Limits on Interpretation

Jacques Derrida goes to great lengths in Differance to establish a way to interpret and give signification to words, concepts, and signs. At the core of all these elements is a meaning, a small nugget of thought that one individual is trying to give to another. Derrida puts forth the system of comparisons, finding the middle ground between two displaced concepts in order to convey a meaning. In his piece, he explains the consequences of comparison; the first he illustrates saying, "Differance can no longer be understood according to the concept of "sign," which has always been taken to mean the representation of a presence and has been constituted in a system (of thought and language) determined on the basis of and in view of presence"(171-172). This is to say that we cannot determine meaning at face value, but we rather extract the meaning of one thing in relation to another.

From the idea of separation from originality, Derrida introduces an interesting idea that the limitations of interpretation are found in the interpreters themselves. He explains this writing, "In this way we question the authority of presence or its simple symmetrical contrary, absence or lack. We thus interrogate the limit that has always constrained us, that always constrains us - we who inhabit a language and system of thought"(172). This presents a paradox in that we are both the agents of separation and the agency of separation, an interesting though that goes back to Unit One. By interpreters taking on the role of corrupting agent and agency, I mean that we function to separate the original meaning from the source and represent the separation of understanding, as we are never completely fully capable of getting the true meaning of a concept. All knowledge is distorted by time and space, and Derrida uses this problem as a way to find a common ground of unclear notions.