Leonard Lawlor’s “From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics,” aims to situate Derrida’s later political engagements in terms of his earlier work on language, namely how Derrida’s work in political theory is informed by his critique of metaphysics. By focusing on Derrida’s insistence on the irreducible metaphoricity of language, as well as his concepts of the trace and iterability, Lawlor provides such a background. It is the practice of deconstruction, says Lawlor, that aims to free this irreducible metaphoricity of language that has been trapped by metaphysics within the “identity of concepts.” Deconstruction does this not by simply opposing metaphysical discourse, but rather by borrowing from this tradition in order to turn “their own resource against them.” This concept of borrowing will figure importantly into the connection Lawlor makes to Derrida’s political writing, particularly his essay on Nelson Mandela, whose political activities have had a deconstructive relationship to the law.
The irreducible metaphoricity of language, as I understand it, refers to the fact that signifiers exist within a network extending infinitely in multiple directions and as a result any signifier is irreducibly metaphorical, making it impossible to attach any fixed meaning to any signifier. This property of language is what gives rise to Derrida’s concepts of the trace and iterability. Lawlor points to his engagement with Husserl as to where Derrida shows that meanings “cannot be thought apart from their inscription. Part of their essence, inseparable from their being, is to be ‘graphable,’ iterable” (2). The consequences of language’s iterability are that any linguistic unit can be “lifted” from any context. It is the “sensuous forms” of language which allows for a linguistic unit, ripped from its context, to still function, taking on new determinations (3). To these sensuous forms Derrida gives the name trace or trait. As something “always already codified,” the trace, the sensuous form, allows a linguistic unit to function out of its original context, in referring to its difference from and affinity with other linguistic units.
In addition to using these concepts of trace and iterability to think about Derrida’s political work, Lawlor refers to Derrida’s book on Husserl, Speech and Phenomena, to get at this idea of borrowing, or paleonymy. Making use of the irreducible metaphoricity of language deconstructive practice uncovers “discursive contradictions” in a text, but in order to actualize the network of possibilities in which the text takes part. Rather than simple opposition to a text, deconstruction borrows from the text and reinscribes its terms in order to actualize their other possibilities. Derrida calls this type of deconstructive borrowing paleonymy, which means “the reutilization of old names” (6). Paleonymy, for Lawlor, “provides the seed of something like a deconstructive political activity” (6). Deconstruction then would not stop at the critique of what we traditionally think of as metaphysics, but would also “[attack] the economic, social, and political institutions within which metaphysical discourse takes place” (7).
From here Lawlor turns to Derrida’s article, “How can one be Mandela?” which Lawlor considers to be a question of imitation, asking “how is it possible for us to imitate Mandela?” (7) Derrida’s point in this essay is that through Mandela’s both violent and nonviolent resistance to the white government of South Africa, he admires the law, he is a “man of the law” in his existence inside and outside the law (9). What allows Mandela to occupy this position is the “minimal sameness,” characteristic of the law (10). The law is a trace and exists within a network of possibilities with which it shares an affinity, and as such the law allows Mandela to conserve a bit of the law, borrowing it, while opening it onto these possibilities. Lawlor says that in “Derrida’s rendering, Mandela’s admiration equals the deconstructive practice.” It borrows the law in order to reinvent it, and like Derrida’s “errant democrat,” Mandela “affirms the heterogeneous possibilities of the law” (12).
Lawlor, Leonard. “From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics.” Philosophy Social Criticism 15 (1989): 1-12.
what is this Leonard Lawlor lovefest – have you seen his late stuff? it’s horrible! the man is done…
I was personally quite taken with ‘Looking for Noon at Two O’Clock!’ What are you referencing specifically?
In any case, what you’ll see in the next couple of days are many more posts on other commentators on Derrida (other than Lawlor!). This is a collaborative research project organized by my undergraduate mentor. The idea is that those of us working on essays at this time will be able to research more efficiently if other people summarize the articles first so we can decide quicker whether or not they will be useful. So, don’t worry, there’s more to come!
that was a good essay – from Derrida and Husserl, right? i’m referring to Lawlor’s last “text” This Is Not Sufficient – he’s a great summarizer, but in that small book he attempts to do a bit of more than simple summary and fails miserably because it is simply impossible to read – both style-wise and content-wise…
as for commentators, i would suggest someone like Hent de Vries (good summarizer as well) or, if something more engaging is called for, Simon Critchley’s Ethics of Deconstruction – there is a lot of stuff about Derrida, you realize that, right?