I was extremely lost after reading Derrida’s piece as well. I think the whole class will agree that where he says “The center is at the center of the totality…” sentence was really confusing. I read that and just shook my head in disbelief.

But I agree, it is really interesting how Derrida continued to talk about Levi-Strauss.. I think a lot of that confused me as well because I was trying to piece together how their theories were so similar- And since I really don’t understand Derrida’s theory, you can see where I got lost!

I had the same trouble you did. In fact, I quoted the very same sentence about Derrida’s “center” in frustration.

Try Barry’s Beginning Theory, Chapter 3 before returning to the handout. It is an easy read, quickly skimmed, explaining decentralization of common thought and why there is reference to so much material from old Levi.

As for decentralization, European empirical views as “the colonizer” were deconstructed by the WWI, the Holocaust, and advances in art and science. This is where Derrida explains that he cannot identify one specific event that sent this into motion. Instead, “it is no doubt part of the totality of an era, our own, but still it has already begun to proclaim itself and begun to work. (916)”

In other words, new points of view emerged. Cultural structure was developing new and multiple centers based on concepts stemming from outside of the original, normative English point of view. Think of those silly little rhizomes having no discernable point where root meets shoot, yet their many offshoots and roots form their own little cores of existence. It’s the same idea presenting itself in societal structure.

Barry also describes how Derrida joins his theory with Philosophy, thus his discourse with philosopher Levi-Strauss. Using Levi’s (like I know him personally) example of incest-prohibition, Derrida argues that what seems to be “naturally” rooted in our core being (as it appears to be a universal idea), is really a prohibition set up by cultural society. The best example I can come up with to show that incest is not a “natural” prohibition is with Greek and Roman mythical gods. For them, incest was a necessity as no mortals were equals. Sure, they are Gods, but some human’s accepted the concept in this context. Even throughout English rule, first cousins were often joined because common folk would dilute the royal bloodline. That social system is structured differently than our own. And thus, incest-prohibition is not instinctually “natural,” but constructed by culture.

As for “bricolage,” Derrida describes Levi in this way. He seems to like the way Levi finds no center to myths but uses the aspects of the myth at hand like tools of a jack-of-all-tradesman to question the myth’s other portions. This system of study offers no concrete point from which to begin, but instead “can always be completed or invalidated by new information” much like Levi’s essays themselves. (922)

This is MY hypothesis, and like Levi’s essays and the study of myth, it too will either be verified or invalidated by new information in class.

I hope that gets you started.
Kim