What do you think?
On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness
One of the world's most famous philosophers, Jacques Derrida, explores difficult questions in this important and engaging book. Is it still possible to uphold international hospitality and justice in the face of increasing nationalism and civil strife in so many countries? Drawing on examples of treatment of minority groups in Europe, he skilfully and accessibly probes the thinking that underlies much of the practice, and rhetoric, that informs cosmopolitanism. What have duties and rights to do with hospitality? Should hospitality be grounded on a private or public ethic, or even a religious one? This fascinating book will be illuminating reading for all.
78 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
About the author
Jacques Derrida
655 books1,878 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 37 reviews
May 10, 2018
Important work that focuses on one of the most important aspects of IR problems today: power and the incorporation of ethics. Derrida actually examines the reason(s) behind forgiveness; the functionality of which is often lost when 'enforced ethics' take the place of a process that needs to be 'tracked' in a space and time that may not be linear.
May 15, 2007
For some reason, this book is probably my favorite Derrida (it's tied with Rogues.) He is the most human of the philosophers I've read, and takes such delight with his language, that to read such an empathetic treatise on how to "make the world better" was, for me, a touching and intellectually expanding experience
September 15, 2016
I'll refer mainly to the second part, 'On Forgiveness'. The first part, 'On Cosmopolitanism' it's also very interesting and deals with matters very pertinent to today's refugee crisis, it deals with concepts such a refuge cities acting in a some kind of alliance both beyond the State and out of it.
--------------
Though getting one's head around the idea that only the unforgivable is actually what's worth forgiving is not the easiest thing (at least from a moral perspective) to do, but it makes sense. This, as one might expect, deals with forgiveness beyond the simple personal conflict level, and goes into really heinous stuff: the Holocaust / Shoah, the Apartheid in South Africa and other cases of systematic acts of violence and genocide. If one (and I mean the people that suffered through) might not be able to deal with forgiving such things then the concept of forgiveness itself is possibly not worth that much (I am writing this from a bit of a depersonalised [not sure if that's even the right word] perspective because I can't say how I would react, as a person, to the prospect of forgiveness in such situations).
I had not considered the Abrahamic origin of forgiveness (in this case), and how it has been secularised and basically universalised, now being used beyond its religious origins in a multitude of contexts (mainly political) and in cultural settings which don't have Abrahamic heritage (societies which are not mainly Christian, Jewish or Islamic, like places in East Asia).
Also something that I found very interesting, is the claim by other authors (Derrida mentions Hannah Arendt and Vladimir Jankélévitch) that forgiveness is only possible when one can judge and punish thus making forgiveness the act of an institution with the power to do so, namely a Court, namely a State or Sovereign institution or an institution given said powers by a State or group of them, but there's an issue with that (says Derrida), and it is that such institutions can't really forgive, they can punish, they can give amnesty, they can initiate the reconciliation, but they can't forgive. Only the victim can do that.
Forgiveness, to be so, has to come from the one who suffered the wrongful action, and has to be unconditional, expecting nothing, not even the regret or repent of the other part, basically an act of madness. Now, I wonder, is such forgiveness in benefit of the perpetrator or of the victim?
--------------
Though getting one's head around the idea that only the unforgivable is actually what's worth forgiving is not the easiest thing (at least from a moral perspective) to do, but it makes sense. This, as one might expect, deals with forgiveness beyond the simple personal conflict level, and goes into really heinous stuff: the Holocaust / Shoah, the Apartheid in South Africa and other cases of systematic acts of violence and genocide. If one (and I mean the people that suffered through) might not be able to deal with forgiving such things then the concept of forgiveness itself is possibly not worth that much (I am writing this from a bit of a depersonalised [not sure if that's even the right word] perspective because I can't say how I would react, as a person, to the prospect of forgiveness in such situations).
I had not considered the Abrahamic origin of forgiveness (in this case), and how it has been secularised and basically universalised, now being used beyond its religious origins in a multitude of contexts (mainly political) and in cultural settings which don't have Abrahamic heritage (societies which are not mainly Christian, Jewish or Islamic, like places in East Asia).
Also something that I found very interesting, is the claim by other authors (Derrida mentions Hannah Arendt and Vladimir Jankélévitch) that forgiveness is only possible when one can judge and punish thus making forgiveness the act of an institution with the power to do so, namely a Court, namely a State or Sovereign institution or an institution given said powers by a State or group of them, but there's an issue with that (says Derrida), and it is that such institutions can't really forgive, they can punish, they can give amnesty, they can initiate the reconciliation, but they can't forgive. Only the victim can do that.
Forgiveness, to be so, has to come from the one who suffered the wrongful action, and has to be unconditional, expecting nothing, not even the regret or repent of the other part, basically an act of madness. Now, I wonder, is such forgiveness in benefit of the perpetrator or of the victim?
October 27, 2017
"We are all heir, at least, to persons or events marked, in an essential, interior, ineffaceable fashion, by crimes against humanity. Sometimes these events, these massive, organized, cruel murders, which may have been revolutions, great canonic and 'legitimate' Revolutions, were the very ones which permitted the emergence of concepts like those of human rights, or the crime against humanity."
"All Nation-States are born and found themselves in violence. I believe that truth to be irrecusable. Without even exhibiting atrocious spectacles on this subject, it suffices to underline a law of structure: the moment of foundation, the instituting moment, is anterior to the law or legitimacy which it founds. It is thus outsize the law, and violent by that very fact. But you know that this abstract truth could be illustrated (what a word, here!) by terrifying documents, and from the history of all States, the oldest and the youngest. Before the modern forms of what is called, in the strict sense, 'colonialism', all States ( I would dare to say, without playing too much with the word and etymology, all cultures) have their origin in an aggression of the colonial type. This foundational violence is not only forgotten. The foundation is made in order to hide it; by its essence it tends to organise amnesia, sometimes under the celebration and sublimation of the grand beginnings."
"All Nation-States are born and found themselves in violence. I believe that truth to be irrecusable. Without even exhibiting atrocious spectacles on this subject, it suffices to underline a law of structure: the moment of foundation, the instituting moment, is anterior to the law or legitimacy which it founds. It is thus outsize the law, and violent by that very fact. But you know that this abstract truth could be illustrated (what a word, here!) by terrifying documents, and from the history of all States, the oldest and the youngest. Before the modern forms of what is called, in the strict sense, 'colonialism', all States ( I would dare to say, without playing too much with the word and etymology, all cultures) have their origin in an aggression of the colonial type. This foundational violence is not only forgotten. The foundation is made in order to hide it; by its essence it tends to organise amnesia, sometimes under the celebration and sublimation of the grand beginnings."
Read
December 20, 2024stroking my chin and muttering "hmmm....perplexing....." every time i flip a page
October 2, 2020
Who knew Derrida could write in French, yet alone in plain English?
June 12, 2016
3.5. Before I say anything I have to admit two things:
1. I've always kind of dismissed Derrida as a pretentious incomprehensible language theorist, but after finding out about his late ethical period and reading this I really need to reconsider my stance; in other words, he's far from being Bataille.
2. I found this book through a Goodreads "people also liked" list and only initially hovered over it because of the cool looking cover, but the title and the concept grabbed me.
Now:
While I didn't grab everything here, I think if I reread it I'll get even more out of it. I do admire Derrida's effort and the concepts I grasped I think I mostly agreed with, especially in the Cosmopolitanism section, because the Forgiveness, while interesting, aren't applicable to a political system. Nonetheless I think I might read more of Derrida's ethics work.
1. I've always kind of dismissed Derrida as a pretentious incomprehensible language theorist, but after finding out about his late ethical period and reading this I really need to reconsider my stance; in other words, he's far from being Bataille.
2. I found this book through a Goodreads "people also liked" list and only initially hovered over it because of the cool looking cover, but the title and the concept grabbed me.
Now:
While I didn't grab everything here, I think if I reread it I'll get even more out of it. I do admire Derrida's effort and the concepts I grasped I think I mostly agreed with, especially in the Cosmopolitanism section, because the Forgiveness, while interesting, aren't applicable to a political system. Nonetheless I think I might read more of Derrida's ethics work.
December 21, 2009
The first surprise with this book was that I understood it. The second was that I enjoyed it. The author has an interesting way of looking at political issues and comes to some very odd conclusions. Much of these, I think, are from his odd premisses, but nevertheless it is a unique creature and provokes some interesting thought.
January 4, 2016
The chapter on cosmopolitanism was a bit vague and I did not get a sense of what Derrida wanted to put across. That might be because he didn't really come up with answers or because I have a hard time concentrating this afternoon. Either way, the second chapter on forgiveness was interesting and clear. I'm glad to have read this and proud that I've finally can put a Derrida book on my list.
Read
November 10, 2008Really just "On Forgiveness." I still know nothing about Cosmopolitanism.
August 12, 2012
Though this isn't necessarily my favorite of the Derrida texts I've read so far, it's an incredible work simply for how clear it makes the potential ethical implications and commitments of deconstructionist thought. For those who reject deconstructionism/post-structuralism/etc. as the pretentious ramblings of thinkers who're hopped up on language and out of touch with political and/or pragmatic realities, this book is a powerful response. For those already invested in Derrida's work, the two essays included here map out some wonderful avenues for pursuing the political implications of that work. ("On Forgiveness" in particular has some clear resonances with the less explicitly ethico-political Limited Inc.) In any case, it's certainly the only Derrida book I've been able to read in a single day.
