Derrida, Spectrality and Messianicity

MESSIANICITY

Derrida, like Marx, envisages an optimistic future, but instead of that future arriving (like a messiah) - which is where Derrida might differ from Marx, Derrida argues for an optimism in the structure of that arrival rather than in any requirement for the actual arrival. He is aware of what that can sounds like but he believes (I would suggest), as the saying goes, that "tomorrow never arrives", and it is in that sense he argues his point. "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do to do today" is another way of interpreting Derrida's messianicity. If tomorrow never comes that doesn't mean we would relinquish the optimism associated with that sturcturing of tomorrow. The optimism exists today whether tomorrow comes or not. For example, we can entertain optimism today for a world in the future in which climate change will have been averted, whether or not fate decides that climate change is (or will be) averted. Now thinking in this way becomes more understandable when considering arguments against doing anything about climate change.

Where Tony Abbott argues that Australia's efforts to curb carbon emissions won't help the climate, he is effectively arguing that because (tomorrow) pollution will happen anyway, we should not entertain (today) any practice which would try to alter that outcome. The cost is Abbott's bottom line in this, of course, but that is besides the point.

The obvious counter-argument (which supports Derrida's argument) is that by attempting to do something about climate change today, even if one believes it won't help one single bit, we can say (even if Derrida doesn't) that it could avert disaster, would have a bigger chance of doing so. Or to put it another way, anyone saying anything else (such as Tony Abbott's argument) is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

SPECTRALITY

Where Marx sees commodity fetishism taking place at the moment an object is presented as a commodity, Derrida argues it is occurring earlier, within the production of the commodity.

In both cases (Marx and Derrida) the commodity is treated as a spectre (ghost), but where Marx would otherwise hope to encourage dismissal of the ghost, as an illusion in the head of the consumer, Derrida treats the ghost as not so easily exorcised. The ghost is treated as effectively immune to dismissal (because it is not an illusion), and quite resistant to exorcism (because it is quite potent). For one thing it is not at the moment the object is for sale that it becomes a ghost. The object becomes a ghost before this point. So while I might succeed in ridding myself of commodity fetishism (for example, ignoring the fetish I have for a 3D camera) it's not as if that would stop the camera from finding someone else to possess.

Marx predicted, that the illusory nature of ghosts (of commodity fetishism) would eventually mean such fetishism would fail, ie. that capitalism would fail. Or that a practice aimed at dismantling such illusions would otherwise determine that failure.

The issue for Derrida is that capitalism may not be doomed in that particular way because the commodity is a ghost before the consumer is involved, before it possesses the consumer. So for example, it is not because I have a fetish for 3D cameras that I purchase the camera (Marx), but that the 3D camera (ghost) already has it in for me or someone else like me (Derrida).

Derrida doesn't provide a solution for this but provides a start. Instead of attempting to dismiss the ghost (or exorcise it) as if it were some ephemeral thing, one can open up a dialogue with it. To treat the ghost, not as an ephemeral illusion (which would evaporate anyway), but as a potent force to be reckoned with. The force does not need to be considered as originating within ourselves (but even if it did, so what?) but as one which requires negotiation if it is to be reckoned with (rather than relying on exorcism or dismissal).