The Confusion of Derrida

It makes sense as to why we would move to Jacques Derrida after reading John Locke. Locke's connection of ideas as signs sort of overlaps Derrida's idea of difference. Locke states that words are ideas not things, and that these ideas can be abstract (modes) or simple (substances). For Locke, words/ideas had no exact meaning. As for Derrida, he seemed to believe that ideas were "generated by difference" (Rivkin and Ryan 278). He then coins the term deconstruction (a term needed to understand differance) to "show that words are only the deferred presence of the things they 'mean'; that every meaning invokes others in a never-ending connotation; and that the meaning of words is grounded in both their difference from and relationship to other words" (Murfin and Supryia 113). If this is so, questions then arise: do people differentiate differently?

Since all our ideas are based off our individual experiences, does our process of differentiating differ because of these experiences? Or are our processes the same since there is always a "trace of other things" within "all ideas and all objects of thought and perception" (Rivkin and Ryan 278). These are questions that have me stumped and because of Derrida's abstract way of writing, it hard to answer them.

Derrida's term "trace" is interesting and relevant when discussing the operation of difference. What is so fascinating about this argument is that I see his reasoning for mentioning it. It makes perfect sense as to why there would be a trace of other words in words associated by difference. If words are just signs then of course they are going to signify a relationship.

Unfortunately, I found it very complicated to grasp much more from Derrida's text. I did have a few more questions that I wanted to present in hope that someone from the class could clarify it for me or that we could answer them in class on Tuesday. I was having a hard time understanding Derrida's stance on presence/absence. One thing I did notice was his way of proving in his work that "writing is inferior or 'fallen' speech" (Murfin and Supryia 95). By presenting the homonyms difference and differance we can begin to understand his suggestion of "speech and presence over writing and absence" (Murfin and Supryia 113). I also feel that his two axes in this essay (time and space) have something to do with presence and absence, but had a hard time comprehending them both.

Some more questions I pose: Does Derrida see language negatively or positively? He believes in this process of difference, but does he actually like this theory? What type of language does he prefer: spoken or written? Also, in Herrick's background on Derrida, he states that "no author is in complete, intentional, conscious control of the meanings of any written text" (254). Is it possible to refer back to agency when trying to understand Derrida and deconstruction? I look forward to next class, and I really hope that I have somewhat dissected this reading.

Works cited

• Derrida, Jacques. “Différance.” Literary Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, 2004. 278-288.
• Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, Third Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2005. Excerpts on “Contemporary Rhetoric” (222-240), “Derrida” (253-256), “Foucault” (246-252).
• Murfin, Ross, and Supryia M. Ray. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms, Third Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009.