James R. Muir - Derrida and Post-Modern Political Philosophy (2008)

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

[York University Libraries]

On:

23 October 2008

Access details:

Access Details: [subscription number 793221921]

Publisher

Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The European Legacy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713416679

Derrida and Post-Modern Political Philosophy

James R. Muir

aa

Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, MB, R3B 2E9, CanadaOnline Publication Date: 01 July 2008

To cite this Article

Muir, James R.(2008)'Derrida and Post-Modern Political Philosophy',The European Legacy,13:4,425 — 443

To link to this Article: DOI:

10.1080/10848770802180706

URL:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10848770802180706

Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The European Legacy, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 425–443, 2008

Derrida and Post-Modern Political Philosophy

J

AMES

R. M

UIR

A

BSTRACT

Western political philosophy may be more diverse than its supporters or critics have allowed inrecent scholarship. This paper argues that political philosophy is the centre of Derrida’s philosophical thought as a whole, and suggests that similarities between Isocrates and Derrida help us to better understand both the political thought of these thinkers and the historical diversity of Western political philosophy.

I

NTRODUCTION

What philosophy is, and what sort of future it may have, is a question toward which weare compelled to turn in and by post-modernity. This question is too often avoided in theuniversities, hidden behind a variety of philosophical specialisms––analytic philosophy,applied philosophy, and a proliferation of ‘‘philosophies of ’’––which limit the scope andgoals of philosophy by strictly limiting its method and subject matter, often in direct anddismissively critical contrast to previous practice.

1

None of these specialist philosophiestake much substantive account of the questions asked in philosophy prior to our century:questions of the good, ontology, theology, or Being, have been set aside as opiates of themasses, linguistic bewitchments, the victims of scientific rationalism, or as too difficultfor undergraduates. Yet as these sceptical breezes pass over the surface of modern thoughtwithin the universities, there are, fortunately, deeper currents within which fundamentalphilosophy has survived, which are beginning to flourish once again. The question at thecentre of this paper is whether thinking about politics must merely be a ‘‘philosophy of,’’or a reasoned elaboration of doctrines proceeding from the hypotheses of academicdiscourse (e.g. Rawls, Nozick, Gutmann), or once again a necessary part of fundamentalphilosophy, or thought about Being or the whole.The very name ‘‘post-modern’’ denotes a moment in the history of thought whichremains somehow tied to what preceded it, the ‘‘modern.’’ It is debatable whether modern philosophy begins with Machiavelli or, as our epistemological age would have it,with Descartes. Whichever position we may take in this debate, it seems that we mustregard modern philosophy as unfolding out of political philosophy. It is clear enoughthat Machiavelli is a political philosopher, although it is now sometimes necessary toremind ourselves that Descartes too, from the perspective of his primary intentions,

Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, MB, R3B 2E9, Canada.Email: j.muir@uwinnipeg.ca

ISSN 1084-8770 print/ISSN 1470-1316 online/08/040425–19

ß

2008 International Society for the Study of European IdeasDOI: 10.1080/10848770802180706

D o w nl o ad ed B y : [ Y o rk U ni v e r si t y Lib r a ri e s] A t : 06 :00 23 O c t ob e r 2008

was a political philosopher. D’Alembert declared in the

Encyclopedie

that Descartes had, inhis philosophy, ‘‘laid the foundations of a government more just and more happy thanhas ever been established.’’

2

Descartes himself argued that moral science, includingpolitical philosophy, is ‘‘the highest degree of wisdom.’’

3

He turned to metaphysics, theroots of his tree of knowledge, so that he would be able to think about politics, the fruitfor which such a tree is desired. This beginning in, and thinking to, the political, remainsa feature of philosophy coming after the modern. Post-modernism, at least in the form of the profound thinkers from which it originates, certainly also guides our thought topolitics. Nietzsche and Heidegger both understood the relationship between their thought about Being and the enduring questions of political life, and each of them, inaction if not in thought, was committed to definite political aspirations.While the question of the relation between philosophy and politics has receivedmuch attention in relation to Nietzsche and Heidegger, we might usefully turn to thethought and writing––and peculiar influence––of a thinker who claims to havedeveloped and surpassed the thought of these thinkers, Jacques Derrida. If, as I intend toargue here, thinking about politics reveals both the motivations and the primaryintentions of Derrida’s texts, then he may be the post-modern thinker who can best helpus to see, in terms more immediately compelling to us now, the necessity of a re-askingof the question of the relation between philosophy and politics, or Being and justice,and of a return to the history of (political) philosophy in order to better understandthe sense in which political thinking is a necessary, and perhaps the central, part of fundamental philosophy.The following sections are intended to fulfil three intentions. First, I intend toprovide a very brief overview of some of the main points of Jacques Derrida’s thinking,in order to establish the constellation of ideas within which his political thought isdeveloped. Second, I will argue that Derrida’s thinking, including particularly his criticalengagement with the history of Western philosophy, is best understood cumulatively asan identifiable ethical-political position. Third, I will conclude with some suggestionsabout Derrida’s relation to thinkers with similar ideas in the tradition of Westernphilosophy.

1. L

E

P

OSTMODERNE EXPLIQUE AUX ENFANTS

: D

ERRIDA

As developed by Derrida, and as augmented by his many academic followers,deconstruction has become a rather diverse and diffuse edifice ranging acrossspecialties which include contemporary metaphysics and theology, literary theory,political theory, sociological theory, various modes of cultural theory, and so on.The purpose of this section of my paper is not, as it were, to provide an introductory‘‘primer’’ on deconstruction, but to outline the logical structure of Derrida’s conceptionof deconstruction before turning to an account of its relation to political thought andpractice.In Derrida’s view, the history of Western philosophy is to be understood from theperspective of the history of metaphysics, and the history of Western metaphysics is thehistory of logocentrism and phonocentrism (from

phone

, Gr. ‘voice’). Logocentrismsignifies any form of thought based on an external point of reference, such as Truth,

426

J

AMES

R. M

UIR