… First of all, the question of argumentation. We are here in order to discuss, and in order to exchange arguments as clear, univocal and communicable as possible. On the other hand, the question that is often raised on the subject of deconstruction is that of argumentation.

I am reproached-deconstructionists are reproached-with not arguing or not liking argumentation, etc., etc. This is obviously a defamation. But this defamation derives from the fact that there is argumentation and argumentation, and this is often because in contexts of discussion like the present one where the prepositional form, a certain type of prepositional form, governs, and where a certain type of micrology is necessarily effaced, where the attention to language is necessarily reduced, argumentation is clearly essential. And what interests me, obviously, are other protocols, other argumentative situations where one does not renounce argumentation simply because one refuses to discuss under certain conditions.

As a consequence, I think that the question of argumentation is here central, discussion is here central, and I think that the accusations that are often made against deconstruction derive from the fact that its raising the stakes of argumentation is not taken into account. The fact that it is always a question of reconsidering the protocols and the contexts of argumentation, the questions of competence, the language of discussion, etc.

“Remarks on Deconstruction and pragmatism”, Derrida – Deconstruction and Pragmatism Published in 1996, Editor Chantal Mouffe.

The full article can be found here [>>]

This is a great example of deconstrutionist argumentation. I read this a few years ago in this collection of speeches (from the symposium on deconstruction and pragmatism that took place at the College International de Philosophie in Paris 1993) and I must admit it worked like an expiation of my own deconstructionist practices. I always thought of deconstruction as a way to pursue happiness, creativity, respect for otherness… a way of thinking for decision making and reflexive argumentation.

μο.