The 'ethics of deconstruction'? -- Ethical (im)possibilities -- Ethics under erasure -- Ethical experience : a cinematic example.

In "The Ends of Man," when talking about a deconstructive process of writing, Jacques Derrida says that "what we need, perhaps, as Nietzsche said, is a change of "style," and if there is style, Nietzsche reminds us, it must be plural". On his debt to Nietzsche, Derrida remains elusive, although it is obvious that there are many manifestations of Nietzsche's presence throughout Derrida's writings. As this quote suggests, if there is not a similarity in style between Nietzsche and Derrida, there (...) are some definite similarities of approach and intent. While their arguments are far more intricate than the similarities on which this article will focus can communicate, I will argue that Nietzsche's concept of 'perspectivism' could perhaps be seen as a paradigm for Derrida's concept of 'différance.' The aim of this article, then, will be to argue that in 'perspectivism' and 'différance,' a notion of "play" problematizes the traditional concept of the subject, but in doing so it allows for ethical possibilities. These issues will be explored in two parts. The first section, "The Subject as Play," argues that in Nietzsche's 'perspectivism' and Derrida's 'différance' there is a refusal to hypostasise the subject, and this refusal is evidenced in both Nietzsche's and Derrida's playing with the "proper name." In the second section, "Ethical Possibilities," in contradistinction to critical readings of Nietzsche and Derrida that label their writings—because of their switching of styles and their manipulation of the subject—irresponsible and nihilistic, I will argue that it is precisely because of their subversive techniques that ethical possibilities are generated. (shrink)

How can anyone consent to being eaten? This was, and still is, a common question and response to the cannibalism case that took place in Germany in 2001. It was a case that took 6 years to resolve because the notion of 'consent' entailed, at the time, legal and moral complications.

Exploring who, what and how we remember, this piece proposes that to remember requires, on the one hand, an auto-memoration, and at the same time, on the other hand, auto-memoration always detours through the world and through the other, which requires ‘con-memoration’. Referring to Derrida and Nancy, this piece argues that the memories of ourselves, and of others, is always already mediated because structured by differance and the other, and thus entails also a forgetting.

Takes some of the most prominent theoretical approaches used in Cultural Studies and demonstrates the ways in which they are used to evaluate, analyse and interpret recent events, debates, topics and texts in contemporary society. N. Anderson, Macquarie University; K. Schlunke, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

In her paper “Creative Evolution and the Creation of Man,” one of the arguments Colebrook puts forth is that as a means of challenging the mechanistic and teleological conception of Darwinian evolution, creative evolution takes an antihumanist position by positing that there is an absence of end, thus “man” is able to create his own end. But in taking this position, Colebrook points out that creative evolution re-establishes the humanistic discourse on the human that it was attempting to challenge. To (...) elucidate Colebrook's argument, this paper draws on the work of Derrida to “play” with the notion of style in order to reflect on the ways in which philosophical deductive argumentation and reasoning constitute and perpetuate humanist and metaphysical discourses on the human, and the ends of “man.”. (shrink)

This paper aims to unravel a tension between the act of naming and ‘differential relationality’. Derrida has taught us that ‘naming’ is an essentialising, and thus metaphysical gesture that works to define and circumscribe a field of work (for instance, ‘Eco-Deconstruction’), the human, and ecology. ‘Naming’ entails the beginning of the institutionalisation and sedimentation of a field, despite a ‘field’s’ claim to the opposite. The danger of such sedimentation is that it perpetuates what Derrida calls ipseity that in the history (...) of western philosophy and metaphysics has worked in contradistinction to the nonhuman (animals, environment, ecology). (shrink)