Lit 101 - Short Assignment #3

Darlene McCoy
Jody Greene
Lit 101
28 February 2011
Literary Theory: Useful for Conflict Mediation
    Jacques Derrida has quite the issue with communication, and does not believe that the current importance given to communication is deserved. He believes so because every word, phrase, or work is repeatable. He says that, all evidence of a meaningful type mark characterizes itself by its ability to be debated. But, this type mark cannot be reduced to one determinate meaning, nor is it possible to divide the multiple meaning present into specific categories. Therefore, since there is no determinate meaning, no speech act is entirely successful in communicating its meaning, and because that is so, communication should not receive the prestigious that it does.
    He offers a few solutions to this problem. The first being that all who wish to discuss and argument should treat it "practically and theoretically." One should take an argument for what it is, but additionally take his or her own thought and interpretation on the matter into consideration as well. Derrida mentions a concept he names "Dual-writing." The idea is that, a text has a literal interpretation to it - the words speak for themselves - but each individual person can interpret that literal interpretation in their own way. So, to create the closest thing to a complete argument, one must combine the literal "meaning" of the text with his or her interpretation. They must employ both sides of the spectrum to attain something that can be used to argue a position. Derrida also points out that a simple rereading of a text may change one's thoughts on it, and ultimately his or her argument. A person may understand a text more fully or in a different way than the first time her or she read it. New ideas can make great additions to an argument.
    While describing his solutions to the issues he has with communication, Derrida makes clear that any argument should be argued in a way that embodies truth. Both parties arguments' must be honest to their knowledge, even though in an argument over theoretical material, one can never be completely correct, and therefore, completely honest. Both parties must also interpret whatever material to the best of their ability, to create a fair stage for debate. Furthermore, if a text is ridden with pure hatred or insults, it is not the most hospitable to a reader, so that reader may fall into more theoretical ideas due to emotions invoked by the text.
    Earlier today, I had to deal with a two people with quite a few issues with each other. I talked to both parties, who both had different interpretations of the situation that caused said problems. I had to almost quite literally bash one over the head until he told me what he honestly perceived as the truth -- because a true solution could never be brought about if dishonest arguments were used in its resolution. The other, who was quite emotional, but overall easier to deal with, just told me what he honestly thought. Without their eventual honesty, the problem would have never been resolved. Going over the said situation time and time again in my mind brought me to a fuller understanding of what took place, so I was able to act as a mediator between the two. I, being the only sober person in the situation, and mostly emotionally detached from both parties, had the ability to take the situation practically, and I also used my theoretical ideas about it to create an overall "complete" story, which after a while I got them both to agree to. In the end, because both of them complied and gave me their honest arguments, we were able to reach an agreement. Derrida became so "violent," as he says because Searle, his opposition, did not respond what he defines as "honestly" to his text, nor did he write his response in a hospitable fashion. If Searle had interpreted Derrida quite literally, "better" he would have never had an issue.