Discourse Theory and Deconstruction
2006 Discourse Theory Summer School: Week 2 - *CANCELLED*
| Course Description | Details |
| Presenter Profile | - Date |
| Readings | - Time |
| Prerequisites | - Venue |
| Course Overview | - Fee |
Course Description
This course introduces deconstruction as a method in textual and political analysis. The course introduces the philosophical assumptions behind deconstruction and gives the participants the tools to carry out deconstructive analyses themselves.
During the course, we read and discuss central texts by Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and others in order not only to see what deconstruction involves as a method when applied to the study of politics, but also to discuss the role and place of method in political analysis. With this aim in mind we study different concrete uses of the deconstructive method. These include Derrida’s own use of deconstruction in relation to political issues as well as the use of deconstruction within discourse theory and political theory by, among others, Aletta Norval, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, and Judith Butler. Finally, we look at and discuss the potential political and ethical implications of deconstruction in relation to democracy, tolerance and terrorism.
The course is organised around ten seminars of two hours each. The seminars will consist of a combination of lectures, class discussions, and presentations of participants’ own projects. Participants are encouraged to present and discuss their own work.
The main aim of the course is to give the participants the initial tools to use deconstruction as a method for social and political analysis. At the end of the course, the participants will have knowledge of the philosophical assumptions behind deconstruction, the implications of deconstruction for questions surrounding the use of methods in the social sciences and humanities, the politics of deconstruction, and the use of deconstruction for concrete political analysis.
Presenter Profile
Dr Lasse Thomassen
Lecturer, University of Limerick, Ireland
Lasse Thomassen is Lecturer in the Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick. He previously taught discourse theory at the University of Essex. He is the editor of The Derrida-Habermas Reader (Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming 2006) and, with Lars Tønder, Radical democracy: politics between abundance and lack (Manchester University Press, forthcoming 2005). He is currently working on a research monograph - Deconstructing Habermas - to be published with Routledge.
Course convenor: Peter Kitchenman 0064 4 463 9488, peter.kitchenman@vuw.ac.nz
Readings
While there is no single course book for the course, participants are encouraged to familiarise themselves with some of the following texts, which provide useful introductions to deconstruction and the work of Derrida:
Beardsworth, R. (1996). Derrida and the Political. London: Routledge.
Borradori, G. (2003). Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Collins, J. and Mayblin, B. (2000). Introducing Derrida. Duxford: Icon Books.
Derrida, J. (2002). Positions, 2nd edition. London: Continuum.
Gasché, R. (1986). The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lucy, N. (2004). A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rorty, R. (1995). ‘Deconstruction’ in Raman Selden (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Volume 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 166-196.
A good Derrida bibliography: http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/jdind.html
Course Reader: A book of the readings will be provided to all participants approximately two months before the course begins.
Prerequisites
Although no indepth knowledge of deconstruction or any particular work is needed as a prerequisite to the course, some general background knowledge of post-structuralist theory, discourse theory and philosophy of science as well as an interest in theoretical questions is an advantage and will be assumed. It is not necessary to have done the Introduction to Discourse Theory course before enrolling in this course. The course teacher will assume the participants have read the essential readings for each sessions.
Details
Date
Monday 27 November to Friday 1 December 2006
Time
Monday 10am – 12.45pm, 1.45pm – 4pm
Tuesday to Friday 9am – 11.15am, 12.15pm – 2.30pm
Venue
MY682, Murphy Building, Level 6, Room 682
Kelburn Campus
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington
New Zealand
Fee
Private or Government sectors: NZ$894.38 incl GST (12.5%)
Academic and NGO sectors: NZ$444.38 incl GST (12.5%)
Supported and International Students: NZ$281.25 incl GST (12.5%)
Unsupported student: NZ$150 incl GST (12.5%)
Course Overview
Day 1
1. Iterability
2. Deconstruction as/of Method
Day 2
3. Identity/difference
4. Deconstruction at work: Two examples
Day 3
5.
