Difference v DifferAnce according to Jacques Derrida

I find it easiest to understand Derrida’s argument by breaking it down piece by piece in order to put it back together. At the base of the argument is language. Language as Derrida says is “a system of relations and oppositions” which must be continually defined. Language needs continual defining because meaning is “the product of a restless play within language that cannot be fixed or pinned down for the purposes of conceptual definition” according to Derrida. Ideas, which make up a language, are generated by differences. Furthermore, Herrick explains that ideas “have no substance apart from the network of differences. Herrick gives the example of war. The term war is defined in contrast to its opposite: peace. This concept of defining or understanding ideas by what they are not makes perfect sense. When asked to describe or define the term dog, I think of a furry animal that is NOT a cat. I define dog by opposing it to a cat. 

Derrida begins the essay by distinguishing between difference and differance. Difference indicates “distinction, inequality, or discernibility” on one hand and on the other hand it expresses the “interposition of delay.” DifferAnce, Derrida explains is neither a word nor a concept. DifferAnce refers to the origin or production of differences. Differance is the strategic note or connection which indicates the closure of presence.

While Derrida distinguishes between the meanings of the words, he goes on to say that there is no way to tell between the phonetic sound. When pronouncing the words difference and differance, one cannot hear the differentiation. The difference only exists in phonetic writing and is inseparable from the culture in which it is perceived. Derrida claims that the A in difference cannot be exposed. Difference, Derrida explains, “encompasses and irrevocably surpasses onto theology or philosophy.” Differance is neither active or passive. It is a middle voice.