Ruminations of Jacques Derrida on Europe: A Philosophical Study

Abstract The main purpose of this thesis is to evaluate Derrida‘s contribution towards metaphysical and political concep

386 48 5MB

English Pages [170] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Ruminations of Jacques Derrida on Europe: A Philosophical Study

Table of contents :
Certification .......................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ............................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 6
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 7
Abstract .............................................................................................................. 12
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 14
1. The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Derrida’s Cachet ............................................................ 20
1.1. From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century.......................................................................... 24
1.2. Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century ................................................................. 32
1.3. Early Twentieth Century Onwards .................................................................................. 36
1.4. Jacques Derrida .................................................................................................. 40
2. The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Idea of Europe .............................................................. 45
2.1. From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century.......................................................................... 46
2.2. Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century ................................................................. 52
2.3. Twentieth Century Onwards ........................................................................................ 57
3. Idea of Europe in Derrida’s Metaphysics ............................................................................ 60
3.1. Decentering: Rupture at the heart of Europe....................................................................... 62
3.2. Decision: The Activating of Responsibility ....................................................................... 66
3.3. Democracy to Come ................................................................................................ 71
3.4. Hauntology: Deconstructing Ontology .............................................................................. 78
3.5. The Other: Difference of Europe .................................................................................. 84
3.6. Phallogocentrism: An Attitude .................................................................................... 87
4. Political Ramifications of Derrida’s Philosophy .................................................................... 91
4.1. Derrida as a political philosopher ............................................................................... 92
4.2. Decentered Europe: Muslims in Europe ............................................................................. 96
4.3. Europe‘s Political Identity and Muslim Other..................................................................... 103
4.4. Democracy and Islam.............................................................................................. 110
4.5. The Gendered Relations of Europe ................................................................................ 117
4.5.1. Europe‘s relation with the Orient.............................................................................. 118
4.5.2. Europe‘s relation with US ..................................................................................... 120
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 128
Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 133

Citation preview

Ruminations of Jacques Derrida on Europe A Philosophical Study Amna Raza Abbasi

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Ruminations of Jacques Derrida on Europe: A Philosophical Study

Amna Raza Abbasi Area Study Centre for Europe University of Karachi 2018


Certification This is to certify that this thesis titled ―Ruminations of Jacques Derrida on Europe: A Philosophical Study‖ is written by Amna Raza Abbasi for partial fulfilment of MPhil degree from University of Karachi. This research work is carried out under my supervision and I approve it for the submission to BASR, University of Karachi.

Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Assistant Professor Department of Philosophy University of Karachi-75270 Tel: 9221-99261300-7 Fulbright Scholar 2013-14 University of Virginia Charlottesville, USA.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬


Dedicated to present day political thinkers and decision makers that they get benefit from Derrida‘s work that has a universal approach in resolving political problems the world is faced with.


Contents Certification ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Dedication .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Abstract...................................................................................................................................................... 12 ‫خالصہ‬............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 14 1.



The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Derrida’s Cachet ....................................................... 20 1.1.

From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century.................................................................................. 24


Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century ..................................................................... 32


Early Twentieth Century Onwards ............................................................................................. 36


Jacques Derrida ........................................................................................................................... 40

The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Idea of Europe ........................................................... 45 2.1.

From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century.................................................................................. 46


Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century ..................................................................... 52


Twentieth Century Onwards ....................................................................................................... 57

Idea of Europe in Derrida’s Metaphysics ....................................................................................... 60 3.1.

Decentering: Rupture at the heart of Europe............................................................................... 62


Decision: The Activating of Responsibility ................................................................................ 66

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬




Democracy to Come ................................................................................................................... 71


Hauntology: Deconstructing Ontology ....................................................................................... 78


The Other: Difference of Europe ................................................................................................ 84


Phallogocentrism: An Attitude.................................................................................................... 87

Political Ramifications of Derrida’s Philosophy ............................................................................ 91 4.1.

Derrida as a political philosopher ............................................................................................... 92


Decentered Europe: Muslims in Europe ..................................................................................... 96


Europe‘s Political Identity and Muslim Other .......................................................................... 103


Democracy and Islam................................................................................................................ 110


The Gendered Relations of Europe ........................................................................................... 117


Europe‘s relation with the Orient ...................................................................................... 118


Europe‘s relation with US ................................................................................................. 120

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 128

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 133


Acknowledgements I am thankful to Dr. Zulfiqar Ali who has helped me grow more throughout the years I have been working under him. His philosophical inquisitions and eye to detail will be sole responsible to any merit this thesis has. Secondly the recommendations on my final draft by Ms. Mahwish Ehtesham, Mr. Muhammad Shibli Raza have helped me better the thesis more profoundly. Also the constant help form Mr. Rizwanur Rehman and Ms. Madiha Maryam Abbasi on the matters taking this thesis to the final form need to be acknowledged duly. I am indebted to Ami and Abu and my brothers and sisters for who I am and also because they have tolerated my love for words and Derrida, throughout this time on family gatherings and dinner time. They have continually supported me and their love is the real fuel behind my work. Lastly but importantly I would like to show my gratitude to my husband, Muhammad Tauqeer Jamal, whose constant persuasions with deadly timelines, occasional doubts and persistent help have enabled me to actually get this thesis completed.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Abbreviations The following works of Jacques Derrida are cited in the thesis with their abbreviations listed below: A: Aporias. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993. AEL: Addieu to Emmanuel Levinas. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. AF: Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression,. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995. AI: "Autoimmunity: Real or Symbolic Suicides -a Conversation with Jacques Derrida." Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Micheal Naas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. 85-136. BL: "Before the Law." Acts of Literature. Ed. D. Attridge. London: Routledge, 1992. 181-220. CR: "Critical Response." Critical Inquiry 13 (1986): 155-170. D: Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson. London: The Athlone Press Ltd, 1981. DA: "The Deconstruction of Actuality." Negotiations. Ed. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: University of Stanford Press, 2002. 85-166. DT: "Deconstructing Terrorism." Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. 137-172. EH: "A Europe of Hope." Epoché 10.2 (2006): 407-412.


EIRP: Ethics, Institutions and the Right to Philosophy. Trans. Peter Pericles Trifonas. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. EM: “The Ends of Man." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 9.1 (1969): 31-57. EPC:

"Enlightenment Past and to Come." Le Monde Diplomatique 06 November 2004. .

ET: Echographies of Television: Filmed Interviews Bernard Stiegler. Trans. Jennifer Bajorek. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2002. EX: "Excuse me but I never said exactly so: Yet another Derridean interview." On the Beach (1983): 42-3. . F: "February 15, or What Binds European Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Core of Europe." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 31 May 2003 (coauthor Jurgen Habermas). FK: "Faith and Knowledge: the Two Sources of 'Religion' at the limits of Reason Alone." Religion. Ed. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo. Polity Press, 1998. 1-78. FL: "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority'." Derrida, Jacques. Acts of Religion. Ed. Gil Anidjar. Trans. Mary Quaintance. New York: Routledge, 2002. 228-298. GD: The Gift of Death. Trans. David Wills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995. H: Of Hospitality. Trans. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. IC: Intellectual Courage: An Interview by Thomas Assheuer. 11 March 1998. 29 October 2015. .

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

L: Learning to Live Finally: The Last Interview Jean Birnbaum. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Hoboken, New Jersey: Melvillehouse Publishing, 2007. M: Mochlos, or the conflict of the faculties." Logomachia: The Conflict of the Faculties. Ed. Richard Rand. Trans. Richard Rand and Amy Wigant. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press,, 1992. 1-34. MO: Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin. Trans. Patrick Mensah. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. MP: Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: The Harvester Press, 1982. MS: "Marx & Sons." Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx. Ed. Micheal Sprinker. London: Verso, 1999. 213-269. NA: "No Apocalypse, not now (full speed ahead, seven missiles, seven missives)." Diacritics (1984): 20-31. ON: On the Name. Ed. Thomas Dutoit. Trans. David Wood, Jr., John P. Leavey and Ian McLeod. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. OS: Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. Trans. Geoffery Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. P: Points ... Interviews, 1974-1994. Trans. E. Weber. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995. PC: The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.


PdMW: "Like the Sound of the Sea deep within a Shell: Paul de Man's War." Critical Inquiry 14 (Spring 1988): 590-652. PF 1: "Poitics of Friendship." Journal of Philosophy (1988): 632-645. PF 2: "Politics of Friendship." American Imago 50.3 (1993): 353-391. PF 3: Politics of Friendship. Trans. George Collins. London: Verso, 1997. PGHP: The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy. Trans. Marian Hobson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. P&F: "Politics and Friendship: An Interview with Jacques Derrida." The Althusserian Legacy. Ed. E. Ann Kaplan and Michael Sprinker. Trans. Robert Harvey. London and New York: Verso, 1993. 183-232. R: Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Micheal Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. RLW: "Racism's Last Word." Critical Inquiry (1985): 290-299. SM: Specters of Marx. Tran. Peggy Kamuf. New York: Routledge, 1994. TOH: The Other Heading: Reflections on Today’s Europe. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Micheal B. Naas. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992. TSA: "Taking Sides for Algeria." Negotiations. Ed. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. 117-124.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

WAP: Who's Afraid of Philosophy? Right to Philosophy. Ed. Werner Hamacher and David E. Wellbery. Trans. Jan Plug. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. WD: Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. London: Routledge, 1978. WEC: "The "World" of the Enlightenment to Come (Exception, Calculation, Sovereignty)." Research in Phenomenology (2003): 9-52.


Abstract The main purpose of this thesis is to evaluate Derrida‘s contribution towards metaphysical and political concept of Europe. For this purpose, the general gist of Western Metaphysics from Plato to Derrida was summarized. And secondly those scholars‘ works on idea of Europe were evaluated. Our findings revealed that unlike we have always thought the Greeks never associated themselves as Europeans. And Europe only became a collective subject of concern of European scholars after sixteenth century. Jacques Derrida has also declared that Europe is decentered which is not only European but also influenced by non-Europeans passing through it. On the notion of growing number of Muslims in Europe and tensions rising between Europeans and Muslim immigrants, Derrida has given policies to accommodate them. Derrida wanted to bring in every concept while discussing Europe, even the past people who have been wronged by Europe or the future Europeans. Derrida also believed that these Muslims may be able to provide Europe with a solution for the political project of democracy. He believed democracy to better itself should get help from any corner it can get from be it Marxism or Islam. Derrida mentioned that Europe‘s relation with US has been of a subordinate and he demanded Europe to man up itself; while Europe has always been like a guardian figure towards the Orient. Derrida himself coined the term phallogocentrism denoting western metaphysics tendency of giving ascendency to male figure and logos. Although Derrida is critical of such an attitude he himself is guilty of seeing Europe as a responsible authority over East and demanding Europe to become one against US.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

‫خالصہ‬ ‫اساقمےلاکالصدصقمرفایسیسنیفسلفایکڈریڈیایکویرپےکابرےںیمایفسلفہناورایسیسآراءہپزجتاییتاگنہڈاانلےہ۔اسہجیتنہپےنچنہپےئلیکبس‬ ‫ےسےلہپرغمیبایفسلفہنوسچاکاطزئاہناجِزئہایلایگاالفوطنےکایخالتےسرکیلڈریڈیاکت۔رھپانویفسلفںیکویرپےکابرےںیمآراءاکزجت ہای‬ ‫ایگ۔اسقیقحتےسولعمموہاےہہکاسیجہکمہوسےتچےھتہکویانینآجےکویرپےکابینںیہاسےکربالخفویانیناےنپآپوکویرویپںےساگل‬ ‫وصتررکےتےھت۔ہکبجرشوعےسیہویریپاممکلےٹبرےہںیہاوررصفوسوہلںیدصیےکدعبیہاکیاامتجیعویرنیپوسچرظنآیئےہ۔‬ ‫ڈریڈیااتہکےہہکویرپاکیریغرمزکی(‪)reteeced‬یتسہےہسجیکریمعتںیمانتجویریپارثوروسخاکاہھتےہاانتیہریغویریپارثاتاک۔ایس‬ ‫رطحویرپںیمڑبےتھوہِےئاملسمناترکونطاورایلصالسنلویرویپںےکدرایمنڑبیتھوہیئدیشکیگےکلحےکےئلڈریڈیایک ہراےئےہہک‬ ‫ویرپوکاکی‪reteecedereeecccd‬ےکوطرہپداھکیاجےئ۔ارگرہاسےئشوکوجہکریغویریپالہکےکرظنادنازرکدییئگےہاوروہولگنجےس‬ ‫ویرپےنزایدایتںیکںیہویرپیکاپیسیلانبےتوہےئدمرظنریھکاجںیئوتاسرطحےساپیسیلانبانویرپےکےئلوسددنماثتبوہاگ۔‬ ‫ڈریڈیاوکنیقیاھتہکاملسمنہنرصفویرپہکلبوہمجرتیےسیجایسیساظنمےکےئلیھبافدئہدنمںیہ۔اساکایخلاھتہکوہمجرتییکاقبءایسںیمےہ‬ ‫ہکوہاےنپآپوکرتہبرکےدورسےایسیساظنومںیکدمدرکیلےلھبوہاالسموہایامرزسکم۔‬ ‫اسےکالعوہڈریڈیااکانہکاھتہکویرپےکاقلعتتارمہکیےساکیامتحتےسیجرےہںیہاوروہاچاتہاھتہکویرپارمیکیطلستےسابرہےلکنہکبجایکس‬ ‫راےئےہہکویرپاکاورٹنیےسقلعتاکیرسرباہاسیجراہےہ۔ڈریدیاےنوخداکیاالطصحااجیدیکیھت‪emsittcecteecdchpe‬وجہکرمدایگن‬ ‫اور‪tcech‬یکربرتییکرطفااشرہرکیتےہ۔احالہکنڈریڈیاوخداعمرشےںیمرمدوںیکربرتیوکاکیطلغرواتیاتھجمساھترگمویرپاکذرکرکےت‬ ‫وتقوہاورٹنیےکانترظںیمویرپوکاکیرمدےکروپںیمداتھکیےہاوراچاتہےہہکویرپارمہکیےکآےگاکیرمدیکرطحڑھکاوہ۔‬


Introduction On November 13, 2015, France faced greatest tragedy after World War II. Almost hundred and thirty lives were taken away and scores of people were wounded by orchestrated attacks on several places like a concert hall, a café, a bar and outside a football stadium (only because the attackers were stopped from entering into the stadium). The attacks were later claimed by Muslim terrorist groups and some survivors mentioned that the shooters blamed France for her involvement in Syria and that became the reason of this horrendous act (BBC News Paris Attacks). Protests against Muslims started out. The already present mistrust for immigrants in Europe also heightened, more so, because the attackers were settlers from Muslim neighboring countries. Also the question of immigrants became a burning issue as the Syrian refugees were fleeing the war torn Syria and taking asylum in various countries of Europe. These refugees have been considered a threat to the solidarity of Europe, by the inhabitants of Europe. There are evidences that terrorists of November massacre fled Syria taking refuge in Europe along with other Syrian refugees. It is noteworthy to mention that today Europe is a home to millions of Muslim refugees that has been fleeing from surrounding countries like Syria to be away from war or Algeria for economic purposes in the past several decades (RT). Commenting on the attacks, the French ambassador to UK said on BBC that countries like France face the most brunt in war on terror because they are nearer to the battleground then United States of America. Sylvie Bermann the French Ambassador added that the terrorists know that US is also involved in fighting with Iraq and Syria alongside European countries like France but











This is also what the leading philosophers of Europe like Jacques Derrida were saying more than

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

a decade ago when Europe was thinking to support US led war on terror. Derrida asserted that Europe should not get overrun by US’ unilateral acts and take its position in account. There were also public demonstrations and public letters published that Europe should not go into war and should not succumb to hegemonic US’ pressure (F 293). Soon after the bout on world trade centers in New York, George Bush the president of United States took its troops in Afghanistan to cleanse it of terrorist networks that he claimed were harming the world. Later in 2003, Bush in his address declared that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and a war against Saddam Hussein’s regime is the only answer. He also demanded all the European countries to help US (The Oval Office). Consequently, the world witnessed the biggest ever protest around the globe. And especially in major capitals of Europe, as on February 15, 2003; millions turned out against the expected US offensive against Iraq a month later. The protestors demanded that Europe should not go to war in the neighbor (Chang and Benjamin 140). Jacques Derrida leading French philosopher of that time demanded that Europe should reevaluate its own stature. He co-signed a plea for Europe drafted by Jürgen Habermas German philosopher and political thinker. This plea demanded the ‘avant-gardist core’ of Europe to become a “locomotive” against unilateral hegemonic acts of United States (F 292-3). On the same day, on Habermas’ initiative editorials were published in European Newspapers by major European literary and political figures like Umberto Eco, Gianni Vattimo and Fernando Savater. These Editorials can be considered the activation of discourse on the identity and role of Europe in today’s world, and how Iraq war made this question a pertinent one (Minca and Bialasiewicz 368). 15

Jacques Derrida becomes an important figure in the context of the incidents mentioned in the beginning of the introduction; mainly he was an Algerian by birth. And later went to France to become one of the finest philosophers of France. He immigrated to France in 1960’s at that same time hundreds of Muslim Algerians were also immigrating to France in search of jobs and better future. Although Derrida was different as he was a Sephardic Jew of Algeria the others were Muslims. And today France is populated with theses Muslims’ second and third generations. Those same immigrants now bring a sense of difference to France and the locals feel threatened by their presence. Derrida considered himself at margins because he was subjected to hostile situations as being a Jew in Algeria and as an Algerian in post-colonial France (Marrouchi 476). He also considered himself an ‘over-colonized European hybrid (OH 7)’. Derrida was a Sephardic Jew born in Algeria; his moving to France made him a ‘post-colonial cultural amphibian (Marrouchi 474)’; that gives him a distinct position to put light on European identity. Derrida on that account has written about the situation of these immigrants, the policies of European countries against them and possible ways to make Europe a harmonious place for everyone who live there. Derrida sincerely wanted to see Europe in its full potential, a Europe that would not be dictated by the bully United States. After his death in 2004, French President Jacques Chirac gave Derrida national tribute recognizing his long-standing works for France and Europe as a whole. He was also dubbed as the “last European” who through his self and texts showed the possibilities of benefits Europe could incur to whole humanity (Chang and Benjamin 142). This thesis is an attempt to encapsulate Derrida’s works on idea of Europe with regards to the great western metaphysical epoch and also its political ramifications for today’s Europe. These

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

will not only include a philosophical debate on Europe coming out of Greeks but also what Derrida had to say about the pressing issues of his time like war on terror, American supremacy, the Muslim influx in Europe, political future of Democracy etc. The name of Jacques Derrida is synonymous with Deconstruction. His philosophy that emphasize on internal mechanism of language and association of meanings with words has influenced various disciplines and initiated a new way of thinking. The debate on Europe is not something very new for Derrida this has been a forte for philosophers since Plato. So, Chapter 1 will delve into major philosophy of three periods of western metaphysics that is from antiquity to late sixteenth century, seventeenth century till late nineteenth century and twentieth century onwards. After that there will be an evaluation of Derrida’s philosophy in relation to epochs discussed above. Firstly, it will be done by looking deeply on the changing philosophy on status of ‘man’ in the three epochs and Derrida’s oeuvre. Secondly, these different sections of the chapter will also state upon western metaphysics’ take on concept of Speech and Writing. These two threads of “status of man” and “concept of speech and writing” will provide us with a little purview of the vast philosophical oeuvre from beginning to Derrida’s times. Chapter 2 will then try to establish what the idea of Europe was in ancient Greeks metaphysics till late sixteenth century and what ‘Europe’ meant to philosophers of seventeenth century till late nineteenth century and twentieth century onwards. It has been considered that Europe finds its basis in the ancient Greeks, this chapter will try to evaluate whether Europe has its sources in the old times or not. This chapter will focus on the philosophers except Derrida, who wrote something on the idea of Europe. It will also try to see if combined Europe is a geographical


entity or if ‘Europe’ is simply just an idea. It will try to evaluate whether there has been a collective European stance by the European philosophers. Chapter 3 will take the discussion further by emphasizing on Derrida’s metaphysical ramblings on idea of Europe. Significant part of Derrida’s oeuvre is filled with his arguments and philosophical ramblings on Europe. It will try to evaluate few of those philosophical ones to create a picture of what Europe is in Derrida’s eyes. Derrida proffered a subtle decentering for Europe that will be suitable in present times. He also wanted to see Europe as a decision making entity around the world. Additionally, he outlined his views on democracy, as he believed is in a state of to-come. Derrida wanted ontology to be friendly with a concept of ghost, creating a discourse on hauntology. These concepts of decentering, decision, democracy and hauntology, will be detailed along with Derrida’s dictum that ‘every other is every other,’ in lieu with Europe’s relation with other parts of world like orient and US. Also, Phallogocentrism, Derrida’ neologism discussing western metaphysics emphasis on phallus and logos will be also be conferred upon. Chapter 4 will be a consequent research on political dimension of Derrida’s works. The concept of decentering will be seen with view of presence of millions of Muslims in today’s Europe which was otherwise considered a bastion of Christianity. Similarly taking these Muslims as Others in Europe the political complexity of considering an entity living inside Europe will be discussed. Derrida not only considered Muslims as others and talked about their assimilation in Europe but also took political Islam as other of Democracy. Islam and democracy are otherwise considered opposites, Derrida talked about integrating these two. Moreover, the political others

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

of Europe like United States and the East specifically Europe’s former colonies will also be deliberated upon with a gendered rhetoric, on the basis of phallogocentrism. The conclusion will pinpoint the results drawn out by above discussions and conclude on the following lines: 

Does the European identity have one basis that is in their Greek philosophy or race?

What constitute Idea of Europe in western metaphysics and Derrida‘s philosophy?

Is deconstruction or Derrida‘s ramblings political enough for any possible policy making?

How the acceptance of decentered notion of Europe can benefit today‘s Europe that is facing the largest Muslim population residing in itself which is culturally, socially and politically different from main European population?

Why the Muslims present in Europe are nevertheless seen as the others of Europe? And how their assimilation on Derrida‘s demands can lead to better Europe?

What Derrida thinks democracy is, what are any dangers it faces and how important is the idea of democracy to come? How the political project of Islam is relevant for future of democracy in Derrida‘s eye?

What Derrida constitute of others of Europe like US and orient? How Europe depends upon US and NATO for any greater adventure around the world like for war on terror? And how Derrida and Europe sees orient dependent on them.


1. The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Derrida’s Cachet Our work starts with the age old questions; human kind has always asked. Who am I? Where am I? What is the purpose of man etc.? All these questions form the basis of Metaphysics. And the need to continue the discourse on metaphysics along with its historical alignments in Hegel‘s words would simply mean carefully examining the history on its own. (Hegel).The metaphysics we are dealing with here are very distinct inquisitions of philosophy fueled with our mind‘s capability to attain knowledge and experience generally. These inquisitions cover every aspect of human life (Norris, ―Metaphysics‖ 14). Such inquisitive processes have always been there in human history; thinking about self‘s own fate and searching the purpose and stature of one‘s presence has always been man‘s way from the beginning. To divulge upon such metaphysical inquisitions, the lengthy metaphysical history is divided it into three epochs: 

From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century

Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century

Early Twentieth Century onwards

The above division is done in considering ‗man‘s‘ status in the western metaphysics. Secondly these categorizations are created with help from Richard Kearney‘s work The Wake of Imagination. The first era is from antiquity to fifteenth century; our knowledge of its initial times comes from the Hebraic tradition, of Talmud and Torah in which it was believed that man was banished from heavens to the earth as a punishment for eating the forbidden fruit, but when on earth it became man‘s duty to use his faculties to reconcile to God (50). Man was bound by ethics to attend to God but later on with the advent of Greeks this became an epistemological quest (80). In the

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Hebraic times and later in times of Greeks, man and his faculties were always taken stock of in correlation and subordinate to God (83). From fifth century to fifteenth century there was a rise of Christianity in Europe and the earlier ideas started to take a Christian synthesis (114). A consensus between Christianity and Greek philosophy was brought up adding faith as the key requirement of man to try to reach to God (115). Already started in the fifteenth century; humanism was taking roots in the general mindset of people, the common language of Europeans was more frequently used then the earlier use of Latin (the language of Holy Scriptures), the sacred vision was replaced by secularist thinking, and science dominated theology (137). By the advent of seventeenth century things actually completely shifted and this will be taken as the beginning of our second epoch that is from seventeenth century to late nineteenth century. The gradual changes humanism was bringing took its definite form after Descartes‘ declaration that ―I think therefore I am‖ in seventeenth century. Man started to be hailed as an autonomous acting agency whose mind has no limits and man was his own master (161). Immanuel Kant, the eighteenth century philosopher gave a new definition of human knowledge and insisted that thoughts were not a result of some divine inscription but man‘s own sensory abilities (169). In late eighteenth and nineteenth century; humans were considered a free agency able to think and imagine and act on its own (156). From mid nineteenth century to mid twentieth century there were works and scholars now not that much optimistic about the possibilities of human mind (197). Late nineteenth century scholar Nietzsche told us that man‘s capabilities of intellect are at the same moment at risk with the absurdity of his own existence (211).


Gradual changes to the earlier conceptions of man‘s authority were taking place in this time. But the overall change in this perspective only came when the twentieth century began and this will be the last epoch in the discussion of this chapter that is from twentieth century onwards. By the advent of twentieth century any last hope to cling back to the ideal of man‘s greatness severed a complete blow when the world engulfed in WW I and only a few years later in WW II; whereas, Europe was the sole battlefield (218). The latter works from twentieth century onwards saw a degeneration of every concept including man being reduced to a simple play of language (251). The following chapter will use the above three categorizations. But these are not simple and clear as stated. Bruno Latour in his work We Have Never Been Modern stated how troublesome the categorizations are. As simple as something as headings in a newspaper cannot isolate the news to one sub heading; for example discovery of medicine for AIDS virus would come under the section of Science. But this simple issue travels through the continent of Africa to San Francisco, is dealt in human intimacy and research on DNA, in the theories of unconscious and tissue cultures etc. (2). Although I have classified the second era as an era that was away from God and was secular, but Latour mentions Weber stating that the philosophers of this era could ―be both secular and pious at the same time (33).‖ Secondly in the classification mentioned above Jurgen Habermas would lie into our third epoch chronologically but his views are more correlated with the second epoch which believes in human autonomy. From twentieth century onwards, I have mentioned that philosopher no longer believed that human is a self-controlling agency and human mind might lead man to disaster. But

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Habermas like Kant believed in ―systematic union of different rational beings (Bohman and Rehg).‖ Thus considering man a rational being. Conscious of the contingencies present in the above classification, these classifications are nevertheless used for lucidity and clear structure of this thesis. Moreover, in the paragraphs to follow a refrain can be found on writing/speech and play of language. In twentieth century philosophy seemed to be taking a linguistic turn, it had a certain fixation on the role of language, The English speaking world, influenced by German Philosopher Gottlob Frege‘s writing was emphasizing on a theoretical analysis of everyday language. Frege was a critic present in Husserl‗s time and he later had influence on Ludwig Wittgenstein and J. L. Austin. In Germany, Hans-Georg Gadamer played a huge role in the focus on hermeneutics. Gadamer was a student of Heidegger –who had his own share in philosophizing about the importance of language. The main inspiration Heidegger got was from Wilhelm Dilthey a contemporary of Frege. The focus on language in French philosophy can be seen in works of Saussure who was present at the time of Frege and Dilthey (Hutchinson 349). The philosophy on language has been developed since and real influence was structural linguist Saussure who inspired Levi-Strauss‘ works on anthropology, Foucault‘s earlier conception of ‗history of systems of thought,‘ Althusser‘s political philosophy and the works of psychoanalyst Lacan (350). Today linguistic philosophy has become famous because of the emphasis it had in the hands of poststructuralists. Foucault in his later works gave importance to linguistic phenomenon. Also, Deleuze, Kristeva, Irigaray and Derrida added their own critiques (350). As Derrida is the nuclei of our work the theme of writing/speech, play of language etc. will be reiterated in this chapter. 23

Phil Hutchison wrote that it is unavoidable to deny the virtuosity by which Derrida deconstructed Husserl‘s concepts of ‗signs‘ in his work Speech and Phenomena. In Limited Inc. Derrida elaborated in detail the speech act theory of Austin. Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter, 1989 showed the relation between hermeneutics emphasis on conversation and poststructuralist Derrida‘s emphasis on text. When Derrida deconstructed the ‗philosophy of presence;‘ he tried to engage all the implications of linguistic interpretation into it like taking in consideration the real objective of the author, the readers response, the background of the text and its author, or a simple formalist reading of the text. Derrida ensured that there is no reductionist theorization by keeping openness to interpretation through yet unknown contexts and future. Derrida is the poststructuralist in the sense that he strategically refused to substitute ‗presence‘ with ‗structure‘ and wanted all modes of interpretation to be open (350-351). The quest for man‘s very first metaphysical inquisition or in simple words the use of reason by him takes us to the very first humans themselves, Adam and Eve.

1.1. From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century The story of Adam and Eve depends heavily upon the Hebraic tradition which all Muslims, Jews and Christians approve with little variations. The story tells us that our forefather Adam ate a fruit from tree which was forbidden by God even to touch. It all happened because a serpent lured Adam that if he will eat from that tree he will become like God and know about everything (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 39). Kearney saw this act of falsely believing in attaining knowledge as becoming first act of human transgression of divine. As a punishment of disobeying God‘s command Adam and Eve were sent down to earth. Adam in the process of naively thinking that he will know everything by eating that fruit gets to know his own consciousness, which he has to use on earth to choose

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

between good and bad. Adam realized his fault and repents which is a beginning of human consciousness (39, 53). The story also underlines the fact that in the Hebraic tradition man will willfully use reason to turn towards God. This also embarks us on our journey for understanding human reason, man‘s ability to draw conclusion by general knowledge and experience and its gradual development. The imagination and consciousness that man now has should be used for repentance and a way to reconcile with God (50). As the word has it, the real foundations of metaphysics lies in Hellenic tradition of Greeks some three thousand years ago. The major formative concepts of western metaphysics were formed in this very tradition. The Greeks were vehemently involved in search for the meanings of realities of the world around them. Similarly, taking heed from the Hebraic tradition we can find the nearest equivalent to the story of Adam in the Prometheus myth. Prometheus stole fire from gods and bestowed them upon men so that they could foresee their future (79). This attitude of leaning towards the God–which was the approach of Hebraic tradition –started shifting to the away from gods approach of Hellenic tradition. This theme is the crux of western metaphysics. Prometheus surreptitiously obtained the fire from Gods and distributed it into the humans. This would help them to envisage and improve their future. From Hebraic to Hellenic, the shift was evident; Hebraic tradition asserted God‘s supremacy and man had no way but to follow and act like God. But the Hellenic tradition brings the rein of man‘s fate in his own hand. This tradition tried to envisage that man can have authority over his own existence and future (79-80). Later on, Greeks started to completely pull away from mythology which was in some way taken from Hebraic tradition. This complete transition is evident in Greek thinkers like Democritus, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Anaxagoras but it was until Plato that the true character of Hellenic philosophy emerged (87). Platonic philosophy encompassed issues relating the true 25

correspondence between matter and spirit, the communication of outside world and man‘s soul which were important for man‘s capability of extravagant imagination. Plato theoretically developed these notions for the first time in his works (Bundy 18). But still Plato differentiated in faculty of reason and imagination, for he propounded that only reason is the receptor of divine while imagination leads man into the domain of fakeness and imitation. Reason brings sanity to man, imagination and passion leaves him awry (Plato, Timaeus). Kearney highlighted that Plato emphasized reason while ditching mythology and gave a negative assessment of the faculty of imagination (Wake of Imagination 87). Similar to imagination he took a sharp edge on writing too. In a dialogue of his tutor Socrates with Phaedrus, Socrates tells Phaedrus that there is a painting. He added that we see that painting as living specie, but if we start inquiring them they stand in front of us in utter silence. Likewise, it is the case with writing too; although, we think that they are giving answers to our queries, in reality they are repeatedly narrating a same story. Plato‘s main idea about writing –which was discussed at length in the long western metaphysical epoch –is that writing is the bastard son of logos and speech is the legitimate son of logos. After something is written, the written word cannot decide its fate, it can get into hands of those who understand it as well as those who care nothing about it. The writing cannot decide whom it should be written to or who should read it. Ultimately it is maltreated or misused and needs its father logos to protect it as it is unable to do so itself (Plato, Phaedrus). Socrates as we know him came down to us through writings of Plato. He inquired Glaucon about any pre-epicurean poet he knew of having faithful disciples or the mention of any poet committing to public services. Already knowing that Glaucon‘s answer would be in negative, Socrates concluded poets as worthless beings. Equivalently in The Republic of Plato (2009)

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

when he imagined his Utopian republic, he apathetically dismissed presence of any poets there. Poetry has a capability of inciting such passion that might corrupt every kind of man except few. These emotions make a man weak, so Plato disbanded poetry in his city, to stop rule of pleasure on man (413). Plato saw poet as an imitator who takes up an imitation of a character and nobody can buy his words other than a fool (393). Plato‘s dislike for poetry is due to poetry‘s characteristic property of exciting emotions which hamper man‘s sanity. Plato added that poet enact great speeches, but if they are questioned about their poetry; then there answers are juvenile and childlike and they seem not to comprehend what they are talking about (Edmundson 4). Poetry according to Plato is a product of a poet when he is out of his mind; it is an antithesis of reason (Ion 14). Speech for Plato gets a priority over writing because writing can be misinterpreted by its readers. Moreover, Plato allocated only one role for imagination that is the act of receiving divine (Plato, Timaeus). Plato leaves a huge impact on western metaphysical epoch. It can be rightly said that what Talmud is to Torah in Hebrew tradition, Plato is to the Hellenism in Western metaphysics (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 87). Despite Plato‘s supremacy, Greek metaphysical tradition would not be sufficed with Plato‘s mention only. Plato‘s student Aristotle also made a huge impact he is accredited for revising his master‘s work. Plato dealt in his philosophy on a metaphysical plane. Aristotle enunciated his philosophy on more psychological and tangible nodes. Aristotle invalidated Platonic notion that human thoughts are by default engraved in mind by God, and added that the thought of human minds are a result of man‘s sensible experience (106-107).


Aristotle was also more interested in explanations; he based his philosophical logic on deduction for which he devised a system of syllogisms. Perfect syllogisms share a certain form involving three terms: two premises –a major premise and a minor premise –and a conclusion. Conjectures like All men are mortal; all Greeks are men; all Athenians are Greeks; therefore all Athenians are mortal‘ are one form of syllogisms (Honderich 905). Another example of syllogism would be that: All mammals are warm blooded animals; no lizards are warm blooded animals; therefore, no lizards are mammals. Immanuel Kant asserts that if syllogisms are phrased in an appropriate manner, any false argument would easily be recognized (Copi, Cohen and Jetli 153,151). Finally, Aristotle proposed that any deductively valid argument can be expressed in one of the four obvious perfect syllogisms (Honderich 53-54). i)

All as are b, all bs are c, then all as are c,


All as are b and no bs are c then no bs are c


If some as are b and all bs are c then some as are c


Some as are b and no bs are c then not all as are c

It is worth nothing that Aristotle‘s metaphysical goals were connected to his logical project. And for this reason conclusions for particular instances were drawn from general or greater cosmological paradigms. Aristotle‘s aim was to create a rational system for articulation of natural objects like the individual substances and species around us (54-56). Aristotle agreed with Plato on point that poetry sparks erratic emotions but Aristotle further stated that if the work is good as that of Oedipus Rex, its viewer will leave at the end in tranquility, discharging all the strained emotions (Poetics 10). Additionally, disputing with Plato, Aristotle asserted that poetry is more esoteric than history. As history expresses only particular instances, poetry expresses universality (17).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Plato and Aristotle are two great founding philosophers for the western metaphysical eon, and they have their impact in different ways. Both have formulated their concepts in order to summarize leading factors in the earlier tradition, Plato has a connotative style, Aristotle with more documented accuracy. Kearney wrote that the epoch of antiquity to late fifteenth century comes to its conclusive part from the time of collapse of roman empire in fifth century coinciding with the Christian missionaries attempt to make stronghold in Europe. This epoch stretched till 15th century when Constantinople was taken by the Muslims (Wake of Imagination 114). This period saw the amalgam of the Greek ontology and biblical Christian theology, thus getting the name onto-theology; gradually there was synthesis of idea of divine creator of Hebrew tradition and being of Hellenic times. In 50 BC St Paul, a preacher of Christianity reached Athens from Jerusalem. Here St Paul declared that the formulation of old and new testaments cannot be assimilated simply by Greek philosophy. He came to this conclusion after having debated with the Greek philosophers. St Paul went back with contempt for Greek rationalism asserting that the relation of man and God cannot be explained through Greek cogency. Later Christian thinkers also shared these misgivings against Greek mythology with St Paul (115). Soon the Greek dominance made the Christian thinkers show leniency in assimilating Hellenic ideas in their teachings. Ultimately the unrevealed god Agnostostheos of Greek was explained as the creator God of Christianity. Secondly Plato‘s divine demiurge could be the creator of universe according to the Biblical accounts and Christ can be the Greek logos (115-116). A systematic amalgamation of Greek philosophy and biblical sources came through the works of St. Augustine. He deliberated that God‘s work can be understood by Greek philosophy‘s


principles. St Augustine had his impact on St. Anslem of Canterbury and St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas justified platonic notion of multiple psychological functions of human mind. He enlisted the number of faculties like intellect, reason, imagination, common sense and perception. He declared as each faculty has diverse powers so no two faculties can be narrowed down to same one rule (Copleston 48). But man and his mind remains a creation of God and cannot work independent of it. The possibility and power of human mind was unveiled by Aquinas‘ works, earlier shadowed in Hebraic tradition. He used the Hellenic findings on reason to show that Christian ideas can be grasped through verification of reason. But reason should not be understood as an entity working solely on its own, its foremost needs to be used to understand and reach Gods. He added that even if we assume reason could provide for evidences about God, faith has to be given priority because reason has limits (Aquinas; Kearney, Wake of Imagination 128-130). St Anslem phrase fides quaerensintellectum, faith seeking understanding is a description of these times philosophy (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 116). For the most part a consensus was achieved between philosopher and Christian theologian but on some issues they could not. Major aspect on which two parties had dispute was Aristotelian notion that world is eternal which he assumed by his analysis of motion in physics and metaphysics. Christian theologian believing that the world has a beginning had to undeniably disagree with Aristotle‘s assertion that the world is eternal. A main point should not go unnoticed that all these theologians never validated that if world had a beginning. They only articulated to and fro around the notion that if the world was eternal or it had a temporal initiation. It was concluded by these theologians that the notion of the beginning of the world cannot be

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

demonstrated philosophically and faith can be the only resource believing the world has a beginning (Honderich 579). Such notions turn into heated debate in the years to come. Christianity took roots all over Europe gradually absorbing and subjugating already present entities. Although Roman Empire was vanishing in the rest of Europe, Roman Christianity was taking roots. The Byzantine kingdom prospered and the Eastern Church which was labelled as the Eastern Roman Empire. At that time religion and politics were merged in one. The king is equally holy like the pope, and pope and bishop of big urban areas were equally powerful. The archbishop of Constantinople exercised similar authority like king. As the king gradually became despotic, the Church started to work like a unit of kingdom (Beach). Church then ordained a set of rules and beliefs for all to follow and if anyone publicly disagreed they were persecuted by the church. This was the scenario when every science was developing constrained by the church and so was philosophy (Worldology). Christendom with its unwanted allegiance to the Hebraic and Hellenic times created an objectivist account of being, which is an existence preceding all human intervention and intention. The reality around human being was considered simply a copy of an already present divine origin. The real happenings in the world were considered only a byproduct of transcendent cause of all causes. The God is the creator or producer of being or things and man‘s creation of any sort even writing is only mimesis. Plato‘s works were the first to formulize what a man‘s reasoning capabilities are about. Aristotle works were on a more logical basis. The earlier Christian thinkers tried to shy away from the Greek metaphysics but later on started using western philosophy for explanation of their religious notions. But all those works showed man as an entity in the domains controlled by God.


Man was considered an image of God and so was the case of writing. Writing was taken as a mere copy of divine, deemed useless and harmful by Plato.

1.2. Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century In Rome 1633, the Holy Church decreed upon an astronomer named Galileo Galilei to come to Rome and renounce his treatise in public. The treatise dealt with the church ordained theory of solar system and it theoretically disapproved the geocentric model of science and planets including earth (Thiele 65-66). Galileo publicly rebuked his work, as was asked by the Church but these restrictive acts of church could not stop the wave that was to change the course of the world. Galileo was the very first who rejected traditional world prevalent notions and also questioned their righteousness. For instance, Galileo doubted the accuracy of Aristotle notion which stated that the mass of any body is directly proportional to the velocity it will fall down with. After experimentations Galileo articulated that if there is no friction like air then the speed of object would be proportional to its weight and he called it free fall motion (Galilie). The story of rebuttal of church decreed solar system goes far back than Galileo. Conventionally, it was believed that earth is the center of universe and other heavenly bodies revolve around and this was fore-worded by the church. Some hundred years before Galileo a scientist named Nicholas Copernicus did a profound research on old astronomical charts and theoretically proved that the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus also published his treatise but the church did not consider it worth to authoritatively deny it because his treatise was a highly theoretical piece and unlikely to gain public notice. But this time when Galileo empirically investigated the Copernicus model, using his own constructive device the astronomical telescope (Thiele 65-66). The Church had to retaliate because Galileo‘s work gained public knowledge.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Though Galileo publicly denied his work this was to start a wave of profound researches in every field of knowledge. Francis Bacon was Galileo‘s English contemporary; he in his book novum organum repudiated the old prevalent Aristotelian logic of syllogism –deducing particular solutions from general rules. Bacon supplemented logic with his alternative procedure to be called induction which are inferences from particular instance and can be formulated to apply generally (66-67). The conclusion of inductive inference is not exactly scientifically deduced from its two premises but it depends and is taken stock of from those two premises. The scientific analysis is often held by some as the paradigm of inductive reasoning. Simple example of inductive reasoning can be drawing a conclusion of two or more premises. For example, if we know that the French tanks are at the polish borders and Russian tanks are at the polish and German tanks are at the polish border by these premises we can simply induce that Poland is being invaded by tanks (Minto 21). This was thought to open of new greater discoveries. Albert Einstein emphasized that induction helped the advancement of natural sciences in completely opposite manner (Einstein 108). A researcher builds more than one hypothesis by acutely grasping the basis of big complicated facts and breaking them down, naming them as fundamental laws. Later these fundamentals and end results are called theory. However for a researcher it is not a procedural way or step by step method to reach to its conclusion he gets it by making his rational choices among the thinkable plausible rationales. It is not simply by the way of induction (220). Einstein changed the common perception that induction was real fuel behind scientific discoveries. Galileo asserted that the major problems should be discussed and solved rationally through experiments on specimens, and not simply believed on basis of faith (Thiele 66). Bacon‘s theory of induction emphasized experiments as it was based on the numerous concrete observations of 33

the real world. Later on the scientists would form their theories and try to objectively verify it. Johannes Kepler perfected Galileo‘s validated Copernicus model of solar system. Isaac Newton speeded the scientific revolution by discovering about gravity (67). All the developments were bit by bit questioning the prevalent archaic forms. In fourteenth century several Italian philosophers found old works of Greeks and Romans and it brought a new wave to resuscitate those works. This was at its height in Bacon and Galileo‘s times. Rene Descartes claim –I think therefore I am –supplicated the belief in human autonomy; and the extant of man‘s presence does not need an outside source. Similarly Bacon‘s utterance that knowledge proffers power; took the power from hand of Church or God to the human mind. The society was drifting away from Church or God and getting more secular. This change turned into a movement called renaissance that engulfed whole of Europe (67-68). One of the most important advocator of renaissance was Paracelsus, cohering to the Copernican revolution and exalting of the human mind he described imagination as the sun which one cannot touch and even its light is not perceptible to touch but still it can set a house on fire. The precursor to whatever a man does in his life is his imagination. Man imagining fire, can ablaze everything and if a man set his mind to war he can wage war. A man always wishes to be a sun; if he has will he will be like a sun. He can be everything he imagines to be. Contemporaries of Paracelsus were locating the power of imagination in the symbolic magical realm and optical illusion (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 159). This was a move from metaphysics of transcendence to the cult of human creativity. This era made human the ultimate source itself and the source for study. Poet Alexander Pope describes the drive of this era as (Pope):

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Know then thyself presume not God to scan The proper study of mankind is man Another movement called humanism rose as the byproduct of renaissance, because every literary philosophical discourse held human mind as its center. The emphasis on man, his significance, position, capabilities, interests, and accomplishments etc. is the crux of humanism (Honderich 401). Inductive reasoning or as Einstein says it‘s opposite, physical observations, mathematical figures, advancement in medical science almost put an end to the priests and theologians say. This was move from antiquity to new ways and brought an everlasting change for the whole world. From the incentives of Scientific Revolution, Renaissance and Humanism, philosophy claimed thought as the divine spark in man. Kant was the first to tell us that, the unfamiliar but common aspect in human mind from which understanding and sensation occur is imagination. ―Synthesis… is an important function our imagination does; although it feels like a very meagre function, and we are rarely aware of it but without the ability of synthesizing we might have no cognition at all (Kant 80)‖. So it was told that the mind uses its own powers to imagine; sense, discern and understand and it does not need any divine reflection. Poet Yeats words that ―mirror turns lamp‖ perfectly describe the change in peoples understanding of human mind (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 157-158). The metaphysical inquisition following Kant gives ultimate assertion to the feasibility of human mind, as an autonomous creative entity. This epoch changed the purpose designated to man, he was no more mediator of the divine to the earth but he is the sole creator of his life. He can make


the world a better place and decide his destiny by using his mind. In these times the metaphysical origin shifts from divine to man. But this celebration of human progress in its realization for aptitude of human mind received a blow when a nineteenth century thinker Soren Kierkegaard informs everyone about the bounds and finitude of human mind and man. Friedrich Nietzsche most acclaimed philosopher of late nineteenth century proffered that human mind is doomed to tackle its own ludicrousness (200). As we have already discussed that Socrates won against the writers but Nietzsche emphasized this all have set the foundations of metaphysics quite incorrectly, he added that, the basis of philosophy feels rational and sanguine but it is actually not the case. Philosophy in Nietzsche‘s views would not emerge from labors of wonder but Philosophy can only materialize by power of man‘s rebelliousness to the order of nature and also by regulating his refractory powers towards any stimulus (Edmundson 11). What really made Nietzsche topple the metaphysical eras behind him are his words that god is dead (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 211). Truth is just a play of metaphors and ideals of good and evil are mere fiction created by man. He snapped the last threads which were holding philosophy to its theological roots. But he did not provide the solution for the crisis he left western philosophy into. Though not in his lifetime Nietzsche‘s philosophy becomes the source that would question and change the trend of hailing human autonomy that prevailed for 400 years.

1.3. Early Twentieth Century Onwards Traditionally in the archaic or medieval times, human mind was considered a likeness of the divine only but later on the mind was dubbed as an entity working on its own. Western

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

philosophy has been changing with the changing perspectives on mind. And this change was on its height when Sigmund Freud uncovered the unconscious mind. A warning comes from Freud citing that whole of humanity may fall down if unconscious Id gets over the conscious Ego. Later thinkers like Louis Althusser, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Claude Levi Strauss and Jacques Derrida saw this language of unconscious as an important player in disassembling the supremacy of humanism in philosophy (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 256). In this way, the thinkers of this era challenged the centrality of Reason granted and acclaimed by the philosophers and thinkers of earlier era. In the beginning of 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure formulated postulates which later affected various disciplines. He asserted that the thought process is highly indebted to language, if language was not there to assist thought it would remain an unexplained nebula (Saussure 112). Language after Saussure assessment is regarded vital for human cognition, it was not a simple tool for communication but important part for human‘s building and understanding of himself and the world around him. Affected by Saussure, different field of human sciences especially philosophy, anthropology, history, sociology and literary criticism got towards structuralism. One aspect of structuralism worth noting is that it highly regards the social environment which is made from social structures. These social structures are formed from traditions, customs, practices and institutions which infer influence on individuals. The humanist tendency of humanism to make an individual supreme was also questioned by structuralism. Opposite to humanism which was discussed earlier, the structuralism in this era prioritizes social structures over individuals (Thiele 73). Jacques Lacan, who actually took the legacy of Freud to another level, says that the consciousness must open itself to unconsciousness. He disagreed with the standard humanist 37

proposition that conscious ego should triumph over unconscious Id. These were the first signs of anti-humanist movement which would move on to the latter half of the century. Lacan based his theory on structuralism. He also stressed that man should leave individual consciousness to coordinate with his unconscious. He unfalteringly refused the ego psychology of Heinz Hartman and Orthodox School of American Psychologists publicized by Ernst Kris; whose primary aim was to adopt so called abnormal citizens to the established norm of humanist society. Lacan considered that all theories of a normal man and that man can be educated to be normal have no grounds. He says that judging a man on a set scale is a byproduct of humanist discourse which propagates well-functioning normal human with standard sanity (Lacan 62). The humanists have clung too long on the wrong conception of autonomy of man –individual. Man is not the author of his unconsciousness, Lacan tells us, lest an autonomous entity. Lacan added that language is a very important tool for understanding and assistance of unconscious. He stated that the framework of unconscious is like that of a language (54). The structuring of unconscious like a language dictates that human cognition is not in control of itself, but is actually subject to languages entrapments or slips. He actually took Descartes quote ―I think therefore I am;‖ and rephrased it adding ―Where I think, I think, therefore I am that is where I am not (Honderich 485).‖ The humanist conception of individual autonomy and freedom was also analyzed and debunked by Althusser. He believed that even the idea of subjectivity that has been regulated and considered a state for originality is merely another way of asserting the status quo. This idea of personal subjectivity actually lures human into realm of fiction as they think they are creating their own world, in reality they are not (Kearney, Wake of Imagination 262). For Althusser, the

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

standard man who has complete grasp of his identity, sovereignty, sensibility is the one who has command over his language and its detonation (Weedon 5). Michel Foucault is also seen having some humanist stances. He said it is believed that man is the oldest subject of the study from the time of Socrates but it is not true. Man only recently became a specimen for study which forms its features. Humanism has deluded us in thinking that it has solution for humanities problems, in reality these solutions are useless pseudo-empirical and pseudo-philosophical tenets. He also thinks that it is a relief that ‗human being‘ is no more the center of all sciences and philosophy. Language is dealt quite elaborately in the Foucauldian philosophy. Although language was only considered useful for naming things but now Language is the main Inquisitive force for the philosophy (Gutting 16-17). Claude Levi Strauss asserted that eventual everyday reality does not find it basis in individual endeavors but is result of collective human efforts. Human beings have a common way of thinking and communication which show us a set pattern, which is evident in the kinship system and numerous social systems (Thiele 75). Levi Strauss believed that small societal bodies actually are a microcosm for general global attitudes. Like an individual who can create countless sentences of his own he nevertheless has to work by set universal rules of grammar. An individual can set numerous dispositions he would still have to follow undocumented rules of the greater structure that is the society he lives in (Thiele 75). Levi Strauss also told us that we don‘t need language to assist in reasoning process language is itself cognition; it has its own paradigms man does not know of. Levi Strauss puts language on an unknown plane greater than man (Lévi-Strauss 252). By twentieth century the philosophy and western thought completely dissolved the autonomy of human and human mind. Consequently, for thinkers of this century onwards there is no origin 39

and search for meaning becomes ceaseless game from one word to another. This debate can never be complete without mention of French philosopher and father of Deconstruction –Jacques Derrida.

1.4. Jacques Derrida Man was considered as a subordinate to Gods and angels in the ancient times until the late 16th century. From seventeenth century onwards there was a major shift in the perception of man. Human being was started to be hailed as an autonomous entity which has everything in his hand. But later on with the revealing of unconscious mind and advent of structuralism, philosophy started to question the notions of man as the designer of his own fate, individuality, subjectivity and supremacy of man. This debate comes to an end with Jacques Derrida who declared the culmination of human kind. He believed that man has reached its end in two forms; one in the philosophical thought process man has attained finitude; and in its material existence man is an end in itself, man, he is sure, will see end someday (EM 41-44). ―Man‖ as we have seen has been a keen subject of scholars prior Derrida. Derrida has also given his verdict on it while commenting on the subject of superior man and superman, a theme recurrent in Nietzsche‘s Zarathustra, where Nietzsche has evidently made a distinction on these two kinds of ‗man.‘ The superior man has been left in the ―movement of pity‖ while the other kind of man, Derrida claimed, has also abandoned us, bringing the irrevocable demise of humanism (57). Moreover, Derrida believed in reconstructing the earlier metaphysics through a procedural investigation on writing, Derrida saw everything as writing; not only the written word on page or spoken words but also every act and institution which is made up of signifying traces is like

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

writing to him. He elaborated that when you delve into these traces you will not find any origin. The traces only become a mere play of signs he asserted as there in no origin there is nothing to duplicate. Writing repeatedly dwells upon recapitulation and depicts an illusion that there is an original presence it is kind of mimicry but has no original origin outside itself (MP 11). As we have already seen, Plato saw writing as trap taking man away from reality. He called writing a bastard son of logos which is unable to protect itself. Furthermore, Plato has always tried to assert that speech is better than writing and the Divine has to be duplicated in writing is superior to writing. According to Terence Hawkes, the three books Derrida wrote in 1967 were an effort to emancipate writing from the assertiveness of speech. The names of those books (later English translations) were Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference and Speech and Phenomena. Hawkes asserted that through those books Derrida wanted to achieve a horizon by critiquing writing and freeing it from speech‘s subjection; the thorough critique of writing would enable writing to create a world in itself and one does not need an outside world after this (Hawkes 120). Derrida also showed Plato‘s ambiguity in his prioritization of speech over writing. Although in The Republic Plato clearly denounces writing but in Philebus he compares book and soul of human. Like a book which reiterates and brightens human experience, a soul does the same too. When a soul‘s purpose is to remember and replicate the divine, the whole process would be same as writing and speech. So why call one thing bad and advocate another as good (D 187-188). Western metaphysic has always tried to give ascendancy to origin or truth over imitation like writing. Similarly an emphasis that there is an origin present –the logos –which is deemed


important and should be imitated. A hierarchy is set that everyone blindly accepts that what is emulated that is the nature is more genuine and truer than what emulates (191). Derrida mentioned that there have been attempts to disrupt the logo centric model of mimesis, but those have not been able to alter or finish the supremacy of original over imitated. Like the theory of productive imagination which was propounded by romantic idealist in opposition of Platonism, still confirms the notion of imitation as inferior to the transcendental origin. He asserted that when romantics distinguish between primary or productive imitation and secondary or reproductive imagination they uncannily assert origin over derivation (190). Similarly other such futile attempt was also done by Heidegger. He declared that we all should be done with the metaphysics for once and for all. Starting from Plato going through Aristotle to Descartes via Kant to Hegel, Nietzsche and Husserl and ends on Heidegger‘s ontology. Derrida emphasized that the metaphysics of Heidegger itself yearn for an origin; which is actually the characteristic of Western Metaphysics, he claimed to disintegrate. Derrida exemplified Heidegger‘s use of word Dasein which he deployed to rip of any metaphysical connection, is merely the substitution for other words like I, We, the subject, man, human being etc. According to Derrida such successions would not affect a break from metaphysics (Norris, ―Metaphysics‖ 17-18). Writing for Derrida is more powerful than speech, for him ―what cannot be said above all must not be silenced but written (P 2).‖ Writing for him must be used as a tool against odds. Although a speaker would be considered more of a fighter, Derrida gives this power to a written word. In an interview he mentioned that traditionally writing is considered the dead part of a language while language is the live part. Derrida for that matter was trying to dismantle this hierarchy. Writing on its own is important (EX 42).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

As everything for Derrida is writing so is the case of man. Man should be taken as writing which can be deconstructed and assessed. Although the subject of ‗man‘ for Derrida has reached its end, writing in Derrida‘s works find a new beginning. In conclusion of this chapter, we find that there has been a similar streak in the concept of man and writing. In the beginning of times man was considered a subordinate to God, whose sole purpose was to please God only. Similar was the case in Hellenic times except an epistemological account of man and existence was created. Plato asserted that thoughts were inscribed in human mind by divine deity, but Aristotle negated this notion he professed that imagination is a result of man's ability to sense. Later on when Christianity came it avoided any possible collision with Greek thought but St. Augustine started a work of amalgamation of Greek thought and Christian beliefs. So man was then considered a separate entity but whose purpose was to reach to Gods. The dominant theme of this time was the authority of God over man. Seventeenth century onwards studies and advancement in science made people question perceived notions like the authority of god and man's status. Man was celebrated as an independent agency devoid of any need to be associated with divine deity. This trend remained there for two centuries until Kierkegaard and Nietzsche reminded everyone about the predicament of human soul. Man cannot decide his future and his own mind can lead him to disaster. Although it was not in Nietzsche's time that the change seem evident. From Twentieth century onwards after Sigmund Freud discovered the workings of unconscious mind that philosophers started to take human mind as the least dependable agency. Thinkers like Althusser, Lacan, Foucault, Levi Strauss and Derrida also emphasized that the study of


unconscious is important in knowing how weak the ground for humanism have been. Derrida in this lieu prophesized ends of man. Man, for him has reached his end in teleological manner. Writing was always deemed unnecessary from the times of Greeks. Plato preferred speech over writing and this debate of the two has been among philosophers from the beginning. Although, Aristotle agreed to Plato on the point that poetry would make a person more mercurial, Aristotle believed a good work will have a good effect. Writing in this era remained an unworthy activity. In the twentieth century, the works of Saussure on language became a conversion point for every thinker to think on lines of focusing language in philosophy. Language is not a mere tool for communication it is important in understanding of human self and things around him. Saussure and his emphasis on language influenced fields not only philosophy but anthropology, history, sociology, literary criticism etc. Psychoanalyst Lacan considered language a key to understand the unconscious mind of man. Foucault was also of the view that language assist in our cognitive processes, Levi Strauss took it a step farther by saying that language is itself cognition. Derrida furthered metaphysics on language. For him everything is writing consisting of signifier and signified, which can be de-constructed and evaluated. He also added that there is nothing original and writing is constant copying. In response to Plato's assertion about writing Derrida showed that Plato's ideas are themselves contradictory on one hand he criticizes writing on the other he compares the soul with book which helps the human. As a soul‘s purpose is to reiterate and enlighten like book then how come writing is bad. The western metaphysics have always tried to show ascendency to original thing then its depiction like nature over its depiction in words. Derrida said that there have been attempts to dislodge this hierarchy and do away with it but it has not been successful. Derrida‘s main aim through Deconstruction was to subvert the long standing claims of metaphysics on human self, language etc.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

2. The Western Metaphysical Tradition and Idea of Europe Chapter 1 discussed in detail the long western metaphysical tradition with major focus on man‘s status in metaphysical studies. The reason behind this was that ideas on ‗man‘ and ‗reason‘ shifted the dimensions of each epoch. Secondly, the changing ideas on writing and language were also discussed in chapter 1 because the center point of this thesis is Jacques Derrida and he considered every different entity as writing. For example, on behest of his notions ‗Europe‘ will also be considered a sort of writing, and like any writing it can be evaluated and critiqued. But before jumping to Derrida‘s conception of Europe, this chapter will deal with earlier philosophers‘ idea on Europe in the epochs before Derrida. It will enable us background information on the idea of Europe before going into detail about Derrida‘s works on Europe in later chapters. Europe has been considered a geographical entity and as well a philosophical one. There is a common perception that unity of Europe finds its origin in the ancient Greeks specifically the philosophers themselves. In this chapter we are going to see general ‗idea of Europe‘ and evaluate how much it has been indebted from western metaphysics. There have been several works dealing the concept of Europe, taking it completely as a philosophical idea rather than a geo-political one. Rodolphe Gasché in his book Europe or the Infinite task: A Study of a Philosophical Concept theorized that philosophy is interlinked with Europe in several fashions. He also detailed the concept of Europe that could be found in works of Husserl, Heidegger, Patočka, and Derrida (Tampoia 39). Likewise in the book titled Idea of Europe from Antiquity to the European Union is a chronological investigation on idea of Europe from old times to today. This book includes the critiques of Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant, Foucault, and Derrida on Idea of Europe (Pagden). 45

Following chapter also work on the same plane as of the above mentioned books to evaluate the idea of Europe as an exclusively philosophical idea. Like the chapter 1, this chapter will also try to develop the idea of Europe in the three epochs chronologically separated. The noun Europe has always designated a place; Europe symbolizes a number of countries, which lies in continent of Europe. It is quite evident that these countries have been quite different from each other in their interests. One common thing among them was that they all were bastions of Christianity. Additionally, Europeans have as a whole associated them with the Greek philosophy quite obscurely; so our quest for evaluation of etymology of Europe begins with the Greeks. The Greeks settled in Europe in 1800 BC, along the Mediterranean. For almost two centuries those Greek tribes gain strength and rule. Greece was the hub of European political and philosophical thought until Rome took over in 1 AD and had complete rule for six centuries. Very soon the Roman Empire embraced Christianity, and almost whole of Europe was Christian. Because of Germanic invasions, the Roman Empire started to deteriorate from sixth century onwards. For several centuries Europe was in dark; by 1056 Europe was split in different small empires and the Church which was the only powerful entity but divided into East and West. For another several centuries Europe lay latent until the major event of Renaissance –that began in 13th century and went on till sixteenth century (History of Europe).

2.1. From Antiquity to Late Sixteenth Century The name of Europe was derived from Europa. According to Greek myth Europa, an Asian woman of Phoenician origin was kidnapped by a white bull. This white bull was actually God Zeus from Sidon. Zeus took her to a place later to be called Europe and ravished her. Europe was

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

initially not a particular designated place but it had people of different cultures. It was place along the Mediterranean, seen by the people who sailed through Aegean Sea. Europe at the beginning did not have any stable name, association to stationary place. It designated the Greek mainland against the islands. Later on after the expansion of Greek trade Europe was referred to land on side of estuary passing from Aegean Sea to Black Sea, while on the other side of estuary lies Asia (Heller 94). The Greeks not only distinguished Europe and Asia as being on different sides of Aegean Sea but also having different climate, disposition and existing different race. Herodotus added that Europe cannot be distinguished by any borders. He understood that quite unlike the members of a society think; cultures cannot be judged by same designated set of standards. Eventually the European identity if it has to be one, it have to be with a realization that the European identity began with a non-European origin and it is always hard to distinguish where Asia ends, Europe starts and Europe ends and where Africa starts (Pagden 36). Herodotus however talked highly of the Greeks. He asserted that they are freest most emancipated people in relation to others. They are quite different unlike the Asians because Europeans have to only abide by law and Asians have to abide by the rule of dictator (37). The third century BC rhetorician Isocrates declared that one is never a Hellene because of his race but because of education and his act to abide by law and following cultures (39). Anthony Pagden stated Aristotle‘s take, he stressed that according to Aristotle men are mere animals who can very well accommodate in the polis. Although bears and ants can too but Aristotle was talking about his way of life, Pagden sarcastically added that ―but his –and in the Greek world it was always his‖ style of living can be the optimal best way to live. The goal of eudemonia can only be achieved by living like a Greek. Aristotle declared that Greece enacted 47

―perfect communities‖ of human kind which had individuals with distinct nature living in an auto governed place (40-41). Pagden‘s narrative quite strongly asserted a relation between Greeks and Europe which he was scribbling in Europe: Conceptualizing a Continent. Contradicting to the above argument, we find a strain in the descriptions of Greeks and their affiliations to the concepts of Europe. Margaret Heller doubted if the Greeks actually thought they were Europeans. She highlighted that in the times of Persian wars the Greeks considered themselves at the middle of two sides of the Asians (the polite barbarians) and Europeans (the harsh barbarians) and Greeks were on the middle. Aristotle articulated that the people who live in colder climates (Europeans) are brimming with spirit but they lack acumen and expertise. So they have no political institutions and this hinders them from ruling over the others. Asians are gifted with acumen and expertise but lack the spirit. They remain under constant subjection. On the other hand the Hellene race is mediatory as it is full of spirits and has required acumen and expertise. And if all Hellene live under one rule they eventually can rule the world (Heller 94). So some Greeks never considered them as Europeans, they always saw themselves between Europeans and Asians; Aristotle dubbed Hellenes as the people in the mid of attitude from two extremes of Europe and Asia (Lewis and Wigen). Margaret Heller also raised the question, if Romans thought they were Europeans even though Romans started their base from parts near Greece and Rome essentially Europe but then they extended on all the shores of Mediterranean getting deep into Europe, Asia and Africa. In the most part, Rome was always the center and deep inside the country there were Barbarians especially in the Europeans lands. She cited Geoffrey Barraclough‘s quote which emphasized that the Romans who grew eastward of the Mediterranean dwell upon their eastern lands, which

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

was exclusively non-European land. So it is quite inappropriate to call Roman Empire, a model of European coherence (Heller 94; Baraclough 34). We know that the Roman Empire later turned into a Christian empire and it might be quite intriguing to know that for several hundred years a shared European character among all European countries was extinct. Also, as we have mentioned in the first chapter that Christian theologians altered Greek mythology according to their means same happened with the Greek myth of Europa. Lacantius a Christian author of 300 BC altered the story asserting that Europa was an Asian abducted by Cretans travelling a bull ship. The Asians considered Europeans their enemy because they took away their woman. In response the Trojans kidnapped a European woman named Helen who was Menelaus‘ spouse. This angered Menelaus brother Agamemnon who fought against Asians using huge army. This has set the tone for later civilizations which began with fights between Asia and Europe. The fights of European and Trojans (Asians) have become a political hallmark of European/Asian nexus. Later on Europeans‘ rivalry began with Phoenicians then Ottoman Turks and now Europeans enmity with Russians is no secret (Pagden 34). The first century Roman poet, Virgil related to the fight of Trojans and Troy and said that the Gods took sides in the war and they wanted it to finish. So Juno allowed the marriage of Asian woman and European man. And there came a new kind of offspring who was allowed to be like Latin in every possible way while their Asian linkage would only be asserted by gods because the gods of Asians are actually the gods of all mankind. The discussion of idea of Europe begins with a debt of Asians over Europeans (34-35). Europe had been a predominant Christian continent for ages. In this lieu it again has a connection with Asia as Jesus Christ was Asian. Samuel Purchas, an English man who propagated like a 49

Christian Apostle, asserted that Asia did not help Christ although it was his birthplace and neither Africa where he took refuge helped him. It was only Europe which did justice to Christ‘s teachings and since has been Christendom. But this Christianity again shows a possible rupture at any attempt to delineate a Europe identity through Christianity. We know that there are Greek and Russian churches which are orthodox Christian but they have never accepted to come under English papacy. And Greeks have remained for long under the Ottomans. So they retained Asian bindings. J. G. A. Pocock warned that these orthodox Christians of Greek and Russia would hurt any possibility of combining the Europe under a single origin of Christianity (Pagden 35; Pocock). The Greek Geographer Strabo of first century A.D. talked highly of the Europeans as Europeans were diversified in nature and extolled in excellence of governance. There are two dominant forms one very peaceful and other warriors. He highlighted that peaceful people were a majority so they kept a balance. He also emphasized that the logical reasoning of Greeks about physis and nomos only pertained to Europeans. Physis is world of nature and nomos is world of culture run by law. And the balance between physis and nomos is only present in Europe (Pagden 37). As we have mentioned that Isocrates said that association to Europe was no more with race but with culture and education. Strabo added that it is possible that Europe becomes self-sufficient in food and necessity of life and important metals in building and protection. Europe can do that because Europe is in the center of East and West. The people of Mediterranean needed to increase their trade afar from Europe. They had to have a communion; it forms a ‗Europe‘ which was self-sufficient in necessities, because of its strong trade links and lived by people who were educated and willfully living by law (Pagden 39).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

In the first chapter we have classified the above epoch as having man as a subordinate to nature. While in this chapter we delineate a simultaneous conception on ‗Europe.‘ Generally deducing from antiquity to late sixteenth century we see no ‗Idea of Europe‘ which is unified and philosophically plausible. We have seen how doubtful is the notion that the Greeks and Romans –the two great civilizations –considered themselves as Europeans. And, up till the end of sixteenth century the European countries were separate, fighting with each other and trying to make their own resources meet. First the uprising of peasants and working class against the clergy in France, England, Italy, Germany culminated in religious wars that engulfed Europe from 1560-1715 (Kreis). Even in the next epoch Europeans were fighting with each other, for example in DutchPortuguese War (1588-1654) that went for almost fifty years among Dutch Republic and Kingdom of Portuguese. The fight was initiated by Dutch to gain colonies and access in Portuguese. Different European countries supported the main fighters extending the rivalry for half a century. In 1618 war was started by France and Sweden against the Holy Roman Emperors, the Hapsburg of Germany. Later all of the Europeans jumped into this war and this was called the Thirty Years war that ended in 1648. The Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659) was a result of French involvement in The Thirty Years War (CIH). Additionally, there have been various other wars too. The Napoleonic wars of France in which France fought with almost every other European nation occurred in 1799-1815 (Dugdale-Pointon). Europe in this era have been divided and at gross hostility with each other. They have still been divided but seventeenth century onwards these European countries started to show their influence separately on other parts of the world. The consequent colonization by British, French, Dutch and Spanish of Americas, Africa and South Asia developed a notion of 51

European superiority over non-Europeans. Despite of the fact that Europe has been divided into smaller entities from 17th century till the end of 19th century, Europe has a whole has been able to swell about their greatness as Europeans because of the constant colonization of other territories and advancement in sciences. And this is the reason that in written and philosophical remains of the following epoch we find a ubiquitous impression of Idea of Europe.

2.2. Seventeenth Century till Late Nineteenth Century Jacques Derrida tells us that idea of Europe has only been taken up in the modern metaphysics and not before that (Heller 93). The very first instance of European writing as a European –other than English, German etc. –can be seen in Francis Bacon‘s work when he used the phrase of ―we Europeans‖ in 1623 (qtd in Hale 3). Montesquieu the figure of Enlightenment period segregated Europeans as a whole in declaring that almost whole of Europe except Spain was governed by custom; while whole of Asia and some areas of America and Africa were being run by dictators. Montesquieu propagated an idea of Europe envisioning a collective Europe under a civilized rule. Some years after Montesquieu, Voltaire would do the same. He asserted that whole of Europe is in a way one supreme republic and all the countries are actually different states of that republic that all have uniquely a similar set of rules of public administration and legislation which is extinct in different parts of the world (Pagden 37-38). G. W. F. Hegel, the German philosopher of late eighteenth century; believed that in the world, Europe was the ―center and end‖ of history. But he also added that the history started from the eastern part of globe that is Asia and civilization takes its course as the sun does, from east to west (Pagden 35-36).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Hegel believed that Mediterranean was the combining factor of the three sections of the world, where Europe was central to it. Europe has not only been considered a geological, historical and political unit but Hegel as well regarded Europe as a philosophical idea. He addressed philosophical gatherings on the historical development of philosophy in the world. For that he analyzed world geo-politically into Africa, Asia and Europe and he saw America in the future domain. He also described the Geist the world historical figure travelling from orient, from which the civilization began, passing the Greek, Roman and Germanic Europe. Which in his words is the ―center and end‖ of history (Miettinen 30-31). Not only a center to combine all three parts of the world Europe has a spiritual unity which is manifested in Europe‘s reasoned and rational life. Hegel also saw Europe as a conquest of spirit and raison d‘être i.e. progressiveness. Hegel envisioned Europe as a modern entity which was recoiled from the boundless freedom of Asian and African people and controls the limitless into the set of laws. Hegel discerned Europe as an ideal for a life full of rationality which reconciles individual freedom for a sane life through stable political institutions (31). In a compendium entitled Idea of Europe from Antiquity to European Union, several authors named Anthony Pagden, Bianca Maria Fontana, J. G. A. Pocock and James Tully have in one way or other discussed Immanuel Kant‘s idea of Europe and emphasized that Kant‘s idea is the one which still has relevancy in this day. Kant elaborated this idea in his work Perpetual Peace a Philosophical Sketch stating that Europe‘s several states are inkling to form a confederation in which there should be separate independent states, each bearing a republican charter of its own, having egalitarianism as basic notion they should have separate legislative, executive and representative body (Pagden 331).


James Tully added importance to Kant‘s idea, mentioning that it has assumed a position of regulative idea as it has made connections of eighteenth century political Europe with philosophical groundings. And Kantian idea is very relevant for Europe according to its needs. American federations were in fact Kant‘s European idea changed for American purpose, the formation of League of Nations, concept of sovereign statehood and Woodrow Wilson‘s idea were affected by Kant‘s idea. United Nations Organization‘s basic working underlines its guidelines in Kant‘s idea of perpetual peace. Kant‘s ideas have been very effective for these mentioned bodies and Tully believed that Kant‘s conception of federation can be the best sought way for Europe. Kant trusted in eventual stages for global development, the flow of trade in different parts of the world and European imperialist‘s assertion of law in their dominion will spread the concept of federation. Finally, this will also help in erasing the memory of Europe‘s history affiliated with loot, plunder and pillage of indigenous non-Europeans by Europeans. Anthony Pagden calls it transformation of idea of Europe from a European Empire to a federation (Tully 331-333) Friedrich Nietzsche delved upon the topic of Europeanism of Philosophy several times but he is also the one to pinpoint the intrinsic assumption of philosophers that Europe is the torch bearer of human freedom. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche portrayed Europe as a projecting promontory of Asia which in difference from Asia‘s ages old wisdom and spirituality represents itself with progress of man. Instead of Hegel‘s triumph of spirit, Europe for Nietzsche showed desolation in search for lost origin and he saw his contemporary Europeans as animal in flock that were very obliging, ―sickly and mediocre.‖ In his later works combined in The Will to Power, Nietzsche argued that radical nihilism was evident as one could see a depreciation of values of morality, humanity, goodness and education. He asserted that these depreciations were

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

evident because these values were inherently life denying in nature. Nietzsche talked about this aspect in terms of specific European sickness. This sickness is like European morality which restrains, softens, humanize and tame the healthy individual and suppress philosophical drives and any natural sense of life. For Nietzsche the antidote for this sickness will be a ―Good European‘ who will not be subdued by Christian rationalistic and nationalistic tendencies and will try to spend a post Christian, new artistic way of life (Miettinen 32). The nihilism diagnosed by Nietzsche was purely a European phenomenon but Heidegger feared that it might turn into a global phenomenon. Heidegger believed that although nihilism was grounded and intricate into specific European culture and individuals, it might flow over the other parts of globe. He believed that technology will play a huge role in dissipation of nihilism from Europe to other parts of the globe. Heidegger claimed that it will lead to the ends of philosophy (Hodge 53). For Husserl, Europe is not only a continent but a place where the idea of philosophy was actually practiced. Similarly he saw Europe as a physical space. He asserted that Europe had a spiritual birth in the sixth and seventh century Greece among their learned men and culture. He added that this time the spirit to interrogate everything around them developed, which the Greeks called philosophy. Husserl linked the birth of idea of Europe to philosophy; additionally he talked about these ideas in ethereal terminologies. He connected the concept of dawn and awakening to the style of Greek metaphysics towards the idea of Europe (Miettinen 260). As Heidegger claimed, everything European will be globalized; Husserl entitled such globalization as ―spectacle of Europeanization.‖ Moreover, in a manuscript of human life in historicity Husserl emphasized European Roman Empire‘s practice of expansion and labeled that as the first tangible instance of Europeanization (Miettinen 295-296). 55

This also leads us back to the problematic notion, we discussed earlier that if Romans did consider them as European or not, because they actually dwelled upon their Eastern sources for livelihood and not Europe. Husserl was undoubtedly a Eurocentric philosopher. Similarly another question rises that can an act of subjugation be considered the act of Europeanization. As we have mentioned in chapter 1, this epoch was considered the epitome of Europe‘s supremacy in political arena and science and learning. It was the time when ‗man‘ was considered supreme, and the enlightenment and humanism strengthened the belief that man is able to control his destiny. Simultaneously, the Idea of Europe grew strong in this era. We have seen any such idea was extinct in the first epoch but it was only in the second period that thinkers philosophized upon a conception of a homogenized Europe. Additionally, the colonization of the major parts of the world by European powers lead to a conception that European man is greater than other races. We have seen in chapter 1 that twentieth century onwards there was a downward spiral in the conception of man. It was believed that man does not have the authority humanism propagated for four hundred years. Secondly the perspective on Idea of Europe also changed from twentieth century onwards. The later part of the twentieth century saw decolonization, and the former colonies gaining independence. This led to a growing discourse on post colonization which unearthed the tactics been used by the colonizers who were Europeans over their non-European subjects. It also started showing the picture of Europeans from the perspective of former colonized.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

2.3. Twentieth Century Onwards Edward Said is a post colonialist, whose word on idea of Europe cannot be left unheard. His book European Orientalism starts with the quote of Karl Marx that ‗they (orient) cannot represent themselves so they must be represented (Said xxvi)‘. It has always been the norms that discourse on idea of Europe were created by the Europeans. It was E. Said who showed us the other side of the information we get of idea of Europe. For the Europeans, the orient serves as the basis of what the idea of Europe is superior to. It was from times of renaissance that by a methodical process the orient appeared open to Europe‘s reconstruction of it, as inferior and subject of Europe (Said 7). Edward Said emphasized that Europe has created a picture of the Orient in contrast to itself. Orient is the other to the west, which means the existence of the orient is complementary for the idea of Europe and its disposition (Said 2). He added that the Orient is the intrinsic section of Europe. Orient played an important role in the physical, cultural, civilizational and material development of Europe. The discourse of orientalism is the manifesto of west‘s power, domination, and ability to construct orient. By looking at Foucault‘s theory of discourse over orientalism, we see that Europe has methodologically engaged in a system to create orientalism. An orient that is inferior to Europe. Orientalism is manmade and constructed by the West. He goes at pains to show that orient is not a discourse about orient but it is the representation of West –that is Europe‘s – hegemony. It is manifestation of European –now Atlantic –hegemony which depicts people of East as powerless and irrational and always receptive for everything and West has to give. Said contested such portrayals and included orient as an intimate part of the idea of Europe (Yeh). Frantz Fanon surreptitiously articulated that third world has actually contrived the notions of Europe alongside emphasizing that third world is conceived by Europe. It is a vicious circle in 57

which Europe or the west is always the victor and the third world loses (Dabashi). Post colonialists like Said and Fanon pinpoint in their writing the dominating and assertive role West has over the East, especially third world countries. Rodolphe Gashé is against post-colonialist‘s tendency to cloak Europe along with hegemonic role of West. He accused post-colonialist of the same habit they condemn west of doing –the lack of differentiation. Simon Glendenning commenting on Gasché‘s remark says that, he might get post-colonialists on wrong foot he is asserting all this as if he does not know what is happening here (Glendinning, ―Europe, for example‖ 5). Glendinning is of the opinion that post-colonialists might be right in their assertion. In chapter 1 we have shown that the third epoch (twentieth century onwards) is an antithesis of the second era (seventeenth century till late nineteenth century), because this last epoch toppled the so called supremacy of man that was adhered to in earlier time. In the lieu of idea of Europe we also see that earlier the dominant discourse on Europe was by Europeans ascertaining the supremacy of European man. But twentieth century onwards the thinkers and philosophers have tried to subvert the supremacy of the ‗white man‘ over other races by engaging into the discourse showing the hegemonic acts of Europe. But it would be worth noting here that the extant the philosophy in twentieth century onwards has been able to counter the dominant discourse on power of man. It is not the case in the idea of Europe. Although post colonialist have begun questioning the basis of supremacy of European man, an unquestioned supremacy is still there. Due to this very reason a discussion on ideas of Jacques Derrida will be helpful for our understanding. Although he is a European French philosopher, he was an Algerian by birth and he knew what non-Europeanism meant. Derrida is famous for his endeavors to combine all the European philosophers; he is also one to start a discourse on the ‗other‘ of Europe. And this

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

unique quality makes him our case study for our thesis and the next chapters will focus on Derrida‘s philosophy, his ideas regarding Europe and political implications of Derridean philosophy.


3. Idea of Europe in Derrida’s Metaphysics Earlier chapter dealt with the idea of Europe from antiquity to today. The idea of Europe seems pretty new unlike it was thought as the product of minds of Greek greats. We have seen that they never recognized themselves as Europeans. Secondly, it was only in the seventeenth century that a phrase of ―we Europeans‖ can be found. Furthermore, Derrida has also mentioned that ‗Idea of Europe‘ is a manifestation of modern metaphysics and this chapter will try to deepen the investigation on Europe through Derrida‘s ruminations. Derrida has always focused on Europe in his writings. His master‘s dissertation Le problème de la genèse dans la philosophie de Husserl (1953-54), dealt with idea of Europe. And for the next fifty years concept of Europe remained a recurring theme in his works. And even this theme is present in his last conversation with newspaper Le Monde before his death in 2004. Works like Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides, ―Deconstructing Terrorism,‖ ―A Europe of Hope,‖ Enlightenment: Past and to Come, ―February 15; or what binds Europeans together,‖ Learning to Live Finally: the Last Interview, The Other Heading, is few of many that included Derrida‘s critique on Europe. For this reason, Rodolphe Gasché wrote off Derrida as the ‗philosopher of Europe (Gasché, ―This Little Thing‖ 5).‘ Others like Ross Benjamin and Heesok Chang dubbed him as ―The Last European‖ due to his sincere reverberations on Europe‘s past, present and future. But they also mentioned that Derrida‘s notions regarding Europe are complex, at times self-contradictory and differentiated. Derrida also heavily depended upon the works of Heidegger, Valery and Marx to create his addendum on the vast oeuvre on idea of Europe (Chang and Benjamin 141). Following chapter will discuss few of Derrida‘s ideas interrelated with each other which may be relevant for a political analysis of Europe in an alphabetical order. Some of those ideas are in a

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

response or critique to what Husserl said about the notion of Europe in his The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. In that book, Edmund Husserl deemed Europe simply as an ascendant idea which he believed was not related to Europe‘s history or geography. For him the European spirit is innate in great men of different societies and how hostile they might be to each other; Europeans have a bond of kinship with each other (Husserl 273-275). According to Husserl, an idea by definition of it should not be related to any geographical history. But the case with the idea of Europe is different; it is wrongly attributed to a geographical entity i.e. Europe. Husserl made the case more ambiguous by suggesting that this idea was the result of an inquisitive environment of Greece of seventh century. He himself added that the argument feels paradoxical but it is not (276). Derrida pointed out this dubiousness in Husserl‘s arguments. Husserl said that the philosophical idea is not related to any place so Derrida outlined that on this assumption this idea can be easily relocated to some place other than Europe, like Asia or Africa, because Husserl argued that the philosophical idea does not refer to empirical location. There is a paradox which Husserl himself was unable to resolve, he himself said that a great philosophical idea out of which Europe emerged is not be related to any geographical place and is a spiritual idea. But in the same refrain, he said that this idea was a result of inquisitive environment of the men of the seventh century Greece; and we know that these men nevertheless had a geographical belonging. Thus, the idea of philosophy then does not remain spiritual and is reduced to a fact (PGHP 156). Husserl also claimed that Europeans have an innate ‗idea‘ within themselves, while Asians or Chinese are just an ―empirical anthropological‖ specie (Husserl, ―Crisis of European Sciences‖


16). But Derrida questioned this as how come Husserl on one hand gave Europe a distinct eidos and on the other said that European-ness is not any biological result (PGHP 158). Additionally, Husserl also threw out the gypsies who roam around Europe, the Eskimos and Indians from any definition of Europe, as they hamper a spiritual unity of Europe while English Dominions and U.S. are a part of Europe (Husserl, ―Crisis of European Sciences‖ 273). Contesting these notions of Husserl, Derrida declared that Europe is no more an entity with defined old center. It is an eccentric Europe whose center had been ruptured and this Europe needs to reconfigure its identity. The idea of decentering is also one of the initial concepts of Derrida which he jotted down in Structure, Sign and Play in the discourse of Human Sciences (WD).

