404
PARTISAN REVIEW
inhabit onl y the virtual space which they would inhabit as functio ns,
the structura list cri tic is trying to disarm the enemy; neutralize h is
force, ta ke the venom out o f his sting? And then wha t? So that p lay
can p revai l?
Yes, in the sense tha t p lay is one of the mos t pos itive term s in
structura lism .
In
different contexts it has meant demys tifica tion ,
deconstructi on; the fir st is the ges tu re of vo iding, cancelling, eras ing,
dissolving entities in to func tions, tha t kind o f thing into that kind of
shadow; the second is the withho lding o f credence, it means reta ining
a notion but reta ining it reluctantl y, ho lding it but holding it suspec t,
trea ting every idea as an ideo logy. Play a lso means, in o ther contexts,
refu sing to be bound by the relentless sequence of beginning, middle,
and end , the fa tality of order: it means the ac t by which the meta–
physic o f being and presence is suppressed . I have said tha t p lay is
a crucia l term in structura lism, but it is a lso the term which turns
structuralists into lapsed structura lists, as if the term , itself p layed
with sufficient agility, di sclosed the limita tions of the doctr ine it
enhanced .
I shall come back to this ques tion , but meanwhile I shoul d
indica te some of the criti cal and limiting observa tions which struc–
tura lism has been forced to recognize. I take them in no particular
order, but I begin with Derrida, who mainta ins tha t structuralism is
ta inted throug h and through with the very metaphysics it proposes to
subdue. Derrida's ma in critique is direc ted aga inst Saussure and Levi–
Strauss. He argues tha t Lev i-Strauss's structura lism is in prac tice a
phono log ism : the anima ting fo rce in hi s work is nosta lg ia for a worl d
of speech , ges ture, shared sounds, audible to kens of plenitude and
mutua lity. Writing, specifically a lpha betic writing , is trea ted as a
serv ile instrument, no t even a second best to speech but the enemy of
speech : in
The Savage Mind
and o ther books, writing is directly
associa ted with imperi a lism , co loniza tion , and enslavement. Wha t the
books express is ma inl y remorse on beha lf o f those who have
destroyed the life o f presence. Aga inst Saussure, Derrida ma intains
tha t the notion o f the sign is itself theological; likewise the no tion of
structure: because bo th terms long for a stable order of significance, a
center that ho lds.
In
the bina ry oppos iti ons o f lingui stics, each term is
merely an accomplice o f the o ther, and the os tensible oppos ition is
full y compa tible with the logocentric and ethnocentric concepts of
Wes tern meta phys ics. Derrida might have forg iven Saussure his
lingui stic theory if he had p rac ticed it with misg iving amounting to
dread; but Saussure's tone is too equable to be condoned . Indeed,
