5. Abrahamic Tongues: Abdelkebir Khatibi, Jacques Hassoun, Jacques Derrida

2020 ◽  
pp. 101-128
2020 ◽  
pp. 347-360
Author(s):  
Olivia C. Harrison

In 1985, the Moroccan writer Abdelkébir Khatibi and the Egyptian Jewish psychoanalyst Jacques Hassoun published an epistolary book, Le même livre (‘The same book’), excerpts of which are translated here for the first time. Playing on the Arabic notion ahl al-kitab, the people of the Book common to Jews, Christians and Muslims, Le même livre centres round the twin figures of the Semite – the Jew and the Arab – as they have been articulated in theological, political and poetic discourses in order to question, and move beyond, the opposition naturalised in the expression ‘Judeo-Arab conflict’. Previewing the dialogue Khatibi would have with another Francophone Jewish exile, Jacques Derrida, in the 1990s, Le même livre is a deconstruction of identity, be it religious, ethnic, cultural or linguistic. Against sameness, Khatibi and Hassoun offer an ‘exercise in alterity’ written in the pages of The Same Book.


2020 ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Assia Belhabib

A key topic in Abdelkébir Khatibi’s works is undeniably the way in which different parts of the social body do interact, intersect, ignore or even reject each other. A forerunner of postcolonial thought in Morocco, Khatibi explores this challenging question in his essays, more specifically Maghreb pluriel, Du bilinguisme, Chemins de traverse, but also in his dialogues with Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Jacques Hassoun and Rita El Khayat. Khatibi’s vision cleverly scrutinizes human relationships, as well as links between societies that cannot be conceived of independently from group relationships. Playing skillfully with words, Khatibi highlights the importance of language in the formation of social barriers. A vigilant and insightful intellectual, Khatibi questions in his rich and complex work the language of Francophone writers since independence.


CounterText ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Callus

In this essay Ivan Callus provides some reflections on literature in the present. He considers the tenability of the post-literary label and looks at works that might be posited as having some degree of countertextual affinity. The essay, while not setting itself up as a creative piece, deliberately structures itself unconventionally. It frames its argument within twenty-one sections that are self-contained but that also echo each other in their attempt to develop an overarching argument which draws out some of the challenges that lie before the countertextual and the post-literary. Punctuating the essay and contributing to its unconventional take on the practice of literary criticism is a series of exercises for the reader to complete, if so wished; the essay makes no attempt, however, to suggest that a countertextual criticism ought to make a routine of such devices. The separate sections contain reflections on a number of texts and writers, among them, and in order of appearance, Hamlet, Anthony Trollope, Jacques Derrida, The Time Machine, Don Quixote, Mark Z. Danielewski, Mark B. N. Hansen, Gunter Kress, Scott's Reliquiae Trotcosienses, W. B. Yeats, Kate Tempest, David Jones, Anne Michaels, Bernice Eisenstein, Paul Auster, J. M. Coetzee, Billy Collins, Deidre Shauna Lynch, Tim Parks, Tom McCarthy – and Hamlet again. The essay's length fulfils a performative function but also facilitates as extensive a catalogue of aspects of the countertextual in literature and elsewhere as is feasible or as might be dared at this stage.


Derrida Today ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-101
Author(s):  
Joanna Hodge

This essay responds to the Nancean account of presentation, evoked in the opening citation, in order to trace out in Nancy's enquiries a disruption of Husserlian presentation, and a re-thinking of materiality on the edge of classical phenomenology. It stages a non-encounter between the writings of Jean-Luc Nancy and of Jacques Derrida in relation to a third term, the Lacanian conception of the ‘real’. Thereby it can be shown how these writings touch on each other, in response to phenomenology and to psychoanalytical theory, but do not engage. All the same, the claim to be made is that the writings of Nancy and Derrida converge in forming a third option, alongside the secularised phenomenologies of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty and the Christian phenomenologies of Jean-Luc Marion and Michel Henry, by marking up the event of Lacan's reformulation of Freud's psychoanalytical theorising.


Derrida Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stella Gaon

Jacques Derrida regularly appeals to an affirmative gesture that is ‘prior’ to or more ‘originary’ than the form of the question, and this suggests one way to understand deconstruction's critical force. The ‘Yes, yes’, he says, situates a ‘vigil or beyond of the question’ with respect to an ‘irreducible responsibility’. Some Derrida scholars therefore construe the double affirmation as a source or ground of critique. In this paper, I refute this suggestion. While an originary ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘come’ (viens) does open the fields of (for example) ‘inheritance’, language, or ‘holistic webs’, I argue, it only marks (will have marked) the processes of différance or of trace that make signification possible in general. No thing, as such, is thereby affirmed. This is why the originary affirmation cannot be said to constitute, in itself, the imperative (il la faut) of the logic (la logique) of ethical-political critique. To explain why a certain ethical imperative can be associated with deconstruction, one must determine why one is always already subject to a vigil that opens critique to its own possibility. One must also determine how the affirmative gesture relates to deconstruction's critical force.


Derrida Today ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
Grant Farred

‘The Final “Thank You”’ uses the work of Jacques Derrida and Friedrich Nietzsche to think the occasion of the 1995 rugby World Cup, hosted by the newly democratic South Africa. This paper deploys Nietzsche's Zarathustra to critique how a figure such as Nelson Mandela is understood as a ‘Superman’ or an ‘Overhuman’ in the moment of political transition. The philosophical focus of the paper, however, turns on the ‘thank yous’ exchanged by the white South African rugby captain, François Pienaar, and the black president at the event of the Springbok victory. It is the value, and the proximity and negation, of the ‘thank yous’ – the relation of one to the other – that constitutes the core of the article. 1


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document