Essential History: Jacques Derrida and the Development of Deconstruction

by Joshua Kates

However widely—and differently—Jacques Derrida may be viewed as a "foundational" French thinker, the most basic questions concerning his work still remain Is Derrida a friend of reason, or philosophy, or rather the most radical of skeptics? Are language-related themes--writing, semiosis--his central concern, or does he really write about something else? And does his thought form a system of its own, or does it primarily consist of commentaries on individual texts? This book seeks to address these questions by returning to what it claims is essential the development of Derrida's core thought through his engagement with Husserlian phenomenology. Joshua Kates recasts what has come to be known as the Derrida/Husserl debate, by approaching Derrida's thought historically, through its development. Based on this developmental work, Essential History culminates by offering discrete interpretations of Derrida's two book-length 1967 texts, interpretations that elucidate the until now largely opaque relation of Derrida's interest in language to his focus on philosophical concerns.

A fundamental reinterpretation of Derrida's project and the works for which he is best known, Kates's study fashions a new manner of working with the French thinker that respects the radical singularity of his thought as well as the often different aims of those he reads. Such a view is in fact "essential" if Derrida studies are to remain a vital field of scholarly inquiry, and if the humanities, more generally, are to have access to a replenishing source of living theoretical concerns.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Ebooks

352 pages, Paperback

First published October 31, 2005

Reviews

[David Markwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kates offers an interesting, and I think correct, argument for looking at Derrida's work from a developmental perspective. Kates sees the 1967 works on deconstruction built on, and continuing to think through, Derrida's earlier engagements with Husserl. At times Kates' argument gets lost due to a circuitous structure of the text, but it is difficult to fault him for this given his subject matter.