I’ve been thinking about Jacques Derrida and deconstruction in previous posts, so I’d like to contrast Derrida with Heidegger briefly

“In order to understand, Heidegger says, one must see phenomenologically. He thus invites us to the first exercise of phenomenological “kindergarten.” To tear apart [zer-reissen] means: to tear into two parts, to separate: to make two out of one. If a sock is torn, then the sock is no longer present-at-hand—but note: precisely not as a sock. In fact, when I have it on my foot, I see the “intact” sock precisely not as a sock. On the contrary, if it is torn, then THE sock appears with more force through the “sock torn into pieces.” In other words, what is lacking in the torn sock is the UNITY of the sock. However, this lack is paradoxically the most positive, for this Unity in being-torn is present [gegenwärtig] as a lost unity.” (Heidegger, Martin. Four Seminars p. 11)… “Twice the audience laughed over the “torn sock” saying. At first Heidegger answered pedantically, “I do not know why you are laughing. You must learn to endure the scope of a sentence such as the one I have cited.” (Heidegger, Martin. Four Seminars  p. 100). 

For Hegel: The tearing of the sock phenomenalizes the Category of Unity, as a lost-Unity.  Heidegger’s interpretation of phenomenology is : “Aletheia (un-hidden)” with the alpha privative = disclosing from hiddenness.  Heraclius says: “physis kryptesthai philei” (Being loves to hide).  Hegel, in his inaugural address, Heidelberg, 1816, says “The Being of the universe, at first hidden and concealed, has no power which can offer resistance to the search for knowledge; it has to lay itself open before the seeker — to set before his eyes and give for his enjoyment, its riches and its depths.” Heidegger says: “Both scientific and prescientific comportments are a knowing in the sense of uncovering what is previously concealed, of revealing what was previously covered up, of disclosing what so far was closed off.”

Derrida’s method is not uncovering the hidden through sleight of hand, but slowly decoding by embracing contradictions like when we learn a new language starting with meaningless noise:

“More precisely it knows that it must do contradictory and incompatible things.  Contradicting or running counter to itself, this double obligation thus risks paralyzing, diverting, or jeopardizing the successful conclusion of the ceremony … [For example] A gesture ‘of friendship’ or ‘of politeness would be neither friendly nor polite if it were purely and simply to obey a ritual rule … One must not be friendly or polite out of duty … The internal contradiction in the concept of politeness, as in all normative concepts of which it would be an example, is that it involves both rules and invention without rule.  Its rule is that one knows the rule but is never bound by it.  It is impolite to be merely polite, to be polite out of politeness  (Derrida, Passions, 6-7; 9).” 

Similarly, an invitation must not be constraining, it does not demand that you come, but at the same time is not indifferent, that it makes no difference whether or not you come (See Derrida, Passions, 14).  This holds also more generally to the “call,” like when I say pro-choice arguments resonate with / speak to me.  I am doubly bound by the problem that pro-choice arguments speak to me while pro-life arguments don’t, and so are compelling to me and I welcome then though I am under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to be pro-choice since I am bound not by a reason that compels but a calling that resonates with me and I welcome.  Derrida says “This aporia without end paralyzes us because it binds us doubly. (I must and I need not, I must not, it is necessary and impossible, etc.) (Derrida, Passions, 22).”  We want to move beyond the “call” to the “compelling of reason,” that our choice also compels the next person to join the team, though by contrast pro-life arguments/analogies/examples may speak to/resonate with the next person. I am performative, taking on the role of pro-choice with its analogies and examples, while the next person wears the pro-life hat.