Inadaptability of Derrida's Deconstructionism to Literary Theory
XU Liang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2006.05.008
2006-01-01
Abstract:″Presence″ and ″metaphor″ are not only two subjects of Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism but also the basic concepts of literary theory. Since the 1970s,the two subjects and even his whole philosophy of deconstructionism have drawn much attention from the Western circles of literary theory and then the Chinese counterpart,so that they began to be applied to literary theory. However,the author of this paper finds that there is a big gap between deconstructionism and literature. Derrida's interest in these two concepts is based on his unique philosophical concern: the disclosure and criticism of metaphysics. In his opinion,″presence″ is a kind of self-justifying mechanism which is adopted by metaphysics to justify itself. Metaphysics tries to say: what language enounces is able to reach the scenes and things outside it,and as language is present,it can be truth. This kind of ″presence″ relies on the sound of word-signifier. The subject hears while saying,thus producing a feeling of presence. Then,according to translucent mechanism,which is hidden and unaware,the signified seems to be present. Naturally,language turns to be what it signifies,meaning and the presence itself. But Derrida considers the statements above only an illusion. Actually,the warrant of presence,″being heard-saying″,is an auto-affection phenomenon,and the experience based on language cannot be purely present. However,literature pursues the description of present experience. It doesn't care about the purity of presence; instead,it cares about whether authors are able to write out the vivid experience without any estrangement between them. Undoubtedly,this experience is the experience in language. Derrida's interest and context lead to the differences of his concept of ″presence″ from that of literature. Also,Derrida regards metaphor as the performance of philosophical texts. He analyses some definitions of metaphor's philosophical meanings,and thus points out that these definitions indicate a metaphysical theme: words and expressions can catch things and truth. As far as he is concerned,because of using words,metaphor is bound to wander around things,and becomes a detour that can never get to things. Literature never holds metaphysical intent about metaphor. Literature only cares about the descriptive and creative ability of metaphor,whose aim is to bring about new utterances,not to catch anything. Poems pay great attention to metaphors produced by sounds of words (such as the repetition of sound through feet and rhythms),whose effect is to achieve the transference and replacement of lexical meaning. This performance leads to anti-metaphysics to some degree. However,as is known to all,Derrida is especially vigilant over the metaphysical effect of phonetic sound. He believes that the auto-effect of phonetic sound supports the metaphysicalhypothesis,and he claims to antagonize phonocentrism by script. This is totally different from the stand of literature. Derrida's deconstructionism is inadaptable with literary theory in many aspects. It looks as if there is no direct path that joins a philosophical theory to a literary theory. The present literary theory circles should make a self-criticism about it.