Background to Deconstruction: Heidegger and Saussure
Personal Information
Name: Jayshri R. Khachar
Enrollment No: 5108230023
Sem: 3 (M.A)
Batch: 2023-2025
Paper Name: 22409 Paper 204: Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies
Submitted To: Smt, S.B.gradi , Department of English, m.k.b.u
Dated on: 20/10/2024
Email id: jayshrikhachar4@gmail.com
Table of Contents
Introduction
Definition of Deconstruction
The Philosophical and Linguistic Background
Ferdinand de Saussure: The Structuralist Revolution
Saussure’s View of Language
Signifier and Signified
The Concept of Structuralism
Martin Heidegger: Language as the House of Being
Heidegger’s Relationship with Language
Language and Ontology
Influence on Derrida’s Deconstruction
The Intersection of Saussure and Heidegger in Derrida’s Deconstruction
Language and Meaning in Deconstruction
The Play of Differences
Critique of Metaphysics of Presence
Deconstruction in Practice
Derrida’s Approach to Texts and Meaning
The Subversion of Binary Oppositions
Deconstruction as a Tool for Literary Analysis
Conclusion
Summary of Key Ideas
The Legacy of Heidegger, Saussure, and Derrida
References
Background to Deconstruction: Heidegger and Saussure
Abstract
Deconstruction, a term most famously associated with philosopher Jacques Derrida, emerged as a critical approach to literature, philosophy, and language in the 20th century. To understand deconstruction, one must explore the philosophical and linguistic foundations laid by earlier thinkers like Martin Heidegger and Ferdinand de Saussure. Both philosophers significantly influenced Derrida’s work, particularly with regard to their views on language, meaning, and being. Heidegger’s focus on language as the house of being and Saussure’s structuralist approach to linguistics provided key concepts that Derrida would later subvert in his deconstructive method. This presentation will explore the ideas of Heidegger and Saussure and their role in the development of deconstruction, with a focus on the interrelation between language, meaning, and structure.
Introduction
Deconstruction is a critical and philosophical movement that emerged in the late 20th century, primarily through the work of Jacques Derrida. At its core, deconstruction challenges the stability of meaning and emphasizes the role of language in shaping our understanding of the world. However, to fully grasp the essence of deconstruction, it is crucial to understand its intellectual roots. These roots are deeply embedded in the works of Martin Heidegger and Ferdinand de Saussure, two thinkers whose ideas about language, meaning, and structure profoundly influenced Derrida’s later development of deconstruction.
This presentation aims to provide a background to deconstruction by exploring the contributions of Heidegger and Saussure. By examining their views on language and meaning, we can better appreciate how deconstruction emerged as a critique of traditional philosophical and linguistic approaches. Furthermore, we will see how Derrida’s deconstruction subverts and challenges their ideas, offering a radical rethinking of language, identity, and the nature of truth.
Ferdinand de Saussure: The Structuralist Revolution
Saussure’s View of Language
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, is often considered one of the founders of modern linguistics and structuralism. Saussure's ideas revolutionized the study of language by shifting the focus from individual words to the system of relationships that govern language. His central argument is that language is not a straightforward reflection of reality but rather a system of signs, where meaning is produced through differences between words and concepts.
Signifier and Signified
Saussure introduced the distinction between the signifier (the word or sound) and the signified (the concept or meaning). For Saussure, meaning does not reside in the words themselves but in the relationship between the signifier and the signified. This means that words are not inherently tied to the concepts they represent; rather, meaning is created through the system of differences that exist between words. This concept of the arbitrary nature of the sign becomes central to Derrida’s later deconstructive work.
The Concept of Structuralism
Saussure’s structuralism posits that meaning arises from the structure of language. In this view, individual elements (words) gain meaning not by reference to an external reality but through their relation to other elements in the system. For example, the word "dog" has meaning because it is not "cat" or "tree." The system of differences, in Saussure’s view, is what constructs the meaning of language, and meaning is always relational rather than absolute.
This relational structure is key to understanding Derrida’s later development of deconstruction, which takes Saussure’s focus on differences and questions the stability of these relationships.
Martin Heidegger: Language as the House of Being
Heidegger’s Relationship with Language
Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher, approached language from a very different perspective than Saussure. While Saussure viewed language as a system of signs, Heidegger saw language as far more foundational to human existence. For Heidegger, language is not just a tool for communication but the medium through which human beings understand their world and exist within it. In his famous phrase, "language is the house of being," Heidegger suggests that language is the fundamental structure that houses our experience of the world.
Language and Ontology
Heidegger’s central concern was not simply how we communicate but how language shapes our very experience of being. Language, for Heidegger, is not a mere tool that reflects reality; it is the mode through which we come to understand and interpret reality. Thus, Heidegger’s philosophy intertwines language with ontology—the study of being—making language inseparable from our understanding of existence itself.
Heidegger critiqued traditional philosophy, which he saw as reducing the complexity of human experience to abstract concepts and categories. Instead, he proposed that we return to the "origin" of language and being, where meaning is not simply constructed but revealed through our relationship with the world.
Influence on Derrida’s Deconstruction
Derrida was deeply influenced by Heidegger’s views on language and ontology. Heidegger’s understanding of language as more than a system of signs resonated with Derrida’s own critique of traditional metaphysics. In particular, Derrida took Heidegger’s notion of language as the house of being and examined how language structures and limits our access to meaning. For Derrida, language is both a site of revelation and concealment, as it both opens up and closes down possibilities of meaning.
The Intersection of Saussure and Heidegger in Derrida’s Deconstruction
Language and Meaning in Deconstruction
Derrida’s deconstruction takes both Saussure and Heidegger as starting points but radically reinterprets their theories. From Saussure, Derrida adopts the notion that meaning is not inherent in words but arises through their differences within a system. However, Derrida goes further by showing that these differences themselves are never stable. Meaning, for Derrida, is always deferred, a process he calls différance (a French term that plays on both "difference" and "deferral").
Derrida builds on Heidegger’s view that language is the medium through which being is disclosed but argues that language is also inherently unstable. Unlike Heidegger, who saw language as a stable foundation for human existence, Derrida insists that language is constantly in flux and that meaning can never be fully fixed or secured.
The Play of Differences
Derrida’s concept of différance illustrates his belief that meaning is always deferred and never fully present. Saussure’s notion of relational meaning is central to Derrida’s philosophy, but Derrida takes this further by arguing that meaning is never completed—it is always in a state of play, shifting and evolving. The play of differences in language means that meaning is never absolute; instead, it is continually deferred through the interplay of signs.
Critique of Metaphysics of Presence
Derrida’s deconstruction critiques what he calls the "metaphysics of presence," a tradition in Western philosophy that assumes that meaning can be fixed and present. For Derrida, this metaphysical assumption is an illusion. The constant deferral of meaning, through the play of differences, undermines the idea that meaning can ever be fully present or stable.
Deconstruction in Practice
Derrida’s Approach to Texts and Meaning
In practice, Derrida applies his deconstructive method to literary and philosophical texts, examining how meaning is constructed and destabilized. He focuses on the binary oppositions that structure texts—such as good/evil, man/woman, and presence/absence—and shows how these oppositions rely on each other for meaning but also undermine each other in the process.
The Subversion of Binary Oppositions
One of the key strategies in Derrida’s deconstruction is the subversion of binary oppositions. For example, the binary opposition of speech and writing is a key target in Derrida’s work. Derrida argues that writing has been historically subordinated to speech in Western philosophy, but this opposition is not as stable as it seems. By deconstructing these oppositions, Derrida reveals the power dynamics embedded in language and challenges the traditional hierarchies of meaning.
Deconstruction as a Tool for Literary Analysis
Deconstruction has been widely applied in literary analysis, where it serves as a method for examining how texts create meaning through the interplay of signs. By focusing on the contradictions, ambiguities, and tensions within a text, deconstruction reveals the instability of meaning and challenges the reader to reconsider the traditional interpretations of a text.
Conclusion
Deconstruction, as developed by Jacques Derrida, owes much to the philosophical and linguistic foundations laid by Martin Heidegger and Ferdinand de Saussure. While Saussure’s structuralism introduced the idea that meaning arises from the relational differences between words, Heidegger emphasized the deep connection between language and being. Derrida’s deconstruction builds on these ideas but radicalizes them, arguing that language is never stable and that meaning is always deferred. Through the critique of binary oppositions and the subversion of traditional metaphysics, deconstruction offers a powerful tool for rethinking language, meaning, and textual interpretation.
References
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Frayne, Craig. “An Ecosemiotic Critique of Heidegger’s Concept of Enframing.” Environmental Philosophy, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, pp. 213–36. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26819181. Accessed 3 Nov. 2024.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Harper & Row, 1962.
Jay, Gregory S. “Values and Deconstructions: Derrida, Saussure, Marx.” Cultural Critique, no. 8, 1987, pp. 153–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354215. Accessed 2 Nov. 2024.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Philosophical Library, 1959.
.jfif)