3.1. Decentering: Rupture at the heart of Europe Derrida theorized that a center of a structure can be questioned of its professed place and importance. He emphasized that the main ‗structurality of structure‘ is shadowed by giving it a perfect center, and it has been deemed mandatory that everything work along that center. The center enables a closed totality, and it will be unimaginable if anyone brings out a notion of a structure without a center (WD 352). A center is essentially always defined in system to authoritatively forbid any play of meaning, Derrida exclaimed. The concept of structure with a center has been enunciated to keep everything flowing in one certain way. The purpose of implying certainty by giving a center is to nullify the probability of problems or different ideas and practices other than those certified. Similarly a presence of a center eradicates anxiety and the main goal of west has always been to find a ‗center‘, which is dubbed the most secure and imperceptible place (WD 353). Terry

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Eagleton elaborated this notion arguing that western metaphysics have always clung to a word, a supposed truth etc. for security and basis for their learning. Notions like the ―God, the idea, the world spirit, the self,‖ accomplish the very task of attaining a center (Eagleton, Literary Theory 113). Derrida highlighted that there have been an innate desire to stick to some ideals or center and this is the reason western metaphysics have created a system of standards. Derrida proclaimed that ―the center is not the center,‖ in the Structure, Sign and Play he announced that a rupture has occurred in the conceptual framework of western metaphysics. The assumed center is not there. He then furthered it by mentioning the antecedents to such rupture, which are Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. Nietzsche questioned the long standing precedence of truth and being and substituted it with notions of play and interpretation. As mentioned in chapter 2, Freud critiqued the ascendency of mind which had been hailed all autonomous in preFreudian times. And lastly but importantly Heidegger demanded dismantling of metaphysics and to quit ‗determination of Being as presence.‘ Derrida emphasized that these attempts to subvert the center nevertheless contend to the same jargon of metaphysics (WD 354). Although, contending to the jargon of metaphysics, Derrida asserted that there has been a displacement of center. The center does not fulfill its duty that is to magnetize everything towards it; instead it denotes to other signs and those signs lead to other signs, the attainment of meaning becomes a vicious circle. Peter Barry explicated such rupture or decentering more clearly. He reminded us that before Nietzsche and Freud etc. there had been an order in things. Man was epicenter of everything, there were codes of how to dress, class of architecture, a pattern of intellectual paradigmatic growth. But certain events changed it. Derrida call them rupture while Peter Barry more specifically mentioned those ruptures. World War I obliterated any development that was going 63

on, holocaust dismantled Europe as the center of human cooperation and respect. Even the empirical findings on relativity changed our thinking about time and space, as they are no longer considered fixed centers. The end result is a world with no center and authority (Barry, Beginning Theory 67). Husserl and Heidegger evaluated Europe philosophically on the notions of identity of Europe, ―spiritual unity of Europe,‖ and European Spirit. Derrida has also worked on those two philosophers‘ footsteps and similar to them did not consider Europe as merely a geographical division on world. Ultimately, he took some of Husserl and Heidegger‘s ideas, rejected others and created grounds to make news for decentered Europe. For Husserl, Europe is a transcendental philosophical idea born in seventh century Greece. Derrida questioned such notions, in such a manner that he tried to subvert Husserl‘s own argument, asking if Europe is a pure idea then place of this idea could easily be replaced with Asia or Africa.

And Husserl should not have a problem but still it is not possible. The

phenomenological idealism does not specify a date and place to the distinctive character of cognition of European race. But despite that, Husserl saw idea of Europe as an ephemeral idea actually conceived in the mind of philosophers of Greece (PGHP 155). Derrida debated this single source of Europe and emphasized that knowledge coming down to us about truth and being is not fundamentally Greek. Because Europe is fundamentally influenced by the interconnecting varied integration of other traditions, notions and languages like Arabic, Jewish, Christian, Roman and Germanic which have their own integral position and are not some tertiary additions. Derrida insisted that this is all because Europe has not unfurled only Greek deal but is equally affected by all factors passing through Europe, and these factors should be taken stock of (Gasché, ―This Little Thing‖ 3).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

In ascertaining the identity of Europe, Derrida established a prerequisite to look at what was moved through and interpreted and translated by Europeans from Arabic of before Quran times and after Quran and also from Rome (R 31). As well as when Husserl debarred Indians, Gypsies and Eskimos from his European humanity; Derrida saw this concept as hampering any prospect of openness to other, to openness to anything other than European (OS 120). Not only Derrida drew a European identity bisected by different origins, he created doubt about the assumption that philosophy has Greek basis. He also tallied with the idea that Greek thought might be substituted with Chinese or even African thought. He added that although not new, the importance of such question remains intact, that is philosophy being only European and exactly Greek (P 377). By supplicating the idea of Chinese or African philosophy instead of European, Derrida was trying to show the ambiguity inherent in it and henceforth in idea of Europe. If we take western philosophy founding basis of Europe we have seen in chapter 2 that the notion that Greek philosopher considered themselves European is highly debatable. Derrida, in The Other Heading, queried about defining boundaries of Europe and ultimately giving it a center. He said that this is not possible because there are no fixed borders of Europe either spiritually, politically or geographically. Its geographic borders get blurred everywhere be it to the east or west, north or south. Spiritually if we take it as the hybrid of European Christianity, then is it catholic, protestant or orthodox? This is as confusing as the concept that Europe‘s unity is due to its philosophy or reason, its Jewish linkages or Greek heritage. Moreover, if we take Jerusalem as epicenter, how can we rip apart Islamic memories associated with Jerusalem or forget the fact that Jerusalem is itself dispersed in Athens, Rome, Moscow and even Paris (TOH63). 65

Derrida showed us that Europe is intrinsically a decentered entity. But would not the lack of center bereave Europe of any capabilities for responsible action or decision making. We assume that decision is possible through a program or system, but Derrida‘s conceptualization on the decision clearly comprehends de-centrality he purported.

3.2. Decision: The Activating of Responsibility In The Gift of Death, Derrida prompted us that although some people associate responsibility with historicity, our long established notions of responsibility and decision are assumed to be devoid of any genealogical or historical connection and we also like to believe that responsibility and decision are not any religious notions. In addition, it is assumed that the act of decisionmaking or responsible action cannot be developed as a skill (GD 5). The Derridean philosophical notions of responsibility and decision making are important to be evaluated in the context of Europe. Derrida saw Europe as a responsible figure that have to take important decisions in the international affairs. Derrida said that although we subordinate responsible decision making to knowledge, Jan Patočka believed that any such subordination of decision making to accumulation of knowledge actually lessens the effectiveness of responsibility. And by default prior knowledge would only be dictated by Christian dictums enforced by the clergy that would later influence decision making (23-24). Derrida was commenting on Patočka‘s work Heretical Essays on Philosophy of History and outlined his own idea on responsibility and decision. Taking cue from Patočka‘s notions of responsibility, Derrida articulated that if one says that responsible decision should be made on basis of knowledge, science or conscience then it can also be said that if knowledge is a prerequisite for decision making, then lack of it is also an

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

impossibility of deciding process. When a decision making process is supposed to follow a certain procedure it will simply become a ‗mechanistic deployment of theorem‘ (24). The concept of responsibility implies that there will be some kind of action involved. And there will be requirement for a responsible action which will be done with a clear picture in mind about what action certain decisions will take and what the consequences will be (25). In the discussion relating responsibility, the link between a theoretical understanding of decisionmaking and its ethical, legal or political implications needs to be focused. We should keep in mind that demanding or debating about responsibility without completely grasping what responsibility will be an irresponsible act in itself. But ―the activating of responsibility (decision, act, and praxis)‖ will take place even without any theorization. The decision should thus culminate without any prior knowledge. This is a very vague conceptualization of concept of responsibility and decision making, and Derrida appended that it should be so (25-26). In the context of Europe, Derrida wanted Europe to take prompt actions. His philosophical underpinnings demanded that Europe must not waste time in making the decision but instead take it. About war on terror in 2004, Derrida liked Europe to have a unified decision (F 291). To further understand what Derrida meant to be decision, it is important to look at the story of Abraham, Derrida deals with. Evaluating the work of Soren Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling; Derrida highlighted the story of Abraham. In the story we see a double play of secrets. There is secrecy between God and Abraham; Abraham did not know that there would be a lamb in the end. Secondly Abraham kept secret from Eliezer, Sarah and Isaac himself. He did not disclose what he was going to do until the very end. But by keeping the secret Abraham infringed the basic ethical norms –sharing


important details with his own people. Abraham in this way assumed a responsibility which establishes him to become lonely and singular in the decision making process. Decision making process is similar to dying, as a person will only die for himself and no one else can do the job for him, a person has to make a decision for himself. Derrida added that speaking up make the one responsible lose the singularity in decision making. Decision-making by default should be a secret singular process, while speaking-out, in Kierkegaard‘s words will ―translate it into general‖ (58-60). Kierkegaard also indicated that ethical need of decision making demands us to speak out responsibly to general public about our decision making. Spill out details of what our actions will be, importantly if they involve others. While we have seen that Abraham safeguarded his singularity by not divulging into the details of his decision. This, for Derrida, is aporia around decision making and responsibility (60-61). If Abraham was morally tempted to speak up with his own people about what he was going to do; wouldn‘t that have made him irresponsible (61). This is the complication intertwined with the motif of responsibility. To be responsible to God, Abraham was being irresponsible to his family (62). God would not have demanded a sacrificial offering from Abraham of his son, until and unless Abraham‘s love for Isaac wouldn‘t be absolutely unique and immeasurable. According to Kierkegaard, the sacrifice would actually be a test of Abraham about his two great loves (God and Isaac). In these circumstances, the feelings of Abraham cannot be grasped through our simple humanistic paradigms. Because it will be only in that instant in which Abraham‘s feelings are in contradiction to themselves that Abraham would have been able to give sacrifice of his son. On the other hand, the world would see act of Abraham like that of a murderer. Derrida

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

italicized the word instant and focused on Kierkegaard‘s adage that ―the instant of decision is madness (65)‖. Derrida believed that these concepts of decision and responsibility can logically only be called a paradox (68). Derrida also mentioned that Abraham had no knowledge of what is going to happen at Mount Moriah, but this did not halter Abraham‘s decision making. He went to fulfill his act only on the basis of faith and stood by it. His decision was in no way lead by any prior understanding or information. This in fact is another paradox around decision making because knowledge does not need to be a prerequisite. So in this way we might not have a complete illustration of what a certain decision would be and would have effects. Abraham‘s decision is responsible and irresponsible at the same time to God and ethical reasoning of men simultaneously (77). As we have seen, Abraham tilted towards his responsibility for the wholly other and relegated his responsibility towards his son the other. Derrida mentioned that for Levinas there is no distinction between other and the wholly other so the question of ethical and religious creates problem to this notion of responsibility (84). Applying this on Europe, Derrida is aware that a decision taken by Europe cannot fulfill the responsibilities of all parties involved. Europe might disregard one political entity for the favor of another. Additionally the decision should be swift. For that matter S. M. Wortham associated urgency to Derrida‘s definition of decision to the extant it might not be related to anyone and decision can never be gauged in the present. Something that can be promptly decided will never fall into the category of decision. Additionally, a decision is always made in haste without even ascertaining the availability of all


the facts surrounding that decision. Decision for Derrida, only happens on the thresholds of undecidability (Wortham 31). In The Gift of Death, Derrida also analyzed Patočka‘s version of Platonic paradigm of care of soul and asserted that it can be called beginning of European discourse and practice of responsibility. This is the form of responsibility Derrida wanted present Europe to have. The philosophical development follows as such. The initial dialogues of Plato, gathering Socrates ideas, discuss in detail the motif of care of soul. The motif is present in almost all Greek works. For they assert soul is the real self and knowing and keeping it in command is the first duty. Similarly, it is also a duty to achieve soul‘s clarity and virtue by keeping away from everything corporeal. Such a person who has virtuous soul in command will be like gods and on death will easily and happily get rid of material body (Gasché, ―European Memories‖ 294). But Derrida was quick to point that Patočka‘s delineating of care of soul as responsibility of European discourse is more Christian than Greek. Patočka‘s works are different from Husserl and Heidegger because of Patočka‘s fixation with Christianity. Derrida felt that there is a lack in Christian version of care of soul despite it being quite astringent. The motif of care of soul is originally a Greek one. And as Christianity does not acknowledge the debt Platonism has on it in defining our responsibility of a soul, ethically Christianity has to rip itself away from GrecoPlatonic heritage to complete what Christianity believe its work is, that is the mysterium tremendum. As there had never been a pure rule of Christianity or Christianity in its purest form, the only option for better tomorrow of Europe is that Christianity gets away from what it has taken from Greco-Roman heritage (295-297). Derrida established a unique structure for European responsibility he looked into different schools where motif of responsibility develops –specifically Christianity and Platonism. He also

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

talked about Platonizing Christianity to bring whole new aspect on responsibility. But he also questioned Christianity because for him it is unable to give the answers whether responsibility is for whom, when and by whom (297). By this, Derrida practiced one important job for responsibility, to break away from popular beliefs and consecrated dogmas. Like responsibility demand us to depart from established norms and be responsible, responsibility demands secrecy, a responsibility without secrecy is irresponsible. Rodolphe Gasché mentioned that there has been a practice of people of openly confessing crimes or a legal persecution in public in the former Soviet Union of Russia in era of Zhdanov-ism and Stalinism, and similar instances can be seen in U.S. this has been turned into a responsibility for their citizens, Derrida said that responsibility means that one needs to address the objecting voice. (307). Derrida called for respect and acceptance of ―whatever refuses a certain responsibility‖ even the refusal to answer to any tribunal or any institution (TOH 79). Derrida asserted that democracy assumes that there is a ‗subject‘ who ―is calculable, accountable, imputable and responsible‖ for a requisite of testifying or telling the truth or secret. This Derrida believed would be one of the several reasons to re-evaluate in a democracy to come (ON 29). Derrida worked out the notion of democracy to come in his numerous works. Some of them are Specters of Marx, Politics of Friendship, Who’s afraid of philosophy, On the Name and Rogues etc.

3.3. Democracy to Come In the backdrop of fall of Berlin wall, Francis Fukuyama foresaw the culmination of history in the heart of Europe. He averred that the times have reached their epitome and that was the end of


man‘s ideological evolution. Giving his view on the development of different states around the world he said that there would be some countries that might not be able to reach to the high standard of liberal democracy even if they try to, and other countries may inadvertently have despotism and theocracy as state of rule, but the model of liberal democracy is the best and it cannot be further perfected (OS xi).‖ Derrida felt that it is naive to assert that the ideal of democracy is the idealist of all. He alleged that failure to democracy is not only potent in primordial kinds of rule or theocracy or despotism but this failure and breach also distinguish from the description and by definition, all democracies, which includes the most ancient and continuing western democracies especially of Europe. Giving a totalitarian picture of democracy –stating that this is the highest one can achieve in name of democratization –damages the ideal of democracy as promise. Promise can only be a promise when it is hit back by a failure or disjunction. This is the sole reason that Derrida focused on ‗democracy to come.‘ Not of some democracy to happen in future but a democracy in continual making (SM 81). So the promise of a better democracy and better future keeps alive. Derrida also showed us an inherent problem in the argument of Fukuyama. Fukuyama on one hand said that democracy has attained its epitome and on the other he asserted that democracy guarantees that it will be triumphant in the long run (Fukuyama 212). Additionally, Fukuyama mentioned Hegel and Marx who said that when a society attains the final position of development, that moment is called the ‗end of history‘. Derrida argued that when that event has already happened how come it has the possibility of betterment in the long run (SM 82-84). Derrida also maintained that the assuredness Fukuyama felt about the present and future of democracy is similar to what he himself has thought when he was jailed in Prague in 1981.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

While in jail he said to himself that ―this barbarism could last for centuries.‖ Derrida added that such assuming that there will be similar conditions for endless future, or thinking on such terms is bad for policy making, state and even of democracy (87-88). However, at that time people were hailing about the triumph of democracy and capitalism, Derrida pointed out the ongoing civil wars around the world that undermined the so called triumph of democracy. Moreover, there were wars happening on basis of nationalism, ethnicity and religion at that moment, even in the midst of Europe (98,100). The war of Serbia Herzegovina is one such example. The workings of the democratic system of Europe are obstructed by latest social and economic apparatuses, advent of new technology, television and media and how they are used. These new modes of communication have added a sense of urgency in everyone‘s decisions and so is the case for government. Europe has seen a progress in terms of technology. The advent of television and communication tools have displaced the notion that in democratic states there is a permanent, actual, physical place for public speech. The potential dislike for a certain politician might not only be because of his incompetency; the portrayal of that parliamentarian by media is pretty much in action. Even if they are competent but do not rely on media, the media will portray that as their weakness. Media is thus taking their legitimate power away and forcing them to be mere TV actors (98-100). At that time, Derrida also outlined several malaise Europe seemed plagued with, namely: unemployment; abandonment of people from democratic process if they do not own a home; fierce economic wars among west and east European states, Europe and US and US and Japan; ills of free market, tension between West protecting its citizens from cheap labor and availing cheap labor from rest of the world; foreign debt affecting people; dilemma of arms industry 73

whose illegal transport is more than drugs and this industry cannot be halted because a lot of money and employed citizens are involved; the countries which are against nuclear weapons are the ones spreading them; inter-ethnic wars; growth of phantom states which are mafia and drug cartels like Sicily and Italy; the international law‘s incompetency because its charter is only from a certain background and it is overrun by handful countries (103-4). Mentioning the disjointedness in Fukuyama‘s argument and present state of affairs, Derrida proposed a ‗democracy to come‘ for Europe and rest of the world. He did not simply rejected democracy but was hopeful for it. He outlined the attributes of democracy to come which should be along a certain spirit of Marxism –the spirit that has the ability to self-critique its own self and oversee its own transformation. But this spirit of Marxism will be taken only on its own while leaving away the other attributes of Marxism like its ―supposed systemic, metaphysical, or ontological totality‖ and basic tenets of Marxism like social class, labor, mode of production etc. (110). Derrida felt that only the ability of self-critique is enough for the project of democracy to come, and it gives it a state of promise not a promise only in terms of speaking but one which gives results in positive event (111-112). Derrida saw future only as an expected forthcoming endangerment, which is fragmented from normal events and future can only be explained as an impending horror. To enable ourselves to comprehend what democracy to come is or anything forthcoming in future should only be expected as an unknown event with quality of an impending danger or even monster (OG 5). Similarly, unlike giving a totalitarian idea of democracy, Alex Thompson thought that Derrida emphasized a play to the concept of democracy which is open to varied interpretations and in the

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

form of ‗new international‘ will enclose every nation instead of some mighty states like today (―Derrida‘s Rogues‖ 69-70). The usage of term democracy to come according to Samir Haddad opens up chances for democracy excelling itself for a better place. This term also redirects toward the fact that democracy by default is the only system that is open to critique through its system and constitutionally it gives right to question even the democracy. This process of self-questioning can enable democracy to analyze itself and evolve certain parts of it to be more democratic (34). Derrida does not simply define democracy in terms of a political regime like that of Plato and Aristotle. He elaborately delineated democracy as space where there is equality for all its residents each having different individualities, with irreducible otherness. Democracy for him is a community of friends, where majority is calculated. And such democracy has subjects which are stabilized, distinguished and equal. Derrida incessantly in his various works tried to relate democracy to nationality, cultural inheritance and a place where sexual differences are relegated to none (MS 205). Derrida hailed that democracy to come opens up possibility of deconstruction of democracy and related concepts of rule about birth, nationality, aboriginality, laws and attributes concerning equality of people and their ability to assimilate with each other and law relating the birth right of aristocracy and unconditional authority to certain race or class in a state. Probably such deconstruction can withdraw democracy from ―autochtonic and homophyliac rootedness (206)‖. This kind of democracy is more and more important for today‘s Europe as Europe is engrossed in homophobia against aliens particularly towards the Muslims of Asian origin. Ironically, these Muslims are present in Europe in millions. As we have mentioned in the introduction this is the predicament Europe faces today and it need a political solution. 75

Moreover, in an interview given to Giovanna Borradori, Derrida reminisced that from all the concepts of rule of politics, democracy is the only one that has an auto-immune property, which by unfurling this property can attain its perfection (Wortham 121). Derrida underscored that there is still yet no democracy in the world and this is the reason Derrida wants us to be hopeful for a democracy to come. In this sense, democracy to come is highly dependent on unconditional hospitality and friendship, which gives right to the receiver to refuse whatever constraints and restricts him (Goh 518-519). Derrida also emphasized that there is ―no deconstruction without democracy and no democracy without deconstruction (PF3 105).‖ The best quality of democracy is its auto deconstructive force that delimits itself and questions it‘s each and every move. In his work Rogues; he gave examples of rogue states where with the very usage of democratic tools they have voted democracy out of existence. So democracy has this capability of being used against itself. Accordingly, Derrida emphasized on a notion of developing democracy which keeps getting better. (Munford and Waters 34-35). Derrida acquired democracy as a complete philosophical idea, the one which will be in perpetual state of ‗to come‘ (WAP 29). While reading Walter Benjamin‘s The Origin of German Tragic Drama, Derrida mentioned how in democratic states the state allows police to use violence although it is completely illegal. Or the police violence is just another name of law [Not to mention Jan Patocka, on whose work Derrida outlined his book The Gift of Death, died of a brain hemorrhage after eleven hours of police interrogation (GD iv)]. Or the act of democratic governments, spying their own citizen for the sake of their protection, like tapping phones or putting in electronic chips. The states misuse their powers, sabotaging the citizen‘s private space, in the name of law. Looking at these attributes, Derrida outlined that the real democracy will lead

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

to a disintegration of ―law, of the violence, the authority and the power of law.‖ He also stated that there has not been even single democratic government that comes to the standard of the proper noun democracy. ―Democracy remains to come: to engender or to regenerate (FL 281).‖ Derrida‘s positions his democracy to come against every other democracy where there is rhetoric on greatness of democracy but yet there are scores of people being affected by malnutrition, diseases and humiliation and are even deprived of the basic right of freedom. Democracy has an auto immune property because it allows the opposition against itself and democracy to come is intrinsically related to it. Also, democracy to come will redefine the inflow of people coming in a nation after passing border police today (R 86-87). Julie Candler Hayes, calls democracy to come most pregnant phrases of Derrida‘s writings which later infested into his critique of enlightenment, turning it into enlightenment to come (445). She also mentioned Marie Louise Mallet who said that as we take up any form of democracy in Europe and the rest of the world any representation of sorts of democratic norms, none is up to the ideal of democracy. But despite that no one should stop trying to fulfill that ideal (449-450). Answering to the allegation that Derrida‘s a-venir is not any abstract ideal or a datable proportion of future, Hayes asserted that every form of a-venir ―remains recognizable attached to a real exigency, a real practice or a historical moment (as) enlightenment propels enlightenment to come (450).‖ As mentioned in the beginning of the section Derrida condoned Fukuyama‘s jubilation over the triumph of democracy. Jotting down various flaws in today‘s democracy he declared that the democracy we talk about today is still to come, on that time Derrida shocked everyone by reminding about Marxism and stressing the Marxist quality of self-critique should be used for democracy. 77

In words of Carolyn D‘Cruz Derrida‘s work assured a hauntology that phantoms of Marxism/Communism will always haunt the process of democracy-to-come (―Adjusting the tone‖ 59). But this hauntology does not only preoccupy the concept of democracy but covers what can be called ontology.

3.4. Hauntology: Deconstructing Ontology Something had been haunting Derrida‘s memory, later he remembered what that was, something he read in the Communist Manifesto, the phrase that ‗a specter is haunting Europe (SM 2).‘ This haunting or what Derrida coined as hauntology has been Derrida‘s methodology in creating his metaphysics on Europe. Derrida enlisted every kind of ghosts and specters that he thought makes up Europe. Those specters can be ghosts and phantasms of past and even presentiments of future. Derrida‘s specter can be vaguely defined as a non-present residue at work in every text, entity being, etc. The specter equivocally like a ghost is neither ‗spiritually transcendent‘ nor completely personified. Similar attributes of something absent and present at single moment are at work in Derrida‘s oeuvre. Ideas like cinder, trace, and supplement explicate similar notions (Wortham 197). Derrida dedicated his Specters of Marx to Chris Hani, anti-Apartheid leader of South Africa who was assassinated on 10th April 1993 by the regime. In the dedication, Derrida stated that it is everyone‘s responsibility to try for betterment of our present and any kind of good conscience should not be bypassed and must be acted upon (SM xiv). And it is an ―Infinite responsibility,‖ of everyone and most importantly of Europe because it is the subject Derrida deals with in the rest of the book. In the Specters of Marx, Derrida lamented on the cul-de-sac of concept of justice, when it is only related to living present. He emphasized that the notion of justice can only be fulfilled on the

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

basis that responsibility is not only attached to the living present but also to the spirits of the people who have already died and the spirits of the people who are yet to come. Derrida also elaborated that Europe has a greater responsibility towards the spirits of those who were the victims of ferocity of colonialism, any kind of nationalism, killed in a spur of racism, sexism or oppressed by totalitarian factions or capitalist imperialism (SM xviii). Derrida beware Europe of such ghosts which are spectrally attached in some way with Europe. It attaches to Europe in all the directions. On the West are the Americans who were European emigrants, on the East the various former colonies European countries have been rulers of. Additionally, he was cautious of any policies that propagate better present and future like Fukuyama‘s ‗end of history‘ without acknowledging what happened in the past. Present is entwined with past happenings and future possibilities. Our today must then acknowledge what has been considered the stories of past and also whatever has to come in future. Derrida himself defined spectrality as ―non-contemporaneity with itself of living present (SM xviii).‖ He maintained that spectrality is very important to deconstruction, and the reasoning behind spectrality is the one reasoning deconstruction finds itself at home with. Hauntology is the most desirable thing for the deconstructive philosophy (ET 117). Marx and Marxism vanished with the end of Soviet Union and capitalism advertised this as its victory. At that time Derrida deliberated that Marxism is not dead yet. He like the Marx of 11th Thesis of Feuerbach pledged that it is a dire need of today to understand the world and modify it for better (SM 63). Derrida by reviving Marx‘s thought made it the philosopher‘s task to completely abandon the philosophical path of ontology –discourse only related to the betterment of now –and begin a discourse which will address temporalities in a better way (MS 213-214).


Along with resurrection of specter of Marx, Derrida was also creating a discourse on specter and hauntology. As Marx works seems to be loaded with mention of ghosts and specters so Derrida also plays with this theme citing Marx‘s own work. For example the communist manifesto begins with the expression that ―A specter is haunting Europe –Specter of Marxism (2).‖ The paragraphs in Eighteenth Brumaire dealt with the old concepts of recurrence of history and rising of the dead (133). The German Ideology discussed history of ghosts (133). Marx demanded his followers to ―find again the spirit of the revolution without making its specter return (qtd. in SM 137).‖ Also, discussing commodity fetishism of capitalist system Marx saw a spectral linkage of human relations to material things. Derrida showed in his work that Marx had a constant fixation with the spectral (150). Not only Derrida was creating a discourse on ghosts and hauntology, he was careful of Karl Marx own habit of discarding ghosts. Marx was somewhat trying to put specter above spirit, as if they both are not interrelated (155). He underrated any prowess of the French revolution or insurrection of 1848. For him the ghost of these revolutions strayed on streets of Europe years after they happened (141), but only haunted Europeans without any positive effect. So Marx pleaded for a kind of revolution whose ghost will not linger around. He demanded that everyone must be completely done with the dead, the memorials, the glorifying details of the past. The earlier revolutions ignited the fury on the basis of past memories and revolution. Marx banned such revolution and demanded that everyone bury the dead (142). Although Marx assumed and professed to have forgotten the past, the dead and the revolutions, the title of his work Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and content shows otherwise. The word Bonaparte denotes a French royal family associated with revolution. Ironically by the mention of Bonaparte, Marx is raising the dead (145). Although Marx wants us

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

to bury the dead and be done with it he himself would not like us to forget what he has said (143). Showing Marx‘s inability to do away with ghosts, which are an example of attitude of European philosophers and the western metaphysics as a whole, Derrida laid out his own plan to create a discourse which will be hospitable to ghosts. When Derrida devised a discourse on ghosts, it goes against the ontology. Ontology delineates binaries against each other like present, absent etc. So when taken on this binary a ghost is neither present nor absent, and it does not abide by rules of ontology. Derrida wanted his future scholars to be able to comprehend a certain specter or ghost and do not take ontology as the only resort. Through such a use and focus on ghosts, Derrida has tried to destabilize ontology and restructure the objectives of European philosophers. The ghosts and their quality of indeterminately present and absent is labelled by Derrida as hauntology. Derrida coined the term hauntology which is a homonymy of word ontology. Word hauntology when read out stretching the spooky manifestation of silent h. Ontology echoes in hauntology. Ontology would be capitulated by logic of haunting. Because Derrida has not gotten complete rid of ontology but it is always present beneath, when hauntology is pronounced (Chang and Benjamin 153-154). Derrida defined hauntology as a discourse that is not here to completely take over ontology. It would in essence take within it ontology‘s ―circumscribed places or particular effects‖ of ―eschatology and teleology (SM 10).‖ Hauntology as mentioned earlier is to rightly address the problematic around ‗time‘. The present is at the same moment in now and haunted by any specters of past or future. So Derrida saw it to be mandatory to bring every concept, first of all the concept of time and being, under the cloak of haunting. And this act will be labeled as hauntology. ―Ontology opposes it only in a movement of exorcism. Ontology is a conjuration 81

(202-203).‖ Derrida insisted that in the course of banning and refuting ghost and haunting, ontology is indicating that it is nevertheless affected by spirits and ghosts. Derrida discussed the theme of hauntology in several of his works, creating a huge discourse. His works like Specters of Marx, Aporias, The Gift of Death and Archive Fever, Nancy J. Holland emphasized, have one thing in common that is they all are eulogies too. The discourse on hauntology is also entangled with eulogies (Holland 65). The origin of word hauntology comes from French hantise. Its meaning is similar to haunting but hantise also add an aspect of returning of someone dead. Hantise is loaded word with several meaning attached to it, it also designates a place where the spirit of dead come, a sense of consternation, a feeling of imbalance wandering. Hantise also represents a sense of dislocation of time. Derrida‘s hauntology is an amalgam of all these meanings (Miller 2-3). Derrida elaborated how haunting is embezzled into Europe‘s identity. Haunting is not something new for Europe, it is not something you would say that Europe got affected by recently. Haunting according to Derrida would be characteristic of very being of Europe. ―It would open the space and the relation to self of what is called by this name, at least since the Middle Ages (SM 3).‖ Derrida also elaborated this concept of hauntology referring to Maurice Blanchot‘s ‗ends of (European) philosophy.‘ Where Blanchot believed that instead of hailing of philosophy, it should be put at rest and buried. Derrida thought that Blanchot‘s note on death of philosophy was more a hope for its resurrection. As Blanchot said that the best way to celebrate the so-called hailing of philosophy –which is considered a huge force and reason in shaping our fate and the people around us –is to get done with philosophy once and for all. Philosophy should be buried, ceremoniously announced, exalting it through a ―slow funeral procession‖ in the present

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

philosophical times. For Derrida it thus becomes a philosophy that haunts itself, and Blanchot seems to be demanding a resurrection of philosophy, rather than what he proclaims of that is burying the philosophy (SM 43-44). Our present does not completely satisfy us. There is always something lacking in the presentnow. We either stray into the past times or start imagining about our future. Frederick Jameson also highlights this point he said that as well as being insufficient, our present has a capability of being not sincere to us. This according to Jameson is hauntology (qtd. in Munford and Waters: 19). Derrida believed his idea of hauntology had such a vacillating and disjoint aspect from time and space that it cannot be deconstructed. Although he himself has declared that every notion is can be deconstructed but when he talked about hauntology he defined it as only notion that cannot come under scrutinizing of deconstruction. For Nchamah Miller, this is an example where even Derrida himself can be a little doctrinaire or dogmatic (Miller 3). Derrida seems to be making a big statement unlike his deconstructionist claims, because Miller asserted that as Derrida himself said that everything can be deconstructed, he cannot say that ‗hauntology‘ can transcend deconstruction. When Derrida talked about the discourse on Europe that will address the spirits of past and future, he mentioned about the victims of colonialism, wars and capitalism. He created a discourse which is more open to other entity, the difference of Europe that is completely other. The other person is completely unknown, unfamiliar and Derrida asked us to be open to every aspect of the other without trying to change other into somebody like myself. Otherness of the other is the concept Derridean deconstruction is home to.


As mentioned earlier Husserl saw Europe as a spiritual entity. He articulated how that is going to be constituted, the English protectorates, the US, simply is part of Europe while the Indians and Eskimos observed at carnivals by Europeans as a curiosity or Gypsies who can be seen roaming around Europe do not in Husserl‘s words make up Europe (Husserl 273). Derrida then questioned such racist configurations of Europe. He asserted that to save the interests of English Dominions Husserl outlined a bad Indian and good Indian. Derrida believed this argument ―is not very ―logical," either in "spiritualist‖ logic or in "racist" logic‖ and this is important to note because Husserl was construing the concept of European spirit and such a notion creates a Eurocentric Humanism in the transcendental teleology (OS 120-121). The notions Husserl declared as not European, Derrida tried to familiarize those others in the concept of new Europe.

3.5. The Other: Difference of Europe ‗Other‘ is an important concept in Derrida‘s metaphysics which makes him unique from other philosophers. Mustapha Chérif, an Algerian former diplomat who shared only the love for Algeria with Jacques Derrida, talked highly of Jacques Derrida. He propagated that Derrida is the only scholar who has assimilated the others, other than secular West or Christian Europe in the philosophical discourses, only scholar who had through his philosophical paradigms created an affinity among the West and it‘s other –the non-westerners. He believed Derrida has saved the others from distress (Chérif 103). In the fourth chapter of his book The Gift of Death, Derrida explicated the notion of other. The French title of the chapter is translated by David Wills as ―every other (one) is every (bit) other (GD 82).‖ Wills in another place elucidates Derrida‘s French phrase ―tout autre est tout autre‖

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

and gives two other translations too. They are ―every other is every other‖ and ―every other is wholly other,‖ these can represent an array of others like the other in me which is completely different than me and also that each person is of distinct stature than other. Looking at these aspects there is a possibility that correspondence between humans can be on their distinctness and alterity than race or fraternity. The concept of other is important in the way that only if we believe that the other person is different in every way and we respect that than we are less likely to favor people on the basis of our relationship to them (Wills 123-124). Derrida owes his idea of other to the philosophy of Levinas. But he said that Levinas developing an ethics for other does not distinguish between the God and man, for him both others are wholly other. This ethics of every other is other would halt us in distinguishing between the wholly other the God then others; because in the domain of faith and sacrifice when one has to be responsible towards God he has to sacrifice his responsibility towards lesser other (GD 83-84). Like the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as God commanded, to be responsible towards God, Abraham had to be irresponsible towards his son Isaac, who is other than Abraham (Reynolds, ―Decision‖ 49). Derrida also gave the example of the war in Iraq that was going on at the time his book The Gift of Death was published. The International coalition was fighting against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iraq had skirmishes with other border countries. He said that there have been sufferers of attacks by the Iraq and equally by the international coalition. The coalition condemned Iraq on not respecting the law, but they were also killing those who got nothing to do with it. Similarly as Levinas philosophy on other hand had a religious bent, Derrida mentioned that every party involved in the war was religious, and every party had a version of their own. So Derrida altered the religious aspect of Levinas‘ notion of other for which every other is wholly


other be it God or man and said that the respect to the other will be on the scale of wholly other, for whom others are neglected, only if the other is like God ―an infinitely other (GD 86-87)‖. On the Derridean notion that other should be other in every other sense, John D. Caputo argued that the other needs to be moderately different than our expectations. If the other is other in a sense that we absolutely know nothing of them, then our response to the other will be indifferent (Caputo 22). Jacques Derrida in The Other Heading used his theme of other to characterize the responsibility of Europe towards its others. Derrida emphasized that Europeans have a responsibility to create a new discourse for Europe‘s identity, without any choice for taking or not taking that responsibility. The responsibility is imposed ―upon [Europeans] and in an even more imperative way, in that it is, as other, and from the other, the language of our language (TOH 28).‖ This responsibility according to Derrida entitles the Europeans to create a discourse, not only on the conceptualization of Europe but also about the other of Europe –the non-European. He insisted that Europeans should essentially make themselves custodian of idea of Europe, of a difference of Europe. Not only such a difference of Europe but a Europe that will not be contended in its own self. Europe should be able to expand itself ―in an exemplary way toward what it is not, toward the other heading or the heading of the other (29).‖ Derrida believed Europe needs to be responsible for the others and does not simply turn the communication of Europe in a ―discourse of the same,‖ the other should remain intact with his complete otherness (Mcdaniel 177). Derrida‘s paradigms suggest that Europe should take in consideration the otherness of other countries when it is dealing on the political matters. A former European colony like Pakistan should be dealt by Europe as a complete other which owes nothing to Europe for instance.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

But there is a sort of hierarchy present in the concept of Derrida‘s others of Europe. In Specters of Marx, Derrida mentioned Europe‘s responsibility towards its past colonies, against the violence and atrocities done by Europe (SM xviii). In the same book he fixedly writes about the supremacy of United States (49). In this lieu we can say that according to Derrida the former colonies are Europe‘s lesser other that Europe needs to look down to and help. While US is Europe‘s significant other Europe looks up to. The binaries created in Western Metaphysics like male/female, present/absent, self/other also has an underlying politics of the other. Presence is preferred over absence, self over other and maleness is privileged over feminine. The western metaphysics gives precedence to maleness, female is taken as complete other of male. To indicate Freud‘s obsession with phallus Ernest Jones coined the term phallocentrism, Derrida used logocentrism (fixation of Western Metaphysics with word or origin) and phallocentrism and created neologism phallogocentrism (Wortham 89). He indicated that this is the attribute of western metaphysics deconstruction has to look on.

3.6. Phallogocentrism: An Attitude Ross Benjamin and Heesok Chang writing their treatise on Derrida, elucidate how Derrida saw the European authority as having masculine strength. He perceived the Imperial epoch of Europe as exemplifying that masculinity. He asserted that the reason Europe has had leverage was because Europe has been gifted by a geographical space that is on the margins of continent, with a jutting headland and phallic promontory. Additionally, Europe has always captained the journey of mankind with an ordered style, which is often done by the man in charge (146). Derrida talked about Europe in gendered terms, seeing it as male entity dominant over his past colonial subordinates. 87

He is guilty of an attitude he himself has coined by amalgamating phallocentrism that is the privileging the phallus over female and logocentrism that is hierarchy of logos as the untouchable. Through this Derrida showed that phallus had always been the key signifier in the discourse which is filled with language and signs (Wortham 89). In The Other Heading, commenting on the text of ―Congress of European Cultures,‖ Derrida mentioned that there was a quote that France must guard its ―avant-garde‖ stature. Derrida said that alongside being quite attractive this word depicted to have symbolism with the figure of projectile, prow or of phallic, quill which is advanced forward and portray guard or memory. Derrida interpreted that quote as France has to look for itself like a man (TOH 53-54). He scribbled that Europe always reach towards other, as it has been its practice. Like it colonized majorly most of its East and its inhabitants went over to its West which is now America. Derrida outlined what always has been Europe‘s role in sexual undertones. Europe makes advances, ― and promotes itself as an advance, and it will have never ceased to make advances on the other: to induce, seduce, produce, and conduce, to spread out, to cultivate, to love or to violate, to love to violate, to colonize, and to colonize itself‖ (49). Also, Jacques Derrida in the Other Heading took Paul Valery as the scholar who might be considered as a prophet for European Integration. He mentioned that how Valery saw Europe as submissive to United States of America. Valery warned that it is quite evident that Europe wants US to rule and dictate terms, and as a consequence Europe will be punished. Valery furthered that Europe is so much enthusiastic of getting rid of its past memories that it will gladly let the ―happy people‖ rule over them. Valery sarcastically used the term happy people for the Americans who don‘t have any past memory of their own and will gladly let Europe forget its own (qtd. in TOH 49).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Margaret Heller commenting on the above quoted phrases of Valery in Derrida‘s The Other Heading emphasized that Derrida does not dichotomize the relation of US and Europe as such explicitly. But still she mentions that Valery is working on the notion of ‗rape of Europa‘. Several Books and pieces have come out in this accord. Slavoj Zizek pointed out how Europe has been abducted now and again. He wrote how culture of Europe was ruined by Romans and Christianity was done the same by barbarians. He evoked that does not again recently Europe has been abducted by US who are setting standard for Europe and acting as if Europe is its province. Zizek also dichotomized the relation of US and Europe on the basis of masculine and feminine respectively. Despite Derrida‘s phallogocentric references and his desire that Europe should increase its military might against hegemonic act of US (EPC), Europe does not yet seem to able to dictate its terms to US. (Heller 102). In this chapter we have seen that Derrida considered Europe as a decentered entity, he questioned the Euopeanness of Europe. What about the gypsies or non-Europeans that live in Europe or the influence of religions other than Christianity. There are considerable amount of European immigrants present in Europe who came there mainly after the process of colonization and later decolonization; the majority of them are Muslims. The next chapter will look at this factor in detail to encapsulate a political decentering of Europe. Decentering also influences Derrida‘s other notions especially decision-making. Derrida postulated his notion of decision by taking away from it the subjectivity of subject. Secondly for him the decision made through time and thinking are not decisions but mere workings of a program. A political philosopher who is near to Derrida in the concept of decision is Carl Schmitt, he was adamant of the tendency of democratic regimes of romanticizing the deciding


process even in the times of utmost danger. In the next chapter Derrida‘s decision making will be seen through this political perspective. Derrida conjoined his concept of decision making to the right of secrecy. Secrets for Derrida are very important for a decision to be effective. And this is the other thing he disliked about democracy. The platonic ideal of democracy demands a person to be open to its government. But Derrida do not simply discards democracy he takes it up and demands a reevaluation of concept of democracy. The number one threat Derrida believed can be to Democracy is Islam‘s political thought and this will be further investigated in the next chapter. This chapter also mentions that Derrida wanted to use some Marxist ideals for a re-enunciation of Democracy. In the next chapter we will see how Marxism is haunting Derrida‘s political thought. By talking about non-Europeans the Muslims in Europe or using Marxism for Democracy‘s rethinking, Derrida was trying to open up a space for ‗other.‘ Other is the notion of Derrida in which he wanted us to be hospitable to the otherness of other. Politically speaking Derrida himself has outlined others for Europe, the orient or its past colonies as lesser other and US as the other. In the next chapter we will see how Europe influences the orient today. And we will also evaluate its relationship with US on gendered terms, although Derrida never himself used such jargon for Europe‘s relation with US but he called US as Europe‘s wholly other. He also disliked Europe being used by US in its war on terror endeavors. US have been acting as a dominant male over Europe. And a reconfiguration of political Europe is needed.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

4. Political Ramifications of Derrida’s Philosophy In the third chapter we have discussed few of Derrida‘s metaphysical ramblings about today‘s Europe. One of them was how earlier scholars used to define Europe or European-ness; that is through race, religion and supposed westernization. So somebody of a Semitic race preferably Christian would be a European. Also Husserl barred gypsies and Indians moving around Europe in any definition of Europe, this also can be applicable to the immigrants present today not European by definition of race or religion. Derrida as we have mentioned set out to deconstruct such notions as they seem harmful for the construction of Europe several incidents in France speaks volumes about the importance of discussing this matter. On January 07, 2015 Charlie Hebdo Magazine of France was attacked in daylight by two masked gunmen and 12 people associated with the magazine were killed. Later it was known that the two shooters were Muslims, second generation of the Algerian immigrants in France. The attacks were in retaliation to the cartoons mocking Prophet of Muslims published by the magazine four years earlier (Bronstein). The time of incident was around the Islamic date of birth of Prophet Muhammad. Although it was depicted that it was radical Islam‘s attack against freedom of speech; the killers also killed the Muslim guard Ahmed Merabat who was outside on duty. Merabat‘s father came to France in 1950‘s immigration (Maxwell). Later on, the two killers were on a run-off, took some hostages but were gunned down by French authorities. Although a complete security lapse from the French police (Higgins and Baume), the incident raised a lot of questions of political importance for France.


Derrida who was among the mass immigrations from Algeria to France in 1960‘s has left an oeuvre which has become a need for France and ultimately Europe. Various authors have started questioning what Derrida would have suggested on the issue (Khan). The notion of free speech is the most debated one in this issue. Pope Francis quite vehemently declared that one‘s right to wag his hand ends before other person‘s nose. He said that if a man start to abuse another person‘s mother, it‘s normal that he will hit back. ―You cannot make fun of the faith of others.‖ In France there are also several laws pertaining to hate speech, antiSemitism, or any association being shown for terrorism but any laws against such cartoons or Islamophobia are nowhere to be seen. These limits on freedom are always drawn on political basis (Falk). This situation also turns critical as the population of Muslims in Europe is growing with France having the largest Muslim population in Europe (Rogers). It is the need of time that Europeans in Europe learn to live together –as Derrida has asked –with overcoming racial, religious, ethnical, class or gender differences in this globalization (Falk). Derrida talked about various issues pertaining to today‘s Europe like its role on war on terror; hospitality towards the [Muslim] immigrants in Europe which is a major issue for today‘s Europe; the political road map of what democracy is to be; its relationship with US and former colonies etc. This chapter is going to elaborate Derrida‘s ideas that are politically viable today. But before that it is important to evaluate whether Derrida is a political philosopher and of what sorts?

4.1. Derrida as a political philosopher The purpose of a political philosopher is to ascertain social bodies like government institutions, their relations with other governments on moral standpoint. Additionally, these philosophers also

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

evaluate the structure and working of these institutions. Generally the work of a political philosopher is divided into two kinds; the ethically normative and descriptive explanatory. The ethical concepts political philosophers divulge into are the right of autonomy and freedom, justice, democracy, personal rights and social obligations. These mentioned aspects are then critiqued and assimilated upon a working community that is properly structured. The main purpose is to make the workings of any government more humane and ethical (Honderich 693). Commonly, we consider that political philosophy is only the moral and ethical injunctions by a philosopher about workings of a government. But some political philosophers only take a scientific approach (descriptive-explanatory), which they see is applicable for majority of people, and do not try to justify government‘s policies or workings on moral ground. These can also be called political scientists (Murray 12). Derrida in this sense is a political philosopher whose articulations are based around ethical and moral injunctions. His concepts of the decentering, democracy or other as mentioned in chapter 3 also has moral settings. For instance when he talked about the eccentric nature of Europe, he tried to take away the racism and snobbishness originally associated with the Semitic race and tried to accommodate the not so Europeans present within Europe. Derrida has in this regard worked on various issues and tried to assimilate the ethical within. He has emphasized that one should construe political and legal beliefs from ethics (AEL 115). He has always been critiquing on the matters ranging from international affairs to matters of Europe including France and Britain‘s situation, politics relating market, immigration etc. But he has always demanded to opt for a moral answer whenever a political problem arises for Europe. Derrida stressed that his philosophy and all philosophy should lead to better politics. He 93

believed that philosophers have an ethical responsibility towards the present political discourse. And those philosophers should be in a position to make the real stake holders of international law answerable to them (AI 106). With ethical as priority, Derrida has deliberated upon various issues and gave his critique. He talked about the situation of political Left, took Europe as a political project and believed Euro might be good for European configuration. He was concerned about the vast number of people dying of AIDS, millions of women abused and killed, forced child labor and illiteracy among children and articulated on the possibility of again taking up the social project of Marx in the form of New International that might be able to eradicate the evils (IC). Derrida enlightened us about the socio economics of post Berlin War world, and also detailed how Marxist thought of economics was still relevant in the Capitalist world (SM). He wrote about the intricacies of law and justice, in which he renewed the considerations on force and violence, in the light of his own reading of Walter Benjamin (FL). In MO, Derrida talked about linguist and cultural identity, and issues related to multiculturalism in post-colonial world. Along with the above mentioned issues, he has also worked on the subjects Europe is politically concerned with, that are of immigration and policies relating to it. He wrote extensively on the hospitality towards the foreigners and the reevaluation of immigration system and cosmopolitanism (H). Another aspect of Derrida‘s political writing is his discussion in AF, in which he talked about latest technology on Archives and how the control of archives is in it a very political thing (AF, 11). In similar force, he also talked about the role of university (WAP), globalization (EIRP), and terrorism in post 9/11 scenario (DT) state racism (RLW) and democracy and sovereignty (PF3; R).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Derrida also wrote exclusively on the subject of Europe in The Other Heading in the period after European unification, and elucidated on the world affairs with respect to European identity (OH). That was in the 1990‘s but later on he also showed his desire for a one European force acting on its own in world politics. It is evident through the 9/11 example, when after the incident US demanded cooperation of Europe for its war on terror, Derrida along with Habermas tried to convince the ―European public sphere‖ to not to be run over by US‘ hegemonic policies (F 291). These are various examples show that Derrida in his works has tried to fulfil ethical demands to the political matters of time. He has delved on various issues regarding Europe starting in the decade of 1990‘s. His analysis on those issues has been of vital importance for political correctness of Europe (Johnson 15-16). These aspects show how much Derrida is relevant even today when the repercussions of war on terror are still seen. In this sense Derrida‘s legacy is important. But Derrida‘s works are not only viable for today or the matters of past. His philosophy of a-venir, ajar a greater future and a leeway to the betterment of any system and this make him a philosopher for the future too. This quality of being open to an unknown change has turned Derrida into ―the philosopher of tomorrow,‖ whose political ramblings will be effective not only for today but also in the times to come (McQuillan 2-3). Although a philosopher for tomorrow, Derrida is not a messiah whose ideas will revolutionize the world in an instant. Derrida is kind of a political thinker whose ideals are neither conservative nor revolutionary, but they are best for a steady and positive change. Going by Derrida‘s dictum, changes in political infrastructure will occur but only gradually by constant betterment (Zuckert 355). Derrida ideals won‘t change things in a day but his ideas are worth keeping up for politics of tomorrow that will be ethically informed.


There are various authors who see Derrida as a political philosopher (Sokoloff 341; Beardsworth 1996, xi). But Derrida is a philosopher who is aware of the tragic nature of political philosophy, that to pass through ethics and politics a decision has to be made that amounts to tragic itself (Berg-Sorenson). Derrida‘s political philosophy is aware of the complexities involved in the point of choosing to make an ethical decision in times of acute political crisis. He has detailed how these decisions themselves are of critical importance (chapter 3). Derrida‘s political philosophy not only deal with important political issues but keep in focus the ethical while detailing the complex factors of (human psychology, relationships, biases) that one faces while dealing with them. And one of the most important concepts Derrida sheds light on is the concept of decentering. Derrida told us that present times has led to a shifting of center. This decentering has occurred in every facet of life; the human self, the government style and even the identity of Europe too. This decentering is a major political issue Derrida has tried to deal with. That is how these decentered entities like Europe need to work.

4.2. Decentered Europe: Muslims in Europe In chapter 2 we have mentioned that there are questions about the centrality of identity of Europe. The European identity is generally perceived on the notion that it is a pure race. But we are reminded that even Europa –according to the Greek myth –was a Phoenician-Asian woman. Furthermore, the Europeans attach their lineage to the Greece and Greek Philosophers of 400 BC. But those Greeks never considered themselves Europeans and distinguished themselves as Hellenes distinct from Europeans and Asians both. These facts decenter our earlier notion of what Europe is.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

In addition to that, Derrida (as mentioned in chapter 3) also identified several traits in Europe that might otherwise not be considered European. He asserted that Europe‘s identity will always be mingled by whatever non-European passed through Europe; the Arabs of pre-Quran era and after Quran, even the gypsies and Indians Husserl barred. Derrida in this regard, wanted ―a new today of Europe beyond all the exhausted programs of eurocentrism and anti-eurocentrism (TOH 12-13).‖ He stressed that Europe need to acknowledge the hybridity present in it. He has also shown how it is important to not to make a program of self/good and other/enemy. Additionally, he has also written extensively on the issue of unconditional hospitality (OH; OC). These articulations of Derrida are very important due to the fact that Europe today is comprised of huge population of non-Europeans (majorly Muslims) due to the mass immigrations of 1960‘s and later times. These Muslims present in the Europe are seen as intruders and equally they feel marginalized. The distinct social and religious otherness of Muslims against Europeans is what is creating differences. This is leading to become a growing problem Europe faces today. As the incident mentioned of Charlie Hebdo magazine exemplifies it. And secondly the November 13, 2015 attacks on Paris after eight month of Hebdo attacks intensifies the issue. As mentioned in introductory chapter these attacks were coordinated attacks on three different places (cafe, ongoing concert, and outside football stadium), killing almost 130 people and leaving 352 injured. Later the attacks were claimed by an Islamic State group in Syria and claimed that France involvement in Syria has led to such attacks. The killings resulted in fierce reaction against Muslins residing in Europe and mass immigrations of Muslims due to war-torn situations in neighboring Syria and Iraq.