Cosmopolitanism and Globalisation
6. Deconstructing Constitutionalism and Democracy
Day 4
7: Deconstruction, Tolerance and Hospitality
8. Ethics, Undecidability and Democracy to-Come
Day 5
9. The ‘Paul de Man Affair’
10. Deconstruction in Context: Derrida vs. Habermas
Detailed Course Outline
(This may change slightly before publication of course readings)
The first seminar focuses on Derrida’s notion of iterability, which Rodolph Gasché refers to as one of Derrida’s ‘infra-structures’. Iterability puts into question traditional conceptions of identity and originality. We start by looking at an example of the use – by Judith Butler – which this notion of iterability has been put to. In addition, we look at Derrida’s thoughts on ‘the event’, which can also be read in terms of iterability. We then proceed to examine the implications of iterability for thinking about what deconstruction means.
Questions
1. Is it possible to argue over the interpretation of the meaning of a text after iterability? Is any reading equally valid? How do you determine the relative validity of a particular reading?
2. What is the point of a close study of context?
3. To what extent are we limited by the vocabularies that are handed down to us by our particular place in history?
4. Regarding the event: are representations all we have? Do those representations require something ‘out there’ which they represent?
Readings
Derrida, J. (2003). ‘Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides—A Dialogue with
Jacques Derrida,’ in Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy In a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 85-136, at pp. 85-92.
Lucy, N. (2004). A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell. (entries on event and iterability).
Butler, J. (1995). ‘For a Careful Reading’, in S. Benhabib et al., Feminist Contentions: A
Philosophical Exchange. London: Routledge. pp. 127-143.
Further Readings
Gasché, R. (1986). The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 212-17.
Derrida, J. (1982). ‘Signature, event, context’, Glyph 1 (1977): 172-197. Also in Derrida, J., Margins of Philosophy, trans A. Bass. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 307-330; and in Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc, edited by S. Weber. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
2. Deconstruction as/of Method
In this seminar, we look at and assess some of the common misunderstandings of deconstruction in general and of Derrida’s work in particular. In addition, we look at the basic parameters of deconstruction conceived as a way of reading texts and study politics, including Derrida’s view of the status of deconstructive readings. We will assess different ideas of what deconstruction is. Finally, this seminar gives us the opportunity to reflect on the status of deconstruction as a method in light of Derrida’s assertion that ‘deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one’.
Questions
1. Is it possible to teach deconstruction? Is it possible to learn deconstruction?
2. What are the potential limitations for using deconstruction for social and political analysis?
3. What does the deconstruction as/of method mean for the way one researches and writes, for instance, a PhD-thesis?
Readings
Richard Rorty, ‘Deconstruction’ in Raman Selden (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Volume 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 166-196.
Derrida, J., ‘Letter to a Japanese Friend,’ trans. D. Wood and A. Benjamin, in D.
Wood and R. Bernasconi (eds.), Derrida and Différance. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1988, pp. 1-5.
Lucy, N., A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004 (entry on deconstruction).
Ernesto Laclau, ‘Intellectual strategies’, University of Essex, mimeo, (1991), 4 pages.
Further Readings
Gasché, R., The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986, chapter 8.
Derrida, J., ‘Positions,’ in Derrida, J., Positions, 2nd edition. London: Continuum,
2002.
Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida, Jacques Derrida, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 267-284.
Gasché, R., Inventions of Difference: On Jacques Derrida. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1994, chapter 1.
Rorty, R. ‘Is Derrida a Transcendental Philosopher?’ in David Wood (ed.), Derrida: A
Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 235-246.
Irene E. Harvey, ‘Derrida and the Issues of Exemplarity’, in David Wood (ed.), Derrida: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 193-217.
As we saw in the first seminar, deconstruction has been used, and not only by Derrida, to deconstruct the way in which identity is constituted. According to the deconstructive view, identity is inessential, inherently unstable, constituted though relations of difference and exclusion. Henry Staten’s notion of ‘constitutive outside’, which has been used by Laclau and Mouffe and others, is an attempt to grasp this idea, and we consider it briefly. In addition, we examine the deconstructive argument and the use of it by Derrida in The Other Heading on the identity of Europe, and we consider the potential political implications by looking at Aletta Norval’s critique of Homi Bhabha’s notion of ‘hybridity’. Finally, in the course of looking at Derrida’s piece on Europe, which is also a deconstruction of Europe as an example, we consider a methodological issue, namely the use of examples.
Questions
1. Would Derrida disagree with anything in relation to Europe in the piece co-signed with Habermas (‘15 February’)? What?
2. Does the deconstructive argument about identity necessarily lead to a progressive politics?
3. What are the dangers and advantages of using examples and case studies?
Readings
Lucy, N. (2004). A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell. (entries on différance and
identity).
Derrida, J. (1992). ‘The Other Heading,’ in J. Derrida, The Other Heading: Reflections on
Today’s Europe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 1-83, at pp. 1-41, 70-83
Norval, A. (1999). ‘Hybridization: The Im/Purity of the Political’, in J. Edkins, N. Persram,
and V. Pin-Fat (eds), Sovereignty and Subjectivity. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. pp. 99-114.
Further Readings
Henry Staten, Wittgenstein and Derrida (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), pp. 16-19, 24.
Derrida, J., ‘Différance,’ in Derrida, J., Margins of Philosophy, trans. A. Bass.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982, chapter 1. Also in Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and Phenomena, trans.
D. Allison. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Derrida, J. and Habermas, J. (2003). ‘February 15, or What Binds Europeans
Together: A plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Heart of Europe,’ Constellations 10. 291-97.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. chapter 6.
Campbell, D. (1998). National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. chapters 1-3.
Harvey, Irene E. (1992). ‘Derrida and the Issues of Exemplarity’, in David Wood (ed.), Derrida: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 193-217.
Michael B. Naas, ‘Introduction: For Example’, in Derrida, The Other Heading, pp. vii-lix.
4. Deconstruction at work: Two Examples
In this seminar, we examine two examples of the use of deconstruction in relation to identity. The first is Aletta Norval’s use of deconstruction in the context of South Africa and apartheid discourse. This serves two purposes. First, to introduce another example of the use of deconstruction in concrete political analysis and to discuss the potential problems involved herein. In this regard, we continue the discussion about the constitution of social identities. Secondly, to introduce the Derridean notion of undecidability. The second example is Vicki Squire’s analysis of British New Labour’s discourse on British nationhood and immigration.
Questions
1. Is it possible to move beyond a logic of identity?
2. What is the relationship between the deconstruction of identities and the hegemonic formation of identities? What is the relationship between undecidability and identity?
Readings
Norval, A., ‘Social Ambiguity and the crisis of apartheid,’ in E. Laclau (ed.), The
Making of Political Identities. London: Verso, 1994, chapter 5.
Squire, V. (2005). ‘“Integration with diversity in modern Britain”: New Labour on nationality, immigration and asylum’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 10:1. 51-74
Norval, A. (2004). ‘Hegemony after deconstruction: the consequences of undecidability’,
Journal of Political Ideologies 9:2. 139-57. (This is also a reading for seminar 8.)
Further Readings
Lucy, N. (2004). A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell. (entries on différance and
undecidability).
Norval, A. (1995). ‘Decolonization, demonization and difference: the difficult constitution of
a nation’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 21:3. 31-51.
Norval, A. (1996). Deconstructing Apartheid Discourse. London: Verso. Introduction
and Conclusion.
Norval, A. (1990). ‘Letter to Ernesto,’ in E. Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of
Our Time. London: Verso. pp 135-157.
5. Cosmopolitanism and Globalisation
Cosmopolitanism was a central theme of Derrida’s work during the last ten years of his life. While starting from Kant’s writings on cosmopolitanism, Derrida is nonetheless critical of Kant and contemporary accounts of cosmopolitanism and globalisation. In this seminar, we examine and evaluate Derrida’s position, and we look at Sophia Näsström’s deconstructive reading of discourses of globalisation and cosmopolitanism.
Questions
1. Is Derrida’s use of ‘mondialisation’, as opposed to simply ‘globalisation’, convincing?
2. Is Näsström’s analogy between nation/democracy and globalisation/cosmopolitan democracy convincing?
3. What is Näsström’s definition of globalisation? Does she need to come up with one?
4. Would there be no Other in a cosmopolitan democracy?
Readings
Derrida, J., ‘On Cosmopolitanism,’ trans. Mark Dooley, in On Cosmopolitanism and
Forgiveness (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 1-24 (Part One).
Näsström, S. (2003) ‘What Globalization Overshadows’, Political Theory 31 (6):
808-34.
Further Readings
Derrida, J. (2002). ‘Globalization, Peace, and Cosmopolitanism,’ in Negotiations:
Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001, edited and translated by Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 371-86.
Derrida, J., ‘For a Justice to Come,’ The Brussells Tribunal, available at
www.brusselstribunal.org
Derrida, J. (2003). ‘Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides—A Dialogue with
Jacques Derrida,’ in Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy In a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 130-32.
Derrida, J. (2005). Rogues. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, trans.
Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press. chapter 7.
6. Deconstructing Constitutionalism and Democracy
This seminar takes up points raised by Näsström in the reading for the previous seminar. Looking at the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy, we have a chance to see the infra-structure of iterability at work in a deconstruction of this relationship. Furthermore, in this seminar, we will see how different approaches to the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy – first of all Derridean deconstruction and Habermasian rational reconstruction – lead theorists to different conclusions. This serves as a starting point for a discussion of a deconstructive political theory.
Questions
1. Is Honig’s position ‘deconstructive’? ‘Derridean’?
2. Does Derrida’s deconstruction of the Declaration of Independence tell us anything about democracy and law in general? Does it tell us anything about the way in which democracy works on an everyday level?
3. Does deconstruction explain anything by pointing to undecidabilities, iterabilities and aporias?
Readings
Derrida, J. (2002). ‘Declarations of Independence’, in J. Derrida, Negotiations: Interventions
and Interviews, 1971-2001, ed. E. Rottenberg, trans. T. Keenan and T. Pepper. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Honig, B. (1991). ‘Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida On the Problem of
Founding a Republic’, American Political Science Review, 85. 97-113. (Revised version in Honig, B. (1993). Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, chapter 4.)
Further Readings
Honig, B. (2001). ‘Dead Rights, Live Futures: A Reply to Habermas’s “Constitutional
Democracy,”’ Political Theory 29. 792-805.
Habermas, J. (2001). ‘Constitutional Democracy,’ Political Theory 29. 766-81.
Benhabib, S. (1994) ‘Democracy and Difference: Reflections on the Metapolitics of
Lyotard and Derrida’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 2 (1): 1-23. Also in Norris, C. and Roden, D. (2003). (eds), Jacques Derrida. Volume IV (London: Sage, ), pp. 209-33.
Horwitz, N. (2002). ‘Derrida and the Aporia of the Political, or The Theologico-
Political Dimension of Deconstruction’, Research in Phenomenology 32: 156- 76.
Keenan A. (2003). Democracy in Question: Democratic Openness in a Time of Political
Closure. Stanford: Stanford University Press. chapter on ‘Promises’.
Mouffe, C., The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso, 2000, chapter 2
Näsström, S. (2003). ‘What Globalization Overshadows’, Political Theory 31 (6): 808-
34.
7. Deconstruction, Tolerance and Hospitality
Tolerance is increasingly important in today’s multicultural societies. In this seminar we look at Derrida’s deconstruction of the concept of tolerance (or hospitality). Derrida finds an aporia at the heart of discourses on and practices of tolerance, an aporia that means that tolerance and hospitality are always linked to the exercise of sovereignty and, hence, exclusion.
Questions
1. Is the deconstruction of tolerance also the destruction of tolerance? That is, is there anything left of tolerance after we have deconstructed it? If yes, what?
2. I will raise the question of the choice of sources/texts to deconstruct – see, for instance, Of Hospitality, pp. 83, 139. How do you start deconstructing hospitality/tolerance?
3. Is hospitality better than tolerance?
Readings
Derrida, J. (2003). ‘Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides—A Dialogue with
Jacques Derrida,’ in Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy In a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 126-30.
Derrida, J. (2000). ‘Hostipitality,’ trans. Barry Stocker and Forbes Morlock, Angelaki
5:3. 3-18.
Further Readings
Derrida, J. (2000). Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to
Respond, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 75-155 (‘Step of Hospitality/No Hospitality’).
Derrida, J. (2001). ‘On Cosmopolitanism,’ trans. Mark Dooley, in On Cosmopolitanism
and Forgiveness. London: Routledge. pp. 1-24 (Part One).
Fish, S. (1997). ‘Mission Impossible Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State’, Columbia Law Review 97. 2255-2333.
Naas, M. (2003). ‘Hospitality as an Open Question: Deconstruction’s Welcome Politics’, in Taking on the Tradition: Jacques Derrida and the Legacies of Deconstruction. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 154-69.
Laclau, E. (1996). ‘Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony,’ in Chantal Mouffe (ed.),
Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London: Verso.pp. 50-2.
Habermas, J. (2004). ‘Religious Tolerance—The Pacemaker for Cultural Rights,’
Philosophy 79. pp. 5-18.
8. Ethics, Undecidability and Democracy to-Come
This seminar takes up the notion of undecidability first encountered in seminar 4. At the same time it further explores some of the political implications of deconstruction. We look at the way Derrida and others have linked together deconstruction, undecidability, an ethics of responsibility toward the Other, and Derrida’s notion of democracy to-come (democratie á-venir). Having established some of the potential problems with such a link, we discuss the merits of Derrida’s notions of responsibility toward the Other and democracy to-come. Part of the seminar will be devoted to a discussion of Laclau’s use of deconstruction and undecidability.
Questions
1. Is there a link between undecidability, responsibility and democracy to-come? If yes, what is the nature of that link?
2. Can we say that Laclau has misappropriated Derrida? What would it presuppose to speak of ‘misappropriation’ in this case?
3. What is the specificity of ‘democracy to-come’? (How) can it be distinguished from ‘democracy’? Does the ‘to-come’ of ‘democracy to-come’ make any difference?
Readings
Fritsch, M., ‘Derrida’s democracy to come,’ Constellations 9 (2002): 574-597.
Norval, A., ‘Hegemony after deconstruction: the conseqeunces of undecidability’,
Journal of Political Ideologies 9:2 (2004): 139-57.
Further Readings
Laclau, E., ‘Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony’ in C. Mouffe (ed.),
Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London: Verso, 1996, pp. 47-60.
Derrida, J., ‘The deconstruction of actuality. An interview with Jacques Derrida,’
Radical Philosophy 68 (1994): 28-41.
Derrida, J., Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, & the
New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf. London: Routledge, 1994. Shorter version in Derrida, J., ‘Spectres of Marx,’ New left Review 205 (1994).
Critchley, S., Review essay on Specters of Marx, in Philosophy & Social Criticism
21:3 (1995).
Derrida, Jacques. ‘Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority.”’ Trans. Mary Quaintance. In Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. Edited by Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray
Carlson, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 3-67, especially pp. 3-29 (part I).
Dronsfield, J. and Midgley, N., (eds), Responsibilities of Deconstruction (PLI,
Warwick Journal of Philosophy). University of Warwick, 1997.
Paul Patton, ‘Politics’, in Reynolds, J. and Roffe, J. (eds.), Understanding Derrida (London: Continuum, 2004), pp. 26-36.
Campbell, D., National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), Preface, chapters 1-3.
Lucy, N., A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004 (entries on democracy,
responsibility and undecidability).
In this seminar, we look at the so-called ‘Paul de Man Affair’, which refers to the discovery of articles written in Belgium during the first years of the Second World War by Paul de Man who later became a leading proponent of the so-called Yale School of deconstructive criticism. At stake are questions such as: what is the relationship between deconstruction as a method and political judgements? Is it possible to talk about ethics and politics in relation to deconstruction, and, if so, what kind of ethics and politics can we expect from deconstructivists? Are deconstructivists irresponsible? What are the conditions of possibility – and limits – of responsibility and of making judgements?
Questions
1. Does Derrida try to defend Paul de Man (and himself and deconstruction)? That is, does Derrida assume what he is also trying to resist, namely that Paul de Man and deconstruction are on trial?
2. In various places, Derrida has talked about a ‘strategic silence’ on his part in relation to Marxism in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The idea was that he didn’t want to play into the hand of conservative critics of Marxism and progressive politics, so he kept silent. Is it responsible to keep silent? Are there times when a debate is so biased that it’s better to stay out of it than to try to influence it? And, in relation to the de Man affair, would Derrida have been better off keeping quiet (cf. also ‘Biodegradables’)?
3. If there is only responsibility when there is a decision and undecidability, is it ever possible to arrive at a judgement ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? Is it then wrong to ask for instance politicians to rest their decisions on knowledge (rather than speculation and imagination)?
Readings
Derrida, J., ‘Like the Sound of the Sea Deep within a Shell: Paul de Man’s War,’
Critical Inquiry 14, no. 3 (1988): 590-652.
Laclau, E., ‘Totalitarianism and Moral Indignation,’ Diacritics 20:3 (1990): 88-95.
Further Readings
Holdheim, W., ‘Jacques Derrida’s Apologia,’ Critical Inquiry 15, no. 4 (1989): 784-
796. Also in Hamacher, W., Hertz, N., and Keenan, T., (eds), Responses: On Paul de Man’s Wartime Journalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.
Jacques Derrida, ‘Biodegradables. Seven Diary Fragments’, trans. Peggy Kamuf, Critical Inquiry, 15 (1989), 812-73, especially 812-54 (Derrida’s response to criticisms of ‘Like the Sound of the Sea Deep within a Shell: Paul de Man’s War’).
Hamacher, W., Hertz, N., and Keenan, T., (eds), Responses: On Paul de Man’s
Wartime Journalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989, especially ‘Preface’ and ‘Paul de Man: A Chronology, 1919-1949’ and Thomas Keenan, ‘Documents: Public Criticisms’ (for overviews of the ‘affair’).
Lucy, N., A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004 (entry on responsibility).
10. Deconstruction in Context: Derrida vs. Habermas
In order to contextualise deconstruction, we conclude by comparing Derrida’s deconstruction to Jürgen Habermas’s Critical Theory. While they have traditionally been seen as diametrically opposite, there was some rapprochement between them during the last years of Derrida’s life. We consider their differences over the role of philosophy and the nature of language as well as their (lesser) differences on terrorism, cosmopolitanism, tolerance and democracy.
Questions
1. Does deconstruction make a difference? For instance, is what Derrida says in the interview that different from what Habermas says in his interview and elsewhere? Is the difference between deconstruction and (Habermasian) Critical Theory a difference that makes a difference?
2. How can we conceive of the differences between Derrida and Habermas: different ‘styles of reasoning’ (Hacking)? Different ‘paradigms’ (Kuhn)?
3. Is it possible to combine insights from Derrida and Habermas respectively?
Readings
Jacques Derrida, ‘Is There a Philosophical Language’, in idem., Points…Interviews, 1974-1994, ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), pp. 216-227.
Further Readings
Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy In a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Richard Rorty, ‘Habermas, Derrida, and the Functions of Philosophy’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1995), 437-59.
Richard J. Bernstein, ‘An Allegory of Modernity/Postmodernity: Habermas and Derrida’, in idem., The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), pp. 199-229.
Simon Critchley, ‘Remarks on Derrida and Habermas’, Constellations 7:4 (2000), 455-65.
Jacques Derrida, ‘Performative Powerlessness – A Response to Simon Critchley’, trans. James Ingram, Constellations 7:4 (2000), 466-68.
Jürgen Habermas, ‘Excursus on Leveling the Genre Distinction between Philosophy and Literature,’ in idem., The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, trans. Frederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987), pp. 185-210.
Habermas, J., ‘Religious Tolerance—The Pacemaker for Cultural Rights,’
Philosophy 79 (2004), pp. 5-18.
Habermas, J., The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, trans.
Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), chapter 7.
Derrida, J. and Habermas, J., ‘February 15, or What Binds Europeans
Together: A plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Heart of Europe,’ Constellations 10 (2003): 291-97.
Lasse Thomassen, ‘De/Reconstructing Terrorism,’ Theory & Event 7:4 (2004).
Lasse Thomassen (ed.), The Derrida-Habermas Reader (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming).
