Post-whatever

The structuralists (see “Language”) were quickly followed by what became known as the post-structuralists. They saw many of the problems inherent to structuralism and sought to find a better way to conceptualize language.

Lacan

Lacan first saw the problem of seeing language as purely sound waves. His most famous example is that of the restroom door. Suppose a boy and a girl were on a train approaching a train station. When they both see the restroom doors, the boy may say “we’re at the boy’s room.” The girl, finding this wrong, would suggest “no, we are at the girl’s.” The truth is, though, they were at both. The problem is that the two doors (each a signified) were identical except for the placard above them (signifier). Lacan then suggests that the signifier enters in the signified to form the sign. Without that signifier, it would be impossible to determine which door leads to which restroom.

Derrida

Later philosophers would suggest that language is primarily a written form, but they were quickly dismissed upon discovering that many undeveloped cultures do not have a written language. In Derrida, we find an idea that language is both written and spoken. His famous example is that of differance. In French, difference and differance are pronounced exactly the same. Difference is a “real” word that translates as “difference” (amazing!), yet differance is one Derrida coined. As Derrida said, differance “is not: it has neither existence nor essence” (Differance, 111). It comes from primarily two other words defer (meaning “to put off”) and differ (”to be unlike”) while using a gerundive ending to place the word between active and passive voice. The basic reasoning for this term was to suggest that language is in flux as a fluid object. The idea of a clear, stable meaning (which was found in the structuralists) was rejected. The meaning of a word could only be described by using other words. In other words, language is self-referential.

Blanchot

The self-referential idea of language enters into what becomes the postmodern discourse and becomes a key point. Yet, it is Maurice Blanchot who kills any possible obsession with language. In his The Writing of the Disaster, Blanchot points out that language is unable to do some very important things as it encounters its own walls. Blanchot speaks of the disaster (well, more of dis-aster, coming from the etymology of the word used to imply cataclysmic events such as a star falling) as being the limits of language. Language is unable to fully grasp the dis-aster. Blanchot ultimately concludes that language is highly over-rated.

Meaning

Here is the primary activity of language, yet it is not simply some kind of concrete definition. Some languages make a distinction between the meaning of a word (i.e. how does the dictionary define it?) and the sense of a word (i.e. how is it used in its current context?). By making this distinction, we can account for idiomatic expressions. “Kick the bucket” is no longer bound to one’s foot striking a bucket but can be extended to imply one’s death. This will be important when trying to interpret texts as it requires a context. This sentiment can be found in Derrida’s statement that “there is nothing outside the text.” There is so much relevant to a given text that the interpretation requires but yet this context is so often excluded on the basis of it being irrelevant. When we get to the problem of hermeneutics, we will see that the context of a given text includes all of history coming up to that point and the culture in which it was written. An informed interpretation of the book of Daniel may not be the “common sense” literal reading of it.