I am sure that Derrida's concept of differance did not go over well with everyone. I could see in class that some people were a little peeved, perhaps at Derrida's abstract notions, or maybe it was the ambiguity of his message. But I have to say, I kind of like the guy.
It seems to me that one of the points of irritation was when Derrida said, "Differance is neither a word nor a concept." (Derrida 279) I will admit, when I first read that statement I was perturbed too. But when you think about it, language is such a huge thing. It cannot be confined. And just like language, differance, which is a term that seeks to define elements of language is very large as well. Differance is comprised of so many elements, that to say that it is merely a concept is an understatement.
Another thing that I could see being frustrating for people who read Derrida was his idea that differance relates to both sameness and difference. I think that this can be explained by the idea that in order to understand anything, we have certain associations. These associations are the relationship between that word and many other words. The associations we make with one word can be very similar to other words and very much the opposite of others. I think that this relationship makes a lot of sense actually. There are bound to be differences between even words that mean nearly the same thing.
I really think that it is important to remember when reading Derrida, that sometimes the abstract elements of differance are easy to decipher when you just break them down a bit.
2 comments:
As soon as unique positions of space and time were brought forth in Derrida as a way of expressing the signification of "to differ," I thought of the idea of a moment. Specifically, I thought of the saying, "One is always in the moment and the moment is always gone."
Some things transcend the moment, if the moment is considered outside of human consciousness, such as buildings and other physical establishments. They don't just disappear or change shape without reason.
Human conscious, however, is constantly working to interpret the present moment though the moments pass continually without a "stop and examine" button. Language is bound to human consciousness and bears the responsibility of attempting to communicate comprehension of moments passed, the moments surrounding the present, and ideas about what future moments might be like.
In this way I think Derrida was trying to communicate that language is forever bound to the moments in which it was formed. This means that language is immensely unique in each instance of use because each moment is immensely unique. However, language is also bound to the conditions which created it, and is therefore a sort of "assemblage" (280).
So it seems that a comparison of language to the moment is quite accurate because it provides important conceptual groundwork for the combination of sameness and difference.
I can’t say I was particularly put off by Derrida, but I am glad that you brought up his claim on page 279 that "Differance is neither a word nor a concept." If I was going to bring up a point of contention, it would be this. I agree with you that language is “huge” and that it avoids confinement; as such, language is more than a word or a concept. I don’t think, however, that just because something deals with the analysis of a complex system that it is, by nature, complex as well.
There is no questioning the fact that differance is confusing or that is can be more easily engaged when broken down into key components, but in the end, differance is merely a creative and analytical construct of Derrida’s, while language is a construct that has developed over millennia.
I don’t know what else to say, really.
I feel like the word “differance” is unnecessary to an extent. While it does help to further emphasis the importance of written word over that of speech, I feel like Derrida could have laid out with philosophical understanding of language without it.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.