LI Ml lCU 111 1

(b) In wrinen lInerances (or inscriptions) ~ his appending his signature (this has to he done because of course wrinen utterances are nOt tethered to their origin in the way spoken ones are) (pp 60-61 )

An analogous fu nction is attributed by Austin to the formula hereby in official documents

From this point of view let us anempt to analyze signatures their re lation to

the present and to the source I shall consider it as an implication of the analysis that every predicate established will be equally valid for that oral Signature constituted--Dr aspired to-by the presence of the author as a person who utters as a source to the production of the unerance

By definit ion a wrinen signature implies the actual or empir ical nonpresence of the Signer But it will be daimed the Signature also marks and rerains his haVing-been present in a past now or present [mai1llenam] which will remain a future now or present [maintenam] thus in a general ma intenclnt in the transhyscendental fo rm of presentness lmaintenance ] That general maintenance is in some way inscribed pinpointed in the always evident and Singular present puncshytuality of the form of the signature Such is (he enigmatic originality of every paraph In order for the tethe ring to (he source to occur what must be retained is the absolute singularity of a signature-event and a Signature-form the pure reshyproducibility of a pure event

Is there such a thing~ Does the absolute singularitl of signature as event ever occur Are there signatures~

Yes of course every day Effects of signature are the most common thing in the wo rld But the condition of possibility of those effects is Simultaneously once again the condition of their impossibility of the impossibility of their rigorous puriry In order to function that is to be readable a signature must have a repeatshyable iterable imitable form it must be able to be detached from the present and Singular intention of its production It is its sameness which by corrupting its identi ty and its Singularity divides its seal [sceau ] I have already indicated above the principle of this analysis

To conclude this ve) dry discussion 1) as writing communication if we retain that word is not the means of

transference of meaning the exchange of intentions and meanings [vouloir-dire] discourse and the communication of consciousnesses We are witneSSing nOt an end ofwriting that would restore in accord with Mduhan s ideological represhysentation a transparency or an immediacy to social relations but rathe r the inshycreasingly powerful historical expansion of a general writing of which the sysshytem of speech conSCiousness meaning presence ruth etc would be only an effect and should be analyzed as such It is the exposure of this effect that I have caUed elsewhere logocentrism

2) the semant ic horizon that habitually governs the notion of communication is exceeded or split by the intervention of writing that is by a dissemi1Ulfion

20

)lgnulure J IJenT Lontext

irreducible to poLysemy Writing is read it is not the Site in the last instance of a hermeneutic deciphering the decoding of a meaning or truth

3) despite the general displacement of the classical philosophical occidenshytal concept of writing it seems necessalY to retain provisional ly and strategically the old 1Ulme This entails an entire logic of paleonymics that r can not develo[ here lI Very schematically an opposition of metaphysical concepts (eg speech writing presenCeabsence etc) is never the confrontation of two terms but a hierarchy and the order of a subordination Deconstruction cannot be restricted or imm ediate ly pass to a neutralization it must through a double gesture a doushyble science a double writing- put into practice a renmal of the classical opposishytion and a general dispLacemelll of the system It is on thaL condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of i1lteneYling in the fi eld of oppositions it criticizes and that is also a field of nondiscursive forces Every concept moreshyover belongs to a systematic chain and constitutes in itself a system of predicares There is no concept that is metaphys ical in itself There is a labor- metaphysical or not-performed on conceptual systems Deconstruction does not consist in moving from one concept to another but in reversing and displacing a conceptushyal order as well as the nonconceptual order with which it is articulated For exshyample writing as a claSSical concept entails predicates that have been subordishynated excluded or held in abeyance by forces and according to neceSSities to be analyzed It is those predicates (T have recalled several of them) whose force of generali ty generalization and generativiry js Hberated grafted onto a new conshycept of writing that corresponds a~ well to what has always resisted the prior organization of forces always constituted the residue irreducible to the domishynant force o rganizing the hierarchy that we may refer to in brief as logocentric To leave to this new concept the old name of writing is tantamount to maintainshying the structure of the graf t the transition and indispensable adherence to an effective intervention in the constituted historical field It is to give to everything at stake in the operations of deconstruCtion the chance and the force the power of comm unication

But this will have been understood as a matter of course especially in a philosophical colloquium a disseminating operation removed from the presshyence (of being) according to all its modifications writing jf there is any perhaps communicates but certainly does not exist Or barely hereby in the form of th e most improbable Signature

(Remark the- wrinen-text of this-shyoral----ltommunicat ion was to be delivshyered to the Association des societes de phiLosophie de langue jranfCIise before fu ~)~-jthe meeting That d ispatch should thus have been signed Which I do and counterfeit here Where There J D) J D ERRJ DA 1

21

l

lri Ie he 5 tl If t

eal Ire

nel

mc Jeli n he ioi )er

Ie

efl

la Jril 19c

l 01

ha Ir

tt I

f r~

w nc

ul t I

g

1

Signature Eqmiddot nt Context

duciblc to the dominant force which organ ized the-to say it quickly- Iogocc tric hierarchy To leave to this new concept the old name of writing is to mainta the structure of the graft the trans ition and ind ispensable adherence to effective in tervention in the cons tituted historic field And it is also to give thE chance and their force their power of COI11I1Zl1llica tiOIl to everything played 0

r

in the operations of deconstruction

But what goes without saying will qu ickly have been understood especial in a philosophical coll oquium as a disseminating opera ti on separated from pre ence (of Being) accord ing to all its modifications writing if there is any perha) communicates bu t does not exist surely Or barely hereby in the form of t ~probablc signature

(Remark the-written-text of

this- oral- com munication was to have been addressed to the Association of Fren ch

I Speaking Societies of Philosophy befo re the meeting Such a missive therefore had I-~r~t~Jto be signed Which I did and COU I~here Where 1middothere JD )I J DERRIDA

330

estern Univer ity Press n llIi nois 60208

ure Event Contexr copyrigh t copy 1972 by Les Editions de M inuil English translation by Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman fi rst published in Glyph 1 1977 Copyright copy 1977 by T he 10pkins U niversi ry Press and Edirions de Min uir Signature Event Contexr translated Bass appears in Margim oPhiLosophy by Jacques Derrida published 1982 by the

ity of Chicago Press

translation of Limirtd Inc abc by Samuel W eber first published in Glyph 2 Opyrigh t copy 1977 by The Johns Hopkins Universiry Press Used by permission of The

-lopkins Universiry Press

)rd copyright copy 1988 by Jacques Derrida Translation copyright copy 1988 by Samuel Editors Foreword and Summary of Reiterating the Differences copyright copy 1988 by

vcstcrn University Press Al l rights reserved

I in the United States of America

lblished 1988 I papetback printing 1990 paperback printing 1993

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

a Jacques Limited IncJacques Derrida

p cm Translated from the French T wo essays herein appea red in Glyph v 1 amp 2 19 C ontents Signature event context- Summary of Rei te rating differences- Limi ted Inc ab c- Afterword toward an ethic of disC llss ion ISBN 0-8101-0787-2 [SBN 0-8101-0788-0 (pbk)

1 Deconstruction I Title J98D43D4) 1988

88-28322I 95-dcJ9 CIl

__ __0--

Contents

EditOrs Foreword vii

SignalU re Event Context 1

SummarY of Reiterating the Differences 25

Limited Inc abc 29

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discllssion 111

Editors Foreword

Limited Inc colle cLS in one volume fo r the first umt the two essay~ Ulat conshystitute Jacques Derridas most sustained e ngagement with Anglo-American speech act theory In a new Afterword Toward an Ethic of Discussion Derrida responds to questions (submitted to him in written form) about the [wo essays and the cri ticisms they have recei ed as well as other controversial aspects of De rridas work

The opening essay Signature Eve nt Context has a somewhat complicatshyed pUblihing history In its first ve rsion the essay was written for a confershyence on the uleme of Communication he ld by the Congre~ inte rnational des Societes de philosophie de langue francaise (Montreal AugUSt 197 1) and was published in French in the Congres s Proceedillgs Tht essay 3S then collectshyed in Derr ida s Marges de La Philosop lJy p ub lished by Editions de i inuit in 1972 The first English translation by Samue l Weher and Jeffrey Mehlman ar shypeared in vo lume 1 of the serial publi cation C~lph in 1977 It subsequently appeared in a translat ion hy Alan Bass in Margins CJ( I )hilosophy (U niversiry of Chicago Pres 1982)

In its second volume (1 977 CI)1)J puhlished a response to Derrida s essay by John R ~earle e ntitled Reiterating the Difference1gt A Rep ly to De rrida It was this Reply thaI d rew Dcrridts rejoinde r the essay Lim ited Inc ahc transshylated by Samuel Weber When Professor Seark dlcl ined to have his essay includshyed in the present hook we decided to insen a b rief summary of its main po jn~ in an editoria l note betveen Derridas two essays With this summary amI Derridas comprehensive q uotat ion of Searles Rep ly readers sh~)uld be able to nconshystruct the dipute between Oerrida and Searle But they are advised to consult the full text of Searle 1gt essay in q)pb 2

Because Searle s Rerly and Ocrr icla s re jOinder in Li mited Inc make exshylensive reference to passages in the Weher-Mehlman translation o f Signature Event Context we have chosen to use Ullt translation here

O n behalf OfU1C Non hwestern lniversity Pressl want to extend my warmest thanks to Samue l Weber fo r initialh suggesti ng ulis pro ject he lping it along in innumerable ways and translating the Afterword under considerable deadline pressure And of course we thank Jacques Derrida for giving llS the honor o f

v i i

---------_

LLllTED INC

~ing his te1S available in buok form and fo r enhancing [hltm with his mOSl ~nt thoughts

GERALU GtVfF

v iii

Signature Event Context

Slitl confining ourselves for simplicity to spoken uncramL Austin HOIl to Do Things with WorcL

Is it certain thar to the word communication corresponds a concept that is unique univocal rigorously cOI1lTollable and transmirtable in a word commushynicable gt Thus in accordance witll a strange figure of discourse one must fi rst of al1 ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communishycales a determinate content an identifiahle mean ing or a describable value However even to articulale and to propose this question I have had lO antiCi pate the meaning of the word communication I have been constrained to predetershymine communication as a vehicle a means of transport or transitional medium of a meaning and moreover of a unified meanll1g 1f communication possessed several meanings and if lh is plurality should prove to be lfreducible it would not be justi fiable 10 define communication a priori as the transmission of a mealling even supposing that we cou ld agree on what each of these words (transmission meaning e tc) involved Ami yel we have IlO prio r aUlhori7a1 ion for ncglecting communication as a word or for impoverishing its polsem ic aspects indeed this word opens up a semantic domain that precisely does not lim it itself to eshymanticgt semiotic~ and even less tl) linguistics For one characteristic of the seshymantic field of the word comrmmicafion is that it designates nonsemamic moveshyments as well Here even a provisioml recourse to ordinary Janguage and to the equivocations of natural language instructs u that one can for instance comshymunicatea mOlement or that a tremor [eiJrallleme17lj a shock a displacement of force can be communicated- thal is propagated transmilled We also speak ot different or remote places o)mmunicating with each other hy mean of a passage o r opening What takes place in [his sense what is transmined communicatcd does not involve phenomena of meaning or signification Tn such Gt1es we are dealing neither with a semantic or conceplLIa) comem nor with a semiotic operashytion and even less with a linguislic exd13nge

]

l

lri Ie he 5 tl If t

eal Ire

nel

mc Jeli n he ioi )er

Ie

efl

la Jril 19c

l 01

ha Ir

tt I

f r~

w nc

ul t I

g

1

Signature Eqmiddot nt Context

duciblc to the dominant force which organ ized the-to say it quickly- Iogocc tric hierarchy To leave to this new concept the old name of writing is to mainta the structure of the graft the trans ition and ind ispensable adherence to effective in tervention in the cons tituted historic field And it is also to give thE chance and their force their power of COI11I1Zl1llica tiOIl to everything played 0

r

in the operations of deconstruction

But what goes without saying will qu ickly have been understood especial in a philosophical coll oquium as a disseminating opera ti on separated from pre ence (of Being) accord ing to all its modifications writing if there is any perha) communicates bu t does not exist surely Or barely hereby in the form of t ~probablc signature

(Remark the-written-text of

this- oral- com munication was to have been addressed to the Association of Fren ch

I Speaking Societies of Philosophy befo re the meeting Such a missive therefore had I-~r~t~Jto be signed Which I did and COU I~here Where 1middothere JD )I J DERRIDA

330

estern Univer ity Press n llIi nois 60208

ure Event Contexr copyrigh t copy 1972 by Les Editions de M inuil English translation by Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman fi rst published in Glyph 1 1977 Copyright copy 1977 by T he 10pkins U niversi ry Press and Edirions de Min uir Signature Event Contexr translated Bass appears in Margim oPhiLosophy by Jacques Derrida published 1982 by the

ity of Chicago Press

translation of Limirtd Inc abc by Samuel W eber first published in Glyph 2 Opyrigh t copy 1977 by The Johns Hopkins Universiry Press Used by permission of The

-lopkins Universiry Press

)rd copyright copy 1988 by Jacques Derrida Translation copyright copy 1988 by Samuel Editors Foreword and Summary of Reiterating the Differences copyright copy 1988 by

vcstcrn University Press Al l rights reserved

I in the United States of America

lblished 1988 I papetback printing 1990 paperback printing 1993

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

a Jacques Limited IncJacques Derrida

p cm Translated from the French T wo essays herein appea red in Glyph v 1 amp 2 19 C ontents Signature event context- Summary of Rei te rating differences- Limi ted Inc ab c- Afterword toward an ethic of disC llss ion ISBN 0-8101-0787-2 [SBN 0-8101-0788-0 (pbk)

1 Deconstruction I Title J98D43D4) 1988

88-28322I 95-dcJ9 CIl

__ __0--

Contents

EditOrs Foreword vii

SignalU re Event Context 1

SummarY of Reiterating the Differences 25

Limited Inc abc 29

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discllssion 111

Editors Foreword

Limited Inc colle cLS in one volume fo r the first umt the two essay~ Ulat conshystitute Jacques Derridas most sustained e ngagement with Anglo-American speech act theory In a new Afterword Toward an Ethic of Discussion Derrida responds to questions (submitted to him in written form) about the [wo essays and the cri ticisms they have recei ed as well as other controversial aspects of De rridas work

The opening essay Signature Eve nt Context has a somewhat complicatshyed pUblihing history In its first ve rsion the essay was written for a confershyence on the uleme of Communication he ld by the Congre~ inte rnational des Societes de philosophie de langue francaise (Montreal AugUSt 197 1) and was published in French in the Congres s Proceedillgs Tht essay 3S then collectshyed in Derr ida s Marges de La Philosop lJy p ub lished by Editions de i inuit in 1972 The first English translation by Samue l Weher and Jeffrey Mehlman ar shypeared in vo lume 1 of the serial publi cation C~lph in 1977 It subsequently appeared in a translat ion hy Alan Bass in Margins CJ( I )hilosophy (U niversiry of Chicago Pres 1982)

In its second volume (1 977 CI)1)J puhlished a response to Derrida s essay by John R ~earle e ntitled Reiterating the Difference1gt A Rep ly to De rrida It was this Reply thaI d rew Dcrridts rejoinde r the essay Lim ited Inc ahc transshylated by Samuel Weber When Professor Seark dlcl ined to have his essay includshyed in the present hook we decided to insen a b rief summary of its main po jn~ in an editoria l note betveen Derridas two essays With this summary amI Derridas comprehensive q uotat ion of Searles Rep ly readers sh~)uld be able to nconshystruct the dipute between Oerrida and Searle But they are advised to consult the full text of Searle 1gt essay in q)pb 2

Because Searle s Rerly and Ocrr icla s re jOinder in Li mited Inc make exshylensive reference to passages in the Weher-Mehlman translation o f Signature Event Context we have chosen to use Ullt translation here

O n behalf OfU1C Non hwestern lniversity Pressl want to extend my warmest thanks to Samue l Weber fo r initialh suggesti ng ulis pro ject he lping it along in innumerable ways and translating the Afterword under considerable deadline pressure And of course we thank Jacques Derrida for giving llS the honor o f

v i i

---------_

LLllTED INC

~ing his te1S available in buok form and fo r enhancing [hltm with his mOSl ~nt thoughts

GERALU GtVfF

v iii

Signature Event Context

Slitl confining ourselves for simplicity to spoken uncramL Austin HOIl to Do Things with WorcL

Is it certain thar to the word communication corresponds a concept that is unique univocal rigorously cOI1lTollable and transmirtable in a word commushynicable gt Thus in accordance witll a strange figure of discourse one must fi rst of al1 ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communishycales a determinate content an identifiahle mean ing or a describable value However even to articulale and to propose this question I have had lO antiCi pate the meaning of the word communication I have been constrained to predetershymine communication as a vehicle a means of transport or transitional medium of a meaning and moreover of a unified meanll1g 1f communication possessed several meanings and if lh is plurality should prove to be lfreducible it would not be justi fiable 10 define communication a priori as the transmission of a mealling even supposing that we cou ld agree on what each of these words (transmission meaning e tc) involved Ami yel we have IlO prio r aUlhori7a1 ion for ncglecting communication as a word or for impoverishing its polsem ic aspects indeed this word opens up a semantic domain that precisely does not lim it itself to eshymanticgt semiotic~ and even less tl) linguistics For one characteristic of the seshymantic field of the word comrmmicafion is that it designates nonsemamic moveshyments as well Here even a provisioml recourse to ordinary Janguage and to the equivocations of natural language instructs u that one can for instance comshymunicatea mOlement or that a tremor [eiJrallleme17lj a shock a displacement of force can be communicated- thal is propagated transmilled We also speak ot different or remote places o)mmunicating with each other hy mean of a passage o r opening What takes place in [his sense what is transmined communicatcd does not involve phenomena of meaning or signification Tn such Gt1es we are dealing neither with a semantic or conceplLIa) comem nor with a semiotic operashytion and even less with a linguislic exd13nge

]

estern Univer ity Press n llIi nois 60208

ure Event Contexr copyrigh t copy 1972 by Les Editions de M inuil English translation by Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman fi rst published in Glyph 1 1977 Copyright copy 1977 by T he 10pkins U niversi ry Press and Edirions de Min uir Signature Event Contexr translated Bass appears in Margim oPhiLosophy by Jacques Derrida published 1982 by the

ity of Chicago Press

translation of Limirtd Inc abc by Samuel W eber first published in Glyph 2 Opyrigh t copy 1977 by The Johns Hopkins Universiry Press Used by permission of The

-lopkins Universiry Press

)rd copyright copy 1988 by Jacques Derrida Translation copyright copy 1988 by Samuel Editors Foreword and Summary of Reiterating the Differences copyright copy 1988 by

vcstcrn University Press Al l rights reserved

I in the United States of America

lblished 1988 I papetback printing 1990 paperback printing 1993

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

a Jacques Limited IncJacques Derrida

p cm Translated from the French T wo essays herein appea red in Glyph v 1 amp 2 19 C ontents Signature event context- Summary of Rei te rating differences- Limi ted Inc ab c- Afterword toward an ethic of disC llss ion ISBN 0-8101-0787-2 [SBN 0-8101-0788-0 (pbk)

1 Deconstruction I Title J98D43D4) 1988

88-28322I 95-dcJ9 CIl

__ __0--

Contents

EditOrs Foreword vii

SignalU re Event Context 1

SummarY of Reiterating the Differences 25

Limited Inc abc 29

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discllssion 111

Editors Foreword

Limited Inc colle cLS in one volume fo r the first umt the two essay~ Ulat conshystitute Jacques Derridas most sustained e ngagement with Anglo-American speech act theory In a new Afterword Toward an Ethic of Discussion Derrida responds to questions (submitted to him in written form) about the [wo essays and the cri ticisms they have recei ed as well as other controversial aspects of De rridas work

The opening essay Signature Eve nt Context has a somewhat complicatshyed pUblihing history In its first ve rsion the essay was written for a confershyence on the uleme of Communication he ld by the Congre~ inte rnational des Societes de philosophie de langue francaise (Montreal AugUSt 197 1) and was published in French in the Congres s Proceedillgs Tht essay 3S then collectshyed in Derr ida s Marges de La Philosop lJy p ub lished by Editions de i inuit in 1972 The first English translation by Samue l Weher and Jeffrey Mehlman ar shypeared in vo lume 1 of the serial publi cation C~lph in 1977 It subsequently appeared in a translat ion hy Alan Bass in Margins CJ( I )hilosophy (U niversiry of Chicago Pres 1982)

In its second volume (1 977 CI)1)J puhlished a response to Derrida s essay by John R ~earle e ntitled Reiterating the Difference1gt A Rep ly to De rrida It was this Reply thaI d rew Dcrridts rejoinde r the essay Lim ited Inc ahc transshylated by Samuel Weber When Professor Seark dlcl ined to have his essay includshyed in the present hook we decided to insen a b rief summary of its main po jn~ in an editoria l note betveen Derridas two essays With this summary amI Derridas comprehensive q uotat ion of Searles Rep ly readers sh~)uld be able to nconshystruct the dipute between Oerrida and Searle But they are advised to consult the full text of Searle 1gt essay in q)pb 2

Because Searle s Rerly and Ocrr icla s re jOinder in Li mited Inc make exshylensive reference to passages in the Weher-Mehlman translation o f Signature Event Context we have chosen to use Ullt translation here

O n behalf OfU1C Non hwestern lniversity Pressl want to extend my warmest thanks to Samue l Weber fo r initialh suggesti ng ulis pro ject he lping it along in innumerable ways and translating the Afterword under considerable deadline pressure And of course we thank Jacques Derrida for giving llS the honor o f

v i i

---------_

LLllTED INC

~ing his te1S available in buok form and fo r enhancing [hltm with his mOSl ~nt thoughts

GERALU GtVfF

v iii

Signature Event Context

Slitl confining ourselves for simplicity to spoken uncramL Austin HOIl to Do Things with WorcL

Is it certain thar to the word communication corresponds a concept that is unique univocal rigorously cOI1lTollable and transmirtable in a word commushynicable gt Thus in accordance witll a strange figure of discourse one must fi rst of al1 ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communishycales a determinate content an identifiahle mean ing or a describable value However even to articulale and to propose this question I have had lO antiCi pate the meaning of the word communication I have been constrained to predetershymine communication as a vehicle a means of transport or transitional medium of a meaning and moreover of a unified meanll1g 1f communication possessed several meanings and if lh is plurality should prove to be lfreducible it would not be justi fiable 10 define communication a priori as the transmission of a mealling even supposing that we cou ld agree on what each of these words (transmission meaning e tc) involved Ami yel we have IlO prio r aUlhori7a1 ion for ncglecting communication as a word or for impoverishing its polsem ic aspects indeed this word opens up a semantic domain that precisely does not lim it itself to eshymanticgt semiotic~ and even less tl) linguistics For one characteristic of the seshymantic field of the word comrmmicafion is that it designates nonsemamic moveshyments as well Here even a provisioml recourse to ordinary Janguage and to the equivocations of natural language instructs u that one can for instance comshymunicatea mOlement or that a tremor [eiJrallleme17lj a shock a displacement of force can be communicated- thal is propagated transmilled We also speak ot different or remote places o)mmunicating with each other hy mean of a passage o r opening What takes place in [his sense what is transmined communicatcd does not involve phenomena of meaning or signification Tn such Gt1es we are dealing neither with a semantic or conceplLIa) comem nor with a semiotic operashytion and even less with a linguislic exd13nge

]

Editors Foreword

Limited Inc colle cLS in one volume fo r the first umt the two essay~ Ulat conshystitute Jacques Derridas most sustained e ngagement with Anglo-American speech act theory In a new Afterword Toward an Ethic of Discussion Derrida responds to questions (submitted to him in written form) about the [wo essays and the cri ticisms they have recei ed as well as other controversial aspects of De rridas work

The opening essay Signature Eve nt Context has a somewhat complicatshyed pUblihing history In its first ve rsion the essay was written for a confershyence on the uleme of Communication he ld by the Congre~ inte rnational des Societes de philosophie de langue francaise (Montreal AugUSt 197 1) and was published in French in the Congres s Proceedillgs Tht essay 3S then collectshyed in Derr ida s Marges de La Philosop lJy p ub lished by Editions de i inuit in 1972 The first English translation by Samue l Weher and Jeffrey Mehlman ar shypeared in vo lume 1 of the serial publi cation C~lph in 1977 It subsequently appeared in a translat ion hy Alan Bass in Margins CJ( I )hilosophy (U niversiry of Chicago Pres 1982)

In its second volume (1 977 CI)1)J puhlished a response to Derrida s essay by John R ~earle e ntitled Reiterating the Difference1gt A Rep ly to De rrida It was this Reply thaI d rew Dcrridts rejoinde r the essay Lim ited Inc ahc transshylated by Samuel Weber When Professor Seark dlcl ined to have his essay includshyed in the present hook we decided to insen a b rief summary of its main po jn~ in an editoria l note betveen Derridas two essays With this summary amI Derridas comprehensive q uotat ion of Searles Rep ly readers sh~)uld be able to nconshystruct the dipute between Oerrida and Searle But they are advised to consult the full text of Searle 1gt essay in q)pb 2

Because Searle s Rerly and Ocrr icla s re jOinder in Li mited Inc make exshylensive reference to passages in the Weher-Mehlman translation o f Signature Event Context we have chosen to use Ullt translation here

O n behalf OfU1C Non hwestern lniversity Pressl want to extend my warmest thanks to Samue l Weber fo r initialh suggesti ng ulis pro ject he lping it along in innumerable ways and translating the Afterword under considerable deadline pressure And of course we thank Jacques Derrida for giving llS the honor o f

v i i

---------_

LLllTED INC

~ing his te1S available in buok form and fo r enhancing [hltm with his mOSl ~nt thoughts

GERALU GtVfF

v iii

Signature Event Context

Slitl confining ourselves for simplicity to spoken uncramL Austin HOIl to Do Things with WorcL

Is it certain thar to the word communication corresponds a concept that is unique univocal rigorously cOI1lTollable and transmirtable in a word commushynicable gt Thus in accordance witll a strange figure of discourse one must fi rst of al1 ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communishycales a determinate content an identifiahle mean ing or a describable value However even to articulale and to propose this question I have had lO antiCi pate the meaning of the word communication I have been constrained to predetershymine communication as a vehicle a means of transport or transitional medium of a meaning and moreover of a unified meanll1g 1f communication possessed several meanings and if lh is plurality should prove to be lfreducible it would not be justi fiable 10 define communication a priori as the transmission of a mealling even supposing that we cou ld agree on what each of these words (transmission meaning e tc) involved Ami yel we have IlO prio r aUlhori7a1 ion for ncglecting communication as a word or for impoverishing its polsem ic aspects indeed this word opens up a semantic domain that precisely does not lim it itself to eshymanticgt semiotic~ and even less tl) linguistics For one characteristic of the seshymantic field of the word comrmmicafion is that it designates nonsemamic moveshyments as well Here even a provisioml recourse to ordinary Janguage and to the equivocations of natural language instructs u that one can for instance comshymunicatea mOlement or that a tremor [eiJrallleme17lj a shock a displacement of force can be communicated- thal is propagated transmilled We also speak ot different or remote places o)mmunicating with each other hy mean of a passage o r opening What takes place in [his sense what is transmined communicatcd does not involve phenomena of meaning or signification Tn such Gt1es we are dealing neither with a semantic or conceplLIa) comem nor with a semiotic operashytion and even less with a linguislic exd13nge

]

---------_

LLllTED INC

~ing his te1S available in buok form and fo r enhancing [hltm with his mOSl ~nt thoughts

