Editorial

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International (New York: Routledge, 1994). See p. 31. 2. Jacques Derrida, ‘Countersignature’, Paragraph 27.2 (2004), pp. 7–42. See pp. 17–19. 3. Jacques Derrida, ‘I Have a Taste for the Secret’, in Jacques Derrida and Maurizio Ferraris, A Taste for the Secret (London: Polity Press, 2001). See pp. 50–1. 4. In his interview with Bernard Stiegler, ‘Echographies of Television’, Derrida says ‘Testimony, as witness borne, as attestation, always consists in discourse. To be a witness consists in seeing, in hearing, etc., but to bear witness is always to speak, to engage in and uphold, to sign a discourse. It is not possible to bear witness without a discourse. Well, this discourse itself already harbors technics, even if only in the form of this iterability implied by the oath, to say nothing of this technics already constituted by the minimal grammaticality or rhetoricality which an attestation requires. Hence the apparent contradiction: technics will never make a testimony, testimony is pure of any technics, and yet it is impure, and yet it already implies the appeal to technics’. See Derrida and Stiegler, ‘Echographies of Television’, in Echographies of Television, by Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), pp. 93–5. 5. Jacques Derrida, ‘Globalization, Peace, and Cosmopolitanism’, in Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971–2001 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), pp. 371–86. See p. 376.