The gift, the position, and inclusion

In On Touching--Jean Luc Nancy (and not only here), Derrida says he tries to shore up the following arguments concerning the gift in Given Time, but I think by connecting them to Nancy's conception of freedom and his own meditations on the fraternal in The Politics of Friendship, in the somewhat more confessional form of On Touching--all perhaps unable to be written without Given Time having been completed--they are in fact better articulated here:

Briefly, what embarrasses me in the word "generosity" as in the word "fraternity" finally amounts to the same thing. In both cases, one acknowledges an d nods to some genealogy some filiation, a principle having to do with "birth," whether or not it is "natural," as it is often thought to be. Above all, the word privileges some "virility." Even if he is an orphan, a brother is a son and therefore a man. In order to include the sister or woman or daughter, one has to change words--generously--and then change the word "generosity" itself while one is at it. Indeed, if one gives or offers because one is naturally, genially, congenitally, or ontologically generous, at birth; if it's because one has to give or has something to give or has something to give, because one can give, thanks to a power, a force, or a capacity related to giving, to having what it takes to give, with sovereign power; once giving is possible, or there is a generosity of being; then does one offer, does one still give? Here the gift, like spacing, freedom, or decision perhaps presupposes the interruption of generosity as well as fraternity. To give, out of generosity or because one can give (what one has) is no longer to give.

--On Touching--Jean Luc Nancy, 23

This also is clearer to me at least given my reflections in the last post, particularly on the issue of the sovereignty or solidarity within taking up a "position." Notice how Derrida says "if one is going to include" the other of generosity, woman, "one has to change words." This means that one cannot include the other merely by accumulating force in a position, and then bestowing this force upon the other generously. As Derrida says in The Politics of Friendship, this cannot escape a fundamental disrespect of the other as (every bit, tout) other: it would incorporate the other into the body of the position and repress any remainder, anything escaping this incorporation--specifically, the other's iterability, its othering of itself as other (to put it a different way, the incorporation or inclusion could only proceed to partition a bit of the inside of the included up to make a space outside the inside supposedly still "within" the inside, still included). This is because, as Derrida says here, the gift of empowerment here cannot be a gift. Without a transformation, a deconstruction of what these words mean--the force behind their names--and above all of generosity, neither inclusion nor the taking up of a position cannot take place. If this transformation or deconstruction does not take place, then  "including can also come to mean neutralizing" (The Politics of Friendship, viii): woman, here, would merely remain the homogenous, neuter, non-iterable (or, non-performative) other of man.