Editing Jacques Derrida (section)

=== Marshall McLuhan ===
Derrida was familiar with the work of [[Marshall McLuhan]], and since his early 1967 writings (''Of Grammatology'', ''Speech and Phenomena''), he speaks of language as a "medium,"<ref>''Speech and Phenomena'', Introduction.</ref> of phonetic writing as "the medium of the great metaphysical, scientific, technical, and economic adventure of the West."<ref>''Of Grammatology'', Part I.1.</ref>

He expressed his disagreement with McLuhan in regard to what Derrida called McLuhan's ideology about the end of writing.<ref name="Poster2010">Poster (2010), pp. 3–4, 12–13.</ref> In a 1982 interview, he said:

{{blockquote|I think that there is an ideology in McLuhan's discourse that I don't agree with because he's an optimist as to the possibility of restoring an oral community which would get rid of the writing machines and so on. I think that's a very traditional myth which goes back to... let's say Plato, Rousseau... And instead of thinking that we are living at the end of writing, I think that in another sense we are living in the extension – the overwhelming extension – of writing. At least in the new sense... I don't mean the alphabetic writing down, but in the new sense of those writing machines that we're using now (e.g. the tape recorder). And this is writing too.<ref name="Brennan82">Derrida [1982] [http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Derrida/Excuse.htm ''Excuse me, but I never said exactly so: Yet Another Derridean Interview''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413130756/http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Derrida/Excuse.htm |date=April 13, 2016}}, with Paul Brennan, ''On the Beach'' (Glebe NSW, Australia). No.1/1983: p. 42.</ref>}}

And in his 1972 essay ''Signature Event Context'' he said:

{{blockquote|As writing, communication, if one insists upon maintaining the word, is not the means of transport of sense, the exchange of intentions and meanings, the discourse and "communication of consciousnesses." We are not witnessing an end of writing which, to follow McLuhan's ideological representation, would restore a transparency or immediacy of social relations; but indeed a more and more powerful historical unfolding of a general writing of which the system of speech, consciousness, meaning, presence, truth, etc., would only be an effect, to be analyzed as such. It is this questioned effect that I have elsewhere called ''logocentrism''.<ref>Derrida (1972) ''Signature Event Context''.</ref>}}