What do you think?
Rate this book
Positionen: Gespräche mit Henri Ronse, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Louis Houdebine, Guy Scarpetta
Positions is a collection of three interviews with Jacques Derrida that illuminate and make more accessible the complex concepts and terms treated extensively in such works as Writing and Difference and Dissemination. Derrida takes positions on his detractors, his supporters, and the two major preoccupations of French intellectual life, Marxism and psychoanalysis.
The interviews included in this volume offer a multifaceted view of Derrida. " Interview with Henri Ronse" contains a succinct statement of principles. "Seminology and Interview with Julia Kristeva" provides important clarifications of the role played by linguistics in Derrida's work. " Interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta" is a wide-ranging discussion that touches on many of the polemics that Derrida's work as provoked.
Alan Bass, whose translation of Writing and Difference was highly praised for its clarity, accuracy, and readability, has provided extremely useful critical notes, full of vital information, including historical background.
Paperback
Published October 1, 2008
24 people are currently reading
637 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
669 books1,817 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
June 14, 2014
When I try to decipher a text I do not constantly ask myself if I will finish by answering yes or no, as happens in France at determined periods of history, and generally on Sunday.
The above citation was chosen to reflect a contrast, one of styles - if not intentions. The epigram's glibness is useful to distract from the challenging depths of such a slim book. I dare say I spent more time per page than I have since I was a student. It did require a week to absorb this book, though right from the start Derrida questions whether he (or anyone) is an author and challenges the privilege given to a term like "book". Dodging those critiques I was impressed that Derrida offers "idealized" approach to his theory: by cutting and pasting aspects of Of Gramamtology both around and within Writing and Difference, he creates a hypertext of immense poetics and possible analysis. Some call him a madman or charlatan, I admire him, especially this questioning of words and concepts -- even if, it must be undertaken conceptually with words.
It is entertaining to approach this early Derrida (1967-1972) as he interrogates (defends?) his own work, almost in the third person. That of course led me to think of Stalin, perhaps even SSM's Young Stalin. I'm obviously not comparing the work and thought of the two men, though both were outsiders, trained in a disciplined thought, who both challenged and disrupted the framework of these operating systems,. It is likely prudent to walk away from that spontaneous comparison and think instead of Charlie Parker. Is there an effective spacing in the context of Jay McShann?
The middle discussion in Positions is between Derrida and Julia Kristeva. I read this twice and remain lost at sea.
The titular essay is essentially a defense of Derrida's grammar against the challenge of Marxist thought.
Don't you see, once again, I do not believe that one can speak, even from a Marxist point of view, of a homogenous Marxist text that would instantaneously liberate the concept of contradiction from its speculative, teleological, and eschatological horizon.
The debate then concludes with a sparring of missives from the interlocutors. I find the flow and play of Derrida's work to be immensely joyful, even if at times it is inscrutable.
The above citation was chosen to reflect a contrast, one of styles - if not intentions. The epigram's glibness is useful to distract from the challenging depths of such a slim book. I dare say I spent more time per page than I have since I was a student. It did require a week to absorb this book, though right from the start Derrida questions whether he (or anyone) is an author and challenges the privilege given to a term like "book". Dodging those critiques I was impressed that Derrida offers "idealized" approach to his theory: by cutting and pasting aspects of Of Gramamtology both around and within Writing and Difference, he creates a hypertext of immense poetics and possible analysis. Some call him a madman or charlatan, I admire him, especially this questioning of words and concepts -- even if, it must be undertaken conceptually with words.
It is entertaining to approach this early Derrida (1967-1972) as he interrogates (defends?) his own work, almost in the third person. That of course led me to think of Stalin, perhaps even SSM's Young Stalin. I'm obviously not comparing the work and thought of the two men, though both were outsiders, trained in a disciplined thought, who both challenged and disrupted the framework of these operating systems,. It is likely prudent to walk away from that spontaneous comparison and think instead of Charlie Parker. Is there an effective spacing in the context of Jay McShann?
The middle discussion in Positions is between Derrida and Julia Kristeva. I read this twice and remain lost at sea.
The titular essay is essentially a defense of Derrida's grammar against the challenge of Marxist thought.
Don't you see, once again, I do not believe that one can speak, even from a Marxist point of view, of a homogenous Marxist text that would instantaneously liberate the concept of contradiction from its speculative, teleological, and eschatological horizon.
The debate then concludes with a sparring of missives from the interlocutors. I find the flow and play of Derrida's work to be immensely joyful, even if at times it is inscrutable.
March 7, 2014
foundational interview early into derrida's tenure as carnival king. cool colloquy with one interviewer who attempts to nail down deconstruction's relationship to marxist dialectics. big D ain't interested in being nailed, yo.
Read
December 10, 2022No he leído las grandes obras de Derrida, que tienen fama de incomprensibles, pero sospecho que las tres entrevistas de este volumen son más asequibles que sus mamotretos. De hecho, creo que he entendido algo de lo que dice aquí Derrida y me parece una filosofía sugerente, aunque tendré que catarla más para poder hacerme una idea clara.
Muy recomedable para introducirse a Derrida.
Muy recomedable para introducirse a Derrida.
August 30, 2016
کتاب در حقیقت تشریح حرف های کتاب ها نشر یافته دریدا تا آن روز و بیان نگفته ها و ربط و نسبت قول های پیچیده اوست. برای کسی که با کتاب ها آشنا نیست متن به غایب دشوار است و از آن صرفاً می توان به عنوان آشنایی با ترمینولوژی فیلسوف و مسائل اصلی او بهره گرفت، و براین اساس با بخش های از کتاب اساساً نمی توان درگیر شد و نمی فهمید که با چه کسانی و بر چه سیاقی دریدا به گفتگو نشسته است.
برای کسانی که از درگیر شدن با امور ناآشنا و تحریک میل وسوسه گون برای خوندن متن های دیگر لذت می برند کتاب در مجموع جذاب خواهد بود؛ خاصه اینکه دریدا به نبرد قول ها می رود، هرچند که نفی تاریخ متافزیک و سخن گفتن از مرگ ها قائل نباشد.
برای کسانی که از درگیر شدن با امور ناآشنا و تحریک میل وسوسه گون برای خوندن متن های دیگر لذت می برند کتاب در مجموع جذاب خواهد بود؛ خاصه اینکه دریدا به نبرد قول ها می رود، هرچند که نفی تاریخ متافزیک و سخن گفتن از مرگ ها قائل نباشد.
June 27, 2007
Probably the best introduction to Derrida's early work.
May 31, 2024
this is the most apprehendable derrida i can find, and it is still literal word geometry that feels like painting in the dark.
the concepts i found most interesting in this collection by the essay they are in go as follows:
1) “Implications”
- the overabundant presence of “voice” in western writing and culture. this seems to refer not merely to authorial voice, but rather to the idea that writing is captured speech, its aural immortality.
- deconstruction is not a transgressing of the history of metaphysics, because in the act of surpassing something, you are still bound up with the thing and determined by that which you are surpassing
- the end of writing/meaning
2) semiology and grammatology
- the sign is metaphysical and is beyond in a certain sense, its object. in that sense it “delimits” its object.
- the sign as a word used because saussere was “lacking anything better” because the concept of the sign has always seemed so removed (ironically enough) from its meaning. when i think sign i think of a wooden thing showing a name for a nearby place, in other words, the sign itself is a sign (lol)
- “writing should erase itself before the plenitude of living speech” (25)
- differance as play of differences of meanings of words; traces of words wrapped up in others, snd the traces of traces.
- differance as open space, the becoming-space (reminds me of dao and hollows) where the spoken chain becomes possible, albeit by shedding its potential meanings. (is it possible to retain the potentiality, the play of differences in your spoken chain of words?) the space makes everything possible: the passage from one to the other, and every correspondence that takes place between these passages.
- language cannot be reduced to non-expressivity bc it is always a flowing from the interior, outwards, and simultaneously in the opposite direction. however, at the same time language has always transgressed expression bc meaning is not made up of positive facts (i am!) but rather by negative differences (i am not that!) so language “is” what you mean bc its not anything else, except its not exactly what you mean either bc thoughts are pre lingual (?? he doesnt get into that last bit) (33)
- “signification is expression; the text, which expresses nothing, is insignificant” 34
3) Positions
- critique of hegelian dialectic that spans the whole interview. the interesting part to me is how it seems that deconstruction is powered by the same movement as the historical/material dialectic, which derrida calls the movement of contradiction. he calls it a “turning over” that is “not nothing” in other words not zero-sum. its like a gap that has presence. i think however, deconstruction is the “residing within the closed field of these oppositions [the elements of the dialectic], thereby confirming it” (41) which implies a stasis or tension in deconstruction that resolves through the incompleteness of the “meaning” reached in the dialectic, thereby leaping towards truth.
- writing’s most basic elements that cannot be reduced further than “alterity” (otherness/difference) and “spacing” (interval, genetic, practical, movement, operation) (94).
-the aim of the position of the other in the hegelian dialectic is “to pose-oneself by oneself as the other of the Idea, as other-than-oneself in one’s finite determination, with the aim of repatriating and reappropriating oneself, of returning close to oneself in the infinite richness of one’s determination, etc.” (96)
now that is geometry 🔄
the concepts i found most interesting in this collection by the essay they are in go as follows:
1) “Implications”
- the overabundant presence of “voice” in western writing and culture. this seems to refer not merely to authorial voice, but rather to the idea that writing is captured speech, its aural immortality.
- deconstruction is not a transgressing of the history of metaphysics, because in the act of surpassing something, you are still bound up with the thing and determined by that which you are surpassing
- the end of writing/meaning
2) semiology and grammatology
- the sign is metaphysical and is beyond in a certain sense, its object. in that sense it “delimits” its object.
- the sign as a word used because saussere was “lacking anything better” because the concept of the sign has always seemed so removed (ironically enough) from its meaning. when i think sign i think of a wooden thing showing a name for a nearby place, in other words, the sign itself is a sign (lol)
- “writing should erase itself before the plenitude of living speech” (25)
- differance as play of differences of meanings of words; traces of words wrapped up in others, snd the traces of traces.
- differance as open space, the becoming-space (reminds me of dao and hollows) where the spoken chain becomes possible, albeit by shedding its potential meanings. (is it possible to retain the potentiality, the play of differences in your spoken chain of words?) the space makes everything possible: the passage from one to the other, and every correspondence that takes place between these passages.
