Deciphering Derrida

While attempting to understand Derrida, I found his distinction between the different and the deferred to be quite useful. He argues that in the first sense, it seems to denote a distinction between one thing and another. In the second, it expresses "the interval of a spacing and temporalizing that puts off until "later" what is presently denied, the possible that is presently denied"(279). Derrida states on multiple occasions that difference is "neither a word nor a concept"(283). This is a tricky sentiment to try and unpack but what I think he's aiming to express is that difference is not a complete totality unto itself. In other words, difference does not have any substance. It is something which gives an object space in relation to another.

This notion is important to Derrida's conceptualization of signs. He argues that signs are representations of present things which take the place of the present. He writes further "When we cannot take hold of or show the thing, let us say the present, the being-present, when the present does not present itself, then we signify, we go through the detour of signs. We take up or give signs; we make signs. The sign would thus be a deferred presence"(284). Using difference, Derrida points out the arbitrariness of establishing a system of signs based on the difference between terms rather than the fullness of the terms in and of themselves(285). It seems that Derrida has a problem with difference because it does not offer definitions for things or help in achieving their fullness. Rather, it seems to explain the space of things by defining their inequalities.