Jacques Derrida

by Geoffrey Bennington, Jacques Derrida

This extraordinary book offers a clear and compelling biography of Jacques Derrida along with one of Derrida's strangest and most unexpected texts. Geoffrey Bennington's account of Derrida leads the reader through the philosopher's familiar yet widely misunderstood work on language and writing to the less familiar themes of signature, sexual difference, law, and affirmation. In an unusual and unprecedented "dialogue," Derrida responds to Bennington's text by interweaving Bennington's text with surprising and disruptive "periphrases." Truly original, this dual and dueling text opens new dimensions in Derrida's thought and work.

"Bennington is a shrewd and well-informed commentator whose book should do something to convince the skeptics . . . that Jacques Derrida's work merits serious attention."—Christopher Norris, New Statesman & Society

"Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida have presented a fascinating example of what might be called post-structuralist autobiography."—Laurie Volpe, French Review

"Bennington's account of what Derrida is up to is better in almost all respects—more intelligent, more plausible, more readable, and less pretentious—than any other I have read."—Richard Rorty, Contemporary Literature

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

432 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

Reviews

[Michael A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A survey of Derrida's thought (as much as a survey is possible). Dense reading, at least some philosophical education required to understand most of it. A better introduction is Deconstruction in a Nutshell by John D. Caputo but I felt this book was more philosophically rigorous. I question Bennington's characterization of analytic philosophy though.

And at the bottom is 59 seemingly random paragraphs from Derrida himself, they mostly seem to be talking about circumcision and his mother. I didn't particularly get this... a circumcision is simultaneously a cutting off and an opening up, so maybe that has something to do with it. Either way, very unique and interesting book to read if you have an interest in Derrida.

[William Durden]

The Bennington discussion is certainly worthwhile, more in depth than other 'intro' pieces, but what makes this text essential in the Derrida canon is his own shockingly personal discussion of his relationship to his mother and to religion. Inspired Caputo's Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, and has a profound impact on the way I read Derrida in general.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have only read some if Bennington's systematizing of Derrida, so I can't speak for that, but Derrida's Circumfession was an enthralling, emotional, and philosophically tortuous but exciting read. Derrida confesses his own struggles with his (non)-identity (whether it be a brief homosexual experience, or his Judaism or Atheism, or his circumcision), and relates this to his larger philosophical approach in general, in a way that is subtle way. This requires the reader, like all Derrida texts, to engage with the text itself in a way that is definitely counts for some intellectual heavy lifting, but it pays off well. Never in such a short piece have I experienced some really interesting philosophical remarks and also some very heart-felt confessions. Even if you don't like, or haven't read Derrida, this could be a fun read if you think of it like a puzzle that has to be unlocked, reconfigured, and re-unlocked again and again, with new passages and new meanings revealing themselves all the time.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my opinion, this is my favorite of the various Derrida introductions I've read. (I like reading various introductions to various philosophers for fun.) It's certainly more convincing and interesting than the others that focus primarily on the uses of his theories for literary purposes. Instead, the reader is taken through the ideas from their often neglected (well, for literary theory) roots in phenomenology. It can be challenging, but it's really very good.

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally nutty in the way that only Derrida can do.

Bennington's narrative is especially helpful in understanding Derrida; Derrida's "response" is especially helpful in totally fucking up the possibility of understanding him.

Super fun! The layout (2/3 page of Bennington, 1/3 page Derrida at the bottom) really resists the idea of a linear narrative or singular knowledge production.

[Liam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contains some strange sexual allusions to/with circumcision and the process of the trace that reflects poorly on Derrida, wonder why most French philosophers/writers of the post-war generation have questionable obsessions of this sort (which they should be smart enough not to make credulous house-of-cards speculations esp Derrida given his work on sans papiers, the excluded or state of exception, that the inhospitable should be refused). Does this derive from France/Paris generally, of the time (events of 1968 etc) or the grande ecoles?

[John Dizon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why ask why? Well, for one thing, some guys never know when to give up, and I'd have to say that Geoffrey Bennington and I have that in common. He probably got halfway through Derrida's work, just as I got midway through his, and most likely said the same thing I did: 'What the hell am I doing this for?'. I'm sure he gave himself the same answer I did: you started that damn thing, so you might as well finish it. And so it goes.

What it's mostly about when you wander down this particular corridor is the intellectual challenge. As I mentioned previously, most people who plunge so deeply into semantics are like transmission mechanics. They're never going to build a car, so the next best thing is specializing in what makes them work. Face it, academics are largely frustrated authors who only publish books as a job requirement. This is why you can't make heads or tails out of what they write. They rely so heavily on jargon and technical writing that they forget about the poor sap who has to read their stuff. What I suspect is that much of it is smoke and mirrors on their end. Once you simplify what they're on about, you realize that it doesn't make a bit of difference in the real world. That's essentially what most critics of deconstructionism contend.

The book is written in a split-level, with Derrida's ramblings at the bottom of the page in postscript format that, in a disproportionate number of cases, take up as much as half the space. I suspect that the author decided to publish it as a parallel narrative so as to allow us to see the gibberish he had to work with. The Derrida portion is a form of raving madness that seems to be taken from a journal of sorts. Yet Bennington seems almost to ignore it as he takes off on his own tangents, rambling on themes and elements such as metaphors, signatures, translations, femininity, politics, Jews (!) and Other and Being. How on earth do you go from literary analytics to philosophical diatribes in the same paragraph, much less the same publication? Ask Bennington, Derrida and the rest of the deconstructionists. Or, just ask Alice, as Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane suggests. I think she'll know.

I would recommend this for Mensa patients or those who think they've mastered the art and craft of literary analysis. Other than that, take the advice of the Wikipedia editors who stamped warnings all over their Deconstruction page: in so many words, don't waste your time.

[William West]

Bennigton's text is the most movingly intimate explication of Derrida's thought I've come across. Indeed, Jacques seemed to think so as well. Derrida added a book length "foot note" that is the closest thing he ever wrote to an autobiography. A must read even for those with an expert knowledge of Derrida's oevre.

[Saara Raappana]

I am only reading the bottom part of this book, the part written by Derrida. I don't give a good goddamn about Mr. Bennington. But since I just read the bottom 1/4 of each page, it probably wouldn't be fair of me to rate it.

[Jonathan]

None

[Mireille · Rating 5 out of 5]

Circonfession is such a beautiful text.