Attridge Derek

8/13/2019 Attridge Derek

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/attridge-derek 1/13

Innovation, Literature, Ethics: Relating to the OtherAuthor(s): Derek AttridgeSource: PMLA, Vol. 114, No. 1, Special Topic: Ethics and Literary Study (Jan., 1999), pp. 20-31Published by: Modern Language Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/463424 .

Accessed: 11/10/2013 10:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193 144 75 217 on Fri 11 Oct 2013 10:56:58 AM

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla

http://www.jstor.org/stable/463424?origin=JSTOR-pdf




http://www.jstor.org/stable/463424?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla



Derek ttridge

Innovation, iterature,thics:

Relating o theOther

DEREK ATTRIDGE is Lever-hulme esearch rofessorn he

DepartmentfEnglish nd Re-

lated iteraturettheUniversity

of York, ngland,and distin-

guished isitingrofessornEn-

glish tRutgers niversity,ew

Brunswick. monghis recent

publications s Writing outh

Africa: iterature, partheid,and Democracy, 1970-1995

(Cambridge P,1998), oedited

with osemary olly. isforth-

coming ublicationsnclude

bookon James oycend liter-

ary heorynd a collectionnti-

tled emicolonial oyce,oedited

withMarjorie Howes (both

Cambridge P).He iscomplet-

ing study fJ.M. Coetzee ndthe ingularityf iterature.

HOWCAN WE understandhe easeless emand ornnovationin cultural ractice?1ow does the bligationobe nnovative

in artistic reation elate o theobligation o be inventivenone'sre-sponses oculturalroductions? hat s the elation etweenhe atterobligationndthe pparentlyontradictorybligationorespondocul-tural rtifacts ith idelityndustness? o any f hese bligationsavethe orce fethical esponsibility,nd f o,howdothey elate o ethicaldemands n therealm f personal nd social interaction?nd do thequestions osedherehave a distinctivealence nthefield f art ndmore articularlyn the nstitutionrpractice e call iterature?

TheCreation ftheOther

I sit t my omputer, ritinghefirst raft f this ssay-not tinkeringwith nexistingext rworkingut problemccordingoa setofrulesbut omposing ew sentences utofnothing,r rather utof a largelyinchoate wirl f half-formulatedhoughtsnd faint ntimations.amtryingo verbalize cluster f nterconnecteddeasthat can only imlyapprehend; rom ime to time the nebulous outlines ake shape asphrases rargumentativeinks, ut keep osing he hread, eleting,going ackovermy ypedwords,making ne more ttempto say whatneeds o be said, r even, t sometimeseems, emands o be said.What

I haveto resist s mymind's nclinationoward epetition,tstendencytoprocessnoveltynterms f thefamiliar. otivated ysomeobscuredrive, sense hat am pushing t the imits fwhat havehithertoeenable to think.

What xactlym doing? t s a common nough ctivity, ith na-logues nmany ther ields, ut ne that esists recise erminology-perhaps ecause t s sofamiliar.2et me suggest hree ossibilities.could ay that amcreating,or at east ttemptingo create; hiswouldbe to nvoke long aesthetic raditionnd an even onger heologicalone. I could say that am inventing, trying o be inventive, hoping to

20

This content downloaded from 193.144.75.217 on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:56:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






DerekAttridge 21

bringnto he ulture o which belong text hatwill have thestatus f an invention.f I use this

term, alignmyself ith nancient hetoricalra-dition,n which nventios thefirst hase nthegenerationf a newdiscourse,he indingfmate-rials to be shapedand presentedn persuasivespeech. inally, could aythat amattemptingorespond o thenew deaswhosepotentialxistenceI intuit,hat amtryingoarticulatejustor nad-equateresponse othese nformulatednsights.nwhat ollows,examinehe omewhatifferentm-plicationsf hese hreeerminologicalossibilities.

The title fthis ectionchoes hat f demand-

ing nd uggestivessaybyJacques errida: Psy-che: nventionf heOther."ikeDerrida'subtitle,thecreationofthe othercan be read in twoways.As "creatinghe ther,"temphasizes gency ndactivity:o be trulyreativesto wrest rom he a-miliar hehithertonthought,obring nto xis-tence yskillfulnd maginativentellectualaboranentityhat s absolutely ifferentromwhat salready nbeing.Such an accountdoes not eementirelyrue otheexperience amtryingode-scribe, owever.na curiousway, he deas have

not yetbeen able to formulate eem to be "outthere" atherhan imply onexistent.yexperi-ence has anelement fpassivity,fattemptingoheighten yresponsivenesso hints frelation,oincipientrguments,o mages wimming ntheedgesofconsciousness,nelement f ettinghemcome s much s seekinghem ut.When writesentencehat eemsustright,hat leasesmewithits ncapsulationfa point hadnotknown wasabouttomake, am notable tosayhow tcameinto eing, ut can say didnotproducetsolely

bymeansof an activeshaping fexisting, on-scious,mentalmaterials.fthis s true orminorachievementsf reativerticulation,t eems ikelythatmajorfeatsofcreativity,nventivenessf afuller ind, pring rom more emarkablepen-nessofthemind owhat thasnotyet rasped.

Hence theappropriatenessf thealternativereading fthegenitiveonstructionnthe reationofthe ther,ccording owhichmy ext,nd per-hapssomethingfmyself,s created y he ther.Thisshould otbe taken o mply mysticalelief

inanexteriorgent; ather,t ndicates hat he e-lation fthe reatedwork oconscious ctsof cre-

ation s notentirelyne of effect o cause. Thecomingnto eing f hewholly ew equiresome

relinquishmentf intellectual ontrol, nd theothersa possible ame or hat o which ontrolsceded.3 urthermore,fthe ettled atternsfmymentalworldhave been so freed pthat he rulyother inds welcome,my ubjectivity illhavebeenalterednsomedegree, ndthus-especiallyifthe umulativeffectf such ventss takenntoaccount-the self oo can be said to be a creationof the other.n fact, s I shall arguemorefullybelow,when experiencelterity,experience otthe thers such howcould ?) but he emolding

of the elf hat ringshe ther ntobeing s,nec-essarily,o ongerntirelyther.

The value ofa singlephrase hat nvokes oththese erspectivesnthe omingnto xistence fthenew s thattfuseswhatmighttherwiseeemdifferentrocesses ropposing ccounts. tthusachieveswhat logical rdiscursiveccountouldnot-thephrases itself reative.What hephrasehighlightss thatnovelty s achievedby meansboth fthe efashioningfthe ld andofthe nan-ticipated dvent fthenewor,more ccuratelyf

more aradoxically,hat he dvent fthenew s aparticularefashioningfthe ld. Wemay aythatthe ther's rrival estabilizeshe ield fthe ameorthat hedestabilizationfthefield fthe ameoccasions he rrival fthe ther; oth hese tate-mentsretrue,hough ach s incomplete ithoutitscounterpart.uraccounts fthisprocessusu-allyhave toveerbetween arrativeshat uggestthe ctivereshapingfexisting onfigurations-"forgingnthe mithyfone's soul"and so on-andnarrativeshat uggesthepassive xperience

ofthe ther'srruptionnto he ettled rder, uchas inspirationytheMuse. Thinking reativelyabout reationmeans hinkingf hese s two idesofthe ame oin.4

Theothers anoverworkedhrase ncurrentc-ademicdiscoursendmay eemtooportentousrtoo mpreciseormypurposes ere, ut thascer-tainmerits.ne s its mplicationhat,lthoughhekind fencounteramdiscussing appens epeat-edly,whats encounteredsalways ingular. lter-nativesuch s othernessnd alterityrerendered

lessuseful ytheir enerality,heiruggestionhatwearedealingwith substancehatouldbespread







22 Innovation,iterature,thics: elatingo heOther

about or divided up. Tout utreest tout utre s themottoDerrida coins in TheGift f Death (68):

every thers completelyther. he othemess hatisbroughtnto eingbyan actofwriting,hetherthis themesss embodiedn anargument,partic-ular sequence ofwords, r an imagined eriesofevents, s not ust a matter fperceptible iffer-ence. t mplies wholly ewexistent hat annotbe apprehendedythe ld modes funderstandingand couldnot have beenpredicted ymeansofthem;ts ingularity,ven f t sproduced ynoth-ingmore han slight ecastingfthe amiliarndthus f thegeneral,s absolute.A furtherlterna-

tive, henew,while t has someadvantages ndwillbe used as an approximate ynonymnthisessay, acks-even with hedefiniterticle-thisimplicationfsingularity.

Anotherirtue fthe hrase he ther-whichtshareswith henew-is thatt spremisedna rela-tion. o be othersnecessarilyobe other o.Whatsthe ametome s other o someone lse andviceversa.Moreover,t s other nlyn he ircumstanceswithin hich he ncounterakesplace. Althoughthosewho use thephrase o not lways cknowl-

edge ts elationalmplication,e shall ee thatt simportantodo so. t s alreadyvidenthat t om-plicates he ccount fabsolute ingularityhathave ustgiven.fthe thersalways ndonly thertome, am lreadyn omekind frelationo t, ndthismeans hattparticipatesithme nsomegen-eral, hared ramework.therness,hats, s pro-duced n anactive reventlikeelation-we mightcall t relating:he ther s othero s always ndconstitutivelynthepoint fturningromheun-knownnto he nown,romhe thernto he ame.

(An entity ithout his elationwould imply otimpinge n me; as far s I was concerned,twouldbenonexistent.)his turn romhe ingular o thegenerals notwhat s alluded o nsuchphrases stheviolenceof representationndthedomesticationof he ther. heypresuppose narrativenwhichthe ther tartsotally utsidemyken, ts xistenceunsuspected,nd sthentrippedf ts thernessothat cancometogripswith t. n the ccount amgiving, he thersnot n entityt firsttterlynac-cessible nd hen ll too ccessible. nly nrelating

tome s the therther,nd ncoming obeas a sin-gular thert t the ame ime omes obe as a part

ofmyworld.As importants thenew reation rethe ransformationshat ad ooccur omake ts x-

istence as singularurningntogeneral) ossibleand thatwill nturnmakefurtherransformationspossible-each ofwhichwillalsobe singularndgeneralizable.

Creation, hen,s both n actand anevent, othsomethinghats done nd omethinghat appens.Since there s norecipe,noprogram,or reation(this s part fwhatwe mean y reation), tcannotbepurely willed ct;but incecreation equirespreparationnd abor,tcannot e purelynevent.(The termnvention etraysomethingfthis ual-

ityn tsdouble eferenceo the ct ofmakingndthe vent fcoming pon.)Moreover,achoftheseaspects fcreation an be describedn twoways:the ctofbreakingown he amiliars also the ctofwelcominghe ther;he vent fthefamiliar'sbreakingown s also the vent f the rruptionfthe ther.5fone s abletobreak own he ldcre-ativelynd notustnegativelyand t s notpossi-ble to be surewhich fthese ne sdoing), henewcomes nto eing; tthe ame ime,hebreakdownof the ld s necessarily roduced ythepressure

of ts nternalontradictions-which,ince ts on-tradictionsre functionfwhat texcludes,s thesame s saying hat t breaks ownunderhepres-sure f he ther.6

Creation,nvention

I havebeendiscussing reativityr nventivenessas if twere n nherentropertyfcertaincts ndproductsfacts,7 quality f absolute ewness t-tributableo an individual'smental rocesses nd

their esults. shall continue ouse the ermre-ation to refero theprivate,mental spects fthisprocess,but t is importanto acknowledge hatcreationlways akes lace n a culture, ot ust na mind.For thepublicaspect shall reserve heterm nvention leaving innovation to cover bothaspects). havealready uggestedhatnnovativemental ctsproduceasting lterationsnthe ub-jectivityhat chieveshem: nce have rticulatedthenew houghtshat had dimly pprehended, ythinking illnever e entirelyhe ameagain. f

that ew rticulationecomes ublic,with hedis-articulationf settledmodesofthoughthatmade







DerekAttridge 23

itpossible andthus hatt madepossible), tmayalter ognitive rameworkscross wider omain,

allowing urtherctsofcreativitynotherminds.This sequence f events s familiarnmany ields,including hilosophy,he ciences,politics, eli-gion, nd rt.8

Theuse of theword nventionfor hisprocesstallies loselywith ommon sage.9An inventionmaybe a newdevice rprogram,ut he ct of n-vention s a mental eat hatmakespossibleboththemanufacturef the newentitynd,perhapsmoremportant,ew nstancesf nventiveness.n-ventivenessnthe ultural ield, oo,connotes ot

only he reation f a new rtifactut lso a wayofdeployingmaterialshat an beboth mitatedndinventivelyeveloped,arodied, hallenged.hesefurtherorms f nventivenessannot epredictedfrom he nvention hatmakes hem ossible-iftheyould, heywouldnot e inventive.0

