Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:43:17.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Make Content out of Form: Towards a Hegelian-Saussurean Theory of Non-Linear Structures of Possibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2019

Søren Rosendal
Søren Rosendal*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In this article I argue that Hegel and Saussure both discovered a new mode of theorization that I propose to call ‘structural explication’. This is distinct from the generally dominant ‘linear’ mode of theorization—i.e., causal and quasi-causal explanations. I also argue that the standard criticisms usually directed against Hegel and Saussure stem from a failure to appreciate the nature of structural explication. For example, both Hegel and Saussure argue that—in some deep sense—form can generate content. But this must be comprehended in a strictly non-linear way. A linear interpretation of such arguments will lead to absurdities. I propose to call such deep generative structures (with a nod to Kant) the ‘necessary structures of possibility’. By comparing Hegel's thoughts on the science of a philosophical logic and Saussure's thoughts on the science of a general linguistics it is possible to discern a deep ‘scientific’ affinity. Furthermore, I argue that the structural level cannot be accounted for in any linear way. On the contrary, the linear explanation is fundamentally dependent on a structural explication of the genesis of the basic terms it assumes as ‘given’. A possible reason for the pervasiveness of the linear explanation (besides, perhaps, the success of causality-oriented natural sciences) is that discursive language is linear and our lived experience in time is linear. Thus, a structural explication will inherently appear less intuitive, and maybe also less ‘satisfying’, than a linear explanation. Finally, I also bring the distinction between the linear and the structural to bear on Robert Brandom's normative pragmatist reading of Hegel's ‘semantic holism’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , August 2021 , pp. 227 - 255
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarsleff, H. (1982), From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Aarsleff, H. (2004), ‘Duality the Key: Saussure's Debt to Taine in Conceiving “The Double Essence of Language”’, Times Literary Supplement (20 August 2004).Google Scholar
Bowie, A. (1993), Schelling and Modern European Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2002), Tales of the Mighty Dead. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, T. (2000), ‘The Purloined Hegel: Semiology in the Thought of Saussure and Derrida’, History of the Human Sciences 13:4: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaffin, D. (1989), ‘Hegel, Derrida and the Sign’, in Silverman, H. J. (ed.), Derrida and Deconstruction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clarke, S. (1981), The Foundations of Structuralism: A Critique of Lévi-Strauss and the Structuralist Movement. Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
Cutrofello, A. (1991), ‘A Critique of Derrida's Hegel Deconstruction: Speech, Phonetic Writing and Hieroglyphic Script in Logic, Law, Art’, Clio 20:2: 123–37.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963), ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes’, The Journal of Philosophy 60:23: 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Man, P. (1982), ‘Sign and Symbol in Hegel's Aesthetics’, Critical Inquiry 8:4: 761–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. (1967), De la grammatologie. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1972), ‘Le puits et la pyramide: introduction à la sémiologie de Hegel’, in Marges de la philosophie. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Donougho, M. (1982), ‘The Semiotics of Hegel’, Clio 11:4: 415–30.Google Scholar
Engler, R. (ed.) (1967), Cours de linguistique générale: Edition critique. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1992), Der unendliche Mangel am Sein: Schellings Hegelkritik und die Anfänge der Marxschen Dialektik. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1983), Was ist Neostrukturalismus? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gasparov, B. (2012), Beyond Pure Reason: Ferdinand de Saussure's Philosophy of Language and Its Early Romantic Antecedents. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. T. (2004), ‘Langue and parole’, in Sanders, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, V. (1896), Antinomies linguistiques. Paris: Ancienne Librairie Germer Baillière.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1943), Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet Festskrift.Google Scholar
Jameson, F. (1972), The Prison House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2003), ‘Pictet's Du beau (1856) and the Crystallisation of Saussurean Linguistics’, Historiographia Linguistica XXX:3: 365–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2004), ‘The Linguistic Sign’, in Sanders, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2012), Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. (1973), Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of his Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language. Braunschweig: Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1980), Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Magnus, K. D. (2001), Hegel and the Symbolic Mediation of Spirit. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Maniglier, P. (2006), La Vie énigmatique des signes: Saussure et la naissance du structuralisme. Paris: Léo Scheer.Google Scholar
Merquior, J. G. (1986), From Prague to Paris: A Critique of Structuralist and Post-structuralist Thought. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Norris, C. (1987), Derrida. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1989), Hegel's Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigogine, I. (1997), The End of Certainty. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1947), History of Western Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de (2002), Écrits de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. W. J. (1994), On the History of Modern Philosophy, trans. Bowie, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, F. W. J. (2007), The Grounding of Positive Philosophy, trans. Matthews, B.. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Tallis, R. (1988), Not Saussure. Houndmills: Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar