I would agree with Alan that deconstruction is not easily reducible.
In my posts on Derrida my main interest was in showing that Deleuze's
concept of Difference is really quite different from Derrida's difference
or differance. I also wanted to point out what I thought to be no small
problem at the crux of Derrida's early work; that being that Derrida
himself repeatedly pointed out that communication does not exist, but then
proceeded to offer his theory of differance as a theory of communication
trapped in the trace, inthe place of presence/absence. I think D&G avoid
this aporia by doing away with traces and communication. If subjectivity
is an effect, then it should not be difficult to give up the idea that
signs communicate. I know that Derrida says that the signifying operatin
"creates" subjectivity. But this is why i gave a very general desription
of the differences between D&G and Derrida on subjectivity. Futhermore,
I wanted to drive home that D&G are quite distinct from poststructuralism
in general. Nomadology cannot be coherently discussed with what most
call poststructuralism. The differences are tremendous. People hear that
Deleuze works with the concept Difference and think that he is doing
some kind of Saussuro-Derridean thing. Those who have bothered to read
Deleuze and Guattari know this is not the case. But most are lookig for
a quick way to categorize, are more familiar with Saussurian difference,
which is actually Hegelian, and quickly put D&G with Derrida. My fellow
grad students think that D&G are Derridean wild men.
Does anyone think I have terribly elided Derrida?
chris dacus
------------------