|
|
Philosophy in a Time of Terror
|
Giovanna
Borradori, Philosophy In A Time Of Terror: Dialogues
with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida
(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,
2003)
xiv and 208pp
ISBN 0-226-06664-9
|
|
Liam O Ruairc • Fortnight, September 2004
|
Most
people find philosophers abstract and difficult
to understand. They would have some doubts as to
whether they have anything worthwhile to say about
the important events of our times, such as the 9/11
attacks and the subsequent ‘war on terror’
for example. The interest of this book is that it
shows that philosophy has a valuable contribution
to make to the understanding of phenomena like ‘terrorism’
and ‘war’. The editor has interviewed
the two most important philosophers still alive,
Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas. In two interviews
Habermas and Derrida expose their entire philosophical
framework to interpret the 9/11 events in an accessible
manner. Each interview in followed by an essay by
Giovanna Borradori contextualising the arguments
developed by the two thinkers.
Derrida’s
interview is the longest, and probably the most
interesting. His project is known as ‘deconstruction’.
It pays close attention to language to expose the
rhetorical strategies at work within philosophy.
In the words of the editor, the dialogue presents
in an accessible and concentrated manner Derrida's
'unmatched ability to combine inventiveness and
rigor, circumvention and affirmation' and clearly
shows his extreme sensibility to the subtilities
of language.
For
Derrida, an event like 9/11 calls for a philosophical
response which questions at their most fundamental
level, the most deep-seated conceptual presuppositions
of our discourse about the likes of ‘war’
and ‘terrorism’.
"The
concepts with which this 'event' has most often
been described, named, categorised, are the products
of a 'dogmatic slumber' from which only a new philosophical
reflection can awaken us, a reflection on philosophy,
most notably on political philosophy and its heritage.
The prevailing discourse, that of the media and
of the official rhetoric, relies too readily on
received concepts like 'war' or 'terrorism' (national
and international)."
It
is necessary to be vigilant given the uncritical
use of words like ‘terrorism’ in the discourse
that dominates public space and the media in this
age of 'war on terror'. This is something relevant
for us here: for example, were the so-called 'Troubles'
a 'war' or 'terrorism', did they involve 'gangsters'
or 'guerillas'? Derrida calls for a deconstruction
of all those terms and distinctions. The purpose
of being attentive to rhetoric, to where concepts
come against their limits, is "not in order
to isolate ourselves in language", as Derrida
as often been accused of, "but on the contrary,
on order to try to understand what is going on precisely
beyond language".
This
is not an abstract question given the political
and legal effects those words have.
"Semantic
instability, irreductible trouble spots on the borders
between concepts, indecision in the very concept
of the border; all this must not only be analysed
as a speculative disorder, a conceptual chaos or
zone of passing turbulence in public or political
language. We must also recognise here strategies
and relations of force. The dominant power is the
one that manages to impose and, this, to legitimate,
indeed to legalize (for it is always a question
of law) on a national or world stage, the terminology
and thus the interpretation that best suits it in
a given situation."
For
Derrida, the task of the "philosopher-deconstructor"
is to "reflect in a responsible fashion
on those questions and demand accountability from
those in charge of public discourse, those responsible
for the language and institutions of international
law." The deconstruction of those concepts
is not simply a critical enterprise or nihilism,
but one of refoundation. "Reflection (of
what I would call a 'deconstructive' type) should
thus, it seems to me, without diminishing or destroying
these axions and principles, question and refound
them, endlessly refine and universalise them, without
becoming discouraged by the aporias such work must
necessarily encounter."
The
interview with Jurgen Habermas has less to offer
in terms of insights into the significance of 9/11
and its consequences. His theory of ‘communicative
action’ is about giving foundations to ethics
and politics through argumentative procedures, based
on the idea that commitments to truth, sincerity
and rightness are normative presuppositions of human
communication. Philosophy's aim is to reconstruct
the conditions that make communication not only
possible, but also effective and productive. This
enables philosophy to become a critical tool to
criticize the distortions in communication. For
Habermas, international terrorism and 9/11 are ultimately
a result of a communicative pathology:
"The
spiral of violence begins as a spiral of distorted
communication that leads through the spiral of uncontrolled
reciprocal mistrust to the breakdown of communication."
Habermas
calls on Western countries to build channels of
communication, and to increase public participation
and encourage dialogue. Mutual understanding and
consensus are the key to resolve international tension.
There is something very abstract in the ideas developed
by Habermas in this interview. As the editor notes
in her essay, the turn toward communicative action
cause Habermas's focus to shift from historically
and sociologically founded analyses to a formal
approach in which the investigation of institutional
processes and argumentative structures is given
more importance than material conditions. Habermas
may have discovered 'normative foundations', but
those remain purely linguistic, and remain disconnected
from historical realities. Historical situations
like 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ are
judged in terms of an unhistorical ideal speech
situation.
The
actual content of Habermas and Derrida's political
positions is not particularly original, both defend
a banal liberalism and argue for reform of international
laws and institutions. They differ however, in so
far as Habermas is fairly apologetic of existing
institutions such as the European Union or The Hague
Tribunal, whereas Derrida defends a kind of empty
transcendence and a formalistic messianism about
an utopian 'democracy to come', believing "that
it is faith in the possibility of this impossible"
that must govern all our political decisions. Language
has a central place in the reflection of both thinkers.
However, their understanding of the nature of language
is very different. If Habermas puts the emphasis
upon the ideal of transparent communication, Derrida
is more attentive to the contradictions, tensions
and conflicts that make mutual understanding and
dialogue difficult in practice. Such a perspective
is far more suited to the reality of international
relations. He reminds us of the permanent semantic
instability of concepts like ‘terrorism’
or ‘war’, whose meaning will always be
negotiated and renegotiated. His call for people
to be vigilant about how such concepts are used
is more than timely in an age where there is so
much talk about ‘terrorism’.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
|
|
|
 |
All
censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging
current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress
is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and
executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently
the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships.
- George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Index:
Current Articles
|
|
