Tropiques), and Philosophy (Rousseau's Essay On The Origin of Languages)
Tropiques), and Philosophy (Rousseau's Essay On The Origin of Languages)
Sudhamshu Narayan
ENG-402
Literary Criticism
The year 1967 was a fruitful year for the Algerian-French philosopher Jacques Derrida, who
produced three books, Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference, Speech and Phenomena
successively in which he outlined his philosophy of “deconstruction”. In his monumental
work Of Grammatology, which is divided into two parts “Writing before the Letter” and
“Nature, Culture, Writing “of which the former half describes traditional conceptions on the
birth of writing, writing as being subservient to speech and how these conceptions dominate
popular and academic speculations on writing and speech itself. The latter instrumentalizes
his elucidatory style to deconstruct several texts ranging from wide disciplines such as
linguistics (Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics), anthropology (Lévi-Strauss’s Tristes
Tropiques), and philosophy (Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Languages).
Derrida arrives at this junction in his philosophical career through his radical preference for
writing which in itself is an assault on the philosophical tradition of privileging speech
(logos) over writing. Against this “Logocentrism”(JD 49), Derrida suggests a new science of
writing, which he calls Grammatology. Derrida’s philosophy hence is a novel uncovering of
the binary logistics on which European philosophical argumentation relies on, the”
oppositional nature of existence”(SEP), in which one binary is favoured more than the other.
In philosophy the act of writing which is considered a manifestation of speech leads
philosophers to conceive speech as being a pure representative of meaning, value and truth.
Nevertheless for Rousseau, if writing is substituted for speech, it may corrupt the “pure
language” of speech and negate all meaning intended by it. This is when the “supplement” of
writing becomes a “danger” to the ideal, Platonic function of speech.
This “logic of supplementarity” (RB 23) as Derrida observes within Rousseau’s essay, be it
“culture against nature” or “writing against speech” is contradictory as Rousseau’s distrust of
writing is dispute by his own vocation as a writer, as an individual who attains clarity through
writing, who relies on the “absence” of writing. This inclination of Rousseau to
simultaneously decry and laud writing is indicative of his resentment of the “lost presence of
speech”, of the absence of speech that he knows only the “dangerous supplement” can fill. Be
it writing and speech, fantasy and sexual experience or unnatural and noble, the latter always
falters and must be supplemented by the former, much to the disappointment of the Western
subject who realizes the inconsistencies of his own dualist thinking.
Sudhamshu3
Works Cited:
Angelfire, www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/derrida.html.
Prasad, Jayant. “Category: Derrida and Rousseau.” Derrida The Father of Deconstruction,
newderrida.wordpress.com/category/derrida-and-rousseau/.