

8. Simplistic View of Derrida’s Relationship with Metaphysics

• Jones’s assertion that Derrida is a “reluctant metaphysician” may oversimplify Derrida’s nuanced critique of metaphysical concepts.
• Derrida’s relationship with metaphysics is often seen as strategic rather than nostalgic, engaging with metaphysical ideas to subvert them from within.

---

9. Dismissal of Deconstruction’s Ethical Dimensions

• Critics argue that Jones neglects the ethical dimensions of Derrida’s work, particularly his later writings on responsibility, justice, and hospitality.
• This omission could lead to a one-dimensional portrayal of Derrida’s philosophy as purely theoretical or rhetorical.