Mabad Jadidiyat

Jonathan Raban's book, *Soft City*, reveals that postmodern attitudes had already begun to emerge in London during the 1970s. The reaction against modernist concepts found its most significant representation in Jacques Derrida's theory of Deconstruction. Since Ferdinand de Saussure's ideas are fundamentally modern, the question arises: how did these modern ideas pave the way for postmodernism?

It is widely known that Saussure was the founder not only of modern linguistics but also of linguistic structuralism. Saussure argued that the Signifier (the form of a sign) and the Signified (the concept it represents) hold central importance in linguistics, and the relationship between the two is arbitrary. For instance, the Urdu word for a tree is *ped*, while in Arabic and Persian, it is referred to as *shajar* and *nakhl*. Similarly, French has two distinct words for which there is no exact equivalent in English. Conversely, English uses the words river and stream—a distinction based on size (a river being larger than a stream)—which does not exist in French in the same way. Instead, French differentiates its two words for rivers based on whether or not they flow into the sea. The conceptualization of colors also varies across languages. In English, for example, light blue and dark blue are merely two different shades of the same color. In Russian, however, light blue is considered an entirely distinct color with its own independent identity, just as dark blue possesses its own separate existence.

The underlying point is that language emerges from mutual social interaction; it is, essentially, a social construct. Therefore, every language possesses its own unique concepts, distinct from those of other languages. This implies that the concepts we rely on to navigate our lives are creations of the very language we speak and write. No concept exists independently prior to language. In Urdu, we might refer to a dog as *paaltu* (domesticated), and English has a similar word, pet, but no exact equivalent exists in Persian. This demonstrates that languages do not merely assign names to pre-existing objects and concepts; rather, they communicate and construct their own distinct worlds. Every language generates its own Signifiers and assigns them meanings arbitrarily. Consequently, each language creates its own unique world of meaning.

Much like Émile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud, Saussure, the founder of structural linguistics, believed that the relationship between the Signifier and the Signified is arbitrary because it is society, not the individual, that holds fundamental importance. Language is sustained by a system of traditions. Individuals consciously or unconsciously absorb this social system into themselves. Lionel Trilling rightly observed that it was, in fact, Freud who made us realize that we are entirely immersed in culture. Culture permeates even the most remote corners of our minds. We understand each other's language precisely because we have internalized these collective standards.

For example, if we wish to explain the meaning of the color khaki to someone who speaks a different language, we would have to explain the difference between khaki and black, khaki and yellow, and similarly, khaki and brown. Only when a person begins to differentiate khaki from other colors can we say that they have truly begun to recognize it. The reason for this is that the concept of khaki is not independent; rather, it is just one color within a broader system of colors, and we recognize it solely through its contrast with others. Its relationship with other colors is what defines its boundaries. This illustrates the very reality that Saussure pointed out:

Their most precise characteristic is

that they are what the others are not.

In other words, each color is defined by what the others are not. The differences between various elements within a system constitute their very identity. Therefore, Saussure states:

There are only differences with no

positive terms.

Saussure noted that linguistics would not have progressed so rapidly had Europeans remained unaware of the discoveries surrounding Sanskrit. When the British colonized India, their administrators felt the need to learn the local languages. Consequently, when European scholars studied linguistics, they discovered striking similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, namely Latin and Greek. This comparative study ultimately brought the interconnected relationships between languages to light.

Saussure assigns central importance to linguistic Signs within his system of thought. His following assertion proved to be immensely significant:

In language there are only

differences without positive terms.

This means that in language, there are only differences, with no positive terms. It was from this point that the transition from structuralism to post-structuralism occurred, allowing the concept of Deconstruction to find its place within Derrida's post-structuralist framework.

This implies that the identity of any given thing depends entirely on its differential relationship with other things within a system. In Culler's words:

Identity is wholly a function of

differences within a System.

For example, on a chessboard, different pieces are bound by specific values and permitted moves. If we were to replace a piece with an entirely different object, its value and movement would still be understood as identical to the original piece. This is because the identity of the pieces is established through the differential system of their values and moves. Signs maintain their identity precisely by being distinct and differentiated from one another. A Signifier is not the manifestation of an autonomous concept. Logocentrism assumes that, in language, sounds represent meanings that already exist within the speaker's mind. However, this is not the reality. Firstly, language is not merely a list of names. Secondly, whatever exists within human consciousness can be described as a Network of Differences. As Saussure pointed out, the most prominent characteristic of every Sign is that it is what the others are not:

Every sign is to be what others are not.

Furthermore, within any given Signified, there exist the Traces of all other contrasting Signifieds. This means that there is no independent, autonomous Signified present in our consciousness. For instance, when someone calls an object green, it inherently means that the object is not blue, not red, and not yellow. In Culler's words:

The meaning of green is a space in an interpersonal network of differences.

To give the meaning is not to recover

something that was present when

I uttered the word but to fill up the

space with other signs.

Saussure's repeated assertion that the system of signs is founded upon Differences is, in fact, a direct challenge to Logocentrism.

Derrida himself is strictly opposed to logocentrism. In a way, the trajectory of Saussure's thought also points toward Derrida.

In Saussure's thought, the system of linguistic signs holds central importance. His philosophy also reveals that certain forces remain active beneath the surface of the linguistic sign. Therefore, when we decide that certain patterns of linguistic signs take precedence over others, we are, in fact, imposing specific meanings and rejecting traditionally accepted signs.

Derrida has severely criticized the logocentrism of Western thought. This logocentrism is founded upon ideas, truth, reason, logic, the word, and the *Logos*, which are not dependent on signs and phenomena. The foundation of this logocentrism is actually rooted in phonocentrism; writing is deemed an artificial representative of speech or discourse, and the concept of language is shaped according to the concept of speech. Essentially, speech is established as the model of language.

Viewing writing as a parasitic, redundant, or derivative exercise creates difficulties in understanding the mechanisms and various dimensions of language. Writing necessitates impersonality, distance, and interpretation. While studying Saussure's linguistics, Derrida also highlights principles that contradict Saussure's own tenets. Derrida points out that in his lectures on the *Course in General Linguistics*, Saussure described writing as a distorted form of speech. In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida rejects this traditional hierarchy of speech and writing. Saussure had declared the spoken word to be the ultimate reality, but Derrida removes voice from the linguistic system and emphasizes the existence of linguistic units. Consequently, writing becomes the true center of linguistic inquiry, and speech is reduced to merely a form of writing. In this way, writing itself becomes the original speech.

Saussure had identified speech, rather than writing, as the true foundation of language; Derrida rejects this notion and assigns primary importance to writing. Today, a growing distrust of absolute concepts is emerging among people. There is a backlash against reason and the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, which brought forth the forces of technology, science, and reason, is now increasingly viewed as unreliable. Since the 1970s, a shift in the structure of feeling has become evident. Consequently, even within postmodern religious circles, there is a growing tendency to affirm the existence of God without abandoning reason. The writings of Freud and Marx were representative of the Enlightenment, but they are now facing criticism. This is why Derrida's deconstruction serves as a profound representation of postmodernism. Ihab Hassan compiled a list contrasting modernism and postmodernism: in it, the symbol represents modernism, while cultural semiotics represents postmodernism. Form represents modernism, and anti-form represents postmodernism; hierarchy is associated with modernism, and non-system (anarchy) with postmodernism. Metaphor represents modernism, and metonymy represents postmodernism; philosophy represents modernism, and irony represents postmodernism; transcendence represents modernism, and immanence represents postmodernism; design represents modernism, and play represents postmodernism. Derrida has stated that the process of becoming is eternally empty, constantly generating movement and play, and this play is sustained by perpetual difference.

Jonathan Raban's book, *Soft City*, reveals that postmodern attitudes had already begun to emerge in London during the 1970s. The reaction against modernist concepts found its most significant representation in Jacques Derrida's theory of Deconstruction. Since Ferdinand de Saussure's ideas are fundamentally modern, the question arises: how did these modern ideas pave the way for postmodernism?

It is widely known that Saussure was the founder not only of modern linguistics but also of linguistic structuralism. Saussure argued that the Signifier (the form of a sign) and the Signified (the concept it represents) hold central importance in linguistics, and the relationship between the two is arbitrary. For instance, the Urdu word for a tree is *ped*, while in Arabic and Persian, it is referred to as *shajar* and *nakhl*. Similarly, French has two distinct words for which there is no exact equivalent in English. Conversely, English uses the words river and stream—a distinction based on size (a river being larger than a stream)—which does not exist in French in the same way. Instead, French differentiates its two words for rivers based on whether or not they flow into the sea. The conceptualization of colors also varies across languages. In English, for example, light blue and dark blue are merely two different shades of the same color. In Russian, however, light blue is considered an entirely distinct color with its own independent identity, just as dark blue possesses its own separate existence.

The underlying point is that language emerges from mutual social interaction; it is, essentially, a social construct. Therefore, every language possesses its own unique concepts, distinct from those of other languages. This implies that the concepts we rely on to navigate our lives are creations of the very language we speak and write. No concept exists independently prior to language. In Urdu, we might refer to a dog as *paaltu* (domesticated), and English has a similar word, pet, but no exact equivalent exists in Persian. This demonstrates that languages do not merely assign names to pre-existing objects and concepts; rather, they communicate and construct their own distinct worlds. Every language generates its own Signifiers and assigns them meanings arbitrarily. Consequently, each language creates its own unique world of meaning.

Much like Émile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud, Saussure, the founder of structural linguistics, believed that the relationship between the Signifier and the Signified is arbitrary because it is society, not the individual, that holds fundamental importance. Language is sustained by a system of traditions. Individuals consciously or unconsciously absorb this social system into themselves. Lionel Trilling rightly observed that it was, in fact, Freud who made us realize that we are entirely immersed in culture. Culture permeates even the most remote corners of our minds. We understand each other's language precisely because we have internalized these collective standards.

For example, if we wish to explain the meaning of the color khaki to someone who speaks a different language, we would have to explain the difference between khaki and black, khaki and yellow, and similarly, khaki and brown. Only when a person begins to differentiate khaki from other colors can we say that they have truly begun to recognize it. The reason for this is that the concept of khaki is not independent; rather, it is just one color within a broader system of colors, and we recognize it solely through its contrast with others. Its relationship with other colors is what defines its boundaries. This illustrates the very reality that Saussure pointed out:

Their most precise characteristic is

that they are what the others are not.

In other words, each color is defined by what the others are not. The differences between various elements within a system constitute their very identity. Therefore, Saussure states:

There are only differences with no

positive terms.

Saussure noted that linguistics would not have progressed so rapidly had Europeans remained unaware of the discoveries surrounding Sanskrit. When the British colonized India, their administrators felt the need to learn the local languages. Consequently, when European scholars studied linguistics, they discovered striking similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, namely Latin and Greek. This comparative study ultimately brought the interconnected relationships between languages to light.

Saussure assigns central importance to linguistic Signs within his system of thought. His following assertion proved to be immensely significant:

In language there are only

differences without positive terms.

This means that in language, there are only differences, with no positive terms. It was from this point that the transition from structuralism to post-structuralism occurred, allowing the concept of Deconstruction to find its place within Derrida's post-structuralist framework.

This implies that the identity of any given thing depends entirely on its differential relationship with other things within a system. In Culler's words:

Identity is wholly a function of

differences within a System.

For example, on a chessboard, different pieces are bound by specific values and permitted moves. If we were to replace a piece with an entirely different object, its value and movement would still be understood as identical to the original piece. This is because the identity of the pieces is established through the differential system of their values and moves. Signs maintain their identity precisely by being distinct and differentiated from one another. A Signifier is not the manifestation of an autonomous concept. Logocentrism assumes that, in language, sounds represent meanings that already exist within the speaker's mind. However, this is not the reality. Firstly, language is not merely a list of names. Secondly, whatever exists within human consciousness can be described as a Network of Differences. As Saussure pointed out, the most prominent characteristic of every Sign is that it is what the others are not:

Every sign is to be what others are not.

Furthermore, within any given Signified, there exist the Traces of all other contrasting Signifieds. This means that there is no independent, autonomous Signified present in our consciousness. For instance, when someone calls an object green, it inherently means that the object is not blue, not red, and not yellow. In Culler's words:

The meaning of green is a space in an interpersonal network of differences.

To give the meaning is not to recover

something that was present when

I uttered the word but to fill up the

space with other signs.

Saussure's repeated assertion that the system of signs is founded upon Differences is, in fact, a direct challenge to Logocentrism.

Derrida himself is strictly opposed to logocentrism. In a way, the trajectory of Saussure's thought also points toward Derrida.

In Saussure's thought, the system of linguistic signs holds central importance. His philosophy also reveals that certain forces remain active beneath the surface of the linguistic sign. Therefore, when we decide that certain patterns of linguistic signs take precedence over others, we are, in fact, imposing specific meanings and rejecting traditionally accepted signs.

Derrida has severely criticized the logocentrism of Western thought. This logocentrism is founded upon ideas, truth, reason, logic, the word, and the *Logos*, which are not dependent on signs and phenomena. The foundation of this logocentrism is actually rooted in phonocentrism; writing is deemed an artificial representative of speech or discourse, and the concept of language is shaped according to the concept of speech. Essentially, speech is established as the model of language.

Viewing writing as a parasitic, redundant, or derivative exercise creates difficulties in understanding the mechanisms and various dimensions of language. Writing necessitates impersonality, distance, and interpretation. While studying Saussure's linguistics, Derrida also highlights principles that contradict Saussure's own tenets. Derrida points out that in his lectures on the *Course in General Linguistics*, Saussure described writing as a distorted form of speech. In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida rejects this traditional hierarchy of speech and writing. Saussure had declared the spoken word to be the ultimate reality, but Derrida removes voice from the linguistic system and emphasizes the existence of linguistic units. Consequently, writing becomes the true center of linguistic inquiry, and speech is reduced to merely a form of writing. In this way, writing itself becomes the original speech.

Saussure had identified speech, rather than writing, as the true foundation of language; Derrida rejects this notion and assigns primary importance to writing. Today, a growing distrust of absolute concepts is emerging among people. There is a backlash against reason and the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, which brought forth the forces of technology, science, and reason, is now increasingly viewed as unreliable. Since the 1970s, a shift in the structure of feeling has become evident. Consequently, even within postmodern religious circles, there is a growing tendency to affirm the existence of God without abandoning reason. The writings of Freud and Marx were representative of the Enlightenment, but they are now facing criticism. This is why Derrida's deconstruction serves as a profound representation of postmodernism. Ihab Hassan compiled a list contrasting modernism and postmodernism: in it, the symbol represents modernism, while cultural semiotics represents postmodernism. Form represents modernism, and anti-form represents postmodernism; hierarchy is associated with modernism, and non-system (anarchy) with postmodernism. Metaphor represents modernism, and metonymy represents postmodernism; philosophy represents modernism, and irony represents postmodernism; transcendence represents modernism, and immanence represents postmodernism; design represents modernism, and play represents postmodernism. Derrida has stated that the process of becoming is eternally empty, constantly generating movement and play, and this play is sustained by perpetual difference.