Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The "Letter to a Japanese Friend" is a five page text by Derrida intended to give
some "preliminary reflections on the word 'deconstruction'"(1). Derrida wrote the
"Letter to a Japanese Friend" to try and avoid a misunderstanding of the word
deconstruction when it was being translated into Japanese by Professor
Izutsu,. It is written by Derrida as a preliminary reflection on deconstruction and
is therefore a relatively straightforward text. The short and straightforward
nature of the text makes it a valuable introduction to deconstruction for an
interested reader who is not necessarily a professional philosopher. In the letter
Derrida sets out to describe "what deconstruction is not"(1). The letter therefore
gives a negative description of deconstruction and this seems to indicates that a
positive description would be too complicated for the introductory level
description of deconstruction that Derrida proposes in the "Letter to a Japanese
Friend".
Derrida asserts that deconstruction does not refer to "some clear and univocal
signification"(1). The term univocal means to say something with one voice.
When Derrida writes that deconstruction is not univocal he indicates that when
the word deconstruction occurs, it always occurs with many levels of meaning.
Derrida states that deconstruction in the American context "is already attached
to very different connotations, inflections, and emotional or affective values"(1).
Derrida therefore distances the role of the word deconstruction in his own
thought from the interpretation of the word deconstruction in the context of
American universities.
Derrida states that when he first chose the word deconstruction he "little thought
it would be credited with such a central role in the discourse that interested me
at the time"(1). Derrida implies that deconstruction has been made central to
understanding his philosophy by people trying to understand his philosophy
rather than his own intention to develop a philosophy based around this word.
Derrida states that when he first used the word deconstruction he
"wished to translate and adapt to my own ends the Heideggerian word
Destruktion or Abbau. But in French "destruction" too obviously implied an
annihilation or a negative reduction much closer perhaps to Nietzschean
"demolition" than to the Heideggerian interpretation or to the type of reading
that I proposed."(1).
The origins of the word deconstruction are therefore in Heidegger's philosophy.
The word was chosen to avoid the too obviously negative term demolition.
Derrida gives a number of pre-existing definitions for deconstruction that
influenced his choice of the word:
the possibility of further analysis. Beneath each level of a structure that can be
deconstructed there are further structures that can also be deconstructed.
Derrida means that deconstruction is not an analysis, if analysis is
conceptualised as finite or limited.
Derrida states that deconstruction is not a critique, in a general sense or in a
Kantian sense. The instance of krinein or of krisis (decision, choice, judgment,
discernment) is itself, as is all the apparatus of transcendental critique, one of
the essential themes or objects of deconstruction(3).
Derrida notes that the motif of deconstruction has been associated with
poststructuralism (a word unknown in France until its return from the United
States)(3). It is true that in certain circles (university or cultural, especially in
the United States) the technical and methodological metaphor that seems
necessarily attached to the very word deconstruction has been able to seduce
or lead astray(3).
Derrida states that Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed
into one(3). One reason for this is that it is not a mechanical operation: It is
true that in certain circles (university or cultural, especially in the United States)
the technical and methodological metaphor that seems necessarily attached to
the very word deconstruction has been able to seduce or lead astray(3).
Another problem is that deconstruction is not something that can be practiced by
an individual or collective subject who would take the initiative and apply it to
an object, a text, a theme, etc.(3). This inability to use deconstruction as a
method implies that in the same way the structure of a text exists before
deconstruction so does the possibility of deconstruction. The deconstruction is
therefore mapped in the text rather than used as a tool on the text. Derrida
argues that Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the
deliberation, consiousness, or organization of a subject(4).
Derrida writes I am only thereby increasing the difficulties...This too is what is
meant by 'deconstructs'(4).
For me, for what I have tried and still try to write, the word [deconstruction] has
interest only within a certain context, where it replaces and lets itself be
determined by such other words as ecriture, trace, differance,
supplement, hymen, pharmakon, marge, entame, parergon etc. By
definition, the list can nver be closed, and I have cited only names, which is
inadequate and done only for reasons of economy. In fact I should have cited the
sentences and the interlinking of sentences which in their turn determine these
names in some of my texts.(4/5) All these replacement terms for deconstruction
are key terms from Derrida's engagement with other philosophers. Each one is
invested with special meaning that represents the event of the deconstruction of
the philosopher in quesiton. Derrida therefore links deconstruction closely to his
own philosophical practice.