- language cannot be reduced to non-expressivity bc it is always a flowing from the interior, outwards, and simultaneously in the opposite direction. however, at the same time language has always transgressed expression bc meaning is not made up of positive facts (i am!) but rather by negative differences (i am not that!) so language “is” what you mean bc its not anything else, except its not exactly what you mean either bc thoughts are pre lingual (?? he doesnt get into that last bit) (33)
- “signification is expression; the text, which expresses nothing, is insignificant” 34
3) Positions
- critique of hegelian dialectic that spans the whole interview. the interesting part to me is how it seems that deconstruction is powered by the same movement as the historical/material dialectic, which derrida calls the movement of contradiction. he calls it a “turning over” that is “not nothing” in other words not zero-sum. its like a gap that has presence. i think however, deconstruction is the “residing within the closed field of these oppositions [the elements of the dialectic], thereby confirming it” (41) which implies a stasis or tension in deconstruction that resolves through the incompleteness of the “meaning” reached in the dialectic, thereby leaping towards truth.
- writing’s most basic elements that cannot be reduced further than “alterity” (otherness/difference) and “spacing” (interval, genetic, practical, movement, operation) (94).
-the aim of the position of the other in the hegelian dialectic is “to pose-oneself by oneself as the other of the Idea, as other-than-oneself in one’s finite determination, with the aim of repatriating and reappropriating oneself, of returning close to oneself in the infinite richness of one’s determination, etc.” (96)
now that is geometry 🔄
July 10, 2017
Excelente introducción al Derrida temprano –en mi opinión, el más denso–, llena de señas útiles no sólo para la lectura de los textos derridianos, sino además para seguir los hilos de la armazón en que se inscribe.
Quisiera escribir algo más, pero recién cerrando un libro de Jacques Derrida siento que escoger cada palabra es como desactivar una bomba.
Quisiera escribir algo más, pero recién cerrando un libro de Jacques Derrida siento que escoger cada palabra es como desactivar una bomba.
July 18, 2013
I had written a longer review that prefaced some of my ideas on this book that are in process. That review was lost and, since Goodreads doesn't autosave, I'm not going to try to salvage it. Since I will eventually write about those ideas elsewhere, I'll eventually add them as links in this review when they are published.
The stated purpose of positions is to provide an introduction to Derrida for those who are not yet familiar with the workings of contemporary literary criticism and the other fields to which he is considered influential. The book is well worth a read for those who need or want such an introduction. Christopher Norris' introduction of the book touches on some of the discussion and controversy around Derrida that he thinks is well answered by the book; he argues, compelling, that Derrida is misunderstood by many who are enthusiastic about his book and not understood at all by many of his critics. Norris' primary goal is to defend a more moderate version of Derrida that he holds is present in this book; he does this well.
The first two interviews in the book provide a nice introduction to many of the central ideas that Derrida contributes to contemporary theory, with a relatively candid analysis of how he arrived at them, and why he chose to articulate them in somewhat peculiar ways. The second interview, with Julia Kristeva, is particularly good, and moves through much of the relevant historical content, particularly German philosophy, that informs Derrida's writing. For those who, like me, are interested in intellectual history and find it invaluable to know how a thinker views his or her influences, these insights into Derrida's fascination with a discussion of meaning between Frege and Husserl (and, to a far lesser extent, Hegel; though Derrida seems himself as contributing a sort of Hegelian vision) and how he understands that discussion allows for a good, nuanced view of Derrida's account and how it emerges. It also illustrates where Derrida is negligent, for many analytic philosophers who are looking to come up with a more thoughtful critique than the direct condemnation of the intellectual character of Derrida that Norris is trying to combat in the introduction.
The third interview is, really, not very good. It rambles and takes a fascination with enormously underqualified language employed by Derrida and his more excitable followers, expressing interesting abstract relations between concepts without attempting to give any account of their use, their derivation, or their potential evolution into something functional. One criticism I've heard lobbed at "analytic" philosophers by Derrida's intellectual descendants is that there's an obsession with a closed, technical language that is not accessible to those outside of the tradition; tu quoque, Derrida-ites. The messiness of that third interview is something that would be served probably by its removal from the book, though that interview makes up half the length of the book. It can be skipped, for those who start it and find it frustrating; most of the ideas that are of interest are just rehashed and poorly organized ideas that appear more clearly in the Kristeva interview.
Other writing:
A Look at Norris' argument for Logic in Derrida
The role of German intellectualism in Derrida
Derrida's [questionable] reading of Frege
The stated purpose of positions is to provide an introduction to Derrida for those who are not yet familiar with the workings of contemporary literary criticism and the other fields to which he is considered influential. The book is well worth a read for those who need or want such an introduction. Christopher Norris' introduction of the book touches on some of the discussion and controversy around Derrida that he thinks is well answered by the book; he argues, compelling, that Derrida is misunderstood by many who are enthusiastic about his book and not understood at all by many of his critics. Norris' primary goal is to defend a more moderate version of Derrida that he holds is present in this book; he does this well.
The first two interviews in the book provide a nice introduction to many of the central ideas that Derrida contributes to contemporary theory, with a relatively candid analysis of how he arrived at them, and why he chose to articulate them in somewhat peculiar ways. The second interview, with Julia Kristeva, is particularly good, and moves through much of the relevant historical content, particularly German philosophy, that informs Derrida's writing. For those who, like me, are interested in intellectual history and find it invaluable to know how a thinker views his or her influences, these insights into Derrida's fascination with a discussion of meaning between Frege and Husserl (and, to a far lesser extent, Hegel; though Derrida seems himself as contributing a sort of Hegelian vision) and how he understands that discussion allows for a good, nuanced view of Derrida's account and how it emerges. It also illustrates where Derrida is negligent, for many analytic philosophers who are looking to come up with a more thoughtful critique than the direct condemnation of the intellectual character of Derrida that Norris is trying to combat in the introduction.
The third interview is, really, not very good. It rambles and takes a fascination with enormously underqualified language employed by Derrida and his more excitable followers, expressing interesting abstract relations between concepts without attempting to give any account of their use, their derivation, or their potential evolution into something functional. One criticism I've heard lobbed at "analytic" philosophers by Derrida's intellectual descendants is that there's an obsession with a closed, technical language that is not accessible to those outside of the tradition; tu quoque, Derrida-ites. The messiness of that third interview is something that would be served probably by its removal from the book, though that interview makes up half the length of the book. It can be skipped, for those who start it and find it frustrating; most of the ideas that are of interest are just rehashed and poorly organized ideas that appear more clearly in the Kristeva interview.
Other writing:
A Look at Norris' argument for Logic in Derrida
The role of German intellectualism in Derrida
Derrida's [questionable] reading of Frege
February 17, 2022
Sometimes seen this suggested as an intro to JD and that kind of works but it'd still be confusing as anything. Starting and Derrida is a difficulty and the first interview here has the famous complication of whether one should insert W&D into Grammatology or vice versa. Perhaps Positions work a bit like that.
I think it's smoother as consolidatory material. Lovely as a refresher and perhaps the clearest he can be, at the time. I just feel that it requires a level of knowledge of what exactly he's speaking about. So probably not the greatest introduction. Hm hm hm
I think it's smoother as consolidatory material. Lovely as a refresher and perhaps the clearest he can be, at the time. I just feel that it requires a level of knowledge of what exactly he's speaking about. So probably not the greatest introduction. Hm hm hm
September 19, 2022
Comprised of three separate interviews on three of Derrida's concepts and very specific ideas, this is a diifficult and very technical exposition of Derrida's thought. Tough to get through in some areas and deeply elucidating in others, I think it was worth the effort to read solely for the fact that it fascinated me even more with Derrida's ideas on deconstruction, his views on language, and the emphasis on the reading and rereading of classical texts.
June 25, 2009
Tough to rate this, since I disagree with Derrida's positions on most things. But this is clear compared to the essays which are being discussed (in English, in Writing and Difference; Margins of Philosophy; Dissemination). And it's short. If only someone would write a good critique of all this stuff that takes structuralism as a starting point. That I could give 5 stars.
June 16, 2017
This book is the combination of three interviews of Jacques Derrida: the first is Implications with Henri Ronse, the second is Semiology and Grammatology with Julia Kristeva, and the third is Positions with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta. If one reads this book, then they will spend most of their time with the third interview since it takes up two-thirds of the book. The usefulness or purpose of the book will be determined by how you approach it. In my case, I was reading it as an introduction for his other works: "Writing and Difference" and "Of Grammatology." However, one could easily come into after reading those two works or alongside them. I state this from the fact that this book has a Notes section which is full of references to his other books, and in some cases other authors, for instance, Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics."
I will state for the purpose of review that I have never read a book that was simply a collection of interviews, and as such, I am astounded by the detail of the notes that are necessarily after the fact of the interview. They are of great detail and they lead to the others directly to the page while Derrida will also expound on what he was stating in the interview. If one is careful, more careful than I because I was simply reading this for an introduction, then one can understand great insight to Derrida's Philosophy of Deconstruction. The second interview, Semiology and Grammatology, has many references to Saussure's Course, and is beneficial, I believe for, if you have read the course or Jonathan Culler's book "Ferdinand de Saussure," because of the critique Derrida gives for Semiology and the nature of the Signifier and the Signified. I will return to interview in the future for other inquiries into Semiology.
The third interview, Positions, is the longest, and while it has many philosophical points, I feel that the interview got distracted between the interviews and Marxism. Unfortunately, I do not know much about Marxism past Marx himself, so I found the constant forays into Derrida's personal position on Marxism went beyond what I was able to comprehend. The interview also goes into Derrida's influence of Heidegger in the early parts which is beneficial to understand how Derrida sees Heidegger because every Continental Philosopher of import in the 20th Century was a Heideggerian (even Sartre, who failed terribly).
In conclusion, it can be a useful book, but it is very dense. Derrida's interviews are concise and well thought through. It is not for a person trying to start philosophy. It would be for a late, very late beginner, or an intermediate student trying to understand Derrida. Those are my views, but I still have much to learn from the second reading of this book.
I will state for the purpose of review that I have never read a book that was simply a collection of interviews, and as such, I am astounded by the detail of the notes that are necessarily after the fact of the interview. They are of great detail and they lead to the others directly to the page while Derrida will also expound on what he was stating in the interview. If one is careful, more careful than I because I was simply reading this for an introduction, then one can understand great insight to Derrida's Philosophy of Deconstruction. The second interview, Semiology and Grammatology, has many references to Saussure's Course, and is beneficial, I believe for, if you have read the course or Jonathan Culler's book "Ferdinand de Saussure," because of the critique Derrida gives for Semiology and the nature of the Signifier and the Signified. I will return to interview in the future for other inquiries into Semiology.
The third interview, Positions, is the longest, and while it has many philosophical points, I feel that the interview got distracted between the interviews and Marxism. Unfortunately, I do not know much about Marxism past Marx himself, so I found the constant forays into Derrida's personal position on Marxism went beyond what I was able to comprehend. The interview also goes into Derrida's influence of Heidegger in the early parts which is beneficial to understand how Derrida sees Heidegger because every Continental Philosopher of import in the 20th Century was a Heideggerian (even Sartre, who failed terribly).
In conclusion, it can be a useful book, but it is very dense. Derrida's interviews are concise and well thought through. It is not for a person trying to start philosophy. It would be for a late, very late beginner, or an intermediate student trying to understand Derrida. Those are my views, but I still have much to learn from the second reading of this book.
September 16, 2025
This book comprises three interviews with Derrida from 1967, 1968 and 1971, respectively. At the time of the original French publication (1972), Derrida stated that these were the only interviews in which he had taken part. Each offers somewhat accessible perspectives on key deconstructive ideas explored in his major works, from the late 1960s to early 1970s.
The first, “Implications,” with Henri Ronse, covers the important concept of 'différance' which combines “differ” and “defer” (words/signs differ from one another and per their representative capacity defer meaning), Freud and Heidegger. Derrida argues that a central Heideggerean notion – the “ontico-ontological difference” – actually remains within the:
“… grasp of metaphysics… Heidegger recognizes that economically and strategically he had to borrow the syntaxic and lexical resources of the language of metaphysics, as one always must do at the very moment that one deconstructs this language” (p. 10).
The second, “Semiology and Grammatology,” is with the noted Belgian-French philosopher Julia Kristeva and offers an overlooked but important critique of “everyday language” which Derrida characterizes as neither:
“… innocent or neutral. It is the language of Western metaphysics, and it carries with it not only a considerable number of presuppositions of all types, but also presuppositions inseparable from metaphysics, which, although little attended to, are knotted into a system” (p. 19).
The last, with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta, is lengthy covering a number of issues raised in Derrida’s 'Of Grammatology,' 'Writing and Difference' and 'Dissemination' including logocentrism, 'différance' and dissemination. Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and Bataille are all discussed.
The translation (1981) is for the University of Chicago Press by Alan Bass, one of Derrida’s earliest and I feel best translators. Overall, the book is 114 pages with the last 10 containing detailed notes.
Though 'Positions' is generally accessible, given some understanding of Derrida, it can prove somewhat challenging regarding deconstructive concepts and it does assume a familiarity with the philosophers and writers in question. Still, I would consider it an adequate “introduction” to some of the ideas raised in Derrida’s key works of 1967 to about 1972.
The first, “Implications,” with Henri Ronse, covers the important concept of 'différance' which combines “differ” and “defer” (words/signs differ from one another and per their representative capacity defer meaning), Freud and Heidegger. Derrida argues that a central Heideggerean notion – the “ontico-ontological difference” – actually remains within the:
“… grasp of metaphysics… Heidegger recognizes that economically and strategically he had to borrow the syntaxic and lexical resources of the language of metaphysics, as one always must do at the very moment that one deconstructs this language” (p. 10).
The second, “Semiology and Grammatology,” is with the noted Belgian-French philosopher Julia Kristeva and offers an overlooked but important critique of “everyday language” which Derrida characterizes as neither:
“… innocent or neutral. It is the language of Western metaphysics, and it carries with it not only a considerable number of presuppositions of all types, but also presuppositions inseparable from metaphysics, which, although little attended to, are knotted into a system” (p. 19).
The last, with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta, is lengthy covering a number of issues raised in Derrida’s 'Of Grammatology,' 'Writing and Difference' and 'Dissemination' including logocentrism, 'différance' and dissemination. Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and Bataille are all discussed.
The translation (1981) is for the University of Chicago Press by Alan Bass, one of Derrida’s earliest and I feel best translators. Overall, the book is 114 pages with the last 10 containing detailed notes.
Though 'Positions' is generally accessible, given some understanding of Derrida, it can prove somewhat challenging regarding deconstructive concepts and it does assume a familiarity with the philosophers and writers in question. Still, I would consider it an adequate “introduction” to some of the ideas raised in Derrida’s key works of 1967 to about 1972.
October 1, 2025
ابتدا باید تصریح کرد که آنچه در هیئت این کتاب عرضه میشود چیزی جز برشهای گزینشی سه گفتوگو نیست، گفتوگوهایی که یکیشان با کریستواست، و من، از حیث تجربه زیسته خوانش، همواره در برابر صورتبندی "پرسش و پاسخ"ای که در این قبیل آثار "و بهویژه در بازنماییهای رسانهای بدیو" تکرارپذیر مینماید، نوعی مقاومت یا به تعبیر دقیقتر، بیگانگی ساختاری احساس کردهام. در این چارچوب، مصاحبهکنندهها از "دستگاه مفهومی" دریدا پرسش میکنند و او، بهسان سوژهای که در مقام پاسخدهنده صرفاً در برابر افق پرسشهای ازپیشمشخصشده ظاهر میشود، بهگونهای پاسخ میدهد. اما برای کسی که تعلق خاطرش به خود دریدا، به فلسفه زبان و به تنشهای میان زبانشناسی و متافیزیک استوار است، این کتاب بیش از آنکه گشایشی باشد، تجربهای است از دشواری مفرط و ملالانگیز. بایسته است که اضافه شود: نقدهای دریدا بر روانکاوی و بر لاکان، جز مواردی که با لحنی تحسینآمیز بیان شدهاند، در بنیاد خود بر پایهای استوار نمینمایند. از یاد نبریم که دریدا در مقالهی مشهور "فروید و صحنه نوشتار" از نوشتار و تفاوت ناخودآگاه فرویدی را بهمثابه نوشتاری تلقی میکند که همچون متنی همواره در زیرلایهها رسوب میکند و ساحت زندگی فردی را مشروط میسازد، چیزی که به طرز غریبانگیزی با تلقی لکانی از ناخودآگاه بهمثابه ساختاری زبانی همآواست.و با این همه، دریدا فروید را متهم میکند که گرفتار همان منطق دوگانه متافیزیک شده است. در این موضع است که دریدا، بهمثابه سوژهای خودشیفته اما رستگاریطلب، نقشی مسیحگون بر عهده میگیرد، گویی آمده است تا خطاهای متافیزیکی نیاکان خود، از افلاطون گرفته تا هگل، از هایدگر و هوسرل تا خود فروید را کند. بدینسان، وضعیت پارادوکسیکال پدید میآید، نوشتار، همزمان، شالودهشکنیشده و شالودهنشکسته جلوه میکند، درگیر همان منطق دوگانهای که قرار بود آن را برهم بزند، بیآنکه راهی برای گریز نهایی از این تکرار ناگزیر بنمایاند.
April 17, 2023
Oh ! Quel dommage d'avoir dû rendre ce livre à la bibliothèque alors que je n'en comprenais peut-être à peine qu'une phrase par page... Bon, Derrida il va falloir commencer par un autre bout.
Trois entretiens qui évoquent certaines notions de l'œuvre de Derrida et revienne sur certains de ses livres. Le vocabulaire employé est assez spécifique.
Trois entretiens qui évoquent certaines notions de l'œuvre de Derrida et revienne sur certains de ses livres. Le vocabulaire employé est assez spécifique.
August 4, 2017
kristeva's interview was the most interesting and illuminating, helping to clarify différance and to some extent the process of interpellation. i can possibly maybe get down with that. but his remarks of marxism were extremely evasive
October 10, 2017
Very helpful in explaining what différance (and by extension deconstruction) really is.
Read
December 29, 2022I mean, I love Derrida, but our Facebook relationship status is "it's complicated."
March 5, 2026
At times, equally clarifying and searing, at others, mystifying and erotically frustrating. Classic Derrida experience !
June 4, 2018
Segane sell. Aga omamoodi lummav.
October 19, 2024
THREE “EARLY” INTERVIEWS WITH THE FOUNDER OF “DECONSTRUCTION”
Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was a French philosopher and writer, best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as “Deconstruction.”
He wrote in the prefatory “Notice” to this 1972 book, “These three interviews, the only ones in which I have ever taken part, concern ongoing publications. Doubtless they form… the gesture of an active interpretation. Determined and dated, this is a reading of the work in which I find myself ENGAGED: which therefore is no more my own than it remains arrested here. This too is a situation to be read, a situation which has governed these exchanges in their actuality, their content, and the form of their enunciations. Thus, no modifications were called for.”
In the first interview, he states, “In what you call my books, which is first of all put in question is the unity of the book and the unity ‘book’ considered as a perfect totality, with all the implications of such a concept… At the moment when such a closure demarcates itself, dare one maintain that one is the author of books, be they one, two, or three? Under these titles it is solely a question of a unique and differentiated textual ‘operation,’ if you will, whose unfinished movement assigns itself no absolute beginning, and which, although it is entirely consumed by the reading of other texts, in a certain fashion refers only to its own writing. We must adjust to conceiving these two contradictory ideas together.” (Pg. 3-4)
He explains, “I try to keep myself at the LIMIT of philosophical discourse. I say limit and not death, for I do not at all believe in what today is so easily called the death of philosophy… To ‘deconstruct’ philosophy, thus, would be to think… the structured genealogy of philosophy’s concepts, but at the same time to determine… what this history has been able to dissimulate or forbid, making itself into a history by means of this somewhere motivated repression.” (Pg. 4)
He states, “I believe that I have explained myself clearly on this subject. ‘Of Grammatology’ is the title of a question: a question about the necessity of a science of writing, about the conditions that would make it possible, about the critical work that would have to open its field and resolve the epistemological obstacles; but it is also a question about the limits of this science.” (Pg. 13)
He observes in the second interview, ”When I speak, not only am I conscious of being present for what I think, but I am conscious also of keeping as close as possible to my thought, or to the ‘concept,’ a signifier that does not fall into the world, a signifier that I hear as soon as I emit it, that seems to depend upon my pure and free spontaneity, requiring the use of no instrument, no accessory, no force taken from the world. Not only do the signifier and the signified seem to unite, but also, in the confusion, the signifier seems to erase itself or to become transparent, in order to allow the concept to present itself as what it is, referring to nothing other than its presence.” (Pg. 22)
He says, “On the one hand, expressivism is never simply surpassable, because it is impossible to reduce the couple outside/inside as a simple structure of opposition. This couple is an effect of diférance, as is the effect of language that impels language to represent itself as expressive re-presentation, a translation on the outside of what was constituted inside. The representation of language as ‘expression’ is not an accidental prejudice, but rather a kind of structural lure, what Kant would have called a transcendental illusion.” (Pg. 33)
In the third interview, he suggests, “Reading is transformational… But this transformation cannot be executed however one wishes. It requires protocols of reading. Why not say it bluntly: I have not yet found any that satisfy me.” (Pg. 63)
He clarifies, “I will say that my texts belong neither to the ‘philosophical’ register nor to the ‘literary’ register. Thereby they communicate, or so I hope at least, with other texts that, having operated a certain rupture, can be called ‘philosophical’ or ‘literary’ only according to a kind of paleonomy… what is the strategic necessity (and why do we call ‘strategic’ an operation that in the last analysis refuses to be governed by a teleo-eschatological horizon?...) … that requires the occasional maintenance of an OLD NAME in order to launch a new concept?” (Pg. 71)
These interviews provide some genuine insights into Derrida’s early books and ideas, and will be of great value to anyone studying his thought and its development.
Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was a French philosopher and writer, best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as “Deconstruction.”
He wrote in the prefatory “Notice” to this 1972 book, “These three interviews, the only ones in which I have ever taken part, concern ongoing publications. Doubtless they form… the gesture of an active interpretation. Determined and dated, this is a reading of the work in which I find myself ENGAGED: which therefore is no more my own than it remains arrested here. This too is a situation to be read, a situation which has governed these exchanges in their actuality, their content, and the form of their enunciations. Thus, no modifications were called for.”
In the first interview, he states, “In what you call my books, which is first of all put in question is the unity of the book and the unity ‘book’ considered as a perfect totality, with all the implications of such a concept… At the moment when such a closure demarcates itself, dare one maintain that one is the author of books, be they one, two, or three? Under these titles it is solely a question of a unique and differentiated textual ‘operation,’ if you will, whose unfinished movement assigns itself no absolute beginning, and which, although it is entirely consumed by the reading of other texts, in a certain fashion refers only to its own writing. We must adjust to conceiving these two contradictory ideas together.” (Pg. 3-4)
He explains, “I try to keep myself at the LIMIT of philosophical discourse. I say limit and not death, for I do not at all believe in what today is so easily called the death of philosophy… To ‘deconstruct’ philosophy, thus, would be to think… the structured genealogy of philosophy’s concepts, but at the same time to determine… what this history has been able to dissimulate or forbid, making itself into a history by means of this somewhere motivated repression.” (Pg. 4)
He states, “I believe that I have explained myself clearly on this subject. ‘Of Grammatology’ is the title of a question: a question about the necessity of a science of writing, about the conditions that would make it possible, about the critical work that would have to open its field and resolve the epistemological obstacles; but it is also a question about the limits of this science.” (Pg. 13)
He observes in the second interview, ”When I speak, not only am I conscious of being present for what I think, but I am conscious also of keeping as close as possible to my thought, or to the ‘concept,’ a signifier that does not fall into the world, a signifier that I hear as soon as I emit it, that seems to depend upon my pure and free spontaneity, requiring the use of no instrument, no accessory, no force taken from the world. Not only do the signifier and the signified seem to unite, but also, in the confusion, the signifier seems to erase itself or to become transparent, in order to allow the concept to present itself as what it is, referring to nothing other than its presence.” (Pg. 22)
He says, “On the one hand, expressivism is never simply surpassable, because it is impossible to reduce the couple outside/inside as a simple structure of opposition. This couple is an effect of diférance, as is the effect of language that impels language to represent itself as expressive re-presentation, a translation on the outside of what was constituted inside. The representation of language as ‘expression’ is not an accidental prejudice, but rather a kind of structural lure, what Kant would have called a transcendental illusion.” (Pg. 33)
In the third interview, he suggests, “Reading is transformational… But this transformation cannot be executed however one wishes. It requires protocols of reading. Why not say it bluntly: I have not yet found any that satisfy me.” (Pg. 63)
He clarifies, “I will say that my texts belong neither to the ‘philosophical’ register nor to the ‘literary’ register. Thereby they communicate, or so I hope at least, with other texts that, having operated a certain rupture, can be called ‘philosophical’ or ‘literary’ only according to a kind of paleonomy… what is the strategic necessity (and why do we call ‘strategic’ an operation that in the last analysis refuses to be governed by a teleo-eschatological horizon?...) … that requires the occasional maintenance of an OLD NAME in order to launch a new concept?” (Pg. 71)
These interviews provide some genuine insights into Derrida’s early books and ideas, and will be of great value to anyone studying his thought and its development.
January 4, 2017
Something I suspect that would be fruitful if read and re-read and then re-read again.
I'm personally not a fan of anything psychoanalytic, continental philosophy, post-modern, and laden with obscurantist writing style that was very much used in the mid-to-late 20th century by French intellectuals.
I don't know why I keep coming back to continental philosophy and in particular Derrida. I feel like he has something to say, but the more I come back, the more I realize that I get more out of one book of Wittgenstein than a pile of continental philosophy books. I should mention I do like some philosopher that are considered continental, the following being the ones I either enjoy or have gotten something from; Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, and some Sartre.
Derrida's différance, deconstructionism, and the other terms that he employs are really something I don't think I'll ever have to use to when writing on Eastern philosophy or on analytic philosophy.
Suggested for the comparative literature/English student. Not suggested to philosophers.
I'm personally not a fan of anything psychoanalytic, continental philosophy, post-modern, and laden with obscurantist writing style that was very much used in the mid-to-late 20th century by French intellectuals.
I don't know why I keep coming back to continental philosophy and in particular Derrida. I feel like he has something to say, but the more I come back, the more I realize that I get more out of one book of Wittgenstein than a pile of continental philosophy books. I should mention I do like some philosopher that are considered continental, the following being the ones I either enjoy or have gotten something from; Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, and some Sartre.
Derrida's différance, deconstructionism, and the other terms that he employs are really something I don't think I'll ever have to use to when writing on Eastern philosophy or on analytic philosophy.
Suggested for the comparative literature/English student. Not suggested to philosophers.
March 11, 2015
"we must have truth. [...] How can we do without it?"
Some would find it surprising to see Derrida wrote these words in all sincerity, especially given the public opinion that he is a radical subjectivist and relativist (opinions of which he directly rejects in this short volume). These clarifying essays supplement his works of 1967 and 1972 and allow one to come into contact with things such as deconstruction, differance, etc., etc., as well as his methods, strategies, apothegms, and even what he considers totally unwarranted opinions, both in general and on his work.
I am surprised that this book is known for its clarity of prose and style. Perhaps it is time for retranslation to take place, because the relevant language games have shifted sufficiently enough over the last 30 years to warrant another. I will admit to having difficulty reading the later parts of this book, particularly w/r/t his thoughts on Lacanian psycholoanalysis, which I am not well versed in.
Some would find it surprising to see Derrida wrote these words in all sincerity, especially given the public opinion that he is a radical subjectivist and relativist (opinions of which he directly rejects in this short volume). These clarifying essays supplement his works of 1967 and 1972 and allow one to come into contact with things such as deconstruction, differance, etc., etc., as well as his methods, strategies, apothegms, and even what he considers totally unwarranted opinions, both in general and on his work.
I am surprised that this book is known for its clarity of prose and style. Perhaps it is time for retranslation to take place, because the relevant language games have shifted sufficiently enough over the last 30 years to warrant another. I will admit to having difficulty reading the later parts of this book, particularly w/r/t his thoughts on Lacanian psycholoanalysis, which I am not well versed in.
December 22, 2015
This text was important for understanding Derrida at the time it was first published. It helped to clear away some glaring misunderstandings.
Now, one is just as well off reading Derrida's written texts. Positions remains a clarification of his work (particularly in the speculum of his early works).
The third and longest interview, despite what some other reviews say, is very important to the work. It opens the space for a resewing of the Marxist thread into the general text; a work that was at that point still to-come. The interviewers were so insistent on this topic because of their dialectical-materialist leanings, which was understandable given the time of the interview. Historically, Derrida's evasion of the question of communism and Marx at that time was at the forefront of many scholars' concerns about Derrida. When everyone was taking sides, Derrida continued to slide, aloof.
Now, one is just as well off reading Derrida's written texts. Positions remains a clarification of his work (particularly in the speculum of his early works).
The third and longest interview, despite what some other reviews say, is very important to the work. It opens the space for a resewing of the Marxist thread into the general text; a work that was at that point still to-come. The interviewers were so insistent on this topic because of their dialectical-materialist leanings, which was understandable given the time of the interview. Historically, Derrida's evasion of the question of communism and Marx at that time was at the forefront of many scholars' concerns about Derrida. When everyone was taking sides, Derrida continued to slide, aloof.
February 26, 2016
This collection of interviews is helpful in elucidating some of the difficult concepts from Derrida's famous and difficult early works. He is also frank at certain points about the politically transformative motivations of what 'writing' could be. I am struck, however, with all of the references to Saussure, Heidegger, Husserl, Hegel, Lucretius, Lacan, etc. that Roland Barthes does not appear by name in the text, despite a passing reference to the "zero degree" of writing with respect to the literary. For a leading thinker at the time in French semiotics, this is a pregnant absence.
April 23, 2011
Quite interesting and helpful. A little bit of a letdown if you've ALREADY plowed through some of his works on Marx and Freud (but then it does feel better knowing that you were perhaps right?). However, the man is much more direct imo in his interviews, and that's always a nice thing.
October 29, 2007
يك ترجمه نه چندان خوب از يك متن مهم فلسفي.
December 24, 2013
I understand about 30% of what Derrida has to say here--but it mostly seems like play. Will return later.
February 9, 2016
Derrida on Derrida. Differance described, illuminated, yet what else could be said. These interviews with the man himself make his philosophy more accessible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews