Derrida and the modern political act

Bernard Harrison, Inconvenient Fictions: Loteratuew and the Limits of Theory (Yale University Press), 1991

Derrida has been taken by many literary scholars to defend a version of meaning-scepticism according to which, inter alia, no text can either be assigned a definite meaning, or, though it may refer to other texts, refer to entering extra-textual. This paper argues that these claims are in fact incompatible with arguments central to Derrida''s position. Derrida defends an "active" style of reading, but "active" in this context does not mean "subjective". It implies, rather, the projection, via a public "organon of iteration" of the structures and polarities of the text into new contexts.

Philosophy in Review, 2013

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1990

In "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" (1978), Derrida distinguishes between two types of interpretation, one which seeks the origin of meaning and truth outside the play of signs in which such values must be expressed or indicated, and another that eschews origins, affirms the play of signs, and strives only to effect the passage from one signifier to another without end.' To the degree that these two types of interpretations concern themselves with dislodging an ideology or a political order, they contain specific views of the relation between language and political agency. In the type of interpretation that seeks origins, language is usually depicted as a tool through which political agents (individuals or classes) can express what they mean, pronounce the truth, and fulfill their destiny. In the second type of interpretation, the self and meaning are so many effects of the play of signs, so that agency is more properly attributed to language than to persons. Derrida particularly associates this type of interpretation with "Nietzschean affirmation, that is, the joyous affirmation of the play of the world and of the innocence of becoming, the affirmation of a world of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin, which is offered to an active interpretation" (1978, p. 292). As Derrida has indicated in numerous articles, his own aim is to "deconstruct" the first type of interpretation, that is, to overturn ("to bring low what was once high," 1981, p. 42) the dominance of the Western metaphysical tradition, of "phonocentricism," "logocentricism," and "phallocentricism." The first phase of this deconstruction consists in showing that any origin or teleological end is inseparable from the play of signs, from textuality, and that it is therefore not Fred Evans received his Ph.D.

Histories of Postmodernism ed M. Bevir, J. Hargis and S. Rushing, 2007

Opinion remains divided over the value of Derrida's contribution to political philosophy. Does his work provide important challenges to established ways of thinking about politics or does it amount to no more than hyper-critical posturing that adds nothing to political thought? In part, the difficulty of answering this question may be attributed to local differences in the vocabulary, style and concerns of political philosophy. In Derrida's case, the difficulty is exacerbated by his apparent reluctance to engage with political philosophy during the early part of his career. My aim in this chapter is, first, to replace Derrida's thought in its context of origin and to suggest how the transition from avoidance to engagement with political concepts might be understood in relation to developments in French thought during this period. Second, I will outline the different kinds of conceptual analysis undertaken during the period of so-called "affirmative deconstruc-tion " since the mid-1980s, in order to clarify the nature of his engagement with political philosophy and specifically his analyses of democracy and " democracy to come. " Finally, I will argue that there is more common ground than is often realized between his deconstructive analyses of democracy and some tendencies within contemporary liberal political thought. I conclude that both deconstructive and liberal normative approaches to political philosophy would benefit from further constructive engagement.

Essays in Philosophy, 2004

Derrida Today, 2008

This article analyses some of the shifts in tone and argumentation in Derrida's work by comparing the treatment of the topics of theatre and theatrical representation in his early writing on literary and philosophical texts with the conception of a politically committed 'ethics' in his late work. The topic of theatrical representation is particularly useful for a critical assessment of Derrida's later ethics because it allows us to give careful consideration to his position on different types of, and contexts for, involvement. I argue that some of the important differences in tone and argumentation in Derrida's work arise not just because of the different exigencies that distinguish readings of literary/philosophical texts from analyses of political circumstances and events. There is also a shift in his work from attempting to account for the aporetic economy that supports positions held and defended to the terms of his advocacy for ethical commitment. In the case of his early writing the emphasis falls on accounting for meaning in terms of a typology of conversion effects; positive values are aporetically joined with negative ones. In his later work aporias do not present occasions for examining conditions of meaning. Rather, they become compelling imperatives to act. Despite the differences between these perspectives they both articulate an important role for aesthetic experience in meaning. I conclude by considering the consequences that such a position on meaning imposes on Derrida's use of the vocabulary of injunctions and imperatives to 'compel' a response.

Contemporary Pragmatism, 2009

This article considers the legacies of Jacques Derrida in and for Anglo-American sociocultural anthropology. It begins with a survey of Derrida's own engagement with themes that have historically been foundational to the field: (a) the critique of sign theory and, with it, the questions of language and law in Lévi-Straussian structuralism; (b) the question of the unconscious; (c) the critique of the performative and its consequences for the idea of ritual; (d ) the rereading of Marcel Mauss's concept of the gift, and of economy more generally; and (e) the analysis of the metaphysical basis of law, in both religious and ostensibly secular formations. It then considers the state of the field at the time when it was being infused with different forms of poststructuralism and explores the competing claims made by these discourses in relation to deconstruction. Finally, after tracing the convergences and divergences between Derridean deconstruction and theory in sociocultural anthropology, it treats two main examples of works produced against and under the influence of Derrida's thought, respectively.

Semiotica, 2007

This article attempts to clarify Derrida's notion of écriture and to show, through a close reading of three lectures on literary figures (Valéry, Ponge, Joyce), how he puts theory into practice.