Differance

(Jacques Derrida)
- Metaphysics thinks beings as beings in the manner of representational
thinking that gives grounds...[...!he ground sho"s itself as presence
(!he #nd of $hilosophy and... % &eidegger)
Derrida steps further to find that it is precisely a metaphysics of presence that defines the "hole epoch of
'estern philosophy. &eidegger is able to see that all beings can be spoken of or represented due to the
very fact of their (eing% their is-ing. Derrida ho"ever "ill find this difference of (eing and beings as
remaining "ithin the language of representation% even "hile it makes the radical move of recognising
(eing as a not% as that "hich all beings are not. 'hat characteristics this difference bet"een (eing and
beings) 'hat in fact *structures* the conceptual oppositions that metaphysics has "orked "ith all
throughout + sub,ect-ob,ect% language-speech% speech-thought% signifier-signified% -ntological--ntic) .s
one can see these oppositions seem also to be systems of representations "here one pole e/presses the
other.
!hus a metaphysics of metaphysics ("hich is not a metaphysics) is for Derrida discoverable in the
structure of language and thus Derrida must return to the basic structures of representation0signification
to unravel it. !his is "hy Deconstruction is also a semiotic analysis. !hat this metaphysics is housed in
signification also means that it is not a singular causation% that lies *outside the te/t* but vibrates
some"here in the very naming and categori1ing of things% beings.
2t is this feature that puts Derrida*s "ork in a troublesome position. 2t is transcendental of philosophy% yet
is in the very business of uncovering the po"er that in its transcendental form all philosophy has e/erted
(3orty% 4554). &is "ork has thus been used to both periodically attack "estern philosophy as also to
e/plore more ,ust stances "ithin current philosophical pro,ects (2bid6 Derrida% 7884). 2 shall try and
discuss Derrida*s concept of Differance in more detail and then "onder at some of these implications.
'riting is believed to represent speech and thus its letters and syllables (phonemes) are considered to be
phonetic - standing for sounds. (ut "riting has often been perceived as a loss of some degree of essence
from the *original* speech% ,ust as even speech seems to be a loss from the essence of thought. 'riting is
thus considered a lo"er form and several myths equate ancient languages "ith a certain closeness to *real
meaning* or to the speech of the gods. #ven research on ancient or *dying* cultures carries similar
conceptions% e/cept that the real here is perhaps replaced by the *mysteries of mankind*s origin*. !he
privileging of speech over "riting represents for Derrida the continued value given to origins. (ut does
"riting simply function to represent speech% he "onders) (y coining a "ord + Differance% "hich in
9rench sounds the same as *difference* but is "ritten "ith an a rather than an e (Derrida% 7884% p 7::)%
Derrida is able to sho" the independent movement "ithin the signifying system of language% "hich is at
a remove from the signified speech. !he shift made in the "ord Differance cannot be captured in audible
speech but only in "riting. 'riting thus incorporates non phonetic signs (also like punctuation% spacing)
that are not really *signs* but they effect a silent play of differences that actually allo" the *phonetic*
symbols to be read aloud. !hus ;the difference bet"een t"o phonemes% "hich enables them to e/ist and
to operate% is inaudible< (ibid% p 7:=->).
*Differance* thus points to t"o movements + to differ and to defer or delay. (y these dual moves%
Differance points to the very structure of signification that never really arrives at that "hich it points to.
2t must make do "ith another representation% a deferment% a detour% that is also a spacing and
temporali1ing. !his "ill become clearer if "e return to the structure of the sign as discussed by
9erdinand de?aussure. de?aussure had brought out ho" the sign is *comprised* of a signifier that is the
sound-image of the conceptual ob,ect that is being pointed to6 and the signified "hich is the conceptual-
ob,ect. !he ob,ect itself need not0cannot enter this signifying activity. !he sign ho"ever% are
characterised by their differential and arbitrary character. !he syllable0phoneme used to signify a sound
does not have a necessary relation "ith the sounds% rather it only makes sense in relation to all other
phonemes in the language. !hus language is simply a system of relations bet"een terms% a relation only
of *difference "ithout positive terms* (phonemes "ith content). !hese are both phonic and conceptual
differences operating at both poles of signification (ibid% 7@7-A).
