There is an experience you may already have had in front of a text by Derrida: the feeling that the words keep slipping away, that the argument folds back on itself, that the author seems more interested in unsettling the ground than in building a thesis. That impression is no accident, nor a failure of exposition — it is, in large measure, the point. Derrida did not want to propose a new doctrine of truth or language to add to the long list philosophy has already produced. He wanted to show that the very ambition of fixing a final meaning, full and present to itself, is the fragile presupposition on which the whole Western tradition was built — and that this presupposition does not hold.

Few twentieth-century thinkers were so idolized and so detested. For some, Derrida is the philosopher who exposed the limits of metaphysics and opened reading to a new freedom; for others, he is the emblem of an obscurantism that mistook rigor for wordplay. This article tries to set out what deconstruction actually claims — with precision about the concepts and honesty about the controversies.

1. Context: an Algerian in Paris and the year 1967

1.1. Origins and formation

Jacques Derrida was born on 15 July 1930 in El-Biar, on the outskirts of Algiers, into a Sephardic Jewish family. That marginal condition — French yet Algerian; Jewish in colonial Algeria; later expelled from school under the antisemitic laws of the Vichy regime in 1942 — shaped his entire relation to the idea of a center, of belonging, of identity. He trained at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where his decisive encounter was with phenomenology. He died in Paris on 9 October 2004.

1.2. Inheritances

Deconstruction does not arise from nowhere. It is a radical reading of four great inheritances. From Edmund Husserl, with whom Derrida began (his first publication was the introduction to his translation of The Origin of Geometry, 1962), he retained the rigor of the analysis of meaning — only to turn that rigor against phenomenology itself. From Martin Heidegger, Derrida inherited the task of the Destruktion of the history of metaphysics: the dismantling of inherited categories to expose their hidden presuppositions. Deconstruction (déconstruction) is, in part, a translation and radicalization of that Heideggerian term. From Friedrich Nietzsche comes the suspicion of truth as a stable value and the play of interpretations. And from Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of structural linguistics, Derrida takes the principle that the sign is differential — only to show that Saussure himself betrays this principle by privileging speech over writing. Sigmund Freud enters with the notion of the trace and of a psyche that is not present to itself.

1.3. The annus mirabilis

In 1967, at only 37, Derrida published three books that founded deconstruction: Of Grammatology (De la grammatologie), Writing and Difference (L’écriture et la différence) and Voice and Phenomenon (La voix et le phénomène), the last a close reading of Husserl. These three books, released almost simultaneously, shifted the axis of French thought from structuralism toward what came to be called post-structuralism.

2. The metaphysics of presence and logocentrism

Derrida’s underlying thesis is that the whole of Western philosophy, from Plato to Husserl, is organized around a privilege: the privilege of presence. Presence of meaning to consciousness, presence of the object to intuition, presence of the signified behind the word, presence of the “now” as the truth of time. To this presupposition Derrida gives the name metaphysics of presence.

This privilege unfolds into what he calls logocentrism: the belief that there exists a logos — a reason, a meaning, a truth — that precedes language and that language merely expresses. And logocentrism, in turn, manifests itself historically as phonocentrism: the privileging of voice, of speech, over writing.

Why is speech privileged? Because in speech meaning seems immediately present: when I speak, I hear myself speak in the very same instant, and I am under the illusion that my intention and my expression coincide perfectly. Writing, by contrast, is treated by the whole tradition — from Plato (in the Phaedrus) to Rousseau, from Saussure to Lévi-Strauss — as something derivative, secondary, external, dangerous: a copy of living speech, a mediation that threatens to corrupt the presence of meaning. It is precisely this hierarchy that Derrida will contest.

3. What deconstruction is (and is not)

Deconstruction is frequently misunderstood, and it is worth beginning by clearing away two errors.

It is not destruction. Derrida repeatedly insisted that to deconstruct a text or a concept is not to demolish it, refute it or discard it. It is a labor that respects the text precisely insofar as it reads it with extreme care — more care, perhaps, than the text took with itself.

It is not a method applied from the outside. Deconstruction is not a grid the critic carries in a pocket and applies to any object. It does not operate from outside in, but from within: the task is to show how the text deconstructs itself, how its own tensions and exclusions destabilize it.

What deconstruction does, concretely, is to locate the hierarchical binary oppositions that structure a text — speech/writing, presence/absence, inside/outside, nature/culture, sensible/intelligible, soul/body — and to show that the “superior” term (the first) secretly depends on the “inferior” term (the second) that it claimed to exclude. The operation has two moments: first, an inversion of the hierarchy (showing, for instance, that writing is not derived from speech, but that speech itself already has the structure of writing); then a displacement — for to invert the opposition pure and simply would keep the binary logic intact. A third term then emerges, irreducible to the opposition, such as arche-writing (archi-écriture): a more originary structure of which both speech and writing are particular cases.

4. Différance: the word you can only see in writing

Derrida’s most famous concept is différance, set out above all in the 1968 lecture of the same name (collected in Margins of Philosophy, 1972). It is a neologism spelled with an a — différance — in place of the expected différence. And here lies the first irony, deliberate and pedagogical: in French, différence and différance are pronounced identically. The difference between the two words cannot be heard: it can only be seen in writing. The very word that names Derrida’s thought performatively exemplifies the thesis that there is something in language that escapes the presence of the voice.

Différance condenses two senses of the French verb différer:

  • to differ in the sense of being different — the spatial dimension, the distinction between signs. No sign has meaning in itself; it signifies only through its difference from the others (here Derrida radicalizes Saussure).
  • to differ in the sense of to defer, to postpone — the temporal dimension. Meaning is never fully present; it is always shifted forward or backward, always deferred along an indefinite chain of references.

The consequence is devastating for the metaphysics of presence: the signified is never wholly here, wholly now. It is the effect of a web of differences and deferrals that never closes into a full presence. There is no transcendental signified — no final point of arrival that would halt the movement of signification.

5. Trace, supplement, iterability and the undecidables

Différance opens onto a whole constellation of operative terms.

The trace (trace). If no sign is full in itself, then each sign carries within it the mark of the others that it is not — the mark of what is absent. Derrida calls this the trace: the presence of an absence at the heart of every element. There is no pure presence, only traces of traces.

The supplement (supplément). In his reading of Rousseau (in Of Grammatology), Derrida unfolds the logic of the supplement. In French, supplément has a double sense: that which is added to something already complete (a dispensable luxury) and that which replaces a lack, that completes something incomplete. Rousseau treats writing as a mere supplement to speech, and masturbation as a dangerous supplement to “natural” sex — but in analyzing him, Derrida shows that the supplement can only be added because there was already a lack in the supposed original. The “external supplement” thus reveals itself to be constitutive of what it claimed merely to complete. Nature already needed culture; speech was already writing.

Iterability. For a sign to function as a sign, it must be repeatable in different contexts, in the absence of its emitter and its referent. This repeatability — iterability — is not an accident threatening language “from outside”: it is the very condition of any sign. Every mark can be cited, cut out, grafted onto another context. This is what makes language possible and, at the same time, prevents any context from fixing meaning definitively.

The undecidables. In the texts he reads, Derrida identifies certain terms that resist classification within the binary oppositions — the undecidables. The pharmakon, in his reading of Plato’s Phaedrus (in “Plato’s Pharmacy”, 1968), is exemplary: the Greek word means remedy and poison at once. Writing, which Plato calls pharmakon, is both things at the same time, and this ambivalence cannot be resolved — philosophy tries to decide it, in vain. The hymen (in “The Double Session”, apropos of Mallarmé) is another: it names at once virginity and its consummation, separation and fusion.

5.1. “There is no outside-text”

No sentence of Derrida’s has been more quoted and more distorted than “il n’y a pas de hors-texte”. It appears in Of Grammatology (1967), precisely in the second part of the book, in the course of the reading of Rousseau’s Confessions, and the translator Gayatri Spivak rendered it into English as “there is nothing outside the text”.

The common error is to take it to mean “only text exists” or “the world does not exist, there are only books” — a kind of absurd linguistic idealism. That is not it. Derrida does not deny the existence of the referent, of history, of bodies. What he affirms is that there is no meaning outside a context — outside a fabric of references, differences and traces. Text, here, does not mean “written page” but the generalized weave of relations within which anything becomes meaningful at all. There is no point of access to meaning that is free of all mediation, of all differential play, of all interpretation. This is why more recent translations prefer “there is no outside-text” or even “there is nothing outside context.” Context is an integral part of the text — and it is never completely saturated.

6. The ethical and political turn

From the 1980s and 1990s onward, without disowning any of his earlier work, Derrida increasingly turned his attention to ethical, legal and political questions — what some called, perhaps too quickly, the “ethical turn” of deconstruction.

In “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority” (Force de loi, 1994), Derrida distinguishes law (droit, positive law, always constructed, always deconstructible) from justice. His strongest thesis: justice is undeconstructible. Law can and must be deconstructed, because it is finite, historical, bound up with force; but justice, as an unconditional demand addressed to the singular other, is precisely that in whose name one deconstructs. “Deconstruction is justice,” he goes so far as to write. Justice is never fully realized in any law — it remains a promise, something “to come” (à venir).

This structure of the to-come organizes other themes of the late Derrida: the gift (a giving that, to be pure, cannot enter the circle of exchange and recognition, becoming almost impossible), hospitality (the tension between conditional, regulated hospitality and an unconditional hospitality toward the stranger), and the democracy to come (démocratie à venir). In Specters of Marx (Spectres de Marx, 1993), written after the fall of the Berlin Wall and against triumphant announcements of the “end of history”, Derrida claims an inheritance from Marx — not the Marx of the parties, but a certain demand for justice that “haunts” the present like a specter.

Critical analysis

No honest discussion of Derrida can omit the serious objections his work provoked — above all in the English-speaking world and the analytic tradition.

The debate with John Searle. In 1971, at a conference in Montreal, Derrida presented “Signature Event Context” (Signature, événement, contexte, published in French in 1972 and in English in 1977 in the journal Glyph), a critical reading of J. L. Austin’s theory of speech acts. Derrida argued that Austin, by treating utterances outside the ordinary context (a promise made on stage, by an actor) as “parasitic” or “non-serious”, ignored that iterability — the possibility of any utterance being cited, repeated outside its context — is not an anomaly but the condition of any linguistic act. The American philosopher John Searle, a student of Austin’s, replied in 1977 with “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida”, accusing him of reading Austin confusedly and of ignoring the distinction between use and mention. Derrida answered with a long and mordant text, “Limited Inc a b c…”, later collected in the volume Limited Inc (1988). The tone of the dispute — ironic and at times corrosive in Derrida, impatient in Searle — became the emblem of the gulf between the two traditions. It is fair to note both sides: for the critics, Derrida exploited ambiguities instead of arguing; for his defenders, Searle simply failed to confront the point about iterability.

The Cambridge affair (1992). The controversy reached its peak when the University of Cambridge proposed to award Derrida an honorary degree (honoris causa). A group of philosophers — led by Barry Smith and including weighty names such as W. V. O. Quine, Ruth Barcan Marcus and David Armstrong — published a letter of protest in The Times (9 May 1992), arguing that Derrida’s work did not meet the standards of clarity and rigor required of philosophy and describing it as made of puns and tricks. For the sake of balance, it is important to record the outcome: the university put the matter to a vote on 16 May 1992, and the degree was conferred, by 336 votes to 204. The central charge — relativism, irrationalism, deliberate obscurity — was rebutted by Derrida’s defenders with the argument that the difficulty of his texts is inseparable from what he is trying to think, and that to confuse clarity with superficiality is itself one of the presuppositions that deconstruction calls into question.

Where does the truth lie? Probably not in a single verdict. It is legitimate to ask any philosopher to make the effort to be understood and to be suspicious when difficulty becomes mannerism. It is equally legitimate to recognize that certain problems — the limits of philosophical language itself — perhaps cannot be stated in the limpid style of the very tradition they question. The serious reader does well to join neither camp before reading Derrida himself.

Legacy

Derrida’s influence reached far beyond philosophy. In North American literary studies, deconstruction became, in the 1970s and 1980s, a dominant current — the so-called “Yale School”, with Paul de Man at its head. In critical theory and cultural studies, his concepts of the trace, the margin and the supplement provided tools for thinking everything that culture excludes. In postcolonial studies, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak — the translator of Of Grammatology — articulated deconstruction with the critique of colonialism and the question of the subaltern. His mark extends further to law (Critical Legal Studies), to theology (negative theology and death-of-God theology), to queer theory, and even to deconstructivist architecture (Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi).

At the same time, deconstruction remains contested, and perhaps this is the surest sign of its importance: few thinkers forced so many traditions to take a position toward them. Derrida did not found a school of answers, but he inaugurated a way of reading — attentive to the margins, the footnotes, what the text represses — that changed the way one interprets a text, any text. He left philosophy more uncomfortable, and more vigilant about its own presuppositions, than he found it.

  • Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (1967).
  • Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference (1967).
  • Jacques Derrida, Voice and Phenomenon (1967).
  • Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy (1972) — contains the essay “Différance”.
  • Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (1988) — the debate with Searle.
  • Jacques Derrida, Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority (1994).
  • Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx (1993).
  • Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction — a clear and reliable introduction.

← Articles