Thecreativect,howevernternaltmighteem,workswithmaterials bsorbed romwhatwecanbroadlyall a culture r a melange fculturesin-cluding,mong ther hings,esthetic,cientific,moral, eligious,conomic,ndpolitical ractices,

institutions,orms, ndbeliefs), nd t s on cul-tures hatthas ts nventiveffects.o becreative,inthe imited ense mean, hemindneedsonlythematerialsthappens ohave,whetherhared rnot, ut nvention-whichs the nlyway nwhichcreativityan be registered-requires close en-gagement ith he ircumambientulturalmatrix.Themost nnovativertists rscientistsaveusu-allyhadanexceptionallyreat apacity o ncorpo-rate ulturalmaterialsndhave hereforeeen bletomake he trongestmpression ncultures. or

is thismerely question fthe ichnessndrangeof the tuffhat hemind as to work n; what heinventorindsnthe ultural ield snotustmate-rialbutgaps nthematerial,trainsndtensionsthat uggest hepressure f theother, fthehith-erto nthoughtndunthinkable.

A number fpragmaticssueshelpdeterminewhetherprivate reationecomes public nven-tion."I createdntityhat ouldeffectignificantchangesmaybe ignored or arious easons. ts n-fluencemaybediverted,iminished,rovershad-

owedbythe ircumstancesf tsproductionr bycontemporaneousvents lsewhere. istory asno

reputationor airnessnthis egard. n nventiveactmayberegisteredr,more recisely,roduced

after lagofseveral enerations.ence nventive-ness s not ninherentropertyf an act or a cre-ated object; it can onlybe retrospectively,ndneverertainly,ssigned. or, owever,s it implya propertyonferredyan external ndarbitraryhistory:ninventionlways ngages loselywithcultural ractices ndsystemss itdeformsrdis-joinsthem,nd so the nventivect must lreadyhave more-than-casualelation o the ontingen-cies that urroundt ndthatwill nfluencetsfate.

TheEncountered ther

Inmany iscussions rom egeltothepresent,heotherortheOther) ossesses somewhat iffer-entsignificancerom he one withwhich haveendowedt. nparticular,t ndicatesnalreadyx-isting ntity hat he selfencounters:mostobvi-ously,notheruman eing. he othernLevinas'swriting,or xample-frequentlyalled"Autrui"ratherhan l'Autre" obringut tshuman imen-sion-is linked losely o thebiblical neighbor,"

even houghltimatelyhe thernessnquestionsthat fGod. In colonialandpostcolonial tudies,the ther ends ostand or he olonized ulture rpeopleas viewed ythedominantower.'2What-ever tsprecise omplexion,he ther nthese c-countss primarilynimpingementrom utsidethathallengesssumptions,abits, ndvalues ndthat emands response.

How substantials thedifferenceetween heother s anexisting ntity,uch s a human eing,to which amenjoined orespondndthe thers

thatwhich eckons rcommandsromhefringesofmymentalphere s I engage na creativect?At firstight heymay eemtohave ittle ncom-mon. nthe ormerase, tmight e said, he theris other ecause itssubstance, tscenter fcon-sciousness,ts ethical laimonme,orsomesuchfact boutt swholly eyondmygrasp,bsolutelyforeignomeand tomy xperience. n the attercase the ther s other ecause thas notyet omeintobeing,becausecurrentmodesofthoughtrlanguage re nsufficientorealize t-and as it s

realized tnecessarilyeasesto beother.n the irstcase we can pronounce he other o be other,t








seems, rom hebeginningfthe ncounter itht;in the econd ase it s only etrospectivelynd n

thepast tense hatwe canmakethispronounce-ment, ince during heprocessof creation ll isrisk, uess,potential, ithno sureoutcome, ndafterttheotherhas becomeassimilated o thesame.Ourtask n thefirstnstances torespondothe ther s other,nthe econd obring he therinto eing s somethingther han he ther.

Yetthis tarkontrastoes not urvivelosern-spection.or nsofars I apprehendhe lreadyx-isting ther,t s not ther: recognizehe amiliarcontours f a human eing,which s tosay ac-

commodate imorhertomyexisting chemata.Oneaspect fmy esponse,t strue,maybe an ac-knowledgmentfthe ther erson's ubjectivitysimpenetrableo mine r anacceptance hat is orher laims s an ethical ubject re unlimitableymine.But these reresponses otheperson ot ssingularndividual ut s (generic) erson,withselfhood quivalent omine.However,f n thisprocess remain ware, rbecome ware hroughan actofattention,fsomefailure nmy ccom-modation, omestrain r internal onflictnmy

categorization,mayberespondingo the ingularothemess f the ther erson.t s inthe cknowl-edgment fthe otherhumanbeing's uniquenessand thereforef the mpossibilityffinding en-eralrulesorschemata oaccount ully orhimorher hat ne can be said to encounterhe ther. tthe ametime s it s an affirmationf the ther sother, herefore,heexperience s an encounterwith he imits f one's powersto think nd tojudge,a challenge o one's capacities s a rationalagent.nthisway,t s notdifferentn ts ssentials

from heexperience f theother s one attemptscreativelyoformulateew houghtsr toproduceanoriginal ork f rt.

Furthermore,heresponse hat eems alled forbythis limpsed pprehensionf othernesss a re-sult f the ailurefexistingmodes fthoughtndevaluations a kind f creation ndmaybe an n-vention. orespond ully o the ingular thernessofthe ther erson and thus ender hat thernessapprehensible)s tocreativelyefashionhenormswhereby eunderstandersons s a category ndin thatrefashioning-necessarilynaugural ndsingular-tofind wayof respondingo his or her

singularity.hisresponsemaybe a purelynternalone,or tmay ssue n deedsorwords.f deeds nd

words nsue, he nventivenessfthe esponsemayin turn rovokenventiveesponses ot nly o t-self but also to other ersons ndbring bout amorewidespreadlterationn ntersubjectivee-havior. he othernthis ituations thereforeot,strictlypeaking, persons conventionallynder-stood nethics rpsychology;t s onceagain re-lation, r a relating,etweenme, s the ame, ndthatwhich,n ts uniqueness,s heterogeneousome.If succeed nresponding dequately o theothernessndsingularityfthe ther,t s also that

relating-which s always n a specific ime ndplace-to which respond,ncreativelyhangingmyselfndperhapsnventivelyhanging little ftheworld. n this rocess he ther s transformedfromther osame, ut he ame s not he ame sitwasbefore he ncounter.

Thisoperations similar, hen, otheone thatoccurswhen writer efashions orms fthoughtto realize n nventiveewpossibilityn a poemoran argument. s has oftenbeen remarked, hesenseoffindinghe ppropriate ord na poetic

lineor articulatinghenext tage f an argumentsthat fachieving hat ne wasseekingnd wouldbe accuratelyxpressed otby "At ast, 've madesomething ew " butrather y "At ast 've got tright " r even At ast 've got t " Granted,t spresumablyart f thewriter'seneralntentionocompose entenceshat redifferentrom nythingwrittenefore ndthat t the ame ime re ntelli-gible, nformative,leasure-giving. ut what sforemostnthe reativemind s the ssueneitherforiginalityor fcommunication;t s thedemand

thatusticebe done to thoughtshat ave notyetevenbeenformulateds thoughts.

Reading

Ifthe mergencefthe thern nnovativectivitytakesplace nwriting,nscientific, athematical,and philosophical hought,n political engage-ments,npaintingndmusical omposition,ndin intersubjectivend interculturalelations, onameusta few f ts nstances,t s notdifficultosee that t takesplace inreading.Reading and Iincludehere istening o an utterance)nvolves







DerekAttridge 25

numberfdifferentypes factivity,he implestof which s the mechanical onversion ftypo-

graphicmarks rphonetic equences nto oncep-tual structures.mongthesemany ctivitiessreading s anattemptorespondo the thernessfthe ther, process hats not ssentiallyifferentfrom he naugural ctsalready escribednd ikethem nethat ringsboutunexpected eshapingsofthe amiliar.

