ראיון עם דרידה חלק 1

nooriko

New member
ראיון עם דרידה חלק 1

Published Sunday, April 25, 1999, in the San Jose Mercury News Q&A with philosopher Jacques Derrida The constructive deconstructionist THE TURBULENT 1960s gave birth to a number of well-known social and political movements that have shaped the world as we know it. But less famous are some of the intellectual advances made during that era. The peace movement, the women´s liberation movement, the civil rights movement: All owe part of their theory and success to the theory of deconstruction. The ideas that authority should be questioned, that oppressed people have stories too and that nothing is absolute are key tenets of the theory. One of the theory´s founders, French philosopher Jacques Derrida, this month visited Stanford University for two days of lectures and small-group discussion. Derrida, 69, described recently by the New York Times as ``perhaps the world´s most famous philosopher,´´ has been a lightning rod in philosophical circles for the past three decades. Born to a Jewish family in Algeria, Derrida was expelled from school during World War II because of the government´s anti-Semitic laws, an experience that later colored his work. Since 1962 he has written more than 450 books, articles and academic papers, questioning everything -- including the very idea of questioning -- from his deconstructionist perspective. He is a professor at L´Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales in Paris and at the University of California-Irvine. His lecture at Stanford focused on the role of the modern university in the next millennium. He urged the university to become the ``place of the critical question,´´ where ``nothing should be without question.´´ He spoke with Mercury News Staff Writer Marcus Walton at the Stanford Faculty Club. Below is an edited transcript of their conversation.
 

nooriko

New member
ראיון עם דירדה חלק 2

Q Can you explain to the rest of us exactly what deconstruction is? A Once I was asked to define deconstruction in a nutshell, and of course I failed because it is impossible. And then I told a story on a panel and we wrote a book out of it, the story of this question: What is deconstruction in a nutshell? . . . So what would I say? First I would say, contrary to what one usually expects, it´s not a negative or destructive way of thinking, because deconstruction does not mean destruction. The word exists in French, but it is a rather archaic, rare word meaning to analyze in grammar or just to disassociate in order to analyze. I used this word to refer to the way of remembering and analyzing the history of the concept of the culture we inherit. We live in a mainly physical tradition, and to deconstruct means not to destroy or discredit this tradition, but to understand where it comes from, what the layers are, to deconstitute it and, first of all, remember what it is, but at the same time to challenge it. Deconstruction is not destruction; it is an affirmation which tries to transform this tradition by precisely analyzing it and reconstituting it. . . . It is an attempt to think of what the idea of a critique is, what the form of the question is. Usually you say the main form of criticizing is questioning. . . . (Deconstruction) is a way of suspecting even the authority of the question. Not to take anything for granted, not in order to disqualify, but simply to be as vigilant as possible about the history of our culture, the history, the heritage. It´s more and more a reflection of what inheriting means. What we do when we inherit. It´s a way of trying to take responsibility within the heritage. That would be one way of describing deconstruction. There are others, of course.
 

