7/29/2019 What Derrida Really Meant

1/3

What Derrida Really Meant

Mark C. Taylor

Along with Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, who died last week in Pariage of 74, will be remembered as one of the three most important philosophers of the 20th century. Nin the last 100 years had a greater impact than he did on people in more fields and different discipline

Philosophers, theologians, literary and art critics, psychologists, historians, writers, artists, legal scho

even architects have found in his writings resources for insights that have led to an extraordinary revarts and humanities during the past four decades. And no thinker has been more deeply misunderstoo

To people addicted to sound bites and overnight polls, Mr. Derrida's works seem hopelessly obscure.

undeniable that they cannot be easily summarized or reduced to one-liners. The obscurity of his writi

however, does not conceal a code that can be cracked, but reflects the density and complexity charactall great works of philosophy, literature and art. Like good French wine, his works age well. The mor

lingers with them, the more they reveal about our world and ourselves.

What makes Mr. Derrida's work so significant is the way he brought insights of major philosophers, w

artists and theologians to bear on problems of urgent contemporary interest. Most of his infamouslydemanding texts consist of careful interpretations of canonical writers in the Western philosophical, l

and artistic traditionsfrom Plato to Joyce. By reading familiar works against the grain, he disclosed

concealed meanings that created new possibilities for imaginative expression.

Mr. Derrida's name is most closely associated with the often cited but rarely understood term"deconstruction." Initially formulated to define a strategy for interpreting sophisticated written and vi

works, deconstruction has entered everyday language. When responsibly understood, the implication

deconstruction are quite different from the misleading clichs often used to describe a process of dismor taking things apart. The guiding insight of deconstruction is that every structurebe it literary,

psychological, social, economic, political or religiousthat organizes our experience is constituted a

maintained through acts of exclusion. In the process of creating something, something else inevitablyout.

These exclusive structures can become repressiveand that repression comes with consequences. In

reminiscent of Freud, Mr. Derrida insists that what is repressed does not disappear but always returns

unsettle every construction, no matter how secure it seems. As an Algerian Jew writing in France durpostwar years in the wake of totalitarianism on the right (fascism) as well as the left (Stalinism), Mr.

understood all too well the danger of beliefs and ideologies that divide the world into diametrical opp

right or left, red or blue, good or evil, for us or against us. He showed how these repressive structuresgrew directly out of the Western intellectual and cultural tradition, threatened to return with devastati

consequences. By struggling to find ways to overcome patterns that exclude the differences that mak

worth living, he developed a vision that is consistently ethical.

And yet, supporters on the left and critics on the right have misunderstood this vision. Many of Mr. Dmost influential followers appropriated his analyses of marginal writers, works and cultures as well a

emphasis on the importance of preserving differences and respecting others to forge an identity politi

7/29/2019 What Derrida Really Meant

2/3

divides the world between the very oppositions that it was Mr. Derrida's mission to undo: black and w

men and women, gay and straight. Betraying Mr. Derrida's insights by creating a culture of political

correctness, his self-styled supporters fueled the culture wars that have been raging for more than twoand continue to frame political debate.

To his critics, Mr. Derrida appeared to be a pernicious nihilist who threatened the very foundation of

society and culture. By insisting that truth and absolute value cannot be known with certainty, his det

argue, he undercut the very possibility of moral judgment. To follow Mr. Derrida, they maintain, is todown the slippery slope of skepticism and relativism that inevitably leaves us powerless to act respon

This is an important criticism that requires a careful response. Like Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche

Derrida does argue that transparent truth and absolute values elude our grasp. This does not mean, ho

that we must forsake the cognitive categories and moral principles without which we cannot live: equjustice, generosity and friendship. Rather, it is necessary to recognize the unavoidable limitations and

contradictions in the ideas and norms that guide our actions, and do so in a way that keeps them open

constant questioning and continual revision. There can be no ethical action without critical reflection

During the last decade of his life, Mr. Derrida became preoccupied with religion and it is in this area contribution might well be most significant for our time. He understood that religion is impossible w

uncertainty. Whether conceived of as Yahweh, as the father of Jesus Christ, or as Allah, God can nev

fully known or adequately represented by imperfect human beings.

And yet, we live in an age when major conflicts are shaped by people who claim to know, for certainis on their side. Mr. Derrida reminded us that religion does not always give clear meaning, purpose an

certainty by providing secure foundations. To the contrary, the great religious traditions are profound

disturbing because they all call certainty and security into question. Belief not tempered by doubt pos

mortal danger.

As the process of globalization draws us ever closer in networks of communication and exchange, th

understandable longing for simplicity, clarity and certainty. This desire is responsible, in large measu

the rise of cultural conservatism and religious fundamentalismin this country and around the worldbelievers of every stripeMuslim, Jewish and Christiancling to beliefs that, Mr. Derrida warns, th

tear apart our world.

Fortunately, he also taught us that the alternative to blind belief is not simply unbelief but a different

beliefone that embraces uncertainty and enables us to respect others whom we do not understand. complex world, wisdom is knowing what we don't know so that we can keep the future open.

In the two decades I knew Mr. Derrida, we had many meetings and exchanges. In conversation, he li

carefully and responded helpfully to questions whether posed by undergraduates or colleagues. As a

he gave freely of his time to several generations of students.

But small things are the measure of the man. In 1986, my family and I were in Paris and Mr. Derrida

us to dinner at his house in the suburbs 20 miles away. He insisted on picking us up at our hotel, and

arrived at his home he presented our children with carnival masks. At 2 a.m., he drove us back to the

7/29/2019 What Derrida Really Meant

3/3

later years, when my son and daughter were writing college papers on his work, he sent them letters a

postcards of encouragement as well as signed copies of several of his books. Jacques Derrida wrote e

about the gift of friendship but in these quiet gesturesgestures that served to forge connections amoindividuals across their differenceswe see deconstruction in action.