The University Without Condition #6

Derrida’s Insights into Today’s World

Photo by Marcel Eberle on Unsplash

Here is the sixth reading post on L’université sans condition (2001), translated into English in 2002 as The University Without Condition.

The previous ones have been gathered with my other Substack writings on Derrida, which you can find here: Derrida.

We have finally arrived at the fourth and final chapter of Derrida’s essay. In it, he presents the 7 theses he intends to defend. Some readers may be uneasy about the fact that these theses are only introduced in the final chapter.

However, for Derrida, the previous ones aimed at describing the threats facing the university and the potential role of the Humanities in what the French philosopher considered the time to come (i.e., our present).

They are neither definitive positions of Derrida nor unquestionable elements. Rather, they are propositions and wishes for the future.

He explains:

They all remain programmatic. Six of them will serve only as formal reminders or gatherings. They will summarize. The seventh, which will not be a sabbatical, will attempt to go beyond the other six toward a dimension of the event or the taking-place that I have not yet mentioned. (Derrida, 2001, p. 67)

Derrida explains that the first six theses will adhere to the “as if,” but a jump will occur between the sixth and seventh theses, leading somewhere outside the distinction between constative and performative (speech) acts. The new Humanities will address:

1. The history, thoughts, and essence of the individual through the analysis of an endless series of contrasts that will shed light on how the man (l’homme) defines itself (p. 68).

2. The history of democracy and the concept of sovereignty — that is, the conditions on which we assume the university and the Humanities depend (p. 69).

3. The history of teaching, of the teaching profession, and the presuppositions about work and globalization (p. 70).

4. The history of literature, including the history of the concept of “literature” (p. 71).

5. The history of the profession, of the mission statement and of the professionalization of professoring (p. 71).

6. The history of the “as if” and the distinction between performative and constative acts.

7. The authority we recognize in the university, in the Humanities, with regard to knowledge, the profession, and the practice of the “as if” (pp. 72–73).

These 7 theses should be examined using the approach Derrida calls “deconstruction.” The term is well known today. It was first used as a reference to Heidegger’s German term “Destruktion,” the word roughly referred to the process of exploring the categories and concepts that tradition has imposed on a word and its history.

Yet its meaning evolved under Derrida’s pen. He writes:

By often recalling that deconstruction was impossible or the impossible, and that it was not a method, a doctrine, a speculative meta-philosophy, but rather what happens, I relied on the same thought. (Derrida, 2001, p. 74)

Deconstruction is not a method, doctrine, or speculative meta-philosophy. It is the attempt to do the impossible. It is an impossible task that should not remain unrealized. It is precisely what Derrida calls for in his 7 theses concerning the university. It is a call for the unexpected event of a “perhaps” (peut-être), which is characterized by its unexpected nature.

The question is simple: What if something like the “university without condition” happened?

Basically, this might be my hypothesis (it is extremely difficult and almost im-probable, inaccessible to proof): a certain unconditional independence of thought, deconstruction, justice, the Humanities, the university, etc., should be dissociated from any fantasy of indivisible sovereignty and sovereign control. (Derrida, 2001, p. 76)

One of its ambitions is to resist with forces outside academia and launch a counteroffensive against all attempts at reappropriation (political, ideological, and so on) and other forms of sovereignty through its work.

A university without conditions is a utopia that we should aim to achieve. It is a dream and a wish not only for the university, but also for what goes beyond what we call a “university” today. The meaning and purpose of education itself is at stake. We must, through such an ambition, protect and realize the humanity of humanity itself.

Derrida concludes:

I do not know if what I am saying here is intelligible, if it makes sense. It is indeed a question of the meaning of meaning. Above all, I do not know what the status, genre, or legitimacy of the discourse I have just addressed to you is. Is it academic? Is it a discourse of knowledge in the Humanities or about the Humanities? Is it merely knowledge? Merely a performative profession of faith? Does it belong within the university? Is it philosophy or literature? Or theater? Is it a work of art or a course, or a kind of seminar?

I have a few hypotheses on the subject, but ultimately, it will be up to you, and others, to decide. (…) Take your time, but hurry up and do it, because you have no idea what awaits you. (Derrida, 2001, p. 79)

---

This concludes the series. If you enjoyed it, I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments or in a restack; they will also help me decide whether to do another similar reading.

And if you are able, consider becoming a paid subscriber. That is the best way to support such work. You will get access to all my posts and be able to comment on all of them.