Deconstruction in a Nutshell: Conversation with Jacques Derrida

by John D. Caputo (Editor)

Responding to questions put to him at a Roundtable held at Villanova University in 1994, Jacques Derrida leads the reader through an illuminating discussion of the central themes of deconstruction. Speaking in English and extemporaneously, Derrida takes up with unusual clarity and great eloquence such topics as the task of philosophy, the Greeks, justice, responsibility, the gift, the community, the distinction between the messianic and the concrete messianisms, and his interpretation of James Joyce. Derrida convincingly refutes the charges of relativism and nihilism that are often leveled at deconstruction by its critics and sets forth the profoundly affirmative and ethico-political thrust of his work. The "Roundtable" is marked by the unusual clarity of Derrida's presentation and by the deep respect for the great works of the philosophical and literary tradition with which he characterizes his philosophical work.

The Roundtable is annotated by John D. Caputo, the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University, who has supplied cross references to Derrida's writings where the reader may find further discussion on these topics. Professor Caputo has also supplied a commentary which elaborates the principal issues raised in the Roundtable.

In all, this volume represents one of the most lucid, compact and reliable introductions to Derrida and deconstruction available in any language. An ideal volume for students approaching Derrida for the first time, Deconstruction in a Nutshell will prove instructive and illuminating as well for those already familiar with Derrida's work.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theology, Theory, France, School

215 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

John D. Caputo is an American philosopher who is the Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus at Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University. Caputo is a major figure associated with Postmodern Christianity, Continental Philosophy of Religion, as well as the founder of the theological movement known as weak theology. Much of Caputo's work focuses on hermeneutics, phenomenology, deconstruction and theology.

Reviews

[Micah Gill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the summer of 1994 Villanova University was finishing preparations to launch a department of philosophy. To celebrate the inauguration, the department’s founding faculty members, led by Dr. John Caputo, invited a guest to tour the facility and participate in a roundtable Q&A (which ended up being the foundation for this book). Yet the person who they invited to inaugurate this department of philosophy did not have a doctorate; in fact, the University of Cambridge’s decision to grant him even an honorary doctorate 2 years earlier had been marred by an outpouring of protest by Cambridge faculty members claiming that his writing “defies comprehension” and that “where coherent assertions are being made [in his work] at all, these are either false or trivial.” He was born in neither Europe nor the U.S., traditionally the primary homes of Western philosophy. Moreover, this guest, invited to christen a department to study truth, knowledge, and the ancient Greeks, had spent much of his career destabilizing those same themes and their associated scholarly traditions. This inaugural day was meant to suggest a beginning, the dawn of a new structure that would become a haven of academic community and personal formation for years to come - why, then, was the founder of "deconstruction" being called to rain on the parade? Jacques Derrida seemed like a curious choice to inaugurate a philosophical institution.

Yet Caputo and his new colleagues were onto something that many readers of Derrida (or those who have never heard of Derrida but still use the word "deconstruction") have missed. Deconstruction (Derrida) is not destruction (Heidegger). It is not the systematic process of bludgeoning a word, concept, or structure with skeptical self-righteousness until it is useless. Rather, deconstruction is an active understanding that language, thought, the relationships between things, and the world around us are provisional and unstable. Deconstruction is an acknowledgement that things (particularly language, texts, and institutions) can be different. That insight started in literary criticism ("Does this word have to mean that?"; "Are you sure that's the only way to interpret this story?") but has broad applications in any field related to change. Deconstruction is the structural-linguistic process of change, of transformation, of movement, of justice.

The Villanova philosophy department craved this justice, this constant questioning of truth while pursuing it. That's why they were wise enough to invite Derrida to inaugurate their efforts - Derrida helps his audience understand that for institutions to thrive, they must constantly be reexamined and given space to change. For the truth to be more fully experienced, it must be seen as a moving target that we must adjust our relationship to (not because truth is moving, but because our world is moving). For justice to be more closely realized, our patterns of life and societal structures must first be understood as provisional then reimagined in a way that is more hospitable and loving. In other words: the text will (and should) deconstruct. We might as well be privy to that deconstruction and lean into the transformation it facilitates, as Villanova symbolically stated they would do by inviting Derrida to inaugurate their department of philosophy.

That's my attempt to put deconstruction in a nutshell. While I think Derrida would appreciate that description, this is only one attempt among others - indeed, even Derrida is willing to put deconstruction in a nutshell on several occasions, to concisely yet thoroughly summarize the normally tangled, elaborate sinews of his thought and theory. But never was he more willing to, and effective in, putting deconstruction in a nutshell than at this inaugural roundtable at Villanova. Derrida shared with unusual clarity and brilliance the posture of a deconstructive view of the world and the theoretical concepts undergirding it. Derrida's lucidity was facilitated by excellent questions from the panelists and audience, 5 of which were transcribed in the book and make for a comprehensive tour of Derridean thought. The transcript of the roundtable comprises the first 20 pages of Caputo's book.

