也許…到來的民主：解構的「倫理─政治」意涵及其不滿

Abstract

部分學者認為，自1980年代開始，由於德希達關注了一連串關於民族主義、女性主義、種族主義、死刑、正義、民主、歐洲認同、寬恕、南非種族隔離政策、好客、難民庇護所等議題，因此，「解構」的後期發展與德希達早期流於文字遊戲的著作有所不同，部分學者遂認為，此即為「解構」的「倫理政治」轉向。 事實上，環繞此倫理政治「轉向」的修辭，牽涉了兩項重要的議題，其一是，若「解構」真有所謂的「倫理政治」轉向，那麼其「倫理政治」意涵為何？另一是，在認定解構之「倫理政治」轉向的判準中，最引起廣泛討論的便是，德希達晚期反覆強調的「到來的民主」（democracy to come）。在這脈絡上，本文主要兩項工作在於，一方面探討「解構」的「倫理—政治」意涵，而另一方面則試圖闡釋德希達所謂的「到來的民主」。在探索的過程中，本文試圖以德希達思考語言活動、認識活動及建制活動的「準先驗」圖式，將德希達曾反覆論述的「延異」、「痕跡」、「絕境」、「無可決斷」等語彙，編織成不同的引線，進而闡釋「解構」的「倫理—政治」意涵以及「到來的民主」。 透過反覆強調作為「準先驗」的「延異」，一方面，德希達一一重新置換了傳統上對於「責任」、「決斷」、「行動」、「倫理」、「政治」、「民主」概念的內涵；另一方面，德希達強調「他者」、「痕跡」、「絕境」、「到來」、「也許」的思想，並進而轉化傳統對於「可能�不可能」的思考。例如，「決斷」的不可能正是決斷得以可能的條件，這意謂著，若沒有一種「無可決斷」或「絕境」的體驗的話，便不會有所謂的「決斷」。並且，透過作為「準先驗」的延異，德希達試圖藉由「他者」的「獨異性」（singularity）以非辯證地方式來調合普遍性（universality）與特殊性（particularity）在傳統意義上的衝突與對立，而這正是「解構」的「倫理—政治」意涵之關鍵所在。 同樣地，在德希達關於「到來的民主」的思考上，作為「準先驗」的「延異」以及他者的「獨異性」也扮演著重要的角色。首先，傳統政治理論或政治思想多半在追求同質性平等的基礎之上，來思考所謂的「民主」，而「到來的民主」則試圖改變這樣的傳統，進而企求著一種強調異質性平等的共同體，強調以作為正義的他者的獨異性為優先的共同體。其次，「到來的民主」試圖懸置將民主視為政治體制或政治價值的記憶或傳統，亦即將「民主」從傳統政治學或政治哲學的思考中解放出來，透過這種將民主「去政治化」的移置，進而「再政治化」。最後，「到來的民主」作為「民主」的準先驗圖式，正是「民主」的不可能及其可能條件，而這，需要一種關於「也許」的體驗，關於「也許」的思想。

According to some scholars, since the 1980s Jacque Derrida made a deviation from his early-stage ‘free play’ discourses, and engaged in a series of issues such as nationalism, feminism, racism, death penalty, justice, European identity, forgiveness, apartheid in South Africa, hospitality, and refugee asylum. This explains the ‘ethico-political’ turn of ‘deconstruction.’ In fact, concerning the rhetoric of ethico-political ‘turn’, there are two important issues. The first is, what is the significance of the ‘ethico-political’, if deconstruction did made a ‘turn’ to it? And the second, on determining the starting point of the ‘ethico-political’ turn of deconstruction, the most disputed syntagm would be what Derrida had repeatedly emphasized in his later period: ‘democracy to come.’ Following this context, this thesis has two major tasks: to discuss the ‘ethico-political’ significance of deconstruction, and to elaborate ‘democracy to come’ as Derrida puts it. Throughout the process of exploring, this thesis comprehends the expressions of ‘differance’, ‘trace’, ‘aporias’, and ‘undecidable’, as precisely the quasi- transcendental schema in Derrida’s understanding of linguistic, cognitive, and institutive systems, and by that having their crucial connotations in explaining the ‘ethico-political’ significance of deconstruction and ‘democracy to come.’ Emphasizing “differance” as “quasi- transcendental schema”, Derrida displaces traditional understandings of “responsibility”, “decision”, “act”, “ethics”, “politics”, and “democracy”. On the other hand, by emphasizing the thoughts of “the other”, “trace”, “aporias”, “to come”, and “perhaps”, he transforms the dichotomy of “possibility / impossibility” in traditional thinking. For example, the impossibility of decision is precisely the condition of it being possible, since “decision” can never stand without the experience of “undecidable” or “aporias”. Along with the discussion of differance as “quasi- transcendental schema”, Derrida moves on to suggest the “singularity” of “the other”, and in a non-dialectical way reconciles the conflicts between universality and particularity in their traditional senses. Through this interpretation, this thesis argues that deconstruction is in itself “ethico-politically” significant. On Derrida’s “democracy to come”, “differance” as “quasi-transcendental schema” and “singularity” of the other also play important parts. To begin with, “democracy” in traditional political theories and thoughts is pursued on a homogeneous-equality basis, while “democracy to come” alters this tradition and seeks for a heterogeneous-equality community, of which the priority goes to the singularity of the other as justice. Secondly, “democracy to come” attempts to suspend the tradition that regards democracy as a political system or value. Which is to say, to liberate “democracy” from traditional politics and political philosophy; to “de-politicize” it in order to “re-politicize” it. Lastly, “democracy to come” being the “quasi-transcendental schema” of “democracy”, is the condition of the impossibility and possibility of “democracy”. However, to understand this, it requires an experience or thought of “perhaps.”