currie, mark - difference

8/12/2019 Currie, Mark - Difference

1/55

DIFFERENCE

Mark Currie

LONDON AND NEW YORK

-iii-

Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com

Publication Information: Book Title: Difference. Contributors: Mark Currie - author.Publisher: outled!e. Place of Publication: "e# $ork. Publication $ear: %&&'. Pa!e"umber: iii.

(irst )ublished %&&'b* outled!e

++ "e# (etter ane, ondon C'P '

imultaneousl* )ublished in the /A and Canadab* outled!e%0 1est 23th treet, "e# $ork, "$ +&&&+

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

4 %&&' Mark Currie

T*)eset in Adobe 5aramond and cala ansb* 6e*stroke, 7acaranda od!e, 1ol8erham)ton

Printed and bound in 5reat Britainb* T7 International td, Padsto#, Corn#all

All ri!hts reser8ed. "o )art of this book ma* be re)rinted orre)roduced or utilised in an* form or b* an* electronic,mechanical, or other means, no# kno#n or hereafter in8ented,includin! )hotoco)*in! and recordin!, or in an* informationstora!e or retrie8al s*stem, #ithout )ermission in #ritin!from the )ublishers.

British Library Cataloguing in ublication !ataA catalo!ue record for this book is a8ailable from the British ibrar*

Library of Congress Cataloging in ublication !ata

Currie, Mark, +09%-Difference Mark Currie.). cm.;


2/55

The conce)t of difference is unusual amon! critical terms. 1hile others come and !o, difference has )ersisted.1hile others are confined to some )articular critical )ers)ecti8e or a))roach, difference has found a))lications inalmost e8er* branch of literar* studies, and )erha)s more si!nificantl*, be*ond the domain of literar* studies. nee>)lanation for this unusual sco)e mi!ht be that the term encom)asses some 8er* familiar, easil* a8ailablemeanin!s. 1hat could be more strai!htfor#ard than the idea of difference It is the o))osite of sameness.

Perha)s the t#o most con8enient and common)lace #a*s of e>)lainin! the meanin! of a #ord are to relate it toother #ords meanin! the same thin! )lainin! itsmeanin!, but #e ha8e also introduced the #a* that the #ord EdifferenceE mi!ht act as a )rinci)le for e>)lainin! ho##ords !et their meanin!s in !eneral. I ha8e e>)lained

-+-

EdifferenceE throu!h the conce)t of difference, in that I )ointed to the difference bet#een it and another #ord. r Idefined it ne!ati8el*, in relation to its o))osite, as if the meanin! of its o))osite #ere !i8en in nature and could actas a foundation for an* other #ord that related to it. In fact if I tried to e>)lain the meanin! of EsamenessE, I #ouldfind it 8er* difficult to do it #ithout reference to the conce)t of difference, so that its solidit* as a foundation is

com)romised and m* definition becomes rather circular. M* definition of difference has no#here to rest, and I findm*self reboundin! bet#een one #ord and the other indefinitel*.

This su!!ests that the meanin! of #ords inheres in their relations #ith each other, that #ords ha8e no foundations,and meanin!s are not self-contained. This idea, that the meanin! of #ords is )roduced b* their relationshi)s #itheach other, or their differences, and that there are no foundations, is often referred to as a ErelationalE account ofmeanin!.

The relational 8ie# of meanin! is clearer if the #ords EsamenessE and EdifferenceE are left out of it for the moment,since in the discussion so far, the* are both the obects and the method of the anal*sis. If I had started from the#ords Eni!htE and Eda*E, this #ould not ha8e arisen, because the )roblem that I am describin! in the desi!nation ofmeanin! #ould not ha8e contaminated the 8er* #ords that I am usin! for the descri)tion. In another sense, the#ords ni!ht and da* mi!ht ha8e been easier because the* are less abstract. It could be ar!ued that ni!ht and da*are!i8en in nature. Their meanin!s seem less de)endent on each other, and more bound u) #ith their abilit* torefer to somethin! outside of lan!ua!e. 1hat #e ha8e here is a dichotom* and a com)lication. The dichotom* is

bet#een a relational and a referential 8ie# of lin!uistic meanin!. The com)lication is that #e canEt !et outside oflan!ua!e to describe ho# it #orks, because #e still ha8e to use #ords to describe the #a* that #ords #ork.

The )hiloso)hical, cultural and )olitical sco)e of this set of ar!uments ma* not be a))arent immediatel*, butcomes into focus #hen the #ord sameness is substituted b* the #ord Eidentit*E. As s*non*ms, EsamenessE andEidentit*E are both anton*ms of EdifferenceE. This translation hel)s to e>)lain the broad and interdisci)linar* careerof the term EdifferenceE #hich, in literar* studies at least, be!an life as an obscure and technical term in structurallin!uistics. The o))osition of identit* and difference is sli!htl* more com)le> because identit* is s*non*mous #ithboth sameness

-%-

and difference: the dictionar* defines identit* as both Eabsolute samenessE and Eindi8idualit*E or E)ersonalit*E. Thesli))a!e here deri8es from an ambi!uit* about the )oints of com)arison and antithesis that are in o)eration.EIdentit*E can clearl* mean the )ro)ert* of absolute sameness bet#een se)arate entities, but it can also mean theuniFue characteristics determinin! the )ersonalit* and difference of a sin!le entit*. In itself this )oints to a 8ie#that is also reached throu!h a lab*rinth of lin!uistic and cultural theor*: that the identit* of thin!s, )eo)le, )laces,!rou)s, nations and cultures is constituted b* the lo!ics of both sameness and difference.

There are t#o #a*s of makin! sense of this co-de)endence. The first is to )oint out that the sameness of oneidentit* !rou) is often constructed throu!h a sense of difference from another, so that some common denominatoris )osited amon! cots throu!h the sense of o))osition #ith the n!lish, or amon! #omen throu!h difference frommen. The second is that e8en if ternal difference, there is alsointernal difference. This is ob8iousl* true of the lar!est unities such as nations: that #e mi!ht momentaril* )ositsome common denominator amon! 5reeks, but at another le8el the unit* is com)rised of indi8iduals #ho all differfrom each other. But it is also true at the le8el of the indi8idual. If I think of m* o#n identit*, I do not encounter astrai!htfor#ard, indi8isible sin!ularit*, but a )lethora of )laces, times, roles, functions, interests, o)inions and)h*sical characteristics. I am a Emultifarious )olit* of deniGensE, as obert ouis te8enson describes themulti)licitous nature of a human bein! in !r "e#yll and $r %yde, to the )oint #here the #ords EmeE and EIE seem tobe under considerable strain. If I am uniFue, it is not because I am sin!ular and indi8isible. If an*thin! it #ould bethe o))osite, that I am differentiated internall* and in relation to others in man* different #a*s. Personal identit*,like #ords, a))ears to ha8e an undeniable relational com)onent, and as #ith the relational account of lan!ua!e,


3/55

the relational account of )ersonal identit* comes #ith the com)lication that one cannot reall* stand outside it inorder to consider #hat it is.

These sorts of ar!uments indicate the imbrication, or the inse)arabilit*, of #ords #ith issues of identit* anddifference. It is ar!uable that e8er* noun is marked b* this kind of dialectic of identit* and difference, and thate8er* )olitical or )hiloso)hical debate to some e>tent turns on the #a*s that this dialectic o)erates. A nouneffecti8el* does t#o thin!s

-2-

e8er* time it is used. It asserts a difference at the same time as it denies a uni8erse of differences. If I sa* Edo!E, Iassert a difference because I )osit a common denominator bet#een do!s that distin!uishes them from cats but Ialso do a terrible inustice to the rich di8ersit* of do!s, effacin! the irreducible indi8idualit* of each member of theset. In this sense e8er* noun is a cate!or*, or a !eneralisation, a )otential collecti8e identit* and a )otentialstereot*)e. Most nouns in8ol8e this double )rocess of samin! and differentiatin!, of )ositin! a common essencebet#een members of the set and at the same time markin! the differences that !i8e the set its identit*.

The stakes of this double )rocess are clearl* not confined to )hiloso)h*. If the double lo!ic of samin! anddifferentiatin! is inherent in most nouns, it clearl* has to be at #ork e8er*#here, e8er* time #e name an entit* oran identit*. The im)ortance of this can be stated in t#o ste)s. The first is to )oint out that namin! has theimmense )o#er of bein! a )rocess that #e take com)letel* for !ranted. 1e use nouns automaticall*, re)eatedl*,habituall*, #ithout reflectin! on the differences the* establish and re)eat. "ouns become an inde> of entities that

#e take for !ranted, in the sense that #e reassert their e>istence, their common denominators and their )oints ofdifference. The more automaticall*, habituall* and un)roblematicall* nouns are used the more entrenchedbecomes the frame#ork of differences the* im)ose on the #orld.

The second ste), then, is to ask the Fuestion of #hat it is that #e are automaticall* subscribin! to #hen #e usenouns and names, and #hat can be done about it. ne #a* of understandin! the im)ortance of the critical conce)tof difference is to see it as a #a* of reflectin! on the tenacit* of certain )roblems in the #orld. And the basis of thistenacit* is sim)l* that the #ords #e use to name the thin!s in the #orld are often mistakenl* assumed to be)assi8e reflectors )ro8idin! an inde> of the entities that e>ist in the #orld, or a list of differences discerniblebet#een thin!s. It could be ar!ued, for e>am)le, that the difference bet#een men and #omen is taken com)letel*for !ranted as an as)ect of the #orld because it is so dee)l* embedded in the lan!ua!e s*stem. Paul de Man)lore this definition at se8eral )oints in later cha)ters: that is, the 8ie# thatto acce)t #ords automaticall*, to take them for !ranted, or to consider differences

-'-

to be )ro)erties of nature is to subscribe to somethin! that mi!ht loosel* be called ideology. Ideolo!ical critiFueoften finds its startin! )oint in the o))osite 8ie#, namel* that #ords )roect a s*stem of differences on to the#orld: that differences are not )ro)erties of the obecti8e #orld bein! described as much as the* are )ro)erties ofthe lan!ua!e describin! the #orld. /sin! lan!ua!e, then, is not a )assi8e )rocess of describin! the #orld but anacti8e )rocess of construction, or structuration, e8en #hen #e belie8e other#ise. an!ua!e makes us think ofconstructed thin!s as if the* #ere natural, and this is #h* lin!uistic differences are ideolo!ical, but if so, ideolo!*sim)l* becomes another condition to add to the list of conditions that #e cannot !et outside of.

FRO P!ILO"OP!Y TO LIN#UI"TIC"

The conce)t of difference, then, is a central )art of one of the fundamental )roblems in )hiloso)h*, and its full!enealo!* reall* lies in the emer!ence of the )roblem of identit* in )hiloso)h* o8er se8eral centuries. And *et thisis not the im)ression that one #ould recei8e if oneEs readin! #ere confined to the realm of An!lo-American literar*criticism and theor*, es)eciall* that bet#een +093 and +0?3. This #as a )eriod in #hich much of the intellectualener!* in criticism and theor* #as bein! dra#n from the disco8er* of structuralist models of anal*sis, models that#ere formulated mostl* in (rance, but that #ere #idel* and insistentl* re)resented to an An!lo-American criticalcommunit* in the +0@&s and +0?&s. The im)ression !i8en b* these mediations of structuralism is that the termEdifferenceE ori!inates in the #ork of (erdinand de aussure, a #iss Professor of in!uistics at the /ni8ersit* of5ene8a #hose lectures #ere collected to!ether and )ublished )osthumousl* as Course in General Linguistics. It isnot m* intention here to den* the im)ortance of aussureEs lin!uistics, nor the fact that he !a8e to the conce)t ofdifference a )articular )hiloso)hical 8alence icon. aussureEs course of lectures #as deli8ered bet#een +0&9 and +0++, not )ublished in(rench until +0+3, and not translated into n!lish until +030. 8en then, it took some time for aussureEs name tofind its #a* into critical and theoretical discussion in the An!lo-American

-3-


4/55

#orld. (rom about +0@& it ha))ened like an a8alanche, #ith aussureEs lin!uistics and the structuralist methods itins)ired bein! mediated to the n!lish-s)eakin! #orld throu!h #orks such as (redric 7amesonEs The rison %ouseof Languagetended discussion in the essa* EDifferanceE, and be*ondthat reall* onl* short references and allusions to the aussurean account of difference. imilarl*, in DeleuGeEsmaor #ork, !ifference and Repetition, there is one brief reference to aussure, and onl* occasional !estureselse#here, usuall* #ith the intent of distancin! himself from the field of lin!uistics in !eneral. e8eralcommentators on DeleuGe, such as 7ean-7acFues ecercle and Brian Massumi, ha8e been at )ains to )oint out thatDeleuGeEs a))roach to lan!ua!e is more closel* deri8ed from the toic )hiloso)hers than from aussure. M* )ointhere is that difference is often misre)resented either as an entirel* structuralist issue, or more s)ecificall*, as aaussurean in8ention. But to re)resent difference in this #a* is to i!nore the much broader conte>t, and lon!erhistor*, from #hich it deri8es its unusuall* com)le> meanin!s and uses. There is e>tended discussion of DerridaEsrelationshi) #ith aussure in cha)ters % and 2 belo#, but it is #orth sa*in! at the outset that DerridaEs a))roach toaussure is to 8ie# his conce)t of difference as merel* one e>am)le of an entire herita!e of #estern meta)h*sics,a conce)t rather uncriticall* inherited from )hiloso)h* alon! #ith a lot of unreco!nised )resu))ositions andassum)tions. The kind of ori!inar* im)ortance that the "e# Accents series sometimes ascribed to aussure is infact a )rime tar!et for #hat came to be kno#n as deconstruction, and this #ill be discussed at some len!th incha)ter % in relation to DerridaEs neolo!ism differance.

I sa* all this as a kind of caution a!ainst a rather limited historical scheme #hich sees difference as a structuralistin8ention subseFuentl*

-@-

modified b* )oststructuralist inter8entions. An*one #ho subscribes to this 8ie# #ill stru!!le to make sense ofman* )oststructuralist #ritin!s on difference, #here the coordinates are mainl* )re-aussurean. In other #ords, ifit once seemed that )oststructuralism had !ro#n out of structuralism, or that the )oststructuralist a))roach to)hiloso)h* rested on lin!uistic )remises - )ro)ositions about the nature of lan!ua!e and the basis of lin!uisticmeanin! - it no# looks as if the su))osed ori!ins of difference in aussureEs Course#ere in fact not ori!ins at all,and that #hat is often su))osed to ha8e come later


5/55

There is a tendenc* in )oststructuralist #ritin!, e>em)lifed in su))lementarit*, to#ards counter-intuiti8e lo!icalcom)le>it* of this kind, sometimes accom)anied b* o)aFue le8els of abstraction and an o8eruse of terminolo!*that occasionall* descends into hollo# 8erbia!e. The em)hasis )laced on aussure in the "e# Accents series #asone #a* of ensurin! that it did not descend into this o)aFue theoretical lan!ua!e. The fact is that aussureEsCourseis one of the clearest statements an*#here of a relational account of identit*, and not onl* that, but of the)roblem that I described earlier as the imbrication of lan!ua!e in Fuestions of identit*. It is not then thataussureEs conce)t of difference is the source of all relational identit* thinkin!, but that it is a #onderfull* clearaccount of #hat relational identit* means. There are t#o broad characteristics of t#entieth-centur* )hiloso)h* thataussure enca)sulates, the first bein! the 8ie# that )hiloso)h* under!oes a shift from an attention to thin!s in

themsel8es to an attention to the relationshi) bet#een thin!s, and the second bein! the 8ie# that )hiloso)hical)roblems in the t#entieth centur* are in8ariabl* )roblems about lan!ua!e. A succinct e>)ression of both of these)hiloso)hical tendencies can be found in aussureEs )ro)osition, that Ein lan!ua!e there are onl* differences, andno )ositi8e termsE t cha)ter. (or no#, I #ould like to obser8e that it is #ithout doubt the mostcited )ro)osition in aussureEs #ork. It is this )ro)osition that is usuall* laid do#n as the foundation stone forthose accounts of difference that use aussure as an ori!in. A readin! of aussure often )roduces a sur)risedreaction to the Fuite technical use he makes of the #ord EdifferenceE, his )reference for the #ord E8alueE as anaccount of the #a* in #hich meanin! is !enerated b* difference. ne of aussureEs basic mo8es is to 8ie# the

lin!uistic si!n


6/55

The fact of the matter is that the Ereal #orldE is to a lar!e e>tent built u) on the lan!ua!e habitsof the !rou). "o t#o lan!ua!es are e8er sufficientl* similar to be considered as re)resentin! thesame social realit*. The #orlds in #hich different societies li8e are distinct #orlds, not merel* thesame #orld #ith different labels attached.


7/55

It can also be ar!ued that identit* in !eneral, )erha)s the identit* of a )erson, or that of a social !rou), are alsosubect to these )rinci)les. A theor* of subecti8it*, or )ersonhood, for e>am)le, mi!ht locate identit* not in thebod* of the indi8idual but in the relations bet#een that )erson and others. In other #ords a )erson mi!ht not bedefined b* inherent characteristics, but like aussureEs train or chess )iece, be understood as an identit* onl*because of the relationshi)s that )erson has #ith other )eo)le, in a s*stem of famil*, friendshi) and socialrelations. This #ould be referred to as a relational 8ie# of )ersonal identit*. The same mi!ht be said of collecti8eidentities. It mi!ht be ar!ued, for e>am)le, that a national identit* is not one that is made u) of inherent Fualitiesam)le, has ar!ued 8er* )ersuasi8el* that Etra8ellersE definethemsel8es as a !rou) onl* in relation to, or more e>actl* in o))osition to, EtouristsE, and that the sense ofdifference from tourists is a much more im)ortant factor in the identit* of a tra8eller than an* inherentcharacteristics that the !rou) mi!ht )ossess am)les of the train and the chess )iece. (or thisreason there is somethin! Fuite )arado>ical about the term EdifferenceE because it can on one hand desi!nateindi8idualit* and )articularit*, and on the other, desi!nate the )rinci)le of relational identit* that denies that)articularit*. 1hat #e are encounterin! here is another 8ersion of the )arado>, encountered at the start of thisdiscussion, that identit* contains t#o a))arentl* o))osite meanin!s, namel* sameness and difference.

It is Fuite common to find the conce)t of difference described in critical and theoretical commentar* as a kind ofcelebration of di8ersit*, of indi8idualit* and )articularit*, and *et it is clear that the o))osite is also true: thatEdifferenceE, is a critical conce)t that looks for the s*stematic t for identit*. There is #hat I #ould see as a kind of abuse of the term difference #hich

-+2-

in8okes it in defence of freedom and indi8idualit*, and a s*stem of 8alues associated #ith liberal )luralism andtolerance. And *et, in the rece)tion histor* of the conce)t, there is also a consistent o))osition to the term and thekind of anal*sis it im)lies on the basis that the structuralist conce)t of difference actuall* abstracts the entities itanal*ses to the e>tent that the* are em)tied of all )articularit* and indi8idualit*. This is a char!e that #as le8elleda!ainst literar* structuralism throu!hout the )eriod of its influence in the t#entieth centur*: that the rich di8ersit*of literar* te>ts #ere reduced b* structuralism to an arid set of differences, of relationshi)s, and to an abstractle8el at #hich some s*stemic common denominator could be )ercei8ed. This accusation #ill be considered morefull* in cha)ter +.

imilarl*, the conce)t of difference as it is ada)ted to anthro)olo!ical anal*sis finds itself char!ed #ith aneradication of difference for the same reason: that it does not consider thin!s in themsel8es, but rather therelations bet#een thin!s. Claude H8i-trauss, an anthro)olo!ist born in +0&?, is one #ho ada)ts the aussureanmodel of lan!ua!e to the anal*sis of social relations in such a #a* that the anal*sis *ields structural homolo!iesacross cultural difference. If #e #ish to celebrate the indi8idualit* and )articularit* of thin!s in the social #orld, #emi!ht sa*, for e>am)le, that no t#o families are the same, on the !rounds that the* are com)rised of uniFueindi8iduals in uniFue combinations. But if #e look at H8i-traussEs #ork on the subect of the famil*, #e find himtalkin! of the famil* as the unit of #inship, in #hich a set of relationsbet#een famil* members forms a globalsystem, a structure of correlati'e oppositionsheld in )lace b* the uni'ersal presence of incest taboo. 8er*oneEsfa8ourite uncle, in H8i-trauss, is abstracted into the a'unculate, #hich is a characteristic trait of an elementar*structure of more com)le> s*stems of socialit*. o incon!ruous is the relation bet#een structuralist anal*sis andthe obect of stud* sometimes that it can be hard not to see it as an absurdist )arod* of social science, and *et it#as e>actl* this kind of scientific !ra8it* that the aussurean model im)orted into literar* studies in the mid-t#entieth centur*. And this is not an em)hasis that is al#a*s understood in relation to the term difference: that#hate8er it #as to become later, the term EdifferenceE started its life in literar* criticism in the most austere ofscientific conte>ts, less as a celebration of difference than as the a!ent of a )re)osterous eFui8alence bet#eenthin!s.

-+'-

A!ainst the back!round of this !lobal scientific )roect, the )oststructuralist inter8ention in the career of the termEdifferenceE is eas* to characterise. There #as a feelin!, in the #ork of man* thinkers after +093, that thehomo!enisin! forces of the structural lin!uistic model should be resisted. Difference had become a machine forcontainin! difference, for reducin! it to similarit* or )acka!in! it neatl* in the closure of the binar* o))osition. Incha)ter 2 belo#, I #ill be anal*sin! the critiFue of the structuralist model of difference in relation to DerridaEsneolo!ism differance. (or no#, I #ould merel* )oint to the most basic characteristics of this critiFue, one of #hichis identifiable in the )hrase irreducible difference. If structuralist anal*sis tended to look for an abstract le8el ofeFui8alence bet#een dis)arate )henomena


8/55

This ar!ument can be made as follo#s. The assum)tion of much structuralist anal*sis is that structure is anobecti8e )ro)ert* of the obect bein! anal*sed, namel* the s*stem of differences makin! meanin! )ossible. Butfor man* )oststructuralists, this em)hasis on obecti8e structural )ro)erties is a mistake, so that structuralhomolo!ies bet#een one te>t and another, or one famil* and another are not to be understood as someho# !i8enin nature. The* are, rather, similarities and eFui8alences actuall* )roduced b* the model of anal*sis, in the sensethat the structuralist sim)l* asks the same Fuestions about dis)arate obects, and in so doin!, actuall* !eneratesthe same ans#ers. If, for e>am)le, *ou ask a Fuestion about the chemistr* of a tree, *ou !et a chemical ans#er,and similarl*, if *ou ask a structural Fuestion about a literar* te>t, *ou )roduce a structural ans#er: the obect isnot sim)l* !i8en in nature, but re)resents the result of an anal*tical inter)retation that is determined b* the nature

of the Fuestion addressed b* the anal*sis. In other #ords, the structuralist is not so much disco8erin! some)re8iousl* hidden similarit* bet#een

-+3-

thin!s. The structuralist is in8entin! that similarit*, !eneratin! it #ith the model of anal*sis, or acti8el* samingthin!s that are in themsel8es neither similar nor different.

This relationshi) bet#een the method of anal*sis and the thin! anal*sed is sometimes kno#n as the deducti8emodel of theor*, #hereb* the model itself comes first and subseFuentl* )roects its o#n structures andassum)tions on to the thin! it claims to be anal*sin! obecti8el*. Accordin! to this model, the anal*sis )roducesthe obect. ne of the characteristic strate!ies of a )oststructuralist anal*sis is that it #ill do the o))osite, that is,take an indi8idual literar* te>t and use it to destro* the model of anal*sis throu!h a demonstration that the te>titself #ill al#a*s e>ceed, or fail to be contained b*, the anal*tical model seekin! to reduce it. r, to )ut it another

#a*, the irreducible difference of a te>t can al#a*s be used to resist the homo!enisin! forces of s*stematicanal*sis, #hich seek to establish homolo!* across difference. In such a demonstration, the idea of irreducibledifference #orks accordin! to an inducti8e relationshi) bet#een theor* and te>t in the sense that theoreticalkno#led!e is e>tracted from an indi8idual te>t, and not )roected on to it b* the method of anal*sis.

Poststructuralism deri8es Fuite a lot of its ener!* from e>actl* this kind of disru)tion of, and resistance to, thescientific )retensions of structuralism. A much fa8oured )oststructuralist )lo*, for e>am)le, is to mock thestructuralist 8ie# of the binar* o))osition as the basic unit of difference. If difference, after all, is confined too))osition #e are dealin! onl* #ith #hat DeleuGe calls the ma>imum of difference, and ne!lectin! the man* minorcalibrations and nuances of the middle !round. DeleuGe is one of man* )oststructuralists #hose #ork can be seenas a kind of o))osition to o))osition, or an attem)t to liberate thinkin! from the strictures of o))osition and o)en itto multi)licit*. The o))osition and its closest relati8es )ose the o))osition as a )o#er relation, in #hich one term dominates the other, and the deconstructi8e strate!*in relation to such o))ositions, #hich entails the re8ersal of that hierarch*. These a))roaches to, and modificationsof, the conce)t of difference are e>amined in detail in the follo#in! cha)ters.

-+9-

It is no doubt a))arent that this 8ocabular* of difference, e8en #hen it emer!es from a formal lin!uistic s*stem, isladen #ith social and )olitical si!nificance. It is undoubtedl* this social resonance that has ensured the )ersistenceof difference as a critical term be*ond its )hiloso)hical and lin!uistic )ro8enance. o far, #e ha8e touched onse8eral areas in #hich the lin!uistic conce)t of difference could be said to furnish some kind of social theor*.

theories than the o))osition.


9/55

)lores the #a*s in #hich conce)ts of difference !uidedde8elo)ments in ne# historicist criticism from the +0@&s to the +00&s, and )articularl* the #a* that histor* hasbeen re#ritten, literar* canons re8ised, literar* te>ts reinter)reted and re8alued to accommodate culturaldifferences. Cha)ter 3 is concerned #ith conce)ts associated #ith difference, such as Ealterit*E and EothernessE asthe* ha8e influenced feminist and other )oliticall* orientated critical a))roaches. It describes a sociolo!ical conte>tfor difference in a E!lobalisin!E #orld in #hich cultural differences become more 8isible a!ainst the threat ofEstandardisationE and looks at the #a* that 8arious )hiloso)hers and cultural theorists ha8e linked culturaldifferences #ith the contem)orar* condition of the #orld kno#n as E)ostmodernit*E. (inall*, cha)ter 9 raises someFuestions about #hat has been lost as a result of the )rominence of difference as a critical and cultural)ers)ecti8e. It ar!ues that the conce)t of difference has !i8en recent literar* criticism a )articularist character, in

the sense that it is more concerned #ith )articular details than theories and cate!ories, and )oints to some sourcesof theor* that mi!ht allo# for the return of a kind of uni8ersalism in criticism. It is therefore a consideration of the)ossibilit* that, after the recent histor* described throu!hout the book, the career of difference as a critical conce)tmi!ht be comin! to some kind of an end.

-+0-

$DIFFERENCE AND REFERENCE

1hat e>actl* did aussure mean #hen he said that Ein lan!ua!e there are onl* differences, and no )ositi8e termsEtreme or o8er-hast* inter)retation, but it does re)resent a #idel* held 8ie# ofthe si!nificance of difference: that it )laces in Fuestion the #hole idea that lan!ua!e can refer to realit*. A moreconsidered conclusion mi!ht be that lan!ua!e does not sim)l* and un)roblematicall* refer to realit*, that referenceis not the onl* #a* to think about lan!ua!e, nor is it reall* se)arable from Fuestions about the formal s*stems of


10/55

lan!ua!e. It is the aim of this cha)ter to sho# that difference can be thou!ht of as a !eneral term for the 8arioust*)es of relations bet#een #ords in8ol8ed in the )roduction of meanin!, but also that these t*)es of relations cana))l* eFuall* to literar* te>ts. This cha)ter is therefore a descri)tion of the #a* that ideas about difference notonl* )lace in Fuestion the idea that indi8idual #ords mi!ht refer, but also the idea that seFuences of #ords, suchas sentences, or no8els, or te>ts in !eneral, mi!ht eFuall* be seen as elaborate s*stems of differences andrelations and therefore not sim)l* as re)resentations of realit*.

-%+-

PARADI#ATIC AND "YNTA#ATIC RELATION"

A useful startin! )oint here is that there are t#o maor cate!ories into #hich differences, or relations bet#een#ords, can be di8ided. The first cate!or* is relations in praesentia, or relations bet#een an* #ord and the other#ords #ith #hich it combines in a seFuence. The second cate!or* is relations in absentia, or relations bet#een#ords that are )resent and those that are absent from a !i8en utterance. in!uistic meanin! is ob8iousl* dee)l*bound u) #ith both of these cate!ories of relations. To !enerate a meanin!ful sentence, for e>am)le, one has tobe able to do t#o thin!s simultaneousl*: to combine #ords #ith each other in a chain, and to select the ri!ht #ordsfrom all the a8ailable )ossibilities for each )osition in the sentence. The factors that !o8ern these t#o )rinci)les, ofcombination and selection, are e>tremel* com)le>. The meanin!ful combination of #ords in a seFuence, fore>am)le, #ill in8ol8e a kind of !rammatical com)etence, or kno#led!e of the rules and )ractices that !o8ern theorder in #hich elements of a seFuence are arran!edK but other factors #ill be in )la*, such as the lo!ical linearit*of the seFuence, or the need for em)hasis or ele!ance to ma>imise the effect of the seFuence. imilarl*, the

)rinci)le of selection entails an e>tremel* com)le>, assimilated kno#led!e of the lan!ua!e s*stem as a #hole, anabilit* not onl* to select the ri!ht kind of #ord for each )osition, but to understand its relations of similarit* anddifference, s*non*mit* and anton*mit*, #ith the other a8ailable )ossibilities. f course, this all ha))ensautomaticall*, and need not be calculated each time from first )rinci)les, but it is )artl* the automatic anduncalculated abilit* to do somethin! so com)le> that is the interest for lin!uists, )hiloso)hers and critics. 1hen #etie a shoelace, #e hardl* notice the astoundin! com)le>it* of the knot or the incredible de>terit* reFuired to tie it,and that )ales in com)arison to the creation of a com)le> sentence. In both cases, the fascination of the )rocess isonl* accessible #hen it is de-automated, or defamiliarised, so that its nature can be !ras)ed ane#. At its best, thisis #hat the structuralist anal*sis of these t*)es of relations achie8es.

The cate!ories of combination and selection are in effect #a*s of defamiliarisin! the automatic and unobser8ed)rocesses in8ol8ed in the )roduction of meanin!. In ET#o as)ects of lan!ua!e and t#o t*)es of a)hasicdisturbancesE, oman 7akobson tra)olates that the )roduction of meanin! takes )lace on t#o a>es: the a>isof selection and the a>is of combination. These t#o a>es, #hich are essentiall* the ones described b* aussure inthe Course, formed the basis of a #idel* de)lo*ed s*stem for the anal*sis of lin!uistic relations. (or 7akobson andman* #ho follo#ed him, the t#o cate!ories of relations bet#een #ords #ere named as syntagmaticrelations,#hich )ertained to the a>is of combination, andparadigmaticrelations, #hich )ertained to the a>is of selection. I#ill return to the im)ortance of this s*stem for the conce)t of difference shortl*. (or the moment it is #orth)ointin! out that this hi!hl* ordered a))roach to the stud* of lin!uistic relations #as not )lucked out of the air b*structuralists in the mid-t#entieth centur*. It #as in fact a #ell-established )rinci)le, kno#n )articularl* #ell to theclassical rhetoricians. The im)ortance of this lies not onl* in the reco!nition that there is somethin! classical in thestructuralist a))roach to lan!ua!e. It also hel)s to define the im)ortance of difference to literature.

The stud* of rhetoric #as )rimaril* a science !o8ernin! the )roduction of eloFuent and effecti8e lan!ua!e. Thefoundin! idea of rhetoric #as that the kinds of skills to be found in the discourses of the naturall* eloFuent s)eakercould be s*stematised and learned b* those less naturall* !ifted. In a sense this is akin to the structuralist s*stem#hich anal*ses and renders 8isible #hat is normall* intuiti8e, e>ce)t that rhetoric #as orientated to#ards the)roduction of eloFuence rather than a !eneral science of lan!ua!e. It #as the commodification of a natural !ift, butin the )rocess it #as also a kind of AladdinEs ca8e of lin!uistic descri)tions and )rinci)les. Classical rhetoriciansdi8ided the art into fi8e sta!es - in'entio, dispositio, elocutio, memoriaand actio- #hich can be crudel* translatedas thinkin! u) a to)ic, arran!in! it, addin! effects, memorisin! it, and actin! it out. It is the middle sta!e of thisclassical s*stem, elocutio, that bears the closest resemblance to structuralist accounts of meanin!.+locutio#as thesta!e in #hich )atterns and fi!ures #ere inte!rated into the )resentation in such a #a* that the discourse #ouldha8e ma>imum )ersuasi8e im)act.

-%2-

These effects #ere in turn di8ided into t#o maor families, #hich had se8eral different names in the histor* ofrhetoric, but #hich came to be kno#n most commonl* as schemesand tropes. ffects that de)ended on the #a*sin #hich #ords and sentences #ere combined to!ether in seFuence #ere named schemes, #hile effects deri8in!


11/55

from the )rinci)le of selection #ere named tro)esK or to return to 7akobsonEs terminolo!*, there are lan!ua!eeffects deri8in! from s*nta!amatic relations, and effects deri8in! from )aradi!matic relations.

There are al#a*s !oin! to be some difficulties #ith this kind of hard and fast cate!orisation, and the stor* !oesthat fierce ar!uments used to ra!e in the oman forum about #hether antitheses such asparado,and o,ymoron#ere schemes or tro)es. The rhetorical )rehistor* is rele8ant to the structuralist account of lin!uistic relations int#o #a*s: first, it undermines the idea that structuralism #as some radical ne# de)arture in its a))roach tolin!uistic )erformanceK and second, it )laces the a>es of selection and combination in a more direct relationshi)

#ith literar* lan!ua!e, since the )rehistor* of rhetorical schemes and tro)es effecti8el* )ro8ides structuralist)oetics #ith a #a* of describin! s)ecificall* literar* effects.

This ou!ht not to be o8erstated. There #as al#a*s a sense in #hich the structuralist conce)t of difference #asindifferent to the cultural 8alue of its obect: it #as not anal*sin! beautiful or )ersuasi8e lan!ua!e, but aimin! todescribe the uni8ersal )rinci)les of lan!ua!e. 7akobson described )oetics is of selectioninto the a>is of combinationE. This is a )er)le>in! definition, but is )robabl* reducible to somethin! like this:literar* lan!ua!e differs from ordinar* lan!ua!e in the de!ree to #hich it mi>es effects deri8ed from the )rinci)leof selection #ith those deri8ed from the )rinci)le of combination. In structuralist )oetics there is al#a*s a sense ofincon!ruit* bet#een the dr* s*stems of lin!uistic descri)tion and the assumed 8alue of literature. Much of thecontro8ers* surroundin! structuralist dealin!s #ith literature is !enerated from this incon!ruit*. But in factstructuralism #as merel* de8elo)in! a time-ser8ed a))roach to literature, and if an*thin! !i8in! it a broadera))lication. It could be ar!ued that literar* structuralism #as no more an un#anted intrusion of science into therealm of literature than the e>tension of rhetorical anal*sis

-%'-

out#ards to lan!ua!e in !eneral. The reci)rocit* here bet#een literar* anal*sis and lin!uistic science is reall* ustthe result of the !eneralit* of the )rinci)les underl*in! the anal*tical cate!ories. ne 8ie# #ould be that these aresim)l* the cate!ories of time and s)ace, cate!ories as fundamental to dr* science as the* are to rhetoric or thedescri)tion of aesthetic beaut*, so that the terms #e ha8e been considerin! mi!ht be arran!ed thus:

Time )ace

Combination election

*nta!matic Paradi!matic

-n praesentia -n absentia

chemes Tro)es

It is certainl* clear that these are cate!ories that can be a))lied to the anal*sis of an*thin!. If I take m* life, fore>am)le, I can freeGe it in time at an* moment and anal*se it as if s)atiall*, as a kind of e>istential moment in#hich I could ha8e chosen, )aradi!maticall* as it #ere, to do other#ise. The nature of each moment can then beunderstood in terms of the thin!s I decided not to do, the )laces I didnEt !o, the thin!s I didnEt sa*, and from that)oint of 8ie# the meanin! of the moment is constituted b* the absent )ossibilities from #hich I chose. Alternati8el*I can anal*se a moment in terms of its )lace in a chain, in a seFuence, so that the moment acFuires its si!nificancein relation to )rior and subseFuent moments, b* its s*nta!matic relations #ith them. These )rinci)les can clearl*

a))l* to an*thin!, and are surel* onl* se)arable for anal*tical )ur)oses. The* are obser8able in the dichotom*bet#een s*nchronic and diachronic histor*, the former freeGin! time #hile the latter narrates across time.ometimes one is )ri8ile!ed o8er the other, as in 7ean-Paul artreEs e>istential )s*choanal*sis, #here li8es aredia!nosed in relation to moments of crucial, life-determinin! choice #ithout much res)ect for the com)le>seFuence of e8ents, of continuities and re)etitions, #hich )lace )eo)le in )articular situations and limit theirfreedom to choose at !i8en moments.

In the case of literar* structuralism it is hard to kno# #hich )rinci)le #as more im)ortant. n the one hand themaor im)act of the conce)t of difference deri8ed from its )aradi!matic meanin!, of relations bet#een #ords in thelan!ua!e s*stem, or relations in absentia, and the su!!estion

-%3-

that these relations #ere the basis of meanin!. And *et on the other hand, #hen it came to a literar* te>t, there

#as a limit to the 8alue of )ointin! to absent #ords or e)isodes as the basis of intelli!ibilit*, and attention #asdirected instead at the internal structural relations in a discourse. An account of the im)ortance of aussureanlin!uistics, for e>am)le, #ill almost al#a*s em)hasise the )rofound reco!nition that the relationshi) bet#een asi!nifier and a si!nified is arbitrar*, and therefore that there is also somethin! arbitrar* about the #a* that


12/55

differences bet#een #ords determine the entities contained in the uni8erse. The em)hasis in this kind of account ison the )aradi!matic meanin! of difference, since it refers to the relation bet#een a !i8en #ord and those other#ords in the lan!ua!e s*stem that delimit its meanin!. But an* detailed a))lication of structuralist lin!uistics #illusuall* lea8e this )rinci)le behind and focus on the internal relations bet#een com)onents of a discourse.tructuralist narratolo!*, for e>am)le, is characteristicall* concerned #ith the s*nta!matic )ole of difference, andfocuses on Fuestions such as the meanin!-!eneratin! function of o))osition in a narrati8e seFuence, or thetem)oral order and structure of narrati8e.

hortl*, I #ill return to look at the #a* a structuralist anal*sis of narrati8e de)lo*s these )ers)ecti8es ondifference. (irst I #ant to look at the anal*sis of a sim)le sentence in terms of its s*nta!matic and )aradi!maticrelations. If I take the sentence EThe man ran do#n the roadE I can easil* )oint to the )rinci)les of combination andselection at #ork in its construction, usin! a dia!ram.

-%9-

The s*nta!matic relations bet#een the #ords in the sim)le sentence in the dia!ram are those that can be readhoriGontall* alon! the a>is of combination, and so are the relations bet#een co-)resent #ords. The )aradi!maticrelations are those that can be read 8erticall*, and if #ritten out in full, #ould re)resent the entire set of #ords inthe lan!ua!e s*stem that could be )laced in that )articular )osition in the sentence, absent #ords that could be

substituted for those )resent. b8iousl* the )aradi!ms for the #ords EtheE and Edo#nE are small in number,#hereas for the other #ords the ran!e of )ossible substitutes is enormous. (or ob8ious reasons then, the task ofdescribin! the s*nta!matic relations in this sentence is relati8el* sim)le, #hereas the task of describin!)aradi!matic relations for the #ord EmanE is 8ast and has to be reduced to somethin! more mana!eable. ne #a*of doin! this is to limit the set of substitutable )aradi!ms to #hat mi!ht be called significant others, or #ords inrelation to #hich the )resent #ord most directl* deri8es its identit*. This is #here the binar* o))osition becomesim)ortant for structural lin!uistics: that the meanin! of the #ord EmanE is abo8e all determined b* its o))ositionalrelation to the #ord E#omanE. This is an ob8ious )oint, but there is a subtlet* here that needs to be e>)lored. In)ointin! to the binar* o))osite as the si!nificant other, the structuralist is not reall* sa*in! that the #riter of thesentence has consciousl* chosen the #ord EmanE o8er the #ord E#omanE. There is a sense in #hich the cate!or* ofchoice, and therefore the )rinci)le of selection, is a bit misleadin! here. 1hat is im)ortant about the binar*o))osite for the structuralist, is )recisel* that it is a hidden, assimilated and unconscious structural relation, and itis e>actl* because a #riter or s)eaker does not choose consciousl* to e>clude the o))osite term that thestructuralist reconnects it #ith the hidden structural s*stem on #hich its meanin! de)ends. 1e mi!ht think of#ords as free-standin!, but for the structuralist the* cannot be )ro)erl* understood unless the* are articulated

back into the s*stem of differences that underlie and enable their a))arentl* free-standin! si!nificance. I saidearlier that the classical science of rhetoric #as also a means of s*stematisin! somethin! that #as intuiti8e,unconscious and natural. The subtlet* that I #ant to e>)lore here, ho#e8er, is that there is a kind of sli))a!ebet#een the intentional and the unconscious, bet#een the )roduction and the anal*sis of lan!ua!e, or bet#een8alue ud!ement and neutral science.

-%@-

This sli))a!e is most a))arent #hen the rhetorical s*stem of schemes and tro)es is com)ared to the structuralists*stem of s*nta!matic and )aradi!matic relations, or #hen the im)licit 8alue ud!ements of rhetorical anal*sis findtheir #a* into the a))arentl* 8alue-free science of structuralism. hetorical anal*sis characteristicall* subdi8idesthe families of schemes and tro)es into 8arious cate!ories. chemes, for e>am)le, are often subdi8ided intocate!ories such asphonological schemes, morphological schemesandphrase and clause schemes, #hich can bedefined as )atterns of combination concerned #ith sound, #ord structure and sentence structure res)ecti8el*.Tro)es, on the other hand are usuall* di8ided into t#o distinct t*)es of selection or substitution, namel* metaphorand metonymy, #here a meta)hor is based on the )rinci)le of com)arison, and meton*m* on the )rinci)le ofconti!uit*. Most of these can be illustrated in relation to the sentence in the dia!ram abo8e. There are soundschemes for e>am)le in the re)etition of 8o#el sounds


13/55

-%?-

But #hat I ha8e been describin! here seems to be more focused on acts of conscious artifice, on creati8e choiceand on artful )atternin!. I think it can be su!!ested that #ith rhetorical anal*sis as a )rehistor*, it #as al#a*sdifficult for literar* structuralism to rid its anal*tical descri)tions of this e8aluati8e dimension, or to mo8ecom)letel* a#a* from the assum)tion that )aradi!matic and s*nta!matic relations in lan!ua!e #ere )art of theconscious and intentional le8el of artistic )roduction.

TRAN"PARENT AND OPA%UE LAN#UA#E

The Fuestions of 8alue ud!ement, and of conscious intention, in literar* structuralism are )articularl* com)licatedones, and #ill resurface at 8arious times in the discussion that follo#s. (or the moment it #ill be #orth reflectin!on ho# these issues about s*nta!matic and )aradi!matic relations bear on Fuestions about the referentialit* oflan!ua!e. A!ain here it is useful to think about the #a*s in #hich structuralist conce)tions of difference e>tended)erce)tions about lan!ua!e that #ere #ell kno#n to rhetoricians into more radical )hiloso)hical claims. To be!in#ith, traditional rhetorical anal*sis had al#a*s been familiar #ith the idea that lan!ua!e mi!ht at times be)rimaril* about itself. hetorical and formalist anal*sis #ill often talk of mar#edor foregroundedlan!ua!e todescribe lan!ua!e that is someho# 8isible in its o#n ri!ht. chemes and tro)es are, in a sense, lin!uistic)henomena of st*listic interest that stand out from the humdrum, the familiar and the automatic. Because )oetr*is commonl* 8ie#ed as a !enre of discourse in #hich the incidence of schemes and tro)es is at its most dense, it isalso commonl* 8ie#ed as a kind of #ritin! in #hich what is saidis subordinate to the way in which it is said. Prose,on the other hand is thou!ht of as a kind of #ritin! in #hich the content of the discourse is not so much obscured

b*, or subordinated to, the #a* in #hich it is e>)ressed. This is #hat is meant b* the distinction bet#een o)aFueand trans)arent lan!ua!e. )aFue lan!ua!e is that #hich dra#s attention to lan!ua!e itself, to st*le, to 8erbalform and to the #a* that somethin! is said, #hereas trans)arent lan!ua!e effaces itself, allo#s itself to be lookedthrou!h, and )oints to#ards content. In the case of o)aFue lan!ua!e, such as )oetic diction, #e are likel* to askFuestions about ima!es and )atterns, #hereas in the case of trans)arent lan!ua!e, such as )rose fiction, #e aremore likel* to ask Fuestions about content,

-%0-

or the #orld de)icted. f course these distinctions are crude. It is eas* to think of )oles of trans)arenc* ando)acit* within)oetr* and fiction am)le is commonl* thou!ht of as a trans)arent si!nifier in the sense that #e lookthrou!h the #ord and see the animal, or the conce)t of the animal, the si!nified. But for the structuralist, there issomethin! in8isible !oin! on, #hich has to be made 8isible for lan!ua!e to be )ro)erl* understood. It #ould bedifficult to sa* #hat mental )ictures are conured in the mind b* the #ord Edo!E, but eas* enou!h to sa* that the)icture #ould ha8e to e>clude obects that are )atentl* not do!s, such as cats. The structuralist is therefore sa*in!that the referential function of the si!nifier Edo!E is an illusion #hich de)ends on the e>istence of other si!nifiersfrom #hich it differs. These other si!nifiers are not ob8iousl* )resent, and *et it is their )resence in the lan!ua!e

s*stem on #hich the meanin!, the conce)t, or the )icture associated #ith the #ord Edo!E de)ends. In this sense,the #ords that are not there, the )aradi!ms of the #ords Edo!E, in8isibl* inhabit the #ord that is there, and are thestructural conditions reFuired for Edo!E to refer. This de)endence that an* #ord has on the s*stem of differences in#hich it o)erates makes it much less eas* to 8ie# a si!nifier as a trans)arent medium. ather than look throu!h itto the thin! that it names in the #orld, #hat #e are doin! is belie8in! oursel8es to be lookin!

-2&-

throu!h it #hen in fact #e are lookin! at it, since it is constituted b* the trace of other si!nifiers that form itss*stem of differences. This is re8olutionar*, because suddenl* do!s do not e>ist as natural obects 8isible throu!htheir names, but become conce)ts b* 8irtue of the s*stem of differences bet#een si!nifiers. 1hat the structuralistis sa*in!, then, is this: that if #e continue to belie8e that do!s are a natural cate!or* named b* the si!nifier Edo!E,#e #ill fail to notice that a s*stem of differences bet#een si!nifiers is )roectin! its structure on to our conce)ts.1e must not look throu!h #ords. 1e must look at them, and side#a*s, to the absent others that are the basis of

an* si!nifierEs intelli!ibilit*.

This raises a com)lication, #hich is )robabl* one of the bi!!est areas of contro8ers* in structuralist theor*. Itmeans that o)acit* is not so much a )ro)ert* of a lin!uistic si!n )er se as a #a* of lookin! at it or anal*sin! it. It


14/55

is as if #e must resist the commonsensical 8ie# of lan!ua!e as a trans)arent and referential medium, resist the)resence of #orldl* obects in lan!ua!e and look instead at the #a* that the lan!ua!e s*stem manufactures thoseobects throu!h difference. It is as if this is a su)erior #a* of seein! ado)ted b* those initiated into the ar!umentsof structuralism, #hile the rest of the #orld continue to be du)ed b* the illusion of lin!uistic trans)arenc*. And thisis e>actl* the im)act of structuralism in uni8ersities: the dis)lacement of an e8er*da* intuition #ith a hi!hl*counter-intuiti8e #a* of lookin! at lan!ua!e as ca)able of referrin! onl* to itself, to its o#n form and s*stem. It isan unnatural, or denaturalised #a* of lookin!, #hich is reFuired in order to make 8isible the constructedness ofthin!s normall* assumed to be natural or !i8en. In the second half of this book, this kind of ar!ument is e>)loredin its )olitical conte>t, #here the entities under discussion are more contro8ersial than do!s, and the im)erati8e to

look at, rather than throu!h, lan!ua!e, becomes a )olitical one.

POETIC"& "EIOLO#Y AND NARRATOLO#Y

This then is the recurrin! em)hasis of structuralism: to render 8isible the unconscious structures of lan!ua!e, andto defamiliarise the automatic )rocesses of lin!uistic selection and combination. The term EdifferenceE in literar* andsocial theor* therefore carries #ithin it a #hole set of ar!uments about the o)acit* of lan!ua!e, the illusion ofreference and the

-2+-

constructedness of realit*. But ho# does this actuall* #ork #hen it comes to the anal*sis of a literar* te>t As #ith

the #ord, it is characteristic of structuralist literar* anal*sis to 8ie# a literar* te>t counter-intuiti8el*, as a s*stemof si!ns #hich do not, as #e mi!ht assume, sim)l* )oint to or e8en sim)l* imitate the real #orld. This is)articularl* ob8ious in relation to fiction, #here the 8ie# of literature as a mimetic medium is the most difficult todis)lace. $et critics such as 5Hrard 5enette and TG8etan Todoro8 succeed in treatin! fictions as o)aFue, non-referential discourses b* scalin! u) !rammatical cate!ories and the )rinci)les of s*nta!matic and )aradi!maticrelations to describe the s*stem of a no8el e>actl* as if it #ere a sentence. ence, for Todoro8, relations in

praesentiaand in absentiaare the basic cate!ories for discussin! the com)onents of a narrati8e seFuence, and hede8elo)s a le>icon of lin!uistic terms for the descri)tion of these relations. In the #ork of 7akobson and olandBarthes, the scientific and lin!uistic character of fictional anal*sis o)erates alon!side an e>)licit* theoretical)olemic a!ainst the traditional idea of realism in the no8el. It is )robabl* these ar!uments about realism that ha8e!i8en literar* structuralism its radical re)utation, and for man* the* seemed to e>tend the absurdl* e>a!!erated8ie# of the lin!uistic si!n de8elo)ed in structural lin!uistics as a non-referential entit*. The e>a!!eration is that thelin!uistic conditions that make reference )ossible - the s*stems of differences, con8entions and codes - areele8ated to the status of referents, so that meanin! is not onl* enabled but actuall* constituted b* difference.(redric 7ameson, for e>am)le, ar!ues in The rison %ouse of Languagethat structuralist criticism came to 8ie# theform and s*stem of narrati8e as its onl* content:

The most characteristic feature of structuralist criticism lies )recisel* in a kind of transformationof form into content, in #hich the form of structuralist research set of circumstances in #hich theBennet dau!hters seek husbands, and most centrall*, liGabeth mo8es to#ards her union #ith Mr Darc*. But if, as7ameson su!!ests, the Eessential subect matterE of the literar* #ork is lan!ua!e and form, this kind of realisticsubect matter, made u) of characters and e8ents, is dis)laced. The dis)lacement can be 8ie#ed in t#o #a*s. Thefirst 8ie# is that form and lan!ua!e are sim)l* more im)ortant kinds of content than characters and e8ents, sothat the structuralist critic sim)l* s#ee)s the latter aside, brackets it, in order to focus on more )ressin! as)ects ofthe te>t. The second is that characters and e8ents are in fact com)rised of lan!ua!e and form, that liGabethBennet is no more than a concatenation of 8erbal si!ns or!anised in a narrati8e form, and that to think of her as a)erson #ith a life is to misunderstand the true nature of te>tual content. Both of these 8ie#s of the relationshi) ofform and content are found in structuralist criticism, but it is fair to sa* that it is the second that underlies themost influential acts of structuralist criticism. aussure sa*s in the Coursethat the si!nifier


15/55

not translated into n!lish until the mid-t#entieth centur*. Particularl* im)ortant in this re!ard is Pro))Es$orphology of the Fol#talees into #hich characters could be cast - 8illain, donor, hel)er, )rincess, dis)atcher, hero and false hero -#hich abstracted the indi8idualit* of that character into a !rammatical function. In +099, A. 7. 5reimas de8elo)edPro))Es insi!hts into the )lot-functions of characters in emantique tructurale. This is a #ork )ro8idin! one of themost robust statements of the )eriod of the im)ortance of difference, o))osition and ne!ation as fundamentalstructures of thou!ht and lan!ua!e. 5reimas describes differences, for the most )art, as e>istents in the #orld #e)ercei8e, and that #e subseFuentl* re!ister in our lan!ua!es, but there is also a sense in #hich differencesbecome the mechanism for makin! the #orld take sha)e, as an arran!ement of differences that he calls semes, orunits of meanin! that differ and form binar* o))ositions.

ike Pro)), 5reimas sees a fictional character as a lin!uistic function and not a )erson, and he names this functionan actant. The s*stem he de8elo)s for the anal*sis of a stor*, the actantial model, is based on the 8ie# that theo))ositional structure of a )lot is created b* the arran!ement of actants in a certain seFuence accordin! to alimited set of )ossibilities. 5reimasEs basic aim #ith the actantial model is to sho# not onl* that all stories, #henabstracted in this #a*, enact the same dee) structure, but that stories are merel* an instance of structural rules

common to all sentences. A fictional )lot is, for 5reimas, !enerated from three sets of o))ositional differences:subect and obect, sender and recei8er, and hel)er and o))onent. The cate!or* of subect and obect, fore>am)le, allo#s for the anal*sis of desire narrati8es, such as ride and re/udice, to be em)tied of their s)ecificcontent, and become a set of relations bet#een actantial roles, narrati8e )aradi!ms and s*nta!ms, chosen andarran!ed in a manner analo!ous to the )rinci)les of sentence )roduction described abo8e. Accordin! to theactantial model, then, there is to be no s)eculation on the subect of #hether Mr Darc* lo8es liGabeth. At bestthere mi!ht be some disa!reement as to #hether liGabeth is the subect or the obect of the actantial structure.

The actantial model is one e>am)le of the #a* that literar* strucuralism seeks !eneral rules and structuralhomolo!ies


16/55

)articularl* abstract o))osition, in the sense that the )articular content of a narrati8e, such as a character, isem)tied of that )articularit* for the )roduction of structural homolo!ies bet#een different narrati8es. Takento!ether, these three tendencies )ro8ide a conte>t for oland BarthesEs influential manifesto, EIntroduction to thestructural anal*sis of narrati8esE. Be!innin! from structural lin!uistics, Barthes is concerned to outline a Esecondlin!uisticsE ca)able of dealin! #ith units of meanin! lar!er than the sentence, but this )roect #ill ha8e to bedistinct from classical rhetoric for the follo#in! reason:

Discourse has its units, its rules, its E!rammarE: be*ond the sentence, and thou!h consistin!

solel* of sentences, it must naturall* form the obect of a second lin!uistics. (or a lon! timeindeed, such a lin!uistics of discourse bore a !lorious name, that of hetoric. As a result of acom)le> historical mo8ement, ho#e8er, in #hich hetoric #ent o8er to belles-lettres and thelatter #as di8orced from the stud* of lan!ua!e, it has recentl* become necessar* to take u) the)roblem afresh. The ne# lin!uistics of discourse has still to be de8elo)ed, but at least it is bein!)ostulated, and b* the lin!uists themsel8es. This last fact is not #ithout si!nificance, for,althou!h constitutin! an autonomous obect, discourse must be studied from the basis oflin!uistics. If a #orkin! h*)othesis is needed for an anal*sis #hose task is immense and #hosematerials infinite, then the most reasonable thin! is to )osit a homolo!ical relation bet#eensentence and discourse insofar as it is likel* that a similar formal or!aniGation orders all semiotics*stems, #hate8er their substances and dimensions.

am)le, talks mainl* about selection and combination at three le8els of meanin!: the)honeme, the mor)heme, and the #ord. But #hat do #e do #hen dealin! #ith an entire narrati8e discourse 1hatunits of meanin! are there be*ond the le8el of a #ord that mi!ht allo# the narratolo!ist to de)lo* the model for

the anal*sis of narrati8e in !eneral

These are Fuestions that ha8e been ans#ered in different #a*s b* different narratolo!ists. Todoro8, for e>am)le,offers Fuite a sim)le account of the units of a narrati8e discourse b* reducin! a stor* to a set of abstract)ro)ositions. In a manner similar to Pro)), a folk tale can be e>)ressed as a set of abstract )ro)ositions in thefollo#in! #a*:

L is a *oun! !irl

$ is a kin!

$ is LEs father

is a dra!on

abducts L


17/55

character, a))earance, or an*thin! else. Perha)s less ob8iousl*, each narrati8e )ro)osition is itself a )aradi!m, inthe sense that an entire )ro)osition can be substituted for another. In this schema, for e>am)le, E abducts LEmi!ht be chan!ed for an* number of alternati8es, such as E abducts $E or E kills LE.

Fuall*, the anal*sis can identif* s*nta!matic as)ects of the narrati8e schema, concerned not #ith the selection ofa!ents, )redicates and )ro)ositions, but #ith the #a* in #hich the* are combined in a seFuence. ere a!ain, theFuestion of ho# minimal units combine in a seFuence is a !ate#a* into an enormous narratolo!ical to)ic. Todoro8describes the seFuence as Ea hi!her unitE, meanin! that it is not a narrati8e )ro)osition, but a lo!ic that links the

narrati8e )ro)ositions to!ether, and that can #ork in a number of #a*s. (or a more com)le> account of thenumerous narrati8e )ossibilities !o8ernin! the seFuence, Todoro8 )oints to the #ork of Boris Tomashe8ski andClaude Bremond, both of #hom ha8e attem)ted to dra# u) schematic charts of the man* )ossibilities ofcombination of narrati8e units. To !i8e a fla8our of the )ossibilities of combination, he describes the seFuence ofthe ideal narrati8e as follo#s:

An ideal narrati8e be!ins #ith a stable situation that some force #ill )erturb. (rom #hich resultsa state of diseFuilibriumK b* the action of a force directed in a con8erse direction, the eFuilibriumis re-establishedK the second eFuilibrium is Fuite similar to the first, but the t#o are not identical.

am)le, I#anted to describe the seFuence of ride and re/udicein a hurr*, I #ould em)hasise the narrati8e units thatBarthes calls EfunctionsE, #hich ha8e a role in the transformation of one state to another, such as Darc*Es rudenessat the "etherfield ball, 1ickhamEs elo)ement #ith *dia, or liGabethEs tri) to Derb*shire #ith the 5ardiners.

If #e no# return to the Fuestion of the t*)e of critical )ractice that emer!es from the structuralist conce)t ofdifference, it is clear at least that it )roduces a hi!hl* abstracted and formal kind of anal*sis. The structuralistessentiall* em)ties a narrati8e of most of its details in order to identif* the dee) structural )rinci)les o)eratin!beneath them, and so unco8er the s*stem of relations that or!anises those details. 1e mi!ht 8ei# this as a kind ofcriticism addressin! itself less to the Fuestion E1hat does a narrati8e meanE than to the Fuestion Eo# does itmeanE r to chan!e the #ordin! sli!htl*, this looks like a kind of criticism orientated to#ards the form rather thanthe content of narrati8e. But is this reall* the case And ho# do #e !et from this mere critical orientation to7amesonEs claim that structuralism actuall* transforms content into the essential subect matter of a #orku))ose #e take another e>am)le of this kind of formal anal*sis at #ork, a case that I #ill borrro# from Terr*a!letonEs hi!hl* influential Literary Theory( an -ntroduction)ublished in +0?2. To illustrate the transformation ofform into content in structuralist anal*sis, a!leton outlines a 8er* sim)le stor*:

u))ose #e are anal*sin! a stor* in #hich a bo* lea8es home after Fuarrellin! #ith his father,sets out on a #alk throu!h the forest in the heat of the da* and falls do#n a dee) )it. The father

comes out in search of his son, )eers do#n the )it, but is unable to see him because of thedarkness. At that moment the sun has risen to a )oint directl*

-20-

o8erhead, illuminates the )itEs de)ths #ith its ra*s and allo#s the father to rescue his child. Aftera o*ous reconciliation, the* return home to!ether.

is, in contrast tothe 8ertical a>is Elo#hi!hE, and could be inde>ed as EmiddleE. The fall into the )it, a )lace belo#!round, si!nifies Elo#E a!ain, and the Genith of the sun Ehi!hE. B* shinin! into the )it, the sun hasin a sense stoo)ed Elo#E, thus in8ertin! the narrati8eEs first si!nif*in! unit, #here Elo#E struck


18/55

a!ainst Ehi!hE. The reconciliation bet#een father and son restores an eFuilibrium bet#een Elo#Eand Ehi!hE, and the #alk back home to!ether, si!nif*in! EmiddleE, marks the achie8ement of asuitabl* intermediate state.

ternal, s*nta!matic and )aradi!matic relations, and that the anal*sis does not succeed in banishin! referentialcontent actl* the same ambi!uit* that )resides o8er the conce)t of difference as an accountof the lin!uistic si!n: do the s*nta!matic and )aradi!matic relations bet#een minimal units of a narrati8e merel*enable, or actuall* constitute its content Man* a8ailable accounts of difference, of semiolo!* and of literar*

structuralism !i8e the im)ression, like 7ameson and a!leton, that the #hole idea of content #as s#e)t aside b*this kind of anal*sis. But the truth is a little more com)licatedK the Fuestion of referential meanin! #as ne8er reall*settled, #ith the Fuestion of #hether it #as bracketed or dis)laced b* structuralist anal*sis remainin! unans#ered.


19/55

"e8ertheless this recastin! of meanin! in structural terms had an enormous im)act on literar* criticism in themiddle of the t#entieth centur*. In the )re8ious section of this cha)ter I claimed that the )oles of trans)arent ando)aFue lan!ua!e #ere often used as the basis for a distinction bet#een )rose and )oetr*, since the lan!ua!e andform of )oetr* is more 8isible, more bound u) #ith its content. I also claimed that the distinction could be used todistin!uish )oetic t*)es of )rose from realist )rose, #hich is more trans)arent. But #hat structuralist anal*sissho#s is that e8en the content of the most trans)arent )rose is inse)arabl* bound to its form and structure, andthis com)letel* chan!es our frame#ork for understandin! the #a* that reference #orks. As a!leton

-'%-

demonstrates, the structuralist method of readin! a te>t dis)laces the idea of referential content as somethin!e>trate>tual, somethin! outside of the te>t, #ith one in #hich referential content is embedded in a s*stem orrelations. 8en if the status of the referent remained ambi!uous and unsettled, the 8er* dualistic frame#ork forunderstandin! reference, in literature and in !eneral, in terms of form and content, or the inside and the outside oflan!ua!e, *ielded to the more monistic 8ie# of form and content as cate!oricall* inse)arable as)ects ofsi!nificance.

The conce)t of difference, elaborated as s*nta!matic and )aradi!matic relations, has deli8ered us to the !ate#a*of #hat is no# called )oststructuralism. There #ere man* lin!uists, )hiloso)hers and literar* critics #ho realisedthat there #as somethin! unsettled in structuralist theor* on the subect of referential meanin!. In the #ork ofPaul de Man, for e>am)le, #e find the Fuestion of reference behind much of his criticism. Accordin! to de Man, thestructuralist semiolo!ists and the narratolo!ists had !one some #a* to#ards freein! literar* criticism from #hat hecalls the Edebilitatin! burden of )ara)hraseE t #asabout, to )ara)hrase its content, or to talk about it as if it re)resented a real #orld of )eo)le and e8ents. But if,des)ite all the em)hasis on the formal s*stem of a narrati8e, the referential content has merel* been bracketed,left aside or i!nored, there is a sense in #hich it is still ho8erin! o8er the anal*sis. De Man #ants to mo8e a#a*from this to#ards a more radical critiFue of reference:

Othe radical critiFue of referential meanin! ne8er im)lied that the referential function oflan!ua!e could in an* #a* be a8oided, bracketed, or reduced to bein! ust one contin!ent)ro)ert* of lan!ua!e amon! others, as is )ostulated for e>am)le, in contem)orar* semiolo!*.


20/55

neither a #ord nor a conce)t at all, #e are dealin! #ith somethin! like the o))osite of )resence, or e8en theo))osite of conce)thood.This cha)ter e>)lains the connection bet#een )resence and conce)thood, and #h*Derrida sa# differance as their o))osite, but it also e>)lores some other )oststructuralist a))roaches to andmodifications of ideas about difference.

Most of the e>)osition in this cha)ter is theoretical and )hiloso)hical, and is based on the #ork of Derrida andDeleuGe, t#o hi!hl* influential Parisian )hiloso)hers #hose #ork in the second half of the t#entieth centur*transformed criticism. Both Derrida and DeleuGe are )hiloso)hers for #hom literature tremel* difficult to illustrate in !eneral terms #hat adeconstructi8e readin! does to a literar* te>t. /nlike structuralist narratolo!*, deconstruction is not a method thatcan be a))lied to a literar* te>t. And #hereas the structuralist conce)t of difference is a lin!uistic anal*tical modelthat can be a))lied to almost an*thin!, )oststructuralist a))roaches to difference are mainl* concerned to sho#that meanin! can ne8er be )inned do#n b* such ordered s*stems. But e8en if deconstruction is not a method thatcan be a))lied, there are certain recurrent theoretical and lo!ical )roblems that it attem)ts to e>)ose and sub8ertin its dealin!s #ith literature and criticism. It is the )ur)ose of this cha)ter to identif* these recurrent issues andthe kind of counter-strate!ies characteristicall* de)lo*ed in )oststructuralist a))roaches to readin!.

(or the structuralist, the conce)t of difference la* at the heart of a scientific enter)rise. It #as a kind of foundationstone on to) of #hich a hi!hl* s*stematic account of meanin! #as assembled. And *et there #as al#a*s somethin!about the conce)t of difference that militated a!ainst foundations, and therefore a!ainst the )ossibilit* of buildin!stable structures on to) of them. This )arado> hel)s to characterise #hat ha8e, in the An!lo-American #orld, cometo be seen as )oststructuralist de8elo)ments in the conce)t of difference: de8elo)ments that #ere concerned to)ull a#a* the foundation stone of structuralist science, and to #atch the achie8ements of a s*stematic structurallin!uistics colla)se. r )erha)s it #ould be more accurate to sa* that, for )oststructuralists, the conce)t ofdifference )roduces insi!hts that )ull a#a* its o#n foundation stone. This idea, that difference is self-sub8ertin!, orself-deconstructin!, reFuires some e>)lanation, but it is also im)ortant to sa* at the outset that this is not sim)l*the end of the conce)t of differenceK if an*thin! it is the moment in the thinkin! throu!h of difference #here thin!s!et interestin!. It ma* be a line of thou!ht that heralds the end of difference as the basis of a s*stematic science,

but it is also one that breathes ne# life into the conce)t of difference.

-'@-


21/55

DIFFERENCE (EYOND OPPO"ITION" ) DERRIDA

It #ill be clear from the last cha)ter, for e>am)le, that structuralism effecti8el* im)osed stabilit* on the anal*sis ofdifference b* focusin! its attention on the sim)lest kind of difference: the binar* o))osition. But the binar*o))osition can onl* be seen as a stable meanin!-!eneratin! unit #hen t#o anton*mic si!ns are seen as if inisolation from the man* other differences and relations that could be introduced into the anal*sis.To o8ersim)lif*the case for a moment, it could be said that the binar* o))osition #as for )eo)le #ho could onl* count to t#o. (or

e>am)le, the idea that the meanin! of the #ord Eda*E inhered entirel* in its relation to the #ord Eni!htE #assome#hat reducti8e because it e>cluded consideration of the man* !radations bet#een ni!ht and da*, e>cludedthe difficult relations on the mar!in bet#een them, such as da#n and dusk. To relate a #ord such as Eda*E onl* toits anton*m #as to reduce difference to a sin!le, determinable relation of the most sim)lified kind. ne #a* oflookin! at the )oststructuralist critiFue of structural lin!uistics is to see it as an o))osition to this kind of sim)listicreduction, as an attem)t to ackno#led!e the com)le>it* of a #ordEs relations, or as a )roect to liberate differencefrom the closure of the binar* o))osition. The )oststructuralist #ill for e>am)le s)eak of irreducible difference as a#a* of indicatin! the )o8ert* of the d*ad as the basic meanin!-!eneratin! unit. ather than accountin! for themeanin! of a #ord such as Eda*E in relation to its o))osite, the )oststructuralist #ill characteristicall* focus on theborderline bet#een the t#o si!ns, in the territor* in #hich the difference bet#een the t#o is less ob8iousl*o))ositional and less clearl* determinable. After structuralism there is a ne# interest in borderline territor*, inmar!ins, in Gones of contestation bet#een si!ns that def* the o))ositional lo!ic of the binar* o))osition.

It is )robabl* immediatel* a))arent that #ords and )hrases like Emar!insE, EborderlinesE and EGones of contestationEcarr* im)lications of social and )olitical conflict, and such im)lications are an im)ortant )art of the influence of

)oststructuralist thou!ht. (rom the late +09&s on#ards, there #as a !ro#in! sus)icion of the structuralist )roectto )roduce a neutral science of lan!ua!e and discourse, and an increasin! im)erati8e to anal*se lan!ua!e in itsrelation to )olitical histor* and )olitical )o#er. 1hile much )oststructuralist #ork does not e>)licitl*

-'?-

address Fuestions of histor* and )olitics, there is a clear mo8ement in that direction, #hich can be discerned in thefirst )lace in terms su!!estin! a more )oliticall* en!a!ed s)ecies of lin!uistic anal*sis. ne area in #hich this ismost a))arent is e>actl* in a ne# direction in the anal*sis of binar* o))osition, #hich is no lon!er seen as aninnocent structural relation but rather as a hierarch*. In DerridaEs #ork, and in that of man* literar* and culturalcritics #ho follo#ed his ideas, there is al#a*s a sense that an o))osition is no innocent structural relation but a)o#er relation, in #hich one term dominates another. 8en in the case of an o))osition as a))arentl* rooted innature as ni!htda*, there is a hierarch* #hich ascribes )ri8ile!e, )riorit* and )ositi8e 8alue to one term at thee>)ense of the other. Indeed the 8er* idea of otherness comes to si!nif* this )o#er relation, this secondar* andderi8ati8e )osition that one si!n acFuires in relation to another. And this dimension of an o))osition is certainl* not!i8en in nature, but is acti8el* )roduced in discourse, in the )rocess of si!nification, or the #a* that si!ns areused. ne need onl* think of the connotations of ni!ht and da*, of #hat Derrida refers to as chains of connotationand associati8e links to reco!nise that da* has a kind of )riorit* o8er ni!ht, a )ri8ile!e and )riorit* that makestheir relation far from s*mmetrical and allo#s da* to be associated #ith life, kno#led!e, truth, )urit* and !oodness#hile ni!ht connotes death, i!norance, corru)tion and e8il. It is 8er* often onl* b* e>)lorin! the )otential of si!nsas ima!es, associations and su!!estions that a hierarch* bet#een the terms of a d*ad is )erce)tible, and this)oints to an im)ortant de8elo)ment a#a* from the su))osedl* 8alue-free, scientific )roect of structural lin!uistics.Poststructuralist a))roaches to the binar* o))osition )roduce a kind of critiFue that unmasks )o#er relations, thatseeks to e>)ose hierarch*, that refuses to isolate the si!n from the discourse in #hich it o)erates, or for thatmatter that refuses to isolate the o))osition from the more !eneral discursi8e conte>t in #hich its associati8e andsu!!esti8e )otential is formed. If #e take these t#o de8elo)ments to!ether, the liberation of difference fromo))osition on one hand, and a kind of critiFue that e>)oses hierarch* as it o)erates in discourse, #e ha8e a useful)reliminar* account of the characteristics of #hat came to kno#n, in the +0@&s, as deconstruction.

In ositions)osure

-'0-

of a hierarch*, of the assumed su)eriorit* of one term o8er the otherK the second )hase is the re8ersal of thathierarch*, that is, the )romotion of the secondar* and deri8ati8e term to the )osition of su)eriorit* for strate!icreasonsK and the third )hase is the reinscri)tion of that o))osition, #hich in8ol8es the disru)tion or reconfi!urationof the difference bet#een the t#o terms. There is nothin! that Derrida abhors more 8ehementl* than the idea thatdeconstruction mi!ht become some kind of anal*tical )ro!ramme of easil* assimilable and a))licable techniFues,and this is the closest he comes an*#here to a s*stematic account of the deconstructi8e a))roach to o))ositions.8en if #e res)ect DerridaEs reluctance to s*stematise deconstruction, this account of the three )hases ofdeconstruction )ro8ides an illuminatin! descri)tion of #hat takes )lace #hen he reads a te>t.

