Derrida: Positions
This brief commentary will attempt to extricate the gems of analytic deconstruction constituting an excerpt from Derrida’s Positions.
In the opening paragraph, Derrida transitions from discourse on differance and opposition and begins discussing the methodological nature of grasping the general economy of such ideas, that is to say, the “general strategy of deconstruction.” (41) Derrida wants to be sure that the term ‘general economy’ is not interpreted interchangeably with neutralization, but used to distill the natural oppositions to retain their essence.
Derrida’s differance (translated: to defer) refers to the function of language to denote words in an effort to contextually separate and stratify meaning. Words contain a differance, or opposition, to clarify concepts. This opposition is necessary when delineating a word with language because the word itself never contains the understanding in and of itself. Only recalling different words sharpens its essence and meaning through an interminable chain of signifiers.
In the following paragraph, Derrida introduces the idea of using a double gesture to deconstruct as a means of preserving the order and unity of the method, while overturning these oppositions in a momentary violent hierarchal exchange. Opposition must maintain its essence as violent and subordinating, otherwise its neutralization with simply be produced. Through this violent conflict, no hold is left of the opposition that would otherwise intervene as the opposition reestablishes itself to form a new concept. Derrida points out that this violent, conflictual overturn of the hierarchal concepts is a phase that transcends moments of time or occurrences and exists as a structural element that aids the ‘interminable analysis’ of oppositions as a means of forever reestablishing itself. Remaining in this phase is to remain in the landscape of the deconstructed system. Derrida maintains that the inversions of these biphasic intervals need be marked as indications of transitions from concept to concept. The deconstruction leaves the entire system overturned and unrecognizable as a means of ridding the dissonance and leaving a more ‘unilinear text’, or ‘punctual position’.
Derrida’s last paragraph expounds upon the position—space, gap, interval, distance, difference, disparity—that is left untouched during the reestablishment of new conceptions and oppositions. This position is seldom explored, yet used exhaustively for the reestablishment of context and meaning. The position, or differance, is the phase of dual opposition that occurs when summoning words to describe a concept or word. The space or position is a binary reaction between words that conjures the coalescing of ‘clarity’ or the establishment of a new conception.
In conclusion, Derrida’s Position explores the space created during deconstruction. The seemingly vacuous discourse of differance and opposition are really metaphors detailing the polarizing reactions that occur when words are used to describe themselves. Derrida mentions a third realm of space created when words create this violent gesture of overture. During analyses, we adopt words as substitutes for the genuine essence of the thing we wish to establish. No infinite number of words could be used to describe words. In this way, the meaning of a word is perpetually postponed as more words are employed to reestablish its context. This encapsulates Derrida’s ‘general strategy of deconstruction.’
William Dare 