Reply
Wed 20 Jun, 2012 09:21 am
Ok so Derrida argues, amongst many other things (that the idea of drugs is a modern ideal, the actual definition of a drug depends on cultural perceptions, that if a drug is bad for you because it puts your body in an unnatural state, a state that you would not be in anyway, then why is caffeine not a drug, even why is soda not a drug because it is certainly not natural and changes the chemical complexion of your body etc etc). I completely understand all of this, what I do not understand is his criticism of addiction. He considers addiction made up, he even refers to it as a 'fetishism' and it exists only in the rhetorical world and not in real life.
Is he literally saying addictions are a fallacy? That 'addicts' are only addicts because of the way our culture defines addiction and that addicts are not actually addicted? Or is there more of a subtly to his argument that addiction is not a real thing? This is the first Derrida I have read, so maybe I am just not completely aware of his intentions. Thanks!
@thedrop03,
I suggest that your use of the word "reality" does not take into account Derrida's leaning towards the concept of "reality as a social construction". Thus the "reality of addiction" must be taken as part of a zeitgeist which could also include "addictive" behaviours from the generation of art or literature to the making of money. In general, Derrida belongs to the tradition of linguistic philosophers who deny that a word can have meaning/value in its own right (the non-representationalists) and he draws our attention to the fact that the interpretation of "text" such as the codification of "laws about narcotics" are embedded in historically shifting social structures. This is not to deny that addiction
can be "a problem", but that the nature of that problem is subject to shifting social evaluation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace