What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation
"Originally published in French in 1982, this collection is a good representation of the range of Derrida's working styles."-South Atlantic Review "No writer has probed the riddle of the Other with more patience and insight than Jacques Derrida. . . . By rigorously interrogating the writings of major Western figures, Derrida not only forces a rethinking of the nature of reading and writing but calls into question basic as-sumptions about ourselves and our world. . . . The Ear of the Other will be especially useful to people who have little or no prior acquaintance with Derrida's work. . . . Through a careful reexamination of Nietzsche's autobiography Ecce Homo, Derrida elaborates some of the far-reaching implications of twentieth-century reinterpretations of human subjectivity."-Mark C. Taylor, Los Angeles Times Book Review. "Ably translated. . . . The long 'Roundtable on Autobiography' . . . is authentic philosophical discussion, illuminating not only the preceding lecture but Derrida's work as well."-Choice.
190 pages, Paperback
First published April 12, 1985
7 people are currently reading
234 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
650 books1,796 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 17, 2024
A LECTURE, FOLLOWED BY AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WITH DERRIDA
Editor Christie McDonald states in her Preface to this [1988 revised edition] book, “The book grew out of a colloquium held at the University of Montreal in 1979, and was first published in 1984 in French. It is composed of three parts, the first of which is a lecture by Jacques Derrida entitled ‘Otobiographies.’ In it, Derrida analyzes two texts by Friedrich Nietzsche… The second and third parts of the book are roundtable discussions about autobiography and translation. Colleagues from several academic institutions and fields of study … agreed to meet Jacques Derrida across the table and to formulate thoughts and questions aroused by his work.” (Pg. vii)
She adds, “Sexual identity appears as a leitmotif throughout ‘The Ear of the Other.’ Following the logic of Derrida’s argument, if the ‘I’ is indeterminate in language as we use it, the sex of the addresser can only be determined by the other. Destination determines the destiny of gender, in this incipient theory.” (Pg. x)
In the text on Nietzsche, Derrida says, “I shall not read Nietzsche as a philosopher… or as a scholar or scientist, if these three types can be said to share the abstraction of the bio-graphical and the claim to leave their lives and names out of their writings. For the moment, I shall read Nietzsche beginning with the scene from ‘Ecce Homo’ where his puts his body and his name out front even though he advances behind masks or pseudonyms without proper names.” (Pg. 7)
Derrida says in his first statement during the roundtable, ‘I should not have to reply right away to such fully elaborated and serious questions---and by improvising no less. Our agreement for this exchange is that I should try to improvise a response even when I am not sure that I can do so adequately. Well, I am aware that in a few sentences I will not be able to meet the demands of a question whose elaborations and presuppositions are of such a vast scope. Nevertheless, I’ll take my chances with an answer.” (Pg. 49)
He continues, “I speak myself to myself in a certain manner, and my ear is thus immediately plugged into my discourse and my writing. But the necessity of passing onto and by way of the ear is not just this. Nor is it just the necessity of labyrinth motif which, in Nietzsche, plays an altogether decisive role … To be more precise, it is, in the context that interested me yesterday, the difference in the ear. First of all, the difference in the ear is, clearly, the difference in the size of ears. There are smaller or larger ears. The larger the ear, the more it is bent toward the pavilion… the more finesse it lacks in its attention to difference… The ear of the other says me to me and constitutes the ‘autos’ of my autobiography. When, much later, the other will have perceived with a keen-enough ear what I will have addressed or destined to him or her, then my signature will have taken place.” (Pg. 51)
Derrida points out, “As for me, I’m no fan of modernity. I have no simple belief in the irreducible specificity of ‘modernity.’ I even wonder if I have ever used that word. In any case, I am very mistrustful whenever people identify historical breaks or when they say, ‘This begins there.’” (Pg. 84)
He explains, “When I made use of this word [“deconstruction”], I had the sense of translating two words from Heidegger at a point where I needed them in the context. These two words are ‘Destruktion,’ which Heidegger uses, explaining the Desgtruktion is not a destruction but precisely a destructuring that dismantles the structural layers in the system, and so on. The other word is ‘Abbau,’ which has a similar meaning: to take apart an edifice in order to see how it is constituted or deconstituted. This is classic. What was not so classic, however, was what this force… was applied to: the whole of classical ontology, the whole history of Western philosophy. The word got highlighted in the context of the period, which was more or less dominated by structuralism.” (Pg. 86-87)
He states, “What does philosophy say? Let’s imagine that it’s possible to ask such a question: What does philosophy say? What does the philosopher say when he is being a philosopher? He says: What matters is truth or meaning, and since meaning is before or beyond language, it follows that it is translatable. Meaning has the commanding role, and consequently one must be able to fix its univocality or, in any case, to master its plurivocality.” (Pg. 120)
Derrida responds to the question, “Do you consider poetry to be subordinated finally to philosophical discourse?”: “here I would say: Neither one nor the other. And I don’t say that to evade your question easily. I think that a text like ‘Glas’ is neither philosophic nor poetic. It circulates between these two genres, trying meanwhile to produce another text which would be of another genre or without genre… Yet I myself do not read the genre of this body as either philosophic or poetic. This means that if your questions were addressed to the philosopher, I would have to say no. As for me, I talk about the philosopher, but I am not simply a philosopher. I say this even though, from an institutional point of view, I practice the trade of philosophy professor… It is in this strategic context that on occasion I have spoken of philosophy’s usefulness in translating or deciphering a certain number of things, such as what goes on in the media, and so on.” (Pg. 140-141)
This book is very helpful at clarifying a number of Derrida’s positions, and will be of great interest and value to anyone seriously studying Derrida.
Editor Christie McDonald states in her Preface to this [1988 revised edition] book, “The book grew out of a colloquium held at the University of Montreal in 1979, and was first published in 1984 in French. It is composed of three parts, the first of which is a lecture by Jacques Derrida entitled ‘Otobiographies.’ In it, Derrida analyzes two texts by Friedrich Nietzsche… The second and third parts of the book are roundtable discussions about autobiography and translation. Colleagues from several academic institutions and fields of study … agreed to meet Jacques Derrida across the table and to formulate thoughts and questions aroused by his work.” (Pg. vii)
She adds, “Sexual identity appears as a leitmotif throughout ‘The Ear of the Other.’ Following the logic of Derrida’s argument, if the ‘I’ is indeterminate in language as we use it, the sex of the addresser can only be determined by the other. Destination determines the destiny of gender, in this incipient theory.” (Pg. x)
In the text on Nietzsche, Derrida says, “I shall not read Nietzsche as a philosopher… or as a scholar or scientist, if these three types can be said to share the abstraction of the bio-graphical and the claim to leave their lives and names out of their writings. For the moment, I shall read Nietzsche beginning with the scene from ‘Ecce Homo’ where his puts his body and his name out front even though he advances behind masks or pseudonyms without proper names.” (Pg. 7)
Derrida says in his first statement during the roundtable, ‘I should not have to reply right away to such fully elaborated and serious questions---and by improvising no less. Our agreement for this exchange is that I should try to improvise a response even when I am not sure that I can do so adequately. Well, I am aware that in a few sentences I will not be able to meet the demands of a question whose elaborations and presuppositions are of such a vast scope. Nevertheless, I’ll take my chances with an answer.” (Pg. 49)
He continues, “I speak myself to myself in a certain manner, and my ear is thus immediately plugged into my discourse and my writing. But the necessity of passing onto and by way of the ear is not just this. Nor is it just the necessity of labyrinth motif which, in Nietzsche, plays an altogether decisive role … To be more precise, it is, in the context that interested me yesterday, the difference in the ear. First of all, the difference in the ear is, clearly, the difference in the size of ears. There are smaller or larger ears. The larger the ear, the more it is bent toward the pavilion… the more finesse it lacks in its attention to difference… The ear of the other says me to me and constitutes the ‘autos’ of my autobiography. When, much later, the other will have perceived with a keen-enough ear what I will have addressed or destined to him or her, then my signature will have taken place.” (Pg. 51)
Derrida points out, “As for me, I’m no fan of modernity. I have no simple belief in the irreducible specificity of ‘modernity.’ I even wonder if I have ever used that word. In any case, I am very mistrustful whenever people identify historical breaks or when they say, ‘This begins there.’” (Pg. 84)
He explains, “When I made use of this word [“deconstruction”], I had the sense of translating two words from Heidegger at a point where I needed them in the context. These two words are ‘Destruktion,’ which Heidegger uses, explaining the Desgtruktion is not a destruction but precisely a destructuring that dismantles the structural layers in the system, and so on. The other word is ‘Abbau,’ which has a similar meaning: to take apart an edifice in order to see how it is constituted or deconstituted. This is classic. What was not so classic, however, was what this force… was applied to: the whole of classical ontology, the whole history of Western philosophy. The word got highlighted in the context of the period, which was more or less dominated by structuralism.” (Pg. 86-87)
He states, “What does philosophy say? Let’s imagine that it’s possible to ask such a question: What does philosophy say? What does the philosopher say when he is being a philosopher? He says: What matters is truth or meaning, and since meaning is before or beyond language, it follows that it is translatable. Meaning has the commanding role, and consequently one must be able to fix its univocality or, in any case, to master its plurivocality.” (Pg. 120)
Derrida responds to the question, “Do you consider poetry to be subordinated finally to philosophical discourse?”: “here I would say: Neither one nor the other. And I don’t say that to evade your question easily. I think that a text like ‘Glas’ is neither philosophic nor poetic. It circulates between these two genres, trying meanwhile to produce another text which would be of another genre or without genre… Yet I myself do not read the genre of this body as either philosophic or poetic. This means that if your questions were addressed to the philosopher, I would have to say no. As for me, I talk about the philosopher, but I am not simply a philosopher. I say this even though, from an institutional point of view, I practice the trade of philosophy professor… It is in this strategic context that on occasion I have spoken of philosophy’s usefulness in translating or deciphering a certain number of things, such as what goes on in the media, and so on.” (Pg. 140-141)
This book is very helpful at clarifying a number of Derrida’s positions, and will be of great interest and value to anyone seriously studying Derrida.
April 14, 2023
There is a lot going on here. If you are frustrated or waiting for 'the point' - then this is not your book.
But I gained so much from Derrida here. He was having to put up with basic questions. But he was classically French cool. He put up with rubbish. And he gleaned some gold from it.
As always with Derrida, we have to work hard here. But it this case - it is worth it.
But I gained so much from Derrida here. He was having to put up with basic questions. But he was classically French cool. He put up with rubbish. And he gleaned some gold from it.
As always with Derrida, we have to work hard here. But it this case - it is worth it.
April 8, 2016
Likewise, I wouldn't say that I am not at all a philosopher, but the utterances I proliferate around this problem are put forward from a positon other than that of philosophy. This other position is not necessarily that of poetry either, but in any case it is not the position of philosophy.
While it can't compare to the Panama Papers for sheer kinetic displacement, Derrida offers one remarkably astute reading of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo and then fields questions from a roundtable discussion. (side note: why must everyone at roundtables deliver a series of remarks assuring everyone of their intellectual gifts?). Derrida's project here concerns the concept of transferring experience into writing. The process of autobiography then also has an anterior relative -- otobiography. This constructive process is then examined through some writings from Blanchot and interpreted via the prism of Freud and Heidegger. The possibility of testimony as translation is then debated in a similarly delightful manner. Maybe not everyone's repose of choice, The Ear of the Other remains something subverseive (not exactly Nietzsche as dynamite) but both playful and earnest and never losing its poetic grace.
While it can't compare to the Panama Papers for sheer kinetic displacement, Derrida offers one remarkably astute reading of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo and then fields questions from a roundtable discussion. (side note: why must everyone at roundtables deliver a series of remarks assuring everyone of their intellectual gifts?). Derrida's project here concerns the concept of transferring experience into writing. The process of autobiography then also has an anterior relative -- otobiography. This constructive process is then examined through some writings from Blanchot and interpreted via the prism of Freud and Heidegger. The possibility of testimony as translation is then debated in a similarly delightful manner. Maybe not everyone's repose of choice, The Ear of the Other remains something subverseive (not exactly Nietzsche as dynamite) but both playful and earnest and never losing its poetic grace.
September 5, 2014
An intriguing glimpse into biography and autobiography, and their possibility or impossibility, through the lens (or ear) of Nietzsche (at once the most and least autobiographic of thinkers/writers).
Also touching upon the resonances of sexuality, life/death, and language/translation, this work is a definite worthy read for any Derrida fan or any person interested in any of the themes listed above.
Also touching upon the resonances of sexuality, life/death, and language/translation, this work is a definite worthy read for any Derrida fan or any person interested in any of the themes listed above.
March 27, 2015
Disclaimer: Rating doesn't reflect total or proportionate endorsement. Still, Derrida & co. have a lot of fascinating insights and discussion that attend his characteristic wordplay. :)
August 9, 2015
Columbia College Chicago -- 2010
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews