This Auto-bio-graphical Animal That I Am

Abstract

This article is a critical response to Etienne Terblanche’s article entitled “That ‘Incredible Unanimal/Mankind’: Jacques Derrida, E.E. Cummings and a Grass-hopper” (2004), in which he argues that Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive writing, unlike that of his modernist counterpart, E.E. Cummings, fails as a “de-scriptive” strategy and therefore cannot “render an adequate and dynamic description of an actual animal”. I accept Terblanche’s critique of the kind of postmodernist thinking that remains lost in the funhouse of language, but I shall argue that deconstructive thinking does not fit this profile. Rather, by means of an alternative logic nicknamed, inter alia, “the plural logic of the aporia”, Derrida persistently strove to escape the stagnant locking of horns that is the inevitable effect of artificially formed binary oppositions (such as modernism and postmodernism). Were Terblanche to read Derrida without the prejudices that associate his work with an unbridled postmodern “textualism”, he would find much to support and enrich his own thinking concerning this difficult, but critically important, mode of thinking. I propose, therefore, to challenge his adversarial stance towards Derrida’s style of de-scription by showing that it is based on a crucial misunderstanding of both Derrida’s ontological commitments and the precise subject of his de-scriptive essay; namely “this auto-bio-graphical animal that I am”. Once these misunderstandings are remedied, I believe that Terblanche could quite easily grant that Derrida’s essay, as much as Cummings’s poem, conforms to the de-scriptive necessity of a sensitive iso-morphism between textual style and actual subject.

Opsomming

Hierdie artikel is ’n kritiese respons op Etienne Terblanche se artikel met die titel “That ‘Incredible Unanimal/Mankind’: Jacques Derrida, E.E. Cummings and a Grasshopper” (2004), waarin hy aanvoer dat Jacques Derrida se dekonstruktiewe geskrifte, anders as dié van sy modernistiese teenvoeter E.E. Cummings, as “de-skriptiewe” strategie misluk en derhalwe nie “an adequate and dynamic description of an actual animal” kan lewer nie. Ek aanvaar Terblanche se kritiek op die soort post-modernistiese denke wat bly ronddool in die gekkeparadys van taal, maar ek sal aanvoer dat dekonstruktiewe denke nie hierdie profiel pas nie. Derrida het eerder – en wel deur middel van ‘n alternatiewe logika met die bynaam van onder andere “die plurale logika van die aporia” – verbete bly strewe om die stagnante vasval in woordestryd wat die onvermydelike uitwerking van kunsmatig gevormde binêre opposisies (soos modernisme en postmodernisme) is, te ontkom. Sou Terblanche Derrida lees sonder die vooroordele wat sy werk met ’n onbeteuelde postmoderne “tekstualisme” in verband bring, sou hy veel vind om sy eie denke oor hierdie moeilike dog deurslaggewend belangrike denkwyse te staaf en verryk. Dit is dus my voorneme om sy opponerende stellinginname teenoor Derrida se de-skriptiewe styl uit te daag deur aan te toon dat dit gegrond is op ’n kritieke misverstand van sowel Derrida se ontologiese verbintenisse en die einste onderwerp van sy de-skriptiewe essay; naamlik hierdie outo-bio-grafiese dier wat ek is. Sodra hierdie misverstande uit die weg geruim is, meen ek dat Terblanche baie maklik sou kon toegee dat Derrida se essay – ewe veel as Cummings se gedig – met die de-skriptiewe noodsaaklikheid van ’n sensitiewe isomorfisme tussen tekstuele styl en werklike subjek konformeer.