Jaques Derrida is a smart man. In fact, he is very
intelligent, and he knows it. And, by golly, he loves to show it.
After watching the film “Derrida,” I was quite frankly
annoyed with Derrida and where the fields of anthropology and philosophy stood
in relation to Derrida’s views and how he expressed them. The film was highly
fragmented, it incorporated jargons and ideas that could not be understood by
common people, let alone educated people, and it made very little sense.
Derrida was a French philosopher who supported the post-structuralism
movement, in which he critiqued the likes of Levi-Strauss and other philosophical
giants of structuralism. Derrida argued that there exists a hierarchy of dual
oppositions by putting the signified in a more important role than the
signifier, therefore emphasizing intellectual traits and putting highly
achieving theorists in a hierarchy above others. To add to this, Derrida argued
that no one can arrive at an absolute truth. Therefore, he noted everything in
our world is artificial.
My response to this argument opens a number of broader and
far-reaching perspectives. If there is no such thing at knowing the truth, why,
as a society, do we put an immense amount of pressure and effort on education,
forming such “artificial” relationships, and more broadly, why do we even live?
Furthermore, how are we supposed to live lives knowing that
everything is artificial, no conclusions will ever be reached, and at the end
of the day, there is nothing real or substantial? I am a firm believer that we
are placed on this Earth to learn and help others through experiences as it
brings out the best in people. Derrida’s critiques and negative assessment on
being surely brings out skepticism, negative attitudes, and pessimism. In a
world with plenty of these viewpoints existing, we do not need more.
Derrida noted his troubled personal life. It is important to
also consider this role in Derrida’s ideas. It is possible that his lack of desire
to speak about his personal life added to the pessimism found in his theories. Furthermore,
maybe his pessimistic theories shaped a troubled personal life. While we cannot
completely discount his theories as a result of such possibilities, this is
something to consider.
While I certainly believe that I do not hold all the truths
to the universal being, there can be few things that are more depressing and discouraging
than Derrida’s words and theories. Personally, I’d rather take a happy life
that I can understand and feel as though I am learning more with each day,
rather than working towards nothing, as Derrida proposes. While not completely
agreeing with Derrida’s framework, sometimes ignorance is bliss.
If Derrida’s goal was to stimulate thinking, he achieved it.
If his goal was to crush people’s accomplishments, life stories, passions, and
work, he also achieved that. What’s more important?
Wow! It's awesome that you have such a passionate reaction. Others, too, have seen deconstruction as nihilistic. Is it possible, though, that one could accept the critique of the boundary between the "real" and the "artificial" without being so crushed? I'm not sure about your assertion that the signified is more important than the signifier in Derrida's work--could it be the opposite? Maybe you should say more about what you mean.
ReplyDeleteHey Ty! Thanks for posting about the film! You made some interesting points. While I agree with your point about the film being fragmented and rather hard to follow, I have to comment on your idea about it being incomprehensible and nonsensical. The film follows Jacques daily life and is interspersed with quotes from his books, lectures, and notes and makes clear that his line of philosophy is that of “deconstruction”, which we have learned is a part of postmodernism. The fragmentation of the film, I think, reflects Derrida’s philosophy and the ideas of postmodernity overall. We’ve read in A History of Anthropological Theory that postmodernism involves the complete reworking of the idea that there can be a single authoritative theory or knowledge. Postmodernism, in fact, breaks down and critiques the ideas of popular theorists like Levi-Strauss. In a way, Derrida broke apart the previous ways of thinking which were simpler and unified into separate and more subjective parts. Taking this into consideration, I think the film’s disjointed format makes a lot more sense and is easier to grasp with his philosophies in mind; just like Derrida’s philosophy is a deconstruction of the ideas before him, this film is a deconstruction of a typical documentary.
ReplyDeleteAnother one of your points is that of artificiality. You mention that Derrida notes that everything in our world is artificial, and that we cannot know the truth because of it. In my opinion, the film did not imply that Derrida thought everything was artificial, but rather that artificiality is inherent in the usage of video and archival devices. I think his concern was that film creates something that is not natural, and that every interview and situation that is caught on camera is, essentially, contrived. He even stated this before one of the film’s interviews, where he notes the reflector and all the unnatural film objects that are atypical from real life.
I think this notion of having an unnatural encounter when faced with video and recording devices does not mean that one cannot ever reach substantial conclusions, as you propose. I think it means that when watching a video or something or listening to a recording, one must realize the artificial nature of the encounter, and take that into account when judging it and thinking critically about its content. To illustrate this, Derrida mentions that the film belongs more to the documentary director that it does to himself, noting that he has no control over what the product will be. In fact, the director will make the movie she wishes to make, regardless of his input. Ultimately, the film is just as much about Derrida as it is about the director, which is sometimes forgotten if you do not take into account the film process and its artificiality.
I also agree with your point about Derrida being rather nihilistic. However, I do not think we should discount them just because they are more pessimistic. The goal of postmodernism is to develop new knowledge and insight, and to pursue more penetrating ideas about culture. These ideas are not always positive, but they do seek to explore new approaches and further learning. Take Derrida’s philosophy about love mentioned in the film: He gives the question of if one loves a person because of who they fundamentally are, or if one loves the qualities about a person. This question can definitely be seen as pessimistic, because I’m sure people would all like to believe they love someone based on who they are as a person. Yet, the question gives a deeper distinction about the division between “the who” and “the what”, and provides a stepping point for ideas that perhaps have not been considered previously.
Ultimately, I think that although Derrida’s philosophy, as you said, can be pessimistic, it has value because it also provides thinking points and ways to analyze our world further. I think that Derrida would encourage learning and understanding, and would think that his ideas could provide a stepping point from which you can think and form your own ideas.
Great job of tackling Derrida! I hope some of your classmates read this.
ReplyDelete