What for Derrida is the role of philosophy in responding to traumatic political events?

The political theory informing the policies of governments articulates the relations of morality and ethicality, private and public autonomy, substantive and procedural justice, liberalism and democracy. These notions have developed from the construction of various conceptual schemes and the interpretations of private deliberation and public discourse within a long tradition of western analytical philosophy. As globalisation intensifies similar values appear to inform variations of such political stability as universally desirable. In contrast, such globalisation also issues the shock waves of extreme destabilisation. The terrorism perpetrated by outlaw states or stateless militant organisations constitutes the notion of a traumatic political event. Political theorists may respond by drawing on analytical tradition in attempting to gauge their impressions and better understand the structure of each event but the latter methodology has been criticised by poststructural understanding. An example of such understanding is the deconstructional methods of Jacque Derrida.
This essay is concerned with Derrida’s response to the political trauma of terrorist attack. To contextualise his findings I will first note the general issues of analytical political theory with the notion of political trauma in the first section. The second section reports on Derrida’s response. The third section constitutes a conclusion to the essay as it reports upon Derrida’s desconstructive methods, which at the same time points to the role of philosophy for Derrida.

I. The Notion of a Political Trauma

Political theories are often constructed in terms of reconciling notional pairs, such as justice and legitimacy, liberalism and democracy, or morality and ethicality. Legitimacy is an ethical procedure when justified by moral grounds such as the reciprocal duty of respect for autonomous agents. John Rawls’s theory includes the latter deontological perspective as inform by Kant (Rawls, 1999, 157; Scruton, 2001, 73). Alternatively, principles of justice must gain legitimacy through the ethical nature of procedures such as found in acts of mutual inclusivity in free and equal dialogue. Jürgen Habermas’s theory assumes the latter discursive perspective influenced by both Kant and Hegel (Habermas, 1996, 8-11; Hegel, 2002, 131). Given individuals are diversely constituted by self-interest, ideology, or by social stereotyping labelling them as either deviant or deficient then it may be argued institutions need to develop procedures in recognition of potential alienation in societyThis suggests recognising the completeness of identity and circumstance, recognising and valuing diverse perspectives. Iris Marion Young examines this “politics of difference” (Young, 1990, 13-14).
The enterprise of universal representation starts with precepts of recognition, inclusion and rights to a public voice. Having a public voice implies that major political institutions, with administrative and juridical responsibilities, are directly open to amendments by the public reason of its citizens. A political system without such fundamental democratic access is unresponsive toThere is a role for an accountable and authorised “activist” in the system (Parkinson, 2003, 191). Dryzek’s rhetorical tools can play an important part in this activism by neutralising “gentlemanly” protocols that render other voices mute and I must observe that this may also target rules of discourse. “Difference democrats invoke the image of the gentleman’s club in criticising the excessively civil image of deliberation” (Dryzek, 2001, 74-75). Thus counteractive intervention may prove crucial in opening up those channels necessary for the authentic gathering of agent-relevance in public reasoning (Parkinson, 2003, 192-193). The issues that Parkinson and Dryzek raise appear to be appeals for better and more varied forms of communication to secure inclusivity and authenticity as distinct from a theoretical commitment to the best analytical arguments for universalization.
However the above political models may stabilise the sovereignty within nation states, but such structures that seed their values to dominate political practice globally have invited dissent, even attack. Such notions of traumatic political events entail shock waves that impact upon policies underwriting the stability of targeted nation state and the security of its population. Historical examples of political trauma might include instances of various war crimes or even genocide. In the past such events have occurred between nation-states or within nation states, however, other political traumas issue from the ideological agendas of so-called stateless terrorist activity.
A recent example of the latter, that shocked the whole world, is the traumatic event that has come to be known as 9/11, referring to 11 September 2001, the date when four airliners were hijacked by terrorists. Two planes were flown into the World Trade Centre’s twin towers in New York, a third hit the Pentagon in Washington, and a fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The thousands of people that were killed in this attack perished while occupying architectonic symbols of liberal democracy in the world’s most powerful sovereign state.
The analytic traditions of public reason underwriting the policies that the liberal democracies of the world adopt are thereby being questioned. An example of such an enquiry into the latter methodology is posed by poststructural understanding. An example of such understanding is the poststructural methods of Jacque Derrida. Derrida deconstructs the issue of terrorism in an interview with Giovanna Borradori, thereby outlining the part his philosophical method might play in understanding such events.