The rest is Caputo's commentary on the roundtable, where he builds off its structure by devoting one chapter to elucidating each of the 5 recorded questions and corresponding responses from Derrida. Caputo is an astute Derridean scholar with a strong philosophical background and delightful writing style. That style can occasionally become unhelpful when Caputo glosses over a difficult theoretical point by inserting a run-on sentence constituted of poetically linked deconstructive jargon, buffeted by a surplus of commas and adjectives. The sentence's compelling tone would make me momentarily forget that I didn't really understand how what he's saying is true. When I realized my confusion, I would normally stare blankly at the sentence for a minute or two, conclude that hopefully things would make more sense later, and move on. There are an unfortunate number of times this happens, and probably would still happen to others that are much more well-versed in philosophy and critical theory than I.

While there are some stylistic missteps belying a few fundamental gaps in critical explanation, additional credence should be given to this book considering that Derrida (who had already developed a personal relationship with Caputo before the roundtable) read through the manuscript and gave it his seal of approval. Derrida's theory is hard to pin down and summarize, but Caputo does provide a helpful initial discussion of the major pillars of deconstructive thought, preparing the reader to both move onto primary Derridean texts and think critically about how deconstruction relates to their line of work or study, relationships, and life more broadly. Caputo's interpretative angle on deconstruction contributes immensely to the value of this book, as he sees how deconstruction is a constructive, beautiful, liberating concept with transformative application to texts and the world around us. Deconstruction is a reality not to run from but to rejoice in! Caputo helps readers understand this essential point. It's especially valuable to make that connection early in one's study of Derrida; many a scholar has poured years into Derrida and adjacent critical theory to miss that point. Deconstruction strains the fundamental, unseats the hegemonic, and questions the canonical. But maybe Derrida and Caputo will give me a pass for suggesting Deconstruction in a Nutshell as the canonical introduction to Derridean theory and deconstruction.

"The problem is not behind me. Plato is in front of me."

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Derrida says in the roundtable, to the surprise of many 'so you see I am a conservative person'. For he sees Deconstruction as a way to keep the event of tradition going, to keep it on the move, so that it can be continually exposed to a certain revolution in a self-perpetuating auto-revolution" (37).

"'Doing Deconstruction', if Deconstruction is something to do, is not a matter of the very latest up-to-date, avant-garde postmodern one-upsmanship... Contrary to popular misrepresentations of deconstruction as some sort of enemy of tradition, something that ignores or distorts the great 'canon', Derrida treats great dead white male Europeans like Plato with scrupulous and loving care. So, to 'do Deconstruction'... we must take the Greeks seriously..." (74-75)

In this book John D. Caputo examines a roundtable discussion with Derrida and a number of intellectuals including himself, wherein the group try to get deconstruction 'in a nutshell', and explore Deconstruction against a number of themes. From this discussion we see Derrida trying to answer deconstructively, but perhaps not as evasively as in other scenarios, such as his 2004 documentary, where he begins answering the question 'what is deconstruction' by questioning the artificiality of the question, and the conditions in which the question is asked. Now, Caputo is very much aware that deconstruction is not a method, and Derrida even states in 'Letter to a Japanese Friend' that statements which state "Deconstruction is x" are immediately wrong, by trying to box in deconstruction, which by its nature is to cut around boundaries and so-called boxes.

Caputo does a good job of trying to get the ideas across in a readable (albeit not easily understandable) language. Deconstruction is explored: first as an idea in a nutshell, second as a right to philosophy, then against Plato's khora, then against the idea of community, then against justice, and against Joyce and messianism. The sections on justice, community and deconstruction in a nutshell are the best, with the other chapters being a lot more difficult.

But then we come to the million dollar question, what is deconstruction?
Well I under-stand it to be a kind of anti-system which practices a genealogy of words, acting against logocentrism, to the get at how language can be read against the narrow boundaries typically put on understanding by analytic philosophy. This anti-system is then taken to undermine, from inside, the institutions that run our society. But, rather than being nihilistic, deconstruction simply goes into text (text which institutions rely on as their fundamental axioms) taking nothing for granted. Deconstruction is then the embrace of the Other, and the attempt to understand the differance between texts and things.

[Aaron Piel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sympathetic and brief overview of Derrida’s overall work of deconstruction.

Very helpful, if not a little on the self-congratulating side. Opens with ridiculing a reporter for daring to ask Derrida to put “deconstruction in a nutshell,” which was ironic.

If deconstruction is all about openness to the other, which Caputo does a great job emphasizing, then his ridicule of someone who does not know the rules of engagement when discussing Derrida reeks of academic self-importance and dismisses the experience of an “other” who exists beyond the echo chamber of academic scholarship, showing to all that he isn’t practicing what he’s preaching.

Other than that, and how much he simps for Derrida, I found his commentary very helpful to understanding the spirit of deconstruction.

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book. The interview or conversation with Derrida is very short - disappointingly short. The commentary by Caputo is most of the book. Caputo is very entertaining, though. I thoroughly enjoyed his commentary. His enthusiasm for Derrida definitely shines through. He made me laugh a few times, always a good thing.

I'm new to Deconstruction and I probably still couldn't tell you what Deconstruction is in a nutshell, though I could say "yes, yes" if you asked me. I did learn quite a bit. I had no idea just how metaphysical theory could get. I had originally assumed Deconstructionism was merely literary theory but I was wrong on that - this book applies it to law, to politics, to religion.

I have liked what I have understood of Derrida. I realize how he could be unpopular, but I think, from what I understood of what he was saying, he is putting into words thoughts that I've had but couldn't articulate - or even understand - very well. I know a lot of people with very conservative viewpoints - this is the only way there is, this is it, we have arrived, no more to learn, threatened by outside influences - and I haven't agreed with that, so I was very interested in learning about being open to the other, come, yes, yes.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must admit, albeit with some embarrassment, that I went into this book with some prejudice against Deconstruction. It's a pity how one can hold an idea, even espouse that idea to others, but not realize how poorly conceived it is or how utterly ungrounded in anything but an aversion towards difference - which is the key point, after all, in Derrida's work. Given the book's intention, it's proper, then, that I went ahead with it, and many times I felt that it was addressing me and my aversion, my prejudice.
It's also appropriate that I was recommended it by a friend - another point of concern for Derrida, and one that is both repeatedly articulated and also made the ground of Deconstruction, itself.

Given Caputo's tone and intention, it does come off at times as an apologetic for Deconstruction, almost as if it were a sermon to the yet-unconverted. But that could be more a reflection of my prejudice - which, I can add, is mostly a result of my encounter with academics who are wont to flaunt Derrida and his work as a fashion statement rather than for the purpose of opening up and troubling discourse for the purpose of democracy, a democracy to come.

Finally, as I was reading this, I kept thinking: "okay, that's great, but where's the method? how does one go about performing this manner of hermeneutic?" And I completely missed the point that the 'method' was in the prose and the argument itself. Nevertheless, I'm still a little unsure, although not as much as before, about the relationship between the world and the text according to Derrida.

All in all, a very good text for anyone who, like me before reading it, wants to bash Mr.D and his work without really knowing what it's about.

[Joshua Casteel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly lucid. A perfect introduction to the denser works of Derrida.

[Steph | bookedinsaigon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eurgh. Read for my Philosophy of Religion class, and while I don't mind the concept of deconstruction, it was hardly explained significantly and/or succinctly in this book. I understand that deconstruction is a hard philosophical concept to grasp, but expanding on several of its key points without initially laying the foundations of the assumptions of deconstruction made this a poor choice for introducing the concept to people.

[Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clear, as far as deconstruction goes. However, Caputo's commentary gets a little repetitive; the initial talk by Derrida is short and while covering a lot of ground remains comprehensible, and probably doesn't need quite as much exposition as Caputo gives it.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deconstruction is a difficult subject, always and forever – in a strange way it reminds me of the fairytale stories where after every step forward the character turns around and effaces their footprints – for all its progress to define itself, it is always wiping that definition away, refusing to be pinned down, encapsulated, contained. It is mercurial rather than voidal.

The book starts with the (pretty short) Roundtable discussion where half a dozen scholars ask Derrida questions and his replies are then followed up in more detail throughout the rest of the book by Caputo. The structure means that you get to hear Derrida’s ideas expressed in his own words, and then drill down into them in more detail to understand their background / context. It also, however, means that there is a significant blur surrounding what are Derrida’s intent and Caputo’s interpretation. Whilst there are several, clearly denoted quotes, much is written in general text that is (presumably) simply a paraphrased reiteration of Derrida’s ideas.

The introduction raises the notion that claims ‘Derrida is a nut’ who mocks philosophy and truth through “wild nonsense and irresponsible play” are ‘irresponsible’ – and the rest of the book goes a long way in demonstrating why he is not some “street-corner anarchist” – but in doing so it feels as if it might have gone a fraction too far, and cleaned Derrida up a little too much – can't there be a little wild nonsense and play, must everything be tempered with more serious and sober endeavours? Derrida’s work reads (to me) as if there is more than just a play on words, something more subversive that is neither irresponsible nor innocent. He treats Deconstruction as something simultaneously important and irrelevant, and I feel that the subject of himself should be addressed the same way in return... perhaps.

The most important premise for my research was the notion that the ‘impossible’ is a more interesting research topic than the ‘possible’ – and it gives me the motivation to keep going. Also, the reiteration that deconstruction is a disturbance not a destruction, a destabilisation not an annihilation, is an important distinction that needs reiterating.

This book helped me to understand many of Derrida’s key concepts, and for that I applaud it, but Caputo’s interjections often frustrated me – for example: “Accordingly, everything in deconstruction--here comes a nutshell (heads up!)”. Perhaps his sense of humour is lost in translation but his quirky quips, and bracketed exclamation marks, lessened my reading enjoyment.

Overall - a very good explanation of some of Derrida’s slipperiest ideas.

[Michael A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am new to Derrida, and this seems like about as lucid introduction you can get to the dense thinker. In this book, Caputo enumerates Rights, khora, community, justice, the messianic, and Joyce as topics for discussion (I am tempted to say "foundations" for Deconstruction - but something tells me this would be a drastic misreading). I found the idea of the khora very interesting and similar to Derrida's idea of differance (Caputo says that "Khora is [differance's] surname]. It (and differance) is described as a "great receptacle upon which every constituted trace or mark is imprinted, "older," prior, preoriginary." The Khora seems to be some sort of meaning-less recepctacle which is neither intelligble nor sensible and differance is the reflection of khora. It seems as though deconstruction is, i guess, an anti-foundationalist, anti-essentialist philosophy with differance/khora as its "groundless ground".

The community part was interesting too, notably how a community has a self-other dichotomy necessarily inscribed into it. It is emphasized quite often that deconstruction is for "the other" and in later chapters like on the messianic it is for the "to come". So I guess summing it all up my (horribly beginner) understanding of deconstruction is that it is a philosophy based on differance which is an affirmatory focus on the other to come (affirmatory as in the Joyce chapter is largely about affirmation and Joyce's use of "Yes").

One thing I am skeptical of is what kind of politics are possible in a deconstructionist framework? Surely of a left-wing variety with the focus on the Other, but I am skeptical anything truly revolutionary can arise out of deconstruction (the term Post-marxist is used a few times and Mao and Stalin are denigrated off-the-cuff without explanation) but perhaps I am wrong about this. I am aware Derrida wrote a book on Marx - perhaps this will give me the answers I seek. But I doubt that we will see an armed uprising of Derrideans using deconstruction as their guide for a successful revolution - to me deconstruction seems most useful as literary theory and philosophizing that is not about politics (or if it does philosophize politics it will not produce anything all that useful).

[jacob · Rating 2 out of 5]

and i like deconstruction! enough!

caputo is horrific to read and while he eventually gets the points across here, it is very much in spite of itself, it is more inefficient than i thought possible. the roundtable was solid, to turn it into this book is horrifying. the tone is so grating and lionizing and the theorizing so self-satisfied! hardly an enjoyable read, not like derrida can be.

on top of this caputo argues that deconstruction is normative in an attempt to defend it from institutional critics but then fails to address how, if deconstruction is basically normative, basically greek, basically democracy, how can it ever invite the other excluded from that norm?

[NosNos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction and helicopter-tour of Derrida's main ideas and modes of thinking that isn't afraid to really get into the details. But more than that, Caputo is a wonderful writer and he inspires you with such an appetite for wanting to know more, to read more, to unravel bigger looms.

[Noah Coates · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent introduction to deconstruction although I wonder how much grasp the author has on the subject given the work is at times repetitive and confused.

[Jayson Gonzalez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written and lucid introduction to Derrida's thinking that builds off of an interview with Derrida himself. John Caputo does an extraordinary job of encapsulating the concept of deconstruction without minimizing it or limiting to one conception or another. I'm hoping the foundation I acquired through this book helps me understand and really appreciate the work Derrida set out to do with his technique of deconstruction.

[Jamie]

I distrust philosophy that isn’t funny so thankfully this was very funny!

[Kenneth Bareksten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Til tider en utilgjengelig tåkefyrste med en patologisk hang for aporier, men hvor hadde dekonstruksjonen vært uten en heftig kritikk av nærværsmetafysikken og logosentrismen lissom?

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing. The clearest explanation of Deconstruction that I have ever read. Absolutely essential reading.

[Lee Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s interesting and rebellious to rip tradition to shreds, but is it ultimately useful?