Derridean Deconstruction

Przysługujący widmom wywrotowy, niemalże rewolucyjny potencjał został odsunięty oraz zagubiony poprzez pozbycie się tej kontrowersyjnej kategorii z terytorium metafizyki i zbyt pośpieszne odesłanie jej do przestrzeni badań nad literaturą, sprowadzając ją jedynie do roli użytecznego, bezpiecznego narzędzia interpretacji.

Książka Andrzeja Marca odzyskuje niepokojący charakter widmontologii i ponownie wprowadza widma do myśli metafizycznej. Czym nawiedzona i przeniknięta jest tradycyjna metafizyka, co właściwie ją dręczy, nie daje spokoju oraz nieustannie podmywa jej stabilność?

Kategoria widma Derridy posłużyła Marcowi przede wszystkim do rozważań nad charakterem współczesności i przeobrażeń, jakie dokonały się w obrębie myśli ponowoczesnej. Współczesna kultura, zdaniem Marca, stała się miejscem powstawania widm, nieustannie powracających z przeszłości. Uznając, że nie jesteśmy już w stanie tworzyć utopijnych wizji przyszłości, autor stara się zdać sprawę z widmowego charakteru współczesnej kultury, analizując m. in. strategie vintage, retro, nurt no future w kulturze lat 70. czy nurt fantastyki naukowej w literaturze.

“Power is war, the continuation of war by other means”: Foucault’s reversal of Clausewitz’s formula has become a staple of critical theory — but it remains highly problematic on a conceptual level. Elaborated during Foucault’s 1976 lectures (“Society Must Be Defended”), this work-hypothesis theorises “basic warfare” [la guerre fondamentale] as the teleological horizon of socio-political relations. Following Boulainvilliers, Foucault champions this polemological approach, conceived as a purely descriptive discourse on “real” politics and war, against the philosophico-juridical conceptuality attached to liberal society (Hobbes’s Leviathan being here the prime example).
However, in doing so, Foucault did not interrogate the conceptual validity of notions such as power and war, therefore interlinking them without questioning their ontological status. This problematic conflation was partly rectified in 1982, as Foucault proposed a more dynamic definition of power relations: “actions over potential actions”.
I argue, somewhat polemically, that Foucault’s hermeneutics of power still involves a teleological violence, dependent on a polemological representation of human relations as essentially instrumental: this resembles what Derrida names, in “Heidegger’s Ear”, an “anthropolemology”. However, I show that all conceptualisation of power implies its self-deconstruction. This self-deconstructive (or autoimmune) structure supposes an archi-originary unpower prior to power: power presupposes an excess within power, an excessive force, another violence making it both possible and impossible. There is something within power located “beyond the power principle” (Derrida). This (self-)excess signifies a limitless resistantiality co-extensive with power-relationality. It also allows the reversal of pólemos into its opposite, as unpower opens politics and warfare to the messianic call of a pre-political, pre-ontological disruption: the archi-originary force of différance. This force, unconditional, challenges Foucault’s conceptualisations of power, suggesting an originary performativity located before or beyond hermeneutics of power-knowledge, disrupting theoreticity as well as empiricity by pointing to their ontological complicity.
The bulk of this essay is dedicated to sketching the theoretical implications of this deconstructive reading of Foucault with respect to the methodology and conceptuality of political science and social theory.

Maintenant,  dieses französische Wort werden wir nicht übersetzen. Warum? Aus einer ganzen Reihe von Gründen, die vielleicht unterwegs sichtbar werden, oder aber am Ende des Weges. Ich werde mich hier nämlich auf einen Weg einlassen, eher gesagt einen Kurs unter anderen möglichen und konkurrierenden: Eine Reihe von kursiven Notationen quer durch die Folies von Bernard Tschumi, Punkt für Punkt, riskant, sprunghaft, dem Zufall geschuldet. Warum maintenant? Ich lege den Grund beiseite oder halte ihn in Reserve, ich setze ihn an den Rand, um das Siegel oder den Stempel dieser Sprache zu erhalten: Das wird an den Parc de la Villette in Frankreich erinnern-und ein Vorwand sein, dort den Ort für diese Tollheiten zu finden.2 Zweifellos nur ein Vorwand für unterwegs, eine Station, eine Phase, eine Pause im Lauf, aber der Vorwand wurde in Frankreich angeboten. Auf Französisch sagt man, daß sich eine Chance bietet, aber auch, nicht zu vergessen, ›einen Widerstand anbieten‹. 2 Maintenant, das Wort flattert nicht wie die Flagge der Aktualität, es führt nicht in brennende Fragen ein: Wie steht es mit der Architektur heute? Was denken wir über die architektonische Aktualität? Was gibt es Neues auf diesem Gebiet? Denn die Architektur definiert nicht mehr ein Gebiet. Im Fadenkreuz der Tollheit: maintenant die Architektur 1 1 Derrida, Jacques. "POINT DE FOLIE-MAINTENANT L'ARCHITECTURE. Bernard Tschumi: La Case Vide-La Villette, 1985." AA Files, no. 12 (1986): 65-75. Accessed October 14, 2020. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/29543519. 2 Der Parc de la Villette ist der größte Freizeitpark in Paris, von Tschumi entworfen und 1983 eröffnet.

As we all now know, it is the complex configurations of power/ knowledge that produce critical discourse analysis and its subjects. Subjects constituted by the constantly shifting, fragmented, multiple dynamics internal to the regimes of governmentality in which they are located, and to which there is no outside (Foucault 2008). Foucault’s notion of the self collapses dualistic understandings of an objective subject exterior to cognitive, interior processes of reasoning which can be transferred into the neutral medium of reasoned argument into ever productive techniques of power. Rather, there is no subject or individual “ontologically prior to power” (Ball & Olmedo 2012:87) since we are all caught up in contingencies of the shifting, fragmented historical present in which we are both “a constant beginning and … a constant end” (Ball & Olmedo 2012:87). As such never-completely achieved subjects, we write, and reinvent the disciplines and institutions that precede us, and without whose power relations there would be no subjects to glimpse in their fleeting moments of knowing in the historical present.  Yet, despite this knowledge of our nature as subjects of discourse, CDA approaches to textual analysis broadly assume the givenness of the discourses and ideologies expressed in language and map it on to a real world ‘out there’  (St Pierre 2013:651) whose workings as normalising regimes of truth it presupposes can be brought to light through empirical analysis. Such an ontology which “maintains a representational logic” (St Pierre 2013:651) tends by default to insert the centred humanist subject in the position of ‘researcher’, and at ‘a “panoptic remove from their [object] of criticism” (Radhakrishnan 1996:33), thus leaving the work of critical interrogation of representation incomplete. In this paper, I refer to Foucault and other ‘posts’ to locate the critical discourse analyst in his/her/their place in the “immanence of doing” (Lather 2013:635).

References
Ball, S and Olmedo, A. 2012. Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education 54 (1): 85–96.
Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-79, translated from French by Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lather, P. 2013. Methodology-21: what do we do in the afterward? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26 (6): 634–645.
Radhakrishnan, R. 1996. Diasporic Meditations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Teks analisis ini adalah kritik atas dekonstruksi Derrida. Inilah apresiasi, akan lahirnya kembali metafisika yang kaya, merdeka dan penuh makna. Kritik atas Derrida, sama sekali bukan meruntuhkan, tetapi membaca ulang dan menemukan “maksud” dari upaya pembongkaran teks. Sebetulnya secara detil, tidak ada salah paham dengan logosentrisme dan dekonstruksi. Hanya saja, ekstrim terhadap teori tertentu bisa menyebabkan mis-komunikasi. Menenun teks baru secara terus-menerus, berarti memproduksi maknamakna tanpa pernah berhenti. Aktivitas penafsiran adalah produktivitas yang sangat baik, terlebih sebagai upaya untuk memberi terang akan geliat batin kepada orang lain. Komunikasi dari hati ke hati.

Animatic apparatus; history of animism; history of mechanism; animation; animatic automaton; animatic; automaton; robot; cyborg; vital machine; cinema; anima; plasmaticness; simulacrum; lifedeath; the living dead; the uncanny; simulation; representation; the Death Drive; the evil demon; the crypt, the haunted house, of cinema; cinema studies; animation studies; theory of animation; Film Studies; film theory; film philosophy; philosophy; humanities; J. David Bolter; Ctesibius, Hero of Alexandria, and Philo of Byzantium; Jacques de Vaucanson; Pierre Jacquet-Droz; Frederik L. Schodt; Mary Shelley; Frankenstein; René Descartes; La Mettrie; Donald Crafton; David F. Channell; Sergei Eisenstein; Roland Barthes; Jacques Derrida; Sigmund Freud; Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe; the Mystic Writing Pad; Thierry Kuntzel; Sigvard Strandh; Gilles Deleuze; Jean Baudrillard; Philip Brophy; Franz Kafka; Plato; Jean-Pierre Vernant; Tom Gunning; C.W. Ceram; Villiers de l’Isle-Adam; L’Eve future; Blade Runner

The article proposes a typology of meaninglessness based on the semiotics of Charles S. Peirce: meaningless as indecipherable; as incomprehensible; and as uncanny. Each type is exemplified with reference to anecdotic semiotic experience gained while riding Japanese buses. Meaninglessness, however, is not insignificance. Insignificance is a much more disquieting anthropological condition, which the article describes with reference to two symmetrical processes: on the one hand, the euphoric passage from significance to insignificance, a passage meant as the “birth of new meaning”; on the other hand, the dysphoric passage from significance to insignificance, a passage which coincides with the alienation of human existence. Through several examples take from present-day societies, the article advocates for an active role of semiotics in warning human communities against the “emergence of insignificance” and its potential of violence and exploitation.

Khaidir Anwar telah menghadirkan teori kebudayaan, dan jika diikuti oleh para murid dan  koleganya di Kampus Limau Manis Universitas Andalas Padang, maka sudah mengalirlah sebuah mata air keilmuan, sebuah mazhab Limau Manis. Dulu skripsiku dibimbing oleh beliau, dengan demikian pemikiran beliau yang aku pahami, menurutku, adalah sebuah teori kebudayaan, dengan kata lain; itu adalah mutiara, yang sempat aku pungut, teori itu sudah aku gunakan dalam penulisan tesis S2-ku. Seandainya teori ini berkembang, mengalir sepanjang zaman, aku berharap ini menjadi pahala dan penghargaan untuk beliau di alam baka sana. Hormatku pada beliau.

In what follows, I bring two "loose cannons"-Jacques Derrida and Toni Morrison-into conversation with one another. In doing so, I hope to sketch what their critical theories might bring to bear on "The Western Canon." This essay is not simply concerned with the texts that make up this canon (or those which are denied admittance) but, rather, with our very relationship to the concept of canon. How does this relationship situate our reading of texts, our formulating of curricula, and-to the central question of this conference-our advocacy for diversity in higher education? In pursuit of these questions, I attempt to break away from any canon debate that would be con ned to "the advocacy of diversi cation within the canon and/or a kind of benign coexistence near or within reach of the already sacred texts." 2 This project arose from my encounter with Toni Morrison's Whiteness and the Literary Imagination while I was a student in the Torrey Honors Institute (a "Great Books" program at Biola University). Morrison helped me realize that I'd been caught up in some common presumptions about the supposed transcendence of canonical (often whitemale-authored) texts. I found that-even while I was thinking about my own blackness 3 in relation to the African-American literary tradition-I was gravitating towards the explicitly political texts of W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, and others. Morrison's profound attention to detail (particularly on matters of race) in the texts of Herman Melville, Edgar Allen Poe, and Willa Cather clearly opens up new (and faithful) interpretations. She also reveals how avoidance of "race matters" only constrains and constricts the meaning of 1 Naas, Taking on the Tradition , xvii. 2 Morrison, Unspeakable Things Unspoken , 135. 3 "When matters of race are located and called attention to in American literature, critical response has tended to be on the order of a humanistic nostrum-or a dismissal mandated by the label 'political'" ( Morrison, Whiteness and the Literary Imagination , 12).

Este ensayo se centra en las contribuciones de Marx y Arendt al concepto del derecho a tener derechos. En primer lugar, sitúa el análisis de Marx de este concepto dentro del horizonte de su interpretación de la democracia como el correlato político del cristianismo. Desde esta perspectiva, para Marx, el derecho a tener derechos designa el sujeto de los derechos en la medida en que esto es función de la legalidad garantizada por la sociedad civil. En segundo lugar, este ensayo discute la la formulación de Arendt del derecho a tener derechos como la demanda de la política que precede a todos los derechos. Hamacher libera esta demanda de su relación teleológica con los derechos y la entiende como lo que permite a los hablantes determinarse como sujetos. Él reconduce esta demanda al concepto de euchè en Aristóteles y, más en general, al lenguaje no predicativo de aquella existencia que no es ni política ni jurídicamente calificada.

As an introduction to Derridean thought and the agenda of deconstruction, one must truly be exposed to Derrida, even to the point of discomfort, in order to grasp the effect that he has had on modern theology. Too few overviews and summations of deconstruction actually interact with the broad body of Derrida’s speaking and writing, choosing instead to sum up the core themes rather tidily, while ignoring the impact of the personal style and approach that Derrida constantly maintained.

This paper uses a post-structuralist perspective to articulate the conceptual limits of the discourse of 'coming of age' as a means of examining concerns about the representation of young female sexuality in the media. Through analysis of the content and production contexts of the films Lolita Thirteen (2003), it argues that the discourse of 'coming of age' is grounded in a contradictory logic that produces conflicting aims: a desire to preserve the innocence of youth and a simultaneous expectation that they 'grow up'. Using techniques of Derridean deconstruction, the paper examines the effects that this logic produces in terms of how key aspects of 'coming of age' contradict what the discourse sets out to determine and how this contributes to perceptions of youth sexuality as problematic. It will be shown that these conceptual contradictions remain unseen in attempts to make sense of the controversial aspects of the two films: the issue of pedophilia in Lolita and the problem of teenage rebellion in Thirteen. Importantly, the deconstructive reading suggests that it is the paradoxical underpinnings of this approach to youth identity that enables the discourse to be thought at all. By working to recognise this, it is possible to move beyond the limits of the discourse and think differently about youth in response to the perceived threat posed to young people by media representations of adolescent sex and sexuality.

In current academic debate, it has become customary to conceive of identity as constructed. This is not surprising in so far as areas such as colonial, post colonial or minority studies generally deal with cases where asymmetrical relations of power can be found which allow the stronger group to define not only its own communicated image but also that of the other, inferior group. Further, this kind of constructed identity plays an important role in the political and social life of all societies. However, there are literary texts that deal with postcolonial or minority conflicts and at the same time show that the relevance of identity for the individual and society goes beyond the question of social and political power. In the work of Jorge Luis Borges, the stories “El Aleph” and “El Sur” provide intriguing examples which neither the traditional, normative notion of collective identity nor the postmodernist, deconstructionist approach are able to explain.

peter bornedal TheFragmentedNietzscheanSubject andLiteraryCriticism Conflicting Images of Woman in Jacobsen's ''Arabesque to a Drawing by Michelangelo''ornament21 ornament21 AnartistisasortofSisyphusthatiscompelledtor... aslope. ...

В статье осуществлено компаративистское исследование философских стратегий современной деконструкции и одного из направлений буддийской философии – мадхьямики-прасангики. Автор выявляет сходства и различия в позициях Ж. Деррида и Нагарджуны как наиболее значимых фигур в этих школах философии. В качестве общих подходов выделены: стратегическая критика языка, стратегия демонтажа бинарных оппозиций, стратегия философского негативизма и избегание позитивных тезисов и стратегия самодеконструкции. Также выявлены расхождения этих двух «философий на пределе».

O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar uma discussão acerca das exigências metodológicas necessárias à pesquisa psicanalítica, em especial, quando esta toma textos psicanalíticos como objeto e fonte de pesquisa. Nesse
sentido, esboçamos uma proposta de “leitura advertida”, ou seja, de leitores que tenham a consciência de que um texto é sempre a escrita de uma determinada leitura – uma leitura-escritura – e que toda leitura possui protocolos, sendo que esses protocolos são muitas vezes automáticos e, por isso, acabam ignorados pelo leitor. Iniciamos este percurso desenvolvendo alguns aspectos epistemológicos para uma leitura desconstrutiva, com base nos textos de Luís Cláudio Figueiredo e Jacques Derrida. Para fins demonstrativos, analisamos a suposição de um sentido de continuidade da psicanálise lacaniana em relação a Freud, como o efeito ou resultado de uma operação de leitura, mais especificamente, de uma leitura sobre o “retorno a Freud”. Para contrastar, uma outra leitura desse retorno, proposta pelos autores Alfredo Eidelsztein e Markos Zafiropoulos, destaca que Lacan introduz uma perspectiva epistemológica distinta da posição freudiana. Concluímos que Lacan, enquanto texto (e como qualquer texto), está aberto a inúmeras possibilidades de leitura. Essa outra maneira de ler causa uma ruptura na forma como Lacan é lido classicamente e inaugura uma outra leitura da psicanálise, a partir da herança do discurso freudo-lacaniano e de suas diferenças com esse outro Lacan.

RESUMEN:
La deconstrucción irrumpe en el pensamiento de la escritura, como una escritura de la escritura, que por lo pronto obliga a otra lectura: no ya imantada a la comprensión hermenéutica del sentido que quiere-decir un discurso, a su fondo de ilegibilidad y de deseo de idioma–, a las fuerzas no intencionales inscritas en los sistemas significantes de un discurso que hacen de éste propiamente un “texto”, es decir, algo que por su propia naturaleza o por su propia ley se resiste a ser comprendido como expresión de un sentido, o más bien “expone” éste como efecto –y con su legalidad y necesidad específica– de una ilusión para la conciencia.
Dr. Adolfo Vásquez Rocca
/derridadeconstruccion.htm
VERSIONES [Ediciones]
1. VÁSQUEZ ROCCA, Adolfo, “DERRIDA: DECONSTRUCCIÓN, DIFFÉRANCE Y DISEMINACIÓN; UNA HISTORIA DE PARÁSITOS, HUELLAS Y ESPECTROS”. En Revista OBSERVACIONES FILOSÓFICAS - Nº 19 / 2014 – ISSN 0718-3712. http://www.observacionesfilosoficas.net/derridadeconstruccion.htm
2.  VÁSQUEZ ROCCA, Adolfo, “DERRIDA : DECONSTRUCTION, DIFFERANCE AND SPREAD; A HISTORY OF PARASITES, FOOTPRINTS AND SPECTRA”, En CASA LITTERAE, Universidad de Concepción, Abril de 2015,
http://www.casalitterae.cl/index.php/estadistica/83-derrida-deconstruction-differance-and-spread-a-history-of-parasites-footprints-and-spectra
3. VÁSQUEZ ROCCA, Adolfo, “DERRIDA: DECONSTRUCCIÓN, DIFFÉRANCE Y DISEMINACIÓN; UNA HISTORIA DE PARÁSITOS, HUELLAS Y ESPECTROS”, En REDAZIONE ROSEBUD –Critica, Scrittura, Giornalismo– Enero 2015, Dublin, Ireland, http://rinabrundu.com/2015/01/05/derrida-deconstruccion-differance-y-diseminacion-una-historia-de-parasitos-huellas-y-espectros/
ADOLFO VÁSQUEZ ROCCA D.Phil

"… eyes are lips on the lips of …"
Encountering Cixous' and Derridas Veils as a Poem of Infinity

For Cixous, the interest in the passage from blindness to vision stems from what can be discovered about non-seeing as much as about seeing. It is her in-sight that non-seeing can be known, and therefore mourned, only after vision is recovered. And Jacques Derrida remarks in Un Ver à Soie: "One must learn from her....that the vision of seeing....was from the origin in mourning of the unseen [invu]" (Derrida 50).
The question of seeing and nonseeing is about mourning basically – amongst other reasons – because "(...) it is not permitted to mortals to be on both sides" (Savoir 16). Mourning links both sides – invisibly.
Cixous' Savoir is about the passage from blindness to vision, Derrida links this passage to the transformation of silkworms (which he "cultivated" before he was thirteen, as the text tells us). In the beginning there is a silkworm. But the silkworm does not stay the same. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It becomes other, it goes away, it turns into a moth. The silkworm goes into a cocoon, becomes a thing of the past. Derrida mourns, the worm’s old foreignness becomes foreign to himself; the worm is no longer, and that also means Derrida is no longer able to write about it. The text suddenly becomes intangible again, too far away, too early, too late. An infinite gap opens up. And Cixous answers elsewhere: "The relation between the thing that passes and the thing that remains has to be thought endlessly" (Cixous Messie 121). In my paper I will suggest a reading of Veils as a Poem of Infinity.

Most contemporary scholarly work on posthumanism and transhumanism rests on the idea that both perspectives are part of an ontological continuum. This article, however, acknowledges and explores the differences between them. In order to prove that evident theoretical –and, therefore, practical– differences exist between both positions, a genealogy of their development from the 1980s is proposed. The definition of the two different ontologies associated to each of the discussed positions is followed by an analysis of the consequences that this theoretical separation would have for research. This paper also lays out a revision of their epistemologies and their ethical and practical implications. To conclude, we offer a contextualized justification of why the two discussed positions are actually antithetic, and how considering them as such would be useful for future research in the field.

Derrida’s seminar on the death penalty is a deconstructive reading of the debate over the abolition of the death penalty beginning in eighteenth century Europe. The main imperative of the reading is to address the limits of abolitionist discourses, which historically have been based on natural law conceptions of the right to life. Derrida’s interest in undertaking such a reading is to develop an abolitionist argument that would hold up in principle against the death penalty. However, in this paper I take Derrida’s insights into the meaning of the death penalty to explore what they reveal about political sovereignty, and in particular its relation to violence. The paper begins by addressing several relevant moments in Derrida’s reading of texts on both sides of the death penalty debate and shows how the arguments are each limited by some ‘unavowed’ interest that conditions the fundamental principles upon which they are based. These unavowed interests relate to what Derrida describes as the ‘compromise’ on the question of cruelty in the context of the death penalty. Based on these readings, the paper develops a concept of the death penalty defined as a relation to time, specifically, a relation of mastery over the time of the life of the other. It then connects this concept to Derrida’s analysis of political sovereignty found in Rogues (2005) and ‘Force of Law’ (2002) to make two arguments. First, the conception of the death penalty as a relation to time redefines so-called ‘death penalty alternatives’, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as manifestations of the death penalty through other means; and, second, changes in the appearance of the death penalty reflect changes in the institution of political sovereignty, and in turn the status of the state.

The following article tries to show how the question of irony, as it has been formulated
by Søren Kierkegaard in his famous work The concept of irony, can provide numerous causes
for reflection, as well as echoes and suggestions of a proper modern decostructive praxis.
On the one hand, irony is a dangerous way of relativisation and dissolution of any assumed
truth, revealed as pure vanity, on the other hand – as it is the «counterfeit money» of the
communication – irony consists of a praxis that resists to the monologue of the speculative
synthesis, that is intrinsically dialogic. The irony «invents» the experience of the «other»,
inasmuch it is a messianic opening-up and it calls for a decision and singular responsibility.

Les psychanalystes seraient dupes d’une pulsion de pouvoir.
De leur propre pulsion de pouvoir.
Ils vivraient dans le déni.
Ils résisteraient eux-mêmes à cette révolution qu’est la psychanalyse.
Ils la confisqueraient en la trahissant.
Les psychanalystes ne voudraient rien savoir de la pulsion de pouvoir, n’en tiendraient pas compte, la limiteraient à une pulsion d’emprise applicable à un cadre thérapeutique restreint, la traitant comme toute autre pulsion sans y voir le jeu prédominant d’une pulsion qui s’assujettirait les autres pulsions. 
Mais de quoi s’agit-il, disent les psychanalystes, entre l’agacement et le sarcasme, quelle est cette étrange obsession dont vous nous rabattez les oreilles ?
Pulsion de pouvoir : mouvement d’un ensemble qui se lie à lui-même, la rétroaction lui donnant consistance, alors qu’il tend à lier, se lier, se relier toujours plus fort.


Plutôt qu’une menace, la déconstruction offrirait de remodeler un champ en profonde crise à partir de son reste d’inanalysé : sa propre pulsion de pouvoir décrite par Derrida autour de l’héritage de Freud (reconduit par Lacan). De la sorte, pousser la psychanalyse à déborder de sa pratique en cabinet, l’étendre au champ politique, à un dehors qu’elle aura toujours refusé de prendre en considération au prétexte de mettre à l’abri les personnes en souffrance afin qu’elles produisent leurs propres énoncés.
Face aux discours multiples où la norme sert de référent, la psychanalyse serait amenée à reconsidérer les concepts qui la restreignent à une vocation au soin, où elle se cantonne à n’avoir pour objet que ce qu’on nommerait le champ pathologique. En réinventant ses concepts en dehors de ce cadre lui-même normatif, elle enrichirait une langue pour ouvrir à une autre politique, une politique des singularités, appelée également dans de nombreux textes d’autres philosophes contemporains tels que Jean-Luc Nancy. Cette politique serait une alternative à des pouvoirs qui cherchent à capturer des sujets dans des coordonnées homogènes au nom de croyances désormais déconstruites, et même décomposées.

Even though the legitimizing intents of both the modern penitentiary and the archive—the latter understood as the physical deposit of memory—are radically different, could the principles central to their founding discourses and eventual consequences be similar? Opened in 1900, Lecumberri Palace is, in the morphological sense, a modern penitentiary, the material result of an Occidentalization of dominant discourse. During its lifetime it has housed both types of institutions. It initially served as the Mexico City Penitentiary and is currently Mexico’s General National Archive (AGN, by its acronym in Spanish), both institutions perceived as attempts to Enlighten a Nation. Through the analysis of operations carried out in both facilities and with the help of Michel Foucault’s writings on discipline and domination, Jacques Derrida’s work on the concept of the archive, and existing historiography on Lecumberri Palace, this article proposes the possibility that both the archive and the penitentiary are doomed in as much as they both suffer the same ailment. Could Derrida’s Archive Fever also be rightfully called Penitentiary Fever?

The poststructuralist philosophy of Deconstruction proposed by Derrida gives rise to a poetics of disruption and transgression through a dismantling of the traditional bases of Western epistemology, i.e., the idea of logocentrism, presence, transcendental signifiers and dyadic pairs which support the notion of fixed meanings and give rise to distinct and isolated categories. The current study argues that the erosion of absolute centres and distinct identities resulting from deconstructive relativism has led to the collapse of the binary opposition between the real and the magical in contemporary fantasy literature. Selected works of postmodern fantasy literature are analysed to assess how in keeping with the principles of différance, supplement and trace these works represent a decentred universe in which the categories of magic and the real are fluid and subject to constant slippage. Consequently the real world moves parallel to and not distinct from the world of magic and there is a constant overlapping of categories of real and magical. The present study argues that this dissolution of the boundaries between real and magical enables these postmodern texts to interrogate, subvert and dismantle logocentric thought manifested in ethnocentrism and racism and support a liberatory politics in which the voice of the marginalized alterity is recovered. For this purpose the current study is delimited to an analysis of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Key Words: poetics of disruption, deconstruction, liberatory politics, marginalization, alterity

Jacques Derridas Verständnis von Dekonstruktion und Demokratie erschließt mit der Temporalität des Futur antérieur (Futur II) ein Kriterium politischen Handelns, das es erlaubt auch scheinbar "demokratische Politik" dort zu entlarven, wo sie unbemerkt bereits begonnen hat sich selbst, d.h. die demokratische Öffnung als Überwindung klassischer Souveränität, außer Kraft zu setzen. Derridas Verständnis einer "democratie à-venir", einer Demokratie-im-Kommen, bezeichnet somit keineswegs eine Verzögerung und einen ewigen Aufschub, sondern formuliert ein Kriterium, inwiefern die Zukunft schon-jetzt das Handeln und seine Institutionen zu bestimmen vermag. "Demokratie ist für Derrida die einzige Verfassungsform, die aus sich selbst heraus jeder Ideologisierung Widerstand leistet und so auch die noch unabgegoltenen Möglichkeiten ausstehender Zukunft selbstkritisch offenhält."

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) is the most prominent figure in contemporary philosophical and literary debate. He originates a trend-breaking theory of deconstruction. He opines the persistence in west European philosophical tradition of what he labels is logocentric metaphysics of presence. He argues that the different theories of philosophy, from Plato until structuralism are versions of a single or authoritative system. Though we cannot hope to escape this system we can at least identify the conditions of thought it imposes by attending to that which it seek to impress. Derridean deconstruction may present a new perspective to Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex”, which has always been a research target for world researchers. The researchers studied it from different angles, but the present study tries to reveal different facets of the play on Derridean deconstructive bedrock. Applying Derrida’s deconstruction to the text of the play, the study tries to present it in a new and innovative way. The study will discuss how Western logocentric tradition of the metaphysics of presence and its compelling repercussions ground human thought in stable and pre-determined meaning. In its concluding mode, the study analyses preventive stumbling aporic blocks of fossilized logocentric structure of the minds of characters in the play.

The necessity of questioning the privileged spaces of
power—be it personal, social, political, or religious—is a
demand intrinsic to philosophy’s very own structure. In
this paper, an identification of the thinking and the
practice of subversion with the essence of philosophy is
undertaken as a response to the challenge of intellectual
sterilization brought about by the insidious effects of an
omnipresent techno-capitalism and academic complicity.
In particular, I will discuss Jacques Derrida’s
deconstruction as a fertile example of a subversive ethos
that refuses to be complicit with the powers-that-be but
transgresses the complacent order of the present so as to
achieve an opening for a more just relation to the “other”
of thinking that has always been marginalized by history
and the philosophical tradition.

If philosophy is to remain true to its originary inspiration,
then, it must remain vigilant to the various moments and
forms of fossilizations of power and truth. The
achievement of a critical position ownmost to philosophy is
incumbent to us: i.e., as a radical refusal to be complicit
with the present effects of power and a continuous
cultivation of an ethos of writing and thinking that does
not concede its loyalty to anything, even to philosophy.

Keywords: Jacques Derrida, deconstruction, politics,
subversion, ethos of thinking

This essay is an attempt to apply the Derridan notion of différance to Barthelme's two short stories entitled "Nothing: A Preliminary Account" "Sentence" (2003). The research seeks to illustrate that everything is the victim of language plays. Accordingly, as long as différance is one of those plays, it is going to be deconstructed within the stories by its own jeux. Through "Nothing: A Preliminary Account", the discussion is sought after making a threshold from which language could be seen as the major problem of our world. It does so by constructing the new world of nothing within its story. On the other hand, throughout "Sentence", our beliefs about construction of any ideological system for defining anything are depicted as false and fake. As one sees the new definition of 'sentence' from Barthelme's outlook, the essay provides the reader to see the arbitrariness of différance world construction from another angel. Furthermore, using deconstruction methodology creates ways to go beyond the world of words; it is like watching language from outer space. Although deconstruction is aware of being trapped within the labyrinthine made by language, it has no other way to use it. In fact, deconstruction cannot use language, but also it cannot not use it. Deconstruction in Barthelme's stories constructs another world. It puts language under erasure, but at the same time invites the reader to go beyond its world.

In On Touching, Derrida commends philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy for ‘taking into account [the] plasticity and technicity “at the heart” of the “body proper”’. Specifying the meaning of this plasticity and technicity’ Derrida writes, the ‘[s]upplementarity of technical prosthetics originarily spaces out, defers, or expropriates all originary properness: there is no “the” sense of touch, there is no “originary” or essentially originary touching before it’. What is ‘proper’ or ‘original’ to the body, it seems, is not any set of properties or capacities – including sensorial or perceptual powers – but rather the ‘plastic and substitutive structure of prosthetics’, the very possibility of the body’s ‘technical’ supplementation.

The philosophical and social scientific debate between the postmodern critique of reason and Enlightened defenders of reason got under way in the 1980s and reached the sphere of educational discussion in the 1990s. Jürgen Habermas is on the side of the defenders of reason, although he has very peculiar concept of reason and is in many ways critical towards Enlightenment (the German philosophy of consciousness). Jacques Derrida, on the other hand, belongs to the side of postmodern critique, although he never makes explicit reference to the term postmodern. Derrida prefers the concept of deconstruction, which is his version of Heidegger's concept of de-struction. There are currently a number of ongoing projects in the field of educational science which rely on Habermasian communicative reason, and there are at least as many research programs which have their philosophical foundation in deconstruction. As such, examining the philosophical differences between Habermas and Derrida is extremely useful.

La Règle du Jeu, Paris, Grasset, Janvier 2011, no. 45, pp. 253-274) Comment ne pas commencer par dire que c'est une chance pour nous d'écrire autour de Adieu, dernier texte que Jacques Derrida consacre à Emmanuel Lévinas, après « Violence et métaphysique » et « En ce moment même dans cet ouvrage, me voici ». Chance à plus d'un titre. D'abord parce que cela que nous lisons aujourd'hui, nous avons commencé par l'entendre en Sorbonne, dans le prestigieux amphithéâtre Richelieu, le 7 décembre 1996, énoncé par Jacques Derrida lui-même. Souvenir pour le moins inoubliable, dont nous n'aurions à l'époque pas même osé penser qu'il nous reviendrait d'en préfacer la première traduction en hébreu.

Not‌ ‌everyone‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌protagonist,‌ ‌not‌ ‌even‌ ‌in‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌story.‌ ‌No‌ ‌matter‌ ‌how‌ ‌one‌ ‌views‌ ‌the‌ ‌
world‌ ‌there‌ ‌is‌ ‌almost‌ ‌no‌ ‌way‌ ‌for‌ ‌each‌ ‌and‌ ‌every‌ ‌person‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌a‌ ‌Hamlet.‌ ‌Somebody‌ ‌has‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌the‌ ‌
Rosencrantz‌ ‌or‌ ‌Guildenstern‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌story.‌ ‌Tom‌ ‌Stoppard’s‌ ‌1967‌ ‌play‌ ‌within‌ ‌a‌ ‌play‌ ‌explores‌ ‌the‌ ‌
plight‌ ‌of‌ ‌‌Hamlet‌’s‌ ‌minor‌ ‌characters‌ ‌and‌ ‌their‌ ‌battle‌ ‌with‌ ‌fate.‌ ‌‌Rosencrantz‌ ‌and‌ ‌Guildenstern‌ ‌Are‌ ‌
Dead‌ ‌‌reflects‌ ‌postmodern‌ ‌themes‌ ‌and‌ ‌philosophies‌ ‌through‌ ‌the‌ ‌deconstruction‌ ‌of‌ ‌Shakespeare’s‌ ‌
Hamlet‌.‌

Deconstructive analyses on cinematic texts are becoming widespread, albeit in limited numbers. The deconstructive readings remain in the dimension of emotion transfer due to the lack of sufficient knowledge; they become detrimental to the depth of the analysis field. Undoubtedly, there is no discussion that can be shown as “the best.” However, making in-depth analysis using deconstruction is the author’s responsibility to the film as a product, to the audience, and to criticism in general. The most important tool in fulfilling this responsibility is awareness of the applied analysis technique. This study was born out of the limitation observed in the mentioned awareness and the need created by the inadequacy of theoretical studies in the field. In this context, the study aims to reveal what deconstruction is through Derrida’s terminology and to show how this practice can be applied to film analysis. It constructs this on three levels: At the first level, deconstruction is handled and defined as one of the arguments of poststructuralism. At the second level, the work focuses on Derrida’s concepts of phonocentrism/logocentrism, Différance, reversal/displacement, and repression. The third and final level covers how deconstruction can be applied to films as a method of analysis. The opportunity that this study would be a source for researchers interested in cinema, Derrida, and deconstruction is expected to make the study meaningful as a whole.

Local histories/global designs: Essays on the coloniality of power, subaltern knowledges and border thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2-3), 449-514. Najera, J. L. (2014). Chicana/o movement pedagogical Legacies: Indigenous consciousness, critical pedagogy, and constructing paths to decolonization.

Este livro pretende revisar o conceito de comunicação desde a perspectiva da desconstrução. Esta revisão segue um caminho duplo: por um lado, se explicam as estruturas conceituais da desconstrução, sobretudo as que provêm do pensamento de Jacques Derrida e, por outro lado, se intervém com elas nos usos gerais que se fazem dos conceitos de comunicação predominantes. O encontro desses dois caminhos, o da desconstrução e o da comunicação, produz alguns sintomas importantes de referir. A parte mais atraente dessa "sintomatologia" é o efeito gramatológico que propomos ao suplementar o próprio conceito de comunicação com uma letra m (comceito), m de comunicação, m de morte, um m, em fim, que utilizamos para tentar produzir um efeito de différance. Nesse encontro de caminhos, este livro também é uma justa homenagem ao próprio Jacques Derrida, quem através de seus textos, nos ensinou a ler e a escrever de outras maneiras aquilo que acreditávamos ter lido e escrito sempre, sobretudo na filosofia e nas ciências sociais.