Introduction
This essay explores how Jacques Derrida’s foundational deconstructive concepts—différance, the supplement, and iterability—offer a robust theoretical framework for interpreting Steve McCaffery’s avant-garde work, Carnival (Panels 1 and 2), as a radical performance of textuality. McCaffery’s experimental text, created in the 1960s and 1970s using a manual typewriter, challenges conventional notions of meaning, linearity, and the primacy of voice through its innovative use of typography and spatial disruption. By destabilising logocentric assumptions, Carnival subverts the hierarchical privileging of speech over writing and semantic coherence over visual and material form. This analysis focuses specifically on the concept of iterability, examining how Carnival’s typographic marks, reproducibility, and contextual reinterpretation embody a performative critique of textual stability. Through this lens, the essay argues that McCaffery’s work enacts a deconstructive undermining of fixed meaning, foregrounding the perpetual deferral and repeatability inherent in textual production. The discussion will thus illuminate how iterability, as a Derridean principle, reveals Carnival as a dynamic site of textual play, where meaning is never fully stabilised but always subject to recontextualisation and reinterpretation.
Iterability and the Performative Text
Jacques Derrida’s concept of iterability, introduced in works such as Signature Event Context, is central to understanding the deconstructive potential of textual production. Iterability refers to the capacity of a sign, mark, or text to be repeated across different contexts while retaining its identity as a sign, yet simultaneously acquiring new meanings or significations with each repetition (Derrida, 1988). Unlike a notion of simple replication, iterability implies that repetition inherently involves difference; a sign detached from its original context cannot guarantee the same meaning or intention. This principle challenges logocentric assumptions that privilege an originary, stable meaning tied to authorial intent or spoken utterance. Instead, iterability posits writing as a performative act, where meaning is continually deferred and reshaped through its capacity to be grafted into new interpretive frameworks. In the context of Steve McCaffery’s Carnival (Panels 1 and 2), iterability provides a lens through which to read the work as a profoundly deconstructive performance of textuality, one that destabilises the linearity and semantic fixity traditionally associated with textual production by foregrounding reproducibility, typographic repetition, and contextual reinterpretation.
One of the most striking aspects of Carnival is its reproducibility, a feature that resonates deeply with Derrida’s notion of iterability. Composed using a manual typewriter between 1967 and 1975, McCaffery’s work exists not as a singular, fixed text but as a series of visual and textual experiments that have been exhibited, printed, and circulated in various formats over time (McCaffery, 1973). The manual typewriter marks—overstrikes, layered characters, and irregular spacings—are not merely unique artifacts of a singular creative act but are inherently repeatable. Each impression of a key, while tied to the mechanical specificity of the typewriter, can be re-enacted in different contexts, whether through retyping, photocopying, or digital reproduction for exhibitions and publications. This reproducibility underscores the iterable nature of Carnival; the text is not anchored to a definitive original but exists as a series of iterations, each bearing traces of the same typographic gestures yet altered by the conditions of their production and reception. As Derrida argues, iterability disrupts the notion of a pure origin, since every repetition introduces a break from the initial context, rendering the text open to new significations (Derrida, 1988). In Carnival, this manifests as a refusal of textual closure; the work’s repeated marks and reproduced forms resist being tethered to a singular, authoritative meaning, instead inviting viewers and readers to engage with its material and visual elements anew each time.
Furthermore, the individual typographic marks in Carnival exemplify iterability through their repeatability across contexts. McCaffery’s use of the typewriter as a tool for creating dense, overlapping clusters of letters and symbols—often rendering traditional linguistic coherence illegible—transforms the printed character into a visual and material entity rather than a transparent conveyor of meaning. Each typographic mark, such as an overstruck ‘x’ or a misaligned ‘o,’ functions as a sign that can be repeated, yet its significance shifts depending on its spatial placement, density, or interaction with surrounding marks. This aligns with Derrida’s assertion that iterability entails a “structural possibility” for a sign to be cited or reiterated outside its initial context, thereby breaking with any fixed relationship to an intended meaning (Derrida, 1988, p. 7). In Carnival, a single typographic impression might evoke a sense of rhythmic repetition in one panel, while in another, it could signify disruption or noise when viewed in relation to other marks or spatial arrangements. This variability undermines the logocentric privileging of voice and semantic linearity, as the work prioritises the visual and performative over the linguistic and referential. Indeed, McCaffery’s typographic experiments challenge the assumption that writing must serve as a secondary representation of speech, instead asserting writing’s autonomy as a material and iterable act that resists semantic stabilisation.
Moreover, Carnival as a whole can be understood as an iterable text, one that is always subject to reinterpretation and never fully stabilised. Exhibited in galleries, published in anthologies, and discussed in academic contexts, the work’s meaning is perpetually reframed by the circumstances of its reception. For instance, when viewed in a gallery setting, the panels of Carnival might be read as visual art, with emphasis on their spatial and typographic composition, whereas in a printed anthology, they might be interpreted more closely as literary experiments (Rasula and McCaffery, 1998). This multiplicity of contexts illustrates Derrida’s point that iterability inherently involves a “risk” of misreading or reinterpretation, as the text cannot control how it is received once it is detached from its origin (Derrida, 1988, p. 10). In this sense, Carnival enacts a deconstructive performance of textuality; it does not seek to convey a singular, transparent message but instead foregrounds its own instability and openness to difference. Each encounter with the text—whether by a reader, viewer, or critic—reiterates its marks and forms in a new interpretive framework, ensuring that meaning remains fluid and contingent. Arguably, this mirrors Derrida’s broader critique of logocentrism, where the supposed primacy of speech as a direct expression of presence is undermined by writing’s capacity to operate independently of an originating voice or intent.
The performative dimension of Carnival further amplifies its iterable nature. McCaffery’s text is not merely a static object but a dynamic act of textual production that invites active engagement from its audience. The spatial disruptions and typographic excesses demand that readers or viewers participate in the construction of meaning, piecing together fragmented impressions or interpreting visual patterns in the absence of linear narrative. This performativity aligns with Derrida’s view that writing is always already a performance, a repetition of signs that enacts rather than merely represents (Derrida, 1988). In Carnival, the act of reiterating typographic marks through exhibition or print becomes a performance of textuality itself, one that destabilises the notion of a fixed, originary text. Instead, the work exists as a series of iterable events, each repetition contributing to a broader critique of semantic linearity and logocentric privilege. Therefore, Carnival does not simply challenge traditional reading practices; it redefines the text as a site of perpetual becoming, where meaning is never finalised but continually deferred through its repeatable and reinterpretable forms.
It is also worth noting that while iterability in Carnival offers a powerful critique of textual stability, it does not entirely escape the constraints of material production. The manual typewriter, for instance, imposes certain limitations on how marks can be repeated, tied as it is to the physicality of ink and paper. Yet, even within these constraints, McCaffery exploits the potential for iteration, using mechanical repetition to create visual density and disruption. This tension between material specificity and iterable possibility reflects Derrida’s observation that writing always bears traces of its context, even as it breaks free from it through repetition (Derrida, 1988). Thus, Carnival navigates a complex interplay between fixity and fluidity, embodying iterability as both a theoretical principle and a practical reality of textual performance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jacques Derrida’s concept of iterability provides a compelling theoretical framework for reading Steve McCaffery’s Carnival (Panels 1 and 2) as a deconstructive performance of textuality. Through its reproducibility, typographic repetition, and openness to contextual reinterpretation, Carnival exemplifies the iterable nature of signs, challenging logocentric assumptions that privilege voice and semantic linearity. The work’s manual typewriter marks, repeated across various formats and exhibitions, resist stabilisation, ensuring that meaning remains fluid and contingent upon each encounter. Furthermore, Carnival’s performative dimension—its invitation to active engagement and its refusal of closure—underscores its status as an iterable text, one that continually enacts a critique of textual authority. The implications of this analysis extend beyond McCaffery’s work, suggesting that iterability as a principle can illuminate broader questions about the nature of writing and meaning in experimental literature and visual art. While this discussion has focused on iterability, a fuller exploration of différance and the supplement would likely reveal additional layers of deconstructive potential in Carnival, further affirming its role as a radical intervention in the field of textuality.
References
- Derrida, J. (1988) Limited Inc. Northwestern University Press.
- McCaffery, S. (1973) Carnival: The First Panel, 1967-70. Coach House Press.
- Rasula, J. and McCaffery, S. (eds.) (1998) Imagining Language: An Anthology. MIT Press.
