Jacques Derrida Visits Cicely
47
words. Derrida took the linguistic concept a step further, pointing to the fact that
signifiers never signify a “signified,” an objective reality. Rather, they refer only
to other signifiers, so meaning merely shifts along a web of language; it never
directly signifies a “transcendental signified” (an objective reality not subject to
the slipperiness of language). There is never any place at which the deferral of
meaning stops, nor is there any uncontested authority regarding meaning.
A number of critical theories appropriated this concept and took it a
step further by applying the signifying capability of difference to ideologies and
the value systems that support them. Differences that “signify,” i.e., distinguish
the valued fi*om the not-valued and the superior fi-om the inferior, are not rooted
in objective reality but in an ideology that valorizes these differences by
equating difference with superiority—racial superiority, political superiority,
economic superiority, spiritual superiority, intellectual superiority, and so on.
Put another way, these differences structure a society’s value system and
legitimate the ideology that apportions social power and privilege at the expense
of people and ideas that are devalued by being judged inferior. To deconstruct a
society’s value system is to expose the perceived differences that structure it to
be socially constructed linchpins holding the power and privilege of a dominant
group in place at the expense of “the other.” In the face of such a demonstration,
holding on to power, privilege, and a sense of superiority becomes, at the very
least, selfish.
This concept poses no direct threat to American society: few encounter
modem critical theory in the raw outside the college classroom. But the public is
forced to confront a critique of American society based on these concepts
indirectly through cultural discourses. Modem critical theory’s understanding of
the role socially constmcted difference plays in the maintenance of privilege and
power and the disenfi^chising of minorities has been appropriated by a variety
of advocates who wish to “deconstmct” supposedly significant differences and
reveal their functioning in the marginalization and disenfranchisement of
minorities and ideas hostile to dominant groups. Proponents of women’s rights,
for example, attack gender discrimination based on biological sex differences by
arguing that the differences validating discriminatory attitudes and practices are
insignificant in modem society and that it is the supposed significance of these
differences that is holding male power in place. By the same token, supposedly
significant racial and ethnic differences underpin disafiirmation against minority
groups. Advocates for racial and ethnic equality make the same argument, that
the racial differences which legitimate discriminatory practices are also
insignificant and serve only to maintain white power. More recently gay
advocates have taken up the same line of reasoning and argue that sexual
orientation is not so significant a difference that it warrants depriving
homosexuals of benefits commonly available to other citizens.
While it is unlikely that many viewers of a quality series such as
Northern Exposure would support discriminatory practices based on