Comments for On Derrida's Politics http://derrida.wordpress.com if deconstruction is justice, then... Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:44:18 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Regarding those who decide by Michael http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/regarding-those-who-decide/#comment-354 Michael Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:44:18 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/regarding-those-who-decide/#comment-354 I think too that the question of the necessity of anxiety in decision is a crucial one in Derrida and not a bad thing. However, I wouldn't be so quick to equate this Derridian necessity with a Lacanian one. Lacan actually forces us to traverse our relationship to the other in our being "haunted" (I don't know if Lacan would use this word) by it in an obsessional way, Derrida seeks to hold us within it and be haunted by it in this way. This means that he actually has a more rigorous notion of a subjectivity in decision-making than Lacan--or at least I think if you think of things this way aspects of Derrida will come to the fore that perhaps weren't there before for you. This rigor is announced in something like The Gift of Death or even in "Force of Law," which articulates a relationship to undecidability that must keep the undecidable PURELY undecidable, that is, with completely indeterminate risk (cf. "From Restricted to General Economy" on the notion of risk and speculation). This state he actually names love, within "Force of Law" and also within something like Memoirs of the Blind. The sort of haunting here is absolutely different than Lacan's actually, because it isn't a type of wariness for the other, but a surrendering to the rigor of a demand that you must comport yourself to something that will never reappear, and yet a feeling that the other has already appeared as yourself... This is all hasty and cryptic, but I just think in Specters of Marx we're not getting any obsessional haunting in a Lacanian sense, a haunting we could and should traverse. I think too that the question of the necessity of anxiety in decision is a crucial one in Derrida and not a bad thing. However, I wouldn’t be so quick to equate this Derridian necessity with a Lacanian one. Lacan actually forces us to traverse our relationship to the other in our being “haunted” (I don’t know if Lacan would use this word) by it in an obsessional way, Derrida seeks to hold us within it and be haunted by it in this way. This means that he actually has a more rigorous notion of a subjectivity in decision-making than Lacan–or at least I think if you think of things this way aspects of Derrida will come to the fore that perhaps weren’t there before for you. This rigor is announced in something like The Gift of Death or even in “Force of Law,” which articulates a relationship to undecidability that must keep the undecidable PURELY undecidable, that is, with completely indeterminate risk (cf. “From Restricted to General Economy” on the notion of risk and speculation). This state he actually names love, within “Force of Law” and also within something like Memoirs of the Blind. The sort of haunting here is absolutely different than Lacan’s actually, because it isn’t a type of wariness for the other, but a surrendering to the rigor of a demand that you must comport yourself to something that will never reappear, and yet a feeling that the other has already appeared as yourself… This is all hasty and cryptic, but I just think in Specters of Marx we’re not getting any obsessional haunting in a Lacanian sense, a haunting we could and should traverse.

]]> Comment on S. Newman: ‘Anarchism, Poststructuralism and the Future of Radical Politics’ by claudioperez http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-339 claudioperez Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:06:31 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-339 I believe within your reply you have an underlying sense that 'we' the people must somehow appeal to 'the state' to gift us with the universal rights we should have. Perhaps you might agree with the idea that the state is actually a result of the social and political dimensions within a given society which may be conceived as a dimension almost independent of the economic system. Within the state democracy does not work unless we somehow equalize the power individuals have within political groups or equalize the information all individuals have which I am sure you would say is impossible. The state in order to function and control must dominate on the political and social levels. Repression is the tool that is most useful to the state and marginalizing identities facilitates this and one must realize that the state works at this level. Identity politics will exist, and I believe have to exist, in liberal societies. Richard J.F. Day in his book Gramsci is Dead argues this aptly when he states: " there is also a normative component to [the unevenness of power in liberal societies] , in the assumption that today's liberal societies represent the best, or perhaps the only possible mode of social organization that acknowledges and thrives upon this condition of unevenness of power." He goes on to state Laclau's position that no political struggle can include everyone, since it is impossible for those who advance a cause to completely leave behind their own interests. He goes on "similarly, there is no such thing as a merely particular struggle, since no identity can exist without being in relationships with other identities, with what it is not (the 'constitive outside')." Identities seek to compete and co-operate, each seeking to enlarge themselves to the point of being able to represent all of the others. This is expanding the democratic revolution, both the universal and the particular are 'contaminated' by each other. Thanks for the reply. I believe within your reply you have an underlying sense that ‘we’ the people must somehow appeal to ‘the state’ to gift us with the universal rights we should have. Perhaps you might agree with the idea that the state is actually a result of the social and political dimensions within a given society which may be conceived as a dimension almost independent of the economic system. Within the state democracy does not work unless we somehow equalize the power individuals have within political groups or equalize the information all individuals have which I am sure you would say is impossible. The state in order to function and control must dominate on the political and social levels. Repression is the tool that is most useful to the state and marginalizing identities facilitates this and one must realize that the state works at this level. Identity politics will exist, and I believe have to exist, in liberal societies. Richard J.F. Day in his book Gramsci is Dead argues this aptly when he states:
” there is also a normative component to [the unevenness of power in liberal societies] , in the assumption that today’s liberal societies represent the best, or perhaps the only possible mode of social organization that acknowledges and thrives upon this condition of unevenness of power.”
He goes on to state Laclau’s position that no political struggle can include everyone, since it is impossible for those who advance a cause to completely leave behind their own interests. He goes on “similarly, there is no such thing as a merely particular struggle, since no identity can exist without being in relationships with other identities, with what it is not (the ‘constitive outside’).” Identities seek to compete and co-operate, each seeking to enlarge themselves to the point of being able to represent all of the others. This is expanding the democratic revolution, both the universal and the particular are ‘contaminated’ by each other. Thanks for the reply.

