Differance: I Know What it's Not

Jacques Derrida discusses language and addresses certain issues we have in language in “Differance.” It is not surprising that another theorists has created another word and attempted to explain what the term means and how it pertains to rhetoric. One thing that did make it easier to understand  this chapter was the fact that there were many similarities I could make with this chapter and John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” 

Although understanding what differance means is still somewhat unclear to me, I can say that I am sure of what is not. Throughout the chapter, Derrida repeats, “Differance is neither a word nor a concept” (Derrida 279). This fact is mentioned several times and to me, is the clearest part of defining what differance is. 

I feel like Derrida does not want the audience to see differance as a word or a concept but something much more. Saying it is a word or a concept limits the term, whereas saying it is not a word or a concept leaves a more open interpretation of what it could possibly mean. For example, Derrida says, “...we shall designate by the term differance the movement by which language, or any code, any system of reference in general, becomes “historically” constituted as a fabric of differences” (Derrida286). By thinking of differance as this movement, we can understand it as something more than just a word with a definition.

Derrida also gives the words “differ” and “difference” to explain “differance” which makes me wonder if this would make more sense in French if the meanings are maybe different. He explains that the differences between these words is an example of differance. Derrida later says, “...the signified concept is never present in itself, in an adequate presence that would refer only to itself...Such a play, then-differance- is no longer simply a concept, but the possibility of conceptuality, of the conceptual system and process in general” (Derrida 285-286). Again, the deeper meaning of differance leads me to believe that it is an entire process in language rather than just a term. 

One of the similarities I found between Locke and Derrida is the addressing of actual differences in language. For example, Derrida explains that it is the differences between words that make language what it is. Whereas, Locke explains that certain differences cause confusion and misunderstanding in communication. 

Another important similarity I found is the idea that it is our experiences that give meaning to a word. Derrida says, “...we see actual presences and substances in the world and that our ideas have presence and substance that guarantees their truthfulness”(Derrida 278). This explains that what we see in the real world backs up the meaning behind the meanings of the words we know. Locke explains that in a word such as “horse” there are no clues in that word that tell us what a horse is. But rather, it is our own experience and knowledge we must bring to give meaning to this word.

-Gabi