Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Derrida on teaching: The economy of erasure

  • Published:
Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores Derrida's claim that teaching is a deconstructive process. In order to explore this claim, the Derridean concept of "erasure" is explored. Using the concept of erasure, this article examines two important aspects of teaching: the name that teachers establish for themselves, and, teaching against social power from a Derridean (erasure-oriented) perspective. Ultimately, the paper confirms Derrida's claim that teaching is indeed a deconstructive practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Derrida (2002, p. 73.)

  2. While there is a nascent body of work that focuses on the educational ramifications of Derrida’s thought, one does not find enough detailed, semiotic exploration of Derrida’s conception of teaching. Please see the following important texts that address teaching in Derrida’s oeuvre, but do not give it the specific, inherently deconstructive, attention that I hope to give it in this essay: Biesta and Egéa-Kuehne (2001), Trifonas (2004), Peim (2005), Gregoriou (1995), Miedema and Biesta (2004), Bingham (2001), Edgoose (2006), Egéa-Kuehne (2006), Biesta (2006).

  3. Derrida, Who’s Afraid?, p. 91.

  4. See Derrida (1976).

  5. See de Saussure (1983).

  6. Derrida, Who’s Afraid? p. 73.

  7. Ibid., p. 89.

  8. Please see Bingham (2005).

  9. Ibid., p. 77.

  10. Ibid., p. 80.

  11. Ibid., p. 81.

  12. Ibid., p. 81.

  13. Ibid., p. 69.

  14. Here I am referring to J. L. Austin’s sense of performative insofar as a performative utterance can be said to establish something by virtue of its utterance rather than simply reflecting a pre-existing state of affairs. See Austin (1962).

  15. Derrida, Who’s Afraid?, p. 73.

  16. Derrida (1985, p. 53).

  17. Ibid., p. 20.

  18. Ibid., p. 9–10.

  19. See Biesta (1998), Vanderstraeten and Biesta (2001), and Trifonas (2004).

  20. Derrida, Who’s Afraid?, p. 69.

  21. Ibid., p. 79.

  22. Ibid., p. 69.

  23. Ibid., p. 79.

  24. This is, of course, the major ideological difference between what might be called the criticalist perspective and the postmodern perspective, this difference residing in whether one can or cannot step outside of power. And of course, it is Michel Foucault that first comes to mind as representative of the ‘postmodern’ perspective that one is always inside of power no matter how hard one endeavors to get outside of it. It might be wondered, then, why I am investigating the work of Derrida in this regard when Foucault has been much more prolific in terms of describing the ways that power is indeed always at work. The reason, for me, is straightforward: Although Foucault is very informative in his writings on the way that power infuses all aspects of life in general, and all aspects of institutions such as schools, prisons, military barracks, etc., I find that Derrida is more helpful when it comes to the power inherent in pedagogy, and in the subjects that teachers teach. The writings of Derrida on teaching help us to understand, very specifically, the pedagogical/curricular life of power in ways that the writings of Foucault did not tend to. Certainly, Derrida sounds much like Foucault in these, Derrida’s early writings on education! His points are different, though, of course more indebted to différance, than the one’s Foucault ever made.

  25. See Freire (1970).

  26. Derrida Who’s Afraid? p. 90.

  27. Ibid., p. 79.

  28. Here, please see Derrida’s remarks in Who’s Afraid of Philosophy: “... traditional “defenders” warn, in order to convince or dissuade, while reassuring: careful, it is the possibility of a pure questioning, a free, neutral, objective, etc., questioning, that you are going to put into question. An argument neither forceful nor relevant, which, it should come as no surprise, has never reassured, convinced, or dissuaded anyone.” 89–90.

  29. Ibid., p. 79.

  30. Ibid., p. 73.

References

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (1998). Say you want a revolution ... suggestions for the impossible future of critical pedagogy. Educational Theory, 48(4), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. J. J., & Egéa-Kuehne, D. (Eds.) (2001). Derrida & education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2006). Education, not initiation, Philosophy of Education 1996, http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/96_docs/biesta.html, (March 13, 2006).

  • Bingham, C. (2001). I am the missing pages of the text I teach: Gadamer and Derrida on teacher authority. In Rice S. (Ed.), Philosophy of Education (pp. 265–272). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. (2005). The Hermeneutics of educational questioning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(4), 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1985). The ear of the other: Otobiography transference (A. Ronell, Trans.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

  • Derrida, J. (2002). Who’s afraid of philosophy? Right to philosophy I (J. Plug, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • de Saussure, F. (1983). Course in general linguistics. Peru, Illinois: Open Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgoose, J. (2006). An ethics of hesitant learning: The caring justice of Levinas and Derrida. Philosophy of Education 1997, http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/97_docs/edgoose.html, (March 13, 2006).

  • Egéa-Kuehne, D. (2006). Neutrality in education and Derrida's call for ‘double duty’. Philosophy of Education 1996, http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/96_docs/egea-Kuehne.html, (March 13, 2006).

  • Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoriou, Z. (1995). Derrida’s responsibility: Autobiography, the teaching of the vulnerable, diary fragments. Educational Theory, 45(3), 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miedema, S., & Biesta, G. J. J. (2004). Jacques Derrida’s religion with/out religion and the im/possibility of religious education. Religious Education, 99(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peim, N. (2005) Spectral bodies: Derrida and the philosophy of the photograph as historical document. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifonas, P. (2004). Derrida, deconstruction, and education: Ethics of pedagogy and research. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderstraeten, R., & Biesta, G. (2001). How is education possible? Preliminary investigations for a theory of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, North Vancouver, Canada, V7K 1X9

    Charles W. Bingham

Authors
  1. Charles W. Bingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles W. Bingham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bingham, C.W. Derrida on teaching: The economy of erasure. Stud Philos Educ 27, 15–31 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9044-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9044-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation