Philosophy Compare Derrida and J.L. Austin's views on langauge Essay

Philosophy Compare Derrida and J.L. Austin's views on langauge - Essay Example Austin's ideas precede those of Derrida, and in many ways may be seen as the foundation that Derrida and his fellow post-structuralists seek to dismantle. The basis of Austin's ideas is that language can be divided between two broad categories. These are performative acts and performative utterances. Take the example that I have just stood on your toe. Two possible verbal reactions are possible. One, I say "I apologize for stepping on your toe". Alternatively, I might say "I am sorry for stepping on your toe". The first sentence is an example of a performative act: I have performed the 'act' of apologizing for stepping on your toe. The second sentence is not an act however - as I am just stating what I feel about stepping on your toe. I may be apologizing, but on the other hand I may not be - it may be just what I feel on the inside. This appears to be a very simple distinction, but from this basic premise, Austin moves into increasingly complex examinations of the structure of language in the form of acts/utterances. Essentially, the words that we use rely upon a whole series of other facts, realities, possibilities and assumptions in order for them to have meaning. For example, I say to you, "I am going to marry you tomorrow". In some ways this is a performative act - it is a direct statement of what I will do, as opposed to a feeling. However, the act definition depends upon a number of outside factors. It remains an act if we are both unmarried, if you the opposite gender from me, if we are both of age, if we live in a place where you can get a marriage license within 24 hours . . . . etc. But if either of us is already married, or perhaps we are already married, if we are the same gender etc. then the act becomes an utterance because there is no way of the act really occurring. From this start, Austin moves through a detailed examination of performance acts and utterances, and eventually uses his analysis to counter some of the very bases of all philosophy. One of his most important arguments is that the obsession of philosophy with whether something is "true" or "false" is in fact what he calls a "tyranny" (Austin, 1976). Because any statement depends upon the hierarchy of facts, realities, feelings that was outlined above, the idea that it can be easily categorized as "true" or false" is absurd. It all depends upon the overall environment within which the statement exists. Austin calls this "a dimension of assessment" (1976). While eventually Austin rejects the idea that all language can be divided between performative acts and utterances, the basic structure remains in place. A particular sentence is either an act or it is an utterance. This is what can be referred to as a Cartesian worldview of opposites. Derrida comes from a very different viewpoint. As the very title of his famous book suggests, he seeks to understand the world from the "margins" of philosophy. He seeks to philosophize from the point of view of what he calls both/and (Derrida, 1985). For Derrida the attempt to divide language into either/or reduces the situation through simplifying it. He finds it much more interesting if a word or sentence can be both an act and an utterance. Derrida works through a system of paradox in which the speaker, far from using words that reflect his intention, in fact has his intention determined by the words that he is using. This is the direct attack that Derrida lays against the ideas of