Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SCARF
THE ZOMBIE IS KNOCKING ON THE TABLE
MAN
syntagmatic
paradigmatic
In the above diagram, the sytagmatic value of zombie is discernible by its
relation to the other words and values that come before and after it (The is
knocking on the & table)
The paradigmatic value of zombie is discernible by its relation to man or
scarf items outside of the context of the sentence, but which can be
substituted for zombie.
Derrida argues here that phonologism (the privileging of speech over writing)
creates the legitimacy on which the master science of anthropology. i.e.,
anthropologys claim to scientific authority rests on its privileging speech
(spoken data) over writing. Levi-Strauss is guilty of abasing writing and
emplying phonologism as his self-authorizing principle.
Derrida reads Levi-Strauss alongside Rousseau because L-S sees himself as the
great heir to Rousseaus ideas about nature and culture. Rousseau posits the
problem of anthropology as the passage from nature (the state-of-nature) to
culture (fallen state). Rousseau sees a progression from figurative language
(closer to nature) to proper meaning (culture). Derrida sets about to sxplore
the question of proper meaning with relation to L-Ss The Writing Lesson.
In the essay, L-S presents writing as evil, as a sudden, accidental intrusion upon
the Nambikwaras innocent speech-based community. Writing cultures of the
West, to L-S, are borne out of mans exploitation by man. (p, 121)
L-S reports that the Nambikwara are an innocent people without writing. His
tale revolves around a moment when he provides them with pencils and paper.
They draw only wavy lines across the paper, and L-S concludes that they were
thus merely emulating his own act of writing, innocently acting out the means of
their own cultural demise. Violence is associated with the intrusion of writing as
the embodiment of a corrosive modernity. The forced self-assimilation of the
Nambikwara leader into the perverse sphere of the modern is dramatized by his
using his newly acquired writing skills as a means toward consolidating more
power over his people who cannot write as he now can.
As far as Derrida is concerned, L-S implies that writing has some kind of
metaphoric kernel lost on the Nambikwara. They only draw lines L-S
denies them writing because they have no word that approximates HIS definition
of it. (p. 123). L-S isolates only an aesthetic perception of writing among the
Nambikwara, meanwhile his notion of aesthetic value exists outside of linguistic
value. Had L-S a different, perhaps larger, conception of writing, maybe he
would not conclude that the Nambikwara had no writing.
But the conceit of the anthropologist lies in his belief that his project is an anti-
ethnocentric one. L-Ss anti-ethnocentrism amounts to an anti-Westernism,
which is, ironically, rooted in an already ethnocentric classification of the
Nambikwara as a primitive, speech-only community to writing. What is more, as
Derrida points out, L-Ss preposterous suggestion that writing signalled the
advent of violence among the Nambikwara is easily refutable by his own
ethnographic observations: Round about the Lesson, it suffices to open Tristes
Tropiques and the thesis at any page to find the striking evidence to the contrary.
We are dealing here not only with a strongly hierarchized society, but with a
society where relationships are marked with a spectacular violence. (p. 135)
The science of writing should therefore look for its object at the roots of
scientificity. The history of writing should turn back toward the origin of
historicity. A science of the possibility of science? A science of science which
would no longer have the form of logic but that of grammatics? A history of the
possibility of history which would no longer be an archaeology, a philosophy of
history or a history of philosophy? (pp. 27-28)