[1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
Transcript of [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 1/19
The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I: Plato's PharmacyAuthor(s): Yoav RinonSource: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Dec., 1992), pp. 369-386Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20129336 .
Accessed: 04/02/2011 16:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pes. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 2/19
THE RHETORICOF JACQUES DERRIDA I:
PLATO'S PHARMACY*
YOAV RINON
-Although a great variety of topics are discussed in Derrida's
philosophical writings, a central theme recurs in many of them: the
relationship between speech and writing. Derrida consistently uses
the same methods to deal with this topic, and my reading aims to
expose the regulation of these methods. This essay tries to point
out the blurring moments of the strategy which lead to one of Der
rida's most outrageous outcomes, which is that writing precedes
speech. This notion, however, is only the starting point; its con
sequences are the impossibility of communication and the collapse
of the Platonic maxims. Such successful moments of deconstruction
are traced back to their origins so as to leave bare the devices on
which they are based. It will then be possible to discern a specific
recurring stage during which occurs an illegitimate movement ac
cording to the Derridian rules of the game.
Derrida's discussion of the Phaedrus begins at the "geograph
ical" center of the dialogue (275c) with the deprecation of the
profession of logography. The logographer, who writes orations for
trials in which he himself does not appear, represents, for Derrida,
the intersection of two crucial phenomena: the presence of the ab
sence (the writer of the speech is present only by means of his owncited words, while being physically absent from the trial), and the
gap between writing and truth. The logographer, he says,
in the strict sense, composes speeches for use by litigants; speecheswhich he himself does not pronounce, which he does not attend, so to
speak, in person, and which produce their effects in his absence. In
writing what he does not speak, what he would never say and would
*
This is the first of a series of two articles. The second article willappear in the March 1993 issue of the Review ofMetaphysics.
Review of Metaphysics 46 (December 1992): 369-386. Copyright ? 1992 by the Review of
Metaphysics
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 3/19
370 YOAV RI?ON
never think in truth, the author of the written speech is already en
trenched in the posture of the sophist: the man of non-presence and
non-truth. (76; 68)1
At this point Derrida follows Plato, who temporarily abandons
the topic of writing (274b), and also leaves the problem of absence
and truth for a different subject, the kidnapping of Orithyia in the
middle of a game with Pharmacia (229b). Pharmacia is a link (une
maille) between the kidnapping, which ends in rape and death, and
the reappearance of writing in a later stage of the dialogue. Here,
the connection between Pharmacia and the Greek word (fr?ppanov is
important:
Pharmacia is also a common noun signifying the administration of
the $ap\jLOLKov, he drug: the medicine and/or poison. ... A little
farther on, Socrates compares the written texts Phaedrus has broughtwith him to a drug [^?ppaKov]. This 4>?ppo?Kov, this "medicine," this
philter, both remedy and poison at the same time [? lafois], alreadyintroduces itself, with all its ambivalence, into the body of the dis
course. (78; 70)
For Derrida, the fyappaKov is only an element in the chain of
significations (108; 95), whose interplay constitutes the textual phe
nomenon. It is impossible, however, to try to analyze each of the
elements in isolation. This kind of interpretation, according to
Derrida, would damage the subtle texture of the literary object in
a most vulgar way. Sharp distinctions, he claims, are unacceptable
in dealing with language:
It is always possible to think that if Plato did not realize [n'a pas
pratiqu?] certain options [passages] and even actively barred them
from being realized [les a m?me interrompus], it is because he perceivedthem but left them in the domain of the potential [dans l'impraticable].Such a formulation is possible if one avoids all reference to the dif
ference between conscious and unconscious, voluntary and involuntary,a most vulgar means [instrument fort grossier] when one comes to deal
with language. (109; 96)
The borders, however, between the conscious and the uncon
scious, the voluntary and the involuntary, are stressed here, only to
1Page numbers refer to Jacques Derrida, La diss?mination (Paris:
Seuil, 1967); and to Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). The left number refers to
the French original, the right to the English translation. The citation
given above is a modified version of Johnson's translation, and all the
translations of Derrida in this essay (unless otherwise noted) are of the
same type.
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 4/19
THE RHETORIC OF DERRIDA 371
be blurred later on. It is not that the limits are important in and
of themselves; their only significance stems from being targets fordeconstructive assaults. In other words, from a Derridian point of
view, the meaning of borders lies in the realization of their destruc
tive potential. This aspect of his reading is vividly expressed in his
discussion of L?on Robin's French translation2 of the Greek word
(j)?ppoLKov in the Platonic myth of Theuth.
Toward the end of the dialogue (274c5-275b2.), Socrates utilizes
the Egyptian myth of Theuth to illustrate his own arguments against
writing. In this myth, a conversation is held between the king and
one of the minor deities, Theuth. At a certain point, the new in
vention of writing is defined by the latter as "a (p?ppanov of wisdom
and truth." When Robin translated this expression he chose the
word remede (remedy) as the French equivalent of the Greek
(j)6?ppaKov. At first glance, this choice seems quite reasonable; the
presentation of a new invention should concentrate on its beneficial
aspects if the inventor wants it to be accepted. Derrida, however,
stresses that such a translation erases the ambiguity of the Greek
original and with it the possibility of understanding the context
(109; 97). In this dialogue, the meaning of (fr?ppanov as poison is no
less important than its opposite, because it represents the point of
view of the other interlocutor, the king. Writing will be a means
of forgetting by giving the illusion of memory and wisdom. People
will not know more as a result of the new instrument; on the con
trary, they will know less, because of the false beliefs which are the
inevitable outcome of writing. Each of the participants in the dia
logue about writing thus emphasizes one of the polar signifieds ofthe signifier cfr?ppaKov, while the text, which consists of both atti
tudes, defers from choosing either the one or the other (109; 97).
Thus, in that which is named "text," the border between op
posites is blurred, and what seemed to be an either-or situation
turns out to be a both-and situation. The cpappaKov is at the same
time (d lafois) remedy and poison, good and bad, beneficial and
harmful. The meaning of the text can be extricated only on the
basis of this mutual coexistence of contradictions. The dialogue
between the king and Theuth, held within the unity of the same
signifier (dans Vunit? du m?me signifiant), is proof of its being a
2Plato, Ph?dre, trans. L?on Robin (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1947).
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 5/19
372 YOAV RI?ON
unity of opposites (111; 98). Consequently, any intention to choose
between the different signifieds (which means a reestablishment oforder and limits) is ipso facto a neutralization of the unique textual
quality of the object under discussion:
When a word inscribes itself as the citation of another sense of the
same word, when the textual predominance [l'avant-sc?ne textuelle] of
the word (fr?ppanov, although signifying "remedy," cites, re-cites and
activates the possibility of reading that which within the same word
signifies on a different level and in a different profundity of the scene,
poison . . . , the choice of only one of the renditions by the translator
has as its first effect the neutralization of the citational play, of the"anagram," and, in the end, quite simply of the very textuality of the
translated text (111; 98).
The above citation indicates an important point in Derrida's
approach. When one (for example, Robin) erases "poison" on behalf
of "medicine," when one chooses a single option and gives it, by
definition, even a limited predominance within a section of a given
text, what is named "text" becomes a hierarchical phenomenon.
According to Derrida, the inevitable outcome of the decision to
choose is the deprivation of the text's own textuality, since in such
a delicate object even the slightest hint of hierarchy means an im
mediate loss of the text's most precious characteristic: the plurality
of its potentials. This statement, however, gives an important hint
to the critic of Derrida. If one would be able to prove that the
deconstructive strategy is generally based on the notion of hierarchy
and that Derrida himself assumes the existence of hierarchy and
utilizes it for his own needs, the very possibility of a deconstructive
reading would have to be seriously modified, to say nothing of the
process of reading itself. To indicate not only the existence, but
also the importance, of that assumption in Derrida's philosophy, I
shall now proceed to the <j>appaKos.
The (frappoiKos, the scapegoat in Greek religion, is intimately
connected to recurring themes in Derrida's interpretation of the
Phaedrus. Like the (fr?ppanov, it represents a both-and phenomenon:
it is both inside thecity, being
raised and nourishedby
it;andoutside,since it must be exiled at a certain time. It is both a remedy, as
the city's existence in a time of crisis, especially in time of plague,
depends on it; and a poison, since that kind of existence is an outcome
of the scapegoat's expulsion and, sometimes, death. Moreover, the
(frappan'os is strongly connected with the dialogue's protagonist, So
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 6/19
THE RHETORIC OF DERRIDA 373
crates, both metonymically and metaphorically: metonymically,
since Socrates was born on the day of the (frappaicos's expulsion;
metaphorically, because Socrates was an essential part of Athens
and as such was executed. Thus, he was both citizen and outsider,
and his personality was the realization of the unity of contradictions.
At the same time he was ugly (in his features) and beautiful (in his
soul), honored and despised, loved and hated, close and at a distance,
knowing all and nothing, alive and dead, a remedy and a poison.
The main problem with the above link is its absence from the Pla
tonic text. The signifier, the word (frappaubs, is absent not only from
the dialogue, but also from the Platonic corpus as a whole. Derrida,
who is quite aware of the significance of this kind of movement,
gives a thorough explanation for it:
But what does absent or present mean here? Like any text, the text of
"Plato" could not not be in connection with [?tre en rapport], at least
in a potential [virtuelle], dynamic, lateral manner, all the words that
composed the system of the Greek language. Certain forces of as
sociation unite?at diverse distances, with different strengths and
according to disparate paths?the words "actually present" in a dis
course with all the other words in the lexical system, whether or not
they appear as "words," that is, as relative verbal units in such dis
course. (148; 129-30)
This explanation does not stem merely from a polemical need.
The insertion of a word which is absent from the text can be accom
plished only with great difficulty, if one remembers how delicate the
Derridian tissue is. Since the absence of the "presence" of a word
in the text stopped functioning as a barrier for the external signifiers,
there is a serious risk of opening the text to an unrestricted inter
pretation that might enable the entrance of any word into the fragile
web. In other words, since the mere fact that Plato did not write
a certain word in a certain text?for example, (frappotKos?is not a
sufficient condition for preventing the word from functioning in the
act of reading, the whole dictionary is poised to flood the text with
an endless stream of words. To avoid demolition, a new principle
must immediately be substituted for the old one, and this principleconcerns the nature of the connection between different elements
of what Derrida calls "text."
Not every word, according to Derrida, is a legitimate participant
in textual activity. Only those words which, though actually absent
from the text, are connected with it associatively and united with
its present words by means of combining forces, can participate in
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 7/19
374 YOAV RI?ON
the reading process. This condition can also solve the problem of
absence resulting from unconscious trends which cause the suppression of words like cfrappaKos. The deconstructive movements shed
light upon this involuntary activity and, by reconstituting the sup
pressed elements, better explain the object under discussion.
It is this limitation, however, which demonstrates the impos
sibility of the already mentioned necessary deconstructive condition,
namely, that the text must be treated as an ahierarchical phenom
enon. The mere admission of the fact that not every word may
enter into the process of interpretation is an admission of the fact
that the text is a hierarchical phenomenon. If there is exclusion,
there must also be hierarchy; some words are more important than
others, more "in" than "out." They stand on one side of the border,
while others stand on the other side. This hierarchy is implied by
the very words Derrida chose to realize in his own text: "potential
manner," "diverse distances," "different strengths." True, many
readers might consider the existence of the limits as obvious, if not
banal; it is exactly this kind of banality and obviousness, however,
that hinders Derrida's critics from seeing the possibilities of op
position. From a hierarchical perspective, which is that of Derrida's
rivals, the border exists by definition, and therefore there is no need
to prove its existence. Such a perspective, however, turns out to be
one of the great misunderstandings of the rules of the game. Noth
ing exists by definition since nothing is and nothing can be defined.
Only upon complete acceptance of this rule is it possible to see that
Derrida himself can not play according to the rules of his own game.
What is more, the difficulty in exposing an internal contradiction
between two necessary deconstructive conditions (the text as an
ahierarchical phenomenon and the importance of hierarchy to any
Derridian reading) stresses the fact that the existence of the border
is not so banal and obvious as it seems to be at first.
In order to present more vividly the existence of the limits in
Derrida's reading, I shall now turn to another of Plato's dialogues,
Phaedo, in which the fyappaKov plays a central role. The dialogue
deals with the last hours of Socrates and with his death by means
of the (frappaKOP. Let us examine all the places where this word
appears in the dialogue:
Have you been with Socrates yourself, Phaedo, when he drank the
(frappaKov in prison? (57al-2). . .except that after drinking the fyappaKov he [Socrates] died. (57b2
3)
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 8/19
THE RHETORICOF DERRIDA 375
"Well, definitely nothing, Socrates," said Crito, "except that for some
time the one who is about to give you the fyappaKov says that youshould be told to speak as little as possible. For he claims that those
who speak get warmer, and this impairs the <?)?tppaKov'sactivity."
(63d6-e2)
For it seems to me that it would be better to drink the fyappaKov after
having a bath, so that the women will not have the burden of bathingthe corpse. (115a7-8)
Despite the fact that for a long time I have claimed for many reasons
that after I will drink the fyappaKov, I will not stay with you at all. . . (115d2-3)
Socrates, he said, as far as I am concerned, I will not condemn you,as I condemn all the others who are angry with me and curse me after
I inform them that, according to the rulers' decisions, it is time for
them to drink the fyappaKov. (116cl-4)
Well, Crito, let's obey him, and that somebody will bring the (frappaicovif it is ready. (116d7-9)
And the slave went out . . . and came back bringing the one who is
about to give the (fr?ppanov. (117a5-6)
. . .and the one who gave the (frappanov. (117e6)3
Robin's reasons for translating <\>appaKov as poison in this con
text can easily be detected. The (frappanov caused Socrates' death,
and therefore it is reasonable to concentrate on its poisonous aspects.
Derrida, however, calls his readers' attention to the duality of the
(fr?ppoiKov even in this case. The (?xxppaKov which is given to Socrates
as poison is also responsible for the immortality of his soul (144-5;
126-7). Thus, the (p?ppaicov brings death and enables immortality
at thesame
time; it is poison-medicine and not poisonor
medicine.The justification for stressing this ambiguity is based on the context
within which the word appears: Phaedo is a dialogue about the im
mortality of the soul, held on the verge of Socrates' death. In other
words, the unity of contradictions is reaffirmed by the unity of the
living speech and the death scene. The use of this kind of argu
mentation is neither surprising nor uncommon; on the contrary, the
importance of the context is quite conventional where matters of
interpretation are concerned. Something is hidden behind the in
nocent veil of convention, however, and not without cause.
3The translations are based on Plato, Opera, ed. John Burnet, 5 vols.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900-1907). All the Greek translations in this
essay, unless otherwise noted, are my own.
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 9/19
376 YOAV RI?ON
The same context which allows the addition of another signified
(medicine) to the one given by the French translator Robin (poison)excludes yet another signified of the word fyappaKov: "paint." This
option, which appears in the LSJ dictionary4 as a possible meaning
of (?)?ppaKov, does not take a place in the Derridian text, not as a
result of a deconstructive repression, but due to the indifference of
the context. In the Phaedo the Platonic text creates an environment
which excludes the realization of "paint" as a signified. In other
words, within the boundaries of this dialogue, the signified "paint"
does not have thesame
intensityas the
signifieds "poison"and
"medicine." Thus, the context serves as the borderline, and con
sequently hints at a crucial internal contradiction within the Der
ridian strategy: either the context is indispensable, and the text is
revealed as a hierarchical phenomenon, or the context is irrelevant,
and the fragile texture of the text is crushed by vulgar intrusions
of signifieds. Neither of these cases, however, is allowed according
to the Derridian rules of the game, which demand that the text be
both ahierarchical and confined within the limits of the context.
To strengthen and illuminate my critique, I shall now proceed
to a more complex example taken from another Platonic dialogue,
Cratylus. In this dialogue, Socrates talks about the connection be
tween words and their meanings, or, to use modern terminology,
between signifiers and signifieds. At a certain stage of the discus
sion, Socrates depicts a possible confusion:
However, a variety [iroLKLkeiv]of syllables is possible so that to the
layman they [the names] might seem different from each other, al
though ontologically they are the same [r? avr? ovra]; just as for usthe (j)?ppaKa of the physicians, being disguised [ireKOLKLkpeva]hy paints
[Xp paoLv] and smells seem different, although ontologically they are
the same [r? avr? ovra]. However, as far as the physician is con
cerned, since he examines the power of the (fr?ppana, they seem the
same [r? avr?], and he is not misled by the additions. (394a5-b2)
In this passage the physician represents the man who is a
professional in ontology. The cfrappaica are portrayed as identical
in their essence, in their "onticity" (r? avr? ovra), yet they are
colored by paints which make them seem different from one another.
Unlike Socrates and Cratylus, who cannot perceive the identical
4Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, re
vised by Henry Stuart Jony.
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 10/19
THE RHETORICOF DERRIDA 377
essences, being misled by the colors, the physician can recognize the
activity of the 4>appaKa regardless of their appearance. The profes
sionally of the physician will later have a central part in this dis
cussion. At present, I prefer, like Plato, to use it as a model for the
professionality of the linguist, who is able to differentiate between
the variety of signifiers referring to the same signified.
The signifier 4>appaKov has several signifieds, among which are
"drug" and "paint." When Socrates chooses to speak about the
"(j)?ppaKa of the physicians," the additional words "of the physi
cians" create a hierarchical context within which "drug" has a higher
position than "paint." That is, speaking "of the physicians" gives
priority to drugs over paints. The Cratylus is, however, a dialogue
about linguists and not physicians, and its essential distinctions
concern words (see, for example, 423-4) and not drugs. The above
quotation is, therefore, located in a verbal context; this phenomenon
cannot be ignored by any Derridian reading, as will be shown by
the following.
The signified "paint" has an indispensible meaning within this
verbal context. Socrates explicitly states that the main danger faced
by nonprofessionals in the field of linguistics is that the signifieds,colored by different signifiers, will create ontological confusion, and
that one will not be able to perceive the identity hidden under the
cover of variation. At first, one may have the impression of an
unavoidable deconstruction. The message of the above citation is
centered upon the possibility of distinguishing between the different
signifieds of the different signifiers. On the one hand, ttolkl\ lv,
TceiroLKiXpeva, and Xp paaiv signify "paint"; on the other hand,
(?)?ppaKov signifies "drug." The context, however, tends to impede
the realization of this distinction by loudly citing the association
between (jyappanov and "paint." An association of this type would
blur the boundaries not only between the different signifieds as such
("paint" would become a possible signified of (frappanov as well) but
also between the hierarchical values attached to them. The minute
that "drug" equals "paint," the minute one cannot assign a higher
position to "drug" than to "paint" within the context of "(?appana
of the physicians," the whole hierarchical construct collapses, drag
ging with it the possibility of meaning.It seems that I have come to a dead end. At the beginning of
the discussion of Cratylus I claimed that it is possible to discern the
boundaries and hierarchies both within and between signifiers and
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 11/19
378 YOAV RI?ON
signifieds; yet at this stage the associative connections (whose rel
evance is beyond any doubt) weave a web of contexts which refutethe above claim. Although it is not an easy task to point out the
misleading aspects of such an ambiguous reading, it is, nevertheless,
not impossible. If one concentrates on the signifieds' importance,
the force of the selection of the signifiers is forgotten; the citation,
which is loaded with signifiers hinting at "paint," never utilizes the
<j)?ppaKov as a signifier for "paint," and not without reason. The
selection of signifiers helps to avoid confusion; the variety of sig
nifiers for "paint" proves the significance not only of the present
realized options but also of the potential absent ones. Choosing not
to utilize (p?ppaKov as a signifier for "paint" preserves the hierarchy
between the inside and the outside, the signifier and the signified,
and reasserts the boundary of difference. The different signifieds,
"paint" on the one hand and "drug" on the other, have different
signifiers: ttolklXuv, TteiroiKikpeva, Xpicpaaiv for the one, and (pappanov
for the other. Plato thus reveals himself as being open to the risk
of a deconstructive reading, and as being able to resist it at the same
time. Further backing for this notion is found in another passage
from the same dialogue, where Socrates says, "Like the painters
who want to portray something, sometimes they add only the purple
pigment and sometimes another of the (p?ppana" (424d7-el). There
is almost no possibility of mistake here. It is clear that the context
is dominated by "colors," and Plato does not hesitate to use (p?ppaKov
as the signifier for "paint." The firmer the limits between the sig
nifieds ("paint" is predominant over "drug," "poison," and "medi
cine"), the wider the liberty of choosing within the group of associated signifiers (fyappaKov, Xpcopa, -KeKouaXpeva).
