Iterability
Derrida (1930-2004) famously argued that writing preceded speech. By this I believe he meant that the “iterability” of language logically preceded its spontaneous performance.
that is, repeatable in any context whatsoever, just as this very introduction to Derrida I’m writing now must be able to signify as an introduction to Derrida after this semester is over [hey! like now!], after I’m dead, after you cease to read it, after the expiration of every element of the context in which I am composing it now. That, writes Derrida, is the very condition of writing itself, without which we simply do not recognize writing as such: if the writing is not “iterable,” it is not writing.
I’m surprised that bloggers aren’t more fond of Derrida since he was all about the ability to cite, to recontextualize, to reveal the suppressed meanings in the writings of others - everything a blogger does. One of my favorite pieces by him is the lecture-turned-into-a-book Limited Inc. in which he responds to an essay by Searle: “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida.” In this essay he focuses on the very copyright of Searle’s manuscript:
Copyright © 1977 by John R. Searle
He wonders why it is necessary:
The whole debate might boil down to the question: does John R. Searle “sign” his reply? Does he make use of his right to reply? Of his rights as author? But what makes him think that these rights might be questioned, that someone might try to teal them form him, or that there could be any mistake concerning the attribution of his original produciton? How would this be possible? Can the thing be expropriated, alienated? Would anyone dream of countersigning or counterfeiting his signature? Why would anyone repeat this gesture and what would such a repetition signify? Why should or would it remain outside of the text, above the title or below the “normal” boundary of the page? What of all the relations involved in the legal and political context of the “copyright,” including the complexity of its system and of its history?” Why are copyright utterances making a serious claim at truth? Had I asserted a copyright, “for saying things that are obviously false,” there could have been no doubt as to its appropriateness. But that John R. Searle should be so concerned with his copyright, for saying things that are obviously true, gives one pause to reflect upon the truth of the copyright and the copyright of the truth.”
Good questions. For more on Derrida’s philosophy, I suggest this Wikipedia page on “deconstruction.”
(thanks to Amardeep for the Michael Bérubé link)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
[…] InitForm(’lookup1′,’autodiv1′,’down’); showHide_TellMeAbout2(false); Business Entertainment Food Games Health People Places Reference Science Shopping Words More… BodyLoad(’/main’, ’startswith’,’s’); Spell CheckDid You Mean: alterability alterable adoral operable wearability durability durability (computer science) adorable arable durable Mentioned In iterability is mentioned in the following topics: Judith ButlerWeb Search Results 1 - 10 of about 1,130 for iterability. IterabilityDerrida speaks of "iterability" throughout his works. We are accustomed to hearing people say, "could you reiterate that?" — ordinarily, in other words, …www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/ eng495/iterability.htmKeywords » IterabilityIterability. Derrida (1930-2004) famously argued that writing preceded speech. By this I believe he meant that the “iterability” of language logically …keywords.oxus.net/archives/2004/10/10/iterability/ReadingIterability. Repeatability and differentiality combined. Derrida’s early work established a number of what we might call principles. …courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/repetition.htmLemma 17: Presence and AbsenceThe absence of writing is represented by the iterability that writing is. … Iterability would seem to be something of a divine name. …courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/Lemmas17&18.htm[Python-Dev] Single- vs. Multi-pass iterabilityMulti-pass iterability. Barry A. Warsaw barry@zope.com Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:30:51 -0400. Previous message: [Python-Dev] Single- vs. Multi-pass iterability …mail.python.org/pipermail/ python-dev/2002-July/026618.html[Python-Dev] Re: Single- vs. Multi-pass iterabilityMulti-pass iterability. François Pinard pinard@iro.umontreal.ca 04 Aug 2002 21:34:26 -0400. Previous message: [Python-Dev] Single- vs. …mail.python.org/pipermail/ python-dev/2002-August/027321.htmlVirginia Woolf: Translation and ‘Iterability’‘iterability’ that allow the Greek text to pose new questions. … Near the end of her life Woolf showed that a world bereft of iterability su·ers …www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mhra/ yes/2006/00000036/00000001/art00013IngentaConnect Iterability and the Order-Word Plateau: A Politics …It begins by juxtaposing Derrida's concept/nonconcept of 'iterability' to … The paper then concludes by drawing a tentative link between iterability and …www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/ crh/2003/00000004/00000002/art00005Iterability of ZeroIt is the iterability of signs and marks which makes them a mark or a sign. … Zero is not an event of iterability. Iterability of a sign doesn't mean that …www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/ DERRIDA/Iterability%20of%20Zero.htmlIterability of Type 1 Premiceto prove the iterability of those type 1 premice carrying a. special kind of extenders, … conditions are iterability of the respected objects and …www.cirm.univ-mrs.fr/web.ang/ videos/2004/040928/28_Feng.pdfResult Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next […]
[…] I can’t think of a much better way to explain why anthropologists should read Derrida, without making everyone feel all iterable. […]
[…] Okay. Now. So. Is Sokal right? Is there a tendency in humanities departments toward obscurantism with elitist undertones? Absolutely. However, I see this as the academic byproduct of the writers under attack, the detritus of myriad misunderstandings and misreadings. Nobody’s perfect, obviously. I disagree that certain of the writers Sokal attacks–Julia Kristeva in particular (a hero of mine, whose writing I find to be both wonderfully lucid and poetically profound)–are purposefully difficult. Most of the deconstructionists mentioned above take their lead from Nietzsche, and thus employ a strange, elliptical, roundabout and often poetic strategy to their writing. The deconstructionist methodology itself is an affront to easy readings–simply put, it’s meant to make you think. Furthermore, philosophy, for most of us, is not beach reading. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, Sokal’s gesture is an essentially postmodern move, a deconstructive move–a challenge to the new establishment of academic humanities and cultural studies. Even his use of recontextualized quotes is an affirmation of Derrida’s concept of iterability. The greatest value of the hoax is that it reinforces the tenets of deconstruction: to upset the places we feel are comfortable and safe, prompting constant re-examination of our aims and goals. Sokal’s hoax initiates a dynamic rethinking of the way we write and the way we read. Who are we writing for? How are we presenting our ideas? Do we understand what we are saying? More than anything, Sokal’s hoax calls attention to the constant need for peer review, for academia to question itself, its products, its institutions. […]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
An anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, 
What seems to bother Tribble here is not so much the comments themselves (after all, one would think an academic would have a bit more worry about inane comments made in the classroom!), but their iterability —their capacity to be repeated and, in being repeated, to escape the control of their author. The appropriate public venue for academic speech is publication, after passing through layers of vetting and peer review to minimize the consequences of