Derrida Jacques Derrida Deconstructs Jean-Jacques

Derrida

Jacques Derrida deconstructs Jean-Jacques Rousseau to make two main points. First, language is at the most a representative reality. Language is, in Rousseau's terms, supplemental. It can only approximate reality and mediate the truth to which the writing points. Language is "the mirage of the thing...an intermediary...a middle term," (87). Immediate experience can never be fully communicated in any language, as language is by definition symbolic and therefore supplemental.

Second, writing cannot be separated from the subjective state of either the author or the reader. A writer and a reader are both constrained by their psychological background and their historical context. The way the author uses language will also alter the content of the text. A reader's interpretation of the same piece of writing will thus be many times removed from the ultimate reality. The act of literary criticism is what Derrida refers to as the "moment of doubling commentary," (89). Reading a text can never be "content with doubling the text" but is always commingled with subjective supplements (89).

Although Derrida's style of writing obfuscates the crux of his argument, it is precisely his muddled use of language that substantiates the author's central point: that language is inherently imprecise. Language renders reality in a mediated way. Writers do not offer an objective truth; they can only supplement reality with words. Likewise, the reader interprets the supplementary material and objectivity is impossible. I wholeheartedly agree with Derrida's analysis and his critique of Rousseau. I also appreciate Derrida's deconstruction of language as being representative of postmodern theory. The sort of pessimistic hyper-analysis that characterizes postmodernism is exemplified in Derrida's essay.