Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead

Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead

By Mohammad Gill

The Algerian born French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, died of pancreatic cancer on Friday, October 8, 2004. He was 74 at the time of his death.

Derrida was the world famous philosopher, according to some, the most famous philosopher who was known for his theory of deconstruction. Human languages, both spoken and written, are imprecise and many a time fail to convey the meaning accurately which the communicator intends to transmit. So there is need for analysis of the language for accurate comprehension. The motive for such an analysis is not very difficult to comprehend but the theory of deconstruction itself is quite involved. So much so, even the founder himself failed to provide an accurate definition of deconstruction. Some of his own writings are in need of deconstructive analysis in order for them to be meaningful.

Jonathan Kandell who published Derrida’s obituary in The New York Times (October 10, 2004), averred, “Mr. Derrida and his followers were unwilling – some say unable – to define deconstruction with any precision, so it has remained misunderstood, or interpreted in endlessly contradictory ways. Typical of the Derrida’s murky explanations of his philosophy was a 1993 paper he presented at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, in New York, which began: Needless to say, one more time, deconstruction, if there is such a thing, takes place as the experience of the impossible.”

When a questioner asked Derrida to define deconstruction, he curtly responded, “Make it your last question because it sends deconstruction into paroxysm of rage.” Yet the theory of deconstruction was the rage of the 1960’s and 1970’s. That was the time when postmodernism had caught fire and captivated the imagination of the popular philosophers of science like Tom Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

In spite of the failure or inability of the founder of the theory of deconstruction to give any meaningful definition, others tried to fill the gap. Some such definitions are spread on several pages. One attempt to clarify the intent of the theory, if not actually provide a definition, is by Jean Michel Rabate. According to this explanation,” Deconstruction is not destructive, not having the purpose of dissolving, distracting or subtracting elements in order to reveal an internal essence. It asks questions about the essence, about the presence, indeed about this interior/exterior, phenomenon/appearance schema,” (http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_th eory/jacques_derrida.html).

Deconstruction attracted all kinds of intellectuals and disciplines like existentialism, another hot button philosophy from France in the twentieth century. Some of the criticism, which was aimed at the physical science, drew strong response from the physicists and scientists who were under attack from the postmodernists also. They responded with Sokal’s hoax (see book review of ‘Fashionable Nonsense,’ by Mohammad Gill at chowk.com, June 3, 2003) and searing criticism of postmodernists and deconstructionists, see for instance, “Fashionable Nonsense” by Alan Sokal and “Facing Up” by Stephen Weinberg. Weinberg thought Derrida and other postmodernists deliberately indulged in obscure and unfamiliar language, which with many became a hallmark of profundity.

Much of this adverse criticism was aimed at the author of deconstruction not the theory itself. Derrida will be remembered for his contributions to deconstruction. Although not many disagree with the essence of the theory, it however remains to be seen if Derrida and his theory have left any permanent imprint on human thought.

Professor Derrida taught from 1960-64 at the Sorbonne and from 1964-84 at the Ecole Normale Superieure. He also was a professor of Philosophy, French, and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Irvine. He was popular both in the U.S. where he had a large following, and Europe.