| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 99 === According to some scholars, since the 1980s Jacque Derrida made a deviation from his early-stage ‘free play’ discourses, and engaged in a series of issues such as nationalism, feminism, racism, death penalty, justice, European identity, forgiveness, apartheid in South Africa, hospitality, and refugee asylum. This explains the ‘ethico-political’ turn of ‘deconstruction.’
In fact, concerning the rhetoric of ethico-political ‘turn’, there are two important issues. The first is, what is the significance of the ‘ethico-political’, if deconstruction did made a ‘turn’ to it? And the second, on determining the starting point of the ‘ethico-political’ turn of deconstruction, the most disputed syntagm would be what Derrida had repeatedly emphasized in his later period: ‘democracy to come.’ Following this context, this thesis has two major tasks: to discuss the ‘ethico-political’ significance of deconstruction, and to elaborate ‘democracy to come’ as Derrida puts it. Throughout the process of exploring, this thesis comprehends the expressions of ‘differance’, ‘trace’, ‘aporias’, and ‘undecidable’, as precisely the quasi- transcendental schema in Derrida’s understanding of linguistic, cognitive, and institutive systems, and by that having their crucial connotations in explaining the ‘ethico-political’ significance of deconstruction and ‘democracy to come.’
Emphasizing “differance” as “quasi- transcendental schema”, Derrida displaces traditional understandings of “responsibility”, “decision”, “act”, “ethics”, “politics”, and “democracy”. On the other hand, by emphasizing the thoughts of “the other”, “trace”, “aporias”, “to come”, and “perhaps”, he transforms the dichotomy of “possibility / impossibility” in traditional thinking. For example, the impossibility of decision is precisely the condition of it being possible, since “decision” can never stand without the experience of “undecidable” or “aporias”. Along with the discussion of differance as “quasi- transcendental schema”, Derrida moves on to suggest the “singularity” of “the other”, and in a non-dialectical way reconciles the conflicts between universality and particularity in their traditional senses. Through this interpretation, this thesis argues that deconstruction is in itself “ethico-politically” significant.
On Derrida’s “democracy to come”, “differance” as “quasi-transcendental schema” and “singularity” of the other also play important parts. To begin with, “democracy” in traditional political theories and thoughts is pursued on a homogeneous-equality basis, while “democracy to come” alters this tradition and seeks for a heterogeneous-equality community, of which the priority goes to the singularity of the other as justice. Secondly, “democracy to come” attempts to suspend the tradition that regards democracy as a political system or value. Which is to say, to liberate “democracy” from traditional politics and political philosophy; to “de-politicize” it in order to “re-politicize” it. Lastly, “democracy to come” being the “quasi-transcendental schema” of “democracy”, is the condition of the impossibility and possibility of “democracy”. However, to understand this, it requires an experience or thought of “perhaps.”
|
|---|
