"Differance" as a tool for understanding experience

While I'm not quite positive that I fully understand Derrida's essay "Differance", I'm going to attempt to deconstruct his theory of language to try to make sense of it. The entire essay is about the title, the word "differance", as opposed to the word "difference". Derrida claims that differance with an a does not actually exist as a concept or a word. He is just using it to prove some kind of point. It is a metaphor for how we look at language.

Since differance is not the same word as difference, we know something about the meaning of both of them because we know that they are, well, different. We know this through the spellings. We can see that there are two spellings of the word and we have been trained to recognize letters as symbols of meaning. An "a" is not the same as an "e" and they are both used to construct words that mean different things. Derrida is playing on DeSaussure's theories of signifier and signified.

"A" and "e" signify different sounds within a word, therefore differance and difference must mean different things. BUT the sounds in these two words are exactly the same, regardless of the letter choice. Phonetically, one would not be able to tell the difference between them. The only way you could is by either seeing the words on the page or verbally differentiating them with phrases like "differance with an a" or "difference with an e". I think Derrida is trying to make a statement about the importance of the written word with this. In ancient times, the spoken word was well respected and revered higher than the written word. Speeches were given in public forums in order to spread ideas throughout a civilization. Now, written works are spread as well. Derrida is proving that the two are not the same and they do not have the same effect. One would not understand this essay if it were read aloud. The meaning can only be retrieved from the experience of reading.

Since "differance" doesn't actually mean anything, I think Derrida is using it as a metaphor for all the things he finds wrong with language, for instance the importance of the spoken word over the written word. He uses differance to prove a point. I think that we can maybe grasp a broader meaning from this, and that is human understanding is based off of experience. I understand the world differently than another person would because I have my own personal experiences that another person does not. Hearing something out loud is a completely different experience from reading it on a page, just as that is completely different from seeing it played out through real-life examples.

I also think that Derrida is pointing out that just because there are different ways to experience something, doesn't mean one way is and better than the other. There is not a higher quality of understanding in the spoken word over the written word, and vice versa. They are just different, or should I say differant.

In the past, people have privileged speech over writing for many reasons; one being it comes first, naturally. Writing is the documentation of speech. An utterance is vocal and communication first came about orally. Oral communication is also in the moment. It is "present" in time and space. There is a present audience and a present orator and the words are spoken at a very precise time. It is an experience of immediacy. Writing, on the other hand, pushes those boundaries. Words can be read at any time, to anyone, by anyone. It transcends time. "Differ" implies a distance in time and space. This distance takes away immediacy of meaning. A written word has meaning on different planes of time and space. The spoken word can only be and exist in one plane.

I think Derrida is questioning whether immediacy of meaning really matters, because if it does not, then he has proven that the spoken word is no better than the written word. People just experience them in two different ways, which I believe is his entire argument throughout this essay.