The Nuance of Definition

A concept that seems to surface a lot in Locke's text is the difference between the philosophical definition of a word and the civil definition of a word.  The civil definition seems, to me, to be the socially accepted definition, one that people commonly refer to and use in everyday conversation.

He also talks about the "rule of propriety," a concept referring to this ambiguity of definition among society's members.  Locke argues that in philosophical settings, there is less blanket acceptance for one definition of a word.  For example, in a common, everyday place, like a breakfast table, the word "food" would probably stand for physical, edible substances that are eaten from a plate in the morning hours, perhaps literal eggs, bacon and toast.  However, in a philosophy classroom, or so Locke says, the word food could have a more debatable reference.  Perhaps, depending on context, it means "nourishment" or "nutrition", or it could even refer to something that humans/living things need to survive.  In section 15 of this excerpt, Locke's empirical thinking is even more evident when he concludes that our socially acceptable names only work because of their nature, because everyone in society accepts their definitions as true and right.

Protecting Meaning?

It’s so hard for anyone of us to consider that the language we use is flawed.  If language is the tool we use to communicate the ideas that are in our heads I can tell you even without reading Locke or Derrida that I cant recall ever actually communicating my ideas fully with 100% clarity, that is, with every single subtle nuance and feeling involved.  I think we get so accustomed to failing communications 100% that we naturally find a way to get enough of our ideas communicated as to leave us satisfied with the goal of our communication. 

I see clearly why we read Locke and Derrida together, Derrida picks up with Locke didn’t have time to expand. I use the word time because I feel as though he would have if there were more hours in the day.  As Locke suggests, we are all taught simple meanings to simple words relatively unanimously with subtle variations. However, when they become complex, mixed modes, we lack the tangibility in the environment to maintain and universal meaning from person to person and place to place. (818, Locke) Derrida expands on this by holding that “language--especially written language--cannot escape the built-in biases of the cultural history that produced it”. (253, Herrick) When we try and explain one of these complex situations to a friend we can never truly relay what we felt with 100% accuracy, for Derrida we have to constantly use other words to reinforce the meaning.  Which then becomes a never-ending hand-off of meaning that postpones communication indefinitely.  The differance is, (please correct me at will, this is why I’m including this metaphor)as I understand it, to be the shoelace that makes your shoes different from your friends but defines them both as shoes in a general sense. It’s the difference in those laces that make one a shoe with red shoes and one a shoe with blue, but the presence of those laces in both that remain as they are both shoes.  This example may not cover it but it’s the best I could do!

Differance (Derrida)

From my understanding, Derrida is making a point that people won’t fully grasp a word unless the speaker adds more terms to clarify that speaker’s idea. In a word’s single form there will always remain a difference from that word and the word with additional information. In other words, ideas are only different because of word usage. As far as the “e” and the “a” in the “difference” of his theory, I wasn't totally sure what he was trying to achieve. He says that “difference is not, does not exist, and is not any sort of being-present” (282). Then he goes on to say that “difference”, which is not a theory, represents us as concepts (286). Here, maybe Derrida is stating that since language is something that we've shaped and built upon, there are some inconsistencies. Thus, there are going to be some effects that hinder us from fully connecting our ideas effectively.

Deference in "Difference"

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.”

Before You Deconstruct...

The approach I would like to take this week with my blog post is to dissect what I've read and explain to the best of my ability what I took from the reading and how I could assist those who may have similar thoughts. After reading John Locke’s analysis, I grabbed a good sense of knowledge; it wasn't as complex as Derrida but to some extent I can say that I walked away with a clear grasp of what point John Locke was coming from. The basic concept that I received from my reading from John Locke is that language can be a problem. Language can be a problem because language requires signification which means “conveying of meaning” you may wonder how that could possibly be a problem, but if everyone signifies with words differently, then what is language?  That is the problem. Different context has different meaning and can potentially create confusion.  The best example that my group and I came up with in our section of John Locke was the “n-word” because everyone signifies with the word differently. It’s a part of language, but without certain context clues one can quickly take offense to the statement. Another example would be a drawing of a triangle, to some it’s just a shape; to others it’s symbolic and a religious symbol.

What Is Différance?

Jacques Derrida's text was extremely tough to get through.  I was never able to substantially place my finger on a particular idea or concept.  I understood parts where he referred to significations (Locke) but his argument was very ambiguous and evasive. Derrida even says repeatedly throughout the text, "Differance is neither a word nor a concept" (Derrida 279). We function through language, which requires words and concepts.  Maybe this is why I was so confused.

Herrick's background on Derrida kept me from completely losing my mind.  In his conclusion, he sums up one of Derrida's beliefs saying, "Derrida may be correct that meanings are not fixed, and that constructing meanings involves an ongoing process of social negotiation (Herrick 256)."  It is this previous statement that will be the focus of this post.

Do all words/ideas have constructed meanings? And if so, were their meanings constructed through the process of social negotiation?

Jacques Derrida VS John Locke

This week’s reading, Differance by Jacques Derrida, can easily be compared and contrasted with last week’s reading, An Essay on Human Understanding by John Locke. Both essays analyze and theorize about the origin and complexity of words and the confusion than can create in language.

First, I think it is important to understand the definition and concept of the word differance. The term was coined by Derrida himself purposely playing upon the word “difference.” The French word differrer means “to differ” and “to defer,” which Derrida says language does both. 

Derrida, like Locke, proposes that words are more than a mere definition; words encompass an essence, an idea. Only, Derrida takes this one step further claiming that words are what they are because of differance more than essence. The origin of words come from the existence of difference between ideas.

Derrida

The first thing you have to come to "Differance" understanding is Derrida's belief that spatially and temporally everything is defined by everything else in the sense that it isn't anything but itself. Much of the time, the definition of a thing somehow includes an implied past and future but those are entirely different objects that, once they are upon us and once they have passed, have created other webs of opposition which substantiate, contextualize, and render them whole. If we are to understand reality this way, then we must rid ourselves of the idea that something stands on its own (has its own single objectivity), we must rid ourselves of the notion that there is an observable present moment or idea that can be isolated, and we must accept that difference (the state of being different, the results of difference[s], and the interaction between differences) is the only thing which defines and connects concepts.

That's huge because, as he points out through Saussure, people like to think of things as substantive units by themselves which create binary oppositions when they are put into different contexts. Not only do binary oppositions not exist to Derrida (because oppositions are much more irreducibly complex than a binary system) but all language represents are hollow ideas that are filled out through relationships, not through having a self.

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. 

Jacques Derrida on Differance

At first look, this reading was extremely confusing in regards to difference in the meanings of the words "difference" and "differance". As I type, the autocorrect wants the second word to be corrected to the double e spelling instead of with an a. This shows what Derrida is discussing when he says "in fact or theory we can always erase or lessen this spelling mistake" (280). As a writer using a computer, there is no way to explain meaning when using the word "differance"with the a spelling.

In an act of writing, however, words can be used to explain the meaning and use of the a spelling. Derrida uses words and the concept of time and space to discuss difference that produces presence. Presence does not provide truthful substance. The differance that Derrida discusses calls into question time and space, it has neither existence or essence. It can be compared to language in a system where signs do not have essential meanings or the original "differ", in which it would mean to be unlike the other. The language in which signs do not have essential meaning is when reality is considered "textual"and everything is a signifier of another signifier. The meaning of differance comes about in this text because it makes the point that the presence produced by difference is not what it has always been thought to be.

Locke vs Derrida

In two essays, by John Locke and Jaques Derrida, the authors analyze the purpose and meaning of words. They describe how words are understood and interpreted in different ways, creating complexity and confusion in language.

In "From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," Locke focuses primarily on the imperfection of words. He explains how without experiencing something first-hand someone has no way of knowing what the word truly means and that many different definitions can circulate for the same word and no one will ever know which is the absolute truth.

Derrida's idea of "differance," in his essay, “Différance,”  is a perfect example of Locke's theory. He describes "differance" as "neither a word nor concept," this is a definition that many individuals have a hard time grasping. Derrida seems to agree with Locke by encouraging his audience to look past just the definition of the word and view it as something more, something encompassing all of its meanings.

Thoughts on "Difference" and "Of the Imperfection of Words"

I feel that Locke's piece and Derrida's piece kind of go hand in hand. Locke talks about how a person can know a definition to a word, like difference, though without actually experiencing 'difference' it is hard to actually know what it means. This is particularly true when talking about certain words. Lets take the verb 'to run'. I can tell you that the definition of run is "movement faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time."(Merriam-Webster) While this definition definitely defines what a run is, it does not completely describe all aspects it. This definition does not tell you how your heart rate will increase, how the wind rushing past your body feels, or what it is like to sweat. This expanded definition of 'run' can only come from experience. If you have never run before, you will not be able to understand the full definition of the verb run.

On one hand we have words like run and on the other hand we have words like difference, which Derrida talks about. In her essay Derrida explains how 'difference' is neither a word nor a concept. This makes it very hard to describe or define. I agree with Derrida that words did not just appear out of nowhere, but instead were created in order to communicate between one another. Like mentioned in Locke's essay sounds and words were created to allow communication between two or more people. They are standardized, more or less, in order to prevent confusion between speakers. I believe the meaning of a word, to one individual, is truly sculpted by their own experiences and is not set in stone. Take the verb 'run' again, the general definition is the same for many people but the meaning and emotion behind that word fluctuates. One person may see running as a fun and happy experience, while another can see it as a taxing and exhausting act.

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.

Locke and Derrida

One of the essential arguments of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding is that mixed modes are difficult to understand because the concept must be learned after the word is.  A child cannot experience sacrilege but it can know the word.  Therefore when the concept is finally understood it has it's own biases that are not rooted in the concrete plane.  I think this is one of the reasons that Derrida's essay "Differance" was so difficult for me to initially grasp.

He starts by teaching you a new word that is alarmingly similar to a word that you already know.  The construction of Derrida's idea must be pushed through our initial understanding of the original word.  Realizing this made Derrida's argument more effective for me.  It asserts his idea language being a web of ideas that must be untangled to be understood.  I think that the idea of mixed modes also backs up his idea that there is no correlation between sign and signified.

Derrida- "Difference"

I must admit that this was an unusual reading and complex reading for me. I seem to feel like Derrida has created a trace in regards to the word difference, and also created an in depth explanation for his theory or philosophy of the root word differ. Derrida explains that our words have substance and presence that guarantee there truthfulness, I somewhat agree and I somehow feel that this is a statement that can also be proven contradictory to some of the remaining portion of the article. “Difference” is explained to be neither being a word nor concept which would make it in turn difficult for it to be present or have presence along with substance.

When Words Fail

In the excerpts from "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" by John Locke, he is concerned with words and language. Their complexities, imperfections, uncertainty, how they fail. I was really interested in his ideas about the failure of words and/or language.

Locke believed that words can have different meanings based on their signification and that they can fail when they don't meet the end they were created for. Locke states that language is made to communicate ideas from one man to another, to communicate that idea with quickness and ease and that they have to convey knowledge. Language fails when it doesn't do any of those three things. Language fails when "men have names in their mouth, without any determinate ideas in their minds" (Locke, 825). 

Failure of language also happens when man has complex ideas and is without a name for them. He is hindered in his discourse (Locke, 825). Locke states, “Men fail of conveying their thoughts with all the quickness and ease that may be, when they have complex ideas without having any distinct names for them. This is sometimes the fault of the language itself, which has not in it a sound yet applied to such a signification; and sometimes the fault of the man, who has not yet learned the name for that idea he would show another” (Locke, 825).

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

Being completely honest up front, I had some trouble interpreting Derrida’s message (or several messages?) throughout his essay. I feel that Tuesday’s lecture will clear some things up for me, though I can only hope. As I read Derrida’s essay, confusion aside, I felt that Derrida and Locke would have an interesting bit of dialogue. Would Derrida and Locke agree upon Locke’s assertion that language restricts communication, often causing misinterpretation based on personal experience? I feel that Derrida would reinforce some of Locke’s notions that language cannot be universally interpreted. Just in the two terms that are being discussed (difference / difference – still need more explanation beyond this text on these) Locke would confirm that these two terms can quite easily be mistaken for each other, based on the difference of just a single letter – a, and not the literal meanings of the terms.

In his essay titled “Difference,” Derrida goes about describing what he sees as a process of temporal and spatial movement that he believes makes all thought and all reality a possibility. The “form” is introduced as an external element that shapes material into a specific or particular identity. All elements of language have what we label as “identity,” and that each element will itself consist of differentiations. Derrida set about demonstrating that ideas are units of language and are generated by difference; or that they have no substantial contrast apart from the networks that generate them as effects. But what does this really mean? Does Derrida mean that language and the processes that we use to generate language do not have a presence? Something palpable and graspable? According to Derrida, like in forms, they are completely empty and non-present.

What I Got From Derrida on Differance

What is a word? How can a simple mistake, incorrect spelling, or a change of one letter in a word displace the meaning of this word? As I was reading this article "Differance" by Jacques Derrida I was utterly confused and was not able to attain anything had written; my mind was tangled up in the jargon of the difference rather than the differance. It was not until I found that he was speaking on two different words in his text, difference and differance, that I believed or hoped believed that I understood the complex issue he was stating, and that is the idea that words of similarity can obtain different meanings and produce similar meanings at the same time.  

Let us say I am giving a speech, a speech on making a difference in the world, and instead of pronouncing the word difference I say differance. In speaking this, some may assume that I am making a grammatical error or, "the a of differance... is not heard; it remains silent, and discreet, like a tomb" (Derrida, 280), this could be a problem. Looking back at John Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" he states, "the chief end of language in communication being understood, words serve not well for this" (Locke, 817), meaning it could be said that by me saying the word differance rather than difference I am trying to portray another meaning in my speech. What if the idea I am trying to state has nothing to do with difference, but to me is a completely different idea. This would end with the chaos of language.