What do you think?
Rate this book
Differance
"Differancen er det 'frembringende' moment ved forskellene, de konstituerede forskelles, det konstituerede sprogs, det fuldt færdige sprogsystems 'historie'... Ja, der er meget gammelt i det, jeg har sagt. Det hele er sikkert gammelt. Det er Heraklit, jeg har refereret til i sidste instans."
Sådan falder ordene i et par af de svar som Jaques Derrida (f. 1930) giver under debatten i Fransk filosofisk Selskab om hans foredrag Difference i januar 1968. Det er i sig selv et intenst, fortættet forsøg på at endevende den filosofiske tale om væren, det værende, nærværet, så fokus kommer på den differeren, der både adskiller og udsætter - og derved sætter forskelle i spil. Det er metafysikkens gamle værenstænkning med afsæt i en 'ubevæget bevæger', en sidste (eller første) instans, der her får modspil af en anderledes dekonstruerende forskelstænkning. Det på flere måder skelsættende foredrag ledsages i denne udgave ved Søren Gosvig Olesen, der også giver en grundig introduktion, af den oprindelige diskussion og af den manchet, hvormed Derrida i sin tid indbød sit lærde publikum.
Sådan falder ordene i et par af de svar som Jaques Derrida (f. 1930) giver under debatten i Fransk filosofisk Selskab om hans foredrag Difference i januar 1968. Det er i sig selv et intenst, fortættet forsøg på at endevende den filosofiske tale om væren, det værende, nærværet, så fokus kommer på den differeren, der både adskiller og udsætter - og derved sætter forskelle i spil. Det er metafysikkens gamle værenstænkning med afsæt i en 'ubevæget bevæger', en sidste (eller første) instans, der her får modspil af en anderledes dekonstruerende forskelstænkning. Det på flere måder skelsættende foredrag ledsages i denne udgave ved Søren Gosvig Olesen, der også giver en grundig introduktion, af den oprindelige diskussion og af den manchet, hvormed Derrida i sin tid indbød sit lærde publikum.
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
1 person is currently reading
70 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
650 books1,794 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 27, 2025
This piece is brilliant but not at all approachable. It totally changed the way I think about speaking and writing and I learned a lot by reading this, but I can't in good faith reccommend it. I lost many brain cells trying to decipher exactly what Derrida was trying to say.
August 26, 2016
Started off with "??" and then just kept adding to it. Ended up with an infinite line of "??????????????????????????????"
What the actual frick. My IQ is either too low for this or this is the most confusing thing ever.
Also, how many times can you say "'differance' is neither a word nor a concept"? 340930938 times, apparently.
What the actual frick. My IQ is either too low for this or this is the most confusing thing ever.
Also, how many times can you say "'differance' is neither a word nor a concept"? 340930938 times, apparently.
January 25, 2016
To give an account of Derrida's Differance is to do what many scholars consistently fail to achieve. Indeed, there is much about Differance that must be elucidated outside of an academic context as much of Derrida's work defies the conventional academic register. However, to what extent Derrida's playfulness is necessary to the larger point at hand.
What immediately becomes clear in reading this text is that Derrida is intent on being playful. He repeats phrases as incantations rather than explanations ("Differance is neither a word nor a concept"), he toys with words meanings, and often combines these two types of play — just mark all the time "present" and "presence" are used throughout the essay.
A key function of the non-word/non-concept Differance is that of temporalizing. Differance describes the process of signification where an object, idea, word, or concept is supplanted — putting it off into the distance, but a visible distance none the less. The movement involves the passage of time, the effaced "item" is reachable across a certain measurement of time. Differance also collapses notions of time and space, as the reach can be measured in both temporal and spatial terms. For conventional signification, that which is represented leads down a "rabbit-hole" where each item in the distance, when reached, leads to yet another item in the distance. This is the chain of reference Derrida describes. Differance, itself, functions differently however. It supplants nothing, and stands as itself, representing in a moment all of its possible meanings.
The process of "signification" for Differance (indeed, Differance is not a word or a concept so it does not signify as such) is fundamentally different than that of all other words. Differance does not engage the referential chain that Derrida elucidates as the functionary of signification more generally, wherein a signifier represents a signified through such a chain. Instead, Differance "is neither simply active nor simply passive ... it speaks of an operation which is not an operation."
Derrida is shackled by the lack of specificity offered by language in all his work. Much of his complexity is derived from the deliberate abandonment of notions of discrete meaning. "Differance" is an example of how Derrida deploys language, as "Differance can refer to the whole complex of its meanings at once, for it is immediately and irreducibly multivalent, something which will be important for the discourse I am trying to develop. It refers to this whole complex of meanings not only when it is supported by a language or interpretive context (like any signification), but it already does so somehow of itself." To translate in brief, Differance represents each of its possible meanings at once regardless of context, unlike other language which is defined by its context. Differance is multivalent in such a way through a process, as stated, independent from signifying as such by existing outside of (because it is "older than") the referential chain of signification. Differance is the model for how Derrida wishes language functioned. For language to function similarly to Differance, one need not deploy the same symbol for multiple distinction meanings or deploy a symbol with an incomplete or unclear meaning. Differance serves to bridge the gap between the fundamental unknowability of the human subject by another as a result of language's lack of specificity or lack of demonstrative content.
Derrida asserts that, in the case of Differance, he is simply representing a concept that has appeared in the work of Saussure, Hegel, Heidigger, Nietzsche, and others. Differance exists outside of the problems of language precisely because of the age and necessity of the concept to facilitate language, presence, the present, Being, and beings. It's a process that underpins metaphysical and ontological structures which produce language. Differance, however, is unrelated to presence and absence and defies such dichotomies in a way other language does not, thus explaining Derrida's assertion that it is not a word or concept.
The trace which is Differance means that Differance as a process is constantly effaced and this essay is Derrida's attempt at excavating that which is unnamable. Derrida's deliberate carelessness (a non-paradox, Derrida is selective and precise in the ways he opts to be careless) in regard to language complicates the reader's understanding of what exactly is being said. "Differance" is a unit on a page, but it isn't a word. "Differance" cannot be named, and yet the unit on the page exists to represent something else. This representation is not signification as such, because the process is different and what is being represented is far more vast and outside of conventional systems of representation. Through the process of naming, a certain function is enacted and because Differance is outside of that function (the function that produces a referential chain) it cannot be named.
Still, Differance is not the transcendental signified which Derrida so loathes. When he uses a word like "origin" or speaks of the "age" of Differance, he is again being careless. He has collapsed temporality and spatiality yet again, and what would be more accurate would be say that Differance is behind or apart from processes of naming, representation, reference, and systems of language. Names are substitutions but Differance is that which needs no representation and simply is. A language model of such linguistic objects, perhaps, would enhance communication and depth of knowledge between human beings.
What immediately becomes clear in reading this text is that Derrida is intent on being playful. He repeats phrases as incantations rather than explanations ("Differance is neither a word nor a concept"), he toys with words meanings, and often combines these two types of play — just mark all the time "present" and "presence" are used throughout the essay.
A key function of the non-word/non-concept Differance is that of temporalizing. Differance describes the process of signification where an object, idea, word, or concept is supplanted — putting it off into the distance, but a visible distance none the less. The movement involves the passage of time, the effaced "item" is reachable across a certain measurement of time. Differance also collapses notions of time and space, as the reach can be measured in both temporal and spatial terms. For conventional signification, that which is represented leads down a "rabbit-hole" where each item in the distance, when reached, leads to yet another item in the distance. This is the chain of reference Derrida describes. Differance, itself, functions differently however. It supplants nothing, and stands as itself, representing in a moment all of its possible meanings.
The process of "signification" for Differance (indeed, Differance is not a word or a concept so it does not signify as such) is fundamentally different than that of all other words. Differance does not engage the referential chain that Derrida elucidates as the functionary of signification more generally, wherein a signifier represents a signified through such a chain. Instead, Differance "is neither simply active nor simply passive ... it speaks of an operation which is not an operation."
Derrida is shackled by the lack of specificity offered by language in all his work. Much of his complexity is derived from the deliberate abandonment of notions of discrete meaning. "Differance" is an example of how Derrida deploys language, as "Differance can refer to the whole complex of its meanings at once, for it is immediately and irreducibly multivalent, something which will be important for the discourse I am trying to develop. It refers to this whole complex of meanings not only when it is supported by a language or interpretive context (like any signification), but it already does so somehow of itself." To translate in brief, Differance represents each of its possible meanings at once regardless of context, unlike other language which is defined by its context. Differance is multivalent in such a way through a process, as stated, independent from signifying as such by existing outside of (because it is "older than") the referential chain of signification. Differance is the model for how Derrida wishes language functioned. For language to function similarly to Differance, one need not deploy the same symbol for multiple distinction meanings or deploy a symbol with an incomplete or unclear meaning. Differance serves to bridge the gap between the fundamental unknowability of the human subject by another as a result of language's lack of specificity or lack of demonstrative content.
Derrida asserts that, in the case of Differance, he is simply representing a concept that has appeared in the work of Saussure, Hegel, Heidigger, Nietzsche, and others. Differance exists outside of the problems of language precisely because of the age and necessity of the concept to facilitate language, presence, the present, Being, and beings. It's a process that underpins metaphysical and ontological structures which produce language. Differance, however, is unrelated to presence and absence and defies such dichotomies in a way other language does not, thus explaining Derrida's assertion that it is not a word or concept.
The trace which is Differance means that Differance as a process is constantly effaced and this essay is Derrida's attempt at excavating that which is unnamable. Derrida's deliberate carelessness (a non-paradox, Derrida is selective and precise in the ways he opts to be careless) in regard to language complicates the reader's understanding of what exactly is being said. "Differance" is a unit on a page, but it isn't a word. "Differance" cannot be named, and yet the unit on the page exists to represent something else. This representation is not signification as such, because the process is different and what is being represented is far more vast and outside of conventional systems of representation. Through the process of naming, a certain function is enacted and because Differance is outside of that function (the function that produces a referential chain) it cannot be named.
Still, Differance is not the transcendental signified which Derrida so loathes. When he uses a word like "origin" or speaks of the "age" of Differance, he is again being careless. He has collapsed temporality and spatiality yet again, and what would be more accurate would be say that Differance is behind or apart from processes of naming, representation, reference, and systems of language. Names are substitutions but Differance is that which needs no representation and simply is. A language model of such linguistic objects, perhaps, would enhance communication and depth of knowledge between human beings.
June 4, 2020
This is supposed to be what one should read if they want to get a taste of Derrida. It's just 23 pages but it feels like at least 230. My views seem to be quite close to his views, but his writing is so confusing that I don't know if he is worth the trouble to read him.
He starts with an attempt to establish the priority of the written word over speech. This is a lecture and Derrida playfully gave the name of “differance” to what he wants to talk about which sounds exactly like “difference” in French, so he demonstrates this priority by having to pause to explain if he means differ()nce with a or e, something that wouldn't be necessary if they were reading a text. Another (the only?) argument for this is that there are some features of writing, like punctuation or spacing that don't exist in spoken word.
Much more importantly, differance comes from the latin word differer which means to differentiate from something and to postpone something, the first connected with space and the second with time. Differance seems to concern meanings but itself is “neither a word, nor a concept” as he says 5 or 10 times. It should be seen as part of his post-structuralism, an endeavor that tries to dissolve the dualisms of the history of metaphysics and, more specifically in this text, the supposed priority of presence over absence and of identity or naming (when we say this is “x”, we cut the world between “x” and “not x”). Differance of course sounds like a concept and a name, but the point is to escape these categories and treat it like something unique that our language can't accurately describe. One of its properties, connected mostly to the spatial meaning of “differ”, and to the bias in favor of presence and identity, is that like a trace of something, it is something that is not there, but its trace is there, so in a way it's both there and not there. Differance is what makes possible differentiation, but since he wants to insert the historical element too, it is also something that is constantly changing. The actual presence of differance if forever postponed, something closer to the temporal meaning of “differ”.
In the second part he shows that Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger discussed difference too, using their own terms. He finds it in Nietzsche's power, in Freud's subconsious and in Heidegger's Being. All these are in some way, something that makes possible what they describe and yet as soon as it is described it is lost because it is transformed to something that's substantial, something in the present. This of course is extremely close to Heidegger, but Heidegger, at least in Being and Time “hoped” that he could find something that existed in the past and would allow us to live authentically, if only we got rid of all these concepts that get in the way.
For Derrida there is no such goal. The change from e to a is not done to accomplish something for some other reason besides having fun. It's a game that is played for its own terms. The change is just part of an inevitable change in meanings, or better the endless game in which relations between meanings (or signs, words) give birth to new meanings, with external reality playing a minor or no role, hence the famous "there is nothing outside of the text".
He starts with an attempt to establish the priority of the written word over speech. This is a lecture and Derrida playfully gave the name of “differance” to what he wants to talk about which sounds exactly like “difference” in French, so he demonstrates this priority by having to pause to explain if he means differ()nce with a or e, something that wouldn't be necessary if they were reading a text. Another (the only?) argument for this is that there are some features of writing, like punctuation or spacing that don't exist in spoken word.
Much more importantly, differance comes from the latin word differer which means to differentiate from something and to postpone something, the first connected with space and the second with time. Differance seems to concern meanings but itself is “neither a word, nor a concept” as he says 5 or 10 times. It should be seen as part of his post-structuralism, an endeavor that tries to dissolve the dualisms of the history of metaphysics and, more specifically in this text, the supposed priority of presence over absence and of identity or naming (when we say this is “x”, we cut the world between “x” and “not x”). Differance of course sounds like a concept and a name, but the point is to escape these categories and treat it like something unique that our language can't accurately describe. One of its properties, connected mostly to the spatial meaning of “differ”, and to the bias in favor of presence and identity, is that like a trace of something, it is something that is not there, but its trace is there, so in a way it's both there and not there. Differance is what makes possible differentiation, but since he wants to insert the historical element too, it is also something that is constantly changing. The actual presence of differance if forever postponed, something closer to the temporal meaning of “differ”.
In the second part he shows that Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger discussed difference too, using their own terms. He finds it in Nietzsche's power, in Freud's subconsious and in Heidegger's Being. All these are in some way, something that makes possible what they describe and yet as soon as it is described it is lost because it is transformed to something that's substantial, something in the present. This of course is extremely close to Heidegger, but Heidegger, at least in Being and Time “hoped” that he could find something that existed in the past and would allow us to live authentically, if only we got rid of all these concepts that get in the way.
For Derrida there is no such goal. The change from e to a is not done to accomplish something for some other reason besides having fun. It's a game that is played for its own terms. The change is just part of an inevitable change in meanings, or better the endless game in which relations between meanings (or signs, words) give birth to new meanings, with external reality playing a minor or no role, hence the famous "there is nothing outside of the text".
March 17, 2022
In fact, I have been facing a tough time trying to get the main point of Derrida's reading. Deconstructivism, however, is basically aimed at understanding texts in a whole innovative approach. Understanding texts not just the main idea itself yet goes beyond what is written. I have seen the reflection of deconstructing the texts not just in reading a general topic but also regarding Academic reading specifically. I strongly agree with this specific purpose just because texts can be full of rhetorical structures, vague ideas, or words can hold various meanings regarding the context. That is why I consider this theory profound in languages. Second reading: In fact, unlike Derrida’s reading, I am so fascinated by the ideas of Architecture imagination he explained. I do strongly agree that Architecture must present fiction, meanings, or reflect its zeitgeist. Yet I guess Architecture has as well to connect its essence with the culture, context, not just to be connected to what is current.
August 4, 2024
https://web.stanford.edu/class/histor...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différa...
Following his presentation of his paper "Différance" in 1968, Derrida was faced with an annoyed participant who said, "It [différance] is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." Derrida's answer was, "It is and it is not."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différa...
May 24, 2023
I want to give you a zero, but that’s not possible, so I give you a one. Had to read it for class and it was pure torture. Found it here just to give it one star, cause I hate it. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
February 4, 2021
Interesante seminario de Derrida para explicar su propuesta de la différance. Llegué acá gracias a Balibar. Importante texto para salir de aquella ontología etimológica heideggeriana.
June 4, 2022
Forelæsningrække ved Søren Gosvig Olesen på andet semester af filosofi-bacheloren ved Københavns Universitet. Eksamensopgave i Derrida. Pragteksempel på spekulativ metafysik.
Read
February 25, 2023Didn’t understand at all but putting it here cause I tried really hard
November 24, 2018
smartypants derrida is in love with himself, but he has something to say in this essay. this is significant because nothing else i've read by him contains anything worthwhile.
is the Being of beings differance? can anyone say what differance is (or isn't) (or, between is and isn't)? and does it matter to anyone besides post-heideggarian phenomenologists?
is the Being of beings differance? can anyone say what differance is (or isn't) (or, between is and isn't)? and does it matter to anyone besides post-heideggarian phenomenologists?
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews