STRUCTURALISM PHILOSOPHY 314
EXAM STUDY NOTES
,Table of Contents
THEME 1: AFTERWORD............................................................................................................................1
THEME 2: THE VIOLENCE OF DECONSTRUCTION..........................................................................27
THEME 3: DECONSTRUCTION, LAW AND JUSTICE.........................................................................41
THEME 4: DERRIDA: RACISM AND APARTHEID.............................................................................55
,THEME 1: AFTERWORD
From Language Theory to Ethics
● Derrida (D) systematically works through the differences between him and
Searle, but simultaneously indicates that the theoretical dispute about the nature
of language is in actual fact a manifestation of underlying political/ethical
considerations. You must follow the development of the argument clearly.
● Differences between Derrida and Searle:
○ Debate between the two philosophers during 70s
○ Limited Inc records this debate
○ Three text in Limited Inc
■ Essay 1: Derrida responds to Austin
○ Points out the advantages and weaknesses of Austin’s work
○ Derrida agrees with Austin when he says words do things in the world
■ Austin shifts meaning to context, he wants to free meaning from
intentionality of the speaker
○ Derrida agrees with Austin’s understanding of performative function of
words
○ Disagrees with his understanding of context (serious vs non-serious
speech acts)
■ Meaning takes place in context and context is boundless (cannot
conclusively determine the context/meaning that takes place
because of context)
○ Searle doesn’t think Derrida’s work is accurate, thinks that Derrida
misunderstood Austin
■ Searle was a student of Austin, so thinks he understands work
better: good example of metaphysics of presence
○ Takes form of letter directed at Gerald Graaf (editor of Limited Inc)
○ Afterword is the bridge between his work on language (earlier work) and
his work on political/ethical considerations (later work)
■ More a sober reflection on the confrontation he had with Searle
1
, Themes Addressed (Themes we will address)
● Language
● Violence
● Ethics
● Politics
● The status of law/rules/norms/distinctions
○ Laws are man-made therefore we set them and could change them
○ Law states that we must do this and that but we set the law, so we
basically say what is acceptable
● The possibility of nonviolence (is nonviolence possible at all?)
PREFACE:
Derrida’s 3 Reasons for Writing a Letter (to express his thoughts/answer Searle’s
criticism)
● He expresses his gratitude that the debate can be reinstated and especially that
the violence of the debate can be made explicit.
○ He emphasises the inherent violence in the academic world (and other
institutions, such as the law), something, which is often overlooked.
■ P. 112 second paragraph “on what…” - violence in his exchange
with Searle, and general violence in academia
■ Their debate is one which you could call violent (academic
violence)
■ They were violent in expressing their views
■ But he says there is inherent violence in the academic world (he
wants to bring this to attention) - they claim to be neutral/nonviolent
but in fact are violent
■ 3 levels of violence which work together:
2
EXAM STUDY NOTES
,Table of Contents
THEME 1: AFTERWORD............................................................................................................................1
THEME 2: THE VIOLENCE OF DECONSTRUCTION..........................................................................27
THEME 3: DECONSTRUCTION, LAW AND JUSTICE.........................................................................41
THEME 4: DERRIDA: RACISM AND APARTHEID.............................................................................55
,THEME 1: AFTERWORD
From Language Theory to Ethics
● Derrida (D) systematically works through the differences between him and
Searle, but simultaneously indicates that the theoretical dispute about the nature
of language is in actual fact a manifestation of underlying political/ethical
considerations. You must follow the development of the argument clearly.
● Differences between Derrida and Searle:
○ Debate between the two philosophers during 70s
○ Limited Inc records this debate
○ Three text in Limited Inc
■ Essay 1: Derrida responds to Austin
○ Points out the advantages and weaknesses of Austin’s work
○ Derrida agrees with Austin when he says words do things in the world
■ Austin shifts meaning to context, he wants to free meaning from
intentionality of the speaker
○ Derrida agrees with Austin’s understanding of performative function of
words
○ Disagrees with his understanding of context (serious vs non-serious
speech acts)
■ Meaning takes place in context and context is boundless (cannot
conclusively determine the context/meaning that takes place
because of context)
○ Searle doesn’t think Derrida’s work is accurate, thinks that Derrida
misunderstood Austin
■ Searle was a student of Austin, so thinks he understands work
better: good example of metaphysics of presence
○ Takes form of letter directed at Gerald Graaf (editor of Limited Inc)
○ Afterword is the bridge between his work on language (earlier work) and
his work on political/ethical considerations (later work)
■ More a sober reflection on the confrontation he had with Searle
1
, Themes Addressed (Themes we will address)
● Language
● Violence
● Ethics
● Politics
● The status of law/rules/norms/distinctions
○ Laws are man-made therefore we set them and could change them
○ Law states that we must do this and that but we set the law, so we
basically say what is acceptable
● The possibility of nonviolence (is nonviolence possible at all?)
PREFACE:
Derrida’s 3 Reasons for Writing a Letter (to express his thoughts/answer Searle’s
criticism)
● He expresses his gratitude that the debate can be reinstated and especially that
the violence of the debate can be made explicit.
○ He emphasises the inherent violence in the academic world (and other
institutions, such as the law), something, which is often overlooked.
■ P. 112 second paragraph “on what…” - violence in his exchange
with Searle, and general violence in academia
■ Their debate is one which you could call violent (academic
violence)
■ They were violent in expressing their views
■ But he says there is inherent violence in the academic world (he
wants to bring this to attention) - they claim to be neutral/nonviolent
but in fact are violent
■ 3 levels of violence which work together:
2
