말라르메와 데리다: 백색의 글쓰기 (Mallarm and Derrida: The White Writing)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국비평이론학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비평과이론 / 15권 / 2호 / 31 ~ 63페이지
· 저자명 : 김보현

초록

The purpose of this paper is to throw a light on the striking similarities between Mallarm’s writing and Derrida’s. The beginning part of the present paper makes the following points: how Derrida rescues Mallarm from Jean-Pierre Richard whose reading Mallarm has been established as a most excellent criticism of Mallarm, and how and why in the latter half part of Dissemination Derrida quarrels with Richard. Further how such contention has not ended, and how Malcolm Bowie repeats Richard’s evasions and represses the important facet of Mallarem’s white poetics, exactly in the same way as Richard does.
Then, this paper demonstrates the various evidences that Derrida is profoundly inspired and indebted by Mallarm: Derrida borrows his most important signifiers from Mallarm’s: pli(fold), carte(square/cut off), and glas(glass/mirror), hymen and dissemination are only a few of many. Most important, Derrida repeats the dissemination of white(blanc/blank), a singular strategy of poetics which Mallarm consummates with tour de force, and Derrida with a sleight of hand, by grafting his white writing on Mallarm’s.
The characteristics of a white writing are clarified: the syncategorematic terms which resist nominalisation comes to the fore in a way that any thematic criticism would find difficult to read by the exploitation of possible play between different syntactic values of the same word, or words which sound the same. In other words, the differential syntactic values or syntactical differences dominate the semantics, whereby the traditional thematicism loses its ground, and the binary oppositions are confused and debunked, while their white writing resides still within the frame of language, and still between all the oppositions: metaphor vs mytonymy, signifier vs signified, presentation vs representation and so on.
Finally the present paper addresses the purpose of white writing. It is to reach out to a place(space) or It(ça, not sa) which cannot be represented now, but which will be and which is to come, but has not come yet. The preliminary task of a white writing is to remove all the possible obstacles to this coming(vnement venir). The most resilient bar which blocks such coming is what Derrida calls “a machine of Hegelian dialectics.” Derrida recalls over and over again that this is almost impossible to erase out, for it being so deeply implemented, and at the same time, being omnipresent in the Western discourses of humanities. Such attempt to realize the utterly impossible is indeed a folly or madness, yet it is perturbingly ethical in every respect.

영어초록

The purpose of this paper is to throw a light on the striking similarities between Mallarm’s writing and Derrida’s. The beginning part of the present paper makes the following points: how Derrida rescues Mallarm from Jean-Pierre Richard whose reading Mallarm has been established as a most excellent criticism of Mallarm, and how and why in the latter half part of Dissemination Derrida quarrels with Richard. Further how such contention has not ended, and how Malcolm Bowie repeats Richard’s evasions and represses the important facet of Mallarem’s white poetics, exactly in the same way as Richard does.
Then, this paper demonstrates the various evidences that Derrida is profoundly inspired and indebted by Mallarm: Derrida borrows his most important signifiers from Mallarm’s: pli(fold), carte(square/cut off), and glas(glass/mirror), hymen and dissemination are only a few of many. Most important, Derrida repeats the dissemination of white(blanc/blank), a singular strategy of poetics which Mallarm consummates with tour de force, and Derrida with a sleight of hand, by grafting his white writing on Mallarm’s.
The characteristics of a white writing are clarified: the syncategorematic terms which resist nominalisation comes to the fore in a way that any thematic criticism would find difficult to read by the exploitation of possible play between different syntactic values of the same word, or words which sound the same. In other words, the differential syntactic values or syntactical differences dominate the semantics, whereby the traditional thematicism loses its ground, and the binary oppositions are confused and debunked, while their white writing resides still within the frame of language, and still between all the oppositions: metaphor vs mytonymy, signifier vs signified, presentation vs representation and so on.
Finally the present paper addresses the purpose of white writing. It is to reach out to a place(space) or It(ça, not sa) which cannot be represented now, but which will be and which is to come, but has not come yet. The preliminary task of a white writing is to remove all the possible obstacles to this coming(vnement venir). The most resilient bar which blocks such coming is what Derrida calls “a machine of Hegelian dialectics.” Derrida recalls over and over again that this is almost impossible to erase out, for it being so deeply implemented, and at the same time, being omnipresent in the Western discourses of humanities. Such attempt to realize the utterly impossible is indeed a folly or madness, yet it is perturbingly ethical in every respect.

참고자료

· 없음