What do you think?
Rate this book
Jacques Derrida: Live Theory
Jacques Derrida: Live Theory is a new introduction to the work of this most influential of contemporary philosophers. It covers Derrida's corpus in its entirety - from his earliest work in phenomenology and the philosophy of language, to his most recent work in ethics, politics and religion. It investigates Derrida's contribution to, and impact upon such disciplines as philosophy, literary theory, cultural studies, aesthetics and theology. Throughout, the key concepts that underpin Derrida's thought are thoroughly examined; in particular, the notion of 'the Other' or 'alterity' is employed to indicate a fundamental continuity from Derrida's earliest to his latest work.
The text emphasizes the importance of understanding Derrida's philosophical heritage as the key to understanding the interdisciplinary impact of his project. In the wake of Derrida's death, the book includes an "interview" that interrogates the very notion of "live" theory as a way into the core themes of deconstruction.
The text emphasizes the importance of understanding Derrida's philosophical heritage as the key to understanding the interdisciplinary impact of his project. In the wake of Derrida's death, the book includes an "interview" that interrogates the very notion of "live" theory as a way into the core themes of deconstruction.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
3 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 16, 2012
There are copious introductions to Derrida available, from a number of different perspectives. My first exposure to Derrida was an encounter with Caputo's Prayers and Tears, which is a fantastic read. It does, however, give off some false impressions as well, particularly that the works of Derrida are impenetrable without a solid foundation in philosophy. Perhaps inadvertent on Caputo's part, it is an assumption I picked up nonetheless, and one under which I worked for a number of years.
Smith's book would have been a corrective to that impression. While still difficult, Smith's book is much more elucidating. Part of this is due to the methodology inherent in Smith's project: this was to be primarily an introduction and summary. Smith works both chronologically through Derrida's work, highlighting the thematic nature of each period. Thus, Smith shows that Derrida's early work can be viewed as Derrida's discussion on ontology, the period immediately following dealing with epistemology, the later period, of course, dealing with ethics, politics and religion.
While this is primarily an introduction and summary, a complete overview without point-of-view, commentary, or opinion is impossible, and Smith does not attempt such an impossibility. Smith reads Derrida (against the image some have of him) as being consistent throughout his career. While some see in Derrida an "ethical turn" and argue for an early and later Derrida, Smith suggests that the ethical concerns seen explicitly in his later work goes all the way down from the beginning. He reads Derrida through Levinas through Kierkegaard, making reference to these "proto-deconstructionists" throughout the book while making very little reference to Heidegger (unlike much of Caputo's readings of Derrida). Smith also makes regular reference to Husserl and shows the importance of his thought for Derrida. (personally I think Husserl often gets eclipsed by Heidegger in understanding Derrida's influences).
On a completely sentimental level (the other-than-rational should not be excluded from philosophy), as Smith put the finishing touches on his book, Derrida died of pancreatic cancer. Thus, this book is emotionally important for Smith, and this emoitionality bleeds through the pages at times. Smith clearly respects and is indebted to Derrida, and his open, generous, but honest treatment of him communicates that throughout.
Smith's book was a fantastic summary of the thought of one of the most important thinkers of the late Twentieth century. It has worked its way into my number one recommendation for an introduction.
Smith's book would have been a corrective to that impression. While still difficult, Smith's book is much more elucidating. Part of this is due to the methodology inherent in Smith's project: this was to be primarily an introduction and summary. Smith works both chronologically through Derrida's work, highlighting the thematic nature of each period. Thus, Smith shows that Derrida's early work can be viewed as Derrida's discussion on ontology, the period immediately following dealing with epistemology, the later period, of course, dealing with ethics, politics and religion.
While this is primarily an introduction and summary, a complete overview without point-of-view, commentary, or opinion is impossible, and Smith does not attempt such an impossibility. Smith reads Derrida (against the image some have of him) as being consistent throughout his career. While some see in Derrida an "ethical turn" and argue for an early and later Derrida, Smith suggests that the ethical concerns seen explicitly in his later work goes all the way down from the beginning. He reads Derrida through Levinas through Kierkegaard, making reference to these "proto-deconstructionists" throughout the book while making very little reference to Heidegger (unlike much of Caputo's readings of Derrida). Smith also makes regular reference to Husserl and shows the importance of his thought for Derrida. (personally I think Husserl often gets eclipsed by Heidegger in understanding Derrida's influences).
On a completely sentimental level (the other-than-rational should not be excluded from philosophy), as Smith put the finishing touches on his book, Derrida died of pancreatic cancer. Thus, this book is emotionally important for Smith, and this emoitionality bleeds through the pages at times. Smith clearly respects and is indebted to Derrida, and his open, generous, but honest treatment of him communicates that throughout.
Smith's book was a fantastic summary of the thought of one of the most important thinkers of the late Twentieth century. It has worked its way into my number one recommendation for an introduction.
December 10, 2021
I've engaged a tiny bit with Derrida, having read some other secondary stuff and watched videos about him, because of how often he is villified and because I do think he has some interesting ideas. As a result, reading this book, with its emphasis on clearing his name and explaining his ideas, clarified quite a bit while also making me raise more questions. I definitely want to read Derrida himself now.
August 5, 2014
James K. A. Smith has given us probably the best intro to Derrida from an Evangelical perspective. It is remarkably clear, brief, and fair. While Smith doesn't offer anything like a full-orbed critique of Derrida, he shows us why Derrida is important for Evangelicals. I will end with my own critique of Smith and Derrida.
Americans love to hate deconstructionism--and not simply Christians. Much of the Anglo-American philosophical academy hates Derrida. Smith, by contrast, neatly clears up misconceptions. Smith "demythologizes" deconstructionism for us:
It is not a method (9ff). Each deconstructive event remains singular. It is not something we do. It happens in the middle voice. Ca se deconstruit. It happens within texts because of the texts.
It is not merely negative (10). There is a “double movement of dismantling with a view to rebuilding.”
Deconstruction is not a master name (10). other possible synonyms are valid: ecriture, trace, differance, supplement, hymen, pharmakon, margin, etc.
Deconstruction is not a nihilism (11). “not an enclosure in nothingness, but an openness towards the other.” He is not a relativist. Relativism is referring to the absolute and denying it.
Alterity
Smith suggests “alterity” is the lens through which we interpret Derrida (13). Deconstructionism is a response to the “other.” Sees “reference” as language’s relation to the “other” of language (14). Derrida's metaphysical target is Platonism--and by that he means largely the Western philosophical tradition. "Greek" metaphysics--at least in its Platonic conclusion--sought sameness, reducing reality to the One. There was always the attempt to get to the "pure stream," or "pure thought." Voice was prized over writing, because voice suggested immediate "presence" (key word for Derrida). Writing, by contrast, was material and seemed a slave to embodiment.
Derrida's project shows that there is no pure stream. "Pure thought" has always been supplemented by arche-writing. This does not mean, as some of Derrida's critics think, that Derrida thinks writing came before language. Rather, thought and language are always "mediated" to us. All idealities are bound idealities. The contamination of writing goes all the way down (24). Language is the very condition (incarnation?) for philosophy to assert itself.
Per Levinas Western philosophy privileged “the Same,” the sphere of knowing where Subject assimilates all that is other (31). That which is absent is that which is other--it is that which cannot appear to the subject (and hence be assimilated).
Ethics and Politics
Here is where Derrida's project (and Smith's comments) are weakest. My main problem with Derrida is not "deconstruction," for we have already shown that deconstruction is really not that different. Consistent with his thesis, Smith shows that Derrida's concern for "the Other" must allow for the other to visit our countries; thus, immigration.
How do we respond to this? Smith takes a few potshots at conservatives but really doesn't get to the heart of the argument. I do not doubt that a biblical, much less philosophical case can be made for a sane immigration policy. My concern is that not every "immigrant" is a poverty-pressed refugee. A Frenchman like Derrida should know this. Muslims have routinely torched Paris and London (and in the latter are eating British officers' organs).
Ironically, and this is my critique, Derrida and Smith are privileging some concepts and texts while ignoring others. Is this not a similar reduction to sameness?
Was Derrida a Communist?
To this answer we can give a firm "maybe" or "not really." That Derrida's ideas lend themselves to various Marxisms is true, yet Derrida routinely distanced himself from Marxist excesses and in later interviews he realized that "capitalism" was more nuanced than many post-Marxists realized.
Conclusion
Smith helpfully contrasts Derrida with later interpreters of Derrida. I particularly found his exposition of Slavoj Zizek illuminating. He points out that Zizek rejects Derrida at the key point: Zizek champions a unity of sameness. That Zizek is a Hegelian Marxist should not surprise us.
Americans love to hate deconstructionism--and not simply Christians. Much of the Anglo-American philosophical academy hates Derrida. Smith, by contrast, neatly clears up misconceptions. Smith "demythologizes" deconstructionism for us:
It is not a method (9ff). Each deconstructive event remains singular. It is not something we do. It happens in the middle voice. Ca se deconstruit. It happens within texts because of the texts.
It is not merely negative (10). There is a “double movement of dismantling with a view to rebuilding.”
Deconstruction is not a master name (10). other possible synonyms are valid: ecriture, trace, differance, supplement, hymen, pharmakon, margin, etc.
Deconstruction is not a nihilism (11). “not an enclosure in nothingness, but an openness towards the other.” He is not a relativist. Relativism is referring to the absolute and denying it.
Alterity
Smith suggests “alterity” is the lens through which we interpret Derrida (13). Deconstructionism is a response to the “other.” Sees “reference” as language’s relation to the “other” of language (14). Derrida's metaphysical target is Platonism--and by that he means largely the Western philosophical tradition. "Greek" metaphysics--at least in its Platonic conclusion--sought sameness, reducing reality to the One. There was always the attempt to get to the "pure stream," or "pure thought." Voice was prized over writing, because voice suggested immediate "presence" (key word for Derrida). Writing, by contrast, was material and seemed a slave to embodiment.
Derrida's project shows that there is no pure stream. "Pure thought" has always been supplemented by arche-writing. This does not mean, as some of Derrida's critics think, that Derrida thinks writing came before language. Rather, thought and language are always "mediated" to us. All idealities are bound idealities. The contamination of writing goes all the way down (24). Language is the very condition (incarnation?) for philosophy to assert itself.
Per Levinas Western philosophy privileged “the Same,” the sphere of knowing where Subject assimilates all that is other (31). That which is absent is that which is other--it is that which cannot appear to the subject (and hence be assimilated).
Ethics and Politics
Here is where Derrida's project (and Smith's comments) are weakest. My main problem with Derrida is not "deconstruction," for we have already shown that deconstruction is really not that different. Consistent with his thesis, Smith shows that Derrida's concern for "the Other" must allow for the other to visit our countries; thus, immigration.
How do we respond to this? Smith takes a few potshots at conservatives but really doesn't get to the heart of the argument. I do not doubt that a biblical, much less philosophical case can be made for a sane immigration policy. My concern is that not every "immigrant" is a poverty-pressed refugee. A Frenchman like Derrida should know this. Muslims have routinely torched Paris and London (and in the latter are eating British officers' organs).
Ironically, and this is my critique, Derrida and Smith are privileging some concepts and texts while ignoring others. Is this not a similar reduction to sameness?
Was Derrida a Communist?
To this answer we can give a firm "maybe" or "not really." That Derrida's ideas lend themselves to various Marxisms is true, yet Derrida routinely distanced himself from Marxist excesses and in later interviews he realized that "capitalism" was more nuanced than many post-Marxists realized.
Conclusion
Smith helpfully contrasts Derrida with later interpreters of Derrida. I particularly found his exposition of Slavoj Zizek illuminating. He points out that Zizek rejects Derrida at the key point: Zizek champions a unity of sameness. That Zizek is a Hegelian Marxist should not surprise us.
March 30, 2014
Smith impresses me yet again with accessible philosophy that doesn't pull punches. He sets out to rescue Jacques Derrida from the mythologized "Derrida monster" perception of popular politics and the academy, revealing a much more humble and ethical philosopher behind the specter of deconstruction.
Smith certainly succeeds in making deconstruction accessible, relevant, and "live" in a world that defines it by its abstractions. However, Smith's less successful attempts at clarity demonstrate just how difficult Derrida's work really is, and how anyone indebted to him tends to inherit his opaque, self-aware prose.
Further, Smith's mediation reveals some of those places where Derrida's thought isn't as sophisticated, and is in serious need of critique. While Smith states at the beginning that he has undertaken such projects, and that this overview is not the place to get into them, it still left me wishing for counter-arguments to help me sort through those places that I questioned.
The copy I have now is a library loan; I look forward to giving this work a permanent place on my own shelves.
Smith certainly succeeds in making deconstruction accessible, relevant, and "live" in a world that defines it by its abstractions. However, Smith's less successful attempts at clarity demonstrate just how difficult Derrida's work really is, and how anyone indebted to him tends to inherit his opaque, self-aware prose.
Further, Smith's mediation reveals some of those places where Derrida's thought isn't as sophisticated, and is in serious need of critique. While Smith states at the beginning that he has undertaken such projects, and that this overview is not the place to get into them, it still left me wishing for counter-arguments to help me sort through those places that I questioned.
The copy I have now is a library loan; I look forward to giving this work a permanent place on my own shelves.
July 24, 2015
Pretty readable, but by no means a walk in the park. That's not a criticism. Will definitely be coming back to this one. Smith does a great job de-mythologizing Derrida and does a great job of resisting oversimplifications.
October 24, 2016
Really great intro to Derrida. Cleared up some confusion I had. Not an easy read though.
May 9, 2013
Still killed my brain, but a great introduction to Derrida's thought.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews