the trace in derrida & levinas

8/13/2019 The Trace in Derrida & Levinas

1/23

The Trace in Derrida and Levinas Bettina Bergo Universit de Montral

Canadian Philosophical Association, London, Ontario, May 2005

for Nadia Sahely

Foreword

In this paper I want to follow the career of the trace as it unfolds in selective writings

of Levinas and errida!" It will #e i$possi#le in this %ind of presentation to give a

co$plete panora$a of the functions and $eanings of the trace& #esides, Paul 'icoeur

suggested classifying traces according to the neuro(cere#ral )*$nesic traces+, the

conscious(unconscious )*$ne$onic traces+, and the written or inscri#ed trace )*historic

traces+! A clean, rather general classification-valid until we en.uire a#out types of

$e$ory or until we e/pand the concept of inscription or arche(writing!2

ow, if the trace, for Levinas, refers to what cannot appear-glory, the face of the

other, a dyna$ic collection of aphanological conditions-then it is also tied up with the

co$ple/ of $e$ory, affectivity, and the #irth of signification! In errida, the trace

#egins its career in the criti.ue of 1usserl and the i$$ediate self(presence of the inner

voice& that voice which is supposed to dispense with those traces called Anzeigen or

indications! ut the trace, in errida, continues its path #etween pheno$enology and

aphanology, opening the .uestion of the possi#ility of enlarging the $eaning of writing to

processes of inscription, whether social, cy#ernetic or natural! In errida3s conference

*4perons,+ the trace is tied to the signifying co$ple/ of veils, veil(rendings )with the

instantiations of *4perons+ fro$ stone spurs, daggers, ietsche3s u$#rella and the trace

or Spur, and fe$ininity! In later writings li%eLe monolinguisme de lautreand Contre-

alles, traces are approached in their cultural a$#iguities and their a#ility to #e inscri#ed

on, or intro6ected into, #odies! In this #rief s%etch, we can see that the career of the trace

in errida perspectival7 it crosses disciplinary #oundaries while $a%ing the wor% of

"


2/23



inscription, identification, #ut $ost i$portantly, a$#iguity, possi#le! I a$ interested, in a

#road sense, in the spread of this concept in "890s :rench thought! ;hat is, in its sources

and, in Levinas3s case especially, its connection to sensuous or affective $e$ory< ;hus, I

#egin #y discussing Levinas #ut will have errida in $ind at all ti$es!

1. The Trace and Repetition

In his collection of essaysNoms propres,=Levinas as%s whether the wor% of errida

does not represent a line cutting through the history of philosophy, li%e the >antian

revolution did! Levinas3s .uestion is put in slightly #ad faith, given errida3s de#t to

1eidegger! ;he essay devoted to errida presents his "890s wor% in #road stro%es, to

co$e to the conclusion, 6ust a year #efore the pu#lication of Otherwise than Being

)"8?@, that errida3s trace(li%e conditions of possi#ility of language and writing invite

the Levinasian .uestion of whether incipient inscription in all its for$s, is not rooted in

affective traces which Levinas calls, variously, recurrence, sincerity, the aying, etc! In

short, Levinas uses errida3s reflection on the trace to pose the .uestion of the origins of

intersu#6ective responsi#ility& according to Levinas, affective traces thus construed would

ground any spea%ing or writing as their transcendental condition! As we %now, errida

was characteristically generous in his response to Levinas3s .uery!

;he later wor% of Levinas identifies hu$an sensuous vulnera#ility as its site of

predilection for the trace! Privileging the sensuous trace goes so$e way toward

addressing why face to face responsi#ility repeats and increases! ;his is #ecause the

.uestion of repetition, enor$ously difficult for pheno$enology, i$plies a relationship

#etween traces, a $e$ory of the flesh that can #e forgotten, and the conscious(

unconscious structure of sensi#ility! ;hat sa$e .uestion returns in errida3s later wor% in

2


3/23



the for$ of Bhauntings3 and frag$ents of auto#iography! ;hus two .uestions for$ the

leitmotivof this paper7 the first concerns the relationship #etween traces, $e$ories, and

sensi#ility& the second concerns the proliferation of :rench discourses on the trace in the

"890s, a proliferation I will try to illustrate here!

Can we spea% of an inscription that is purely affective, or again7 of sensuous

$e$ory< trange .uestions these, if we ac%nowledge that we do not re$e$#er pain

though we ad$it that trau$a leaves an i$pression on the #ody, acco$panied #y psychic

$anifestations! ow, the onset of the other, according to the later Levinas, is descri#ed as

trau$atic! And responsi#ility #elongs to an econo$y, or anecono$ic order, of repetition!

It does this uni.uely, as I a$ not responsi#le in the wa%e of other signifying traces, say,

in nature-even if they could trau$atie $e! Many things can #e understood as

inscriptions or ta%e the for$ of a trace, and never produce trau$a or responsi#ility! o$e

$e$ory of a sensation $ust lead us to infer the presence, sporadically forgotten then

recalled, of so$e sensuous alterity(in(the(sa$e! ;hat $e$ory should allow us to infer

that responsi#ility intensifies even as it repeats, which $eans that it repeats in and as

difference! Again, what is a $e$ory of a sensation of a Bpresence3 that is e/cessivelossows%i pu#lishedNietzsche et le cercle vicieu64 2ssai,in "89J, dedicated to his friend eleue! ee Nietzsche and the)icious Circle, aniel D! $ith, tr!, )Chicago, Ill7 niversity of Chicago Press, "88J, our pagination co$es fro$ the:rench second edition )Paris7 Mercure de :rance, "88"!

the trace in derrida & levinas

Documents