"Writing is always under erasure." Discuss this statement with reference to the premises of Derridean deconstruction.?"Writing is always under erasure." Discuss this statement with reference to the...
"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.