These events bring forth the need to tackle the growing tensions between immigrant Muslims and Europeans. Samuel P. Huntington‘s doctrine of clash of civilizations (1996) is simply a recipe for disaster. For this we need to look towards Derrida, as he has dealt on Algerian Muslim immigrants, the treatment of authorities on them and also on the notion of how hospitality should work. Derrida wrote that by the end of World War II, the colonized Algerian Muslims were always called French nationals and not French citizens. They could apply for civil services but would remain below the status of citizens. Although there were laws to grant citizenship for Muslim Algerians the administration never encouraged them and Muslims did not pursue it as they thought this will be in exchange of letting go their religious and social identity. In World War II, there were numerous Algerians who fought for France; a law was passed to grant citizenship to the Algerians on basis of equality irrespective of their race, language and religion. But there was discrimination for Algerian Muslims at the heart of the amendment. Only few Muslims who fulfilled certain conditions were granted citizenship. Those were school diplomas, army service with decorations and specifically of the rank of officers (OH 143, 145, 147). Derrida added that it is against the notion of hospitality. Unconditional hospitality demands that a foreigner is welcomed without being defined, delimited in specific criteria (147). Because asking them to abandon their religion and Europeanize them would be a conditional hospitality the guests might be uneasy about. Derrida emphasized that, hospitality should be unsullied and unrestricted, and such a hospitality does not come up with an invitation like you are invited and welcome in my home on the basis that you fulfill following of my terms. ―Pure and unconditional hospitality‖, in Derrida‘s words will always be directed towards, ―who is neither expected nor invited, to whoever arrives as an

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

absolutely foreign visitor.‖ Derrida labels such hospitality as ―hospitality of visitation rather than invitation (DT 162)." Derrida here seems to be critiquing on the situation of scores of Muslim immigrants in France and the policies of authorities towards them which they consider are trying to rip their identity away (Machowski). Additionally, Derrida has said that when nations develop a way of policing the borders (for incoming immigrants), the foreign


in essence turn inwards to linguistic and

nationalistic politics and in return develop a fear of otherness (Carlson 269). These policies then become a tool of what they were trying to eradicate i.e. the reaction from the immigrants. The policies that give rise to nationalism need to be addressed without delay as there are several articles that have theoretically shown how youth of immigrant Muslims will become a larger part of Europe sidelining actual Europeans whose major percentage of population is getting old (Ferguson). Derrida also hinted on his disgust on the use of "threshold of tolerance" for the amount of immigration France was ready to accept and after that limit it was intolerable to accept any more foreigners. Even Francois Mitterrand tried to justify his rejection of immigrants using this phrase. Derrida said that it showed that after including a particular amount of migrants, other newcomers who are not like the Europeans will definitely face a dismissal. Derrida also wrote an article in a magazine condemning use of such jargon to propel naturalist agenda. Mitterrand later on took back his words but Derrida believed that the use of word tolerance indicate a limit to amount a restriction to certain kind of people (AI 128). Derrida wanted to give full option to unconditional hospitality but along that he demanded that there should be an ―equality of citizens before the law (120).‖ So if the immigrant poses a threat he should be dealt according to the law and be reprimanded. But Derrida‘s works mandates that


this immigrant should be treated like any other citizen of Europe would for the same crime and is not unjustly treated because of his difference. This is also to bring light to the common perception of Muslims in Europe or US alike that when a white man is caught for a killing he would be deemed as a killer but when a Muslim especially of Asian origin is guilty of same crime he is termed as a terrorist and whole race behind him is condemned. Derrida has taken Europe as a self on the discourse of self-identification. The European thinkers have always tried to define what Europe‘s self is, like we have mentioned Husserl. Derrida endeavored to change and further this discourse by mentioning the problematic of identification of self, that ―there is no self-relation, no relation to oneself, no identification with oneself, without culture, but a culture of oneself as a culture of the other, a culture of the double genitive and of the difference to oneself (TOH 10).‖ Here, Europe is taken as a self, which will have to differentiate self from other but on the same token accept the otherness of other in self and other. Badredine Arfi also discussed Europe as a self on the continuous project of identification, which need to be aware of self and others. If we accept the notion that Europe is a decentered entity, question arises how a decentered body will be hospitable to other. If we consider a decentered body more in depth, we can see that it will be more hospitable to the others. This decentered self does not implicate that there is no self, the mere purpose is to eradicate possible negativity and biases which arise from thinking of self as a pure entity. Like that has been a case in Nazi Germany that Hitler on the premise of supposed superiority tortured and killed millions of Jews. So an acceptance of Europe for decentered self may get rid of such possibility. As we have mentioned in chapter 3, the world wars have changed the perception that there is a certainty in this world. Similarly recognizing that entities like man or Europe are not that much

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

complete in itself. It will help us lessen the policies of hatred and exclusion that shunned the humanity into world wars. If Europe recognizes a decentering at the heart of it, Europe will become more humble and hospitable towards its others. As there would be no certainty about self, there will be no certainty to define an enemy. When Derrida asserted that Europe is a decentered entity, it will imply that no one owns it. The legacy of Europeans a supreme race that owned Europe would be over. Being a decentered subject would also implicate that Europe will not be so sure about its role. But in Derrida‘s works we see him assigning Europe a responsibility to act as a ―guardian (TOH 53).‖ He also reminded Europe of its responsibilities towards its former colonies in lieu to the atrocities it brought upon them (xviii). This shows an assumption of the Europe‘s former self, a centralized idea of Europe that once ruled the world. There seems to be a logical flaw in the propositions Derrida gave about ‗decentering‘ and ‗others.‘ On one hand he showed Europe to be a decentered entity on other he took its identity as of an autonomous body with a past that had influence on others. Despite Derrida‘s claims of multiple identities of Europe, Europe is still owned by the Europeans, the natives living there. Even if Derrida is trying to make Europeans realize a decentering in conception of Europe, he was still taking one kind of people as its rightful owners. Although he championed a decentered Europe, he himself seemed not to fully comprehend it. This can also be seen through his constant emphasis on others. The decentered subject implicates that the entity cannot be well defined, it is good for any future policies for Europe. But it will also implicate that the others of Europe cannot be defined. When the self is indeterminate so will be the others. But Derrida defined the others of Europe (the Orient and US) as well. And Derrida did so similar to what European supremacist philosophers have always been doing that is


defining its others especially the orient (Spivak 1985 247). In chapter 3 the concept of others is delved deeply, as this seem to be Derrida‘s focus. Despite recognizing that if we take Europe as a decentered subject there cannot be any mentions about others; in the later section we are going to explicate on the notion of others. This emphasis is only because this thesis is about Derrida‘s ruminations on Europe and others are what Derrida has emphasized more. Derrida pursue the old project of ―others‖ both philosophically and politically but also wanted Europe to accept a decentered self. These both cannot work together as mentioned will be a philosophical flaw and Derrida himself isn‘t yet ready to accept a decentered Europe. Accepting that the subject of decentered Europe is only in theoretical form and contradicted by Derrida‘s own writing. We will like to emphasize that the concept of decentered Europe is most important in today‘s political scenario. Taking us back to the core subject of this section that is the Muslims in Europe, only Derrida‘s ideals of decentering can help resolve these matters peacefully. How the Muslims present in Europe needs to be addressed, as Europeans face a threat to their identity. How these Muslims might change the demography of the Europe that used to be including the Muslims who feel unwelcomed. Derrida has mentioned how the earlier Muslim immigrants were already being marginalized. In this regard, Derrida‘s ideals on hospitality and immigration policies are what the European legislators should look into. Prudence demands that they should streamline policies that will accommodate the immigrants as they cannot be sent back to the mother lands after being present for five decades. It is not to indicate in any way that Muslims involved in terrorist activities should be shown hospitality but it is about the scores of Muslims who associate themselves with France or other European states they were born in or migrated to.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Considering Muslims as the others in self of Europe, the next section will discuss the notion of others in detail. As we have mentioned in chapter 3 that this philosophical concept of Derrida is what makes his treatise distinct. He emphasized that the respect of other is important. Firstly it is important to take other as completely other; secondly he also by giving example of Abraham‘s sacrifice of Isaac encapsulated that by trying to be responsible for wholly other-God, that is by fulfilling God‘s command; Abraham was irresponsible towards his son Isaac, as in worldly sense the act of Abraham will merely be murder. Derrida outlined the complexity involved in the concept of ―other,‖ but still insisted that Europe should be responsible towards this other. This other is the distinct being one can see separately. Like in the case of Europe this other can be United States and its former colonies. But what about the Muslims who reside in Europe, they are the other of Europe but then they affect Europe more intrinsically than the US or its past colonies. Such other in self like Muslims in Europe can be understood through understanding the concept of identity.

4.3. Europe’s Political Identity and Muslim Other Derrida asserted that ―the identity of language can only affirm itself as identity to itself by opening itself to the hospitality of a difference from itself or of a difference with itself. Condition of the self, such a difference from and with itself would then be its very thing, the pragma of its pragmatics (A 10).‖ Identity, according to Derrida, is always evaluated by taking in consideration difference of itself. Defining identity is a difficult task because it always needs the difference of itself to define itself. As William E. Connolly also mentioned, ‗‗identity requires difference in order to be, and it


converts difference into otherness in order to secure its own self-certainty (Identity/Difference 64).‘‘ The self needs to know what it is different from to be able to identify itself. Foucault mentioned that if our ancestry is the key to knowing about our mother land, vernacular or systems of government then in essence it will ―reveal the heterogeneous system which, masked by the self,‖ stores in themselves the fragments of greater form –identity ("Nietzsche, Geneology, History" 162). Derrida also believed that identity is like that and the difference within the self needs to be acknowledged. In essence knowing the difference is good but changing it into the other creates problems. The problem erupts as soon as the evaluation of identity begins with association to self and dissociation to the other (A 11). The subject of humanities is always concerned with the notion of identity and identity is almost always talked about in terms of otherness or difference. So such a definition shows at same time a unified notion of self and also a shattered picture of self (in relation to difference and otherness). Notion of identity lacks coherence and shows flexibility. This definition of identity can be best exemplified through the identity of Europe. The cultural and political identity of Europe is always defined by a lengthy list of what Europe is, and what can be deemed as non-European (Arfi 244). As we have earlier mentioned Husserl excluded the gypsies and Indians roaming inside Europe but included US and English dominions in definition of Europe. Also generally Europe is defined as majorly populated by a white race that is predominantly Christian. But again as mentioned earlier Derrida made the question of nonEuropean ambiguous, by stressing how non-Europeans influence the construction of Europe, thus becoming a part of Europe.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Europe or western civilization has constantly been creating a concept of self through a demarcation of ‗other.‘ Derrida is in agreement with Carl Schmitt who insisted that the notion of other is created with an impenetrable demarcation between self and the enemy. Talking to Richard Kearney; Derrida reminded us that western identity has been created by ostracizing a certain other like Romans barring the Etruscans, British embargo on Irish or even creating a boundary of us and aliens. Europe has even created enemy politically and religiously like the non-European and non-Christian ("Jacques Derrida: Terror, Religion and the New Politics" 7). So Derrida demanded Europeans to shun the habit of making an alien identity, which is unlike self or creating a dichotomy of self (good) and other (bad) and also the habit of European/nonEuropean and Christian/non-Christian. Also as mentioned in chapter 3, Derrida wanted Europe to move towards the other heading and embrace the other. This other becomes the case of other in self for Europe as the Muslims in Europe are an integral part of Europe and the population is on rise. If we take the general old definition of Europe then these Muslims are totally the opposite as they are majorly not pure white race and abide by Islam which is a different and seldom opposing religion to Christianity. Derrida‘s seem to be indulging into such a definition of identity that accepts difference within itself. This is also the case of Europe; Derrida believed that Europe is indebted from the pre and post Quran Arabs too. Also his policies on hospitality touched on the Muslim immigrants too. In essence, Derrida wanted Europeans to assimilate the other (Islam). He not only insisted on Islamic otherness for Europeans but also demanded Muslims to jog their memory and reminisce about the plurality inherent in Islam (Machowski).


In the 1970‘s and 80‘s it was a common theme among intellectual to try to propagate otherness and difference in a way to oppose totalitarianism. The poststructuralists like Lacoue-Labarthe, Nancy and post-Marxist Mouffe and Laclau heavily used deconstruction of identities as a counter measure for totalitarianism (Breckman 88). But terror springs not by killing different people but forcefully eradicating difference of a man of his self and ability to act on his own instinct (Borradori 7). Machowski believed that the terrorism present in the Islamic world is actually a resultant of the fear of difference. Although a lot of Islamist can be considered representing Islam filled with violence, but this is not the only picture of Islam, Derrida highlighted. ―Islam is not Islamism,‖ Derrida reminded us, but Islamism always uses the name of Islam and it is the serious matter involving the name that problematizes things (FK 6). Derrida also started a new harmonious religious politics by reminding that Muslims, Jews and Christians have sprung from one Abrahamic source (OS 28). Derrida emphasized that Islam is closer to Christianity and Judaism then religions in places like Japan and Korea. His emphasis on the common patriarch Abraham is that these three religions also have common language of forgiveness (DT 141). Derrida insisted that the West should not take any single instance related to whole of Muslims, it should see Muslim world as independent of singular fanatic events. Quite astonishingly Derrida demanded the West of willful act on their part to help Muslim world get free from the ―violent dogmatism‖ that is not Islamic. He urged western intellectuals to help those Muslims working from within to eradicate extremism and initiate a renaissance for political Islam and interpretations of Quran (AI 112-113).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

When asked how religion plays an important part in war on terror, Derrida responded that it is a weird "war without war‖ which tries to show that there is a definite war between two religions. It keeps Islam at one end and the US and its western allies (the euro-democratic nexus) at the other. But Derrida said that US should also be seen as religious because it is still working on the deathpenalty sentence in their judiciary. Although US emphasize that church is no more an authority in the matters of state, their political dogma is ―God Bless America‖ and their political rhetoric of ―evildoers, axis of evil or infinite justice (which they later withdrew),‖showed an inherent religious stance. While they have created an enemy for themselves labeled as ―Islamic, Islamic extremist or fundamentalist‖, despite the fact that such matters do not correspond to whole Muslim community and majority of Muslims still don‘t associate with them. It is similar to the fact that many Christians in the world do not relate to US‘ inherently Christian demeanor (117). Derrida insisted that there seem to be initiating a definite fight between two religions which both arise from one same source that is Abraham. And if not always physically, metaphorically the battle ground for these two religions will always remain Israel and Palestine. Israel is even today an ethno-religious democracy which convolutedly propped by US itself and Palestine a small piece of land with hopes of a virtual Greater Palestinian state perversely supported by Arab countries (118). With this battleground in neighborhood of Europe and its imminent threat of convulsing the world, Derrida hoped that Europe will begin a new political dialogue to get itself out of ―this double theological-political program (118).‖ The universal Clash of Civilizations dictum hanging around the world, and world engulfed in war that has two enemies one the enlightened West and other Fundamentalist Muslims, Europe‘s case needs more attention, due to the Muslims of Europe that are inside Europe (other of 107

Europe‘s self) but are still other for Europe. Muslims of Europe make a big portion of Europe‘s population; the 2010 statistical data shows that there were 44.1 million (6%) Muslims and there share is expected to grow in twenty years to 8% (Rogers). Ian Manners believe that Derrida‘s work is without doubt the most important for any future research for Europe and European Union because Derrida can lead European integration towards the other (Manners 86; OH; DT; AI). Derrida‘s work aspire for an assimilation of Muslims in Europe, by his focus on the Abrahamic religions he reminded Europe now and again that the Islam (alongside Judaism) is more near to the Europeans who are dominantly Christians than the Hindus or Buddhists. Derrida did not only superficially talk about the assimilation of Muslims and Islam. He also tried to negotiate the Europe with its so-called other (Muslim and Islam) on the ideological level. As mentioned earlier Derrida demanded Europe to accept Muslims as they are nearest to Europeans on the basis of Abrahamic religions. He also warned Europeans to not to take a single instance of terror and take it as a picture of whole of Islam. In addition to that he also reminded Muslims about the plurality in Islam and democratic ideals that are present in Quran but lost in interpretations. Furthermore, Derrida discussed democracy in relation to Islam too. He labeled Islam as the other of democracy but not any other but an important other which Europe needs to acknowledge for the evolvement of present political concept of democracy. As we have mentioned in chapter 3, Derrida stated that the idea of democracy is very near to deconstruction. He detailed at length about how he thinks democracy should develop. Derrida has always been adamant of the narratives of greatness of democracy like Fukuyama. He pinpointed how despite democracy as dominant political rhetoric, world‘s major population is in

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

chaos, wars, famine etc. But Derrida did not simply shun the idea of democracy. He wanted to better it. He wanted to keep democracy an ongoing process, a process that will be upgrading and bettering itself. Derrida seemed hopeful for democracy, what he always said is ‗the old name democracy‘ –the pure Greek notion which was later incorporated by the Christian world. But Derrida desired democracy to be something more than that and for that reason he talked about negotiation in places democracy is usually considered opponent of like Marxism and Islam. As mentioned in chapter 3, Derrida believed that democracy needs to deduce from Marxism the quality of self-critique and look over its own transformation. While on the notion of Islam that might otherwise be believed as opponent of democracy and anything European, Derrida aspired for the assimilation of this political project. For him Islam might not contest the democratization process, it can indeed bring completion to the old concept of democracy (R 29). But before going into this debate we should remember that the subject of democracy in the Islamic world has always been a difficult subject to deal with. The general Islamic standpoint on democracy, reckon democracy as insignificant for Muslims and Islam as Islam is considered a complete code of life. Common viewpoint of majority Muslims is against democracy. Islamic political and religious thinker and poet Allama Iqbal considered democracy as the bed of evil, he satirized that ―the demon of despotism is dancing in [the] democratic robes (Parray 143).‖ Additionally, even Jacques Derrida mentioned that early Muslim theologians like Al Farabi and Ibn-Ruchd who translated the Greek texts in Arabic completely skipped the parts about democracy. Derrida felt that this act was symptomatic of the general tendency of Muslims and Islam discarding democracy (R 31-32).


On the other hand, it is considered that emphasis on divine revelation, sovereignty of God and Muslims tendency to diminish the boundaries between politics and religions have added to the non-development of democracy (Anderson 197). Samuel P Huntington emphasized that there is zero possibility of assimilation of Islam and democracy for he believed that Muslim countries do not possess the qualities where democracy can flourish. He believed that the whole of Islam and Muslims are delinquent for west because they are, ―a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power (217).‖ But the problem here arise that scholars like Huntington only take Islam as the monolithic religion and forget that these religions are subject to various interpretations containing intellectual resources that may lead to support democratic form of governments in Muslim countries (Halliday 116). Jacques Derrida is also of the opinion that there must be dialogue between that particular Islam that may lead to the assimilation of democracy into Muslim world and should not shun it because of the fear of fundamentalists. The following section deals in detail what Derrida has to say on this subject.

4.4. Democracy and Islam Derrida scribed how democracy and Islam are perceived to be in opposition with each other but he believed that a dialogue can be ensued to use Islam for betterment of a democracy to come. ―Islam or a certain kind of Islam‖ Derrida would say that might bring out any form of resistance to the idea of democracy (R 29). The reason he felt inclined to say that is that while surveying the texts of Islamic political thought specifically of thinkers like Al Farabi and Ibn Ruchd he found a certain pattern. He saw that although these two thinkers incorporated the Greek

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

philosophy of Philosopher King from Plato‘s Republic and Nicomachean Ethics in their oeuvre of Islamic political thought, they entirely skipped the ideals of democracy (R 31-32). He also added that a reference to democracy in a Muslim State never comes without bringing a certain amount of turmoil. Saying that he also confessed about how ―little [he] knew (R 32),‖ about these matters. Although Derrida stated this possible incoherence in Islam and democracy, he believed otherwise. He assigned a political duty to anyone who wants to see democracy flourish, they should help people of the Islamic world who are trying to bring a secular in the political and ‗emergence of laic subjectivity‘. And especially help to bring forth and re-establish the ―democratic virtualities‖ inherent in Quran (R 33). Derrida also mentioned the elections of 1992 Algeria (R 30) to make a point how still Islam and democracy are convoluted. And through his works he demands us to overcome so called rift between Islam and democracy and take democracy towards a new horizon. As happened in in Algeria in 1992 the elected party leader (Islamic Front) had to step down by intervention of army because army wanted a better democratic process and their victory was deemed hazardous for democracy by army. Earlier President Chadli of Algeria had started democratic processes and through 1989 constitution enabled a free press, power to constitute political parties and education of masses for a democratic pole. In this consequence the Front Islamique Salut party won in the first round of elections in 1991 ―taking 47.54% of 59% turnout.‖ This was also a precursor that Algeria might get rid of the ruling elite which were the Army and Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) party. These two had the authority soon after Algeria‘s Independence from France. But Army overthrew Chadli‘s government and put a state


of emergency for a better development of democracy. Although that was all in the name of democracy what was to follow in Algeria was extreme fear, abductions, abuse and crackdown not only on the Islamists but common people (Thomson, ―Derrida‘s Rogues”72). Derrida opined that democracy suffered through the slogan of better democracy. The authority sabotages the electoral system in the name of democracy itself. This according to Derrida is the auto-destructive quality democracy is inherent with (R 33). The example of Algerian elections shows this confrontation of Islam against democracy but also show how democratic powers are adamant of anything Islamic. It signals to the aporia related to democracy itself, it is when non-democratic forces suspend the democratic process in the name of democracy. Secondly it is the supposed tension between Islam and democracy, commonly perceived that that each entity is bad for another. The dilemma of the elections of Algeria was that although the electoral process was fair but as the result an Islamic party gained majority, and that faction that took away their authority claimed that the Islamists might eliminate the very democratic system they came from (R 31). Derrida mentioned that some of the people he was in contact with in Algeria were of the opinion that Army takeover was the right choice as democratically elected Islamic government might have been bad for democracy (DA 114). Here is the example of biased Derrida, that certain people think that Islamist might have been bad for democracy. And this is also a negative point we can attribute to Derrida because despite of his claims of alterity and knowing that by clear democratic process FIS would have won he acknowledged some of his friend‘s opinion that ousting of Islamic government was right. But Derrida compensated by ensuing a dialogue between Islam and democracy. He emphasized that if we plainly assume Islamist will be bad for democracy, it will obscure the picture of the

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

other side. If Islam is resistant to certain kind democracy on the outset, it also shows that westernized sections claiming to be democratic are adamant to assimilate Muslims in democracy. Jacques Derrida also highlighted that it is not that simple matter of right and wrong and the two parties in Algeria simply do not stand against one concrete opponent. The westernized sections are afraid or against a certain kind of Islamists and Islamists only loathe democracy because they know a certain version of it. These two have to be receptive to the diversity of the other side (DA 116). The events of January 1992 Algeria show a suicidal quality of democracy; that it can democratically throw democracy out of itself, or it is not hospitable to other even though other was elected democratically. On one hand Derrida mentioned that a certain kind of Islam is hostile to democracy and on the other hand he demanded openness from the part of democracy to other kinds of Islam. Deconstruction should be able to extend democracy to the horizon of unfamiliar (Thomson, ―Derrida‘s Rogues‖ 74). Here we have to see that Algeria had been in the influence of FLN and Army which was seen as the extension of westernization while as Algeria has been a Muslim country the FIS marketed itself as the Islamic alternative. So both of these viewpoints of FIS as Islamic revival and Army/FLN as savior of democracy/westernization were merely political tools and creating binaries of Islam/democracy, Arab world/Europe or East/West would be a naïve step (Thomson, ―Derrida‘s Rogues‖73). The recent case of Egypt is completely similar to what happened in Algeria, in the relation between Islam and Democracy. The revolution of Tahrir Square ousted Hosni Mubarak and later electoral system was established to elect a ruling party democratically. Muslim Brotherhood won the elections of 2011 with a clear margin and its leader became the country‘s premiere. But soon


the Algerian history was repeated on Egyptian soil, army took over for the sake of democracy, crackdown all the elected leaders and executed most of them. The persecution and torture and abductions of civilians, journalists and anyone not considered their own is still going on (Yezza). The western powers‘ influence in hijacking the Arab Spring in their favor is no hidden fact (Milne). Here again democracy was done badly in the name of democracy with the help of western powers. For these matters, Derrida‘s project for a dialogue with Islam is important. Although Derrida showed a little bias that Algeria was better off without that democratically elected Islamist party, he nevertheless emphasized that Democracy should be open to other religions. Derrida encouraged a dialogue with Islam and within Islam. It is noteworthy to point out here that there are scores of Muslim thinkers who have worked on an Islamic reasoning of the concept of democracy. The same Muslims Derrida urged the philosophers of time to assist. Syed Abul‘ala Maudodi, an Islamic thinker of the South Asia believed that democracy is not in any contradiction from Islamic rule only if we accept that religion and worldly affairs should go hand in hand (Parray 144). He dubbed such rule as Theodemocracy but adds that only Muslims should be able to elect a ruler, have a say in legislature and consultation in government matters. He emphasized on consultation and authority should be in hands of ordinary Muslims which is indeed democratic (Jackson 131). Fetuhullah Gulen, an influential figure of Turkey and Central Asia, believed very much like Derrida that democracy has been going through changes and it will evolve and improve in the future. But to attain its perfection Islam is the political system that can help it. He stressed that Quran assigns similar duties to its citizen as has been entrusted by modern democratic entities (Parray 145-146).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Sadek Jawad Suleiman, thought democracy and Islamic Shura to be similar in essence (147). Ali Abdul Raziq, an Egyptian scholar, emphasized that democracy in relation to Caliphate ―can not only be conciliated with Islam but is the one most according to its dogma (Ettmueller 28)‖. Derrida as mentioned earlier urged the scholars of the West to help those in the Islamic world who are trying to unmask the virtualities of Quran that has been shadowed by layers of traditions and interpretations. And there are scores of such Muslim thinkers who have been working on such a level. Derrida‘s project for democracy can be beneficial for both democracy‘s revival and political Islam‘s survival. On Derrida‘s proposed idea of cohesion of Islam and democracy; Alex Thomson said that if Islam according to Derrida has political importance for future democracy and their collision can result in something different, then we should acknowledge these facts seriously (―Derrida‘s Rogues‖ 71). On the course democracy might take, it might not be identifiable as democracy (76). The marriage of Islam and democracy might lead to something new and different. On the discussion of openness towards Islam, Slavoj Zizek also converges with Derrida, although his theoretical and political aspirations are very much different from Derrida (76). Zizek said that despite seeing Islam resilient towards modernization and lamenting about it we should see Islam as an undecidable, open for a socialist project. The reason on focus of Islam is that although it retains the most severe possibility to turn into fascist project it also can be the site for the best. Islam is unlike other religions it has more powerful social linkages, it can counter any possibility to be assimilated into the world capitalism, so Zizek outlined the duty to use the equivocal qualities of Islam politically (Zizek 48-9).


Derrida, aware of the importance Islam and its followers might be able to assert, wanted to use it for democracy‘s own good. Scholars like Zizek also took Islam as a site for betterment and development. Europe needs to peacefully engage in a dialogue with Islam and Muslims. With the ongoing terrorist situations engulfing Europe it might seem as a strategic mistake to not to react and keep negotiating a possibility for common ground between the other (Islam particularly) and democracy (the European ideal); but it may be perhaps the single available option for Europe‘s future (Thomson, ―Derrida‘s Rogues‖ 78). Nor Derrida simply wanted democracy taken as it is present and neither wanted Islam to be taken as is. What he envisioned will be a new horizon for both democracy and political Islam. For such unison, Derrida‘s persistence for overcoming patriarchy that is found both in western democracy and Islamic political system will be of great help. For Derrida, democracy should enable gender equality, but the central stage brotherhood gets in democracy is the reason Derrida seem more reluctant to take democracy as is. He talked about a democracy to come that will be free of this gender bias. He believed that the use of word fraternity embodies the very notion of subjugation of women be it practically present or not. The usage of this name shows women castrated out. Hegel labelled women as the ―eternal irony of state‖ and there is a perception that women cannot be a part of state affairs of democracy. Derrida seem very much concerned about such a removal of women from political discourse. And for this very reason he coined the term phallogocentrism denoting such an attitude of west (Pulkkinen 112). Derrida‘s discourse on phallogocentrism can bring light to the important issue underlying both the traditions of Islam and West that is subjugation of women.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Similarly, on the relation with Europe, Derrida‘s discourse highlighting phallogocentrism can help in the development of this thesis. As mentioned in chapter 3 although Derrida himself indicated that West tend to give importance to man compared to women and he talked about making a discourse that will not be gender biased like usage of words like fraternity and brotherhood. But when he conversed about Europe he does that in gendered term. Talking about Europe‘s relation to orient Derrida wanted Europe to act as a guardian figure over East especially the past colonies (SM xviii). On the other hand he acknowledged the supremacy of US over Europe (SM 49). The way he phrased it, it seems that he considered Europe as a male figure over orient that should be responsible for its former colonies, while he knew that America is the dominant figure over Europe. For that he wanted Europe to overcome military might US (EPC), so to get on an equal footing with US. The following section will evaluate phallogocentrism on a deeper level and also if the two relations of Europe are up to what Derrida dreamt for.

