The statement that Agamben’s philosophy is a hidden debate with Derrida suggests that while Giorgio Agamben does not explicitly engage Jacques Derrida in direct argumentation, his work is deeply informed by Derrida’s ideas and, in some ways, takes a critical stance against them. This “hidden debate” revolves around key philosophical concerns - language, sovereignty, ethics, and the structure of power - where Agamben both adopts and diverges from Derrida’s positions. Here’s how this idea can be unpacked:
1. The Role of Language and the Question of Deconstruction
Derrida’s Position:
Derrida places language, writing, and differance at the center of his philosophy, emphasizing the instability of meaning and the impossibility of reaching a fixed essence or origin. Deconstruction works by revealing the undecidability and infinite deferral of meaning within texts and concepts.
Agamben’s Response:
Agamben critiques the endless deferral of meaning as articulated in Derrida’s philosophy. He seeks to move beyond this “indeterminacy” by exploring the threshold where language meets life (the unsayable or ineffable).
In Homo Sacer, Agamben argues that deconstruction risks perpetuating the very aporias it seeks to dismantle by not offering a way out of undecidability. His work strives to locate a zone of indistinction where life and law, inclusion and exclusion, or bare life and political life intersect - a point that Derrida might leave unresolved.
2. Sovereignty and the State of Exception
Derrida on Sovereignty:
In texts like The Beast and the Sovereign, Derrida deconstructs the concept of sovereignty, exposing its inherent paradoxes and performative contradictions. Sovereignty, for Derrida, is tied to language and its capacity to enact decisions while remaining fundamentally unstable.
Agamben on Sovereignty:
Agamben takes Derrida’s deconstruction of sovereignty and extends it into a more concrete analysis of its operation in modern politics. He develops the concept of the state of exception, where sovereignty manifests by suspending law to include bare life within its framework.
While Derrida might focus on the performative and linguistic dimensions of sovereignty, Agamben critiques its material, historical, and biopolitical applications. He views sovereignty not as an abstract paradox but as a mechanism for producing zones of exclusion and abandonment, such as the concentration camp.
3. The Question of the Animal and the Human
Derrida’s Critique of Human Exceptionalism:
In The Animal That Therefore I Am, Derrida deconstructs the human/animal binary, emphasizing the violence inherent in the concept of the “animal” as a homogenizing category that excludes nonhuman life from ethical consideration.
Agamben’s Critique:
Agamben develops his own critique of the human/animal distinction in The Open: Man and Animal. However, he diverges from Derrida by focusing on how Western metaphysics constructs the human as a threshold figure, suspended between animality and divinity.
For Agamben, the exclusion of the animal is part of a broader biopolitical structure that governs life itself. While Derrida focuses on the ethical implications of this exclusion, Agamben emphasizes its ontological and political consequences.
4. Law, Ethics, and Messianism
Derrida’s Messianic Without Messiah:
In Specters of Marx and The Gift of Death, Derrida articulates a messianic structure that is always deferred, without a concrete messiah or fulfillment. This messianic openness reflects the idea of infinite responsibility and justice always to come.
Agamben’s Messianic Fulfillment:
Agamben critiques Derrida’s deferral, seeking a more realized messianism. Drawing on Paul’s letters, he interprets the messianic as a time of kairos, a transformative moment that interrupts chronological time and brings about a new order of being.
Agamben’s approach aims to end the suspension Derrida maintains, offering a vision of redemption or fulfillment that is immanent rather than perpetually deferred.
5. Decision vs. Deconstruction
Derrida’s Aporias:
Derrida emphasizes the undecidability inherent in ethical and political decisions. For him, every decision is haunted by an aporia - a situation where resolution is both necessary and impossible.
Agamben’s Indistinction:
Agamben acknowledges aporias but seeks to resolve them through the concept of zones of indistinction, where binaries such as law/life or inclusion/exclusion collapse. This can be seen as a critique of Derrida’s reluctance to resolve aporias, with Agamben insisting on the need to articulate a new political ontology.
6. Life, Law, and the Sacred
Derrida on Law and Violence:
In Force of Law, Derrida deconstructs the relationship between law and violence, emphasizing their co-dependence. Law, for Derrida, is always violent because it imposes authority through exclusion and force.
Agamben on Law and Bare Life:
Agamben builds on Derrida’s insights but emphasizes how law operates through the production of bare life - life stripped of rights and exposed to sovereign violence. Agamben focuses on how legal and political systems create biopolitical subjects, moving from Derrida’s linguistic critique to an ontological and material analysis.
Conclusion: A Productive Tension
Agamben’s philosophy can be seen as a hidden debate with Derrida because:
He engages with Derrida’s concepts of language, sovereignty, and ethics, but pushes them toward a more concrete and politically grounded analysis.
Agamben critiques Derrida’s infinite deferral and undecidability, seeking instead to articulate moments of resolution, fulfillment, and transformation.
While Derrida’s focus is often on the linguistic and ethical dimensions of power, Agamben extends this to include the ontological and biopolitical structures that shape human life.
This “hidden debate” reflects the intertwined yet divergent paths of their thought: Derrida’s deconstruction emphasizes the openness of meaning and justice, while Agamben strives to articulate the mechanisms of power and the possibility of radical transformation.
