The concept of “deferring” in Derrida’s “Difference” is at
once the most confusing part of his argument for me and the most thought-provoking.
The idea of the choosing of a word being a turning-down of a different word or
concept or object is a good illustration of the way words, meanings, arguments,
even entire essays get warped. The word “defer” even implies a submission to
the complexities of language, signifying, and meaning, as though the word
finally chosen is the word the writer settled for, after a battle to one of a
number of words the writer thought to use first. Derrida also posits that the
meanings of words are determined by the things they don’t signinfy and the contexts they aren’t used in, as when a word is used as a piece of jargon in a
specialized field. In this way, deference is also sometimes carried about on
the part of the reader, when they defer some meanings of a word in lieu of
another, the meaning they believe is the meaning the writer chose.
Derrida states “the a of différance also recalls that
spacing is temporization, the detour and postponement by means of which
intuition, perception, consummation - in a word, the relationship to the
present, the reference to a present reality, to a being - are always deferred.
Deferred by virtue of the very principle of difference which holds that an
element functions and signifies, takes on or conveys meaning, only by referring
to another past or future element in an economy of traces. This economic aspect
of différance, which brings into play a certain not conscious calculation in a
field of forces, is inseparable from the more narrowly semiotic aspect of
différance.”
There are many things about “spacing” and “temporization” that are unclear to me, however. For example, Derrida calls the sign a “deferred presence”. Does this mean it is deferring to the option to have the actual thing instead of the sign, and therefore “spacing” itself from it? Or is it that the writer defers the actual thing in lieu of its sign, so that we can talk about the experience of the thing instead of experiencing the thing? Is deference the relinquishing of definitions of a word outside of the context of the argument that the writer is presenting? If a “deferred presence” is the phenomenon of spacing a temporal distance contributing to the inability of a word to truly carry across the thing it signifies, then deference is another way to address the failings of language.
There are many things about “spacing” and “temporization” that are unclear to me, however. For example, Derrida calls the sign a “deferred presence”. Does this mean it is deferring to the option to have the actual thing instead of the sign, and therefore “spacing” itself from it? Or is it that the writer defers the actual thing in lieu of its sign, so that we can talk about the experience of the thing instead of experiencing the thing? Is deference the relinquishing of definitions of a word outside of the context of the argument that the writer is presenting? If a “deferred presence” is the phenomenon of spacing a temporal distance contributing to the inability of a word to truly carry across the thing it signifies, then deference is another way to address the failings of language.
Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. “Différance.” Literary Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, 2004. 278-288.
When words are created they have very literal meanings. Box, a three dimensional object with six squared sides. The the phrase "think outside the box" was invented. The word takes on a meaning both literal and abstract. In Locke's episteme words are signifiers for literal things. The abstraction of box might make someone flinch. But what do we do with words, they are only ideas of ideas, symbols of symbols. But, now they are used to explain things thought impossible or things that were inconceivable in the past. I think it was Descarte who said we can never know anything outside of experience, craftsmanship, and something else. So an atom has different meanings to a physicist who believes in quantum theory and another meaning to one who believes in string theory. These concepts as complex and sophisticated as they are, are very literal and measurable, They are theories based on facts, yet belief plays a factor in what the two schools think. belief is conviction and conviction is emotion in action. Now, words have this filter of=r personality or personality attached to them. In Locke's writing he referred to these as modes. A mode can be in reference to the time when something was written, cultural meaning, political or philosophical belief; which make mode more of a way one interprets or how one thinks.
ReplyDeleteThe difficult part of any dialectic is not learning the language but keeping in mind all the different facets of ones own mind and the listener; then, if I were either the speaker or listener , hope the other has been keeping in mind or is even aware of where my knowledge came from. Because isn't a word like mind a symbol for something that constantly changes, which makes it real important to identify a narrative or modality that encapsulate all of human experience. And this fact is probably the only reason religions ever had any power and why they lost it with the advent of science. Because something abstract became very literal.