Doing Justice to the Levinas-Derrida Connection: A response to Mark Dooley

Robert Christopher Plant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Mark Dooley has recently argued (principally against Simon Critchley) that the attempt to establish too strong a ‘connection’ between Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas not only distorts crucial disparities between their respective philosophies, it also contaminates Derrida’s recent work with Levinas’s inherent ‘political naivety’. In short, on Dooley’s reading, Levinas is only of ‘inspirational value’ for Derrida. I am not concerned with defending Critchley’s own reading of the ‘Derrida–Levinas connection’. My objective is rather to demonstrate, first, the way in which Dooley’s argument hinges upon a misreading of Levinas and Derrida, and, second, why Derrida’s recent thinking is in fact fundamentally Levinasian.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)427-450
Number of pages24
JournalPhilosophy & Social Criticism
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2003

Fingerprint

justice
Values
Emmanuel Levinas
Jacques Derrida
Justice
philosophy
Misreading
Philosophy
Hinge

Keywords

  • contingency
  • guilt
  • Holocaust
  • hospitality
  • institutions
  • nature
  • suffering
  • third party
  • violence

Cite this

Doing Justice to the Levinas-Derrida Connection : A response to Mark Dooley. / Plant, Robert Christopher.

In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol. 29, No. 4, 07.2003, p. 427-450.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Plant, Robert Christopher. / Doing Justice to the Levinas-Derrida Connection : A response to Mark Dooley. In: Philosophy & Social Criticism. 2003 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 427-450.
@article{02f7d251fd904e7e8e55f153311baa43,
title = "Doing Justice to the Levinas-Derrida Connection: A response to Mark Dooley",
abstract = "Mark Dooley has recently argued (principally against Simon Critchley) that the attempt to establish too strong a ‘connection’ between Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas not only distorts crucial disparities between their respective philosophies, it also contaminates Derrida’s recent work with Levinas’s inherent ‘political naivety’. In short, on Dooley’s reading, Levinas is only of ‘inspirational value’ for Derrida. I am not concerned with defending Critchley’s own reading of the ‘Derrida–Levinas connection’. My objective is rather to demonstrate, first, the way in which Dooley’s argument hinges upon a misreading of Levinas and Derrida, and, second, why Derrida’s recent thinking is in fact fundamentally Levinasian.",
keywords = "contingency, guilt, Holocaust, hospitality, institutions, nature, suffering, third party, violence",
author = "Plant, {Robert Christopher}",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1177/0191453703294004",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "427--450",
journal = "Philosophy & Social Criticism",
issn = "0191-4537",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Doing Justice to the Levinas-Derrida Connection

T2 - A response to Mark Dooley

AU - Plant, Robert Christopher

PY - 2003/7

Y1 - 2003/7

N2 - Mark Dooley has recently argued (principally against Simon Critchley) that the attempt to establish too strong a ‘connection’ between Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas not only distorts crucial disparities between their respective philosophies, it also contaminates Derrida’s recent work with Levinas’s inherent ‘political naivety’. In short, on Dooley’s reading, Levinas is only of ‘inspirational value’ for Derrida. I am not concerned with defending Critchley’s own reading of the ‘Derrida–Levinas connection’. My objective is rather to demonstrate, first, the way in which Dooley’s argument hinges upon a misreading of Levinas and Derrida, and, second, why Derrida’s recent thinking is in fact fundamentally Levinasian.

AB - Mark Dooley has recently argued (principally against Simon Critchley) that the attempt to establish too strong a ‘connection’ between Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas not only distorts crucial disparities between their respective philosophies, it also contaminates Derrida’s recent work with Levinas’s inherent ‘political naivety’. In short, on Dooley’s reading, Levinas is only of ‘inspirational value’ for Derrida. I am not concerned with defending Critchley’s own reading of the ‘Derrida–Levinas connection’. My objective is rather to demonstrate, first, the way in which Dooley’s argument hinges upon a misreading of Levinas and Derrida, and, second, why Derrida’s recent thinking is in fact fundamentally Levinasian.

KW - contingency

KW - guilt

KW - Holocaust

KW - hospitality

KW - institutions

KW - nature

KW - suffering

KW - third party

KW - violence

U2 - 10.1177/0191453703294004

DO - 10.1177/0191453703294004

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 427

EP - 450

JO - Philosophy & Social Criticism

JF - Philosophy & Social Criticism

SN - 0191-4537

IS - 4

ER -