4.5. The Gendered Relations of Europe Derrida has mentioned how politics have eradicated the figure of female from its discourse. Politics, Derrida reminded us, is male centric (PF1 642). In Politics of Friendship Derrida emphasized that politics by virtue of it is conjoined with masculine virility and consequently politics seems incapable of justly dealing with the concept of women and their equality and alterity at the same time (Thomson, ―Derrida’s Rogues‖ 70). Additionally, Derrida has always emphasized that western metaphysics has always been phallogocentric. As we have mentioned in chapter 3 that Derrida conjoined the supremacy of


Male figure and logos in western discourse and asserted phallogocentrism to be its basis. This leads us to a gendered notion in politics too. And, making Derrida‘s own arguments as basis, this section will try to evaluate the relations of Europe. There has been a lot of works on gendered descriptions of nations (Ivekovic; Laban; Mayer), and on the question of gendered identity of Europe a lecture series was conducted by EU. Spivak says that a sex-gender system is universal (2005, 3), while nations and nationalism are politically always masculine (Mayer 2; Nagel 244; Enloe 45). Ernest Gellner asserted that the dominant rhetoric of nations defines their gender (49). Today, to establish dominance; gender is often used in the political dialogue. Gender-discourse basically affects our habit of evaluation and study of every facet of life. Gender thus becomes an important tool in our study of Europe. (Cohn 228). Even Derrida‘s works shows that he encapsulated orient as subordinate of Europe, Europe the masculine figure who is responsible for orient; while he knew that US is ―hegemonic‖ indicating the authoritativeness of US over Europe like a male figure. In the colonial rhetoric the Europeans have always described Orient/East as passive, seminal, feminine and even silent (Said Orientalism 138). 4.5.1. Europe’s relation with the Orient

Engin F. Isin, in We, the non-Europeans asked us to evaluate Derrida‘s problem of Europe through Edward Said‘s works which described Europe through Europe‘s wholly other –Derrida‘s own term for the orient (108). According to Isin for both Derrida and Said the main problem of Europe is its incapability to fully acknowledge the non-Europeans, it‘s other. Although the debate on other might have been

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

initiated by Freud but Said saw Freud‘s interpretations were only informed by a European critique which was majorly Greco-Roman and Hebrew (109). Analyzing Freud‘s Moses and Monotheism, which establishes a European identity, Said wrote that this work lack the most important fact that the founder of Jewish (supposedly European) history was actually a non-European Egyptian. Said emphasized that identity cannot be simply taken stock on its own, it needs to be evaluated through its ―radical originary break or flaw‖ (Said, Freud and the non-European 54). Both scholars already assume the European identity as having non-European origin this indicated the general phenomenon that no race or society can be delineated as pure (Isin 110). The identity of orient is created through the western discourse; orient is seen as a feminine figure. Although Derrida is himself adamant of the fact how politics ostracize and belittle women, he himself is guilty of the same error while talking about Europe and its relation to the orient. In the other heading when he asked Europe to be responsible for its past colonies –his tone created a European (male) figure looking over its dependent (female) orient. Derrida is thus culpable of same habit Said showed is present in European writers. That is a feminine portrayal of east. Textually there have been various portrayals of orient one as a female submissive orient, others, E. Said adds as, ―linguistic orient, a Freudian orient, a Spenglerian orient, a Darwinian orient and a racist orient‖ but never as a true Orient (Orientalism 23-24). As Said has shown, orient is an extension of European identity; Derrida also has pictured orient as dependent on Europe. But there is another side of European identity which mostly claims can only be argued in the context of American identity. Likewise Derrida saw US a dominant figure in the politics and shaping of EU and aspired for an independent Europe not taking orders from US 119

4.5.2. Europe’s relation with US

Iver B. Neumann traced the anthropological field of study on the question of European identity. He said that he only found one work by Stacia Zabusky an American who articulated that only in relation to herself (an American) her employees labeled themselves as Europeans, which she phrased as ―making Europe over Lunch.‖ While Shore and Black, cite one of their employee during their anthropological field work as claiming that there is no cultural basis for Europeanism. The Europeans feel like Europeans only when they are confronted with an American or go to USA (―European Identity‖ 288). Hannah Arendt in 1950‘s also saw the figure of America as creating a ‗European‘ sense in the Europe‘s inhabitants in response to US‘s presence. The notion of European identity Iver believe is created by excluding US and not taking it in (399). This can be seen from Derrida and Habermas coalition too there works are miles apart from each other. But when US initiated war on terror, they both wanted Europe to get away from influence of US. They wanted to combine all European countries and stand against hegemonic authority of US. Derrida hoped for Europe to be able to be an authoritative power. The authoritative power and decision-making capability of Europe, Derrida dreamt of, was tested at the initiation of Iraq War in 2003. On March 19, 2003, American president George Bush announced that they are declared the fight against ‗the axis of evil‘ and asked the world to support them. Germany and France wanted to give more time to UN inspectors, if war was avoidable and Iraq could be cleaned up with International pressure and under UN auspices it would have been better.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Dominique de Villepin, who was the French foreign minister at that time, addressed UNSC, on 5 February 2003 and dubbed war as acceptance that the world has failed (Guardia). It was the same meeting that Collin Powel US Secretary of Defense informed that Iraq is developing WMD‘s (UN). Former German foreign minister Hans Dietich Genscher, in an interview to Deutschlandfunk radio in August of 2002 aired Europe‘s concern in its neighbor, because what happens in Middle East will have more effect on Europe than US (Rippert and Schwarz). But they were only two countries, vocally against US‘ invasion. Other Europeans countries favored US on the very first instance. Soon an open letter was published by the leaders from Czech Republic, Denmark, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain which stated that they were all in to support US in the war, and the reason they stated was that they did not wanted Europe‘s and US‘ relation to turn bad due to Iraq war (Ehrenberg, McSherry and Sanchez 124). Due to France and Germany‘s stance against the war, these countries were not invited by the European countries to endorse the letter and Greece was kept out deliberately. Similarly German president Jacques Chirac flippantly stated those countries as ‗Villainous 10‘ and said that those nations have shown that they were badly brought up. France and Germany were trying to be man enough to counter US but other countries quick attempt to please US was evident of the fact that they knew what they have to look up to. It was the time the European Unity learned a lesson, that co-operation in Europe cannot be achieved by going against US policies. Donald Rumsfeld actually showed who the boss is, by his remarks that Germany and France was a little nuisance but others countries complied with US without delay (CNN). Such a remark by Rumsfeld showed superiority of US over Europe.


This entire event showed a lack of that authoritative decision-making that Derrida envisioned for Europe. Writing at that time with Jurgen Habermas, Derrida also hinted that what Europe lacked a collective stance at that moment of decision (F 292). Although Derrida complimented the stance of France and Germany of trying to stop or lest slow U.S. down but he said that the cohesiveness of Europe needs to be addressed. Despite any claims made the unity of Europe is not there (AI 118-9). Derrida in his works as mentioned in chapter 3, basically wanted Europe to take stand and increase its military might so that it will be able to negotiate matters of strategy with the ―technological, economic and military bully, the United States of America (EPC).‖ Derrida wanted Europe to take a masculine stand against the masculine Europe because in political terms nations with military power are taken as masculine. But the narrative of newspapers and media that was to follow took Europe as a feminine, who the masculine US has to tag alone. Derrida demanded Europe to get away from hegemonic acts of US and don‘t jump into the war. The French and German authorities tried to sneak away from vicious cycle of initiating war. But in US media it was portrayed as anti-masculine to go against war, and one pro-war American declared on National Public Radio (NPR) on 21 April 2002 that ‗the EU is a bunch of worthless wimps—they‘re not good for anything, you can‘t take them seriously; they‘re not valuable partners (Christensen and Feree 295). Likewise the reason why Europeans tend to back away from initiating military ordeal is explained as Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. Frequently opinions like ―Venus–Mars disconnect over Iraq‖ made their way in New York Times (Dowd).

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

There were scores of pieces in media equating Europe as a soft hearted wimpy collection of nations who does not have heart and soul like real men to go to war. The articles and news items were laden with descriptions of gendered supremacy of US over Europe. But Derrida also wished that Europe becomes a military might and stop its dependency on NATO. He flirted with an idea that Europe needs to make a common defense system and foreign policy. In this way Europe would be at position to dictate its own terms, other than being told so by ―military bully‖ US (EPC). A need for a security policy by a combined Europe was not only felt by Derrida but also EU. The member countries already have an agreement which states that al signatories must support EU‘s security policies in cohesion, and must not act individually that might hamper any possibility of making EU a unified authority in world politics. And in December 2003 EU came together to work on a security strategy (EU). The purpose of this strategy was to create a space for EU to discuss their collective strategies, to work out differences among the EU nations and between EU and US (Toje 120), and an act to show equal military status of EU with US. The strategy was accepted by all the members and the readiness of everyone to sign it was probably result of a desire to write a comparable document with 2002 National Security Strategy of the US (120). Getting back on the main thesis of this section, Europe always tends to create its own identity when its sees US presence and the military strategy was also a hasty step just to act like US. The strategy read ―a secure Europe in better world‖, specifying that Europe is not threatened by its own members and have turned Balkans a peaceful place (EU 8) but has threat from places other than Europe. ESS discussed proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (3), terrorist


threats and Al-Qaeda (4). But to be up to the criteria of strategy paper, it has to fulfill some standards. Looking at this piece of paper called ESS, strategically, it can hardly be called a strategy (Toje 120). A strategic paper has to draw its policy about every possible event, like use of military, what circumstances can allow a military intervention in neighboring country. It has to write down the purpose and the ethical means it can use (121). For critics, ESS can only be called a hazy sketch. And with the difference present among the member countries, it is evident that EU would not be able to bring out a combined force for battles so these references have been avoided (121). Toje asserted that these European countries lack a strategic culture, though France and UK want to use defense force, Germany sides with UN resolutions, and with 25 countries (now 27) the probability for a consensus on a military effort drops down (122-23). While NATO was created by one hegemonic power US which defines strategy and tag other members along (23). ESS 2003 was unable to fulfill standards of strategy. Looking at NSS and ESS at a deeper level, there is a clear difference. NSS says that it will keep in check the ―rogue states‖ and if there is a possibility that they might attack US and its friends, US will use force before these rogue states are able to. While ESS also talks about rogue states and their threat, it asserts that it will look into various factors present there like presence of terrorism leading to high violence, if they have potent threatening weapons, a weakened country with coordinated violence and private militia. An even then the ESS states that ―we could be confronted with a very radical threat indeed (EU 5)‖. But there is no mention of clear cut strategy in what ground EU will use force and when, like a strategy paper needs to do.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

In 2003, EU could not create a strategy worthy of its name, in 2008 there were voices to work on ESS 2003 and update it, but because of the fear that Georgia-Russia war which was going on might separate the member states in two groups it never occurred. In 2011, a report was published asking member states for a revived strategy –that is need of time –for EU to survive (EPC 1). Again in 2012 a need for a common strategy for Europe was reinforced (Lundin), but its actual implementation seems a distant idea. In the present scenario, when comparing U.S. and E.U., U.S. is more assertive over the world including E.U. In the above discussion, we have seen that Derrida is adamant of the fact the politics only recognizes maleness but when he talked about Europe he saw it as a male figure over orient and wanted it to be a competitive male with US. But we also see that Europe is unable to fulfil Derrida‘s later dream of standing at equal stature with US. The debate on the political ramifications of Derrida‘s work on Europe comes to an end here. In the beginning of the section we have seen how today‘s France and Europe needs a discourse that will solve the problems it faces. Europe today is home to a large number of Muslims that are socially, culturally and politically different than the original European. With the difference among the inhabitants there are cases of crimes and acts of wars that weaken Europe every day. And that seem like a threat for Europe. But these Muslims cannot simply be pushed out of Europe. The need of time is to accommodate them and make Europe a peaceful place for everyone amidst the wars trenching Europe from all its sides. For this Derrida‘s political works become the most important oeuvre Europe can look towards. Derrida as we have seen is a political scientist who have deliberated on various political issues concerning Europa like the issue of immigrants, the policies to accommodate foreigners,


terrorism, affairs after war on terror, democracy etc. His works essentially direct towards a decentering of everything and the Muslin inhabitants of Europe now politically point out that Europe is decentered. Similarly his discourse on how Europe‘s own policies to castigate the immigrants into various laws actually are a precursor for hatred from these immigrants. Derrida emphasized that such policies should stop and a policy for unconditional hospitality should be worked out. Derrida not only demanded an assimilation of Muslims in Europe but asserted that in Europe the Muslims now constitute the identity of Europe. As an identity is a combined fragment of differences of self. Such an acceptance of identity will help Europe to overcome the crisis its face. But Derrida does not simply wanted a superficial harmony with Muslims, he believed that the European political project of democracy can benefit from political Islam. Although considered the other of democracy; Derrida thought that Europe might benefit from Islam. He asserted that today‘s political Islam do not represent the laic subjectivity latent in the Quran. And European thinkers need to help those who are trying to do as such. Derrida envisioned a marriage of democracy and Islam that might lead to the new horizon. Derrida as we have mentioned several times, reasoned that the real democracy is always to come. So this democracy to come will be able to overcome the malaises world faces today, although most of the world has democratic regimes. For his democracy can benefit from the power of selfcritique that was present in Marxism, also get help from political Islam, but importantly need to eradicate the gender bias present in western democracy.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Derrida mentioned that western metaphysics has always given priority of male over female. This is an act Derrida should be praised for, to overcome such a prejudice for women. But when we see Derrida talking about Europe‘s relations with the orient and United States he used gendered terms. For the East or Europe‘s past colonies specifically, Edward Said mentioned, Europeans always tend to depict East as the female that need help of the male dominant Europe. And that has been the case of Derrida too; he wanted Europe to be responsible towards its past colonies. While talking about Europe‘s relation with US, he acknowledged that US is dominant over Europe, but wanted Europe to man up in front of US.


5. Conclusion Today’s Europe is engrossed with many issues and through this thesis I have evaluated that Derrida can provide better solutions not only Europe but also for the world. And on both fronts that is of Europe and the world it is same problem –the Muslim Question. Europe faces a largest population of Muslim immigrants that pose to be the number one issue while the world fears a certain radical Islam. And almost all great political events of today roam around this one issue, Islam versus rest of the world. To begin with, what Derrida has articulated on the figure of Europe can be aptly called ―hauntology of Europe‖ to use Derrida‘s own neologism. Derrida‘s seems to bring in the discourse; the negated, the unknown or the other of European identity, the ghosts that nevertheless haunt the great narratives of Europeanism. What makes Derrida‘s works different is that I believe he tried to talk about the not only the present or the living only but the dead, the victims of past ferocities of European colonial rule, the racism of Europe, victims killed in any incident relating to capitalist imperialism. Not only this but also the specters of what has to come in future. These specters make up Europe. As Derrida mentioned that communist manifesto starts with the phrase ―a specter is haunting Europe.‖ Derrida took it too literally and insisted that Europe should acknowledge all these specters; the specters of past and future and the specters that are questioning any restructuring of what is Europe. Europe, like the ontology, has always been defined in standard terms. What constitutes Europe will be somebody of European race, white, dominantly Christian. Husserl even barred gypsies and Indians as in any definition of Europe. Derrida questioned such a configuration and not only Derrida, now the millions of Muslim who have settled in Europe for four to five decades

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

question such a construction of Europe. Are they not Europeans? How much longer would they have to wait to be considered Europeans? These Muslims are a part and parcel of today‘s Europe. But still they are considered an outsider. The issue becomes of grave importance to be dealt with as we have mentioned the incidences of terror Europe faces because of the nonhomogeneousness of aboriginal Europeans and second or third generation Muslim immigrants. To restructure Marx‘ phrase in light of Derrida‘s work, it would mean a specter is haunting Europe, the specter of immigrant-Muslims. This also becomes the burning question in the context of war on terror. Derrida emphasized openness to whatever is labelled as other. Because present Europe needs to be hospitable to what used to be considered non-European. As non-Europeans like Muslim immigrants now makes a base in the heart of Europe in form of mass immigrations. Europe today has the largest population of non-European migrants whose second or third generation would associate more with Europe than the land of origin. It is important to note that Europe is always deemed as Christian while the majority of those immigrants are Muslims. Why Derrida wanted Europe to be aware of its diversity and respect the otherness of others seems urgent when we look at the incidents happening in Europe. In France, several Charlie Hebdo magazine workers were killed because it outraged Muslims by mocking their prophet. In Europe many Muslim immigrants complain that European policies are ripping their identity apart for this case it is important to take Derrida on board as he disliked the concept of hospitality, making laws that immigrants are allowed on this and this basis. He is the advocate of unconditional hospitality that immigrants should be allowed as they are.


Derrida advocated complete unconditional hospitality but this does not mean that the immigrants involved in crimes and terror activities should be left alone. They should be duly subjected to law and justice and be punished but they should not be mistreated because of their differences. There should be equal amount of law acted upon the criminal that immigrated and criminal of European origin. Additionally, Derrida‘s works are sympathetic to Muslims and yearn for a peaceful conciliation of Europe and Islam. He stressed that West should not take single instances of Islamist terror and consider it an act of whole of Muslims. He also mentioned how Islam is more near to Judaism and Christianity as they all have sprung out of Abrahamic religions in relation to religions of Korea or Japan. He wanted Muslims to disassociate themselves from violent dogmatism that is not the part of Islam. He also asked the western intellectuals to help those Muslim scholars, who are working in their spheres for a reinterpretation of Quran which shows universal doctrines of peace. Commenting on the war on terror, which has fixated Muslims on one hand and US with its western allies at the other; Derrida said that this creates a tussle of fundamentalism versus secularity but in essence US cannot be taken as a secular entity. The country who still has death penalty as capital punishment, a slogan of God bless America can be anything but secular. To add on that the rhetoric US administration used while starting the war on terror was of axis of evil or infinite justice that implicates a religious demeanor at US end too. Derrida also emphasized that whenever we will talk about this ongoing war that Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews on the other the hub of this conflict will always be Israel and

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Palestine if not always physically it is metaphorically. And Derrida wanted Europe to get itself out of this theological stigma it has engulfed in while helping US. The importance to listen to Derrida is that today the world cannot be geographically divided into lands that populate only Muslims and lands that populated the Jews/Christians. Europe is the land that now has scores of Muslims who live with the people of other religions and it is need of now that they co-exist peacefully. Derrida does not simply propagate an assimilation of Muslims; he studied Islam at a deeper level (theological) and declared that only Islam is the doctrine that will be beneficial for the political notion of Democracy. And this is the second notion and most important if we look in today‘s worlds scenario. As we have earlier mentioned, Derrida wanted an assimilation and acceptance of Muslims in Europe. But he not only wanted that assimilation on superficial level but also believed that democracy can reach new horizons when embraced with Islamic political government system. He believed that Islam might not stand in opposition with democracy but instead it can help democracy in the future. But before going to this debate it is important to take note that in Islamic countries democracy is deemed utterly unnecessary as Islam is the complete code of life and it does not need any other system of government. For most of the Islamists, the word Democracy is near to taboo and ironically majority of Muslim states are democracies. And almost all of them are fail democracies or what Derrida would be called a rogue state. For that matter Derrida believed that democracy can get help from the political project of Islam


Derrida also envisaged such assimilation but he added that the relation of Islam with democracy and supposed western democracy with Islam is a complex issue. If one section of Muslim despises democracy, there is a section of western democrats who believe that Islam can never have a democratic ruling system. For this, Derrida made it a responsibility of the intellectuals of the world to help those of the Islamic world who are trying to unmask the Quranic brilliances and laic subjectivity that may lead to a democratic acceptance in Islam. Significantly there are various Muslim thinkers who stress for a need to accept democracy as a system of rule and incorporate it in Islam. Thinkers like Syed Abul‘ala Maudodi, Fetuhullah Gulen Sadek Jawad Suleiman and Ali Abdul Raziq are four from scores of Muslim thinkers who believed that democracy is the rule of government Muslims should look into. Derrida wanted western philosophers to help them and work on a theoretical basis for the political system of democracy. That might not look like democracy but would be something beneficial for the present world. Even philosopher Slavoj Zizek considered Islam the best site for development of a political system for tomorrow. I believe that Derrida‘s aspiration should be taken seriously. The discussion is important in two aspects that it may lead to a revival of democracy and renaissance of Islamic authority both. Today world does not need the theories like Huntington’s ‘clash of civilization.’ The world already has seen its share of bloodshed and chaos. And it is still bleeding. What the world need today is to look into the works of philosophers like Derrida to heal itself. To make its people live in harmony. Although these words seem like mere words of a romantic, but it is undoubtedly what the world need today.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Bibliography Abbinnett, Ross. "Spectres of Class: Marxism, Deconstruction and the Politics of Affiliation." Journal for Cultural Research 10.1 (2006): 1-23. Abel, Lionel. "Jacques Derrida: His 'Difference' With Metaphysics." Salmagundi 25 (1974): 321. Agamben, Giorgio. "Introductory Note on the Concept of Democracy." Agamben, Giorgio, et al. Democracy in What State? New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. 1-5. Ahmad, Aijaz. "Reconciling Derrida: 'Specters of Marx' and Deconstructive Politics." Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx. Ed. Michael Sprinker. London: Verso, 1999. 88-109. Almond, Ian. "Five ways of deconstructing Europe." Journal of European Studies 44.1 (2014): 50-63. Amin, Ash. "Multi-ethnicity and the Idea of Europe." Theory, Culture & Society 21.2 (2004): 124. Anderson, John. "Does God Matter, and If So Whose God? Religion and Democratization." Democratization 11.4 (2004): 192-217. Anidjar, G. "Derrida, the Jew, the Arab." The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica . Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros, 1947. .


Arfi, Badredine. ""Euro-Islam": Going Beyond the Aporiatic Politics of Othering." International Political Sociology 4 (2010): 236-252. —. Re-thinking International Relations Theory via Deconstruction. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012. Aristotle. The Poetics. Ed. Coradella Collegiate Bookshelf Editions. The Write Direction. , 2004. Awan, Muhammad Safeer. "Global Terror and the Rise of Xenophobia/Islamophobia: An Analysis of American Cultural Production since September 11." Islamic Studies (2010): 521-537. 03 June 2013. Balibar, Etienne. "Europe as Borderland." The Alexander von Humboldt Lecture in Human Geography.








. —. Politics and the Other Scene. Trans. Christine Jones, James Swenson and Chris Turner. London: Verso, 2002. —. "The Borders of Europe." Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation. Ed. Bruce Robbins Pheng Cheah. Trans. J. Swenson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. 216-232. —. We, the people of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004b. Balzaretti, Ross. "The Creation of Europe." History Workshop 33 (1992): 181-196. Bankovsky, Miriam. Perfecting Justice in Rawls, Habermas and Honneth: A Deconstrutive Perspective. London: Continuum, 2012.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Barraclough, Geoffrey. History in a Changing World. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. Barad, Karen. "Quantum Entanglements and Hauntological Relations of Inheritance: Dis/continuities, SpaceTime Enfoldings, and Justice-to-Come." Derrida Today 3.2 (2010): 240-268. Barker, Stephen. "Post-scriptum: Pharmacodemocracy." Derrida Today 5.1 (2012): 1-20. Barnett, Clive. "Deconstructing Context: Exposing Derrida." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 24.3 (1999): 277-293. Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press , 2002. Bates, David. "Crisis Between the Wars: Derrida and the Origins of Undecidability." Representations 90.1 (2005): 1-27. BBC News. "Gunman kills Dutch film director." 2 November 2004. BBC News. 26 February 2015. . —.

Paris attacks: What happened on the night. 9 December 2015. 11 February 2016. .

Beach, Maxine Clarke. The Bible the Book that Bridges the Millennia. 1998. . Beardsworth, Richard. "The Future of Critical Philosophy and World Politics." Derrida: Negotiating the Legacy. Ed. Madeleine Fagan, et al. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. 45-65.


—. Derrida & the Political. London : Routledge, 1996. Benjamin, Ross and Heesok Chang. "Jacques Derrida, the Last European." SubStance 35.2.110: Nothing (2006): 140-171. Benjamin, Walter. "Critique of Violence." Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Vols. I: 1913-1926. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996. Bennington, Geoffrey. "A Moment of Madness: Derrida‘s Kierkegaard." The Oxford Literary Review 33.1 (2011): 103-127. —. "Derrida and Politics." Jacques Derrida and Humanities: A Critical Reader. Ed. Tom Cohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 193-212. Berman, Russell A. "Troping to Pretoria: The Rise and Fall of Deconstruction." Telos 85 (1990): 4-16. Bernstein, E. Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation. 1961[1899]. Bernstein, Richard. "Serious Play: The Ethical - Political Horizon of Jacques Derrida." The Journal







. Beus, Jos de. "Quasi-National European Identity and European Democracy." Law and Philosophy 20.3 (2001): 283-311. 03 June 2013. Bhaba,










‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Bialasiewicz, Luiza. "The Uncertain State(s) of Europe?" European Urban and Regional Studies 15.71 (2008): 71-82. Boer, Pim den. "Essay 1: Europe to 1914: The making of an idea." The History of the Idea of Europe. Ed. Kevin Wilson and Jan van der Dussen. London: Routledge, 1993. 13-82. Bohman, James and William Rehg. "Jürgen Habermas." 4 8 2014. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.








. Borody, W. A. Figuring the Phallocentric argument with respect to the classical Greek philosophical tradition. 1997. . Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2003. Bottomore, T, ed. A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Bowle, John Edward. "Political Philosophy." 2015. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 03 November 2015. Brague, Remi. Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization. Trans. Samuel Lester. South Bend IN:: St. Augustine's Press, 2002. Breckman, Warren. "Democracy between Disenchantment and Political Theology: French PostMarxism and the Return of Religion,‖." New German Critique 94 Secularization and Disenchantment (Winter 2005): 72-105.


Bronstein, Scott. "Cherif and Said Kouachi: Their path to terror." CNN Edition 14 January 2015. . Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper. "Beyond "Identity"." Theory and Society 29 (2000): 147. Brzozowska, Anna. "Deficient Belarus? Insidious Acts of Binary oppositions, ‗Feminine‘ and ‗Masculine‘ and their Implicit Attachment." Presented at Gender and Power in the New 5th European Feminist Research Conference Lund University, August 20-24, 2003. Sweden, 2003. Bundy, Murray Wright. The Theory of Imagination in Classical and Medieval Thought. Vol. XII. Urbana, Illinois, 1927. Burk, Kathleen. "Money makes the world go around." History Today 43.3 (1993). . Callinicos, A. and C. Harman. The Changing Working Class: Essays on Class Structure Today. London: Bookmarks, 1987. Callinicos, A. "Messianic Ruminations: Derrida, Stirner and Marx." Radical Philosophy 75 (1996): 37-41. Caputo, John D. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. Newyork: Fordham University Press, 1997. Cauchi, Mark. "The Secular to Come: Interrogating the Derridean "Secular"." JCRT 10.1 (Winter 2009): 1-25.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Caze, Marguerite La. "At the Intersection: Kant, Derrida, and the Relation between Ethics and Politics." Political Theory 35.6 (2007): 781-805. Cherif, Mustapha. Islam and the West: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. Ed. Thomas A. Carlson. Trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press , 2008. Choat, Simon. Marx through Post-structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze. London: Continuum, 2010. Christensen, Wendy M. and Myra Marx Ferree. "Cowboy of the World? Gender Discourse and the Iraq War Debate." Quol Social 31 (2008): 287-306. CIH. "Children in History." 20 September 2006. War and Social Upheaval: The Impact on Boy's Clothing--Specific







. CNN. "Rumsfeld: France, Germany are 'problems' in Iraqi conflict." 23 January 2003.




. Cohn, Carol. "Wars, wimps, and women: Talking gender and thinking war." Gendering War Talk. Ed. Miriam Cooke and Angela Woollacott. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. 227-246. Colebrook, Claire. "Literature." Reynolds, Jack and Jonathan Roffe. Understanding Derrida. NY: Continuum, 2004. 78-79. 139

Connolly, William E. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. —.The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Copi, Irving M., et al. "Syllogism in Ordinary Language." Introduction to Logic. 12th Edition. Delhi: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2006. 151-199. Copleston, F. Aquinas. London: Pelican, 1955. Cornell, Drucilla. The Philosophy of the Limit. New York: Routledge, 1992. Critchley, Simon. The Ethics of Deconstruction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Culler, Jonathan. "Jacques Derrida." Sturrock, John. Structuralism and Science: From Levi Strauss to Derrida. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. 154-180. Dabashi, Hamid. Islamic Liberation Theology:Resisting the Empire. New York: Routledge, 2008. Dallmayr, Fred. "Self and Other: Gadamer and the Hermeneutics of Difference." Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 5.2 (1993): 507-529. David-West, Alzo. "Derrida, Terrorism, and Communism: A Comment on ―Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides‖." Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 5.2 (2009): 226-235. D'Cruz, Carolyn. "Adjusting the Tone of Marxism: A Hauntological Promise for Ghosts of Communism in a Democracy-to-come." Contretemps (2006): 59-73.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

—. Identity Politics in Deconstruction: Calculating with the Incalculable. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008. Derrida, Jacques. "A Europe of Hope." Epoché 10.2 (2006): 407-412. —. Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. —.Aporias. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993. —. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression,. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995. —. "Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides -a Conversation with Jacques Derrida." Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Micheal Naas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. 85-136. —. "Before the Law." Acts of Literature. Ed. D. Attridge. London: Routledge, 1992. 181-220. —. "Critical Response." Critical Inquiry 13 (1986): 155-170. —. "Deconstructing Terrorism." Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. 137-172. —. Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson. London: The Athlone Press Ltd., 1981. —.Echographies of Television: Filmed Interviews Bernard Stiegler. Trans. Jennifer Bajorek. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.