A no# famous e>am)le of this strate!* of readin! comes from *f Grammatology, #here Derrida takes aussureEstreatment of the o))osition bet#een s)eech and #ritin! in the Course in General Linguistics. In a sense, this is ane>treme e>am)le. aussureEs te>t does not subtl* 8alorise s)eech o8er #ritin! throu!h associati8e or ima!isticsu!!esti8it*. ather he declares o)enl* that #ritin! is a secondar* and deri8ed kind of lan!ua!e, that it is merel*the re)resentation of s)eech, and therefore that it is to be banished: the )ro)er obect of lin!uistic stud*, sa*s


22/55

aussure, is s)eech. There is therefore an e>)licit and unmistakable )ri8ile!e assi!ned to s)eech o8er #ritin!, andbecause it is so e>)licit, it ser8es as a )articularl* clear e>am)le of the deconstructi8e strate!* that Derridadescribes in ositions. Derrida ar!ues that this )ri8ile!e is nothin! more than an inherited )reudice that has itsbasis in t#o )resu))ositions that aussure recei8es uncriticall* from the tradition of thou!ht about the nature oflan!ua!e. The first )resu))osition is that s)eech has a conce)tual )riorit* o8er #ritin! because it has tem)oral)riorit* o8er #ritin!, #hich is to sa* that it comes first either in the histor* of lan!ua!e or in the acFuisition oflan!ua!e in childhood. The second )resu))osition is closel* related to the first, namel* that s)eech is accorded thisconce)tual )riorit* not onl* b* 8irtue of comin! before #ritin! in time, but in bein! seen someho# as closer to the)resence of meanin!. In *f Grammatology, Derrida dia!noses this assum)tion as an unscientific ascri)tion of 8alue

to s)eech on the basis of t#o different t*)es of )resence: the )resence of si!nif*in! intention and the )resence ofthe referent. In other #ords,

-3&-

the s)oken si!n is said to stand in a closer relation to the mind of the )erson #ho utters it, or to the thin! orconce)t in the )lace of #hich the si!n stands than the #ritten si!n. Indeed the #ritten si!n is con8entionall*understood as a kind of technolo!* #hich #orks e>actl* b* allo#in! lan!ua!e to circulate #ithout the )erson or thereferent an* lon!er bein! )resent.

ere, then, #e ha8e an e>treme case of an o))osition #orkin! as a conce)tual hierarch*, #here that hierarch* isfounded on unar!ued notions of )resence and the )riorit* that )resence !i8es to lan!ua!e in its so-called ori!inalform o8er the secondar* and deri8ed technolo!* that records s)eech as #ritin!. This ar!ument corres)onds to thefirst )hase of deconstruction in #hich a hierarchical o))osition is identified. The second )hase of the strate!* is to

in8ert this hierarch*, and to )romote the inferior term to the )osition of )ri8ile!e and dominance. In this case thatin8ol8es the )erha)s counter-intuiti8e su!!estion that #ritin! is in fact the truest nature of lan!ua!e. It should be)ointed out that this )ara)hrase is somethin! of a heres* for t#o reasons. The first is that Derrida does not!enerall* offer metalin!ual )ro)ositions of this kind in a #a* that allo#s their e>traction from the readin! of a)articular te>t. Deconstruction in its strictest )hiloso)hical sense almost al#a*s in8ol8es the demonstration that ate>t someho# contains a counter-su!!estion to its o#n )resu))ositions or its o#n declared )ositions: that itsub8erts its o#n theses and beliefs. The second is that Derrida does not reall* claim that there is somethin! truerabout #ritin! than s)eech. Instead he sho#s that #hen aussure tries to e>)lain the innermost #orkin!s of s)okenlan!ua!e, he resorts to an analo!* #ith #ritten lan!ua!e, usin! the banished and secondar* term to e>)lain thenature of the )ri8ile!ed and )rior term. The in8ersion of the hierarch* is therefore not )ro)osed b* Derrida fromthe outside, but is located #ithin the ar!ument that e>actl* seeks to establish that hierarch*. In this #a*, Derridademonstrates that aussureEs attem)t to reduce #ritin! to a secondar* status is sub8erted b* the fact that he alsoresorts to the e>am)le of #ritin!, e>actl* for its abilit* to circulate in the absence of the referent and the si!nif*in!intention, to illustrate the innermost #orkin!s of s)eech. As he teases out this counter-su!!estion from aussureEste>t, his o#n establishes that #ritin! is ust as ca)able of occu)*in! the dominant )osition in the hierarch*. This

leads us to the third )hase of deconstruction, the reinscri)tion of the

-3+-

o))osition, #hich in this case consists in the conflation of the terms Es)eechE and E#ritin!E as #hat Derrida callsEArche-#ritin!E, or to )ut it another #a*, the tem)oral )riorit* of s)eech o8er #ritin! is reconfi!ured #ith #ritin! asthe ori!in, so that the 8er* o))osition of ori!in and su))lement breaks do#n.

1hat does this ha8e to do #ith the conce)t of difference The first ans#er to this Fuestion is that the binar*o))osition, #hich for the structuralist #as a kind of unit of difference, is no# a rather unreliable basis for thee>)lanation of ho# si!nificance is !enerated. In this kind of ar!ument the o))osition is somethin! closer to the)roblem than the solution: the mask rather than the unmasker. But there is a second im)lication in this for theconce)t of difference, #hich hel)s to e>)lain DerridaEs resistance to the structuralist conce)t of difference. In thee>am)le of the o))osition of s)eech and #ritin!, s)eech is understood as that #hich comes first and #ritin! that

#hich follo#s from it, s)eech as the ori!in and #ritin! as the su))lement. This tem)oral difference, the tem)oraldimension of an o))osition has a s)ecial )lace in DerridaEs thou!ht and is of )articular im)ortance for theunderstandin! of DerridaEs critiFue of the notion of difference #hich is im)licit in his o#n modified 8ersion of theterm. Differance has become kno#n as DerridaEs little !ra)hic oke. It is the modification of the conce)t ofdifference #hich cannot be heard tracted and a))lied to the anal*sis of te>ts in the #a* that difference )erha)s could be. ather it isa term that names a )roblem in the former conce)t of difference. The ar!ument of the last cha)ter sho#s that thestructuralist conce)t of difference aimed to sho# that a #ord could ne8er be 8ie#ed as a free-standin! entit* butrather has to be articulated into the s*stem of differences #hich underlie its meanin!. The term EdifferanceE mi!ht

be 8ie#ed as an attem)t to redouble this insi!ht into the de)endence of a

-3%-


23/55

#ord on different terms #hich are not )resent. But #hereas structuralism tended to freeGe the lan!ua!e s*steminto a s*nchronic sna)shot, a s)atial structure, Derrida aims to )oint to a set of de)endencies or relations acrosstime. The term EdifferanceE therefore carries #ithin it not onl* the structural relations of a #ord to a stable lan!ua!es*stem, but the tem)oral relations of a #ord to those that )recede it and follo# it.

This is the main sense in #hich differance can be understood as a critiFue of difference: it functioned as a criticismof the s*nchronic orientation of structuralist anal*sis. The aussurean model of the si!n had dictated that meanin!be anal*sed as a s)atial structure, #here the lan!ua!e s*stem is froGen in time and 8ie#ed as a structural #hole.

It #as a common )erce)tion that this banished time and histor* entirel* from structuralist anal*sis, and *et itdoesnEt take much e>)loration in, for e>am)le, #orks of structuralist narratolo!* to determine that the internaltem)oralit* of a narrati8e - the order and freFuenc* of its e8ents - #as one of the maor concerns of thestructuralists. "or #as it ahistorical in itself to take such a sna)shot of the lan!ua!e s*stem, since in theor* atleast, that mi!ht in8ol8e reconstructin! the s*stem of con8entions, o))ositions and codes as a kind of lin!uistic-historical conte>t for an* !i8en utterance. In )ractice, ho#e8er, there #ere fe# structuralist lin!uists #ho #ould !oto the trouble of reconstructin! the s*stem of anton*ms and s*non*ms that #ould !i8e a si!n its meanin! at thetime of its utterance or )oint out historical differences bet#een the s*stem at the time of the te>tEs )roduction andthe time of its anal*sis. In theor* there ma* ha8e been an interest in narrati8e time, but in )ractice the )otentialhistorical dimension of s*nchronic anal*sis #as !enerall* disre!arded. 8en the structuralist narratolo!istEs interestin tem)oralit* #as some#hat misleadin! in that the internal, tem)oral seFuence of narrati8e #as seen as a s)atialor structural or!anisation of narrati8e elements. In theor*, structuralist narratolo!* #as neither ahistorical noruninterested in the tem)oral or!anisation of narrati8e, but in )ractice an*thin! tem)oral #as Fuickl* translatedinto s)atial relationshi)s or differences.

In this conte>t, the Derridean conce)t of differance, #ith its tem)oral and s)atial meanin!s, can be understood asan attem)t to think about difference and time at the same time, and therefore to allo# a tem)oral dimension backinto the anal*sis of lan!ua!e. As the last cha)ter illustrated, the structural anal*sis of a sentence, or a narrati8e,#ould look at

-32-

s*nta!matic relations bet#een the com)onents of the seFuence, or the relationshi) bet#een an* si!n and thesentence as a #hole, as if these #ere stable structural relations. The model of differance, on the other hand,im)lied that the relationshi)s bet#een the elements of a sentence #ere al#a*s in motion, or that the meanin! ofan* si!n #as al#a*s Fualif*in! those )recedin! it in the seFuence or #aitin! to be Fualified b* those that follo#ed.This is #hat Derrida referred to as the tracestructure of the si!n: that an* si!n is embedded in a conte>t, and thatits meanin! bears the trace of the si!ns that surround it, that ha8e )receded it, and that follo# it. The si!n #asseen b* the structuralist as an entit* that #as not com)lete in itself because it #as )artl* defined b* relations #ithother si!ns in the lan!ua!e s*stem. 1hat is bein! said here is that this is also true of other si!ns in a sentence, orseFuence of si!ns. But these other si!ns are not e>actl* co-)resent, as structuralism had seen it. The* are in the)ast and still to come, so that the meanin! of an* si!n is )artl* com)rised b* elements of the )ast and the future.The meanin! of a si!n is therefore not com)lete in itself, or is not )resent #ithin itself, but someho# s)read outacross all the others. "or is there an* limit to the dissemination of meanin! across other si!ns. Derrida talks ofmeanin! as ha8in! no res)ite in the Eindefinite referral from si!nifier to si!nifierE


24/55

the sim)lest #a* of definin! differance: that it is the o))osite of )resence, or )erha)s that it is the name of thenon-e>istence of )resence.

It is difficult then to sa* that the conce)t of differance, #ith its tem)oral dimension, ustified a strai!hfor#ardreturn to historicism. Because literar* criticism, )articularl* in the /nited tates, #as al#a*s )olarised and)olemicised around the o))osition bet#een )olitical criticism ities of time, #hich had been so strictl* e>cluded

from structuralism, and *et it also seemed to be disru)tin! the sim)licities of time #ith a formal ar!ument aboutthe relations bet#een the si!nifiers in an* chain. It remained unclear, ho#e8er, #hat a non-meta)h*sical a))roachto time #ould look like, and e8en less clear ho# historical #ritin! could base itself on such an a))roach.

Derrida makes some attem)t to clarif* this issue in ositions, #hich #as enormousl* influential in the /nitedtates. esistance to the meta)h*sical conce)t of histor*, he claims, #ould in8ol8e resistance to both Ehistor* in!eneral and the !eneral conce)t of histor*E. In the case of the former, the resistance to Ehistor* in !eneralE mi!htin8ol8e subscribin! to somethin! like AlthusserEs critiFue of e!elEs conce)t of histor*, #hich Eaims to sho# thatthere is not one sin!le histor*, but rather histories different in their t*)e, rh*thm, mode of inscri)tion - inter8allic,differentiated historiesE )lored more full* in cha)ter '.

The im)ortance of this ar!ument is the connection it established bet#een the linearit* of narrati8e and themeta)h*sics of )resence, a!ainst #hich Derrida )itches the counter-strate!* of differance, that is, of time

understood as differance. Because for Derrida )resence is a s)atio-tem)oral cate!or* )lainin! the tem)oralised meanin! of differance is throu!h the s)atial orstructural sense o

currie, mark - difference

Documents