Publication Details

Abstract

The paper questions the possibility of keeping the legal conception of signature as a constant and repeatable style of handwriting. By comparing double  Derrida’s and Deleuze’s  ontological semiotics, the author observes that while both thinkers agree that no writer is able to reach identity by repeating his/her traces, they disagree on the reason of this claim. In Derrida, signature is just an aporetical request of the law: in order to confirm our civil identity, we are obliged to repeat manually a trace that can’t be repeated manually. In Deleuze, repetition doesn’t produce identity, but difference: in every signing, the writer is becoming a signature. His/her handwriting is every time shaped by a singular affect, which alternates his/her previous traces. Contrary to Derrida, Deleuze admits a consistence of the author’s style, which is a sign of his continuous affective becoming, becoming-a-name, becoming-a-line.