—. "Enlightenment Past and to Come." Le Monde Diplomatique 06 November 2004. . —. Ethics, Institutions and the Right to Philosophy. Trans. Peter Pericles Trifonas. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. —. "Excuse me but I never said exactly so: Yet another Derridean interview." On the Beach, 1 (1983): 42-3. . —. "Faith and Knowledge: the Two Sources of 'Religion' at the limits of Reason Alone." Religion. Ed. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo. Trans. Samuel Weber. Polity Press, 1998. 1-78. —. "Force of Law: The 'Mystical Foundation of Authority'." Derrida, Jacques. Acts of Religion. Ed. Gil Anidjar. Trans. Mary Quaintance. New YOrk: Routledge, 2002. 228-298. —. "Globalisation, Peace and Cosmopolitanism." Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. 371-86. —.Learning to Live Finally: The Last Interview Jean Birnbaum. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Hoboken, New Jersey: Melville House Publishing, 2007. —. "Letter to a Japanese Friend by Jacques Derrida." Derrida and Differance. Ed. D. Wood and R. Bernasconi. Branston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988. —. "Like the Sound of the Sea deep within a Shell: Paul de Man's War." Critical Inquiry 14 (Spring 1988): 590-652. —. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: The Harvester Press, 1982.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

—. "Marx & Sons." Sprinker, Michael. Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Spectres of Marx. London: Verso, 1999. 213-269. —. "Mochlos, or the conflict of the faculties." Logomachia: The Conflict of the Faculties. Ed. Richard Rand. Trans. Richard Rand and Amy Wygant. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press,, 1992. 1-34. —. Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin. Trans. Patrick Mensah. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. —. "No Apocalypse, not now (full speed ahead, seven missiles, seven missives)." Diacritics (1984): 20-31. —. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1974. —. Of Hospitality. Trans. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. —. Of Spirit. Heidegger and the Question. Trans. G. Bennington and R Bowlby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. —. On the Name. Ed. Thomas Dutoit. Trans. David Wood, Jr., John P. Leavey and Ian McLeod. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. —. "Plato's Pharmacy." Tel Quel (1968). —. Points ... Interviews, 1974-1994. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. —. "Politics and Friendship: An Interview with Jacques Derrida." The Althusserian Legacy. Ed. E. Ann Kaplan and Michael Sprinker. Trans. Robert Harvey. London and New York: Verso, 1993. 183-232. 143

—. "Politics of Friendship." American Imago 50.3 (1993): 353-391. —. Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy. Chicago, 2003. —. "Racism's Last Word." Critical Inquiry (1985): 290-299. —. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. —. Specters of Marx. New York: Routledge Classics, 1993. —. "Taking Sides for Algeria." Negotiations. Ed. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. 117-124. —. "The "World" of the Enlightenment to Come (Exception, Calculation, Sovereignty)*." Research in Phenomenology (2003): 9-52. —. "The Deconstruction of Actuality." Negotiations. Ed. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford: University of Stanford Press, 2002. 85-166. —. "The Double Session." Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson. London: Athlone Press, 1981. 173-286. —. "The Ends of Man." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30.1 (1969): 31-57. —. The Gift of Death. Trans. David Willis. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1995. —. The Other Heading. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992. —. "The Politics of Friendship." Journal of Philosophy (1988): 632-645. —. The Politics of Friendship. Trans. George Collins. London: Verso, 1997.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

—. The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. —. The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy. Trans. Marian Hobson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. —. "We Other Greeks." Derrida & Antiquity. Ed. Miriam Leonard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 17-39. —. Who's Afraid of Philosophy? Right to Philosophy. Ed. Werner Hamacher and David E. Wellbery. Trans. Jan Plug. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. —. Writing and Difference. Trans. A. Bass. London & New York: Routledge., 1978. Derrida, Jacques and David Wills. "The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)." Critical Inquiry 28.2 (2002): 369-418. Derrida, Jacques and Jurgen Habermas. "February 15, or What Binds European Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Core of Europe." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 31 May 2003. Derrida, Jacques, Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael B. Naas. "The Other Heading: Memories, Responses, and Responsibilities." PMLA 108.1 (1993): 89-93. Diez, Thomas. "Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ―Normative Power Europe‖." PSA Annual Conference 5-7 April 2005. Leeds, 2005.


Direk, Zeynep. "The European Ideal in the Face of the Muslim Other." Europe after Derrida: Crisis and Potentiality. Ed. Agnes Czajka and Bora Isyar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013. 134-148. Dowd, Maureen. "The Venus Trap New York Times." The New York Times 16 February 2003. 20 August 2012. . Doyle, Jack. "'This is our 9/11': French Ambassador says Paris attacks are 'act of war' then weeps as opera singer performs her country's anthem." 15 November 2015. Mail Online. 11 February 2016. . Draper, H. Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution. Vol. IV. Critique of Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990. Dugdale-Pointon. "Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)." 16 November 2000. Military History Encyclopedia







. Dutoit, Thomas. "Kant's Retreat, Hugo's Advance, Freud's Erection; or, Derrida's Displacement in his Death Penalty Lectures." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.Spindel Supplement (2012): 107-135. Eagleton, Terry. "Don't deride Derrida." the guardian 15 October 2004. 07 06 2013. . —. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

—. "Review of Spectres de Marx." Radical Philosophy 73 (1995): 35-37. Edmundson, Mark. "Prologue: an ancient quarrel." Literature against Philosophy: Plato to Derrida. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Einstien, Albert. "Induction and Deduction in Physics." The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Princeton








. El Fadl, Khaled Abou. Islam and the Challenge of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Enloe, Cynthia. Beaches, Bananas and Bases: Making a feminist sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990. EPC. "Time for a new European Security Strategy?" Event Report. 2011. Esposito, John L. and John O. Voll. Islam and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Ettmueller, Eliane Ursula. "Islam and Democracy ." Astrolabio. Revista internacional de filosofía 3 (2006): 16-29. EU. "A Secure Europe in a better World: European Security Strategy." Brussels, 12 December 2003. EU. "Maastritcht Treaty." Title V: Provisions on a common foreign and security policy. 1992. 27 February 2015. .


Falk, Richard. "Pope Francis, Salman Rushdie, and Charlie Hebdo." Foreign Policy Journal 23 January 2015. . Ferguson,









. Forsythe, Diana. "German Identity and the Problem of History." History and Ethnicity. Ed. Elizabeth Tonkin, Maryon McDonald and Malcolm Chapman. London: Routledge, 1989. 137-156. Foucault, Michel. "Nietzsche, Geneology, History." Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. Donald F. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. 139-164. Fraser, Nancy. "The French Derrideans: Politicizing Deconstruction or Deconstructing Politics?" New German Critique (1984): 127-54. —. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. Frazer, Elizabeth and Kimberly Hutchings. "Remnants and Revenants: Politics and Violence in the work of Agamben and Derrida." The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13 (2011): 127-144. Fritsch, Matthias. The Promise of Memory: History and Politics in Marx, Benjamin, and Derrida. Ed. Dennis J. Schmidt. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. NewYork: FreePress: a division of Simon and Schuster, 1992. Galilie, Galileo. Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. New York: Cosimo Classics, 1632;2010. Gasché, Rodolphe. "Europe -or the Inheritance of Responsibility." Cardozo Law Review 27.2 (2005): 587-593. —. Europe, or The Infinite Task: A Study of a Philosophical Concept. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009. —. "European Memories: Jan Patočka and Jacques Derrida on Responsibility." Critical Inquiry 33.2 (2007): 291-311. —. "This Little Thing that is Europe." CR: The New Centennial Review 7.2 (2007): 1-19. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983, 2006. Glendinning, Simon, ed. Arguing with Derrida. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. —. "Derrida and Europe beyond Eurocentrism and Anti-Eurocentrism." 27 04 2012. OUPblog. 03 11 2012. . —. "'Europe, for example'." LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series. Ed. Dr. Joan Costa-i-Font, et al. The London School of Economics and Political Science, March 2011. —. "From European Philosophy to Philosophy of Europe." Oxfor Literary Review (n.d.): 37-52.


—. The Idea of Continental Philosophy: A Philosophical Chronicle. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Godel, Kurt. "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of the Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, I." The Undecidable: Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems, and Computable Functions. New York, 1965. Goh, Irving. "Democracy to Come." Theory, Culture & Society 23 (May 2006): 517-519. Goldman, Peter. "Christian Mystery and Responsibility: Gnosticism in Derrida's The Gift of Death." Anthropoetics IV 1 .Spring / Summer 1998 (n.d.). Goldstein, Kurt. The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology derived from pathological data in Man. Boston, 1963. Guardia,










. Guittet, Emmanuel-Pierre. "European Political Identity and Democratic Solidarity After 9/11: The Spanish Case." Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet 29.04 (2004): 441-464. Gutting, Gary. The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Haddad, Samir. "Derrida and Democracy at Risk." Contretemps (2004): 29-44. Hale, John. The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. London: HarperCollins, 1993. Halliday, Fred. Islam and the Myth of Confrontation. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 1999.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. Second. London: Routledge, 2003. Hayes,

Julie Candler. "Unconditional Translation:



Eighteenth-Century Studies 40.3 (2007). Hegel, G. W. F. The Philosophy of History. Trans. J. Sibree. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956. Heidegger, Martin. "Only a god can save us." The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader. Ed. Richard Wolin. Trans. Maria P. Alter and John D. Caputo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993. 91-116. Heller, Margaret. "Derrida and the Idea of Europe." Dalhousie French Studies (2008): 93-106. Higgins, Andrew and Maia de la Baume. "Two Brothers Suspected in Killings Were Known to French



















. History of Metaphysics. n.d. 01 March 2016. . Hodge, Joanna. "Nietzsche, Heidegger, Europe: Five Remarks." Journal of Nietzsche Studies (Spring 1992): 45-66.


Hodgett, H. "EU Defence Policy: Why Europe Still Needs the United States." Dalhousie., 2011. Holdheim, W. Wolfgang. "Jacques Derrida's Apologia." Critical Inquiry (1989): 784-796. 03 June 2013. Holland, Nancy J. "The Death of the Other/Father: A Feminist Reading of Derrida's Hauntology." Hypatia 16.1 (2001): 64-71. Honderich, Ted, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Honig, B. "Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida on the Problem of Founding a Republic." The American Political Science Review 85.1 (1991): 97-113. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. —. Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. Simon & Schuster, 2005. Husserl, Edmund. "Philosophy and the Crisis of European Man: The Vienna Lecture." Vienna, 10 May 1935. . —. The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Trans. David Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Hutchinson, Phil. "Language." The Edinburgh Dictionary of Continental Philosophy. Ed. John Protevi. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. 349-351. Isin, Engin F. "We the non-Europeans: Derrida with Said." Europe After Derrida. Ed. Bora Isyar and Agnes Czajka. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Ivekovic, Rada. Le Sexe de la Nation. Paris: Léo Schee, 2003. Jackson, Roy. Mawlana Mawdodi and Political Islam: Authority and the Islamic State. London & New York: Routledge, 2011. Jameson, Fredric. The Prison House of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972. —. "Marx's Purloined Letter." Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx. Ed. Michael Sprinker. London: Verso, 1999. 26-65. Johnson, Leigh M. "Haunted Democracies and the Politics of Possibility: A deconstructive analysis of Truth Commissions." The Pennsylvania State University, 2007. Kant, Immanuel. "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch." Kant: Political Writings. Trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Katz, Cindi and Neil Smith. "Edward Said Interview." Society and Space 21.6 (2003): 635-652. Kearney, Richard. "Jacques Derrida: Terror, Religion and the New Politics ." Debates in Continental Philosophy: Conversation with Contemporary Thinkers. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004. —. Modern Movements in European Philosophy. Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1994. —. The Wake of Imagination: Ideas of creativity in Western culture . London: Hutchinson, 1988. Kelly, Sean K. "Derrida‘s Cities of Refuge: Toward a Non-Utopian Utopia." Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice 7.4 (2004): 421-439. 153

Kepel, Gilles. Fitna. Guerre au Coeur de l'Islam. Gallimard, 2004. Keyder. "Whither the Project of Modernity? Turkey in the 1990s." Rethinking Modernity and National Identity. Ed. Sibel Bozdogan and Resat Kasaba. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997. 37–51. Khan, Fawzia Afzal. "Charlie Hebdo and the Return of the Postcolonial." Counter Punch 21 January 2015. . Khana, Parag. "The Metrosexual Super power." Foreign Policy (July/August 2004): 66-68. Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling and Repetition. Ed. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Vol. 6. Kierkegaard's Writings. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Klages, Dr. Mary. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" -a reading








. Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth, ed. Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis 2009, 2009. Kreis, Steven. "Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715." 2002. The History Guide:










. Laban, Yasmeen Abu. Gendering the Nation State: An Introduction . Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Trans. Bruce Fink. London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2006. Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso, 1985. Laclau, Ernesto. ""The Time is out of Joint"." Diacritics 25.2 (Summer 1995): 85-96. Lai, Chung-Hsiung. "Transgressive Flows:Theorizing a Hauntology of Anti-Globalization." Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies 31.1 (2005): 123-146. Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambride, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993. Lawlor,










. Leitch, Vincent B. "Late Derrida: The Politics of Sovereignty." Critical Inquiry, 33.2 (2007): 229-247.




. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. London: Weindfeld and Nicolson, 1966. Lewis, Martin W. and Karen E. Wigen. "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography."











Lewis, Tom. "The Politics of 'Hauntology' in Derrida's Specters of Marx." Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx. Ed. Michael Sprinker. London: Verso, 1999. 134-167. Li, Victor. "Elliptical Interruptions Or, why Derrida Prefers Mondialisation to Globalization." CR: The New Centennial Review 7.2 (2007): 141-154. Lilla, Mark. "The Politics of Jacques Derrida." NewYork Review of Books 25 June 1998. —. The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics. New York: New York Review of Books, 2001. Lundin, Lars-Erik. From a European Security Strategy to a European Global Strategy: Ten Content-Related Issues. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 2012. Machowski, Mathew. Derrida and the 'Other' Islam: A New Perception of Islam in the West post 9/11?






. Madvig, D.H. "―Athens,‖." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1979. Magris, Claudio. Danube: A Sentimental Journey from the Source to the Black Sea. Trans. Patrick Creagh. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Malečková, Jitka. "Gender, History and 'Small Europe'." European History Quarterly 40.4 (2010): 685-700. Manners, Ian. "Another Europe is Possible: Critical Perspectives on European Union Politics ." Handbook of European Union Politics. n.d. 77-95.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Marrouchi, Mustapha. "After Derrida -Or the Science of an Oeuvre." jac 25.3 (2005): 469-489. Mastin,










. Matustik, Martin Beck. "Between Hope and Terror: Habermas and Derrida Plead for the Im/Possible." Epoche 9.1 (2004): 1-18. Matvejevic. Mediterranean: A Cultural Landscape. n.d. Maxwell, Kenneth. "Opinion: Two Heroes." Folha De S. Paulo 01 January 2015. . Mayer, Tamar. Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation. New York: NY Routledge, 1999. McCormick, John P. "Derrida on Law; Or, Poststructuralism Gets Serious." Political Theory, (2001): 395-423. 03 June 2013. Mcdaniel, James P. "Impossible Inventions: A Review Of Jacque Derrida's "The Other Heading: Reflections On Today's Europe"." Iowa Journal of Cultural studies (1993): 176-178. . McLintock, Ann and Rob Nixon. "No Names Apart: The Separation of Word and History in Derrida‘s ‗Ledernier mot du racisme‘." Critical Inquiry 13.1 (1986): 140-54. McPhee, Isaac M. " Induction vs. Deduction in Science: The Techniques Involved in Creating a Good








.. Mcquillan, Martin. "Derrida and Policy: Is Deconstruction Really a Social Science?" (n.d.): 119130. Megill, Allan. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Miettinen, Timo. "The Idea of Europe in Husserl‘s Phenomenology: A Study in Generativity and Historicity." Helsinki, Philosophical Studies from the University of. Finland: Multiprint OY,



. Mikics, David. Who was Jacques Derrida? An Intellectual Biography. London: Yale University, 2010. Miller, J. Hillis. "Derrida Enisled." Critical Inquiry 33.2 (2007): 248-276. 03 June 2013. —. For Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press, 2009. Miller, Nchamah. "Hauntology and History in Jacques Derrida's Spectres of Marx." (n.d.). Miller, Paul Allen. "The Classical Roots of Poststructuralism: Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault." International Journal of the Classical Tradition 5.2 (1998): 204-225. Milne, Seumas. The 'Arab spring' and the west: seven lessons from history. 19 December 2011. 24




‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Minca, Claudio and Luiza Bialasiewicz. "Old Europe, new Europe: for a geopolitics of translation." Area 37.4 (2005): 365–372. Minto, Barbara. The Pyramid Principle: The Logic in Writing and Thinking. Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2009. Miyazaki, Yusuke. "Responsibility of Making Decisions without Decisionism: From Carl Schmitt to Jacques Derrida." Glauben und Wissen in der Geistesgeschichte (2011): 140155. Moran, Dominic. "Decisions, Decisions: Derrida on Kierkegaard and Abraham." Telos 123 (2002): 107-30. Morse, Donald. Jacques Derrida; Notes on “Structure, Sign, and Play”. 1997. 22 1 2014. . Moss, Mark. Manliness and Militarism: Educating young boys in Ontario for war. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2001. Muir, James R. "Derrida and Post-Modern Political Philosophy." The European Legacy (2008): 425-433. Munford, Rebecca and Melanie Waters. Feminism and Popular Culture: Investigating the Postfeminist Mystique. New York: I. B. Tauris, 2014. Murray, A. R. M. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2010. Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.


Nagel, Joane. "Masculinity and nationalism: Gender and sexuality in the making of Nations." Ethnic and Racial Studies 21.2 (1998): 242-269. Neumann, Iver B. and Jennifer M. Welsh. "The Other in European Self-Definition: A Critical Addendum to the Literature on International Society." Review of International Studies 17.4 (1991): 327-348. Neumann, Iver B. "European Identity, EU Expansion, and the Integration/Exclusion Nexus." Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 23.3 (1998): 397-416. —. "Russia as Central Europe's Constituting Other." East European Politics and Society 7.2 (1993): 349-369. —. "Self and Other in International Relations." European Journal of International Relations 2.2 (1996): 139-174. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future(1886). Ed. Rolf-Peter Horstman. Trans. Judith Norman Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 2001. —. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1878 (1996). —. The Will to Power. Trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1986. Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Methuen, 1982.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

—. "Metaphysics." Understanding Derrida. Ed. Jack Reynolds and Jonathan Roffe. New york: Continuum, 2004. 14-25. —. What's Wrong with Postmodernism? Critical Theory and the Ends of Philosophy. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1990. Pagden, Anthony. The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to European Union. Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press & Cambridge University Press, 2002. Parray, Tauseef Ahmad. "Democracy in Islam: The Views of Several Modern Muslim Scholars." The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 27.2 (n.d.): 140-8. Pickstock, Catherine. "Postmodern Theology." Telos 110 (1998): 167-79. Pilcher, Jeremy. "Parasitic Art." Transmission: Hospitality Conference. Sheffield Hallam University, 1-3 July 2010. Plato and H. Nichols Jr James. Phaedrus: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Interpretative Essay. NewYork: Cornell University Press, 1988. Plato. "Ion." Critical Theory Since Plato. Ed. Hazard Adams. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992, 1971. 12-17. —. Phaedrus. Trans. Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. —. Philebus. n.d. —. The Republic of Plato. Ed. James Adam. Vols. 2: Books VI-X. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.


—. Timaeus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 360 B.C. . Pocock, J. G. A. "Some Europes in their History." The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union. Ed. Anthony Pagden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 55-71. Pope, Alexander. "An Essay on Man. Epistle II." n.d. Poetry Foundation. 3 March 2015. . Pulkkinen, Tuija. "Tradition. Gender and Democracy to come - Derrida on Fraternity." Redescriptions: Yearbook of Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2009. 103-124. Reynolds, Jack. "Decision." Understanding Derrida. Ed. Jack Revnolds and Jonathan Roffe. New York: Continuum, 2004. 46-53. —. "The Other of Derridean Deconstruction: Levinas, Phenomenology and the Question of Responsibility." Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 5 (2001). Rifkin, Jeremy. The European dream: how Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. Rippert, Ulrich and Peter Schwarz. World Socialist Website. 12 08 2002. 14 01 2012. . Robson, Mark. "An Other Europe." Paragraph 31.3 (2008): 375-388. Rogers, Simon. Muslim populations by country: how big will each Muslim population be by 2030?







‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

. Rorty, Richard M. The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967,1992. Rosenfeld, Michel. "Derrida's ethical turn and America: Looking back from the crossroads of Global terrorism and the enlightenment." Cardozo Law Review 27.2 (2005): 815-845. Roudinesco, Derrida and Elizabeth. For What Tomorrow . . . A Dialogue. Trans. Jeff Fort. California: Stanford, 2004. Royle, Nicholas, ed. Deconstructions: A User's Guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. —. In Memory of Jacques Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. Ryan, M. Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Discussion. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1982. Ryu, Honglim. "Ethics of Ambiguity and Irony: Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty." Human Studies 24.1/2 (2001): 5-28. RT. Anti-Muslim sentiment grows in US after Paris attacks. 23 Nov 2015. 11 February 2016. . Saccamano, Neil. "Inheriting Enlightenment, or Keeping Faith with Reason in Derrida." Eighteenth-Century Studies 40.3, Derrida's Eighteenth Century (2007): 405-424. 03 June 2013. Said, Edward W. Freud and the Non-European. Londo: Verso, 2003. 163

—. Humanism and Democratic Criticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. —. Orientalism: Western Conceptions about the Orient. London: Penguin Modern Classics, 1977 (2003). —. "The Problems of Textuality: Two Exemplary Positions." Critical Inquiry 4.4 (1978): 673714. Sassatelli, Monica. "Imagined Europe: The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity through EU Cultural Policy." European Journal of Social Theory 5.4 (2002): 435-451. Sassen, Saskia. Losing Control. Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization . Columbia University Press, 1996. Saussure, Ferdinand De. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Trans.









. Schmitt, Carl. Political Romanticism. Trans. Guy Oakes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986. —. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Trans. George Schwab. Cambridge: Mass, 1985. Shepherd, Robert J. "Perpetual Unease or Being at Ease? -- Derrida, Daoism, and the 'Metaphysics of Presence'." Philosophy East and West 57.2 (2007): 227-243. 29 May 2012.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Shore, Cris and Annabel Black. "Citizens Europe and the Con- struction of European Identity." The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and Boundaries in Question. Ed. Victoria A. Goddard, Josep R. Llobera and Chris Shore. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1994. 275-298. Sim, Stuart. Postmodern Encounters: Derrida and the End of History. Duxford, Cambridge: Icon Books UK, 1999. Smith, Micheal. "The United States and Western Europe: empire, alliance and interdependence." The United States in the twentieth century: empire. Ed. McGrew A. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1994. Sokoloff, William W. "Between Justice and Legality: Derrida on Decision." Political Research Quarterly 58.2 (Jun., 2005): 341-352. "Special issue on "Marx after Derrida'." Diacritics 15.4 (Winter) (1985). Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "A Note on the New International." Parallax 7.3 (2001): 12-16. —. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and Interpretation of Culture. Ed. Carry Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. London: Macmillan, 1988. 24-28. —. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. London: Routledge, 1988. —."The Rani of Sirmur: An Essay in reading the Archives." History and Theory 24.3 (1985): 247-272. —. "Thinking About Edward Said: Pages from a Memoir." Critical Inquiry 31 (2005): 519-525. —. "What is gender? Where is Europe? Walking with Balibar." The Fifth Ursula Hirshman Annual Lecture on Gender and Europe. Florence: Robert Schuman Center for Advanced 165






. Sprinker, Michael. "Introduction." Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx. Ed. Micheal Sprinker. London: Verso, 1999. 1-5. Stefan Dudink, Karen Hagemann, John Tosh, ed. Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Stirner, M. The Ego and his Own. Ed. John Carroll. New York: Harper & Row, 1971 [1845]. Szeman, Imre. "Ghostly matters: On derrida's specters." Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society 12.2 (2001): 104-116. Tampoia, Francesco. "Review of Europe, or The Infinite Task: A Study of a Philosophical Concept by Rodolphe Gasché." Philosophy in Review XXX (2010): 39-41. Thiele, Leslie Paul. Thinking Politics: Perspectives in Ancient, Modern and Post-modern Political Theory. 2nd. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2002. Thomas, Paul. "Seeing is Believing: Marx's Manifesto, Derrida's Apparition." The Socialist Register (1998): 205-. Thomson, Alex. "Derrida's Rogues: Islam and the Futures of Deconstruction." Derrida: Negotiating the Legacy. Ed. Madeleine Fagan, et al. Edinburgh, 2007. 66-79. —.













‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Thrift, Nigel. "A Phantom State? International Money, Electronic Networks and Global Cities." Thrift, Nigel. Spatial Formations. London: Sage, 1996. 213-255. Thurschwell, Adam. "Specters and Scholars: Derrida and the Tragedy of Political Thought." German Law Journal 06.01 (2005): 87-99. Toje, Asle. "The 2003 European Union Security Strategy: A Critical Appraisal." European Foreign Affairs Review 10 (2005): 117-133. Tully, James. "The Kantian Idea of Europe: Critical and Cosmopolitan Perspectives." The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to European Union. Ed. Anthony Pagden. Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press & Cambridge University Press, 2002. 331-358. UN. Briefing Security Council, US Secretary of State Powell presents evidence of Iraq's failure to disarm. 05 February 2003. 02 February 2015. Valéry, Paul. "Crisis of the Mind(1919)." 22 10 2006. History Guide: Lectures on Twentieth Century Europe. 7 4 2012. . Vos, Jan de. "The Academy of Everyday Life - Pscychology, Hauntology and Psychoanalysis." Educational Insights 13.4 (2009). Ward, I. "Identity and Difference: the Eurpean Union and Post-Modernism." New Legal Dynamics of European Union. Ed. J. Shaw and G. More. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. 15-28. Weedon, Chris. Identity and Culture: Narratives of Differnce and Belonging. New York: Open University Press, 2004.


Wills. David. "Derrida and aesthetics: Lemming (reframingthe abyss)." Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader. Ed. Tom Cohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 108-131. Wolin, Richard. The Seduction of Unreason: The intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Post-Modernism. 2004. Worldology. "How Christianity Rose to Dominate Europe." 2009. 7 May 2014. . Wortham, Simon Morgan. The Derrida Dictionary. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. Yeats, W. B. Introduction - Oxford Book of Modern Verse 1892–1935. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936. Yeh, Amy. "Said's Orientalism." 31 10 2000. Fu Jen University Department of English Language






. Yezza, Hicham. What Algeria 1992 can, and cannot, teach us about Egypt 2013. 23 July 2013. 24 February 2015. . Young, R. White Mythologies. Writing History and the West. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Yusuke, Miyazaki. "Responsibility of Making Decisions without Decisionism: From Carl Schmitt to Jacques Derrida." libre (n.d.): 140-155.

‫آمنہ رضا عباسی‬

Zabusky, Stacia E. Launching Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. —. "Making Europe over Lunch: Nationality and Identity at the European Space Agency." Council for European Studies biennial conference of Europeanists. Chicago, 1992. Zizek, Slavoj. Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle. London: Verso, 2004. Zuckert, Catherine. "The Politics of Derridean Deconstruction." Polity XXIII.3 (Spring 1991): 335-356.