An interview
with Jacques Derrida
By Michael Rosenfeld
Famed philosopher and deconstructionist Jacques Derrida is a professor
at École des Hautes Études en Sciences Socials in
ROSENFELD:
Thanks very much, Jacques Derrida, for agreeing to talk to us for publication
in Cardozo Life.
I
note that Cardozo and you have now had a relationship
for 10 years. You first came here when we organized the "Deconstruction
and the Possibility of Justice" conference, which still ranks as one of
the greatest conferences that we have held here. At that time, you delivered a
paper, "The Force of Law," which was subsequently published in Cardozo Law Review (vol. 11, 1990).
I
want to ask you about your relationship to law. When did you start
getting interested in law as a topic of inquiry?
DERRIDA: My
interest in law as an academic discipline started very early, although I never
studied law in the strict sense. I first became interested in the question of
law as it pertains to literature . . . the legal constraints that have to do
with the name of the author, the copyright, etc. Once, a long time ago, I gave
a seminar at Yale on copyright-on the Droit d'Auteur (the rights of the author), and on the history of
copyright. Of course they're superficially similar. At that time, I studied
both the French and English history of copyright. I was particularly interested
in the relationship in the 17th century between the King, the librarian (the
"Librairie" we call it),
and the owner of the copyright and the changes that then occurred with
the French Revolution.
I
also became interested in the affinity between literary work and the legal
production of law. When a number of ethical and judicial questions impacted on
deconstruction, I felt summoned to respond to such questions as I did at the
"Possibility of Justice" conference, which for me was a very
memorable, precious occasion to address legal scholars on the relationship
between constructing law and justice. So, I have had this ongoing interest in
law. However, I never acted on my dream to really study law.
Cardozo is for me the place where
I can
learn,
where I can discuss what interests me in the law.
ROSENFELD: I think we
at Cardozo are unique among
law faculties in that we always
have had a great deal of
inter-disciplinary interests
with training in philosophy, literature, political theory. Many of us had
looked at deconstruction to see to what extent it
could help us in our legal analysis and legal theory, so it was a particularly
important occasion to have you come to talk
to us.
DERRIDA: The
hospitality at Cardozo has been precious to me. In
the last 10 years, all the seminars I gave-and we have mentioned only the
one-have brought me close to legal colleagues and have-I just realize-always
dealt with the general question of responsibility. The seminars on the secret,
on testimony, on hospitality, and now today's on forgiveness-all have to do
1000 with a question of responsibility of one person to another.
ROSENFELD:
May I suggest that perhaps your own interest in explicit questions of law and
justice may have derived from your deconstructive theory? It seems to me that
there has been a growing interest in law, legal issues, and legal justice by
philosophers in the last 15 or 20 years. Do you agree with that, and if you do,
to what do you attribute this interest?
DERRIDA: I
remember the first time I addressed the question of the law in a lecture on
Kafka's "Before the Law." I made a distinction between the law
in general and the law in the strict sense or legal justice-in French, le droit and la loi. In French when you speak of the law (la loi),
you do not necessarily refer to legal issues.
Now to go back to your question. What we see in Western democracy
today is the increasing importance of the legal authority on politics-sometimes
in an abusive fashion, as is the case in
ROSENFELD:
Your relationship with Cardozo dates back a decade.
Can you characterize this relationship that makes us so fortunate to see you
every year? Do you have relationships with other
law schools?
DERRIDA: It is
me who is fortunate. First of all, my relationship with Cardozo
is unique. Perhaps I don't have to mention that at Cardozo
I find colleagues who are well-known legal scholars and are also interested in
literature, in biblical scholarship, philosophy, and so on and so forth. So for
me, these are very rich occasions for discussion. I have worked infrequently
with other law schools. Once while I was teaching at Yale, which I did for 12
years, I was invited by a law school to discuss a paper that I had given on
Kant. Then, just yesterday, I was invited by Larry Kramer at
In
When
I read what you write and what Arthur Jacobson writes, this is very important
to me. Over the course of the 10 years, there has been growing familiarity and
common premises. From my narrow point of view, things are changing at Cardozo and for the best.
ROSENFELD: I
don't know if it is well known that you were born and grew up in
DERRIDA:
Perhaps one of the many things which made me sensitive to law is that I
belonged to a minority in a colonized country. The Jewish community in
During
the Nazi occupation, there were no German soldiers in
... the fact
that Clinton allowed himself to be trapped suggests that he failed in his
responsibility.
ROSENFELD: I know that
you have visited South Africa
and familiarized yourself with the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the work
that it has done. Can you tell
us how you got interested in the subject of forgiveness
and mercy?
DERRIDA:
Last year I started a seminar on forgiveness and mercy, a subject which has
several legal dimensions to it. Then, last summer I went to
I
became especially interested in the process they called "healing
away," which was a form of political therapy. I became interested in how
and to what extent such a political therapy was compatible with the idea of
pure forgiveness. I had the opportunity to meet and hear from witnesses from
both sides, as well as members of the Commission. So I learned a lot, and I
learned about the history of
In
ROSENFELD: This is fascinating. So as an English-speaking person, I may
understand the Commission's findings and testimony in a way that is totally or
slightly different from the way one of the native language speakers may understand
it.
DERRIDA:
Exactly. It was primarily black people who were the victims in
ROSENFELD:
Is it fair to say that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission allowed each
person, for different per 1000 sonal reasons, the
ability to have closure on this part of South African history?
DERRIDA:
That's obviously the goal-closure. To put an end to what might be otherwise an
endless process of revenge; to put an end to the mourning and to get on with
the future. Mandela and his associates and his allies wanted
ROSENFELD:
You mentioned Nelson Mandela, and I wonder if you would comment on what you
think his role has been in all of this. He was a prisoner, a victim of the
apartheid regime, and then became the country's leader. Was it through example
or through persuasion that he played his particular role? Was he a unique
figure? Might this healing process not have been possible had there been a
leader other than Nelson Mandela?
DERRIDA: This is a good question and I have
no short answer. Of course, the individual Nelson Mandela played a major role.
What would have happened without him, I don't know. But the fact is that this
man, who had been in jail for 27 years, left jail without any visible resentment.
It was he who decided that reconciliation should be the goal of the Commission.
I read that at some point he disobeyed his own group, his own party, when he
started negotiating with the government. He did this without the approval of
his colleagues. He lent a strong individual signature to the proceedings.
ROSENFELD: Now may I bring you to a more mundane subject which is arousing a lot of interest, commentary, and debate
in the
DERRIDA:
This would require a long time. However, let me give a couple of quick answers.
The first is my spontaneous reaction-shared by many outside of the United
States, particularly in France-one of outrage and disgust with the
politicization of, and the attention from the press to, the sexual parts of the
story. We found it to be not only outrageous, but so obviously orchestrated by
the Independent Counsel and organized by a larger group of politicians. In
Then,
I would pay attention also to a more complicated issue: the question of perjury
in the Paula Jones case. There, the question seems to be not simply one of
sexual privacy but the idea of sexual harassment. Harassment really is about
the dignity of the human person. Also, the fact that
Additionally,
the fact that the president had to testify and confess not only in front of
American citizens but in front of the world is indication of the new
globalization, and our entering a new phase in international law and the rights
of man.
ROSENFELD:
Before we close, I want to ask you generally about your current work on
forgiveness. Are you planning to write a book on the subject?
DERRIDA: You know, each time I give a seminar, in a certain way I write
everything and there is material for a possible book. But I don't have enough
time to revise or to write. I would love to if I have time, but I have no
current plans to do so.
ROSENFELD: I
want to thank 143 you very much and let you know that the Cardozo
Law Review would be eager to publish any of this material.
DERRIDA: Thank you, and let me take advantage of this situation to thank Cardozo formally and officially and sincerely for the hospitality. I am very grateful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/fall1998/derrida/
Other interesting interviews: [1] [2] [3] [4]