Dear Agency,

Locke emphasizes how language affects our perception, therefore influencing our thoughts. In order to attain a specific thought, it is undeniable that a breakdown of a word must occur; once this action is achieved, those within a circuit are able to communicate effectively. Derrida understands this notion, yet it appears as though comprehension can only be met when these words are connected, as if they are within a system –language. With this in mind, I wonder if a universal agency can ever be derived from a specific word, rather than having a unique agency defined by a particular language. Can one utterance have universal agency, or does a relationship between various words, or language, need to be met in order to give means to a concept?
As I read Derrida’s Differance, I asked myself how language affects words, as well as how the many types of languages can alter an intention or give something/one agency. As Locke mentions, language is only created through the relationship between words and ideas. While Derrida places emphasis on how words represent an idea, I believe that the two theories work hand-in-hand. How? Well, words represent an idea and when placed together with other terms, a concept is undeniably created.Derrida describes Saussure’s sign and signifier, hence Derrida’s explanation of the signifier only having meaning within a network. However, I challenge this theory by using an example of the word ‘taxi’. Through the English language, it is understood what the definition of a ‘taxi’ is. Without any communication with other utterances in the same system or language, ‘taxi’ can have agency on its own. In French, Spanish and German (to list a few), the same term, ‘taxi’, has the same agency. I feel as though language gives a unique agency to words, yet words can have universal agency amongst a wide range of languages. Through my readings of the assigned texts, I have come to the conclusion that universal agency of a single word can be met.