'hat is most important here is that the *concept* is never present as such% but is rather inscribed in a
chain% a *systematic play of differences*. !his is "hy Differance is neither a "ord or a concept% neither of
the poles of signification but a Play that is the very *possibility of conceptuality*. !his play is
simultaneously a differing% relations bet"een terms and also a deferment of the final0original meaning.
!hat "hich is to be presented is deferred continuously + a sign is *deferred presence* (ibid% 7@4).
Differance here is ho"ever not another transcendental origin% another presence% the 1one from "hich
effects of differences are produced. #ven if they can be said to be produced% it is due to a *non-full% non-
simple origin* "hich is Differance.
$resence is ordinarily seen as "hat the past leads to and "hat "ill lead to the future. 'e are thus
e/horted to *live in the present*. (ut the temporal present seems to negated in the same moment in "hich
it comes into being (?oderback% 784A). 2n this sense the present is simply that "hich the past and the
future are not and they in turn are also defined by their being not "hat they are not. !hat is "hy Derrida
is able to find that the present that is not reached is itself *hollo"ed out* - ;the element said to be present
retains the marks of the past element and lets itself be hollo"ed out by the mark of its relations to a
future element<(Derrida% 45@A% p 7@:). !he past and present here relate even% to the chain of differences
in "hich a concept is related. 2n this "ay a concept already imbibes the content of that "hich it is
opposed to% that "hich it is not + it carries their traces. !hus rather than presenting% a sign is merely
tracing and Differance again is this play of traces. !aken further "e can say% the others in the chain in
opposition to "hich the present finds itself hollo"ed out% even they relate to something else and are
themselves hollo"ed out. !racing then does not relate to any trace materiality% but to this very slipping.
2mportant to note is the absence of the sub,ect in the play of Differance. Man not the maker of these
oppositions and in fact is sub,ect to them. 2n a move further from &eidegger% he says Differance [is not%
it is not even a bring-present. Differance cannot thus be derived from a "hat or a "ho. 2t cannot even be
derived from a consciousness% because then consciousness is again a self-presence to "hich differance
comes (ibid% 7@@-=). !he privilege to the sub,ect and to the present "ere both one and the same privilege
given throughout the history or epoch of metaphysics% argues Derrida.
2n fact Derrida "arns against even the name Differance given to Differance. 2t is the un-nameble not
because it is like a divine being that is unapproachable% but as mentioned in the beginning% ;is the play
that brings about the nominal effects% the relatively unitary or atomic structures "e call names% or chains
of substitution for names< (ibid% p 7==). 'riting about Differance "as difficult for me because 2 felt one
can almost begin from any"here in the argument. .ll "ords moreover seem to "ithin quotes. !his is the
limitation of language that Derrida says he must speak "ithin even though he is referring to a play that is
some"hat prior to it. 2t is ho"ever prior not as first principle. &e says himself - ;...Differance opens up
the very space in "hich philosophy produces its system and history. 2t thus encompasses
and...surpasses...philosophy. 9or this reason 2 do not kno" "here to begin to mark out...[...differance.
$recisely "hat is in question here is the requirement that there there be a de jure commencement, an
absolute point of departure (emphasis mine)< (p 7:5). &e adds thus% a little later% that ;in marking out
differance% everything is a matter of strategy and risk% because no transcendental truth present outside the
sphere of "riting can theological command the totality of this field< (ibid).
2t is in this sense that Derrida*s famous statement *there is nothing outside the te/t* can be placed and
hence the primacy that he gives to literature as a site of deconstruction% as it perhaps en,oys much
freedom from the circle of signification. 2t can be "ondered ho"ever% "hether a "riting freed from the
burden of phonetic representation may not equally produce other burdens "e may not conceive of today.
(ut it is clear that Derrida does not look to a simple freeing from% or resolution of oppositions. ;'e
could take up all the coupled oppositions on "hich philosophy is constructed% and from "hich our
language lives% not in order to see oppositions vanish but the see the emergence of a necessity such that
one of the terms appears as the difference of the other...<% he argues. (p 7@5).
(ased on the above observations one can then understand the critical gesture of Derrida% if it can be
placed "ithin the category of critique at all. Differance is a move against the first principle% the priority
of the sub,ect and of presence and all "estern philosophy as one epoch that has actually effaced the play
of differance that can be called the decentered heart of its being. !his differance is the *same that is not
identical*% that is *older* that the difference of (eing and beings and of all such oppositions. !o then go
beyond this this logos that informs all philosophy% ;is a differance so violent that it refuses to stop and be
e/amined as the epochality of (ing and ontological difference...[...nor is it to ;contest< or fail to
recogni1e the incessant necessity of it. 'e must% on the contrary% stay "ithin the difficulty of this
passage...<(p 7=A). ;&ere "e must not allo" the trace of "hatever goes beyond the truth of (eing to
appear0dissapear...[...it is itself a trace that can never be presented< (ibid). 2t is thus by bringing to light
the oppositions and the play of differance that operates in their e/istence that the violent oppositions like
man-"oman% self-other% civili1ed-barbaric% soul-body% internal-e/ternal can be laid bare in their non-
naturalness. .s observed earlier% ;older than (eing itself% our language has no name for such a
differance<(7=@).B!here "ill be no unique name% not even the name of (eing. 2t must be conceived
"ithout nostalgia<. (p 7==). -n the contrary "e must affirm play (ibid).
2t appears that &eidegger too is a"are of the difference bet"een (eing and beings or bet"een presence
and the present and argues that this difference itself is forgotten in the forgetting of (eing. &eidegger is
able to point out that each epoch% through the forgetting of the tracing of difference% actually puts up a
first principle of one or the other kind + universal good% universal man or Cod. -;!he matinal trace of
difference effaces itself from the moment that presence appears as a being-present and finds its
provenance in a supreme (being)-present< (e/tract from &eidegger% p 7=D). &e is also able to argue that a
unique "ord that names "hat is deployed in (eing "ill not be found in the e/isting modes of thought.
#ven so ;it is not something impossible% because (eing speaks through every language every"here and
al"ays< (ibid% 7==). !his is "here the shift is Derridian + the play of difference is then not in an outside
1one% apart from beings% but in the very relations bet"een beings% a this-"ordly play.
Derrida observes "hile discussing 9reud that *Differance holds us in relation "ith "hat ;e/ceeds the
alternative of presence or absence< (p 7=4). 9or 9reud this is the unconscious "hich too is never present%
al"ays differed and in fact sends out% representatives% traces. !his harks back to the idea that of all the
oppositions in "estern thought% are violent hierarchies% "here one of the t"o terms governs the other
('ikipedia). 2 recall also the often talked about vie" of the feminine in 2ndia. !he female "hen not
assigned to a defined social role is understood only through t"o other categories of the demonic ("itch%
sorceress% mad) or divine (goddess% saint) or both (such as in the image of Eali). 2n this manner the lo"er
entity in the binary opposition is also a sort of pandora*s bo/ of dark dangers% that could engulf the other%
quite like the unconscious that sends forth representations% and can potentially take over the conscious
mind. . similar hierarchical opposition bet"een the (rahmin and the untouchable is discussed in
Derridian terms is discussed by ?arukkai (Curu% ?arukkai% 7847). !his may e/plain "hy deconstruction
is an active engagement for Derrida% something he finds necessary to do in public life. 2t is seen in the
oppositions in *-n Fosmopolitanism and 9orgiveness*. !he former in the all "elcoming hospitality of the
modern city% but on certain terms and the latter in the "illingness to forgive% but the concern "hether the
unforgiveable can be forgiven (Derrida% 7884% $reface).
