This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.
“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.
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.
Suggested Readings: “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” by Jacques Derrida
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.