The deconstructive reading is based upon an ahierarchical per
spective on the text. Although the above example tries to show the
impossibility of that perspective, it is possible that Plato is an ex
ception, that is, that the Platonic text qua text is unique in having
hierarchical aspects. This possibility could be confirmed by givingas many examples as possible of the ahierarchical perception of the
text.Despite being
a rather conventional way ofverification,
how
ever, this is also a defective one: it overextends the limits of discus
sion, and, even worse, it is always prone to refutation by unexamined
texts, the number of which is always higher than that of the ex
amined texts. A different method must therefore be put into prac
tice. It is the giving of one example of an ahierarchical text and
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 12/19
THE RHETORIC OF DERRIDA 379
proving its uniqueness; by proving the ahierarchical text to be the
exception, the normativity of hierarchy will be reaffirmed.At this point in the analysis, the reader might wonder whether
such a text indeed exists, and, from the point of view of meaningful
differences and limitations, if there is a possibility of realizing such
a text within the boundaries of a book. It is certainly not an easy
task to find a text completely fulfilling this deconstructive condition,but a consideration of the most recurring text within the Derridian
corpus will give us the answer immediately. This text, which is
ahierarchicalby definition,
is notphilosophical
butlinguistic;
it is
the dictionary. The order of the words in the dictionary is mean
ingless from an interpretative point of view; the fact that signifiers
beginning with "a" precede those beginning with "b" does not say
anything about the precedence of the word "apple" over the word
"bee." The same can be claimed about the signifieds: their order
reflects the frequency of use but not any meaningful priority ("poi
son" is not ipso facto more significant than "paint"). The dictionary
is the deconstructive text par excellence. It is the emblem of equal
ity, the unity of signifiers and signifieds, the origin and the arche of
all the texts; and therefore it has unlimited fertile possibilities. Yet
it is also the most barren of all texts because it never stops being a
potential and only a potential. The dictionary can never be a re
alization of its own copious options because any realization requires
the abandonment of at least one of the alternatives. The dictionary
is, no doubt, the Derridian both-and phenomenon. It is everything
and nothing, all existing contexts yet not a text in itself; it is full
of citations without being able to say something of its own. If the
dictionary "means" something, itmeans no more than the possibility
of meaning.
Thus, in being ahierarchical, in being extremely both-and, the
dictionary is fundamentally different from all other texts. Any
text, qua text, is sl choice, is the exclusion of some contexts and the
inclusion of others. The text is an inevitable selection, for good or
bad, from the choices given in the dictionary. The text, therefore,
is an either-orphenomenon,
a hierarchical
phenomenon.But let
us now go back to the Derridian characterization of the (pappanov.
In a short passage Derrida refers to the appearance of the (pappanov
in the real world:
Sperm, water, ink, paint, perfumed dye: the fyappaKov always penetrates like a liquid; it is drunk, absorbed, introduced into the
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 13/19
380 YOAV RI?ON
inside.... In liquid, opposites are easily mixed. Liquid is the element
of the <j)?ppaKov. And water, pure liquidity, is most easily and dan
gerously penetrated then corrupted by the </>?ppaKov,with which itmixes and immediately unites. (175; 152)
At first glance, the deconstructive rigidity tends to evade the reader's
eye; a second examination, however, reveals a curious signifier within
the textual tissue: "always." If, in the works of Plato, the 4>appaKov
does not always penetrate like a liquid, then a meaningful difference
exists between the Derridian (pappaicov and the Platonic one. The
word "always" hints at a total condition whose importance to Der
rida's reading is mentioned in the above passage. It gives another
indication of the unity of opposites. It sustains the fact that bound
aries tend to blur in Plato's writings, and it leads Derrida toward
the simultaneous interpretation of the cp?ppaicov as poison-medicine.
Any flaw in the integrity of this signifier would generate a crack in
the whole of the deconstructive argumentation, as it would signal
the possibility of another strategy of reading based on premises
other than the Derridian ones. This different (p?ppaicov does appear
in the Platonic corpus, as the following passage proves:
Anyhow, when he asked me [Socrates] whether I know the cpappaKovfor the head, I answered with great difficulty that I knew it. "Well,
what is it?" he [Charmides] asked. And I said that the thing itself
[avro] is a leaf, and that there is some kind of an incantation in addition
to the (pappaKov which, being said with the practice of the thing itself
[avrb], the fyappanov completely heals the man, and without this in
cantation, the leaf is completely useless.5
The deconstructive liquidity realized in sperm, water, ink, paint
and perfumed dye stands in opposition to the Platonic solidity of
the leaf. The firmness of the leaf, however, can easily be dissolved
in water, as in tea, and therefore, one might comment, my passage
does not contradict the deconstructive reading. My answer goes
back to the difference between potentiality and realization. It is
always possible to liquify a substance; but one does not always decide
to put that option into practice. When Plato wrote that for the leaf
to be a 4>appaKov t should be used substantially, he explicitly declares
his preference not to liquify it. Of course, Derrida can always mix
the Platonic substance with some kind of liquid, but this will be in
contrast to the Platonic text. It will be a different (pappanov, a
5Charmides 155e3-8.
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 14/19
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 15/19
382 YOAV RI?ON
to leave the randomness of the dictionary and choose a context in
order to start the activation of communication and meaning, so the
(p?ppaKov in general has to give up its potential variability in order
to become a poison or a medicine, to be absorbed or drunk, to be,
and not "in general." In this respect, the (pappanov in general is
also very similar to "writing in general," which is the center of our
next step in the analysis.
At the end of his Platonic discussion, Derrida characterizes
"writing in general" in the following way:
Thatwriting [is]
eireKeiva
ri]sovalas. . . .
Nonpresenceis
presence.Diff?rance, the disappearance of any originary presence, is at once [?
lafois] the condition of possibility and the condition of impossibilityof truth. At once. "At once" means that the being-present [ v] in
its truth ... is doubled as soon as it appears, as soon as it presentsitself. It appears, in its essence, as the possibility of its most proper
non-truth, of its pseudo-truth reflected in the icon, the phantasm, or
the simulacrum. What is is not what it is . . .unless it adds to itselfthe possibility of being repeated as such. And its identity is hollowed
out by that addition, withdraws itself in the supplement that presentsit. (194; 168)
It is quite clear from the above that the emphasis of the deconstruc
tive definition of "writing in general" lies in the meaning of the "at
once" (? la fois). The former expression, however, is still obscure
despite Derrida's efforts to illuminate it, and thus an examination
of the context within which this phrase occurs is required. "At
once" is connected with presence, with appearance, with essence,
with addition, and with the possibility of repetition. As for "writing
in general," it is somehow connected with a place beyond being
(eireiceiva rr)s ovalas). Now, the possibility of repetition can "takeits place" beyond being, and so can the possibility of presence, the
possibility of appearance and essence. What can not be "there" is
presence itself, the realization of repetition within a certain context.
The moment of doubling is the moment of leaving the place which
is beyond being. Onticity, being a part of what is v, means the
abandonment of the ? la ois, of the both-and which is possible onlyin the place beyond being. Generality as such, whether pharma
ceutic or written, is imprisoned behind the invisible walls of the
"beyond being," and therefore is barred from actively participat
ing in all that is real, such as presence, appearance, cpappaKov and
writing.
Deconstruction is based upon the deferral of choosing; this is
its great strength, but also its great weakness. One can always,
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 16/19
THE RHETORIC OF DERRIDA 383
like Bartleby, "prefer not"; but one can not prefer not for text which
is, by definition, preference and selection. Derrida, in characterizinghis notions as multiple choice phenomena, makes them both potent
(since they lead him to forceful and highly compelling readings) and
impotent (since they are practically impossible outside the context
of the dictionary) at once. The moment of doubling, unlike the
potentiality of being doubled, occurs in the world, which is defined
by Derrida himself as the neutralizer of all the force of his concepts.
Thus, reading as an activity, as an interpretation of an object that
exists, is excluded from the Derridian realms.
There is but one step left before leaving "Plato's pharmacy,"
and that is the unraveling of its rhetoric. The connection between
the vehement criticisms of Derrida's opponents and the power of
his argumentation can not be overemphasized. This, however, is
merely an indication and not an explanation. Wrath is always a
reliable sign of emotional intensity, but almost never a trustworthy
guide to the reasons for its existence. To achieve the latter, we
shall make a slight digression, which will illuminate the roots of
the deconstructive strategy.
In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein develops his anal
ogy between language and games in the following way:
Instead of producing something common to all that we call language,I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which
makes us use the same word for all, -but that they are related to one
another inmany different ways. And it is because of this relationship,or these relationships, that we call them all "language." I will tryto explain this.
Consider forexample
theproceedings
that we call"games."
Imean
board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on.
What is common to them all? -Don't say: "there must be somethingcommon . . .but look and see whether there is anything common at
all. -For if you look at them you will not see something that is
common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of
them at that. . . . Look for example at board-games, with their mul
tifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many
correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop
out, and others appear.. . .And the result of this examination is:we
see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-cross
ing; sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities
than "family resemblances." . . .And I shall say: "games" form a
family.7
7Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M.
Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), no. 65-67.
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 17/19
384 YOAV RI?ON
The main reason for the comparison between language and
games is the impossibility of finding an overall characteristic foreach. There is no one single aspect shared by all the manifestations
of language and games. What they do share is associative connec
tions; the absence of identity is filled by the presence of resemblance.
Thus, in the category "games," one would not find an amalgamatic
phenomenon, but rather a group of diverse elements. The compar
ison between Wittgenstein and Derrida should not surprise the
reader, who can easily recognize many points of similarity (asso
ciations, links, diversity, and, obviously, games). The illumination
of the rhetoric, however, demands concentration on the difference
between the two.
Deconstruction reveals the connection between the different
links of the textual net. In itself, this movement is quite legiti
mate; its usage, however, is open to criticism. For Derrida, the
unveiling of hidden interconnections is a means of treating them
alternatively. In other words, if differ anee is related to (fiappaicov,
it is possible to apply either one or the other to a given context,
according to the requirements of deconstruction. Thus, "writing
in general" can be an apposition to the diff?rance (194; 168), and
writing and the cpappaKov can be regarded as identical options
(118; 101-2). The Derridian links, however, like those of Witt
genstein, cannot be completely alternative; they can only serve as
partial supplements. Through most of the deconstructive itiner
ary one may easily ignore the incompleteness (for example, that
despite its being a cpappaKov, writing is not a leaf like the 4>appaKov
of the Charmides) of most of the Derridian supplements. At acertain stage, however, such neglect is no longer possible, and it
is here that the deconstructive strategy both veils this impossi
bility and brings into light its most compelling outcomes. Hence,
the success of deconstruction lies in the possibility of taking al
most invisible steps, so that in the end a prominent contrast may
be displayed. It is thus easier to concentrate on the forceful iden
tifications of truth and falsehood, of nonpresence and presence,
oforigin
andrepetition,
and, of course, of the
priority
of
writingover speech, than to perceive the movements upon which these
conclusions are based.
A concrete example will clarify the above complexity. Let us
imagine the (p?ppaKov and the writing to be two links in our game.
According to Wittgenstein, they cannot be congruent, but only
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 18/19
THE RHETORICOF DERRIDA 385
partially overlapping. This is reasonable if one remembers that
writing is not identical with the cpappaKov, yet has a lot in commonwith it. Graphically, it would have the following shape:
writing (papiiaKov
The center of the diagram, which signifies the common aspects of
both writing and (p?ppanov, is also the center of Derrida's discussion,
that is, the metonymical and metaphorical connections between
writing and the (pappaKov as two kinds of drugs. At the beginning
of the deconstructive reading the margins can be identified with
marginality, since the fact that the congruity of the elements is
metaphoricaland not concrete can be
neglected. Then,to
achievethe decomposition of the logos, another move is required, from writ
ing to speech. Again, similarity (mimesis) is emphasized, while
difference (distance from the origin) is expelled to the margins. In
a diagram itwould look as follows:
speech (p?ppaKov
writing
It is now, when identity between (p?ppaKov, writing, and speech seems
to be achieved, that Derrida forcefully deconstructs the logosbymeans of difference. Suddenly, writing as a (p?ppanov is not close
to speech but something alien to it, trying to destroy it in one stroke
(en coup); it is no longer a friend but an enemy, and, what is worse,
an internal one. Thus, both inside (because of the similarity) and
outside (because of the difference), it cannot be either expelled or
8/6/2019 [1992] Rinon - The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida I - Plato's Pharmacy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-rinon-the-rhetoric-of-jacques-derrida-i-platos-pharmacy 19/19
386 YOAV RI?ON
accepted without causing great damage. Deconstruction has once
again won the battle.I prefer not to focus here on the meaning of getting closer in
order to create the greatest possible distance, despite this being a
recurring, if not an essential, move in Derrida's strategy of reading.
At this stage of the analysis, the flaws in the rhetoric are my main
concern. The diagrams precisely exemplify that the move from
writing as (p?ppanov to speech is based upon the concealment of the
insurmountable gap between writing and the (p?ppaKov. The chasm
between the concrete and the metaphorical stops being marginal
when Derrida tries to create an identity between the above two
elements in order to deconstruct the logos. Writing is not (p?ppanov,
it is merely a (frappaicov, something similar but not identical to the
(fr?ppaKov. Again, one may discern that the resemblance between
the links creates both the possibility of an easy transition from
(p?ppaKovto speech and the impossibility of a complete liquidationof the latter by the former at once.
In conclusion, I have tried to show that deconstruction cannot
fulfill its own precepts without generating an internal contradiction.
The text is required to be both an ahierarchical and a hierarchical
phenomenon. The rhetoric of the strategy which successfully blurs
this contradiction is exemplified by the definition given by Wittgenstein to his language game. As for the deep and complex relation
ships between writing and speech hinted at in the last section, these
are dealt with in the next essay on the Phaedrus.8
The Hebrew University
8This article has benefited immensely from the criticism of and dis
cussion with Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Elizabeth Freund, and Shuli Bar
zilai. I am also indebted to Menachem Brinker for his comments on earlier
versions of this essay, and to Andrew Lang for his careful editing of both
essays.