Jacques Derrida on the Problem of Nuclear Weapons

Abstract

The article discusses postmodernist approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons, taking as an example Jacques Derrida’s paper No Apocalypse, Not Now. Proceeding from the widespread conception of postmodernism as relativism, the author hypothesizes that postmodernist philosophers would either try to demonstrate the non-absolute nature of the nuclear threat or suggest relativist ways of countering it. If we agree with Boris Groys’ interpretation of Derrida’s work, then it perfectly conforms to such expectations. However, a careful reading of the paper in question proves both our hypothesis and Groys’ interpretation to be wrong. Although No Apocalypse, Not Now does contain a number of relativist theses (for instance, Derrida portrays nuclear war as a textual phenomenon, a non-event, the absent referent that finally blurs all the distinction between knowledge and opinion, doxa and episteme), they play a minor role in the overall argument. Firstly, Derrida acknowledges the absolute nature of nuclear weapons: for him, they threaten the destruction of the entire archive and all symbolic capacity, that is, of culture as a social mechanism for coping with death, if not the destruction of the whole humanity as a biological species. Secondly, the philosopher criticizes the strategy of deterrence for relying on the logic of escalation and being prone to chance and accident. Thirdly, Derrida emphasizes that a nuclear war, which would destroy all the values and ideals that might legitimate starting it, would in fact be fought (should it happen) in the name of the name, and of nothing else, thus of nothing. To counter such urges, at the same time fundamentalist and nihilistic, the philosopher invites us to fall in love with life. In the later works of Derrida this invitation develops into a principle of responsibility for the life of the other, one of the central tenets of his ethical and political thought. However, since Derrida chooses to focus on individual instead of collective survival, questions remain as to whether his philosophy is able to meet the challenges of the nuclear age.