Here is a supplement to the post below on Derrida and the language of racism: a New York Times article on the circulation of the sign of the noose in the US just over the past two years, with an amazing chart documenting where and how this circulation takes place. The conclusion of the writers of the article is ominous, but reflects how the the rhetoric of "the end of racial inequality" promulgated by late twentieth century commentators from the years of Reagan through Clinton, and especially abused by George W. Bush and his defenders after Katrina, have overlooked reality:If advocates of civil rights are seen as wrong to even demonstrate against the heinous crime in Jena, how can anyone claim that racism is on the wane in this country, or, to return to Derrida, that language does not always already lend itself by a necessity to racism? This is what Derrida is getting at: simply excluding the users of a racist sign like the noose--even if they could be found and brought to justice, as they should--employs the logic whereby racists seek to exclude a particular other. Insofar as justice can be executed, it is only a matter of a power (the power of the state over racists). What must be sought is the deeper problem of justice's lack of account for the necessity within racism to have recourse to language to constitute itself. This will bring the users of racist signs to justice but will also address the potential for us all to be racists. Whether this justice must reduce itself to a set of legal codes--or whether this is even possible--also has to be tackled: what is clear with respect to this is that a system of justice founded on the principle of the free actor obviously cannot do this, and while it is in place, still benefits racists and those sick oppressors of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment