Textual Intercourse | Issue 8 | Philosophy Now

file:///D:/Documents and Settings/Administrador/Meus documentos/S...

Textual Intercourse
John Green reviews Dissemination by Jacques Derrida (translated by Barbara Johnson).
This (therefore) will not have been a book Jacques Derrida It is with a sense of so e irony that I ust write this review! since the thrust of Derrida"s ar#u ent in Dissemination is that books are not selfenclosed entities that can be e$a ined in isolation. By their very nature they refer us to all anner of %arallel! conti#uous and tan#ential te$ts! #enres and discourses. &ll writin# is interte$tual as a result of the %roliferation of eanin# beyond what is e$%licit in the te$t. 'e could not read Dissemination without already havin# read! havin# already understood. If it were the only book in the universe! if the words therein a%%eared nowhere else! then we would be unable to read it. It would then be a closed book to us. But lan#ua#e is constituted by si#ns that are characterised by their re%eatability and we are thus able to read and understand Dissemination( we have always already encountered the words therein elsewhere! or can refer to the elsewhere if we have not. The te$t o%ens with a %reface devoted to %refaces( the %reface as su%%le ent ) necessary addition or substitute for the te$t! which need not have been the %reface for this book. & %reface on %refaces see s %eculiarly enclosed and selfreferential for a work on interte$tuality. It could have %refaced any book! or stand alone as a te$t in itself! if such a thin# were %ossible. *f course! for Derrida! it is not. &n e$a %le of dissemination( althou#h he is nowhere entioned in this work! I was frequently re inded of Jean +octeau while readin# ,The Double -ession"! the section in which Derrida uses an e$cer%t of Platos .hilebus in con/unction with a %rose0%iece by -t1%hane 2allar 1 to e$a ine the notion of i esis and the %roble of re%resentation. 2y favourite story about +octeau concerns his belief that he could co une with an#els. This belief was the result of an e%i%hanic e%isode in an elevator. The inscri%tion on the anufacturer"s brass na e%late inside the elevator was iraculously transfor ed fro *tis0 .ifre! the anufacturer"s na e! to 3eurtebise the na e of the an#el introducin# itself. & bi4arre ethod of introduction! no doubt! but it has stuck with e as a consequence. ,The Double -ession" contains several references to the verb heurter (to knock! to shock)! the noun bise (north wind! cold blast) and to constellations! a leit otif of +octeau"s. &s a result! it is as if +octeau so ehow haunts Derrida"s te$t! /ust as Derrida describes .ierrot hauntin# 2allar 1"s. This hauntin#! this lack0thatis0 there is evidence of differance! the ubiquitous deferral of eanin# that entails the i %ossibility of totali4ation. The %ursuit of truth is unendin# because truth is never %resent all at once! never self0enclosed or identical with itself. 2eanin# is always e$cessive ) there is always s%illa#e! an overflowin# or! better! a %ost%one ent of co %lete co %rehension! because of writin#"s interte$tuality. ,.lato"s .har acy"! the first section %ro%er (5) of the te$t! reveals a si ilar case of hauntin#. The central te$t here is .lato"s Phaedrus! in %articular the section dealin# with the ori#ins of writin#. &s in Of Grammatology! Derrida is concerned to break down the traditional hierarchy between s%eech and writin# that he sees as havin# %la#ued 'estern eta%hysics since .lato. There are a nu ber of these ,binary o%%ositions"! includin# ale6fe ale! #ood6evil! truth6error and s%eech6writin#! each o%%osition allottin# a hi#her status to the first cate#ory. Derrida wishes to %ut these cate#ories into question! while acknowled#in# the i %ossibility of esca%in# the alto#ether. 3is work is therefore always a critique. The Phaedrus atte %ts to de onstrate the su%eriority of s%eech over writin#. 