Derrida: A Very Short Introduction

I read a lot of these oxford "a very short introduction" books, and I am also familiar with Ferdinand de Saussure. I was a linguistics major in undergrad, and now a Ph.D. student - I am a historian but training at Emory's Psychoanalytic program in Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, so I am fairly familiar with Structuralism.However, this book was not an easily digestible presentation of Derrida. I would recommend reading "How to Read Derrida" by Penelope Deutscher (2006) before this book. Also, "Derrida For Beginners" by Jim Powel (2007) before this book. Be sure to watch the many YouTube videos out there explaining Derrida's thought and then after all of that read Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's introduction to the English translation of "Of Grammatology." I would also recommend reading Roland Barthes before Derrida, because Derrida builds off his ideas quite heavily without really saying so. I learned all this the hard way, lmao.

I'm not a big Derrida fan, but have tried from time-to-time to understand his appeal (one-time appeal) to so many American academics. Since most of Derrida's own writing is impenetrable (sometimes, I think, by design), I have turned to secondary accounts of his life and work and have found some understanding there.Prof. Glendinning's Very Short Introduction is for me, however, not one of the more helpful guides. Too much of the prose mimics Derrida's style in its unnecessary complexity, making much of its meaning obscure. Of course that could be the point since actual meaning (outside the mystical realm) does not seem to be possible in the written world Derrida purports to describe, deconstruct or dismember.Since so much of Derrida's "original" thought seems tied to Plato (who was closer in time to the real logos, that which was in the beginning, than was Derrida), I wonder if maybe reading Plato and forgetting Derrida altogether would be a more productive, beneficial and satisfying use of one's time for those interested in Derrida's Platonic razzmatazz.Yet the only tools I have at hand to express my views are "signifiers of signifiers." And this puts me far away from the original logos, and far out of touch with the idea of its mystical return, it's second coming, which is, it appears, Deconstruction itself, or at least the prophet of Deconstruction, our latter-day Jeremiah who is signified "Jacques." So nothing I can say, or perhaps merely write, has any meaning, at least not any of which I can be aware.I think of the decoder rings in cereal boxes when I was a kid. Then I think of deconstruction. Who created the code on those rings? And was the code the original deconstructor? Perhaps there is a cereal box somewhere in the world that still holds the answer. For without it, the mass of humanity will remain forever locked outside the inner circle of secret knowledge that is deconstruction. The barriers are high, and the walls are dense, yet there is a glimmer of hope for my fellows and me who stand outside the secret circle waiting for the cereal box to arrive.So, for a clear, concise and understandable essay on Derrida in the context of 20th Century European philosophy and why his thought was more compatible with American academic thinking than with that of most his fellow French thinkers, you might want to look at Mark Lilla's "The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics." Then read Glendinning's book if you wish and you will find it a bit more useful than I did reading it before reading Lilla's book.There is one line in Lilla's essay on Derrida that I think captures the spirit of the deconstruction movement (and I think it probably was a movement, a sort of semi-mystical secular messianic movement, more than it was a real school of thought). Here is Lilla's line: "Anyone who has heard [Derrida] lecture in French knows that he is more performance artist than logician."Perhaps that explains Derrida's appeal, which could mean I've finally found an answer to my original question - Why does (did) Derrida appeal so much to so many American academics? Lilla has a fuller answer to that, which is both sensible and culturally/historically sound, but I won't get into that here.

I offer a review only to measure out that offered by the other reviewer, which is harsh and (to someone who read the book) undeserved. The outline of the other reviewer is accurate, but in my opinion, his estimation of its value is misplaced; the introduction acts as a necessary 'preface' to Derrida. Most people have a general awareness of the Theory Wars of the second half of the twentieth century (at least those who would seek out such a book as this), foremost among the participants Derrida--thus, the biographicl opening of the book sets to place Derrida, considering the weight of publicity on his philosophizing and how inextricably linked to 'publicity' that his philosphy is by nature. It also serves as an opening to show how Derrida is a philosopher that is not simply contributing to an established problem but a 'shaker' of the tradition's conception.Yes, Derrida and his 'philosophy' (read the book and you'll understand the need for quotes rather than pure assertion) can be summarized "to be about the fact that the words and texts are age-related, ambiguous and charged by their ideological, political, etc., contexts." But this is like saying Heidegger is about Death and equipment--it doesn't address the movmement of the thought.Derrida is a crucial philosopher for French thought (one of the major outposts of continental philosophy). This book is a fantastic intro, that slowly builds up its usage of 'Derridean' language for the newcomer. That said, Derrida is a man enmeshed in a time and place which requires prior familiarization if you want more than the simple explanation for his thought given above. An awareness of Kant's Copernican Revolution, structuralism, rudimentary dialectics (its defintion alone is sufficient), and the effect of Heidegger's "Being and Time" on twentieth century thought is the only primer necessary.Any introduction to Derrida is going to be a bit difficult, but this one reduces as much friction between the laymen and the ideas as possible. A valuable contribution to Oxford's helpful VSI Series.

The author's approach - which is based informally on lecture notes - does not lead towards a clear understanding, but tends to mirror Derrida's position (or even polemicize it) when it should be describing it. Rather disappointing.

A clearly worded introduction which might be worth reading before starting on Derrida's own writings. The concepts are not easy to understand but I think I got the gist of them from reading this book.

I have short introductions of Poststructuralism as well as Postmodernism, which are excellently authored books, and though as we know theory is always a dense terrain, it has been handled with such dexterity by these writers that all those presumed opaque and ambiguous concepts turn out to be so much readable. Not in this case though, because the initial pages are spent on Derrida's personal likes/dislikes which I fail to understand in which way are relevant to understand his philosophy! The other concepts have been mostly elaborated and in turn been solidified with some other critics' critiques!

Derrida is not a sort of philosopher explaining his worldview based on his “core” ideas. Rather he resists core or essence can be found throughout western philosophy. It could be tough for those who don’t read philosophers before his era. Before reading this, I read some books on him and treatises from different academic fields like IR theories, in which deconstruction is used as methodology. But some chapters in this book are not easy to follow and grasp nuances. What I had in my mind while reading this was textuality, which means (I might be wrong though) our language does not only reflect or record the world but shape and reshape it through and through. And what Derrida precisely criticises is any form of naturalised binary. He exposes vulnerability of categories presumed to be pure or fixed by deconstructing them. But how they are deconstructed is the toughest part in his philosophy, I suppose. It needs reflective exercises to fully get how to do it. So I’ll definitely coming back to this book to brush up.

The one upshot is that I do not know enough to find the introduction illuminating.I would have like to have seen more practical examples of text analysis.The other upshot really is what everyone know already, Derrida is by no means easy to read.Some of the questions he appears to ask are challenging.But do they amount to a coherent viewpoint?I'm none the wiser, but that may just be my problem.