In Book III of An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding John Locke discusses the limitations
and failures that language inherently possess. Locke claims that words
themselves have no real meaning, “because the ideas they stand for relate to
the reality of things” (Locke 820).
This notion is also evident in Derrida’s essay Differance, which highlights the role the “present” in
communication. These ideas seem somewhat obvious; clearly words and their
meanings are highly contingent upon the context that they are spoken. Both
believe this constructed reality is based on patterns of naming and word usage
that gives us a “tranquil familiarity” (Derrida 281).
Both
authors also explore signification, or the meaning that a word is given in a
certain situation. Locke’s essay seems like a warning almost, heading his
audience to beware of not only differences in significance but how these
differences are exploited by others (Locke 827). Of course Locke’s pieces is
much more than that but that is hinted at in the conclusion. Derrida takes
signification a step further in his discussion of the terms “difference” and
“differance.” Locke mentions that words create a connection to an idea and
Derrida attempts to explain how.
“Differance is what makes the movement of signification
possible only if each element that is said to be present, is related to
something other than itself but retains the mark of a past element and already
lets itself be hollowed out by the mark of its relation to a future element”
(Derrida 287).
The movement of signification to me
seems like successful communication in Locke’s terms. Derrida claims that using
words in the present implies a divide between the literal use of the word and
the past meaning or even essence of it. This is the idea of his “interval,” a
relationship that is between time and space not meaning (Derrida). Derrida
believes that our use of language confirms the present, mostly by separating it
from the past and future. This concept is extremely interesting, language clearly
creates our present reality, but I had no idea it also cemented us in a linear
space-time continuum.
I wonder if Derrida is really making a point about the signification of words as you say he is. I feel like the signification is not as important to him, in this essay at least, as the form in which it is presented. He even said "differance" is not a real word and it does not have any meaning. Of course, this would make one ponder as to why he even uses it at all. Locke is very concerned with signification of a word and the ideas behind it. I think Derrida is concerned with how we understand a word based on it's existence in time and space. For example, is it spoken or written? I think he is trying to make us question if that even matters. Does the significance of the word change in that context of time/space?
ReplyDelete