nooriko

New member
ראיון עם .. 3

Q Deconstruction was born of the 1960s, a time of revolutions and questioning authority. What is the role of deconstruction now and for the next millennium? A On the one hand, from the very beginning people were saying deconstruction is on the wane . . . from the beginning it was dying. Death and disappearance and spirituality is its main thing in a certain way. . . . This experience and responsibility leads people who are interested in deconstruction into ethics and politics. You can see a number of people interested in what is happening in the political and the ethical and the development of technology, the technology of communications. Some of the ways it interests me (are) the history of work, the history of telecommunications and the way it affects the social bond, the way we work, the way we speak. And what is happening in the political, beyond the nation-state -- the future of international law. What is going on today in the wars which are not reduceable to the models we had earlier. Today there is an earthquake in the concept of sovereignty. Today the nation-state is less and less the ultimate authority, as you can see in Kosovo. We are breaking the sovereignty of a supposed sovereign state. . . . So one of the avenues for deconstruction is to think about what is happening to the political spaces. Q Is the Internet the ultimate deconstructed medium? A No. Long before the Internet was really an everyday experience, we paid attention to the transformation of this medium. But it should be the object of a very deconstructive attention, because the Internet is precisely displacing the place: the place of work, the place of the university, the place of communication. It crosses borders in a way which was not possible earlier. With the Internet the political boundaries, natural boundaries are more permeable than ever. So we have to think what happens to this space, to being in the world with something like the Internet. It´s not the privileged medium, but it is one of the most privileged objects of deconstructive thought. Q It seems some feminists take issue with some of your work and from my understanding of deconstruction, I don´t see where that conflict comes into play. One accusation is that in a lecture you say, ``Nietzsche says, `woman is truth,´ and there is no truth.´´ A That is a very complex issue. Some feminists take issue, others take advantage (of deconstruction). When I say Nietzsche says woman is truth and there is no truth, it is just one layer in a series of levels, but I cannot constitute this here. There are feminists who use deconstruction and others who, in my mind, don´t read the way they should read and still think deconstruction is phallocentric. . . . I myself would suspect some feminists would simply risk reproducing what they are attacking, reconstituting a sort of essentialism or phallocentrism. The only thing I should say in such a brief interview is that everyone, including the feminists, should carefully read the text.
 

nooriko

New member
ראיון עם.. 4

Q But isn´t that their form, however wrong it may be, isn´t it their form of deconstruction or critiquing your text? A Of course there are people who, in the name of deconstruction, do this or that and I cannot take responsibility for that. . . . Some people do anything with deconstruction. Everyone has his or her own style of deconstruction. Deconstruction is not a tool, not a technique, not a method. It´s what happens. So it happens each time singularly, and every text with a deconstructive tag is different from another. There is no hierarchy. There is no tribunal to decide what is true deconstruction. I know that, to me, there are some weak deconstructions and others that are stronger, but I´m not the one to make decisions or arbitrate or decide who´s right or wrong. Q You mentioned earlier that as deconstruction moves forward you see more people in politics and ethics. Is that more of a pragmatic, Richard Rorty-type view of the way philosophy ought to be? (U.S. philosopher Rorty´s argument is that philosophy is useless unless it can be applied to everyday life.) A People say that at the beginning of my own work, politics and ethics were not so emphasized, which is true and wrong. I think from the very beginning there was an attention paid to politics and ethics in my writings, but it is true that a change in emphasis happened. I wanted to address political and ethical questions after having done certain preliminary work. There is from the very beginning a pragmatic dimension in deconstruction. I even proposed a long time ago to call the main concept pragmatology because what I called ``writing´´ from the very beginning had to do with work. It´s a matter of doing something. It´s not simply theoretical. Writing is a way of working. It´s a working force. So from that point of view there is some affinity between deconstruction and some pragmatism. There are a lot of differences, no doubt, but we cannot in a brief interview address these differences. There is some affinity between Rorty and me, but there are gaps, too. Q You´ve been described as being along the same philosophical lines of Georg Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, philosophers who have various links to Nazi Germany and nationalism. How comfortable are you, considering your own upbringing, being linked to them? A To have a link with a philosopher doesn´t mean to agree with them or be a disciple or to follow and subscribe to everything he writes. So I have a very strong interest in them, but I have tried in each case to question their nationalistic temptations. Every time. I have had very critical approach to these three thinkers, especially Hegel and Heidegger. I try not to avoid the thinkers I am opposed to. I think we have to read these people, especially if we want to understand what is happening in Europe. And I am not afraid of contamination. If I want to avoid contamination, I have to get close enough to understand what is going on. Q You are quite prolific. How do you write so much? A Because I refuse interviews. I try to work by myself. I try to withdraw. I was lucky enough not to have to teach with the hectic schedule they have here (in U.S. universities). I have the impression that I don´t like to write, but I suppose I enjoy it.
 

רפרם

New member
הצעה

אולי כדאי שתעלי הכל כקובץ וורד, כשהאנגלית מוסטת לשמאל. כך יהיה יותר נוח לקרוא ותהיה אפשרות גם להדפיס ולקרוא.
 
למעלה