]]> Comment on S. Newman: ‘Anarchism, Poststructuralism and the Future of Radical Politics’ by jcassano http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-337 jcassano Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:22:52 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-337 Thanks for the comment. I actually don't think you're in opposition to Newman here. Newman praises the (classical) anarchist rejection of economic reductionism, which would tend in favor of identity politics. But he is also aware of the fact that identity politics has its problems. Namely, that identity politics tends to place separate movements of separate identities into their own separate "boxes", where different movements are unable to work together and learn from each other. I personally observed this phenomenon at the US Social Forum this past summer where there were representatives of many different movements but there was a general lack of bringing those disparate movements into dialogue with each other. I think that is the major pitfall of identity politics, because there are institutions that inherently oppress people across different identities (i.e. patriarchy disempowers both women and queer folk). This is why Newman argues that we need to appeal to some universal dimension, so that we can bring oppressed identities into relation to each other without regressing back to essentialism or reductionism. I think this might actually be in agreement with what you cited as Gramsci's idea of equalizing political identities. I'm curious what you have to say though. Thanks for the comment. I actually don’t think you’re in opposition to Newman here. Newman praises the (classical) anarchist rejection of economic reductionism, which would tend in favor of identity politics. But he is also aware of the fact that identity politics has its problems. Namely, that identity politics tends to place separate movements of separate identities into their own separate “boxes”, where different movements are unable to work together and learn from each other.

I personally observed this phenomenon at the US Social Forum this past summer where there were representatives of many different movements but there was a general lack of bringing those disparate movements into dialogue with each other. I think that is the major pitfall of identity politics, because there are institutions that inherently oppress people across different identities (i.e. patriarchy disempowers both women and queer folk).

This is why Newman argues that we need to appeal to some universal dimension, so that we can bring oppressed identities into relation to each other without regressing back to essentialism or reductionism. I think this might actually be in agreement with what you cited as Gramsci’s idea of equalizing political identities. I’m curious what you have to say though.

]]> Comment on S. Newman: ‘Anarchism, Poststructuralism and the Future of Radical Politics’ by claudioperez http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-336 claudioperez Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:34:31 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/s-newman-anarchism-poststructuralism-and-the-future-of-radical-politics/#comment-336 To deny politics of identity is to deny the humanity of the individuals, it would also criticize the civil rights and feminist movements in Europe and the United States. On must create and attempt to equalize the status of identities within the political sphere if there is to be any meaningful dialogue between fundamental group (As conceived by Gramsci). This I believe must first be actualized in order for a post anarchist movements to gain strength in modern society. To deny politics of identity is to deny the humanity of the individuals, it would also criticize the civil rights and feminist movements in Europe and the United States. On must create and attempt to equalize the status of identities within the political sphere if there is to be any meaningful dialogue between fundamental group (As conceived by Gramsci). This I believe must first be actualized in order for a post anarchist movements to gain strength in modern society.

]]> Comment on L. Lawlor: ‘From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics’ by Mikhail Emelianov http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-315 Mikhail Emelianov Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:27:23 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-315 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 <i>Ethics of Deconstruction</i> - there is a lot of stuff about Derrida, you realize that, right? 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?

]]> Comment on L. Lawlor: ‘From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics’ by Mikhail Emelianov http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-314 Mikhail Emelianov Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:24:43 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-314 that was a good essay - from <i>Derrida and Husserl</i>, right? i'm referring to Lawlor's last "text" <i>This Is Not Sufficient</i> - 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... 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…

]]> Comment on L. Lawlor: ‘From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics’ by Desirée http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-313 Desirée Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:42:45 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-313 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! 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!

]]> Comment on L. Lawlor: ‘From the Trace to the Law: Derridean Politics’ by Mikhail Emelianov http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-312 Mikhail Emelianov Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:22:27 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/l-lawlor-from-the-trace-to-the-law-derridean-politics/#comment-312 what is this Leonard Lawlor lovefest - have you seen his late stuff? it's horrible! the man is done... what is this Leonard Lawlor lovefest – have you seen his late stuff? it’s horrible! the man is done…

]]> Comment on Transcendental, Empirical by Mikhail Emelianov http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/transcendental-empirical/#comment-308 Mikhail Emelianov Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:18:14 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/transcendental-empirical/#comment-308 remain hopeful... remain hopeful…

]]> Comment on Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx by Desirée http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/ghostly-demarcations-a-symposium-on-jacques-derridas-specters-of-marx/#comment-307 Desirée Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:29:08 +0000 http://derrida.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/ghostly-demarcations-a-symposium-on-jacques-derridas-specters-of-marx/#comment-307 Haha John. Well, Margaret thinks (and I tend to agree) that we are in the post-postmodern...which is entirely consistent with your theory. Sorry Jay and other Harvey/Jameson fans. Haha John. Well, Margaret thinks (and I tend to agree) that we are in the post-postmodern…which is entirely consistent with your theory. Sorry Jay and other Harvey/Jameson fans.

]]>