What do you think?
Rate this book
Structure, Sign, and Play
"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" was a lecture presented at Johns Hopkins University on 21 October 1966 by philosopher Jacques Derrida.
http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derri...
Translation is in Public Domain.
http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derri...
Translation is in Public Domain.
16 pages, Essay
First published October 21, 1966
7 people are currently reading
622 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
643 books1,774 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
Read
May 12, 2020Derrida's writing, whilst notoriously difficult to unpick and understand, is beautifully formulated to make his argument. His use of language is so clever.
December 1, 2021
This is one of Derrida's seminal essays published in his Writing and Difference (1967): the first text of reference for anyone wanting to explore the theoretical mastermind of one of the most renowned continental philosophers of our time.
Disclaimer: I have an inexplicably tormented, even toxic, relationship with Derrida's work, but will momentarily suspend my perplexities in order to - one does hope - provide a useful review.
If notoriously-difficult-to-read texts are not your go-to (I mean, who would blame you?), and yet you do wish to find out what Derrida was on about, I suggest you:
(1) try reading the first few paragraphs of this essay;
(2) then pause for some minutes to collect your ideas: hang on a minute, is he saying what I think he's saying? This is the moment when you might be doing yourself a favour by:
(3) looking up this essay on literariness.org, which will provide you with basic guidelines, and simplify your reading tenfold.
Now for the Gist of this essay:
Derrida critically engages with the concept of 'structure', stressing throughout his essay the idea that in the wake of postmodern sensibilities, it became an imperative to ponder the very concept of structure (what he refers to as the 'structurality of structure'): this is the 'event', the rupture he alludes to straight off the bat.
With 'structurality', the whole of metaphysics is questioned, for the notion of structure as a 'centre' of meaning loses tenability, to be supplanted by that of 'freeplay', no longer operating at the service of the former. What follows is a revolutionary understanding of structures as allowing for multitudinous systems of differences, permutations, and substitutions to come into play: no longer a 'centred structure', therefore, but ones that require superior theoretical rigour in order to be identified, if never wholly grasped.
Derrida shows here, as elsewhere, his complex understanding of language and its limitations. From Lévi-Strauss he picks up the metaphor of 'bricolage' (borrowing and reformulating existing concepts) in order to expose the insufficiencies which dominate those finite discourses that resort to binary oppositions like nature/culture. From then on, he supplements his ideas by analysing some of Lévi-Strauss's work, which helps to gain more pragmatic insight into his philosophical thought.
To sum things up:
The loss of centre - what Derrida famously calls decentring - is linked to the newly perceived impossibility of totalisation. Hence freeplay as that which grants supplementarity, adding something while also - and by implication - evincing a lack (the lack of centre). This is ultimately what he means by 'superabundance of the signifier', which further underlines the impossibility of full readability of a text, and solicits a more complex understanding of oppositions as irreducible to their binary status. Indeed, he draws on the 'determinations' solidified by history and philosophy alike, to suggest that there has been a shift from presence to absence which the conceptualisation of structures and signs as understood till the 1960s could not account for.
Certainly a complex essay that requires effort and presence of mind, yet is equally a task both satisfying and stimulating.
4.5 ⭐
Disclaimer: I have an inexplicably tormented, even toxic, relationship with Derrida's work, but will momentarily suspend my perplexities in order to - one does hope - provide a useful review.
If notoriously-difficult-to-read texts are not your go-to (I mean, who would blame you?), and yet you do wish to find out what Derrida was on about, I suggest you:
(1) try reading the first few paragraphs of this essay;
(2) then pause for some minutes to collect your ideas: hang on a minute, is he saying what I think he's saying? This is the moment when you might be doing yourself a favour by:
(3) looking up this essay on literariness.org, which will provide you with basic guidelines, and simplify your reading tenfold.
Now for the Gist of this essay:
Derrida critically engages with the concept of 'structure', stressing throughout his essay the idea that in the wake of postmodern sensibilities, it became an imperative to ponder the very concept of structure (what he refers to as the 'structurality of structure'): this is the 'event', the rupture he alludes to straight off the bat.
