"Writing is always under erasure." Discuss this statement with reference to the premises of Derridean deconstruction.?
I like the implications presented by the original question and the previous post. The idea that Derrida might be driving at is that language is imprecise, like sticking a hand in a pot of honey and coming out with the viscous substance that lacks any definition. Anything that is stated, written, and conceived rarely remains intact as it is akin to a blackboard constantly erased and modified different forms.
Derridean deconstructionism is opposed to logocentric approach. Words don't have meanings as such; whenever we look for a meaning, we only get another word, and thus meaning gets continually deferred. Language is far from a tool having any predictable certainty, and every effort to read a text so as to reach a given/fixed meaning must end in futility for the process of reading is essentially a process of deconstruction. Writing is therefore an act of unending deference, the signification of which is perpetually uncertain as perpetually postponed.