“Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms? by Gerasimos Kakoliris first appeared in the Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology in October 2004 (Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 283-292). This essay critically examines Derrida’s concept of “double reading” in deconstruction, highlighting its inherent tension between the stabilizing reproduction of authorial intention in a first reading and its subsequent destabilization through a second reading. Kakoliris argues that Derrida’s methodology necessitates an initial stability to enable deconstruction but simultaneously challenges this very stability through “dissemination,” where meanings proliferate beyond authorial control. This paradox underscores Derrida’s notion of différance, which “renders determinacy both possible and necessary” while ensuring no meaning is fully present or univocal. By analyzing Derrida’s work, Kakoliris critiques the feasibility of reconciling the need for both determination and dissemination, raising pivotal questions about the coherence of deconstructive methodology. As Kakoliris quotes Derrida, “Differance is not indeterminacy… It renders determinacy both possible and necessary,” encapsulating the intricate balance deconstruction seeks but struggles to maintain. This work remains vital in literary theory for its exploration of the philosophical and interpretive implications of Derrida’s theories, especially regarding the interplay between stability and undecidability in textual analysis.

Summary of “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Key Reference from Article
Double Reading	A two-step interpretative process involving a stable reproduction of authorial intention (first reading) and its subsequent deconstruction to reveal undecidability (second reading).	OG 158, Afterword 143
Differance	A neologism coined by Derrida to signify the dual process of deferring and differing meanings, underpinning the creation and destabilization of meaning.	Positions 27, Afterword 149
Doubling Commentary	The first reading in deconstruction that reconstructs the determinate meaning of a text to enable its destabilization later.	OG 158, Afterword 145
Undecidability	The state in which textual meanings oscillate between possibilities, with no definitive resolution, due to the intervention of writing.	Afterword 148-149
Authorial Intention (Vouloir-dire)	The intentional meaning or “what the author wants to say,” which is central to the first phase of reading but subject to critique in deconstruction.	OG 158, Afterword 143
Dissemination	The scattering of meaning beyond univocal authorial control, leading to a proliferation of interpretations.	Dissemination 17
Relatively Stable Meaning	A prerequisite stability required in the first reading to enable the subsequent destabilization in deconstruction.	Afterword 145
Structural Linguistics	Refers to Saussure’s theory that language is a system of arbitrary and differential signs, which Derrida radicalizes with differance.	CLG 166
Metaphysics of Presence	The philosophical tradition critiqued by Derrida for privileging fixed, self-present meanings in texts.	OG 8, Afterword 143
Play	The dynamic interplay of differences that prevents concepts from being fully stable or self-identical.	Afterword 144

Contribution of “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris to Literary Theory/Theories

• Clarification of the Double Reading Process
  Kakoliris examines Derrida’s “double reading” as a dual process of stabilization and destabilization, offering a clear framework for understanding the methodological tension inherent in deconstructive criticism (OG 158, Afterword 143).
• Critique of Authorial Intention as a Stable Basis
  The essay challenges the reliance on univocal authorial intention in deconstruction, questioning whether such stability can coexist with Derrida’s claim of undecidability (Afterword 143, Violence and Metaphysics 84).
• Exploration of Undecidability and Meaning
  It emphasizes the oscillation of meanings between determined possibilities, critiquing the implications of undecidability for literary analysis (Afterword 148-149).
• Engagement with Structural Linguistics
  By linking Derrida’s differance to Saussure’s theory of differential signs, Kakoliris bridges structuralism and post-structuralism, enriching the theoretical discourse on language and meaning (CLG 166, Positions 27).
• Highlighting the Paradox of Stability and Destabilization
  Kakoliris underlines the paradox that deconstruction requires stable meanings to destabilize them, questioning its internal coherence as a literary methodology (Afterword 145).
• Criticism of the Metaphysics of Presence
  The essay reinforces Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence while scrutinizing how deconstruction navigates the problem of textual self-coherence (OG 8, Dissemination 17).
• Contribution to Interpretative Practices
  By addressing the methodological demands of “doubling commentary,” Kakoliris offers insights into how traditional and critical readings interact in literary interpretation (Afterword 145).
• Theoretical Implications of Differance
  Kakoliris’s discussion of differance as both enabling and undermining stability deepens the understanding of this central concept in Derrida’s thought (Afterword 149).
• Reevaluation of Deconstructive Objectives
  The critique prompts literary theorists to reconsider whether deconstruction prioritizes dissemination or determination, highlighting the limitations of its interpretative ambitions (Afterword 144).

Examples of Critiques Through “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

Literary Work	Deconstructive Focus	Critique Based on Kakoliris’s Analysis
Plato’s Phaedrus	The double meaning of the term pharmakon as “remedy” and “poison.”	Kakoliris highlights how Derrida demonstrates the text’s inability to privilege one meaning over the other, revealing undecidability despite Plato’s intention to separate meanings. (Dissemination, 17)
Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languages	The relationship between speech and writing as a supplementary structure.	Kakoliris critiques Derrida’s reliance on stable initial interpretations to deconstruct Rousseau’s privileging of speech over writing. (OG lxxxix)
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	The oscillation between Hamlet’s action and inaction as indicative of deferred meaning (a differance).	Kakoliris might interpret Hamlet’s indecision as a site of both stability (in its literary structure) and instability (in its existential meanings).
Joyce’s Ulysses	The play of linguistic signifiers and their refusal to adhere to stable meanings.	Applying Kakoliris’s critique, the text’s semantic excess could be seen as relying on stable narrative structures while simultaneously disrupting them, reflecting the paradox of deconstruction.

Criticism Against “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

• Overemphasis on the Paradox of Stability and Destabilization
  Critics argue that Kakoliris’s focus on the tension between stability and destabilization in Derrida’s double reading overlooks the productive aspects of this paradox, which Derrida himself sees as central to deconstruction.
• Neglect of Deconstruction’s Broader Applications
  By concentrating primarily on textual undecidability, Kakoliris may underrepresent the ethical and political dimensions of deconstruction that extend beyond the scope of literary theory.
• Simplification of Derrida’s Concept of Differance
  While engaging deeply with differance, Kakoliris’s critique might simplify its role by treating it as a binary opposition between stability and instability, rather than acknowledging its dynamic interplay of meanings.
• Dependence on Traditional Hermeneutics for Critique
  Some critics argue that Kakoliris critiques Derrida’s reliance on stable authorial intention while himself employing traditional hermeneutic frameworks, creating an inconsistency in his argumentation.
• Potential Misreading of Undecidability
  Kakoliris’s critique of undecidability as undermining deconstruction’s coherence might miss Derrida’s distinction between undecidability as a productive tension and indeterminacy as complete ambiguity.
• Limited Engagement with Practical Examples
  The essay is critiqued for its theoretical nature and lack of detailed application to diverse literary works, which could demonstrate how Derrida’s method operates in practical criticism.
• Undervaluing the Role of Play in Meaning
  Kakoliris’s analysis may not fully account for Derrida’s concept of “play,” which is not only a destabilizing force but also integral to the formation of meaning and interpretative creativity.
• Ambiguity in Addressing Deconstruction’s Goals
  Critics suggest that Kakoliris demands a definitive choice between determination and dissemination, ignoring Derrida’s deliberate resistance to such binary oppositions.
• Dismissal of Deconstruction’s Relevance to Contemporary Theory
  By emphasizing its internal contradictions, the critique risks undervaluing the continued influence and adaptability of Derrida’s approach in modern literary and cultural theory.

Representative Quotations from “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Deconstruction can only subvert the meaning of a text that has already been construed.”	Highlights the paradox that deconstruction relies on stable textual meanings to initiate its critique, underscoring the inherent tension in Derrida’s methodology.
“Differance is not indeterminacy. It renders determinacy both possible and necessary.”	Clarifies Derrida’s concept of differance as foundational to meaning-making, rejecting the idea of total indeterminacy in textual interpretation.
“The absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of signification infinitely.”	Explains Derrida’s critique of metaphysics, where meaning is always deferred and never fully present, creating a space for deconstructive reading.
“Undecidability is a determinate oscillation between possibilities… highly determined in strictly defined situations.”	Emphasizes that undecidability does not mean random ambiguity but a structured interplay of multiple possibilities within specific contexts.
“Doubling commentary finds a passage ‘lisible’ and understandable, reconstructing determinate meaning.”	Defines the first phase of double reading, where traditional methods are used to extract stable textual meanings.
“Deconstructive reading situates itself in the gap between what the author ‘commands’ and what she does not ‘command.’”	Explains how deconstruction identifies the tension between authorial intention and the unintended, uncontrollable meanings within a text.
“Dissemination is the state of perpetually unfulfilled meaning that exists in the absence of all signifieds.”	Describes the endless deferral of meaning in deconstruction, where meanings proliferate beyond control or resolution.
“Relative stability (and hence destabilizability) is a prerequisite for deconstruction.”	Argues that deconstruction depends on a paradoxical stability within texts, without which destabilization cannot occur.
“A stability is not an immutability.”	Supports the idea that meanings, while stable for interpretation, are not fixed permanently, allowing for deconstructive reinterpretation.
“In order to justify deconstruction, Derrida invokes the play of differance to destabilize the determinations it previously enabled.”	Critiques the circular logic in Derrida’s methodology, where differance simultaneously enables and undermines stable meanings.

Suggested Readings: “Jacques Derrida’s Double Deconstructive Reading: A Contradiction in Terms?” by Gerasimos Kakoliris

1. SCHRIFT, ALAN D. “Reading Derrida Reading Heidegger Reading Nietzsche.” Research in Phenomenology, vol. 14, 1984, pp. 87–119. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24654404. Accessed 25 Dec. 2024.
2. Derrida, Jacques, and J.-L. Houdebine. “Interview: Jacques Derrida.” Diacritics, vol. 3, no. 1, 1973, pp. 33–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464590. Accessed 25 Dec. 2024.
3. Nealon, Jeffrey T. “The Discipline of Deconstruction.” PMLA, vol. 107, no. 5, 1992, pp. 1266–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/462879. Accessed 25 Dec. 2024.
4. Calcagno, Antonio. “Foucault and Derrida: The Question of Empowering and Disempowering the Author.” Human Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 2009, pp. 33–51. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270699. Accessed 25 Dec. 2024.
5. Kakoliris, Gerasimos. “Jacques Derrida’s double deconstructive reading: A contradiction in terms?.” Journal of the British society for phenomenology 35.3 (2004): 283-292.