II Borradori’s Interview with Derrida

To contextualize the interview Borradori reports on the notion of forgiveness for Derrida. It is observed that forgiveness is influenced by Abrahamic antecedence in Christian, Judaism, and Islamism. Adding that these structures of forgiveness permeate the linguistic structures of political theories, in law, economy and diplomacy.Derrida identifies that an Abrahamic God attaches forgiveness with atonement. In the next phase of his deconstruction, Derrida highlights various notional binaries associated with the latter and the hierarchy in each pair that entails the calculation of penance: finite-infinite, immanent-transcendent, temporal-eternal, reparable-irreparable, expiable-inexpiable, possible-impossible. Thereby, ‘finite’, ‘immanent’ and ‘temporally’ delineated conditions must obtain for punishment to be gauged, accordingly forgiveness is granted to ‘expiable’ and ‘reparable’ incidents.
Forgiveness is constrained by these conditions to ground future “salvation, reconciliation, redemption, and atonement”. This reveals a paradox: If forgiveness is applicable only where reparation is possible are we contemplating a benign forgiveness? If the answer is no, can the unforgivable be forgiven? Where this model of forgiveness informs Western policy, Derrida attributes the term ‘geopolitics’ of forgiveness. Derrida confronts this ‘conditional’ forgiveness and the binary complexity that sustains it.
In drawing attention to conditional and unconditional notions of forgiveness Derrida reveals that the latter is subject to certain notional boundaries of Christian, Judaic, and Islamic law-like attachments while at the same time containing the potential to be interpreted as unconditional and sacred act. He thereby demonstrates the poststructural potential (Borradori, G., pp. 141-145).
Borradorri reveals that Derrida observes that boundaries concern identity as much as inclusivity or exclusivity. The deconstruction of our thoughts about conditionals, limits, territories or boundaries alters the embedded preconceived methods regarding identity as a homogeneous notion, for identity might be dispersed in ‘traces’ that have been excluded. The deconstructive method seeks out such excluded traces of identity that are rendered mute by the rigid structures of included and excluded notions that are externally imposed upon a dispersed homogenous impulse. There are mutual traces of personal identities that straddle boundaries in such situations as the Berlin Wall. “… a given identity may not be perfectly homogeneous because it includes traces of what it explicitly excludes. ” (Borradori, G., pp. 145-147)
The traces of deconstructive method are primarily distributed within language, however, “9/11” marks an event of terror and trauma that resists expression, 9/11 occurs in an emotional place, beyond ordinary language. Borradorri points out that from Freud we conceive trauma as an intense experience that overpowers our ability to respond. Trauma designates a terror beyond our capacity to cope (Gay, p. 782). The usual reaction is a repetitive reviewing in an attempt to retrospectively regain control, thus 9/11 is repeatedly chanted to diffuse or to place at arms length that which is beyond our capacity.
Borradori posits the impression that 9/11 was a major event, Derrida observes neither the notion of ‘event’ nor ‘impression’ can be taken for granted. He notes that while the prediction of 9/11 (remembering an earlier attack in 1993) was feared its realisation was not a major event even though it left a serious impression (Hume, 1999, pp. 96-100). Anger about the carnage and the media frenzy that proclaims it as a “major event” embeds two categories of impression of 9/11.
The first are facts about the physical reality, the disgust, emotion and empathy. These constitute authentic impressions in keeping with Hume. However, impressions categorised as media constructions, from the Humean perspective would be inauthentic, they would not be “immediate” notions. They are inauthentic impressions manufactured by “… the prodigious techno-socio-politial machine” (Borradori, p. 148). Derrida is concerned about the manipulation behind these kinds of media productions as the tools of propaganda. He observes that distinguishing these categories of impression conceptually, if not experientially, is a moral imperative (Borradori, pp.88-90; pp.147-150).
A significant aspect to Derrida’s response to the background of 9/11 concerns the term ‘autoimmunity’. The notion of safeguarding or protecting ‘the self’ from ‘the self’ mirrors the autoimmune disease of biological organisims whereby the latter immunizes against its own immunity. Derrida perceives 9/11 betokens such autoimmunity in the socio-political system. This is obtained through three stages:
Firstly, after the Cold War the terrorists attacking USA were organised by USA to press American interests against the Soviet action in Afghanistan. American arms and strategic information empowered Islamic Afghan fighters, the subsequent Taliban political elite.
Secondly, occurs what Derrida calls a stage ” worse than the Cold War”. Historically, the Cold War preserved the possibility of a balance but, by contrast, it is impossible to build such a balance with stateless terrorist organisations because terrorism grows from incalculable forces and incalculable responsibilities. The spread of WMD is the reality that terrorism threatens. George W. Bush’s assertion that the nations (rogue nations) that shelter terrorists are an “axis of evil”. The latter, according to Derrida, symbolises an effort to reify terrorism into something to be delimited, that it is possible to wage war against, to be able to locate it.
Derrida notes that psychologically, political trauma attacks the present from fear of the future, the future ‘haunts’ the present. The ‘monumentalizing’ of the term 9/11 serves the West’s media but also terrorism and contributes to an autoimmune reaction. The monumentalizing of the terrorist attacks by a date 9/11 intends limiting a painful event to history and implies denial of any future threat that might prolong the political trauma.
In the third stage of Derrida’s deconstruction he observes a “vicious circle of repression”. In declaring war against terrorism a systemic declaration of war against the declarer is entailed. The operation of autoimmunity then occurs as a third dynamic between ‘friend’ and ‘foe’ that is mutually deconstructive. It may lead to the State declaring war on its own citizens under the term security. Derrida challenges the differences that are assumed between war and terrorism and fears the future of terrorism is virtual attack.
Derrida’s warns that ‘technoscience’ and the virtualisation of terrorism render the distinctions obtaining surrounding terrorism, war, and peace redundant. The emergence of micrological technology wields more power and operates invisibly so that temporal knowledge of attacks is unreliable. In knowing this, trauma is further constituted. (Borradori, G., pp. 94-102 & pp.150-154)
Another aspect to 9/11 may be said its religious references. Derrida identifies two inextricable elements to Western religion, sacredness indebtedness. He observes the latter has moved apart from the former tying religion to the conceptual sphere of law.
Derrida’s procedes to further readings of etymological roots discovering that ‘response and responsibility’ share with religion a concern with the conditions of economic practice, mirroring the same complaint Derrida had with the conditionality of forgiveness. This deconstruction of religion and responsibility is politically charged by the exigence of a forced interaction between religion and digital technology. Religion may proselytise its interests globally through the digital networks but that partnership is a tense and conflicting arrangement. Such networks are organised in the interpretation of binary encoding and other such virtual exchanges while the locution of religion is the embodiment of humans. The latter is dragged into a set of values by the former that threatens to usurp the authoritive marks of holy writ and could explain the upsurge of wars that feature religious claims. (Borradori, pp121-124; pp. 154- 159).
Derrida examines the normative notion of tolerance that has permeated a global view. It is traditionally seen as an unbiased liberalism for openness between differences of ethnicity and religious conviction. However, examined closely tolerance expresses the retention of controls, it is a qualified and scrutinised hospitality. Derrida’s expansion of unconditional hospitality turns on Kant’s distinction between rights of invitation and rights of visitation. Just as true forgiveness entails an unconditional form it seems reasonable to apply that to authentic formulations of hospitality. (Borradori, pp.124-128; pp. 159- 162)
With regard to unconditional hospitality, Derrida acknowledges that it has a necessary absence in politics or law. The application of the law entails its enforcement, the application of force, to which Derrida includes the notions of excessive and supplemental force. For Derrida the latter ideas imply something outside the conceptual limits of politics – justice. Instability is revealed regarding the difference between authorised and unauthorised force, normally understood as inimical notions. Where the latter is interpreted with regard to distinguishing war from terrorism the distinction is rendered equivocal and according to one’s perspective.
Where legality is attached to give the authority to impose violence and illegality to remove the authority to impose violence, the question arises whether actions that are undetermined regarding legality constitute a form of pure violence. The latter is unresolvable for Derrida but valuabled nevertheless in that it clarifies the attachment of violence to law. The instability of defining the authority of terrorism under a universal law appears to attach it to the essence of violence, and it is that realisation threatens legality and the legitimacy of statehood. For the latter reason Derrida deplores terrorism because it has no futurity or interest in improving the present, which Derrida sees as the exigencies of justice. Accordingly it may be shown that terrorism denies justice. (Borradori, G., pp. 162-169)

III Conclusion: The Method and role of philosophy, for Derrida?

We have seen Derrida’s deconstructive method separates the ideas, beliefs and values within the language of philosophical analysis that entails its conceptual schemes (Davidson, pp.183). He then dismantles the rigid patterns that bind them together to improve authenticity. This is a project of subjective interventions. Through these interventions Derrida wants to destabilise analytical methods. He believes that analytical philosophy operates on the notion of irreducible and unequivocal conceptual pairs, such as eternal and temporal. Analytical philosophy assumes that such binaries have no other intellectual traces that may have the potential to operate; such couples must be deemed ‘clear-cut’. Therefore, two problems obtain; firstly, anything falling outside the conceptual scheme of that opposing relationship is sidelined or quelled and, secondly, a rigid hierarchy is entailed that resists further investigation, even where such a notion must obtain given some common traces may indeed run through apparently distinct notions.
In deconstruction the structure is identified, a hierarchy is highlighted and then inverted. The final move entails the intervention of a third notion for each structural pairing. The latter complicates the structure to guard against dogmatic polarised thinking in keeping with the Socratic testing of conceptual boundaries (Borradori, pp.138-139).
During the course of this essay, a deconstruction of forgiveness has revealed the changes that conditionality and unconditionality can impose upon the terms of geopolitical language.
Its been noted that what appears to be a liberal notion in the idea of ‘tolerance’ when invested with further boundaries or conditional limits turns out to be a reduced form of hospitality that may or may not engage the retention of sovereign control or paternalism.
The complexity of the notion of receiving an impression of an event has uncovered the moral responsibility we might choose to adopt in separating authentic and inauthentic reception of information. It has been articulated that the Humean notion that engages our experience of the world must be separated from the experience that a techno-scientic media interprets on our behalf or on behalf of a government.
We have confronted the language behind the non-language 9/11 in naming an event. Using its monumental and distancing properties to assuage our trauma. It has been revealed to us how the boundaries that define the national ‘organism’ are illusive when it comes to the motors of terror and that through political machinations can be produced a suicidal self destructive ideology that attacks from within. The globalisation and the digital networks of unseen wars compound such autoimmunity.
All of the above revelations stem from the analysis of language that deconstructive method applies.Therefore, it can be said that for Derrida, the role of philosophy in responding to traumatic political events entails questioning the “most fundamental” grounds of established philosophical discourse and thereby the received locution that shrouds the true meaning of such events.