Anyway, here's a poor shot at summarizing a perhaps unsummarizable text:
In a preface to the work, which comprises two of Derrida’s essays, the editors describe those essays as “conceptual genealog[ies]” in which Derrida “describes … ‘the heritage’” of a concept in order to “bring out the logic of that concept” (viii-ix). And a concept’s “logic,” for Derrida, “usually takes the form of a contradiction or a double imperative.” In “On Cosmopolitianism,” Derrida asks for “new cities of refuge” that, rather than being subsumed by a state, would “reorient the politics of the state” (4). He hopes such cities might “open up new horizons of possibility” for hospitality and asylum rights that might pursue ethical exigency and not just the economic or political exigencies that traditional shape states’ immigration policies. Claiming that granting asylum based on purely economic considerations renders the concept of asylum “absurd” (12), and challenging police forces’ increasing ability to “make the law instead of simply … applying it” (14), Derrida argues that “ethics is hospitality” (17). Hospitality is also corruptible and historical, however, and must be both guided by the unconditional law of hospitality to resist being co-opted by economic and political interests and limited by conditional laws in order to be more than an empty abstraction--a double imperative. By examining the history of cities of refuge, and specifically their roots in Hebraic, medieval, and Stoic/Christian traditions, Derrida is able to forward and complicate Kant’s explorations of a “universal hospitality without limit” (20, though he notes Kant nevertheless places two limits on that hospitality). Questioning Kant without rejecting him wholesale, Derrida ends by calling for a thinking through of cities of refuge that would be based on the double imperative of unconditionality/conditionality--cities that allow for “Experience and experimentation” and “a certain idea of cosmopolitanism, an other, [that] has not yet arrived, perhaps” (23).
In “On Forgiveness,” Derrida calls into question the concept of forgiveness. Arguing that an Abrahamic concept of forgiveness has proliferated and reiterated itself across the globe, he questions what happens when the language of forgiveness gets taken up globally--often in cultures with minimal connections to the Abrahamic tradition--as a means of apologizing for “crimes against humanity” and forwarding “human rights” discourse (28). He sees globalized, politically interested “forgiveness” as antithetical to the pure concept of “forgiveness,” which cannot aim at finality or normalization (32). “Forgiveness,” outside the realm of economic exchange, “forgives only the unforgivable,” announcing itself as “impossibility itself” (32-33). Such mad forgiveness is separate from politically mediated reconciliation or amnesty--though the latter, as for instance pursued by Desmond Tutu in South Africa--remain important in their own sphere (43). Forgiveness “exceeds all institution” and the political must “respect its [insoluble] secret” (54-55). Only the victim can forgive, and forgiveness must thus interrupt the sovereignty of the state. Derrida pursues a perhaps not-yet-present forgiveness that would also interrupt the sovereignty of the forgiving “subject,” however: “a forgiveness without power: unconditional but without sovereignty,” but ends with the unsolved question of whether “unconditionality” and “sovereignty” are even possible to dissociate (59).
Anyway, here's a poor shot at summarizing a perhaps unsummarizable text:
In a preface to the work, which comprises two of Derrida’s essays, the editors describe those essays as “conceptual genealog[ies]” in which Derrida “describes … ‘the heritage’” of a concept in order to “bring out the logic of that concept” (viii-ix). And a concept’s “logic,” for Derrida, “usually takes the form of a contradiction or a double imperative.” In “On Cosmopolitianism,” Derrida asks for “new cities of refuge” that, rather than being subsumed by a state, would “reorient the politics of the state” (4). He hopes such cities might “open up new horizons of possibility” for hospitality and asylum rights that might pursue ethical exigency and not just the economic or political exigencies that traditional shape states’ immigration policies. Claiming that granting asylum based on purely economic considerations renders the concept of asylum “absurd” (12), and challenging police forces’ increasing ability to “make the law instead of simply … applying it” (14), Derrida argues that “ethics is hospitality” (17). Hospitality is also corruptible and historical, however, and must be both guided by the unconditional law of hospitality to resist being co-opted by economic and political interests and limited by conditional laws in order to be more than an empty abstraction--a double imperative. By examining the history of cities of refuge, and specifically their roots in Hebraic, medieval, and Stoic/Christian traditions, Derrida is able to forward and complicate Kant’s explorations of a “universal hospitality without limit” (20, though he notes Kant nevertheless places two limits on that hospitality). Questioning Kant without rejecting him wholesale, Derrida ends by calling for a thinking through of cities of refuge that would be based on the double imperative of unconditionality/conditionality--cities that allow for “Experience and experimentation” and “a certain idea of cosmopolitanism, an other, [that] has not yet arrived, perhaps” (23).
In “On Forgiveness,” Derrida calls into question the concept of forgiveness. Arguing that an Abrahamic concept of forgiveness has proliferated and reiterated itself across the globe, he questions what happens when the language of forgiveness gets taken up globally--often in cultures with minimal connections to the Abrahamic tradition--as a means of apologizing for “crimes against humanity” and forwarding “human rights” discourse (28). He sees globalized, politically interested “forgiveness” as antithetical to the pure concept of “forgiveness,” which cannot aim at finality or normalization (32). “Forgiveness,” outside the realm of economic exchange, “forgives only the unforgivable,” announcing itself as “impossibility itself” (32-33). Such mad forgiveness is separate from politically mediated reconciliation or amnesty--though the latter, as for instance pursued by Desmond Tutu in South Africa--remain important in their own sphere (43). Forgiveness “exceeds all institution” and the political must “respect its [insoluble] secret” (54-55). Only the victim can forgive, and forgiveness must thus interrupt the sovereignty of the state. Derrida pursues a perhaps not-yet-present forgiveness that would also interrupt the sovereignty of the forgiving “subject,” however: “a forgiveness without power: unconditional but without sovereignty,” but ends with the unsolved question of whether “unconditionality” and “sovereignty” are even possible to dissociate (59).
