The motherThe motherJacques Derrida, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the SupplementJacques Derrida, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Supplement

The mother as The mother as supplementsupplement

• For Rousseau the mother is a supplement to mother For Rousseau the mother is a supplement to mother nature. nature.

• However, Rousseau considers supplementation to be However, Rousseau considers supplementation to be bad in relation to nature, which is inherently good. bad in relation to nature, which is inherently good.

• What might this mean for how we can think about What might this mean for how we can think about nature and nurture, particularly in terms of childcare nature and nurture, particularly in terms of childcare and education?and education?

• Derrida critiques Rousseau’s dislike of Derrida critiques Rousseau’s dislike of supplementation by suggesting that, despite supplementation by suggesting that, despite Rousseau’s reasoning, human experience is Rousseau’s reasoning, human experience is inseparable from a logic of supplementation. This also inseparable from a logic of supplementation. This also leads Derrida to imply that any form of ‘natural’ leads Derrida to imply that any form of ‘natural’ reasoning is therefore paradoxical: it is itself reasoning is therefore paradoxical: it is itself supplementary and supplementing.supplementary and supplementing.

Nature against writing Nature against writing oror presence presence against absenceagainst absence

• ‘‘Rousseau condemns writing as destruction of Rousseau condemns writing as destruction of presence and as disease of speech.’ (142)presence and as disease of speech.’ (142)

• Rousseau is interested in preserving a ‘natural’ Rousseau is interested in preserving a ‘natural’ absolute presence and because to him writing absolute presence and because to him writing (unlike speech) is seen as unnecessarily (unlike speech) is seen as unnecessarily supplementary to experience it is bad.supplementary to experience it is bad.

• Derrida argues that the reasons for Rousseau’s Derrida argues that the reasons for Rousseau’s dismissal of writing are actually implicit in the dismissal of writing are actually implicit in the conditions of human experience. conditions of human experience.

• Derrida argues that Rousseau indicates he is Derrida argues that Rousseau indicates he is sacrificing his own self-presence to be able to sacrificing his own self-presence to be able to communicate his ‘worth.’ He thus becomes self-communicate his ‘worth.’ He thus becomes self-present to his own sacrifice and thereby his worth.present to his own sacrifice and thereby his worth.

differancedifferance

• Derrida introduced a concept called ‘differance’ to Derrida introduced a concept called ‘differance’ to philosophy. It is used to remind us that there is more philosophy. It is used to remind us that there is more to life than what is present and that it takes more to life than what is present and that it takes more than what is present to make life. than what is present to make life.

• With this concept of differance, Derrida picks up on a With this concept of differance, Derrida picks up on a paradox in Rousseau’s thought and the philosophy of paradox in Rousseau’s thought and the philosophy of presence in general. To desire absolute presence (or presence in general. To desire absolute presence (or un-supplemented nature), like Rousseau does, is un-supplemented nature), like Rousseau does, is precisely to desire an ideal which is not present precisely to desire an ideal which is not present within presence:within presence:

‘‘Without the possibility of differance, the desire of Without the possibility of differance, the desire of presence presence as such would not find its breathing-as such would not find its breathing-

space. That means by space. That means by the same token that this the same token that this desire carries in itself the destiny of desire carries in itself the destiny of its non-its non-satisfaction. Differance produces what it forbids, satisfaction. Differance produces what it forbids, makes makes possible the very thing it makes impossible. (143)possible the very thing it makes impossible. (143)

Introducing the Introducing the supplementsupplement

• Derrida says that he wants to think ‘Rousseau’s Derrida says that he wants to think ‘Rousseau’s experience and his theory of writing together.’ (144) This experience and his theory of writing together.’ (144) This is because Derrida want to use Rousseau’s theory of is because Derrida want to use Rousseau’s theory of writing as a framework within which to reconsider his writing as a framework within which to reconsider his experience:experience:

‘‘On the side of experience, a recourse to literature as On the side of experience, a recourse to literature as reappropriation of presence, that is to say, as we shall see, reappropriation of presence, that is to say, as we shall see, of Nature; on the side of theory, an indictment against the of Nature; on the side of theory, an indictment against the negativity of the letter, in which must be read the negativity of the letter, in which must be read the degeneracy of culture and the disruption of community.degeneracy of culture and the disruption of community.If indeed one wishes to surround it with the entire If indeed one wishes to surround it with the entire constellation of concepts that shares its system, the word constellation of concepts that shares its system, the word supplementsupplement seems to account for the strange unity of seems to account for the strange unity of these two gestures.’ (144)these two gestures.’ (144)

Read from here until ‘…lack nothing at all in itself.’ (145)Read from here until ‘…lack nothing at all in itself.’ (145)

Childhood and Childhood and pedagogypedagogy

• A supplement can be thought of as being A supplement can be thought of as being in addition toin addition to or or in place ofin place of. However, in general Rousseau sees any . However, in general Rousseau sees any supplement as being in place of the goodness of nature.supplement as being in place of the goodness of nature.

• For Rousseau nature is good and ought not to be For Rousseau nature is good and ought not to be supplemented. But as nature cannot supplement itself we supplemented. But as nature cannot supplement itself we sometimes need to so as to be able to preserve its sometimes need to so as to be able to preserve its goodness.goodness.

• But for Rousseau, all education is supplementation; it But for Rousseau, all education is supplementation; it must therefore be as close to nature as possible. Derrida must therefore be as close to nature as possible. Derrida raises some problems for this:raises some problems for this:

‘‘Childhood is the first manifestation of the deficiency Childhood is the first manifestation of the deficiency which, in which, in Nature, calls for substitution. Pedagogy Nature, calls for substitution. Pedagogy illuminates perhaps illuminates perhaps more crudely the paradoxes of the more crudely the paradoxes of the supplement. How is a supplement. How is a natural weakness possible? How can natural weakness possible? How can Nature ask for forces that Nature ask for forces that it does not furnish? How is a it does not furnish? How is a child possible in general?’ (146)child possible in general?’ (146)

Nature and reasonNature and reason

• Nature and Reason are both supplemented, which is unthinkable in terms of Nature and Reason are both supplemented, which is unthinkable in terms of Reason. Reason.

• This puts into question any conception of natural law or human nature. This This puts into question any conception of natural law or human nature. This is because if it necessary to supplement Nature and Reason then they is because if it necessary to supplement Nature and Reason then they cannot account for everything.cannot account for everything.

• This is why the supplement is ‘dangerous’ – it is dangerous for the ideal This is why the supplement is ‘dangerous’ – it is dangerous for the ideal concepts of Reason and Nature. concepts of Reason and Nature.

• ‘‘Reason is incapable of thinking this double infringement upon Nature: that Reason is incapable of thinking this double infringement upon Nature: that there is a there is a lacklack in Nature and that in Nature and that because of that very factbecause of that very fact something something is is addedadded to it.’ (149) to it.’ (149)

• This kind of paradox is valid but beyond reason: that Nature is ‘This kind of paradox is valid but beyond reason: that Nature is ‘naturallynaturally’ ’ supplemented.supplemented.

• ‘‘The supplement is therefore equally dangerous for Reason, the natural The supplement is therefore equally dangerous for Reason, the natural health of Reason.’ (149)health of Reason.’ (149)

• However, Reason itself is also what figures out a logic of supplementary. It However, Reason itself is also what figures out a logic of supplementary. It exists precisely because of a ‘lack’ in Nature. exists precisely because of a ‘lack’ in Nature.

The natural and the The natural and the supplementsupplement

• One of the underlying themes that Derrida One of the underlying themes that Derrida locates in Rousseau’s texts is that of a locates in Rousseau’s texts is that of a difference between sex and masturbation.difference between sex and masturbation.

• Sex is understood by Rousseau as natural but Sex is understood by Rousseau as natural but masturbation is a dangerous and unnatural masturbation is a dangerous and unnatural supplement.supplement.

Mother?Mother?

• For Rousseau, ‘The supplement that “cheats” For Rousseau, ‘The supplement that “cheats” maternal “nature” operates as writing, and as maternal “nature” operates as writing, and as writing it is dangerous to life.’ (151)writing it is dangerous to life.’ (151)

• Here again we see the connection between Here again we see the connection between Rousseau’s experience and his theory of Rousseau’s experience and his theory of writing. writing.

• Read from ‘It thus destroys Nature…’ (151) to Read from ‘It thus destroys Nature…’ (151) to ‘…I no longer saw her.’ (152)‘…I no longer saw her.’ (152)

The supplement The supplement

• ‘‘The enjoyment of the The enjoyment of the thing itselfthing itself is thus undermined, is thus undermined, in its act and in its essence, by frustration. One in its act and in its essence, by frustration. One cannot therefore say that it has an essence or an act cannot therefore say that it has an essence or an act ((eidos, ouisa, energeiaeidos, ouisa, energeia, etc.). Something promises , etc.). Something promises itself as it escapes, gives itself as it moves away, and itself as it escapes, gives itself as it moves away, and strictly speaking it cannot even be called presence. strictly speaking it cannot even be called presence. Such is the constraint of the supplement, such, Such is the constraint of the supplement, such, exceeding all the language of metaphysics, is this exceeding all the language of metaphysics, is this structure “almost inconceivable to reason.” structure “almost inconceivable to reason.” AlmostAlmost inconceivable: simple irrationality, the opposite of inconceivable: simple irrationality, the opposite of reason, are less irritating and waylaying for classical reason, are less irritating and waylaying for classical logic. The supplement is maddening because it is logic. The supplement is maddening because it is neither presence nor absence and because it neither presence nor absence and because it consequently breaches both our pleasure and consequently breaches both our pleasure and virginity.’ (154) virginity.’ (154)

Mother, ‘Mamma’, Therese and Mother, ‘Mamma’, Therese and masturbationmasturbation

• Writing, like masturbation, is based on a reference Writing, like masturbation, is based on a reference to that which is strictly absent. You are engaging to that which is strictly absent. You are engaging with something that is there and yet is also not with something that is there and yet is also not there.there.

• This kind of thinking is hugely problematic for This kind of thinking is hugely problematic for reason.reason.

• For Rousseau, his ‘Mamma’ supplemented his For Rousseau, his ‘Mamma’ supplemented his mother, who in turn had supplemented nature. mother, who in turn had supplemented nature.

• His masturbation supplemented his desire for the His masturbation supplemented his desire for the actual sexual relation with his ‘Mamma’.actual sexual relation with his ‘Mamma’.

• Later his love Therese supplemented the place of Later his love Therese supplemented the place of his ‘Mamma’ – but he also supplemented his his ‘Mamma’ – but he also supplemented his relation to her with masturbation. relation to her with masturbation.

Inconceivable to reasonInconceivable to reason

• ‘‘Through this sequence of supplements a Through this sequence of supplements a necessity is announced: that of an infinite necessity is announced: that of an infinite chain, ineluctably multiplying the chain, ineluctably multiplying the supplementary mediations that produce the supplementary mediations that produce the sense of the very thing they defer: the mirage sense of the very thing they defer: the mirage of the thing itself, of immediate presence, or of the thing itself, of immediate presence, or originary perception. Immediacy is derived. originary perception. Immediacy is derived. That all begins through the intermediary is That all begins through the intermediary is what is indeed “inconceivable [to reason].”’ what is indeed “inconceivable [to reason].”’ (157)(157)

‘‘There is nothing There is nothing outside the text’ (158)outside the text’ (158)

• ‘‘We must begin We must begin wherever we arewherever we are and the thought of the trace, and the thought of the trace, which cannot take the scent into account, has already taught us which cannot take the scent into account, has already taught us that it was impossible to justify a point of departure absolutely. that it was impossible to justify a point of departure absolutely. Wherever we areWherever we are: in a text where we already believe ourselves to : in a text where we already believe ourselves to be.’ (162)be.’ (162)

• It is impossible for us to conceive of ourselves as It is impossible for us to conceive of ourselves as unsupplemented. And if even mothering a child is fundamentally unsupplemented. And if even mothering a child is fundamentally supplementary then it may be difficult to think of any time before supplementary then it may be difficult to think of any time before the supplement. the supplement.

• If Nature is supposed to be that which is unsupplemented then If Nature is supposed to be that which is unsupplemented then we are left with sense that anything sociobiological cannot simply we are left with sense that anything sociobiological cannot simply be Natural. For Derrida nature is always already supplemented by be Natural. For Derrida nature is always already supplemented by nurture within our reasoning, whether we are aware of it or not. nurture within our reasoning, whether we are aware of it or not.

• We can only conceive of what would be ‘natural’ within reason We can only conceive of what would be ‘natural’ within reason and because reason itself is a supplement (however ‘natural’ it and because reason itself is a supplement (however ‘natural’ it might also be) any idea of ‘nature’ is already caught within a might also be) any idea of ‘nature’ is already caught within a paradox. paradox.

ReferenceReference

• Derrida, J. (1976) '... That Dangerous Derrida, J. (1976) '... That Dangerous Supplement ...' in Supplement ...' in Of GrammatologyOf Grammatology

• http://www.colorado.edu/envd/courses/envd4114-001/Spring%2006/Theory/Derrida-Supplement.pdf