{"title":"Earthbound in the Anthropocene","authors":"Chris Danta","doi":"10.3366/drt.2022.0282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2022.0282","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42836,"journal":{"name":"Derrida Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48202395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sophisticated deterrence theories have been proposed to justify the acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries; but they are demonstrably flawed and likely to lead to a catastrophic outcome; which has been avoided so far only thanks to the insubordination of individuals who did not follow the instructions mandated by such theories. The relevant military and political decision makers should try to escape from this dangerous situation. This is not easy; but the alternative is doom. Escape before doom might become possible after the danger of the current situation of humankind due to the presence of nuclearweapons ismorewidely understood. But it is more likely that a sufficiently potent motive for drastic changes shall emerge only after a major nuclear-weapon catastrophe caused by a diligent implementation of the sequence of the actions carefully programmed to make nuclear deterrence work. All of us—and primarily all those of us having some specific competence or professional involvement in the development and operational management of nuclear weapons (their technologies, their operational rules, and the related domestic and international politics)—especially all those who do believe their activities related to nuclear weaponry help to promote the survival of their fellow citizens and of humankind—all ought to ponder these facts and cooperate in order to move humankind away from the brink. Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war”. This advice was probably rather sensible in many of the occasions in which it was uttered and followed throughout human history; but these were circumstances in which the primary goal was to avoid war if at all possible, but otherwise to win the war. Now every reasonable person understands that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” (President Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union Address). Hence, any “reasonable” version of nuclear deterrence must have as its primary goal the prevention of nuclear war: indeed, of any deliberate use of nuclear weapons.
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"Francesco Vitale","doi":"10.3366/drt.2022.0272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2022.0272","url":null,"abstract":"Sophisticated deterrence theories have been proposed to justify the acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries; but they are demonstrably flawed and likely to lead to a catastrophic outcome; which has been avoided so far only thanks to the insubordination of individuals who did not follow the instructions mandated by such theories. The relevant military and political decision makers should try to escape from this dangerous situation. This is not easy; but the alternative is doom. Escape before doom might become possible after the danger of the current situation of humankind due to the presence of nuclearweapons ismorewidely understood. But it is more likely that a sufficiently potent motive for drastic changes shall emerge only after a major nuclear-weapon catastrophe caused by a diligent implementation of the sequence of the actions carefully programmed to make nuclear deterrence work. All of us—and primarily all those of us having some specific competence or professional involvement in the development and operational management of nuclear weapons (their technologies, their operational rules, and the related domestic and international politics)—especially all those who do believe their activities related to nuclear weaponry help to promote the survival of their fellow citizens and of humankind—all ought to ponder these facts and cooperate in order to move humankind away from the brink. Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war”. This advice was probably rather sensible in many of the occasions in which it was uttered and followed throughout human history; but these were circumstances in which the primary goal was to avoid war if at all possible, but otherwise to win the war. Now every reasonable person understands that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” (President Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union Address). Hence, any “reasonable” version of nuclear deterrence must have as its primary goal the prevention of nuclear war: indeed, of any deliberate use of nuclear weapons.","PeriodicalId":42836,"journal":{"name":"Derrida Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46887040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As they make their way through Louis Althusser’s and Jacques Derrida’s texts, readers will cross innumerable curtains – ‘the words and things’, as Derrida says, as many fabrics of traces. These curtains open onto a multiplicity of scenes and mises en scène, performances, roles, rituals, actors, plays – thus unfolding the space of a certain theatricality. This essay traces Althusser’s and Derrida’s respective deployments of the theatrical motif. In his theoretical writings, Althusser’s theatrical dispositive aims to designate the practical and material dimension of the scenes of ideology, materially enacted through roleplays, performances, acts, or discourses. At the horizon: a scientific discourse on ideology or, later, a strategic intervention in the class struggle. This scientific and/or strategic orientation echoes Althusser’s definition of materialism: ‘no more storytelling’. But Derrida’s ‘closure of representation’ reminds us that there’s no presence – even the most ‘material’ – no ‘truth’ or ‘correctness’ – in theoretical or strategic terms – without effects of re-presentation, differential repetition, narrative reconstruction: theatricality and materiality suppose a force of resistance, a secret heterogeneity, curtain foldings. Hence the irreducible necessity of reading, storytelling, transformative interpretation. What are the implications for thinking inheritance and debt – for example, the one binding Althusser and Derrida, and us to them?
{"title":"‘Rideaux rouges’: The Scene of Ideology and the Closure of Representation (Matter and Theatre in Althusser and Derrida)","authors":"Thomas Clément Mercier","doi":"10.3366/drt.2022.0273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2022.0273","url":null,"abstract":"As they make their way through Louis Althusser’s and Jacques Derrida’s texts, readers will cross innumerable curtains – ‘the words and things’, as Derrida says, as many fabrics of traces. These curtains open onto a multiplicity of scenes and mises en scène, performances, roles, rituals, actors, plays – thus unfolding the space of a certain theatricality. This essay traces Althusser’s and Derrida’s respective deployments of the theatrical motif. In his theoretical writings, Althusser’s theatrical dispositive aims to designate the practical and material dimension of the scenes of ideology, materially enacted through roleplays, performances, acts, or discourses. At the horizon: a scientific discourse on ideology or, later, a strategic intervention in the class struggle. This scientific and/or strategic orientation echoes Althusser’s definition of materialism: ‘no more storytelling’. But Derrida’s ‘closure of representation’ reminds us that there’s no presence – even the most ‘material’ – no ‘truth’ or ‘correctness’ – in theoretical or strategic terms – without effects of re-presentation, differential repetition, narrative reconstruction: theatricality and materiality suppose a force of resistance, a secret heterogeneity, curtain foldings. Hence the irreducible necessity of reading, storytelling, transformative interpretation. What are the implications for thinking inheritance and debt – for example, the one binding Althusser and Derrida, and us to them?","PeriodicalId":42836,"journal":{"name":"Derrida Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47590184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Because the pandemic has kept the world busy in the last two years, a revival of Derrida's writings on biology is an urgent prerequisite today. The tsunamic invasion of the Coronavirus or Covid-19 pandemic took more than two million lives and thousands are still being tested positive as I write. The speed of the virus and the seeming human inability to stop its spread necessitates a study on the relationship between Covid-19 and Derrida's deconstructive philosophy. Hence the portmanteau Coviderrida – inspired by Hélène Cixous’ ‘ derridevilishly’ ( Cixous 2004 , 16) – attempts to demonstrate how the pathogen operates as an event or (im) possibility to which Derrida's neologisms ‘différance’, ‘supplement’, ‘trace’, ‘archi-writing’, and ‘text’ testify. The main concern of this paper is to restore the deconstructive logic that Derrida advocates to restructure the relationship between life and death in his 1975-6 seminar La vie la mort, and reshape our notion of human survival in his 2001 interview with Giovanna Borradori, ‘Autoimmunity’. These two texts redefine the political and religious questions, which are ‘left hanging, uncertain, still in movement and therefore, yet “to come”’.
{"title":"Coviderrida: The Pandemic in Deconstructive Philosophy","authors":"A. Al-Khafaji","doi":"10.3366/drt.2022.0276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2022.0276","url":null,"abstract":"Because the pandemic has kept the world busy in the last two years, a revival of Derrida's writings on biology is an urgent prerequisite today. The tsunamic invasion of the Coronavirus or Covid-19 pandemic took more than two million lives and thousands are still being tested positive as I write. The speed of the virus and the seeming human inability to stop its spread necessitates a study on the relationship between Covid-19 and Derrida's deconstructive philosophy. Hence the portmanteau Coviderrida – inspired by Hélène Cixous’ ‘ derridevilishly’ ( Cixous 2004 , 16) – attempts to demonstrate how the pathogen operates as an event or (im) possibility to which Derrida's neologisms ‘différance’, ‘supplement’, ‘trace’, ‘archi-writing’, and ‘text’ testify. The main concern of this paper is to restore the deconstructive logic that Derrida advocates to restructure the relationship between life and death in his 1975-6 seminar La vie la mort, and reshape our notion of human survival in his 2001 interview with Giovanna Borradori, ‘Autoimmunity’. These two texts redefine the political and religious questions, which are ‘left hanging, uncertain, still in movement and therefore, yet “to come”’.","PeriodicalId":42836,"journal":{"name":"Derrida Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41828772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the Genesis of Monkey Trouble: The Scandal of Posthumanism","authors":"Christopher Peterson","doi":"10.3366/drt.2022.0277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/drt.2022.0277","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42836,"journal":{"name":"Derrida Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41324731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：