Derrida and Biblical Anthropology

Alice C. Linsley

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) was a North African, multi-lingual Jew who developed a strategy by which he critiqued Western thought in literature, myth and philosophy. He criticized conventional interpretations of texts, legends and myths.

He pioneered the movement known as Deconstructionism in the mid-1960s. In his analysis he employs these interesting descriptors: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, and ontotheology.

Logocentrism emphasizes the primacy of speech/debate in the Western philosophical tradition. This is a variation of "Phonocentrism," the belief that uttered sounds and speech are inherently superior to written language. Phonocentricists maintain that spoken language is the primary and most fundamental method of communication and writing is a derived method of capturing speech.

Phallogocentrism points to the tendency for the male version of the story to dominate in conventional interpretations.

Ontotheology was Derrida’s term for approaching “the center” to which we inevitably must return. Here we encounter Truth/Reality/God/Truth/Logos. Derrida said, “It would be possible to show that all the terms related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence, ... essence, existence, substance, subject, ... transcendentality, consciousness or conscience, god, man, and so forth.”

Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. Derrida’s method involves exploration of contradictions, oppositions, and reversals, and represents dialectical reasoning with a binary framework. 

Derrida ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.

Deconstruction's literary aspect involves finding hidden meanings in the text using imagination or “invention” (Derrida’s term). The philosophical aspect concerns the “metaphysics of presence." Here Derrida borrows from the work of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger who maintained that Western philosophy has consistently granted “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be, and something can be because it is. We might add that "something isn't" is also about metaphysical presence. Such a statement observes or marks negative space. Derrida argues that metaphysics affects the whole of philosophy from Plato onwards. Metaphysics necessarily explores binary oppositions and reveals a hierarchy whereby one of the opposites is perceived to be superior in some way to the other.

 
While Derrida loved word play and poked fun at conventional interpretations, he was never far from Plato when speaking of an absolute or constant metaphysical presence. While language is unstable and meaning has reversals, Derrida demonstrated that these are often two sides of the same linguistic coin. In a sense, Derrida was bringing Western philosophy back to its more ancient Semitic roots. (The oldest known Semitic language is Ancient Akkadian, the language known to Abraham the Hebrew.) The early Hebrew would have recognized that the sacred center is where we find God. For them the sacred spatial center was the mountain top where God and man often communed, and the sacred temporal center was high noon, a time of no shadows (James 1:17). However, for Derrida the center is a function, not God. It is the place to which we must continually return to find the threads of meaning.

 
Derrida believed that Western philosophy had lost the dialect between the binary opposites, consistently granting privilege to one side and marginalizing or ignoring its binary opposite. Studying Western philosophy, one would have to agree. Aristotle has won the day, and Plato has been exiled from the picture. Unlike the Semitic way of thinking which is characterized by "both-and" reasoning, Western thought tends to be characterized by "either-or" reasoning. That is evident in the way Western Christians have been divided on the relationship of faith and works.

However, Derrida did not embrace relativism. He believed that there is a presence or trace that we may regard as fixed. In this, he draws on Plato’s thought. His reversals are a strategic intervention within a constipated Western philosophical system. As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes" (Metaphysics).

 
This reversal of the subordinated term of an opposition is no small aspect of deconstruction's strategy. Derrida's argument is that in examining a binary opposition and reversals, deconstruction brings to light traces of meaning that cannot be said to be present, but which have metaphysical existence. This is not a new idea or even a new approach to meaning. It is consistent with the mystical approaches of the Semitic peoples, and we must remember that Derrida was a North African Arabic-speaking Jew. In a real sense, Derrida’s contribution to Western Philosophy has been to re-introduce the Semitic interpretive approach to meaning.

The value of deconstruction for Biblical Anthropology is its insistence that details matter. Close reading is required to gain understanding. Deconstruction requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” if there is to be valuable criticism.

Deconstruction also involves paying attention to the subordinate voices, which in the Bible are the voices of women. One of Derrida's favorite terms was “supplementarity.” He was correct in his assertion that what is conceived as the marginal object does define the central object of consideration. The social structure of the early Hebrew cannot be understood without gaining a clear picture of the roles, authority, and contributions of Hebrew women. 

Derrida encouraged attention to reversals. These might be reversals of gender roles, reversals of numbers, or reversal of cardinal points.

For example, in 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:1-4 we find the association of the number one with north and the number three with south. Here we read that the altar in Solomon’s temple was to rest on 12 oxen: 3 facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south, and 3 facing east. We note that north heads the list, having the position of priority. Then comes west and then south, and finally east.

3↑ 3←3↓ 3→ 

Deconstruction uncovers an apparent system that assigned numbers and gender virtues to the north, south, east, and west. The number one is assigned to north, and north is associated with the heavens, God’s eternal throne.

When the number 3 is associated with south, fertility, productivity, and peace reign. It is that state of heaven coming down (the advent of God, Messiah's Incarnation). This is evident in the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation. The city has twelve gates and sits on twelve foundation stones (Rev. 21:12-14). Three gates face east, three face north, three face south, and three face west. We may illustrate this as follows

3→ 3↑ 3↓ 3← Notice that the third position faces south.

Notice that there has been a reversal of directions when compared with the “bronze sea” in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:23-26).

3↑ 3←3↓ 3→ 

What are we to make of this? Truely this is something to ponder.

 

After Abraham consulted the prophet (moreh) under the great oak at Mare, he headed south to Beersheba where he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal cousin. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” 

The tamar palm was a feminine symbol among Abraham’s people. It represented the female reproductive organ, and feminine virtues. The tamar palm was the feminine counterpart of the oak tree. The male prophet sat under the Oak at Mamre on an east-west axis, but Deborah sat under a tamar between Bethel and Ramah, on a north-south axis.

What are we to make of this? Again, we have something to ponder, and it appears to speak of something shaped like this +. 

Derrida showed great sensitivity to gender reversals such as this and found that they rendered meaning mostly unobserved by Western philosophers, theologians, and Bible commentators. Long before Derrida, people recognized a binary feature in the order of creation: male-female, light-dark, heaven-earth, etc. Derrida explored this extensively and noted that when a gender role reversal takes place n narratives, the "other" becomes the dominant voice. Normally, the dominant voice is that of the Male Principle, but when the reversal takes place, the Female Principle is in action. There are examples of this in the Bible. For Derrida these alternative interpretations were the rich outflow of deconstruction. 

Related reading: Divide Opinion as Derrida Did; Derrida's Hostility to Phonocentrism; Derrida's Style of Writing; Levi-Strauss and Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Gender Reversal and Sacred Mystery; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions; BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Orthodoxy Requires Binary Reasoning; Ethics Forum: Binary Reasoning Informs Christian Morality and Ethics