Dfférence cannot be defined simply; it is neither a word or a concept. The difference between différance and différence is inaudible, we can only fully understand the difference between the two words graphically. The a in différance is not heard, Jacque Derrida goes as far as to say the a is secret and discrete like a tomb. The silence of the graphical difference between the e or the a can function only in phonetic writing. There is no pure or rigorous phonetic writing; the so-called phonetic writings can only function through non-phonetic “signs,” such as spaces and punctuations. There is an ambiguity in the spoken word, différence as compared to différance, that demands reference to the written. If the spoken word requires the written to function properly, then the spoken is itself always at a distance from any supposed clarity of consciousness.
Jacque Derrida, an Algerian-French philosopher who is considered a deconstructivist in philosophical terms, focusses on two aspects, the literary and the philosophical. He seeks out the textual interpretation, an alternative meaning to text. In the essay of Dfférence, Derrida argues that différance does not exist, it is not a present being of any form. Derrida quotes, “In the delineation of différance everything is strategic and adventurous” (Derrida 399). It is strategic because there is no transcendent truth outside the field of writing. This strategy then leads to an adventure, but it isn’t a tactile adventure. It is a strategy without a finality, a type of blind tactics; an empirical wandering.
To fully understand the full meaning of différance, Derrida suggests that we must understand the word différer. This term has two meanings; the first meaning is temporization. In this sense, différer takes a recourse, whether it is consciously or unconsciously, in the temporal mediation of a detour, suspending a sense of accomplishment or fulfillment. The second sense of différer is to be non-identical, to be other. Derrida quotes, “When dealing with differen(ts)(ds), a word that can be written with a final ts or a final ds, as you will, whether it is a question of dissimilar otherness or of allergic and polemical otherness, an interval, a distance, spacing, must be produced between the elements other, and be produced with a certain perseverance in repetition” (Derrida 401). To summarize, difference with an e can refer to différer as temporization or to différends as polemos, which according to Heidegger means the basic principle of differentiation.
Différance cannot be seen as a sign, which always assumes the representation of a presence. It is considered to be constituted in a system, a system of thought and language, which is governed by moving toward a presence. But then one must question the authority of presence. The limits that constrain us formulates the meaning of being in general as presence or absence, in the categories of beingness. In Being and Time by Heidegger, he says temporalization is the transcendental horizon of the question of being. It must be liberated, extracted from its traditional, metaphysical domination of the present and the now. There is a strict form of communication.
Derrida quotes, “One might be tempted by an objection: certainly the subject becomes a speaking subject only in its commerce with the system of linguistic differences” (Derrida 208). The sense of speaking of a subject could be present in itself, as speaking or signifying, without the play of linguistic différance. We cannot conceive of presence, presence to itself of the subject before speech or signs. A presence to itself of the subject is silent and intuitive consciousness. Excluding any trace and any différance, consciousness, or something like it, is possible. Derrida then questions, “What is consciousness?” (Derrida 409). Consciousness offers the thought of self-presence, a perception of self in presence. The privilege granted with consciousness signifies the privilege granted to the presence. The transcendental temporality of consciousness brings a “living present,” the power of synthesizing traces and incessantly resembling them. This privilege is the ether of metaphysics.
Différance is a metaphysical name and all the names that are received in our language are still metaphysical. The determination of différance as the difference between presence and the present is already the case when we say determination of différance as the difference between being and beings. Derrida suggests that différance has no name in language itself, it is unnameable; this isn’t because we haven’t found a name for différance, but instead we seek it in another language. This otherness is found outside the finite system of our own. Derrida quotes, “[différance] is not a pure nominal unity, and unceasingly dislocates itself in a chain of differing and deffering substitutions” (Derrida 419). This unnameable is not an ineffable being which no name can approach, for example, the being of God. This unnameable is the play that makes nominal effects just as a false entry of a false exit is still part of the game, a function of the system.
In order to name the essential nature of being, language would have to find a single word; we can gather how daring every thoughtful word addressed to being is. The daring isn’t impossible, being speaks always and everywhere throughout language. The alliance between speech and being is unique, and so is the simulated affirmation of différance. It bears on each member of the sentence. Remember, différance cannot be exhaustively defined, it is “neither a word, nor a concept.” It transcends language and breaks down the signage of phonetic writing. Just as a piece of writing has no self-present subject to explain what every particular word means, which draws parallel to spoken word.
“ d i f f e r ( ) n c e ”
Taylor, M.C. (1986) Deconstruction in context: literature and philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.