The case for societal constitutionalism
Editor: Diana Göbel

This volume collects and revises the key essays of Gunther Teubner, one of the world’s leading sociologists of law. Written over the past twenty years, these essays examine the ‘dark side’ of functional differentiation and the prospects of societal constitutionalism as a possible remedy. Teubner’s claim is that critical accounts of law and society require reformulation in the light of the sophisticated diagnoses of late modernity in the writings of Niklas Luhmann, Jacques Derrida and select examples of modernist literature. Autopoiesis, deconstruction and other post-foundational epistemological and political realities compel us to confront the fact that fundamental democratic concepts such as law and justice can no longer be based on theories of stringent argumentation or analytical philosophy. We must now approach law in terms of contingency and self-subversion rather than in terms of logical consistency and rational coherence.

Who, we?

5302P Democracy MUP-PT/lb.qxd 1111 2 3 4 5111 6 7 8 9 10111 11 12 3111 4 5 6 7 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 42111 23/10/09 16:09 Page 179 8 The ends of democracy: who, we? Catherine Kellogg Jacques Derrida first delivered his essay ‘The ends of man’ (1982) at a colloquium in New York in October 1968 on the proposed theme of ‘Philosophy and anthropology’. This text, written in the shadow of an ‘American’ war on Vietnam, the uprisings in Paris, and general political unrest in the West, begins by meditating on what he calls

in Democracy in crisis
The mutual paranoia of Jacques Derrida and Niklas Luhmann

I  System versus différance Niklas Luhmann and Jacques Derrida have made the same diagnosis as regards the sober world of lawyers and economists. 1 Where other people observe rational decisions based on cost–benefit calculations and on rule–fact subsumptions, their diagnosis is that of the madness of decision. In contrast to all analyses of rational choice, games theory

in Critical theory and legal autopoiesis
New theoretical directions

Materiality has long been tied to the political projects of nationalism and capitalism. But how are we to rethink borders in this context? Is the border the limit where the capitalist nation-state, contested and re-created at its centre, becomes fixed? Or is it something else? Is the border something, or does it instead do things? This volume brings questions of materiality to bear specifically on the study of borders. These questions address specifically the shift from ontology to process in thinking about borders. The political materialities of borders does not presume the material aspect of borders but rather explores the ways in which any such materiality comes into being. Through ethnographic and philosophical explorations of the ontology of borders and its limitations from the perspective of materiality, this volume seeks to throw light on the interaction between the materiality of state borders and the non-material aspects of state-making. This enables a new understanding of borders as productive of the politics of materiality, on which both the state project rests, including its multifarious forms in the post-nation-state era.

CHAPTER 6 Surviving theory, ‘as if I[t] were dead’ from the beginning of, let’s say, the institutionalisation of this word in academic circles in the Western world people have been saying ... it’s waning, it’s on the wane. I’ve heard this for the last twenty-five years: it’s finished, it is dying. Why do I say dying? It is dead! I tell you it’s dead! ... I’m totally convinced that deconstruction started dying from the very first day. Jacques Derrida, ‘As if I were dead’1 If it were possible to separate the two (as Baudrillard claims, and Derrida does not) I

in Rethinking the university
Abstract only
Textual spectrality and Finnegans Wake

Introduction: Textual spectrality and Finnegans Wake ‘Why this hunt for ghosts?’ (Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx) The October 2010 special issue of PMLA – Literary Criticism for the Twenty-First Century – assembled a collection of shorter essays that forecast possible paradigm shifts in literary criticism. In the introductory essay, Jonathan Culler aptly notes a salient feature appearing throughout the issue: ‘the motif of return: return to rhetoric, a return to thematics, a return to textual criticism…’1 As it mines contributors’ varied attempts to sketch

in Haunted historiographies
Some considerations

). As a conclusion to this examination of Traveller alterity I wish to briefly discuss the philosophical possibilities that exist for a movement beyond the ‘politics of difference’ as it currently stands and the potential for a new theoretic dualism of Self/Other. Poststructuralist thinkers such as Jacques Derrida have been to the fore in this theoretical evolution and I discuss his notion of différance as a roadmap for future theoretical engagement with the concept of the ‘Other’. Postmodernism involves a radical critique of universal reason and truth. From the

in ‘Insubordinate Irish’

MUP FINAL PROOF – <STAGE>, 09/13/2013, SPi 5 International comparisons Jacques Derrida, Pierre Bourdieu and the French University The work of leading French academics such as Pierre Bourdieu and Jacques Derrida on education points to key differences in emphasis in the Irish and French university systems. However, the French university system did share, only much earlier, many of the key changes that have come to Irish universities since the 1980s. It experienced a surge in university numbers slightly earlier than its Irish counterpart. Alain Bienayme notes

in The humanities and the Irish university
Abstract only
The art of memory

metaphorical than the most literal, referential account ever written. To this extent, it might even be more historical than the most conventionally historical narrative one could imagine. As a kind of ‘“bad” memory’, it would revive the art of memory forgotten by history itself. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 Paul de Man, ‘Reply to Raymond Geuss’, Critical Inquiry (December 1983) 389–90, quoted in Jacques Derrida, The art of memoires’, in his Mémoires for Paul de Man, revised edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), p. 68. Paul de Man, ‘Sign and symbol in Hegel’s Aesthetics

in Rethinking the university
The difference of Deleuze and Derrida

suggestion is to philosophize in terms of becoming and doing rather than in terms of being. I will consider Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida as two contemporary philosophers who both philosophize border and difference in terms of becoming and doing rather than being. While both problematize approaching the question of identity and difference as a question of being, I argue that they do it in very different ways, and it is this difference that I will explore here. Ultimately, I will argue that the Deleuzian ‘becoming’ remains closer to traditionally ontological concerns

in The political materialities of borders