August 27, 2012
บทความว่าด้วยพลเมืองโลก แดร์ริดาเริ่มต้นด้วยการตั้งคำถามเกี่ยวกับแนวคิดความเป็นพลเมืองโลก และโยงสู่ประเด็นการอพยพลี้ภัย เขายกตัวอย่างกรณีฝรั่งเศส ที่การปฏิวัติ 1789 บีบบังคับให้พวกเขาต้องทำตัวประหนึ่ง เสรีนิยมขั้นกว่า ที่เป็นเปิดกว้างเสียยิ่งกว่าความเต็มใจของตน ฝรั่งเศสต้องเป็นประเทศที่โอบอ้อมอารี (hospitality) ในหลายๆ ด้านกว่าประเทศที่ไม่ได้เชิดชูคุณค่าของเสรีภาพ เสมอภาค ภราดรภาพ การเปิดรับคนอพยพย้ายถิ่นมาฝรั่งเศสจึงเกิดขึ้นมากในศตวรรษที่ 18-19 อย่างไรก็ตาม ต้องไม่ลืมว่า เงื่อนไขสำคัญคือการพัฒนาทางอุตสาหกรรมที่ต้องการแรงงานราคาถูก เมื่อประชากรต่างชาติซึ่งโดยมาเดินทางมาจากประเทศอาณานิคม เข้ามาอาศัยและทำงานในฝรั่งเศสได้ในระดับหนึ่ง อุตสาหกรรมเติบโตเต็มที่ วิถีชีวิตผู้คนเปลี่ยน ทุกอย่างก็เปลี่ยน ครึ่งหลังของศตวรรษที่ 20 พรรคการเมืองฝรั่งเศสหันมาเสนอนโยบายจำกัดการอพยพย้ายถิ่น โดยมีแนวคิดพื้นฐานว่าคนเหล่านี้เข้ามาแย่งงานและรายได้ของคนฝรั่งเศสแท้ (ข้อถกเถียงนี้ยังมีอยู่จนถึงปัจจุบัน เห็นได้ชัดในการเลือกตั้งประธานาธิบดีครั้งล่าสุดที่นโยบายเกี่ยวกับผู้อพยพได้รับความสนใจอย่างมากจากสื่อนานาชาติ) พวกเขาเสนอแนวคิดที่จะเปิดรับแต่เฉพาะผู้ลี้ภัยทางการเมือง ซึ่งมีเงื่อนไขว่า ต้องไม่มาแสวงหาผลประโยชน์ทางเศรษฐกิจแม้แต่เล็กน้อยตลอดเวลาที่ลี้ภัย คำถามก็คือเป็นไปได้จริงเหรอ?
ในครึ่งหลังของบทความ เขาเสนอว่า ในปัจจุบัน การเปิดรับผู้คนจากต่างชาติกลายเป็นภัยคุกคามสำหรับรัฐในยุโรปไปแล้ว การรวมตัวของยุโรปได้ลดพรมแดนของรัฐทิ้งไป ทว่ากลับสร้างปราการที่เข้มแข็งในระดับภูมิภาคขึ้นมาแทน การละเมิดความโอบอ้อมอารี (the violation of hospitality) มีให้เห็นทั่วไป การกีดกันผู้อพยพเป็นเรื่องที่ยอมรับได้ ในขณะที่ผู้คนจากดินแดนห่างไกลแสวงหาชีวิตที่ดีกว่า ด้วยการแก่งแย่งกันให้ได้รับสิทธิเป็นผู้ลี้ภัยทางการเมือง ก็ยิ่งทำให้การตรวจตราและกีดกันเข้มงวดขึ้น ถึงที่สุด ฝรั่งเศสโอนถ่ายสิทธิการควบคุมผู้อพยพไปอยู่ในมือตำรวจที่ทำอะไรหลายๆ อย่างโดยไม่มีใครรู้หรือท้วงติง ตำรวจกลายเป็นองค์กรที่มีลักษณะ faceless และ formless ทั้งยังมีอำนาจมากอย่างน่าประหลาดใจ แดร์ริดาพยายามชวนคุยถึงขีดจำกัดของความโอบอ้อมอารีเหล่านี้ และปิดท้ายด้วยการพูดถึง city of refuge และแนวคิดเรื่องพลเมืองโลก ที่มีรากฐานมาตั้งแต่กรีก จนถึงอิมมานูเอล คานท์
บทความว่าด้วยการให้อภัย แดร์ริดาตั้งคำถามว่า ที่สุดแล้วการให้อภัยมีความหมายอย่างไรกันแน่ จำเป็นหรือไม่ที่คนจะต้องร้องขอการให้อภัยเสียก่อน จึงจะให้อภัยได้ เขาเสนอว่า ถ้าการให้อภัยเป็นไปไม่ได้สำหรับบางเรื่อง หรือกล่าวให้ชัดก็คือ หากเราสามารถให้อภัย แต่เฉพาะกับเรื่องเล็กๆ น้อยๆ หรือสิ่งที่ให้อภัยได้แล้ว นั่นยังเรียกว่าการให้อภัยอยู่หรือ เขาชี้ให้เห็นการปะทะกันระหว่างสองขั้วคือแนวคิดเรื่องการให้อภัยที่มีเงื่อนไขและไม่มีเงื่อนไข ท้ายที่สุด หากมีอะไรบางอย่างที่ลบล้างไม่ได้ และชดใช้ไม่ได้ เราจะให้อภัยการกระทำแบบนี้ได้หรือ
เรายกแนวคิดของ Jankelevich ที่พูดว่าการให้อภัยในกรณีฆ่าล้างเผ่าพันธุ์ชาวยิวนั้นเป็นไปไม่ได้ เพราะคนเยอรมันไม่ได้สำนึกผิด และไม่ได้ร้องขอการให้อภัย พวกเขาไม่คิดว่าการกระทำของตัวเองเป็นการกระทำที่ผิด และนั่นเองทำลายเงื่อนไขพื้นฐานของการให้อภัย แดร์ริดาพยายามโต้แย้งความคิดนี้ และอธิบายข้อเสนอข้างต้นของเขา เขายกตัวอย่างคำกล่าวของฮันนาท์ อเรนดท์ ที่ว่า เราไม่สามารถให้อภัยคนที่เราไม่สามารถลงโทษได้ และเชื่อมโยงไปถึงการให้อภัยในแง่ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างผู้กระทำและเหยื่อ การลงโทษโดยรัฐและกฎหมายเป็นคนละเรื่องกับการให้อภัย คำถามก็คือ รัฐมีแนวโน้มจะคิดว่าตนเองมีสิทธิที่จะให้อภัย แต่ดูเหมือนความจริงจะไม่เป็นอย่างนั้น เหยื่อต่างหากที่มีสิทธิจะพูดคำว่า ฉันให้อภัย แต่กระนั้น เหยื่อหลายต่อหลายคนก็ไม่มีชีวิตรอดมากล่าวคำนี้ มีประเด็นมากมายที่แดร์ริดายกขึ้นมา แต่ข้อสรุปที่ได้ก็คือว่า การให้อภัยที่แท้จริงก็คือการให้อภัยในสิ่งที่ให้อภัยไม่ได้ (unforgivable) การกระทำเหล่านี้ล้วนไม่อาจเข้าใจได้ และหลายครั้ง เมื่อใครสักคนพูดว่า ฉันให้อภัย ในเรื่องที่ดูเหมือนไม่อาจให้อภัยได้ เราก็จะเกิดภาวะไม่อาจเข้าใจ ไม่อาจเข้าถึง มีพื้นที่ที่ห่างไกลจากเราเกิดขึ้น การให้อภัยสิ่งที่ไม่อาจให้อภัยได้ ให้อภัยกับสิ่งที่ไม่ได้ถูกร้องขอ จึงมักดูเหมือนการกระทำของคนบ้า ทว่านี่ต่างหากที่คือการให้อภัยที่บริสุทธิ์
ในครึ่งหลังของบทความ เขาเสนอว่า ในปัจจุบัน การเปิดรับผู้คนจากต่างชาติกลายเป็นภัยคุกคามสำหรับรัฐในยุโรปไปแล้ว การรวมตัวของยุโรปได้ลดพรมแดนของรัฐทิ้งไป ทว่ากลับสร้างปราการที่เข้มแข็งในระดับภูมิภาคขึ้นมาแทน การละเมิดความโอบอ้อมอารี (the violation of hospitality) มีให้เห็นทั่วไป การกีดกันผู้อพยพเป็นเรื่องที่ยอมรับได้ ในขณะที่ผู้คนจากดินแดนห่างไกลแสวงหาชีวิตที่ดีกว่า ด้วยการแก่งแย่งกันให้ได้รับสิทธิเป็นผู้ลี้ภัยทางการเมือง ก็ยิ่งทำให้การตรวจตราและกีดกันเข้มงวดขึ้น ถึงที่สุด ฝรั่งเศสโอนถ่ายสิทธิการควบคุมผู้อพยพไปอยู่ในมือตำรวจที่ทำอะไรหลายๆ อย่างโดยไม่มีใครรู้หรือท้วงติง ตำรวจกลายเป็นองค์กรที่มีลักษณะ faceless และ formless ทั้งยังมีอำนาจมากอย่างน่าประหลาดใจ แดร์ริดาพยายามชวนคุยถึงขีดจำกัดของความโอบอ้อมอารีเหล่านี้ และปิดท้ายด้วยการพูดถึง city of refuge และแนวคิดเรื่องพลเมืองโลก ที่มีรากฐานมาตั้งแต่กรีก จนถึงอิมมานูเอล คานท์
บทความว่าด้วยการให้อภัย แดร์ริดาตั้งคำถามว่า ที่สุดแล้วการให้อภัยมีความหมายอย่างไรกันแน่ จำเป็นหรือไม่ที่คนจะต้องร้องขอการให้อภัยเสียก่อน จึงจะให้อภัยได้ เขาเสนอว่า ถ้าการให้อภัยเป็นไปไม่ได้สำหรับบางเรื่อง หรือกล่าวให้ชัดก็คือ หากเราสามารถให้อภัย แต่เฉพาะกับเรื่องเล็กๆ น้อยๆ หรือสิ่งที่ให้อภัยได้แล้ว นั่นยังเรียกว่าการให้อภัยอยู่หรือ เขาชี้ให้เห็นการปะทะกันระหว่างสองขั้วคือแนวคิดเรื่องการให้อภัยที่มีเงื่อนไขและไม่มีเงื่อนไข ท้ายที่สุด หากมีอะไรบางอย่างที่ลบล้างไม่ได้ และชดใช้ไม่ได้ เราจะให้อภัยการกระทำแบบนี้ได้หรือ
เรายกแนวคิดของ Jankelevich ที่พูดว่าการให้อภัยในกรณีฆ่าล้างเผ่าพันธุ์ชาวยิวนั้นเป็นไปไม่ได้ เพราะคนเยอรมันไม่ได้สำนึกผิด และไม่ได้ร้องขอการให้อภัย พวกเขาไม่คิดว่าการกระทำของตัวเองเป็นการกระทำที่ผิด และนั่นเองทำลายเงื่อนไขพื้นฐานของการให้อภัย แดร์ริดาพยายามโต้แย้งความคิดนี้ และอธิบายข้อเสนอข้างต้นของเขา เขายกตัวอย่างคำกล่าวของฮันนาท์ อเรนดท์ ที่ว่า เราไม่สามารถให้อภัยคนที่เราไม่สามารถลงโทษได้ และเชื่อมโยงไปถึงการให้อภัยในแง่ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างผู้กระทำและเหยื่อ การลงโทษโดยรัฐและกฎหมายเป็นคนละเรื่องกับการให้อภัย คำถามก็คือ รัฐมีแนวโน้มจะคิดว่าตนเองมีสิทธิที่จะให้อภัย แต่ดูเหมือนความจริงจะไม่เป็นอย่างนั้น เหยื่อต่างหากที่มีสิทธิจะพูดคำว่า ฉันให้อภัย แต่กระนั้น เหยื่อหลายต่อหลายคนก็ไม่มีชีวิตรอดมากล่าวคำนี้ มีประเด็นมากมายที่แดร์ริดายกขึ้นมา แต่ข้อสรุปที่ได้ก็คือว่า การให้อภัยที่แท้จริงก็คือการให้อภัยในสิ่งที่ให้อภัยไม่ได้ (unforgivable) การกระทำเหล่านี้ล้วนไม่อาจเข้าใจได้ และหลายครั้ง เมื่อใครสักคนพูดว่า ฉันให้อภัย ในเรื่องที่ดูเหมือนไม่อาจให้อภัยได้ เราก็จะเกิดภาวะไม่อาจเข้าใจ ไม่อาจเข้าถึง มีพื้นที่ที่ห่างไกลจากเราเกิดขึ้น การให้อภัยสิ่งที่ไม่อาจให้อภัยได้ ให้อภัยกับสิ่งที่ไม่ได้ถูกร้องขอ จึงมักดูเหมือนการกระทำของคนบ้า ทว่านี่ต่างหากที่คือการให้อภัยที่บริสุทธิ์
December 23, 2017
An important exploration by Derrida particularly in this era of distrust of the "other" - where the Western world fears the influx of immigrants and refugees. The first article on "Cosmopolitanism" focuses on "hospitality" which is not an "ethics" but a way of being (p.17) and the histories of "cities of asylum" which dates back to biblical times where "God ordered Moses to institute cities ... of refuge or asylum". An interesting concept if considered in a modern context.
The second part, "On Forgiveness" is a more difficult text which explores the meaning of forgiveness in the shadow of "crimes against humanity" and the genesis of this concept. Forgiveness in the context of Nation-States is torn between the double imperative of acts that are by their nature unforgivable and "the reality of a society at work in pragmatic processes of reconciliation" (p.51). Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts is that all "States" (cultures) "... have their origin in an aggression of the colonial type. This foundational violence is not only forgotten. The foundation is made in order to hide it; by its essence it tends to organize amnesia, sometimes under the celebration and sublimation of the grand beginnings" (p.57).
This small volume is a "must read" if you are interested in how philosophical analysis can inform a more nuanced understanding of contemporary events such as the plight of refugees and the benefits (and limits) of truth and reconciliation commissions.
The second part, "On Forgiveness" is a more difficult text which explores the meaning of forgiveness in the shadow of "crimes against humanity" and the genesis of this concept. Forgiveness in the context of Nation-States is torn between the double imperative of acts that are by their nature unforgivable and "the reality of a society at work in pragmatic processes of reconciliation" (p.51). Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts is that all "States" (cultures) "... have their origin in an aggression of the colonial type. This foundational violence is not only forgotten. The foundation is made in order to hide it; by its essence it tends to organize amnesia, sometimes under the celebration and sublimation of the grand beginnings" (p.57).
This small volume is a "must read" if you are interested in how philosophical analysis can inform a more nuanced understanding of contemporary events such as the plight of refugees and the benefits (and limits) of truth and reconciliation commissions.
November 13, 2013
Of all the words, these are the words that rang most true for me: "Imagine a victim of terrorism, a person whose children have been deported or had their throats cut, or another whose family was killed in a death oven. Whether she says 'I forgive' or 'I do not forgive,' in either case I am not sure of understanding. I am even sure of not understanding, and in any case I have nothing to say."
And this makes a lot of the other words feel superfluous.
And this makes a lot of the other words feel superfluous.
December 29, 2016
What does it mean to forgive? What does it mean to be a part of globalization and what obligations do we have to our fellow man. Where do borders end and being a brother to another person in this strange and turbulent world begin? These are the questions Jacques tackles in this book and it is really a thought provoking and enjoyable experience. I highly recommend it if you are a fan of philosophical thought.
January 3, 2015
"For if we were to begin to accuse ourselves, in asking forgiveness, of all the crimes of the past against humanity, there would no longer be an innocent person on earth--and therefore no one in the position to judge of arbitrate. We are all heir, at least, to persons or events marked, in an essential, interior, ineffaceable fashion, by crimes against humanity."
November 12, 2017
I really concern on what might Derrida thinks about forgiveness. Which forgiveness I admit is an economical sense, I forgive you with term and condition applied. Meanwhile the cosmopolitanism in this book can be one of alternative conceiving Kant ideas of cosmopolitanism itself. Both forgiveness and cosmopolitanism are related each other to this era.
Read
April 25, 2008The philosophy of forgiveness in relation to refugee and asylum rights; taking examples from across the world including South Africa, France, and Algeria. Derrida is fascinating and easy enough to digest.
April 4, 2024
(On Forgiveness)
Derrida examines forgiveness from the perspective of the unforgivable - and in that, makes us think about what makes the act of forgiveness powerful. Great, short read that discusses how politics make forgiveness instrumental, and how we can move away to something more pure.
Derrida examines forgiveness from the perspective of the unforgivable - and in that, makes us think about what makes the act of forgiveness powerful. Great, short read that discusses how politics make forgiveness instrumental, and how we can move away to something more pure.
January 17, 2010
Derrida wins.
December 4, 2015
A wonderful book. thoughtful musings on forgiveness, cities of refuge and concern with the underdog. Arguably Derrida at his finest.
February 20, 2018
Interesting perspective on both topics but it didn't feel the two topics belonged to the same book.
Read
June 23, 2020For my first book club, I read On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness by Jacques Derrida. It is divided into two distinct but related sections. The first is entitled “On Cosmopolitanism,” and the second – you guessed it – “On Forgiveness.” The book deals with different facets of the experience of refugees through Kantian analysis of hospitality and forgiveness, respectively. Together, they provide a framework for thinking about stateless persons and what it means to have refugee status.
The former makes the case for so-called “cities of refuge.” These hypothetical entities would operate, when necessary, outside of state sovereignty in order to ensure the safety of refugees. Derrida contends that hospitality, as defined in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, cannot be fully exercised within the confines of typical Western immigration and/or refugee law. In order to minimize the risk of asylum becoming mere political rhetoric, specific cities should be set up for the purpose of welcoming and protecting those with refugee status.
“On Forgiveness” grapples with the questions surrounding living in the aftermath of crimes against humanity. The author argues that the only actions that truly necessitate forgiveness are those so heinous they appear unforgivable. He concludes that the “purest” form of forgiveness comes from those who have no power over the perpetrator. In other words, the forgiveness affects only the forgiver.
Although this is a dense philosophical work (made all the more dense by the fact that it was written in French and translated into English,) both of the subjects are relevant for my work as the Hubbs CTEP. Obviously, the Twin Cities predate their refugee population and are not the “cities of refuge” the Derrida calls for. However, it is extremely important for people working/”serving” in the public sphere make the environment as hospitable as possible for refugee populations.
I found the forgiveness question especially interesting. Yesterday, I had a woman casually telling me about her two-year-old being killed in the Somali civil war as I was helping her set up a Gmail account. It’s easy to grow accustomed to the word “refugee” and forget what is necessary for a person to be give that status, but many of the people I will be working with this year have survived horrific trauma. As a CTEP, I know I will need to be patient with people from extremely diverse backgrounds. Just because I am teaching them a skill that they do not (yet) know does not mean that I know more about life, the universe, and everything.
The former makes the case for so-called “cities of refuge.” These hypothetical entities would operate, when necessary, outside of state sovereignty in order to ensure the safety of refugees. Derrida contends that hospitality, as defined in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, cannot be fully exercised within the confines of typical Western immigration and/or refugee law. In order to minimize the risk of asylum becoming mere political rhetoric, specific cities should be set up for the purpose of welcoming and protecting those with refugee status.
“On Forgiveness” grapples with the questions surrounding living in the aftermath of crimes against humanity. The author argues that the only actions that truly necessitate forgiveness are those so heinous they appear unforgivable. He concludes that the “purest” form of forgiveness comes from those who have no power over the perpetrator. In other words, the forgiveness affects only the forgiver.
Although this is a dense philosophical work (made all the more dense by the fact that it was written in French and translated into English,) both of the subjects are relevant for my work as the Hubbs CTEP. Obviously, the Twin Cities predate their refugee population and are not the “cities of refuge” the Derrida calls for. However, it is extremely important for people working/”serving” in the public sphere make the environment as hospitable as possible for refugee populations.
I found the forgiveness question especially interesting. Yesterday, I had a woman casually telling me about her two-year-old being killed in the Somali civil war as I was helping her set up a Gmail account. It’s easy to grow accustomed to the word “refugee” and forget what is necessary for a person to be give that status, but many of the people I will be working with this year have survived horrific trauma. As a CTEP, I know I will need to be patient with people from extremely diverse backgrounds. Just because I am teaching them a skill that they do not (yet) know does not mean that I know more about life, the universe, and everything.
January 18, 2026
[philosophy honors thesis reading]
Derrida is a master of taking good ideas and rendering them completely unreadable. Unfortunately, though, I have to give him his laurels here- "On Forgiveness" is, perhaps, the most significant objection to my theory of political forgiveness that I have come across. Still haven't figured out how to tackle it.
On Cosmopolitanism: Interesting notes on a "police without borders," in that policing institutions become the default bodies from which refugees are supposed to get help. Also contains the thesis that hospitality is not an ethic, but ethics itself- referent of Kant on hospitality.
On Forgiveness: Sigh. Wonderful ideas punctuated by sentences that are genuinely just rambles- hello, philosophy of deconstruction. Central thesis is that forgiveness for an end- political justice, reconciliation, public life- ceases to be forgiveness, because forgiveness is only forgiveness when it is forgiving the unforgivable. By forgiving someone who commits to change, we do not forgive the guilty as guilty, but another, higher version of him who has already undergone a transformation. “If I say ‘I forgive you on the condition that, asking forgiveness, you would thus have changed and would no longer be the same,’ do I forgive? What do I forgive? And whom? What and whom? Something or someone?” (38). FINE, DERRIDA! YOU'RE RIGHT! I'll have to figure out a plausible answer to this. Rounding up from 3.75
Derrida is a master of taking good ideas and rendering them completely unreadable. Unfortunately, though, I have to give him his laurels here- "On Forgiveness" is, perhaps, the most significant objection to my theory of political forgiveness that I have come across. Still haven't figured out how to tackle it.
On Cosmopolitanism: Interesting notes on a "police without borders," in that policing institutions become the default bodies from which refugees are supposed to get help. Also contains the thesis that hospitality is not an ethic, but ethics itself- referent of Kant on hospitality.
On Forgiveness: Sigh. Wonderful ideas punctuated by sentences that are genuinely just rambles- hello, philosophy of deconstruction. Central thesis is that forgiveness for an end- political justice, reconciliation, public life- ceases to be forgiveness, because forgiveness is only forgiveness when it is forgiving the unforgivable. By forgiving someone who commits to change, we do not forgive the guilty as guilty, but another, higher version of him who has already undergone a transformation. “If I say ‘I forgive you on the condition that, asking forgiveness, you would thus have changed and would no longer be the same,’ do I forgive? What do I forgive? And whom? What and whom? Something or someone?” (38). FINE, DERRIDA! YOU'RE RIGHT! I'll have to figure out a plausible answer to this. Rounding up from 3.75
Read
March 1, 2020Прочетох единствено On Forgiveness. Дерида говори за прошката, както никой преди това не е: като за събитие, нещо извънредно, което има значение само в ситуациите, които са всъщност непростими. Защото всичко друго би означавало връщане към нормалност или извиняване на постъпка, която вече няма значение, обезсмисляйки така акта на прощаване. Това означава невъзможност и лудост - или това, или прошката не е истинска (Дерида казва "чиста").
Препоръчвам.
Препоръчвам.
December 6, 2018
Throughout, more politically focused than I anticipated. But interestingly, I found Derrida’s conclusion to be staunchly non political, which I enjoyed and found very appropriate. Overall, this was an insightful read. My one wish is that Derrida had explored the significance of the aporia of “unconditional forgiveness” in greater depth near the end.
February 20, 2020
A very important book to read, but I will not claim that I understood it fully, I read it for the first time and whatever I came to know is that this book shows how to make this world a better place to live in.
September 10, 2024
The argument regarding forgiveness has the same structure of that of hospitality, but not very convincing in the end, regarding the complexity of the concept of forgiveness at the level of war crime, for instance.
May 22, 2019
It’s really good you guys
May 11, 2025
spitting
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews