Detalji predmeta

• Stanje Polovno

Echographies of Television, Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler

Echographies of Television: Filmed Interviews (French: Échographies de la télévision. Entretiens filmés) is a book by the French philosophers Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler. It was originally published in France in 1996, by Éditions Galilée. The English translation by Jennifer Bajorek was published by Polity Press in 2002.

Echographies of Television discusses a number of subjects, but the overall theme concerns the impact of technological acceleration, and in particular the social, political and philosophical significance of the development of digital media.

Contents
The book consists of three parts.

Artifactualities. This section is by Derrida, and consists of excerpts from an interview with Derrida published in the French journal Passages in 1993.
Echographies of Television. This section forms the bulk of the volume and consists of Stiegler conducting an extended interview with Derrida. The interview was filmed by Jean-Christophe Rosé under the auspices of the Institut National de l'Audiovisuel, on December 22, 1993. The interview was originally intended for broadcast on television, but this never took place.
The Discrete Image. The third section consists of an article by Stiegler, which was first published in Art/Photographie numérique. L'image réinventée (Aix-en-Provence: Cyprès, 1995).
Artifactualities
In "Artifactualities," Derrida begins by stating that "to think one's time" means, more than ever, thinking how this "time" is artificially produced, an artifact. He argues that "actuality" is always a matter of "artifactuality," involving selection, editing, performativity, and thus amounting to a "fictional fashioning".[1] Derrida therefore argues that we must develop a "critical culture" concerning this production of actuality, but he immediately appends three cautions to this statement:

the need to recall that despite the "internationalisation" of communication, ethnocentrism still predominates in the form of the "national"
advances in the domain of "live" broadcast and recording give the illusion of an actuality which is not produced
the artifactuality of actuality must not be used as an alibi, by concluding that therefore nothing ever happens and there is nothing but simulacrum and delusion.[2]
What is least acceptable in the media today, he argues, is to take one's time, or to waste time, and hence what is perhaps most required is to effect a change in the rhythm of the media.[3]

Derrida then asks what it means to be concerned with the present, or to do so as a philosopher. It may be a matter, he notes, of in fact being untimely, of not confusing the present with actuality. One must, on the one hand, take one's time, hold back, defer, while, on the other hand, one must rush into things headlong, urgently—one must be both hyperactual and anachronistic.[4] Derrida has never thought there to be an opposition between urgency and différance. If différance involves a relation to alterity which is a form of deferral, it is nevertheless also, and for this reason, a relation to "what comes," to the unexpected, to the event as such, and therefore to the urgent. We cannot oppose the event, which is the very possibility of a future—we only oppose those particular events which bring things which are not good. The performativity of the event exceeds all anticipation or programming, and hence contains an irreducible element of messianism, linking it to justice (here distinguished from law), as well as to revolution.[5]

Between the most general logics and the most unpredictable singularities comes "rhythm". If, for example, we could know in advance that the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe were doomed to failure, the pace and rhythm at which this occurred could only be understood retrospectively, taking into account causalities which had been previously overlooked, such as the way in which the fall of the Berlin Wall was immediately inscribed in a global telecommunications network.[6]

Politics must retain a sense of the unanticipated, of the arrival of the absolutely unexpected, the absolute arrivant. A politics which loses all reference to a principle of unconditional hospitality is a politics, Derrida argues, that loses its reference to justice. This may mean, for example, that it is necessary to distinguish a politics of immigration from a politics of the right to asylum, because the former presumes the equivalence of the political and the national (immigration policy is a matter for the nation-state), while the latter does not (since, for example, motives for immigration, such as unemployment, may fail to conform to immigration requirements, but nevertheless are a kind of dysfunction of the nation, if not indeed the indirect result on poor countries of decisions made by wealthy countries).[7] On this basis, Derrida provides a critique of the way in which borders are conceived by Jean-Marie Le Pen and the French National Front.[8]

It remains necessary, Derrida argues, to take up the battle fought by Enlightenment philosophy against the "return of the worst". As a struggle against return, it is a matter of a "law of the spectral," of spectres, ghosts, and phantoms. It is a matter of understanding that what comes back is on the one hand what must be fought against, and on the other hand irreducible, originary, and necessary. Thus when we are striving to remember the worst (for example, the complicity of the French state for the treatment of Jews during World War II), we are striving to recall the victims, but this means also to call them back, not just for the sake of a present, but for an ongoing struggle, and thus for a future.[9]

Jedan od najznačajnijih francuskih filozofa Žak Derida (Jacques Derrida, 1930–2004), rođen je u Alžiru. Studirao je na Ecole Normale Superieure u Parizu gde je 1954. godine napisao svoj diplomski rad pod nazivom Problem geneze kod Huserla.

Od 1964. Derida postaje predavač na Ecole Normale Superieure gde je bio aktivan sve do 1983. godine. Predavao je i na Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales u Parizu. Sa Fransoaom Šatleom (Francois Chatelet, 1925–1985) osnovao je College international de philosophie (CIPH) 1983. godine. Bio je profesor humanistike na University of California, Irvine. Bio je predavač na brojnim američkim univerzitetima: Johns Hopkins University, Yale University, New York University, Stony Brook University, New School for Social Research.

Pošto je objavio knjigu O gramatologiji1 (ed. de Minuit, Paris, 1967) u kojoj proučava prvobitan odnos između čulnosti i razluke (differAnce), Derida u knjizi O diseminaciji2 objavljenoj 1972. godine razrađuje opšte karakteristike dekonstrukcije opisane terminom diseminacija (rasejavanje), konceptom kojim se od tada označava njegova filozofija. U stvari, problematika dekompozicije i redefinicije čulnosti već je bila prisutna u njegovom delu Uvod u poreklo geometrije,3 objavljenom 1962, kao i u njegovoj knjizi Glas i fenomen,4 objavljenoj 1967. godine. U ovoj filozofiji diseminacije, bliskoj Hajdegerovoj (Martin Heidegger, 1889–1976) filozofiji, Derida nas poziva “da mislimo drugačije”, to jest, da se stavimo u položaj isprepletanosti sa mišljenjem kako bismo u njega umetnuli drugost. Njegovo značajno delo Pisanje i razlika,5 pokazuje različite mehanizme strategija pisanja vezanih za opštu problematiku dekonstrukcije. Na taj način, polje pisanja duboko je prožeto problematikom čulnosti pod uticajem diseminacije (Položaji, 1972, ed. de Minuit i Margine, 1972, ed. de Minuit).

Takvo razmišljanje dovodi do stvaranja estetike prikrivanja i otkrivanja koja započinje diseminacijom pisanja. Tu se pojavljuje differAnce kao istovremeno i strukturalno i genetičko izvorište svih pojmovnih parova (kontradiktornih ili različitih), svih efekata različitosti. U delu Istina u slikarstvu koje je objavljeno 1978. (Flammarion), ponovo se ispituje pojavljivanje efekata bujanja differAnce na grafičkom planu, ali ovog puta ne na polju pisanja već u slikarskoj praksi.

U toj filozofskoj raspravi slike, sve se svodi na potez, vrstu i/ili “trag”, što nije ništa drugo nego znak koji se označava. U delima Lecture de Droit de regards, objavljeno 1985, (ed. de Minuit, Paris) i Points de suspension, 1992, (Galilee) bliže je označeno, u okviru njegove “estetike”, da je “filozofija foto-logija” i da “rukopis svetlosti” od filozofije stvara “razvoj prava pogleda”.6 Razglednica, delo objavljeno 1980. (Flammarion) orijentiše Deridinu filozofiju ka poetici darovanja i estetici gostoljubivosti (Marksove aveti, Galilee, 1993; Politika prijateljstva, Galilee, 1994; Otpor, Galiliee, 1996; O gostoljubivosti, Calman-Levy, 1997). U dijalogu sa Elizabetom Rudinesko (Elisabeth Roudinesco, 1944–) u knjizi De quoi demain … (izdavači Fayard et Galilee, 2001) Derida iznova preispituje ulog razmišljanja o različitosti unutar univerzalnog.

Diseminacija (rasejavanje)

Derida je poznat po svom prodornom razmišljanju koje nas upozorava da sumnjamo u zauvek utvrđene istine, u apsolute istovetnosti i u referencijalnost u korist neprekidne emancipacije čula. Poput Fukoa (Michel Foucault, 1926–1984) i Deleza (Gilles Deleuze, 1925–1995), Derida raskida sa dogmom jedine i nepromenljive istine da bi istakao pluralizaciju čulnosti.
Nasilje i metafizika
Uliks gramofon
politike prijateljstva
Glas i pismo i fenomen
O apokaliptičnome tonu u filozofiji
istina u slikarstvu
odmetničke države
prijatelj neprijatelj
razgovori
pisanje i razlika
bela mitologija
pozicije
časopis delo tekst 2a a2
o gramatologiji
drugi pravac 2b b2