The Space In Between: Language as Temporal and Visceral

 “Differance is what makes the movement of signification possible only if each element that is said to be “present” appearing on the stage of presence, 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).

John Locke theorized that words are inherently insufficient in their ability to convey complex ideas, thus rendering language is fundamentally imperfect. In his 33 propositions Locke more than thoroughly explains the shortcomings that come with words, yet his argument remains firmly in the realm of painstaking classification. Locke goes into concentrated detail in his dissection of what language is not, yet he never ventures into the murky unknown of what language is. Jacques Derrida endeavours to explain his concept of “differance” in terms of language.

Differance is, in simple terms, is a play on the French word differer, which means to defer and to differ (Derrida 279). This intentional misspelling de-emphasizes the traditional advantage of speech over written word and complicates the relationship between the two in terms of significance. “With it’s a, differance, more properly refers to what in classical language would be called the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play of differences. Its locus and operation will therefore be seen wherever speech appeals to difference” (Derrida 298). This interplay of differences displays the tension between written and spoken word, which draws from a conflict of origin; writing is not an antecedent of speech, just as speech is not an evolution of writing. Language does not pull its significance form its origin or its context, its substance is in its space- its relations and divergence from the moment it is situated in.

This space echoes an ethereal sensation of difference and sameness; Derrida refers to this sensation as a trace “all ideas and all objects of though and perception bear the trace of other things, other moments, other presences” (Derrida 278). The trace of a word links it to the present by its relation to the past and indication of the future.  “The same process of difference haunts the idea of a spatially determinate identity of presence. Any spatiality locatable object of thought or idea has an identity or presence of its own only by differing from other things” (Derrida 279). This bold statement takes the study of language to a place Locke did not venture; Derrida is not making a case for lingual imperfection as much as he is trying to foster an understanding of the way language is situated in the realm of the temporal.

An idea only exists based on relative association- the things that tie it to the past and make it indicative of the future are that which denote the illusion of the present. Substance is a culmination of exterior components that influence language; words draw their import from difference. Words differ endlessly because of the relatedness of the ideas they represent and the indefinite nature of those ideas. Derrida contends that language has no innate presence of its own; it is made up entirely of that which it is related to and that which it differs from. “Differance is not simply active (any more than it is a subjective accomplishment); it rather indicates the middle voice, it precedes and sets up the opposition between passivity and activity” (Derrida 279). Words always refer to other words, which represent other ideas that are infinitely variant- causing language to be not imperfect but rather indeterminate. Language exists in the space between speech and writing, between past and future, it is not a plastic concept that can be compartmentalized or systematically classified as “imperfect”.

Language is an imperfect system for communicating complex ideas, yet this assertion alone is a gross oversimplification. Language is more than a means by which we communicate information, and in that capacity it is lacking, it is a process by which essence is conveyed and emotion is aroused. Language is evocative in its essence; it has the power to instil intense visceral feelings. This power comes from the space created by the words, the way they are situated in time. Derrida theorizes “signs represent the presence in its absence” (Derrida 284); moments exist only as they pass, they have no materiality. It is impossible to grasp the present because it is always now and always just past, signs are substitutes for the present, a differed presence. This is the theoretical juncture where confusion takes place and misinterpretation occurs, language is not the origin of the communication problem- language evolved around an ungraspable present. 

By this I mean to first acknowledge Locke’s assertion that language is in fact imperfect and second explain why it inherently imperfect and can not exist in any other capacity. Language, as Derrida says, “has not fallen from the sky, it is clear that the differences have been produced; they are the effects produced, but effects that do not have as their cause a subject or substance…”(Derrida 286). Language is a product of its environment and is a perfect representation of an imperfect and ungraspable present. There is no way to describe the complex ideas that make up our world because they are only as significant as the feeling they instil in their perceiver. This feeling is visceral and cannot be trapped by a word or a single idea that could be represented by a single word. Language is a stand in for an intangible present, which exists only in its relation to the past and indication of the future. 

Language then was not designed to be perfect, it evolved out of the need to vocalize an essence.