'ritin# is but a %oor i itation of -%eech. The latter is closer to the ori#in of the Idea e$%ressed and is thus less corru%ted. Derrida ar#ues that s%eech! /ust like writin#! is characterised by differance! by deferral! and that as a consequence can be no closer to the truth! to the a%%ro$i ation of self0%resence than writin#. &t the sa e o ent! he brin#s into question the boundaries of ,the te$t". The Phaedrus is haunted by the #host of the ,.har akos"! the sca%e#oat. The &thenians ke%t a s all #rou% of su%%le entary individuals called ,.har akoi" in their co unity ) on the ar#ins ) to be sacrificed at ti es of %estilence! fa ine etc to a%%ease the #ods. &#ain! neither word a%%ears in the written6s%oken te$t. 3owever! writin# is frequently referred to by .lato as a ,.har akon"! a related and already a bi#uous ter that can be translated as either ,cure" or ,%oison". The 7n#lish word ,%otion" has a si ilar a bi#uity! derived fro the 8atin ,%otare" ) to drink! but su##estin# a %otency that can be used for #ood or ill. 'hile for .lato writin# is a ,.har akon"! bein# both a re edy (an aide memoire) and a %oison (weakenin# our natural ca%acities for recollection)! for Derrida! this overt descri%tion is %er anently disturbed by the s%ectre of the ,.har akos"! the idea of the sca%e#oat! the ar#inal su%%le ent conde ned for the absence of truth and corru%tion of #oodness. Just as the sca%e#oats are a re edy for the ills of the city! so inversely! writin# the re edy is a sca%e#oat for .lato. To use the sort of identity lo#ic that Derrida detests! if the .har akoi are a .har akon! the .har akon is a .har akos. 9or the &thenians! includin# .lato! the idea of the ,sca%e#oat"! the bla eless sacrifice and the idea of a ,re edy" are too obviously related to be issed. .lato criticises writin# for bein# res%onsible for distancin# us fro the li#ht! while never usin# the %recise eta%hor that Derrida su##ests. The notion of the sca%e#oat! of the ,.har akos" is there but it is i %licit! han#in# around! on the wind. It is as thou#h the descri%tion of writin# as a ,.har akos" would under ine and subvert .lato"s %ro/ect (thou#h it is not clear that this is so). The boundaries of the te$t are broken by this %otential inter%retation that is there but elsewhere. Dissemination is by no eans an easy te$t to read. .erseverance and dili#ence are required! as well as fa iliarity with the Phaedrus! the writin#s of 2allar 1! and .hili%%e -ollers" e$%eri ental novel Numbers! which Derrida reflects on and al ost see s to %arody in the final! e%ony ous section of the book. Barbara Johnson deserves i ense credit for her translation of Derrida"s te$t. 9or consistency"s sake! %arts of Derrida"s te$t are the selves e$%eri ental ) references abound! as do fold0ins and cut0u%s : la Burrou#hs! de onstratin# the disse inative force of lan#ua#e. Johnson has successfully ana#ed to recreate this force in a forei#n ton#ue. Dissemination also lacks the several hundred ty%os that arred y en/oy ent of Of Grammatology! althou#h I rather liked the idea of always already threeness! and for

1 de 2

9/4/2014 17:05

Textual Intercourse | Issue 8 | Philosophy Now

file:///D:/Documents and Settings/Administrador/Meus documentos/S...

that we should be #rateful to the &thlone .ress. Derrida reco ends that 2allar e"s te$ts are read and re0read. Indeed! re0readin# is crucial to the a%%reciation of disse ination! thou#h the reader should leave a #a% of several years before returnin# to this work! in order to recover. Des%ite what Derrida says! this te$t I- e$haustin#! but its co %letion left e e$hilarated if also a touch relieved. This (therefore) will not have been a review. ; John <reen =>>? Dissemination by Jacques Derrida (translated with an introduction and additional notes by Barbara Johnson) is %ublished in %a%erback by the &thlone .ress and costs @=A.>B. John Green is a postgraduate student working in academic publishing.

2 de 2

9/4/2014 17:05