GERALU GtVfF

v iii

Signature Event Context

Slitl confining ourselves for simplicity to spoken uncramL Austin HOIl to Do Things with WorcL

Is it certain thar to the word communication corresponds a concept that is unique univocal rigorously cOI1lTollable and transmirtable in a word commushynicable gt Thus in accordance witll a strange figure of discourse one must fi rst of al1 ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communishycales a determinate content an identifiahle mean ing or a describable value However even to articulale and to propose this question I have had lO antiCi pate the meaning of the word communication I have been constrained to predetershymine communication as a vehicle a means of transport or transitional medium of a meaning and moreover of a unified meanll1g 1f communication possessed several meanings and if lh is plurality should prove to be lfreducible it would not be justi fiable 10 define communication a priori as the transmission of a mealling even supposing that we cou ld agree on what each of these words (transmission meaning e tc) involved Ami yel we have IlO prio r aUlhori7a1 ion for ncglecting communication as a word or for impoverishing its polsem ic aspects indeed this word opens up a semantic domain that precisely does not lim it itself to eshymanticgt semiotic~ and even less tl) linguistics For one characteristic of the seshymantic field of the word comrmmicafion is that it designates nonsemamic moveshyments as well Here even a provisioml recourse to ordinary Janguage and to the equivocations of natural language instructs u that one can for instance comshymunicatea mOlement or that a tremor [eiJrallleme17lj a shock a displacement of force can be communicated- thal is propagated transmilled We also speak ot different or remote places o)mmunicating with each other hy mean of a passage o r opening What takes place in [his sense what is transmined communicatcd does not involve phenomena of meaning or signification Tn such Gt1es we are dealing neither with a semantic or conceplLIa) comem nor with a semiotic operashytion and even less with a linguislic exd13nge

]

Summary of Reiterating the Differences

In his Rep ly to Derrida entitled Heiterating the Differences John R Searle concentrates on four interrelated aspects of Derridas argument in middotSignashyture Event Context 1 Derriclas assimilation of o ral speech to writing 2 h is challenge to the view that identifies the meaning of an utte rance with the inten shytions of its speaker or writer 3 the implications of the concept of ilerahility De rridas word for the repeatability ofthe same expressions in different contexts (which for Derrida always involves transformation) 4 his critique of j L Austins treatment of fictional speech acts as parasitic on nonfictional normal or middotse rishyous ones

Much of Searles Reply responds to Dcrrida s cr itique of the classical conshycept of writing as the communication of intended meaning Searle challenges Derridas argument that as Searle puts it since writing can and must be able to

function in the radical absence of the sende r the receiver and the contegt1 of production it cannot be the com munication of the senders meaning to the re shyce iver (p 199) Searle argues that it is not as Derrida claims the iterabi li [) the repeatability of the linguistic elements that d istinguishes writing from oral speech but the relat ive permanence of writing

Searle points out that whether written or spoken any rule-bound system of represe ntation must be repeatable for otherwise the rule~ would have no scope o f appLcation (p 199) Furthermore written discourse is nOl distinguished from speech by the absence of the receive r from the sender For wrinen comshymunication can exist in the presence of the receiver as for example when I compose a shoppi ng list fo r myself or pass notes to my com pan ion during a concert o r lecture ( p 200) Searle concl udes that the phe nomenon of the sur shyvival of the text is not the same as the phenomenon of repeatabili rv for the same text Cln be read by many differe nt reade rs long after tile death of the autho r and it is this phenomenon of the permanence of rhl lext lha makes it pos~ible to separate the utterance from its origin and distinguislJes tbe wri tten from tbe spoken word (p 200)

For Searle this confusion of permanence with iterability is central to De rshyridas assimilation of speech to writing (p 200) He argues that the way in which a written text is weaned from its or igin is quite d ifferent from (he way in which

25

LIMITED INC

any expressiun (d n he severed frUIll it mcaning through the furm of tlerabilil Lhat is exemplified h quolltlliOI1 (p 200 ) Since the possibility of sepJ rating the sign from lhe sign ified is d fea tw e of all syqcm~ of rep rc~cntation ~IS such there is nothing espe( ialh grJphe mltic abo llt the sepaLl tion (p 201) nor Jl1Y thing peculiar to the chsical concept of T iting descr ihld hy Den-ida

Thus Searle dbputts what he take~ to be Derrilb s come ntion that written disco urse im-ohes a hreak with the authors intent ions in panicull or itil intentiona lity in general (p 20J) Searle argues Il la t on the ()ntran the fact that writing can continue to lUl1 ((ion in the ahsence or rhe write r the in tcnded receiver o r the cuntext of productiun doe~ not make writi ng any l es~ thc be1re r of intent iona lity wh ich plays ril e same role in wri tingls in spoken comll1 unica tio n Seark concecks that e ca ll decide to make a rad ical break ith the strategy of unde rstandi ng th e sentence as an intenti o nJI utte rance we can lh ink of it as a se ntence of English weaned from all prod uctio n or o rig in putashytive or othe rwise But even rhen there is no gett ing awav fro m intentionali t because a mcclI7ilLpiti sellfellcc isjl(s a slllldil1 JiossihililJ qlbe corresjJollriillf (illlellliona) speech act (p 202 Searle s it alics )

Searle add-- tJ1at to the extent thl t the au thor ays what he mean-- the text is the expressio n of hi ilHe l11 ions (p 2 ( 2 ) and the situnion JS rcgtrd~ intemionshyality i ~ eXact h lhe same fo r the ri llln wmd as it is for the spoken l1nder~ tanding

the u ttt rance consists in recogni i llg the i1locutinnary intention~ of the author and thest intentions mal he more or l e~i perfectl) realicd by the words ultered whether -finen or ~poken (p 202)

Searle then tu rns to Uerridas inte rpre tation () f ) L AUfin s theor of ~Ieech acts argUing that Derndas versiun of A~ISlin i unrecogniable f j I-~ t Dcrrida comple te h mistakes the status of Austins excl u-iltm of parLitic rorn)i or d isshycourse from h is pre li minm investigat ions of ~peech act -- (p 20--i) Sedrk argue that Aust in excl uded parai iri c rorm~ frum conside ration as a resc( rch strategy rather than a metaph~ ictl exclusion so Derrida is mitaken to fin d he re a --oufce o f dClp meu r lwsica l difficult ie~ for the theol) o f ~ peedl acts (p 20raquo) Aust in s pOint in effect was ~impl y that if we want to knuw whal it is to make a promise or make a sllt1tCl1leIll ve had bette r lot star our i l1ve~t igal ioJ1 with promises made hy aCl~) rS on tage -- in a play or SlallmcmS ahout ch U-aLlerc in 1 nove l hecause in 1 b ir obviou wa~ such utte rances ln~ 1o ulldJ rd Che- of promjses ll1d statemenLlt ( p w-J)

Second Derriua mistaken l ~Iss u mes that in u ~ i ng the te rm parasitic Austin meant to suggest that there was olllerh ing had or anomalous o r n()t ethica l about uch d hcourse (p 20)) whereas AUiLin mere meant to ind icate l rebshytion of logiGtI dependence wi illOlit il11p li ng any moral judgment certainly nor that [he rJ rl~ite is lto lllehow illll1 lOlal lv sp()ngi ng ofl the hUq (p 20) )

Third accord ing to ~eJrl e Derrida I1listaklllh hd iees thaI b andYling serious speech act gt befure consideri ng the lX1rasll ic G ISeS Austill has sUl1chO denied the vet pos-ibdiry that express ions can he quotcd (p 20(i ) IIlre Dershyrida has con fused citati(JnaJIIY with para- lti c uis(ourse (a~ well as ith itlrability )~

gt(-

Summm) of Reiterating tbe Differences

In parasitic discourse Searle argues rhe expressions are being used and not mentioned (p- 206)

Fourth Derrida assimjlates Lhe sense in whidl writing can be said to he parasitic on spoken language with lhe sense in wh ich fiction elc are parasitic o n nonfiction o r standard discourse (p 207 ) But these are different cases The relation of t1ction to nonfierion is one of logical dependency whereas the depenshydency of wri ting on spoken language is a contingent fact about the history of human bnguages and nor J logical [rwh about the narure of language (p 207 )

Fifth running through Derridas discussion is the idea that somehow the iterabili ty of linguistic forms (rogethe r with the citationaliry of linguist ic fo rms and the existence of wr iting) militates against th e idea that intent ion is the beart of mean ing and comm unication that indeed an understanding of ite ration will show the essential absence of inte ntion to rhe anualirv of the utlera l1ce- (p 207) O n rhe contrary the iterability of linguistic forms facilitat) and is a necesshysary condition of the particular fo rms of iment ionaliry that are characte ristic of speech acts (p 208)

Searle maintai ns that the performances of actual speech acts wriuen or sposhyken are datable Singula r events in particular historical conteX1s (p 208 ) Ilearshyers are able to undc rltland the infini te nu mber of new t hi ng~ that can be commushynicated by speech acts blcause the speaker and hear ers are masters of tht SCLlt of rules we call the rules of language and these ru les are recurive Thev allow for the repeated lpplicat ion of the same rule (p 208)

In conclusion the n Searle argues that ite rabiliry-as exe mplified both hy the repeated use of the same word type and by the recursive character of synshyraeriea l ru les-is nOt as Derrida seems to think something in conflICt with the intentionaliry of linguistic aCts spoken or written it is the necessary presupposi ~ tion of tIle f om1S whid 1 that intentional ity takes (p 208)

G

2

~~~~-- ~--~--- -shy-

L1 IITE() INC

ave composed an entIre book w ith (a ( tht sign of the S3u~surian signi fier of Ilegd Absolute )wlng in f rench sauoir ahsolu of Freuds Id [ the ( ai the feminine rgtosse~sie pronoun [-3Llmiddot 1did however think at the time of the sa of spetch aCt~ nor of the probltms (formal izahle ) of tht ir 1Iion to tht sign ifier absolute knowing the Unconscious or even to the fem inine possessive proshyIn If that didn t interest me perhaps I wouldn t have hld enough dnlre to respond All of thi ka l )[(Ier ((l pose the qUbt ion ra is it Sed or n(~lIioll~d1

Roman Jakobson Morris Halle Phonology and PhonetiCS in Jakobsoni ]talk I-lIIdalullIaLs of 191age (The Ilague 1-10UlOn 1956) p 11 7

) Oerrida La disbllillalion (Paris Editions du Seud 1972) p 147 (This book hb subsequent I ~n translated Llt J)issemilnlioll trans Blrbara Johnson IChicago lnlverOltv nf Ch iGlgu Press 31 1 the passJge here is on p 128 of the Johnson translation GG)

110

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discussion

Dear Gerald Graff

Allow me to anSe r you in the form of a letter I wo uld like to try this for several reasons

A On the one band it will permit me TO express mv gratitude to you di rectly and publiclmiddot I thank you for having taken the ini tiative in regard to this hook and for having addressed these questions or these objections to me I I find them important and capable of advancing the discussion They are formulated in an uncompromising manner but also-something rare enough TO be worth menshytioning- with prudence and counesy Above all you have given another chance to a debate which at the opening of limiTed Inc I described as improbashyble J asked then of this uebate Has it rakln place What is itS place if it takes place Will it take place will it have taken place one clay At what time in what time according to what mode under what cond itions (pp 29-30) These quesshytions remain posed But has nO[ your gesture already begun to d isplace them

Am [ right to inSist even before beginning on the debate iLoltlf iL poss ibi lity its neceSSity itS style its ethics its politics- You know of course-many readshyers we re doubtless struck by this-that what went on more than ten years ago around Sec and Li mited Inc concerned above all our experience of violence and of o ur re lat ion to the law-everywhere to be sure but most lii rectly in the way we discuss among o urselves in the academic world Of th iS violence [ tried at the Time to say so mething [ also tried at the satlle time to do something I wi ll retu rn TO this in my answers

I want to refer here to a sort of friendly contract between us it is ckarly understood that th is republ ication and our exchange should serve above all as an invitation to olbers in the course of a disclission that is both open and yet to

come I have accepted vour invitation with th is hope in mind and not at all with the aim of p roviding a fin ish ing toUd1 or having the last word Xhat matters most [0 me today in mese teitSTs perhaps not so much tI1etr theoretical or philosophishycal contents For these contents have bee n elaborated e lsewhere more sysshyte matically e xpliCitly and demonstraLively This i true of my two essays (which

111

I

JIMITED Ii C

iOIl (9Jan 1988) of David Lehman in Neusllee (15 Feb 1988) and in rhe Las eles Times (13 Iar [988) of Frank Schi rrmacher in rhe Frankfurter emeille Zeiomg (1 0 and 24 Feb 1988) (for the saml phcnomcl1J are devcl shy19 in West Germany) In al l thc-e cases the gesticulation of reSCllI ment is 15 spectacu lar in its ignorance or in its cynicism It is ~i n bter en if il sOlll eshy

~s assumes 311 a-pect thll is jub iialory rrlnkl~ comical or narcissistic ( I mean -referential) as in Ihe micie by Walter Kendrick De llan Thal Gut Away onstructors on the Barricades Village Voice Literal) Spplemellt no 64

1988) It is in this direction that 1 w ill pose quest ions of deniabil iry or of lt11owledging the reali[)1 and detcrminH_ of historical eents - rodar and toshyrrow and not only concerning what de I lan was able to write half a cnrury when there was no question anu with good r C1 gtOI1 of deconstruct ion 1n the

-le in Critical inqllil) I have r itren at length on the comple- question of tinuity and discontinuity in Paul de Mms earh and late w ritings And since I have already alluded above tLl the intervention of the press in the ate w ith Searle I vould still want to f3ise the very ~er i OllS problem of the )on~ibili t) of tht press in its relations to the intellectua ls or in politlCal-intelshyual philosophical cultural or ideological debates And aboe Jil the probshyof the responsibility of intellectuals in their relations to the prtss Jot in

er to recommend retreating into rhe interior llf the AGIUemy even less to Jse the press in itself or in general hut on the conrrJry to ca ll for the maximal c lopment o f a press that is freer and more r igorous in lll l lxercise of its ies In fact I believe l hat professional journalisb arc more demanding ill tilis ml than are those intll lectuals v ho make Lise of newspaper l instr uments power that is immediate and subject to fe controls

Again thank you dear Gerald Graff for your ll1itialive yo ur questions and r objections And excuse the schematic and overly charged character of my wers Once more thei r aim is not to close the discussion but to gic it a fresh t

Jacques Derrilia Tran~ l aled by Samuel Weber

ptenlord

NOTES

J Thev will be cited ful1her on before (1eh r(ponse

2 Repeated l during the course o f my answers it hlppcno thlt I begin bl citi ng a pan o f this chain of words o r conctpts I do it h economy and these allu ions dl) not refer to verhal or conccptud units but to long tcxtual chli ru that I cannot nc0nstitute here On the o ther hand the list of t hc~c words i ~ not closed b) Jdil1lt lun II ld iT is fa r from lim iti ng itself (cu rrent lv) to those that I clle here or sec often Cited (jJbm7n(~oII supplemellt 17ynlllI parer)lOIl) To th~e w hom thi~ Il llrc ts I indi shycate that if the 11M remains inueed open thert are a l read~ man othtr~ ~t work The II lre a cl rtain [unn ional analogy hut remain Singular and irreducibk tu llnl lIlOliler 15 are the tcxtual challlS from which thev are inseparable They are all marlcu b) i1erlbllity wh ich hl)Wcver scemlt tll helong to

thcir ser its I takc this pal1icular example only becausc in this COntcxt it w ill be the ohJ(ct of c0nsidershyable discussion

3 See the prcvious note

4 The enllrc anicle wou ld haw to be Cited or at the very least ih etion 5 I wi ll ha e to be suisficd wu h th is pasagc hile rdcI ring the reader to its C0Jltltxr XIlen I hle lectureu [0 lllclic llces at hterary crit ics J have foulld two pervJltile philosoph ical prtsuppOsilillns in the discussion ull iter[ry theory hoth oddly enough derived from l(gtgic31 pOltitil ism First there is the assumption tilat unlC~ a distinction can be maue rigorous and prCc ilte it isnt rea llv a distinclilln at all Man Iiterlry theorhtgt fail to see for example that II IS not an objcCl ioll1O a lhcury 01 fiction th t it uoes nut sharpl d iVide fi ction from nun[klion or an ohjel1ion 10 3 [heorv 01 1llC ldphor [h3t it docs nut sharply divide the metaphor ical from the nonmetaphorica l The ph rae wh ich [oUows is IlOre rtltIonable 11 IU JIl l II e intercbllng J ill lherefore cite It 35 well On the wiltra ry It is a conditiun uf the aucquac ()I a precise theor) o f an indcterlllin3(( phcnonwlloll that it should precbel) cilaraCleri7lt that phen(gtnlL non as inJt temlJl1ate and a dllt[inction b no less J distinCliun lor allllving for a fim il uf rltI lIed marginal diverging c3oes I hall retufil laler tll the Inall l ler JI1 whicl I trelt [hi proh lem u t determl nation But even i f J am not lar rrom agreeing with ~h th l~ la~ t phrbc t and it dull ) )s I halc never seen any evidence of the lighttgtt conorn 11l Selrle 1I0t in his Repl) or elsewhere wnh a precIse lheory of whll he calb htfe the il1lktenninatc phenomenon Anu al) 111 Jlm all I J() nor hdieve that phenomena which are margin l metaphor ical paraSitiC etc 3re in [l1en1gtciI ltlt inde terminate even if i[ is Inevitable lhat there he a cenain iJla in the generli 111(1 for them to produce and dcwrmine themselves which is quite di ffcrclll from call ing them indetemlinate in themselvt$ I insist on scrupulously citing Ihis phrasc in oruer never to mt~s an opportunity or underscoring tl) what point 1 might agrte with Searle It is a ruk thai I trv [ 0 foil) in all dituilIiL It sOlllctirnes

LIMITED INC

any expressiun (d n he severed frUIll it mcaning through the furm of tlerabilil Lhat is exemplified h quolltlliOI1 (p 200 ) Since the possibility of sepJ rating the sign from lhe sign ified is d fea tw e of all syqcm~ of rep rc~cntation ~IS such there is nothing espe( ialh grJphe mltic abo llt the sepaLl tion (p 201) nor Jl1Y thing peculiar to the chsical concept of T iting descr ihld hy Den-ida

Thus Searle dbputts what he take~ to be Derrilb s come ntion that written disco urse im-ohes a hreak with the authors intent ions in panicull or itil intentiona lity in general (p 20J) Searle argues Il la t on the ()ntran the fact that writing can continue to lUl1 ((ion in the ahsence or rhe write r the in tcnded receiver o r the cuntext of productiun doe~ not make writi ng any l es~ thc be1re r of intent iona lity wh ich plays ril e same role in wri tingls in spoken comll1 unica tio n Seark concecks that e ca ll decide to make a rad ical break ith the strategy of unde rstandi ng th e sentence as an intenti o nJI utte rance we can lh ink of it as a se ntence of English weaned from all prod uctio n or o rig in putashytive or othe rwise But even rhen there is no gett ing awav fro m intentionali t because a mcclI7ilLpiti sellfellcc isjl(s a slllldil1 JiossihililJ qlbe corresjJollriillf (illlellliona) speech act (p 202 Searle s it alics )

Searle add-- tJ1at to the extent thl t the au thor ays what he mean-- the text is the expressio n of hi ilHe l11 ions (p 2 ( 2 ) and the situnion JS rcgtrd~ intemionshyality i ~ eXact h lhe same fo r the ri llln wmd as it is for the spoken l1nder~ tanding

the u ttt rance consists in recogni i llg the i1locutinnary intention~ of the author and thest intentions mal he more or l e~i perfectl) realicd by the words ultered whether -finen or ~poken (p 202)

Searle then tu rns to Uerridas inte rpre tation () f ) L AUfin s theor of ~Ieech acts argUing that Derndas versiun of A~ISlin i unrecogniable f j I-~ t Dcrrida comple te h mistakes the status of Austins excl u-iltm of parLitic rorn)i or d isshycourse from h is pre li minm investigat ions of ~peech act -- (p 20--i) Sedrk argue that Aust in excl uded parai iri c rorm~ frum conside ration as a resc( rch strategy rather than a metaph~ ictl exclusion so Derrida is mitaken to fin d he re a --oufce o f dClp meu r lwsica l difficult ie~ for the theol) o f ~ peedl acts (p 20raquo) Aust in s pOint in effect was ~impl y that if we want to knuw whal it is to make a promise or make a sllt1tCl1leIll ve had bette r lot star our i l1ve~t igal ioJ1 with promises made hy aCl~) rS on tage -- in a play or SlallmcmS ahout ch U-aLlerc in 1 nove l hecause in 1 b ir obviou wa~ such utte rances ln~ 1o ulldJ rd Che- of promjses ll1d statemenLlt ( p w-J)

Second Derriua mistaken l ~Iss u mes that in u ~ i ng the te rm parasitic Austin meant to suggest that there was olllerh ing had or anomalous o r n()t ethica l about uch d hcourse (p 20)) whereas AUiLin mere meant to ind icate l rebshytion of logiGtI dependence wi illOlit il11p li ng any moral judgment certainly nor that [he rJ rl~ite is lto lllehow illll1 lOlal lv sp()ngi ng ofl the hUq (p 20) )

Third accord ing to ~eJrl e Derrida I1listaklllh hd iees thaI b andYling serious speech act gt befure consideri ng the lX1rasll ic G ISeS Austill has sUl1chO denied the vet pos-ibdiry that express ions can he quotcd (p 20(i ) IIlre Dershyrida has con fused citati(JnaJIIY with para- lti c uis(ourse (a~ well as ith itlrability )~

gt(-

Summm) of Reiterating tbe Differences

In parasitic discourse Searle argues rhe expressions are being used and not mentioned (p- 206)

Fourth Derrida assimjlates Lhe sense in whidl writing can be said to he parasitic on spoken language with lhe sense in wh ich fiction elc are parasitic o n nonfiction o r standard discourse (p 207 ) But these are different cases The relation of t1ction to nonfierion is one of logical dependency whereas the depenshydency of wri ting on spoken language is a contingent fact about the history of human bnguages and nor J logical [rwh about the narure of language (p 207 )

Fifth running through Derridas discussion is the idea that somehow the iterabili ty of linguistic forms (rogethe r with the citationaliry of linguist ic fo rms and the existence of wr iting) militates against th e idea that intent ion is the beart of mean ing and comm unication that indeed an understanding of ite ration will show the essential absence of inte ntion to rhe anualirv of the utlera l1ce- (p 207) O n rhe contrary the iterability of linguistic forms facilitat) and is a necesshysary condition of the particular fo rms of iment ionaliry that are characte ristic of speech acts (p 208)

Searle maintai ns that the performances of actual speech acts wriuen or sposhyken are datable Singula r events in particular historical conteX1s (p 208 ) Ilearshyers are able to undc rltland the infini te nu mber of new t hi ng~ that can be commushynicated by speech acts blcause the speaker and hear ers are masters of tht SCLlt of rules we call the rules of language and these ru les are recurive Thev allow for the repeated lpplicat ion of the same rule (p 208)

In conclusion the n Searle argues that ite rabiliry-as exe mplified both hy the repeated use of the same word type and by the recursive character of synshyraeriea l ru les-is nOt as Derrida seems to think something in conflICt with the intentionaliry of linguistic aCts spoken or written it is the necessary presupposi ~ tion of tIle f om1S whid 1 that intentional ity takes (p 208)

G

2

~~~~-- ~--~--- -shy-

L1 IITE() INC

ave composed an entIre book w ith (a ( tht sign of the S3u~surian signi fier of Ilegd Absolute )wlng in f rench sauoir ahsolu of Freuds Id [ the ( ai the feminine rgtosse~sie pronoun [-3Llmiddot 1did however think at the time of the sa of spetch aCt~ nor of the probltms (formal izahle ) of tht ir 1Iion to tht sign ifier absolute knowing the Unconscious or even to the fem inine possessive proshyIn If that didn t interest me perhaps I wouldn t have hld enough dnlre to respond All of thi ka l )[(Ier ((l pose the qUbt ion ra is it Sed or n(~lIioll~d1

Roman Jakobson Morris Halle Phonology and PhonetiCS in Jakobsoni ]talk I-lIIdalullIaLs of 191age (The Ilague 1-10UlOn 1956) p 11 7

) Oerrida La disbllillalion (Paris Editions du Seud 1972) p 147 (This book hb subsequent I ~n translated Llt J)issemilnlioll trans Blrbara Johnson IChicago lnlverOltv nf Ch iGlgu Press 31 1 the passJge here is on p 128 of the Johnson translation GG)

110

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discussion

Dear Gerald Graff

Allow me to anSe r you in the form of a letter I wo uld like to try this for several reasons

A On the one band it will permit me TO express mv gratitude to you di rectly and publiclmiddot I thank you for having taken the ini tiative in regard to this hook and for having addressed these questions or these objections to me I I find them important and capable of advancing the discussion They are formulated in an uncompromising manner but also-something rare enough TO be worth menshytioning- with prudence and counesy Above all you have given another chance to a debate which at the opening of limiTed Inc I described as improbashyble J asked then of this uebate Has it rakln place What is itS place if it takes place Will it take place will it have taken place one clay At what time in what time according to what mode under what cond itions (pp 29-30) These quesshytions remain posed But has nO[ your gesture already begun to d isplace them

Am [ right to inSist even before beginning on the debate iLoltlf iL poss ibi lity its neceSSity itS style its ethics its politics- You know of course-many readshyers we re doubtless struck by this-that what went on more than ten years ago around Sec and Li mited Inc concerned above all our experience of violence and of o ur re lat ion to the law-everywhere to be sure but most lii rectly in the way we discuss among o urselves in the academic world Of th iS violence [ tried at the Time to say so mething [ also tried at the satlle time to do something I wi ll retu rn TO this in my answers

I want to refer here to a sort of friendly contract between us it is ckarly understood that th is republ ication and our exchange should serve above all as an invitation to olbers in the course of a disclission that is both open and yet to

come I have accepted vour invitation with th is hope in mind and not at all with the aim of p roviding a fin ish ing toUd1 or having the last word Xhat matters most [0 me today in mese teitSTs perhaps not so much tI1etr theoretical or philosophishycal contents For these contents have bee n elaborated e lsewhere more sysshyte matically e xpliCitly and demonstraLively This i true of my two essays (which

111

I

JIMITED Ii C

iOIl (9Jan 1988) of David Lehman in Neusllee (15 Feb 1988) and in rhe Las eles Times (13 Iar [988) of Frank Schi rrmacher in rhe Frankfurter emeille Zeiomg (1 0 and 24 Feb 1988) (for the saml phcnomcl1J are devcl shy19 in West Germany) In al l thc-e cases the gesticulation of reSCllI ment is 15 spectacu lar in its ignorance or in its cynicism It is ~i n bter en if il sOlll eshy

~s assumes 311 a-pect thll is jub iialory rrlnkl~ comical or narcissistic ( I mean -referential) as in Ihe micie by Walter Kendrick De llan Thal Gut Away onstructors on the Barricades Village Voice Literal) Spplemellt no 64

1988) It is in this direction that 1 w ill pose quest ions of deniabil iry or of lt11owledging the reali[)1 and detcrminH_ of historical eents - rodar and toshyrrow and not only concerning what de I lan was able to write half a cnrury when there was no question anu with good r C1 gtOI1 of deconstruct ion 1n the

-le in Critical inqllil) I have r itren at length on the comple- question of tinuity and discontinuity in Paul de Mms earh and late w ritings And since I have already alluded above tLl the intervention of the press in the ate w ith Searle I vould still want to f3ise the very ~er i OllS problem of the )on~ibili t) of tht press in its relations to the intellectua ls or in politlCal-intelshyual philosophical cultural or ideological debates And aboe Jil the probshyof the responsibility of intellectuals in their relations to the prtss Jot in

er to recommend retreating into rhe interior llf the AGIUemy even less to Jse the press in itself or in general hut on the conrrJry to ca ll for the maximal c lopment o f a press that is freer and more r igorous in lll l lxercise of its ies In fact I believe l hat professional journalisb arc more demanding ill tilis ml than are those intll lectuals v ho make Lise of newspaper l instr uments power that is immediate and subject to fe controls

Again thank you dear Gerald Graff for your ll1itialive yo ur questions and r objections And excuse the schematic and overly charged character of my wers Once more thei r aim is not to close the discussion but to gic it a fresh t

Jacques Derrilia Tran~ l aled by Samuel Weber

ptenlord

NOTES

J Thev will be cited ful1her on before (1eh r(ponse

2 Repeated l during the course o f my answers it hlppcno thlt I begin bl citi ng a pan o f this chain of words o r conctpts I do it h economy and these allu ions dl) not refer to verhal or conccptud units but to long tcxtual chli ru that I cannot nc0nstitute here On the o ther hand the list of t hc~c words i ~ not closed b) Jdil1lt lun II ld iT is fa r from lim iti ng itself (cu rrent lv) to those that I clle here or sec often Cited (jJbm7n(~oII supplemellt 17ynlllI parer)lOIl) To th~e w hom thi~ Il llrc ts I indi shycate that if the 11M remains inueed open thert are a l read~ man othtr~ ~t work The II lre a cl rtain [unn ional analogy hut remain Singular and irreducibk tu llnl lIlOliler 15 are the tcxtual challlS from which thev are inseparable They are all marlcu b) i1erlbllity wh ich hl)Wcver scemlt tll helong to

thcir ser its I takc this pal1icular example only becausc in this COntcxt it w ill be the ohJ(ct of c0nsidershyable discussion

3 See the prcvious note

4 The enllrc anicle wou ld haw to be Cited or at the very least ih etion 5 I wi ll ha e to be suisficd wu h th is pasagc hile rdcI ring the reader to its C0Jltltxr XIlen I hle lectureu [0 lllclic llces at hterary crit ics J have foulld two pervJltile philosoph ical prtsuppOsilillns in the discussion ull iter[ry theory hoth oddly enough derived from l(gtgic31 pOltitil ism First there is the assumption tilat unlC~ a distinction can be maue rigorous and prCc ilte it isnt rea llv a distinclilln at all Man Iiterlry theorhtgt fail to see for example that II IS not an objcCl ioll1O a lhcury 01 fiction th t it uoes nut sharpl d iVide fi ction from nun[klion or an ohjel1ion 10 3 [heorv 01 1llC ldphor [h3t it docs nut sharply divide the metaphor ical from the nonmetaphorica l The ph rae wh ich [oUows is IlOre rtltIonable 11 IU JIl l II e intercbllng J ill lherefore cite It 35 well On the wiltra ry It is a conditiun uf the aucquac ()I a precise theor) o f an indcterlllin3(( phcnonwlloll that it should precbel) cilaraCleri7lt that phen(gtnlL non as inJt temlJl1ate and a dllt[inction b no less J distinCliun lor allllving for a fim il uf rltI lIed marginal diverging c3oes I hall retufil laler tll the Inall l ler JI1 whicl I trelt [hi proh lem u t determl nation But even i f J am not lar rrom agreeing with ~h th l~ la~ t phrbc t and it dull ) )s I halc never seen any evidence of the lighttgtt conorn 11l Selrle 1I0t in his Repl) or elsewhere wnh a precIse lheory of whll he calb htfe the il1lktenninatc phenomenon Anu al) 111 Jlm all I J() nor hdieve that phenomena which are margin l metaphor ical paraSitiC etc 3re in [l1en1gtciI ltlt inde terminate even if i[ is Inevitable lhat there he a cenain iJla in the generli 111(1 for them to produce and dcwrmine themselves which is quite di ffcrclll from call ing them indetemlinate in themselvt$ I insist on scrupulously citing Ihis phrasc in oruer never to mt~s an opportunity or underscoring tl) what point 1 might agrte with Searle It is a ruk thai I trv [ 0 foil) in all dituilIiL It sOlllctirnes

~~~~-- ~--~--- -shy-

L1 IITE() INC

ave composed an entIre book w ith (a ( tht sign of the S3u~surian signi fier of Ilegd Absolute )wlng in f rench sauoir ahsolu of Freuds Id [ the ( ai the feminine rgtosse~sie pronoun [-3Llmiddot 1did however think at the time of the sa of spetch aCt~ nor of the probltms (formal izahle ) of tht ir 1Iion to tht sign ifier absolute knowing the Unconscious or even to the fem inine possessive proshyIn If that didn t interest me perhaps I wouldn t have hld enough dnlre to respond All of thi ka l )[(Ier ((l pose the qUbt ion ra is it Sed or n(~lIioll~d1

Roman Jakobson Morris Halle Phonology and PhonetiCS in Jakobsoni ]talk I-lIIdalullIaLs of 191age (The Ilague 1-10UlOn 1956) p 11 7

) Oerrida La disbllillalion (Paris Editions du Seud 1972) p 147 (This book hb subsequent I ~n translated Llt J)issemilnlioll trans Blrbara Johnson IChicago lnlverOltv nf Ch iGlgu Press 31 1 the passJge here is on p 128 of the Johnson translation GG)

110

Afterword Toward An Ethic of Discussion

Dear Gerald Graff

Allow me to anSe r you in the form of a letter I wo uld like to try this for several reasons

A On the one band it will permit me TO express mv gratitude to you di rectly and publiclmiddot I thank you for having taken the ini tiative in regard to this hook and for having addressed these questions or these objections to me I I find them important and capable of advancing the discussion They are formulated in an uncompromising manner but also-something rare enough TO be worth menshytioning- with prudence and counesy Above all you have given another chance to a debate which at the opening of limiTed Inc I described as improbashyble J asked then of this uebate Has it rakln place What is itS place if it takes place Will it take place will it have taken place one clay At what time in what time according to what mode under what cond itions (pp 29-30) These quesshytions remain posed But has nO[ your gesture already begun to d isplace them

Am [ right to inSist even before beginning on the debate iLoltlf iL poss ibi lity its neceSSity itS style its ethics its politics- You know of course-many readshyers we re doubtless struck by this-that what went on more than ten years ago around Sec and Li mited Inc concerned above all our experience of violence and of o ur re lat ion to the law-everywhere to be sure but most lii rectly in the way we discuss among o urselves in the academic world Of th iS violence [ tried at the Time to say so mething [ also tried at the satlle time to do something I wi ll retu rn TO this in my answers

I want to refer here to a sort of friendly contract between us it is ckarly understood that th is republ ication and our exchange should serve above all as an invitation to olbers in the course of a disclission that is both open and yet to

come I have accepted vour invitation with th is hope in mind and not at all with the aim of p roviding a fin ish ing toUd1 or having the last word Xhat matters most [0 me today in mese teitSTs perhaps not so much tI1etr theoretical or philosophishycal contents For these contents have bee n elaborated e lsewhere more sysshyte matically e xpliCitly and demonstraLively This i true of my two essays (which

111

I

JIMITED Ii C

iOIl (9Jan 1988) of David Lehman in Neusllee (15 Feb 1988) and in rhe Las eles Times (13 Iar [988) of Frank Schi rrmacher in rhe Frankfurter emeille Zeiomg (1 0 and 24 Feb 1988) (for the saml phcnomcl1J are devcl shy19 in West Germany) In al l thc-e cases the gesticulation of reSCllI ment is 15 spectacu lar in its ignorance or in its cynicism It is ~i n bter en if il sOlll eshy

~s assumes 311 a-pect thll is jub iialory rrlnkl~ comical or narcissistic ( I mean -referential) as in Ihe micie by Walter Kendrick De llan Thal Gut Away onstructors on the Barricades Village Voice Literal) Spplemellt no 64

1988) It is in this direction that 1 w ill pose quest ions of deniabil iry or of lt11owledging the reali[)1 and detcrminH_ of historical eents - rodar and toshyrrow and not only concerning what de I lan was able to write half a cnrury when there was no question anu with good r C1 gtOI1 of deconstruct ion 1n the

-le in Critical inqllil) I have r itren at length on the comple- question of tinuity and discontinuity in Paul de Mms earh and late w ritings And since I have already alluded above tLl the intervention of the press in the ate w ith Searle I vould still want to f3ise the very ~er i OllS problem of the )on~ibili t) of tht press in its relations to the intellectua ls or in politlCal-intelshyual philosophical cultural or ideological debates And aboe Jil the probshyof the responsibility of intellectuals in their relations to the prtss Jot in

er to recommend retreating into rhe interior llf the AGIUemy even less to Jse the press in itself or in general hut on the conrrJry to ca ll for the maximal c lopment o f a press that is freer and more r igorous in lll l lxercise of its ies In fact I believe l hat professional journalisb arc more demanding ill tilis ml than are those intll lectuals v ho make Lise of newspaper l instr uments power that is immediate and subject to fe controls

Again thank you dear Gerald Graff for your ll1itialive yo ur questions and r objections And excuse the schematic and overly charged character of my wers Once more thei r aim is not to close the discussion but to gic it a fresh t

Jacques Derrilia Tran~ l aled by Samuel Weber

ptenlord

NOTES

J Thev will be cited ful1her on before (1eh r(ponse

2 Repeated l during the course o f my answers it hlppcno thlt I begin bl citi ng a pan o f this chain of words o r conctpts I do it h economy and these allu ions dl) not refer to verhal or conccptud units but to long tcxtual chli ru that I cannot nc0nstitute here On the o ther hand the list of t hc~c words i ~ not closed b) Jdil1lt lun II ld iT is fa r from lim iti ng itself (cu rrent lv) to those that I clle here or sec often Cited (jJbm7n(~oII supplemellt 17ynlllI parer)lOIl) To th~e w hom thi~ Il llrc ts I indi shycate that if the 11M remains inueed open thert are a l read~ man othtr~ ~t work The II lre a cl rtain [unn ional analogy hut remain Singular and irreducibk tu llnl lIlOliler 15 are the tcxtual challlS from which thev are inseparable They are all marlcu b) i1erlbllity wh ich hl)Wcver scemlt tll helong to

thcir ser its I takc this pal1icular example only becausc in this COntcxt it w ill be the ohJ(ct of c0nsidershyable discussion

3 See the prcvious note

4 The enllrc anicle wou ld haw to be Cited or at the very least ih etion 5 I wi ll ha e to be suisficd wu h th is pasagc hile rdcI ring the reader to its C0Jltltxr XIlen I hle lectureu [0 lllclic llces at hterary crit ics J have foulld two pervJltile philosoph ical prtsuppOsilillns in the discussion ull iter[ry theory hoth oddly enough derived from l(gtgic31 pOltitil ism First there is the assumption tilat unlC~ a distinction can be maue rigorous and prCc ilte it isnt rea llv a distinclilln at all Man Iiterlry theorhtgt fail to see for example that II IS not an objcCl ioll1O a lhcury 01 fiction th t it uoes nut sharpl d iVide fi ction from nun[klion or an ohjel1ion 10 3 [heorv 01 1llC ldphor [h3t it docs nut sharply divide the metaphor ical from the nonmetaphorica l The ph rae wh ich [oUows is IlOre rtltIonable 11 IU JIl l II e intercbllng J ill lherefore cite It 35 well On the wiltra ry It is a conditiun uf the aucquac ()I a precise theor) o f an indcterlllin3(( phcnonwlloll that it should precbel) cilaraCleri7lt that phen(gtnlL non as inJt temlJl1ate and a dllt[inction b no less J distinCliun lor allllving for a fim il uf rltI lIed marginal diverging c3oes I hall retufil laler tll the Inall l ler JI1 whicl I trelt [hi proh lem u t determl nation But even i f J am not lar rrom agreeing with ~h th l~ la~ t phrbc t and it dull ) )s I halc never seen any evidence of the lighttgtt conorn 11l Selrle 1I0t in his Repl) or elsewhere wnh a precIse lheory of whll he calb htfe the il1lktenninatc phenomenon Anu al) 111 Jlm all I J() nor hdieve that phenomena which are margin l metaphor ical paraSitiC etc 3re in [l1en1gtciI ltlt inde terminate even if i[ is Inevitable lhat there he a cenain iJla in the generli 111(1 for them to produce and dcwrmine themselves which is quite di ffcrclll from call ing them indetemlinate in themselvt$ I insist on scrupulously citing Ihis phrasc in oruer never to mt~s an opportunity or underscoring tl) what point 1 might agrte with Searle It is a ruk thai I trv [ 0 foil) in all dituilIiL It sOlllctirnes

I

JIMITED Ii C

iOIl (9Jan 1988) of David Lehman in Neusllee (15 Feb 1988) and in rhe Las eles Times (13 Iar [988) of Frank Schi rrmacher in rhe Frankfurter emeille Zeiomg (1 0 and 24 Feb 1988) (for the saml phcnomcl1J are devcl shy19 in West Germany) In al l thc-e cases the gesticulation of reSCllI ment is 15 spectacu lar in its ignorance or in its cynicism It is ~i n bter en if il sOlll eshy

~s assumes 311 a-pect thll is jub iialory rrlnkl~ comical or narcissistic ( I mean -referential) as in Ihe micie by Walter Kendrick De llan Thal Gut Away onstructors on the Barricades Village Voice Literal) Spplemellt no 64

1988) It is in this direction that 1 w ill pose quest ions of deniabil iry or of lt11owledging the reali[)1 and detcrminH_ of historical eents - rodar and toshyrrow and not only concerning what de I lan was able to write half a cnrury when there was no question anu with good r C1 gtOI1 of deconstruct ion 1n the

-le in Critical inqllil) I have r itren at length on the comple- question of tinuity and discontinuity in Paul de Mms earh and late w ritings And since I have already alluded above tLl the intervention of the press in the ate w ith Searle I vould still want to f3ise the very ~er i OllS problem of the )on~ibili t) of tht press in its relations to the intellectua ls or in politlCal-intelshyual philosophical cultural or ideological debates And aboe Jil the probshyof the responsibility of intellectuals in their relations to the prtss Jot in

er to recommend retreating into rhe interior llf the AGIUemy even less to Jse the press in itself or in general hut on the conrrJry to ca ll for the maximal c lopment o f a press that is freer and more r igorous in lll l lxercise of its ies In fact I believe l hat professional journalisb arc more demanding ill tilis ml than are those intll lectuals v ho make Lise of newspaper l instr uments power that is immediate and subject to fe controls

Again thank you dear Gerald Graff for your ll1itialive yo ur questions and r objections And excuse the schematic and overly charged character of my wers Once more thei r aim is not to close the discussion but to gic it a fresh t

Jacques Derrilia Tran~ l aled by Samuel Weber

ptenlord

NOTES

J Thev will be cited ful1her on before (1eh r(ponse

2 Repeated l during the course o f my answers it hlppcno thlt I begin bl citi ng a pan o f this chain of words o r conctpts I do it h economy and these allu ions dl) not refer to verhal or conccptud units but to long tcxtual chli ru that I cannot nc0nstitute here On the o ther hand the list of t hc~c words i ~ not closed b) Jdil1lt lun II ld iT is fa r from lim iti ng itself (cu rrent lv) to those that I clle here or sec often Cited (jJbm7n(~oII supplemellt 17ynlllI parer)lOIl) To th~e w hom thi~ Il llrc ts I indi shycate that if the 11M remains inueed open thert are a l read~ man othtr~ ~t work The II lre a cl rtain [unn ional analogy hut remain Singular and irreducibk tu llnl lIlOliler 15 are the tcxtual challlS from which thev are inseparable They are all marlcu b) i1erlbllity wh ich hl)Wcver scemlt tll helong to

thcir ser its I takc this pal1icular example only becausc in this COntcxt it w ill be the ohJ(ct of c0nsidershyable discussion

3 See the prcvious note

4 The enllrc anicle wou ld haw to be Cited or at the very least ih etion 5 I wi ll ha e to be suisficd wu h th is pasagc hile rdcI ring the reader to its C0Jltltxr XIlen I hle lectureu [0 lllclic llces at hterary crit ics J have foulld two pervJltile philosoph ical prtsuppOsilillns in the discussion ull iter[ry theory hoth oddly enough derived from l(gtgic31 pOltitil ism First there is the assumption tilat unlC~ a distinction can be maue rigorous and prCc ilte it isnt rea llv a distinclilln at all Man Iiterlry theorhtgt fail to see for example that II IS not an objcCl ioll1O a lhcury 01 fiction th t it uoes nut sharpl d iVide fi ction from nun[klion or an ohjel1ion 10 3 [heorv 01 1llC ldphor [h3t it docs nut sharply divide the metaphor ical from the nonmetaphorica l The ph rae wh ich [oUows is IlOre rtltIonable 11 IU JIl l II e intercbllng J ill lherefore cite It 35 well On the wiltra ry It is a conditiun uf the aucquac ()I a precise theor) o f an indcterlllin3(( phcnonwlloll that it should precbel) cilaraCleri7lt that phen(gtnlL non as inJt temlJl1ate and a dllt[inction b no less J distinCliun lor allllving for a fim il uf rltI lIed marginal diverging c3oes I hall retufil laler tll the Inall l ler JI1 whicl I trelt [hi proh lem u t determl nation But even i f J am not lar rrom agreeing with ~h th l~ la~ t phrbc t and it dull ) )s I halc never seen any evidence of the lighttgtt conorn 11l Selrle 1I0t in his Repl) or elsewhere wnh a precIse lheory of whll he calb htfe the il1lktenninatc phenomenon Anu al) 111 Jlm all I J() nor hdieve that phenomena which are margin l metaphor ical paraSitiC etc 3re in [l1en1gtciI ltlt inde terminate even if i[ is Inevitable lhat there he a cenain iJla in the generli 111(1 for them to produce and dcwrmine themselves which is quite di ffcrclll from call ing them indetemlinate in themselvt$ I insist on scrupulously citing Ihis phrasc in oruer never to mt~s an opportunity or underscoring tl) what point 1 might agrte with Searle It is a ruk thai I trv [ 0 foil) in all dituilIiL It sOlllctirnes