With 'structurality', the whole of metaphysics is questioned, for the notion of structure as a 'centre' of meaning loses tenability, to be supplanted by that of 'freeplay', no longer operating at the service of the former. What follows is a revolutionary understanding of structures as allowing for multitudinous systems of differences, permutations, and substitutions to come into play: no longer a 'centred structure', therefore, but ones that require superior theoretical rigour in order to be identified, if never wholly grasped.
Derrida shows here, as elsewhere, his complex understanding of language and its limitations. From Lévi-Strauss he picks up the metaphor of 'bricolage' (borrowing and reformulating existing concepts) in order to expose the insufficiencies which dominate those finite discourses that resort to binary oppositions like nature/culture. From then on, he supplements his ideas by analysing some of Lévi-Strauss's work, which helps to gain more pragmatic insight into his philosophical thought.
To sum things up:
The loss of centre - what Derrida famously calls decentring - is linked to the newly perceived impossibility of totalisation. Hence freeplay as that which grants supplementarity, adding something while also - and by implication - evincing a lack (the lack of centre). This is ultimately what he means by 'superabundance of the signifier', which further underlines the impossibility of full readability of a text, and solicits a more complex understanding of oppositions as irreducible to their binary status. Indeed, he draws on the 'determinations' solidified by history and philosophy alike, to suggest that there has been a shift from presence to absence which the conceptualisation of structures and signs as understood till the 1960s could not account for.
Certainly a complex essay that requires effort and presence of mind, yet is equally a task both satisfying and stimulating.
4.5 ⭐
March 29, 2018
A lot of people find Derrida's lecture transcript very difficult to read. This was my experience when I studied it at university maybe five years ago but I was surprised upon returning to it how much it makes sense to me.
Structure, Sign, and Play is pretty much the key statement on post-structuralism. It is also possibly the worst place to start if you want to learn anything about what post-structuralism is. It is tempting to pin this on Derrida for being an obscure writer but no, in this lecture at least, his argument is fairly lucid. It is the subject matter which is the problem. Post-structuralism was a response to structuralism which was a response to a bunch of other things and if you aren't familiar with the overall trajectory of these and related concepts like postmodernism it easy to become lost.
Structuralism is a theoretical paradigm which is broadly applicable to all fields of intellectual enquiry. It was an attempt to codify a methodology and make a scientific approach possible for fields which have traditionally been ruled by heated disputation, most notably sociology, anthropology, and linguistics. It emphasizes drawing out binary oppositions and the relationships between them as a structural framework that can be worked with. If we can develop a concept like individualism, for instance, we can place it in opposition to its counterpart, collectivism, and by investigating the relationship between these further our understanding of each as a phenomenon and it where each sit in relation to other concepts.
Derrida essentially says we can't do that because structuralism doesn't go far enough. He opens with a quote from Montaigne:
"We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things."
Derrida talks about an event in metaphysics which has occurred where structuralism has begun to reflect on itself. His conviction is that the stabilizing center of structure is built out of contents, elements, and terms which appear given or fixed. The center is an anchor upon which the rest of the structure depends and unlike the rest of the structure is not defined relationally. The center appears to exist outside of the structure somehow. What happens is that the center is taken for granted until at some point a new center is substituted and all of its contents, elements, and terms along with it. Because the center appears to exist outside of itself and we can seem to fundamentally alter the structure for the most arbitrary of reasons this suggests that the center is not the center. If we are to accept the terms of structuralism we must allow that within it all terms are subject to openness and change, in other words "free play."
In light of this Derrida offers a short critique of Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger. He argues that because they worked from a center derived from the tradition of metaphysics (whether they knew it or not) that their radical critique of metaphysics had them caught in something of a destructive loop. I can definitely see how this might be the case with Nietzsche, who seems to be keenly aware of the the tensions of being something of a moral relativist who privileges his own views on morality. Heidegger too seemed unable to reflect on his own prejudices despite a complex theory about how deeply the self is conditioned by hermeneutics. Freud I have not studied quite as much so I could not say.
Once this pattern of denouncing metaphysics while simultaneously relying on it is sketched out Derrida turns his attention to the human sciences. The bulk of the lecture is spent talking about how the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss's work moved towards deconstructing the binary opposition between nature and culture. On one hand, Derrida praises Lévi-Strauss for moving towards free play in his account of mythical structure. On the other, Derrida criticizes him for an inability to explain historical changes and working from his own center of nostalgia and natural innocence. Derrida concludes by reaffirming that there is a transformation within structuralism and that Lévi-Strauss's work is a sign that it is inevitable.
We've seen the consequences of post-structuralism play out since the late 1960s when Derrida gave this talk. Many regard it now as a trend which has come and passed. Regardless, if you want to understand cultural theory, Structure, Sign, and Play remains an important work.
Structure, Sign, and Play is pretty much the key statement on post-structuralism. It is also possibly the worst place to start if you want to learn anything about what post-structuralism is. It is tempting to pin this on Derrida for being an obscure writer but no, in this lecture at least, his argument is fairly lucid. It is the subject matter which is the problem. Post-structuralism was a response to structuralism which was a response to a bunch of other things and if you aren't familiar with the overall trajectory of these and related concepts like postmodernism it easy to become lost.
Structuralism is a theoretical paradigm which is broadly applicable to all fields of intellectual enquiry. It was an attempt to codify a methodology and make a scientific approach possible for fields which have traditionally been ruled by heated disputation, most notably sociology, anthropology, and linguistics. It emphasizes drawing out binary oppositions and the relationships between them as a structural framework that can be worked with. If we can develop a concept like individualism, for instance, we can place it in opposition to its counterpart, collectivism, and by investigating the relationship between these further our understanding of each as a phenomenon and it where each sit in relation to other concepts.
Derrida essentially says we can't do that because structuralism doesn't go far enough. He opens with a quote from Montaigne:
"We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things."
Derrida talks about an event in metaphysics which has occurred where structuralism has begun to reflect on itself. His conviction is that the stabilizing center of structure is built out of contents, elements, and terms which appear given or fixed. The center is an anchor upon which the rest of the structure depends and unlike the rest of the structure is not defined relationally. The center appears to exist outside of the structure somehow. What happens is that the center is taken for granted until at some point a new center is substituted and all of its contents, elements, and terms along with it. Because the center appears to exist outside of itself and we can seem to fundamentally alter the structure for the most arbitrary of reasons this suggests that the center is not the center. If we are to accept the terms of structuralism we must allow that within it all terms are subject to openness and change, in other words "free play."
In light of this Derrida offers a short critique of Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger. He argues that because they worked from a center derived from the tradition of metaphysics (whether they knew it or not) that their radical critique of metaphysics had them caught in something of a destructive loop. I can definitely see how this might be the case with Nietzsche, who seems to be keenly aware of the the tensions of being something of a moral relativist who privileges his own views on morality. Heidegger too seemed unable to reflect on his own prejudices despite a complex theory about how deeply the self is conditioned by hermeneutics. Freud I have not studied quite as much so I could not say.
Once this pattern of denouncing metaphysics while simultaneously relying on it is sketched out Derrida turns his attention to the human sciences. The bulk of the lecture is spent talking about how the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss's work moved towards deconstructing the binary opposition between nature and culture. On one hand, Derrida praises Lévi-Strauss for moving towards free play in his account of mythical structure. On the other, Derrida criticizes him for an inability to explain historical changes and working from his own center of nostalgia and natural innocence. Derrida concludes by reaffirming that there is a transformation within structuralism and that Lévi-Strauss's work is a sign that it is inevitable.
We've seen the consequences of post-structuralism play out since the late 1960s when Derrida gave this talk. Many regard it now as a trend which has come and passed. Regardless, if you want to understand cultural theory, Structure, Sign, and Play remains an important work.
Read
May 23, 2024ik heb mn brein GEBROKEN met het proberen te begrijpen van deze 16 bladzijden dus dan telt ie mee voor mn reading goal
Read
September 9, 2019Reading this was pure agony. It made my head hurt. I have harboured a strong dislike for Derrida's dense word play.
December 23, 2020
Fuck, if this isn't amazing.
I'm briefly going to run through some major themes of this text by considering the two interpretations of interpretation that Derrida brings up:
Derrida distinguishes two irreconcilable interpretations of interpretation: negative, which seeks a center, and; affirmative, which embraces a lack of center. Faced with this opposition, he argues that it is not a matter of choosing one, but rather of conceiving “the différance of this irreducible difference” (292-3). His point is to carefully illustrate différance by showing the impossibility of choice within each interpretation.
For negative, Derrida’s main example is Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss emphasizes play and the non-metaphysical (290). For example, he employs bricolage, a method of using a concept, while remaining critical of it, and supplementing it with something else when necessary. He employs bricolage with the nature-culture binary of past ethnology, while presenting its limit via the incest prohibition (283-5). Since this prohibition cannot be reduced to nature or culture, it compromises this binary because the prohibition is an unaccounted-for excess of the binary. But Derrida argues that the incest prohibition becomes the center for the nature-culture binary because this prohibition is assumed first, in order to be rendered opaque by the binary afterwards. Thus, the prohibition becomes the condition of possibility for thinking the nature-culture binary in the first place, so the prohibition takes the place of the center (283). Thus, in Lévi-Strauss, despite an emphasis on play and the supplementary, Derrida argues that Lévi-Strauss’s focus remains on the presence of structure, which results in the neutralization of history (291). This means that Derrida argues the center cannot be present outside of a “system of differences”, which means that the conditions for meaning are found within the system, and within the system, meaning is produced differentially (279-80). So, Derrida states that “[Lévi-Strauss] must ‘set aside all the facts’ at the moment when he wishes to recapture the specificity of a structure” (292). He means, in a system of differences, since each term is defined by its difference from other terms, nothing is fully ‘present’ because its meaning is infinitely deferred along a chain of signification. Therefore, the structure is never present in any given moment because this infinite deferral of meaning, which is the “structurality of the structure” (278), happens over time. In order to terminate it, Lévi-Strauss is considered to ‘set aside the facts’, such as history, because he must ignore this difference and deferral of meaning, this différance, and consider the structure as present at given point in time. Thus, the impossibility of this interpretation is the consideration of structure as a full presence.
In contrast, Derrida associates affirmative with Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger. He argues that these figures embrace this ‘absent’ center without feeling like they have lost anything (292). However, Derrida argues that they're trapped in a circle: the destruction of the history of metaphysics depends on that history (280). As much as temporality cannot be abstracted away, neither can the substitutions which create room for play. The endless deferral of signification requires the center, which Derrida argues is not a presence, but a function of substitution and displacement (280). Therefore, there cannot be a total disregard of the center or metaphysical concepts in favour of play because there is no way to escape these concepts or stand outside of them. Play is sustained by the substitutions of given and present signs (292).
Since Derrida is critical of a metaphysics of presence, it seems like he should support affirmative over negative. However, his point is crucially that such a choice cannot occur because of différance. This means that neither choice is a choice because neither choice is fully present as itself. We must conceive of each interpretation in its différance, its deferral of its own signification and the “irreducible difference” between the two interpretations (293). In the end, he remarks, “[they] turn their eyes away in the face of the as yet unnameable which is proclaiming itself” (293). As expressed in this quote, the difficulty lies in elucidating that the matter at hand is not one of choice because this itself seems like a choice; specifically, the choice of not choosing. Therefore, the impossibility, this deadlock, the unnameable, this différance is what Derrida suggests we must investigate, face, suspend ourselves within.
I'm briefly going to run through some major themes of this text by considering the two interpretations of interpretation that Derrida brings up:
Derrida distinguishes two irreconcilable interpretations of interpretation: negative, which seeks a center, and; affirmative, which embraces a lack of center. Faced with this opposition, he argues that it is not a matter of choosing one, but rather of conceiving “the différance of this irreducible difference” (292-3). His point is to carefully illustrate différance by showing the impossibility of choice within each interpretation.
For negative, Derrida’s main example is Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss emphasizes play and the non-metaphysical (290). For example, he employs bricolage, a method of using a concept, while remaining critical of it, and supplementing it with something else when necessary. He employs bricolage with the nature-culture binary of past ethnology, while presenting its limit via the incest prohibition (283-5). Since this prohibition cannot be reduced to nature or culture, it compromises this binary because the prohibition is an unaccounted-for excess of the binary. But Derrida argues that the incest prohibition becomes the center for the nature-culture binary because this prohibition is assumed first, in order to be rendered opaque by the binary afterwards. Thus, the prohibition becomes the condition of possibility for thinking the nature-culture binary in the first place, so the prohibition takes the place of the center (283). Thus, in Lévi-Strauss, despite an emphasis on play and the supplementary, Derrida argues that Lévi-Strauss’s focus remains on the presence of structure, which results in the neutralization of history (291). This means that Derrida argues the center cannot be present outside of a “system of differences”, which means that the conditions for meaning are found within the system, and within the system, meaning is produced differentially (279-80). So, Derrida states that “[Lévi-Strauss] must ‘set aside all the facts’ at the moment when he wishes to recapture the specificity of a structure” (292). He means, in a system of differences, since each term is defined by its difference from other terms, nothing is fully ‘present’ because its meaning is infinitely deferred along a chain of signification. Therefore, the structure is never present in any given moment because this infinite deferral of meaning, which is the “structurality of the structure” (278), happens over time. In order to terminate it, Lévi-Strauss is considered to ‘set aside the facts’, such as history, because he must ignore this difference and deferral of meaning, this différance, and consider the structure as present at given point in time. Thus, the impossibility of this interpretation is the consideration of structure as a full presence.
In contrast, Derrida associates affirmative with Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger. He argues that these figures embrace this ‘absent’ center without feeling like they have lost anything (292). However, Derrida argues that they're trapped in a circle: the destruction of the history of metaphysics depends on that history (280). As much as temporality cannot be abstracted away, neither can the substitutions which create room for play. The endless deferral of signification requires the center, which Derrida argues is not a presence, but a function of substitution and displacement (280). Therefore, there cannot be a total disregard of the center or metaphysical concepts in favour of play because there is no way to escape these concepts or stand outside of them. Play is sustained by the substitutions of given and present signs (292).
Since Derrida is critical of a metaphysics of presence, it seems like he should support affirmative over negative. However, his point is crucially that such a choice cannot occur because of différance. This means that neither choice is a choice because neither choice is fully present as itself. We must conceive of each interpretation in its différance, its deferral of its own signification and the “irreducible difference” between the two interpretations (293). In the end, he remarks, “[they] turn their eyes away in the face of the as yet unnameable which is proclaiming itself” (293). As expressed in this quote, the difficulty lies in elucidating that the matter at hand is not one of choice because this itself seems like a choice; specifically, the choice of not choosing. Therefore, the impossibility, this deadlock, the unnameable, this différance is what Derrida suggests we must investigate, face, suspend ourselves within.
July 23, 2019
I never thought I would say this, but I wished this article could have been longer.
I was very interested in Derrida's ideas and I felt the references to Levi-Strauss overtook his arguments. I know that was part of the point, I just really got enthralled by Derrida's viewpoints.
It's a very good article, although a bit of a challenge to get started; like relaxing one's brain while at the same time focusing on what is before one's eyes. I will definitely reference him in my upcoming term paper.
ElliotScribbles
I was very interested in Derrida's ideas and I felt the references to Levi-Strauss overtook his arguments. I know that was part of the point, I just really got enthralled by Derrida's viewpoints.
It's a very good article, although a bit of a challenge to get started; like relaxing one's brain while at the same time focusing on what is before one's eyes. I will definitely reference him in my upcoming term paper.
ElliotScribbles
May 9, 2019
Oh, the difficulty it was for me to completely grasp this dense and -- what I at first encounter thought was an -- obscure piece. But I will not lie, after hours of researching on Derridan deconstructionism, these ideas have come to grow on me. I find myself thinking about them at random idle instances across my days lately. I believe, and hope, that in my remaining two years I will encounter Derrida again.
January 6, 2019
This was supposed to be about structuralism, yet it turned out to be one of the important works for poststructuralism. One of the reasons is, of course, the idea that the center cannot hold. If we are to decenter a center and replace another one, we are again making something else the center, the author and the powerful. What's the solution then? To rapidly decenter centers!
December 6, 2016
Sounds like Beckett has written an article on criticism. To me it's like Derrida speaks of a Beckettian version of criticism and Beckett writes the Derridean version of literature.
February 16, 2025
Awesome. The most accessible text of Derrida's I've ever read. Dr. Fontini should have assigned this instead of Différance.
December 3, 2016
Very difficult to read. Nevertheless, worthwhile.
March 6, 2025
get ready for a mind fuck.
Read
February 24, 2021I think the statement is being underscored in this essay is:
"to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the freeplay of the structure"
#Totalization
#Sublimentarity
#Decentralization
#Becoming_vs_Being
#Signification_vs_Meaning
#Philosophy_without_Concept
"to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the freeplay of the structure"
#Totalization
#Sublimentarity
#Decentralization
#Becoming_vs_Being
#Signification_vs_Meaning
#Philosophy_without_Concept
March 29, 2025
Very rich spring of ideas, but a little difficult to absorb
June 27, 2019
I did not understand most of this, so I am only including bullet points of my overall takeaways.
-The concept of structure necessitates a center, or point of origin. Additionally, a structure limits freeplay (defined later), while also engaging it on its own terms. Language is the most readily apparent structure in this essay.
"the center also closes off the freeplay it opens up and makes possible."
-Paradoxically, the center of a structure "governs" how the structure functions but also isn't affected the laws of structures. Thus:
"The center is not the center."
-Western metaphysics has always preached the centrality of the center, albeit in a variety of forms.
-The transcendental signified suspends the formation of meaning which otherwise occurs through an infinite chain of signifiers. The transcendental signified is Derrida's term for the theological/linguistic center.
-Freud, Nietzsche, and Heidegger attempted to disrupt the predominance of the center, but to destroy this concept from Western metaphysics they needed other concepts from Western metaphysics, such as the sign. Eliminating the center without Western metaphysics is impossible since there are no alternative conceptual tools.
-Overlap between the nature-culture binary opposition is seen in the fact both prohibit incest. (Prohibiting incest is natural since prohibitions happen in all society, but the prohibitions are cultural since they stem from social belief systems.) This conflict is an example of freeplay, since nature and culture, two opposites, are made to coexist within one another. Typical linguistic boundaries are substituted or transmuted in nontraditional ways. In finding this similarly, Derrida affirms "language carries within itself the necessity of its own critique."
-The noted anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss is the subject of most of the remainder of the critique.
-Freeplay refers to the potentially infinite substitution of elements within a limited, structured system, especially language. The existence of freeplay means not all of language can be completely comprehended.
"the nature of the field--that is, language and a finite language--excludes totalization. This
field is in fact that of freeplay, that is to say, a field if infinite substitutions in the closure of a
finite ensemble."
-The human sciences are defined by a conflict between two interpretations of the concept of interpretation--one which rejects freeplay, and one which affirms it.
-The concept of structure necessitates a center, or point of origin. Additionally, a structure limits freeplay (defined later), while also engaging it on its own terms. Language is the most readily apparent structure in this essay.
"the center also closes off the freeplay it opens up and makes possible."
-Paradoxically, the center of a structure "governs" how the structure functions but also isn't affected the laws of structures. Thus:
"The center is not the center."
-Western metaphysics has always preached the centrality of the center, albeit in a variety of forms.
-The transcendental signified suspends the formation of meaning which otherwise occurs through an infinite chain of signifiers. The transcendental signified is Derrida's term for the theological/linguistic center.
-Freud, Nietzsche, and Heidegger attempted to disrupt the predominance of the center, but to destroy this concept from Western metaphysics they needed other concepts from Western metaphysics, such as the sign. Eliminating the center without Western metaphysics is impossible since there are no alternative conceptual tools.
-Overlap between the nature-culture binary opposition is seen in the fact both prohibit incest. (Prohibiting incest is natural since prohibitions happen in all society, but the prohibitions are cultural since they stem from social belief systems.) This conflict is an example of freeplay, since nature and culture, two opposites, are made to coexist within one another. Typical linguistic boundaries are substituted or transmuted in nontraditional ways. In finding this similarly, Derrida affirms "language carries within itself the necessity of its own critique."
-The noted anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss is the subject of most of the remainder of the critique.
-Freeplay refers to the potentially infinite substitution of elements within a limited, structured system, especially language. The existence of freeplay means not all of language can be completely comprehended.
"the nature of the field--that is, language and a finite language--excludes totalization. This
field is in fact that of freeplay, that is to say, a field if infinite substitutions in the closure of a
finite ensemble."
-The human sciences are defined by a conflict between two interpretations of the concept of interpretation--one which rejects freeplay, and one which affirms it.
November 22, 2012
In “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”, Derrida talks about how every structure needs to have some kind of center; it is the thing that keeps the structure together and holds it up. He claims that “even today the notion of a structure lacking any center represents the unthinkable itself”. This center dictates how much the structure can move away from it; the center controls the structure. Because of this fact, the center then becomes the structure in a way because of its ability to control it. He defines the moment when it was possible to realize that the center was not something that already existing, that it was something constructed as the “event” or “rupture”.
Derrida then moves on to question the binary of nature and culture. He gives the example of incest-prohibition to support his reasoning. Derrida says that “incest-prohibition is universal; in this sense once could call it natural. But it is also a prohibition, a system of norms and interdicts; in this sense on could call it cultural”.
One of the conclusions that Derrida comes to is that totalization (a system or philosophy that explains everything) is impossible because everybody interprets things differently. He claims that there are “two interpretations of interpretation”; “one seeks to decipher a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign” and the other “affirms freeplay and tries to pass beyond man and humanism”.
Derrida then moves on to question the binary of nature and culture. He gives the example of incest-prohibition to support his reasoning. Derrida says that “incest-prohibition is universal; in this sense once could call it natural. But it is also a prohibition, a system of norms and interdicts; in this sense on could call it cultural”.
One of the conclusions that Derrida comes to is that totalization (a system or philosophy that explains everything) is impossible because everybody interprets things differently. He claims that there are “two interpretations of interpretation”; “one seeks to decipher a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign” and the other “affirms freeplay and tries to pass beyond man and humanism”.
October 22, 2015
Alright, it took multiple running starts over the course of months to wrap my head around this 16-page lecture transcript (not at all due to the several typos, only one of which obscures the meaning), but I'm glad I persevered. While this still does not strike me as a reasonable starting point for those interested in post-structuralism, once one has some familiarity with the concepts and terminology, this does seem to address "everything a non-philosopher needs to know about Derrida," which is more or less how it was recommended to me by a friend far better versed in the field than am I. Would read again, and will probably have to.
February 5, 2017
Derrida is sinfully wordy in his exploration, but genius in his findings. I wish all people could learn to be bricoleurs, to preserve as instruments things whose truth they criticize. It highlights something unique and beautiful to the arts, inspiration, and discourse.
February 18, 2024
As I undergo this transition of thinking and existing, Derrida comes at what feels like a pivotal point.
This essay was a discourse on the interplay of incongruous thought in postulations offered by Levi Strauss. From start to finish, it seemed like a critique inside of a lecture.
In this lecture, Derrida quotes Strauss with the intent to dismantle a seeming misunderstand or ignorance to the true significance of structure as it pertains to the symbolism in ethnological and anthropological thought, both abstract and concrete. In this lecture Derrida quotes Strauss on his ideas about his thoughts on seemingly reductionist ideas about the relations of determinants between culture and nature.
My own review feels extremely reductionist. I’ll have to take a deeper dive, but I appreciate the dialogue on metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, and how they factor into the structural dynamics of linguistic in regards to ethnological and anthropological deconstructive thought.
The push to understand the irreconcilability of the interpretation of interpretations, and move toward a better understanding of foundational principles, was a big takeaway.
This essay was a discourse on the interplay of incongruous thought in postulations offered by Levi Strauss. From start to finish, it seemed like a critique inside of a lecture.
In this lecture, Derrida quotes Strauss with the intent to dismantle a seeming misunderstand or ignorance to the true significance of structure as it pertains to the symbolism in ethnological and anthropological thought, both abstract and concrete. In this lecture Derrida quotes Strauss on his ideas about his thoughts on seemingly reductionist ideas about the relations of determinants between culture and nature.
My own review feels extremely reductionist. I’ll have to take a deeper dive, but I appreciate the dialogue on metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, and how they factor into the structural dynamics of linguistic in regards to ethnological and anthropological deconstructive thought.
The push to understand the irreconcilability of the interpretation of interpretations, and move toward a better understanding of foundational principles, was a big takeaway.
July 7, 2025
4/5 ⭐️
Structure, Sign, and Play – Jacques Derrida
This essay is a landmark in post-structuralist thought, and it’s easy to see why it caused such a stir in the intellectual world. Derrida brilliantly challenges the idea of fixed structures and stable meanings, introducing the concept of “play” in interpretation and questioning the metaphysics of presence that underpin Western thought.
The prose is dense, abstract, and at times deliberately opaque—a hallmark of Derrida's style. While that makes it intellectually rich, it also makes it a challenging read, especially for those not already familiar with structuralist thinkers like Lévi-Strauss, whom Derrida critiques here.
Despite the difficulty, it’s an exhilarating piece if you enjoy philosophy that destabilizes foundational ideas and forces you to think in new directions. It’s not light reading, but it rewards patience.
In summary:
A groundbreaking and provocative essay that redefined literary theory and philosophy. Complex, but worth the effort. 4/5.
Structure, Sign, and Play – Jacques Derrida
This essay is a landmark in post-structuralist thought, and it’s easy to see why it caused such a stir in the intellectual world. Derrida brilliantly challenges the idea of fixed structures and stable meanings, introducing the concept of “play” in interpretation and questioning the metaphysics of presence that underpin Western thought.
The prose is dense, abstract, and at times deliberately opaque—a hallmark of Derrida's style. While that makes it intellectually rich, it also makes it a challenging read, especially for those not already familiar with structuralist thinkers like Lévi-Strauss, whom Derrida critiques here.
Despite the difficulty, it’s an exhilarating piece if you enjoy philosophy that destabilizes foundational ideas and forces you to think in new directions. It’s not light reading, but it rewards patience.
In summary:
A groundbreaking and provocative essay that redefined literary theory and philosophy. Complex, but worth the effort. 4/5.
October 6, 2017
There are some interesting ideas here, and they bear exploring in depth. I feel like (even though I studied Derrida in university) that I have not read enough of the authors and thinkers he references to properly understand and appreciate all of these ideas. I will need to revisit this text and examine it again after I have read more of Nietzsche, Strauss, and the other thinkers he alludes to or cites.
May 15, 2021
Derrida's deconstruction and poststructuralism are the pioneer of literary discourses and through this complex speech presented in John Hopkins University, Derrida explains his dexterity in his own field that changes literature forever.
Read
October 17, 2025never felt stupider than when reading this. if you are going to read this and it's not an assigned text for an assessed course just don't do it. what is a circle with a centre and no centre. why is there incest. what is play. who knows.
January 3, 2018
It was OK. I am not particularly fond of continental philosophers and this reminds me why. Seems like they are not writing to be understood.
Read
September 11, 20193.7?
I think of Foucault: "why the state must be defended"
I think of Foucault: "why the state must be defended"
July 4, 2024
traumatized
July 16, 2024
Awful critical text about a concept I still haven't fully grasped. If you want to convince your reader of a theory you have, why make it as hard as humanly possible for said reader to understand it?
March 18, 2014
As a matter of fact 'Structure, sign and play in the discourse of human sciences' was a lecture delivered at JohnHopkons University. Here Derrida pioneered the theory of Deconstruction.
Deconstruction is not at all destruction but it is a reconstruction of a literary work of art. His theory of Deconstruction is applicable against the corrupt members in the politics. When the corrupt people become dominant and hold the centre, Deconstruction of the power is very very much essential.
Deconstruction is not at all destruction but it is a reconstruction of a literary work of art. His theory of Deconstruction is applicable against the corrupt members in the politics. When the corrupt people become dominant and hold the centre, Deconstruction of the power is very very much essential.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews