Post-Structuralism

In his article, Signature Event Context, Jacques Derrida explores the word communication – providing lengthy examples and analysis as to why the “meaning” of communication is too volatile and complex to be defined; and, by doing this, he extends his argument to “meaning” itself and investigates how difference creates problems in the standard way of thinking about communication and the definitions of words. Derrida then goes on to explore systems of interpretation, and says that “a context is never absolutely determinable.” Additionally, he makes the argument that we will never get to the true “source” of writing/language because there is an absence, or delay. Because of this, we only have “traces,” and thus, we’ll never be 100% certain of the intended meaning.

Derrida seems as though he branches out in an entirely different direction than his predecessors in cultural theory; while others attempted to discover the order and structure of communication and culture, Derrida acknowledges that it is far too complex to ever truly understand. We will never get to the direct source of “truth,” and in order to understand, we can only follow traces.

Despite the complexity and difficulty of Derrida’s writing and arguments, he seems to have some very interesting theories that can function as effective tools to understand language and communication. Sources, tracing, mark, and absence are all cool concepts, and Derrida seems to be very original (especially since he makes up his own words). Though I have trouble understanding some aspects of his arguments, I think that (judging by his main ideas) post-structuralism is an effective lens of cultural analysis.