Introduction: “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
“Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen first appeared in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy in 1989, published by Penn State University Press. Nuyen explores Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction by analyzing its philosophical lineage and implications for literary theory. Anchoring his critique in a comparison with Hegelian dialectics, Nuyen underscores the distinction between deconstruction’s emphasis on inherent oppositions and Hegel’s synthesis-driven wholeness. The paper challenges common misconceptions of deconstruction as a merely destructive process, asserting instead that it highlights the indivisible interplay of differences within a whole. He frames deconstruction as a philosophical lens that preserves wholeness by demonstrating the mutual dependence of its parts, contributing significantly to post-structuralist discourse and expanding methodologies in literary criticism. Its importance lines presenting how Derrida impacts the theory of différance and its broader intellectual contexts.
Summary of “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
Introduction to Deconstruction and Its Philosophical Roots
- Nuyen investigates whether deconstruction serves as a philosophical or literary theory, concluding it encompasses both (Nuyen, 1989, p. 26).
- He traces deconstruction’s lineage from Nietzsche through Heidegger and Husserl, with connections to Hegel’s dialectic and the concept of the “Absolute Idea” (p. 26-27).
Hegelian Dialectics and Deconstruction
- Deconstruction shares themes with Hegelian dialectic, such as the process of becoming and differentiation (p. 27).
- Hegel’s dialectical process resolves oppositions through synthesis, preserving the wholeness of an artwork (p. 28).
- Deconstruction, however, emphasizes the interplay of oppositions without synthesis, leading critics like Desmond to argue it threatens wholeness (p. 28-29).
Misconceptions of Deconstruction
- Critics claim deconstruction merely dissects wholes into oppositional parts, leaving them fragmented (p. 29).
- Nuyen refutes this, asserting that deconstruction highlights the error of fixating on parts instead of recognizing their dependency on the whole (p. 30).
Differance as a Unifying Force
- Derrida’s concept of différance combines difference and deferral, emphasizing that parts exist only through their relation to the whole (p. 30-31).
- Using metaphors like the “vase and faces” drawing, Nuyen illustrates how oppositional elements coexist and rely on their mutual contrast (p. 31).
Applications in Language and Literature
- Deconstruction critiques the “metaphysics of presence,” arguing that meanings are not fixed but emerge dynamically through temporal and relational contexts (p. 32-33).
- Examples include Derrida’s analysis of Rousseau’s opposition between nature and culture, revealing both as interdependent within the human experience (p. 33).
Deconstruction vs. Dialectic
- While Hegel’s dialectic aims for upward synthesis toward the Absolute, deconstruction starts from the whole, exploring differences without a final resolution (p. 34).
- This divergence makes deconstruction particularly valuable in literary theory, allowing multiple interpretations of a text (p. 34-35).
Philosophical Contributions and Challenges
- Deconstruction critiques traditional philosophy’s fixation on fixed meanings or elements, encouraging a holistic view of dynamic interplay (p. 36).
- Critics argue this opens the door to relativism, but Nuyen suggests shared human tendencies ensure stable communication and interpretation (p. 37).
Conclusion
- Nuyen emphasizes that deconstruction does not dissolve wholeness but enriches our understanding of its complexity and openness to diverse interpretations (p. 38).
- By challenging rigid structures of meaning, deconstruction invites continual re-engagement with texts and ideas.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
| Concept/Term | Definition/Explanation | Context in the Article |
| Deconstruction | A method of critical analysis that seeks to expose and subvert the assumptions underlying texts and theories. | Central to the discussion, highlighting how oppositional elements interplay within the wholeness of a text (p. 26-28). |
| Différance | A Derridean term combining “difference” and “deferral,” emphasizing the relational and temporal nature of meaning. | Described as the force that generates differences within a whole, making meaning dynamic and relational (p. 30-31). |
| Metaphysics of Presence | The traditional philosophical focus on fixed, immediate meanings or truths. | Criticized by Derrida for ignoring the interplay of absence and presence in the construction of meaning (p. 33). |
| Hegelian Dialectic | A process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis aimed at achieving an “Absolute Idea” or wholeness. | Compared to deconstruction to illustrate their differing approaches to resolving oppositional elements (p. 27-28). |
| Absolute Idea | Hegel’s concept of ultimate unity or wholeness, achieved through dialectical synthesis. | Used as a contrast to deconstruction, which does not seek a final synthesis but explores inherent oppositions (p. 28). |
| Play of Differences | The relational dynamic through which meaning is generated by contrasts within a system. | Explored as a key mechanism in Derrida’s understanding of texts and signs (p. 30-32). |
| Iterability | The capacity of signs to be repeated in different contexts, creating multiple meanings. | Illustrated in Derrida’s critique of Austin’s account of performatives, showing that no context exhaustively defines a sign (p. 33). |
| Supplementarity | The idea that additions (e.g., culture) are integral to what is considered primary (e.g., nature). | Discussed through Rousseau’s work to show the interdependence of elements typically viewed as oppositional (p. 33-34). |
| Wholeness | The conceptual totality from which parts derive their meaning and existence. | Nuyen argues that deconstruction seeks to preserve this dynamic wholeness rather than fragment it (p. 29-30). |
| Aufhebung | Hegelian term for the process of synthesis that preserves, cancels, and elevates oppositional elements. | Contrasted with deconstruction’s approach of maintaining the interplay without synthesis (p. 28-29). |
Contribution of “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Post-Structuralism and the Rejection of Fixed Meanings
- Nuyen highlights Derrida’s critique of the “metaphysics of presence,” challenging traditional literary approaches that fix meanings within texts (Nuyen, 1989, p. 33).
- This aligns with post-structuralist theories, emphasizing the fluidity of meaning and the relational interplay of signs.
2. Reader-Response Theory
- By arguing that texts allow multiple interpretations based on the “play of differences,” Nuyen supports reader-response theories that value the reader’s active role in constructing meaning (p. 34).
- The dynamic interaction between text and interpretation reaffirms the text’s openness to diverse readings.
3. Deconstruction in Literary Criticism
- The focus on différance provides a framework for analyzing how literary texts generate meaning through oppositions and deferrals (p. 30).
- Deconstruction challenges critics to uncover hidden assumptions and contradictions, reshaping methodologies in textual analysis.
4. Critique of Structuralism
- Building on Derrida’s ideas, Nuyen critiques Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic focus on stable structures, extending it to include the temporal dimension of meaning creation (p. 31).
- This contribution bridges structuralist and post-structuralist thought, expanding the scope of literary semiotics.
5. Emphasis on Wholeness in Texts
- Nuyen refutes the claim that deconstruction fragments texts, instead asserting it preserves and illuminates their inherent wholeness (p. 29).
- This challenges reductionist approaches in literary theory, advocating for a comprehensive understanding of texts as dynamic systems.
6. Application to Intertextuality
- By emphasizing iterability, Nuyen underscores how texts reference and reinterpret other texts, contributing to theories of intertextuality (p. 33).
- This reinforces the idea that literary works are part of a larger cultural and linguistic continuum.
7. Dialogues with Hegelian Aesthetics
- The comparison with Hegelian dialectics provides a philosophical basis for understanding deconstruction’s contributions to literary theory (p. 27-28).
- This offers a nuanced perspective on the tension between synthesis and fragmentation in art and literature.
8. Exploration of Supplementarity
- Nuyen’s discussion of Rousseau’s nature-culture dichotomy highlights how deconstruction reveals the interdependence of oppositional terms (p. 33-34).
- This has implications for literary theories addressing binaries like form/content or author/reader.
9. Creativity and Openness in Literary Analysis
- Deconstruction’s focus on the openness of texts encourages a more creative, non-linear approach to literary criticism, allowing texts to be experienced in new ways over time (p. 34-35).
- This liberates criticism from deterministic readings and fosters interpretive innovation.
Examples of Critiques Through “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
| Literary Work | Key Critique Using Derrida’s Deconstruction | References and Explanation in Nuyen’s Article |
| Rousseau’s Works | Rousseau’s dichotomy of nature and culture is critiqued as a fixation on oppositional elements, ignoring their interdependence. | Nuyen discusses Rousseau’s notion of the “supplement,” showing that nature and culture coexist within a larger whole (p. 33-34). |
| Hegel’s Dialectics | Hegel’s dialectical synthesis is contrasted with deconstruction’s refusal to resolve oppositions, emphasizing the open-ended nature of texts. | Nuyen compares Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit to Derrida’s idea of différance, highlighting the divergence in their approaches (p. 27-28). |
| Austen’s Novels | Characters’ social behaviors and linguistic choices can be deconstructed to reveal contradictions in societal norms and expectations. | Though not explicitly discussed, Nuyen’s framework applies to Austen’s works by uncovering hidden tensions in social discourse (p. 29-30). |
| Shakespeare’s Plays | The iterability of signs in plays allows multiple interpretations, demonstrating the instability of meaning in dramatic contexts. | Nuyen’s discussion of iterability (p. 33) aligns with Shakespeare’s use of language, enabling diverse and evolving interpretations of his texts. |
Criticism Against “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
1. Overemphasis on Hegelian Comparisons
- Critics argue that Nuyen focuses excessively on comparing Derrida’s deconstruction with Hegelian dialectics, potentially overshadowing other critical aspects of Derrida’s philosophy.
- This approach may limit the exploration of deconstruction’s broader implications beyond Hegel’s framework.
2. Ambiguity in the Definition of Wholeness
- Nuyen defends deconstruction as preserving wholeness, but critics might find the concept of “wholeness” inadequately defined within the dynamic and fragmented nature of différance.
- The reconciliation of oppositional elements within a whole remains conceptually ambiguous.
3. Insufficient Engagement with Literary Examples
- The article lacks specific, detailed application of deconstruction to literary texts, focusing more on philosophical discourse.
- This limits its direct utility for literary critics seeking practical methodologies for textual analysis.
4. Risk of Misinterpreting Derrida’s Intentions
- By framing deconstruction as preserving wholeness, Nuyen risks misrepresenting Derrida’s intent to challenge traditional metaphysical assumptions about unity.
- Critics might argue that this interpretation underplays the radical, subversive nature of deconstruction.
5. Simplification of Deconstruction’s Complexity
- Nuyen’s attempt to align deconstruction with dialectics might simplify Derrida’s intricate critiques of language, meaning, and metaphysics.
- The complexity of différance as both temporal and relational could be underexplored in favor of creating parallels with Hegel.
6. Limited Address of Deconstruction’s Practical Critiques
- The article inadequately addresses common critiques of deconstruction, such as its perceived tendency toward relativism or nihilism.
- Nuyen briefly dismisses these criticisms without providing a comprehensive rebuttal.
7. Philosophical Bias Over Literary Utility
- The heavy philosophical emphasis might alienate literary theorists who seek more direct implications for interpreting literature.
- This prioritization could narrow the article’s appeal to scholars outside philosophy.
Representative Quotations from “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Deconstruction emphasizes the conflict between possible meanings or between certain predicates or concepts.” (p. 27) | Highlights the central aim of deconstruction to expose tensions and contradictions in interpretations, rather than resolving them into fixed meanings. |
| “Hegel warns us that we must stare the negative in the face.” (p. 255-256) | Indicates the shared philosophical ground between Hegel and Derrida, emphasizing the confrontation with contradictions as central to understanding. |
| “Differance could be said to designate the productive and primordial constituting causality, the process of scission and division whose differings…are effects.” (p. 137) | Defines différance as the dynamic force driving differentiation and deferral, central to Derrida’s critique of stable meanings and fixed metaphysical structures. |
| “The deconstructionist plays with this infinite chaos in Nietzschean fashion with a clarity of consciousness almost Cartesian.” (p. 261) | Reflects the paradoxical nature of Derrida’s methodology—embracing chaos while maintaining intellectual rigor reminiscent of Cartesian precision. |
| “Breaking up the whole into parts will lead to conflict, opposition, or even contradiction among the parts.” (p. 29) | Critiques the analytical tendency to fragment wholes into isolated parts, emphasizing the interdependence and unity within texts. |
| “The whole itself, the text, is just what it is, no matter what parts we see in it, or how we actually experience the parts.” (p. 30) | Asserts the primacy of the whole over its parts, reinforcing the notion that parts derive meaning through their relationship to the whole. |
| “Rousseau’s fixation on nature and culture as separate elements prevents him from seeing that nature and culture both belong to the wholeness of men and women.” (p. 33) | Illustrates deconstruction’s challenge to binary oppositions by showing their mutual dependence and shared contribution to a greater wholeness. |
| “A written sign carries with it a force that breaks with its context… No context can entirely enclose it.” (p. 182) | Critiques the contextual fixation of meaning, asserting the openness and iterability of signs, which resist being tied to a single context or interpretation. |
| “We owe it to the deconstructionists for having alerted us to the danger of being too well-conditioned by our own specific choices.” (p. 37) | Acknowledges deconstruction’s value in exposing hidden biases and assumptions, fostering a broader and more inclusive interpretive framework. |
| “Using the text as the home base, we may venture out in different directions and acquire different experiences.” (p. 34) | Emphasizes the creative potential of deconstruction to generate diverse interpretations while preserving the integrity of the whole text. |
Suggested Readings: “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance” by A. T. Nuyen
- NUYEN, A. T. “Derrida’s Deconstruction: Wholeness and Différance.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 1, 1989, pp. 26–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25669901. Accessed 28 Dec. 2024.
- Kalb, Ainsley. (Non)Universal Language, “Taxonology,” and Différance: An Ethmology of the Fictionary and The Sojourner’s Dictionary. 2023. JSTOR, https://jstor.org/stable/community.34724059. Accessed 28 Dec. 2024.
- Wise, Christopher. “Deconstruction and Zionism: Jacques Derrida’s ‘Specters of Marx.’” Diacritics, vol. 31, no. 1, 2001, pp. 56–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566315. Accessed 28 Dec. 2024.
- KHURANA, THOMAS. “DECONSTRUCTION.” The Habermas Handbook, edited by HAUKE BRUNKHORST et al., Columbia University Press, 2018, pp. 170–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/brun16642.24. Accessed 28 Dec. 2024.