Vadios

by Jacques Derrida, Fernanda Bernardo (Translator), Hugo Amaral (Translator)

«Pronunciados com algumas semanas de intervalo, próximos pelos seus temas e pelos seus problemas, mas destinados a auditórios muitíssimo diferentes, estes discursos parecem invocar alguma razão por vir [raison à venir], enquanto democracia por vir [démocratie à venir] - na idade da dita «mundialização».
Os conceitos de «razão» (prática ou teórica, ética e jurídica, técnica também), os conceitos de «democracia», de «mundo» e sobretudo de «evento» [«événement»] (a chegada ou a vinda do «que vem» e de «quem vem») pertencem aqui a uma única meada problemática. Não se conseguiria desemaranhá-la sem um preâmbulo. Mas, sem formar um «sistema», um certo entrelaçamento, tal é a hipótese aqui a operar, permanece uma necessidade inflexível. E a sua análise uma tarefa. Para tal, um dos fios condutores mais visíveis seria a grande, urgente e tão difícil questão, o velho-novo enigma da soberania, nomeadamente da soberania estato-nacional - dita democrática ou não. […]»

J. Derrida,
do Preâmbulo

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, Writing, France, Essays

278 pages, Paperback

First published January 9, 2003

About the author

Jacques 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.

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unlike Specters of Marx and Politics of Friendship, I read Rogues closely . . . . The book contains two sections. The first, longer section, deals with democracy-to-come, moving through such quasi-concepts as sovereignty, rogue states, freedom, auto-immunity, and fraternity. The second begins with a discussion of Husserl's Crisis and ends with a, somewhat repetitive, analysis of sovereignty. In the second essay, Derrida makes a distinction between what is rational and what is reasonable. Whereas the former has to do with calculative justice, the latter has to do with the justice of calculative justice.

One question: why ought we do pursue democracy-to-come? throughout Rogues and other writings/interviews, Derrida insists that we are obligated to pursue justice and democracy. Though 'the pursuit of democracy' may be a quasi-ontological feature, this still puts no obligation on us. If we ought to pursue justice (quasi-ontically) because we are already pursuing justice (quasi-ontologically) we need to see why what is already the case (quasi-ontological) ought to be pursued (quasi-ontically). This, I believe, is a weakness in Derrida's thought, as well as in the thought of many other ethical thinkers.

The ontological makes no demands on what we do ontically . . . .

[Luke Echo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat easier to read than a lot of Derrida's work. I quite enjoyed this book and the theorisation of problem of the maintenance of social structures.

[bram ieven · Rating 4 out of 5]

This might well be one of the most important texts from Derrida’s later period. Like most of Derrida’s books Rogues lays out a complex and sometimes convoluted argument (especially the second part is a little tiring and even repetitive at times). Rogues also includes quite some of the linguistic puns that Derrida is known for. In this particular case, however, it proves highly rewarding. Even the linguistic puns (which in this book are mostly on the level of the sentence, Derrida keeps his use of neologisms to a minimum) are on point and functional. For the attentive reader this book offers highly relevant insights on the concept of political sovereignty, democracy, the problem of (political) violence and a deconstruction of the Western concept of reason. Written in the age of the War on Terror the book has lost none of its relevance.

[Jake G · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an infuriating, elightening, frustrating, and rewarding read. Jacques Derrida writes in a deliberately arduous way -- where he will discuss the meaning of a word for 20 pages, veer into seemingly irrelevant tangents, and intersperse all of this with French seemingly just to showcase the fact that he is bilingual. Except, all of this works together to create a reading experience that demands your attention and holds it. Those discussions of meaning and those tangents about the Greek gods actually layer together into a complex meditation on democracy and sovereignty. It's impossible to skim over his writing. You will need to read passages over and over again, but it's worth it to eventually have that fog lift. The first essay certainly hits harder than the second, but I enjoyed both. This is a book well worth suffering through.

[Ot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Prof said to read this so I did out of curiosity (pretty short compared to most Derridas). I’m not gonna pretend I understood anything Derrida talks about here, but I remain fascinated by his singular style, always circling around ideas, always challenging, always distinctly deconstructive and structuralist. I haven’t encountered anyone else like him (who in their right mind seeks out a philosopher like this?!). I wish he brought a more directly political approach to things in here more often as those were the parts I understood most.

[Mehraneh Ebrahimi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although it is hard for me to stand Derrida, but this book is among my favorites, especially that he deals with concepts of terror post 9/11.
I found the concept of autoimmunity fascinating, although I think it disturbing when it inflicts wiht a democratic election such as that of Algeria. In such cases, it becomes a murderous suicide and no longer democratic. Same in current situation: the country kills civic liberties to save democracy, but that is the end of democracy!

[katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think my fave Derrida so far.

[Connect-ion Found]

headbreaker

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

The usual display of Derrida's creative if empty wordplay upon ideas of sovereignty and state that may be philo-log-istic but irrelevant as the phlogiston.

[Matthew Ciaramella · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not particularly enjoyable or enlightening. Although, there are some useful ideas to work through as someone new to deconstruction.