What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics of Deconstruction: Jacques Derrida and the Other of Philosophy
Jacques Derrida has had a huge influence on contemporary political theory and political philosophy. Derrida's thinking has inspired Slavoj Zizek, Richard Rorty, Ernesto Laclau, Judith Butler and many more contemporary theorists. This book brings together a first class line up of Derrida scholars to develop a deconstructive approach to politics. Deconstruction examines the internal logic of any given text or discourse. It helps us analyse the contradictions inherent in all schools of thought, and as such it has proved revolutionary in political analysis, particularly ideology critique. This book is ideal for all students of political theory, and anyone looking for an accessible guide to Derrida's thinking and how it can be used as a radical tool for political analysis.
- GenresPhilosophy
288 pages, Hardcover
First published August 20, 2007
2 people are currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 6, 2010
A superb, varied collection of essays, each one a deconstruction of, at, or near the political. This is one of the few books in which the 'method' of deconstruction, its basic moves, inasmuch as we can rigorously determine what is and what is not 'deconstructive' - and this is not a minor point, given that 'deconstruction' designates something that has, for instance, been of both philosophical and (pop)cultural import - is discernible in each of the essays without them sounding too much stylistically or content-wise.
Though the students of Jacques Derrida, as well as Derrida himself, insist upon the undefinability of deconstruction, a close look at deconstructive readings shows that they all consist of certain operations - therefore, ironically, the reduction of deconstruction to a series of axioms is not inconceivable. One of the most important of such axioms - were they to be written out - would surely be, 'All truth, all being, is constituted on the basis of an exclusion, and that exclusion will structurally determine the truth, or being, thus constituted.' Here deconstruction is not far from dialectics; deconstruction, however, does not follow up this gesture - determinate negation, essentially - with any sort of aufheben. Within a text, exclusions are found, and the text is unravelled; and also unravelled are the metaphysical ideas underlying the text's exclusions. This brings me to my last point about deconstruction in general. (A) deconstruction is almost always a reading of another text. The text itself is looked at, but just as important are the metaphysics behind it, of which the text may itself be unconscious. Deconstruction makes much of 'representation' and 'writing,' and so a deconstruction has to do not only with a text and 'the metaphysics behind it, of which the text may itself be unconscious' - more important is the relationship, the tension, between the two.
I will end the review by briefly discussing some of my favorite essays from the text. At the moment I do not have the book with me, or I would quote from it. This I may amend later. For now:
'Impossible Speech Acts,' by Andrew Parker, is an engagement with the French political philosopher Jacques Ranciere. I read the essay as another consideration of that old question, Can the subaltern speak? Parker's response is not quite a yes, not quite a no - which is okay, since he is not explicitly trying to answer the question: according to him, the subaltern's speech is that which shatters the logic according to which the subaltern could not speak. The subaltern's speech changes speech itself.
'On the Multiple Senses of Democracy,' by Jean Luc-Nancy, is a meditation on some of the consequences of 'democracy' being accepted almost universally in the Western world. Its acceptance comes at the cost of its destitution of meaning, Nancy says - even as there remains, in the background, the ghost of the ideal.
'The Art of the Possible,' by Derek Attridge, is an essay in defense of Derrida's book, 'The Gift of Death,' which according Attridge's interpretation is quite radical. Attridge argues that Derrida, in 'The Gift of Death,' shows how we cannot legitimately define the sphere of morality - that is, what or whom morality bears upon. The truly responsible person maintains fidelity to the impossibility of saying exactly what being responsible is; for there is something irresponsible, an attempt to escape responsibility, Derrida says, about establishing criteria on the basis of which one can have a clear conscience. The essay does not do it explicitly - but implicitly, it demonstrates that morality overflows into politics. What is done implicitly may be what is best about this essay.
'Graphematics, Politics and Irony,' by Claire Colebrook, summarizes Derrida's deconstruction of speech acts theory. It is an excellent summary that draws out its political implications well. I advise reading the essay by Derrida it summarizes, too - 'Signature Event Context.' Derrida at his best.
There are a few other essays in here I could write about - but I have already written a fair amount, and some of the essays I've not described I would need to re-read.
Though the students of Jacques Derrida, as well as Derrida himself, insist upon the undefinability of deconstruction, a close look at deconstructive readings shows that they all consist of certain operations - therefore, ironically, the reduction of deconstruction to a series of axioms is not inconceivable. One of the most important of such axioms - were they to be written out - would surely be, 'All truth, all being, is constituted on the basis of an exclusion, and that exclusion will structurally determine the truth, or being, thus constituted.' Here deconstruction is not far from dialectics; deconstruction, however, does not follow up this gesture - determinate negation, essentially - with any sort of aufheben. Within a text, exclusions are found, and the text is unravelled; and also unravelled are the metaphysical ideas underlying the text's exclusions. This brings me to my last point about deconstruction in general. (A) deconstruction is almost always a reading of another text. The text itself is looked at, but just as important are the metaphysics behind it, of which the text may itself be unconscious. Deconstruction makes much of 'representation' and 'writing,' and so a deconstruction has to do not only with a text and 'the metaphysics behind it, of which the text may itself be unconscious' - more important is the relationship, the tension, between the two.
I will end the review by briefly discussing some of my favorite essays from the text. At the moment I do not have the book with me, or I would quote from it. This I may amend later. For now:
'Impossible Speech Acts,' by Andrew Parker, is an engagement with the French political philosopher Jacques Ranciere. I read the essay as another consideration of that old question, Can the subaltern speak? Parker's response is not quite a yes, not quite a no - which is okay, since he is not explicitly trying to answer the question: according to him, the subaltern's speech is that which shatters the logic according to which the subaltern could not speak. The subaltern's speech changes speech itself.
'On the Multiple Senses of Democracy,' by Jean Luc-Nancy, is a meditation on some of the consequences of 'democracy' being accepted almost universally in the Western world. Its acceptance comes at the cost of its destitution of meaning, Nancy says - even as there remains, in the background, the ghost of the ideal.
'The Art of the Possible,' by Derek Attridge, is an essay in defense of Derrida's book, 'The Gift of Death,' which according Attridge's interpretation is quite radical. Attridge argues that Derrida, in 'The Gift of Death,' shows how we cannot legitimately define the sphere of morality - that is, what or whom morality bears upon. The truly responsible person maintains fidelity to the impossibility of saying exactly what being responsible is; for there is something irresponsible, an attempt to escape responsibility, Derrida says, about establishing criteria on the basis of which one can have a clear conscience. The essay does not do it explicitly - but implicitly, it demonstrates that morality overflows into politics. What is done implicitly may be what is best about this essay.
'Graphematics, Politics and Irony,' by Claire Colebrook, summarizes Derrida's deconstruction of speech acts theory. It is an excellent summary that draws out its political implications well. I advise reading the essay by Derrida it summarizes, too - 'Signature Event Context.' Derrida at his best.
There are a few other essays in here I could write about - but I have already written a fair amount, and some of the essays I've not described I would need to re-read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review