ABSTRACT
Derrida himself has warned us that it is a mistake to confuse what he says about différance with some kind of negative theology-in particular with that of Meister Eckhart whom he mentions by name. I begin by endorsing and underlining that point which I take to be but the beginning, not the end, of the question about deconstruction and negative theology. I set out from there to defend what I call (borrowing an expression from Kierkegaard) the ‘armed neutrality’ of différance. Neutrality: it does not imply or exclude the existence or non-existence of any entity (it is ontically neutral). Armed: it is not particularly hospitable to existence claims but holds them all suspect. Because it is not a substantive position on its own but rather a parasitic practice, deconstruction has no ontological commitments. Thus while it would be comical to find a negative theology in deconstruction, it would not be at all surprising to find deconstruction in negative theology-as a practice, as a strategy, as a way that negative theologians have found to hold the claims of cataphatic theology at bay.
