8.

How do signs and supplements fgure into Derrida's

thought?
(Signs are discussed in the question 9.A. notes as they are closely tied
to difrance, so here I will focus on "From/Of lindness to the
Su!!lement"
I
and allow you to gather the notion of signs from the 9.A.
notes."
#he su!!lement $ecomes dangerous when one is unaware of its
nature and mista%es the su!!lement for the !resence. "It adds only to
re!lace. It inter&enes or insinuates itself in'the'!lace'of."
II
One must,
therefore, always %ee! in mind that the su!!lement in an exterior
addition. #his notion lin%s to signs insofar as "the sign is always the
su!!lement of the thing itself."
III
(ith that quote and the corres!onding notion of the su!!lement,
language is shown to $e !ro$lematic. )o word of any language
su!!lies the longed'for !resence in full, $ut this !resence is always
deferred. (For this deference, see 9.A. on difrance."
9. Explain and critique difrance and deconstruction. Does
embracing them mean that Derrida is a "septic!relati"ist!
nihilist"?
#. Difrance
Difrance !lays on the fact that the French word di*+rer means $oth
"to defer" and "to di*er." " In the essay ",i*+rance" ,errida indicates
that di*+rance gestures at a num$er of heterogeneous features which
go&ern the !roduction of te-tual meaning. #he .rst (relating to
deferral" is the notion that words and signs can ne&er fully summon
forth what they mean./ #he second (relating to di*erence, sometimes
referred to as es!acement or "s!acing"" concerns the force which
di*erentiates elements from one another and, in so doing, engenders
$inary o!!ositions and hierarchies which under!in meaning itself."
I0
,r.
enson, howe&er, refused the inter!retation of this deferral as toward
other words. 1e e-!lained the deferral as toward the signi.ed. For
e-am!le, in the same way that a highway sign "2hicago 34 miles"
defers to a city 34 miles away, a sign (word or sym$ol" defers toward
the signi.ed. In the case of words, howe&er, the signi.ed is ne&er
reached in full !resence, $ut only reached insofar as the deferred
!resence made a&aila$le $y the sign, which di*ers from the signi.ed.
1ence, ,errida !ro!erly coins difrance to refer to this act of deferring
and the !oint that the sign difers from the longed'for !resence.
I Of 5rammatology 677'689
II I$id 678
III I$id 678
I0 :ulled from (i%i!edia on di*+rance. I generally distrust (i%i!edia, $ut this !assage summari;es the term well.
$. Deconstruction
",econstruction generally o!erates $y conducting close te-tual
readings with a &iew to demonstrating that the te-t is not a discrete
whole, and that it on the contrary contains se&eral irreconcila$le,
contradictory meanings. (hat is shown through this !rocess, therefore,
is that there is more than one inter!retation of a te-t, that these
inter!retations are ine-trica$ly lin%ed in and $y the te-t itself, that the
incom!ati$ility of these inter!retations is irreduci$le, and thus that
there is a !oint $eyond which the !articular line of inter!retati&e
reading cannot go< ,errida refers to this !oint as an a!oria in the te-t,
and hence he refers to deconstructi&e reading as "a!oretic." =. 1illis
>iller has descri$ed deconstruction in the following terms<
?,econstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a te-t, $ut a
demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its a!!arently'solid
ground is no roc%, $ut thin air."( =. 1illis >iller, "Ste&ens@ Aoc% and
2riticism as 2ure," 5eorgia Ae&iew 34 (69BC", !. 37.""
0
In short, one might say that deconstruction "adds nothing" to the
te-t, $ut merely attem!ts to demonstrate su$tle, im!licit elements of
the te-t itself. y e-!licating these elements, deconstruction shows
that ($ecause of these elements" there is no longer a single set or
a$solute inter!retation or reading of the te-t. I !ut "adds nothing" in
quotes, $ecause ,errida does refer to this or any commentary as a
"dou$ling of the te-t."
0I

%. &s Derrida' there(ore' a "septic!relati"ist!nihilist"?
,errida e-!licitly o*ers a strong refusal of this charge in the Afterword
to Dimited Inc. A quote from !age 668 of that te-t demonstrates this
!oint with un',errida'li%e clarity< "I ne&er !ro!osed a %ind of Eall or
nothingE choice $etween !ure reali;ation of self'!resence and com!lete
free!lay or undecida$ility. I ne&er $elie&ed in this and I ne&er s!o%e of
Ecom!lete free!lay or undecida$ility.E"
#his charge comes initially with little reasoning from ,erridaEs
te-ts themsel&es. And for good reason. :rior discussion of signs,
su!!lements, difrance, and deconstruction should clearly
demonstrate ,erridaEs !roFect. #hroughout his te-ts, he argues for the
"!resence" which is not full !resence in the sign. S!eci.cally regarding
deconstruction, he $y no means argues that a te-t can then mean
anything the reader wants $ut that the "instruments of classical
criticism"
0II
must $e em!loyed as an "indis!ensa$le guardrail" to
eradicate false or !oor inter!retations.
0III
1e dissents, howe&er, from
classical criticism in that such instruments !rotected the te-t, $ut
0 Again from (i%i!edia !age on the term.
0I Of 5rammatology 68G
0II I$id 68G
0III I$id 68G
ne&er o!ened it. 1is !roFect, therefore, is to o!en (&ia deconstruction"
te-ts to a !oint of multi!le !ossi$le inter!retations.