Elmo, Derrida

Before reading Derrida I hadn’t really thought about or even know about the distinction between difference and differance. Derrida explains the distinction between the two by saying that, “in this sense, the Latin differre is not the simple translation of the Greek diapherein; this fact will not be without consequence for us in tying our discussion to a particular language, one that passes for being less philosophical, less primordially philosophical, than the other…The other sense of ‘to differ’ [differer] is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, etc. And in ‘differents,’ whether referring to the alterity of dissimilarity or the alterity of allergy or of polemics, it is necessary that interval, distance, spacing occur among the different elements and occur actively, dynamically, and with a certain perseverance in repetition” (124-125). I still am not sure exactly what the contrast is between these two words is but I do know that they both signify something different. Similar to previous theorists such as DeSaussure, Barthes, and Macherey, Derrida touches on how difference and differance don’t have the same meaning and can signify distinctive things. This relates to the previous theorists we have studied because they all talk about how things have multiple meanings and can mean different things to different people. Now I am thinking about how perhaps that when I’ve read things in the past I have probably completely looked over these two words and never thought of the multiple meanings. I am still a little confused by the Derrida reading but I am excited to hear other peoples thoughts and what they got out of the reading, and also, of course, to hear Dr. Roj’s take on it all. However, I am glad that I now DO know more about the difference between differance and difference.