Derrida and Rhetoric

As we have discussed rhetoric- what it is, the roles of the different actors within it, etc- we have discussed the historical transformation of western rhetoric from focusing on the spoken word (as in Aristotle's time) to its modern focus on the written word, and how this transformation has complicated our own handling of rhetoric.

In her introduction to Derrida's Dissemination, Barbara Johnson writes, "Derrida's critique of Western metaphysics focuses on its privileging of the spoken word over the written word. The spoken word is given a higher value because the speaker and the listener are both present to the utterance simultaneously" (viii). As I see it, this is a historically contingent privileging; had rhetoric begun with the written word rather than the spoken, then written rhetoric rather than spoken would have the privileged status.

As it is, however, the privileging of spoken rhetoric is problematic for us now that most rhetoric is not spoken. Because, though the immediacy of spoken rhetoric "seems to guarantee the notion that... we know what we mean, mean what we say, say what we mean, and know what we have said" (viii), there are certain advantages to writing simply by virtue of its not being simultaneous. And I personally value these advantages more than those of speech.

What are the advantages of writing? Well, as Derrida concludes from a careful reading of Rosseau, "It is thus absence (i.e. the absence of the writer at the time of the reader reading the text) that assures the presentation of truth, and presence that entails its distortion" (xi). Without the charm (or lack thereof) of the speaker to take into account, the reader can focus more on the text itself, and is perhaps better able to determine the 'truth' of said text.

So, though writing may be a "destruction of presence" and "disease of speech" (xi), it serves its own purpose quite well, and successful writing is able to bridge the gaps of time and space to convey its truth to the reader even with- or perhaps, Derrida would argue, because of- the writer's absence.