3orty (p 475) does not see Derrida*s "ork "ithin the domain of philosophy as it itself provides an
alternative - ;the result of genuinely original thought on my vie"% is not so much to refute or subvert our
previous beliefs% as to help us forget them by giving us a substitute for them<. (ut mind that he is also
saying that the various philosophies until no" "ere *beliefs*% even *gimmicks* (ibid% p 477) "hich perhaps
counters his o"n argument) .s 2 also gleaned from some internet surfing% parallels have been dra"n
bet"een Derrida*s "ork and at least that of ?ocrates and 'ittgenstien "ho themselves cannot be seen as
mere propagators of *first principles*. &e can also be seen as performing a radical critique similar to Mar/
(visible in Spectres of Marx) in that Mar/ too critiques philosophy for not acting in the "orld to change
it. 9urther given the vast types of philosophy done till date% ;some argumentative problem-solvers and
some oracular "orld-disclosers< (ibid)% 2 "onder "hether Derrida*s o"n reading of a single epoch of
logocentrism can hold true% even as it remains a *radical critique* of much of philosophy. 9urther if all is
one epoch of the play of difference% and this play is even necessary% then must "e al"ays be fighting the
violence of our categories)
$erhaps% this has been so already) !hat some philosophical inquiries have thro"n up similar critiques but
these have been under-read and other aspects over-read)
-ne can also "onder% "hat drives the play of differance. *2t* is not caused in any"ay% is not even present%
is not even there as such. Get it e/erts noticeable po"er hierarchies. 2s this merely the force of culture% of
lived humanity itself) 'here can blame as such be laid) $erhaps all round responsibility to all applies
precisely because blame for such oppositions can be placed at almost every door) .lso "hy "ould
difference not be discoverable in all non-"estern cultures as "ell% as ?arukkai*s use reveals) 2f so "hat
does it mean for humanity as a "hole)
2 also "onder that if all of philosophy before Derrida referred to concepts and not ob,ects in themselves%
they in some sense already ackno"ledged the logical unkno"ability of *things in themselves* (limits of
reason% the fall of 2deas% etc.) even though they maintained a nostalgia for it. (y placing Differance back
into the immediate realm of the relation bet"een beings% "e seem to be closer in one sense to their
absent-presence% engaging "ith their hollo"ed presence directly. 2s this another kind of return of the
material% a this-"ordly engagement% in an affirmation of a non-material Differance)
Heha (784A&IJ>4DA)
References
&eidegger% Martin% !he #nd of $hilosophy and the !ask of !hinking% in Martin &eideger% (asic 'ritings% #d. by
David 9arrell Erell% &arper Follins
Derrida% Jacques (45@A)% Differance% Revue de Mtaphysique t de Morale @> (D)KD@8-D5D
Derrida% Jacques% (7884) $reface by ?imon Fritchley and 3ichard Eearney% -n Fosmopolitanism and 9orgiveness%
!rans. Mark Dooley and Michael &ughes% London and He" GorkK 3outledge
Curu% Copal and ?under ?arukkai% $henomenology of Intouchability% in !he "rac#ed Mirror, 7847% -/ford
3orty% 3ichard (4554)% 2s Derrida a !ranscendental $hilosopher% in #ssays on &eidegger and -thers% $hilosophical
$apers% Fambridge
?oderback% 9anny% (eing in the $resent% Derrida and 2rigaray on the Metaphysics of $resence% Journal of ?peculative
$hilosophy% Mol 7=% Ho 4% 784A (httpK00muse.,hu.edu0login)
authN8OtypeNsummaryOurlN0,ournals0,ournalPofPspeculativePphilosophy0v87=07=.A.soderback.html )
'ikipedia - httpK00en."ikipedia.org0"iki0(inaryPopposition