Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International

by Jacques Derrida

Book Overview

Prodigiously influential, Jacques Derrida gave rise to a comprehensive rethinking of the basic concepts and categories of Western philosophy in the latter part of the twentieth century, with writings central to our understanding of language, meaning, identity, ethics and values.

In 1993, a conference was organized around the question, 'Whither Marxism?', and Derrida was invited to open the proceedings. His plenary address, 'Specters of Marx',...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: B00APYHW2A
• ISBN13: 9780415389570
• Release Date: May 2006
• Publisher: Routledge
• Length: 288 Pages
• Weight: 0.75 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 5.0" x 7.8"

Customer Reviews

Addressing Some Basic Misconceptions About Derrida's Work

Reading this book will help dispel (or at least nuance) two criticisms that are often addressed to Jacques Derrida's work. The first is that the brand of philosophy that he promotes under the name of deconstruction is irretrievably obscure and that it constitutes a refutation of the notion of objective truth as well as an attack on the Western canon of literary works. The second is that Derrida cultivates a radical posture that is detached from the realities of the day and unashamedly leftist, as the reference to an outmoded Marx would suggest. Let us first address the accusation of obscurity. Nobody expects philosophy to be easy, and readers who have no experience of reading theoretical texts may have difficulties with this one. I must confess that there are times when I could not follow the author's line of reasoning, and I may have skipped a few paragraphs here and there, but on the whole I did not find this book unduly abstruse or recondite--and I consider myself an average reader, with only a distant background in modern philosophy. I will leave to the reader to judge for himself whether the puns and neologisms that are introduced in the book (hauntology, spectropolitics) or taken up from previous works (differance) are just pedantic wordplays or if on the contrary they do add value and enrich meaning. But at least one should give them a chance to speak for themselves, and place them in their own discursive context. People often identify deconstruction with an attack on past scholarly traditions or a dismantling of literary texts--in other words, a rejection of the works of "dead white males". This is certainly not the case with Jacques Derrida. He is a scholar moulded in the classical tradition and whose commerce with the canon of Western philosophy and classic literature is steeped with respect and familiarity. His reference to Shakespeare throughout this essay about Marx's legacy easily proves this point. Bringing together these two authors is not totally out of place: Marx evokes the Bard more than once in his work, in particular in The German Ideology. More to the point, the playwright and the revolutionary share a common interest for ghosts, allowing Derrida to explore this theme by finding echoes between Hamlet and the Communist Manifesto. In both cases everything begins with a ghost, from expecting an apparition. "A specter is haunting Europe: the specter of Communism": thus begins Marx's Manifesto. According to Derrida, this metaphor is not fortuitous: "Marx, writes Derrida, lived more than others in the frequentation of specters... He loved the figure of the ghost, he detested it, he called it to witness his contestation, he was haunted by it, harassed, besieged, obsessed by it." Shakespeare, for one, knew how to handle ghosts. He understood that it took a scholar to bring a spirit to the stage and to extract knowledge from a ghost. "Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio," admonishes Marcellus in the first scene of Shake

hidden in the depths of words, nothing comes

If you come to "Spectres" expecting find some new insight, some vision to see into Marx, and the canonical texts, as "The German Ideology",Derrida cannot help you or the cause of illumination.Your eyes have grown old and weary trying to find where this light may reside,the epistemic. In fact only history itself and the correlations of whatever exists are there waiting for that, to interpret,to re-absorb to find/locate a new context, a new air to breath, or do we need to purchase that as well, as we now do with water;or as in South America today the turn to the Left away from the hardened corruption hardened with the New York Banks. But now the time from the bottom upwards can see itslef, time again will give it content; and Derrida will not be there,he cannot be there for his help, his aid is filled with contengencies, and reservations in these regards you come away from this work wondering where and what does it strike?, what resonance does it proclaim?; for long ago he(Derrida) found activism to be an end to itself,for itself although Derrida's voice for the dispossessed has seldom lent itself to the cause of Palestine.Why erect barriers?He has forgotten the face of prejudice? Yes or No?He speaks about his childhood and the prejudice he suffered, but then extend this in time, to aid the living,or do we simply forget? where Derrida can you have done this? So conceptual borders and barriers and vocal mantras are erected all the same over time, over place he didn't have although we seldom see this time in concrete form. These were tail-end Lectures on the demise of an Ideology again the late Fifties also proclaimed an end to ideology,it is an uncomfortable word now with the demise and threat of Soviet Communism, Fukayama's neat little ode to ideology now forgotten itself. The purpose of Derrida is to create, to create concepts,fusions, fidelities, and areas where he can escape that is the line of productive value, and his language does have its illuminations and points of curiosity. It is not a place to build however,to foster ties with, it is a though secluded,yet not altogether hostile; nor does Derrida's work set a continuation that would let you see some other place certainly not within the dirty vagaries and betrayed ambience of politics.Although following ancient thought all is politics, wherever it may interface with the human spirit.We then see on this "Spectres" what is not here. We have known something is rotten in Denamrk to fill in this void with Hamlet, and what "spectre" still roams the earth is all bound to human hunger, human greed, to erecting Walls yet again, to predestine another series of hypocrisies, where again Derrida's voice fails to look. He may look but he keeps his words, his textures inside. Being outward has more definition and committment, and Derrida's work betrays him, for we only need to look at his words. In the end we are given structures, neatly persuasive, to avoid facing the lives of those dispossessed, thos

An Amazing Work

Derrida is definately "not a good Marxist." He is not trapped in the decaying dialectic model, but works his way around, examines the processes, and allows the readers to arrive at their own conclusions. This book is not about Marx, but rather about the specters, their attendant ideological implications, and historicity. If you are looking for a political Derrida, you will not find him here.