Reading nnovativelynthisway, hen,maybedescribed n terms imilar o those have beenusing.With espect o thequestions hat nterestme here, text s to beconsideredot fixedetof

signifiersrsignifiedsut omethingike field fpotentialmeaning waitingrealizationwithoutwhollydeterminingt in advance.13Reading n-volvesworkinggainst hemind's endencyoas-similate heother o thesame, attendingothatwhich can barelybe heard,registering hat sunique bout he hapingf anguage,hought,ndfeelingna particularork. ncounteringhe therinreading, hemind understoodnthebroadestsense) ets tself e carried o theborders f ts c-customed errainythe ext.And theother ere,

onceagain, s a relation rrelatingather han nobject; t s the ct-event-fort sclearly oth-ofmy eading,ow, ere, fthis articularext.

As I havesaid,when creative ct ssues nanobject,hat bjects not simplematerialntityutisconstitutedynormsrcodesthat, owever ew,canbe deduced ndduplicated, s well as inven-tively eformulated.ere hisnot rue, he bjectwould imply emainpaque.Anessential art fafull esponseoa text hat trikes e with he orceofthenew, herefore,s a deduction f tsmodus

operandi,naccurate nderstandingf the epeat-able rules ccordingo which he ext peratess ameaningfulntity.'4 ut this perations not ustmechanical.fthe ext s truly ew ome andas Ishow ater, his ondition equires eitherecentpublicationor first-timeeading), y esponse oitwill nvolve suspensionfmyhabits, willing-ness to rethinkld positionsn order oapprehendthe ext'snauguralower. It sthis ethinkinghatwillcontinue ohave effectss I readotherexts.)Since the ubjectiveefashioninghat he ext allsfor snecessarilyifferentor very ubject,

ndeedfor very eading, ingularitys inplay from he

start.orespondo the ingularityfthe ext readis thus o affirmtssingularitynmy ingular e-

sponse, pennotustto the ignifyingotentialfthewords n the agebut lso tothe ime ndplacewithin hich he eading ccurs, heungeneraliz-able relation etween his ext nd thisreader.15Whilegeneralizable orms re nvolved rom hestart,s I havenoted,t sonly etrospectivelyhatwe canextracthem s normsandthus bjectifythe ransitionrom he thero the ame), lthougheven his ypostatizationemains evisable.

Moreover,what affirm hen respond othetext na way hat oes ustice o tsothernesss not

simply particularrgumentr arrangementfwords ut he reativityfthe uthor r authorsnbringingntoexistence hat rgumentr thosewords. his s not matterftryingoreproducetheexperience fwritingnnovatively;hepro-cessesofcreationwhich robablynvolvedmuchmechanicalwork s well)have nowbeen eft e-hind.16mayknownothingbout he uthor, otevenhis or hername, ut read he ext n the s-sumptionhatt s"authored,"hat t s the reativework,howevermediated, f at least one mind.

Whilemany f ourencounters ith exts ndper-hapsthegreaterart f ourexperiencefany extoperatewithouthis ssumption,full esponseothe thernessf he ext ncludes nawareness f,respect or,nd na certainense towhich shallreturn)taking fresponsibilityor, he reativityof ts uthor.

The singular, ffirmativeesponse o a text screativelyeneratedthermay ccur ntirelynthemental nd affectiveomain.But a creative ead-ingoftenmoves o an articulationn words, s if

thework eingread demanded new work n re-sponse. hisarticulation-in conversation,n ar-ticle, lecture, letter-maytselfnventivelyakepossiblenewwaysofwriting,ewwaysofread-ing. t s subject oall the onditions nderwhichinventionunctions,ncluding oth henecessityfcloseengagementith he ulturalontextndtheoperationfcontingentactorsnthat ontext.

I indicatedarlier hat henovelty f a text oesnot imply ntail ecent roductionr a first-timereading.The textswe read often o not have a

stronglynventiveelationo the ulturalnvelopewithin hichwe encounterhem. extswithouthis








relationmayhave had t at a certain oint ntheirhistories,nd heymayhave t gain since ld texts

areconstantly eingrediscovered),utwhenweread hemheyrepart fthe amiliaranon.How,then, s it possibleto experience hemwith heshock f henew, s we often o?Again,weneed oconsider he ther s a relating:t s not he ext it-self"butmy ingularnd ctive elationo the ar-ticular onfigurationfpossibilitiesepresentedythe ext hats the iteofalterity. owever ld thetext, owever amiliarome, t an always trike ewith he orce fnoveltyf, ymeans fa creativereadinghattrivesorespond ullyo the ingular-

ity fthework na new ime ndplace, openmy-self to its potential hallenge. Rather han thefamiliarmodelof the iterary ork s friendndcompanion, haringwith hereader tssecrets,propose hework s stranger,ven ndperhaps s-peciallywhen he eader nows t ntimately.'7

Form and theLiterary

Thecreative ctofrespondingo the ingularth-emessmanifestedn a human rtifactappens,s I

havenoted, nmanydifferentields. he artifactmaybe a philosophicalrgument,mathematicalproof, chemical xperiment,journalisticeport.Or itmaybe whatWestern ulture lasses as anaestheticrtifact:painting, sculpture,theatri-cal performance, sonata, novel.Do the rgu-mentsdevelopedhereprovide nyassistance ndistinguishingetween esthetic ndnonaestheticartifacts?oes responsivenesso the ther s a cre-ated ntity ean he ame nboth ategories?

Let us focus nthe uestion f iterature,nder-

standinghat he discussion ould be expanded,mutatis utandis,oother rt orms.have lreadysuggested hat heresponse o a text s new orother ncludes senseof ts"authoredness,"ot,that s, ofany ntention ractivity recedingtsproductionutof the assumed)fact f tshavingbeenbroughtnto xistence y the reative ct ofan author r authors.Now literaryriticism fmany arieties akes tas a foundingrinciplehata considerationf theauthor esponsible or aworksnotrelevanto ts nterpretationr evalua-

tion.Whilenotseeking odeny hat nsight,myproposal istinguishesetween concernwith he

historicaluthor-a legitimateutnot necessarycomponentf an attemptodo ustice o a work-

andthe oloring hat s given o one's experienceof a text ythe ssumptionhat nauthor reatedit.For this eason, ace RolandBarthes, find hetermwork articularlyppropriateere,n contrasttothe nonymousext.

Insomeworks he uthor'sreativeabor onsistslargely f themanipulationf deas, he onstruc-tion farguments,he epresentationfpreviouslyexistingntitiesna new ight, r the maginationofhithertoonexistentntities.nothers uch aboris combinedwith,nd s in a certain ense lways

subject o, he election ndarrangementfwords.Intheseworks themess ndsingularityre nher-ent n thewords hemselves,heir equence, heirsuggestiveness,heir atterning.o reexperiencethe themess f a work fthis ype hat havereadbefore, t is notenough o recall the argumentsmade, he deas ntroduced,hemages onjuredp;it snecessaryoreread rrecall hewords,ntheircreated rder.One wayofsaying his s that hecreativechievementsaformal ne,whateverlseitmaybe. The commonesturrentame orworks

of thiskind thought s certainly otwithouttsproblems)s literature.

It s obvious hat uch distinctionoes not or-respondxactly o the ulturallycceptedthoughhistorically utable) ategorizationf texts s lit-erary rnonliterary.any hat reconventionallyconsidered onliteraryrecharacterizedyformalcreativityand thisaspectmayachieve onger-lasting ecognitionhan heirrgumentsrrepre-sentations),whereasmanytextswe identifysnovels, oems,ndplays reothernly othe xtent

thathey ringnto xistenceowerfulmages r n-novativelyandle oncepts. ut s an dentificationofthe"literary"nanytext, hefocuson formalsingularityndothernesswhich re not eparateproperties)asa certain sefulness.t snot nlyquestion ffindingewwaysofconstructingen-tences rmanaging erbal hythms,owever; hepossibilityfcreatingn othernesshatmayhavethe effects have been attemptingo describespringsrom hefactnotustthatwords onsist fsounds ndshapesbut lso that hese ounds nd

shapesare nexuses ofmeaning ndfeeling ndhence redeeply ootednculture, istory,ndthe







DerekAttridge 27

varieties f humanexperience.The formal e-quence thereforeunctionss a kind fstaging:

semanticnd emotional erformance.very imeread linguisticext s a literary orkI canreadany text nmanywaysandusuallyread nmorethan neway atonce), engage nandamtakenthrough hatperformance;ndeed, s has oftenbeensuggested,hework xists s a literary orkonly n themultiple vents f tsreading.Hencetheneed o repeat hework,s a temporal,equen-tialexperience,fone wishes orepeat he ppre-hension f tsothernessthough xactrepetitioncan never ccur).Literary orks ffermany inds

ofpleasure, ut hepleasure hat an be calledpe-culiarlyiteraryerives rom his taging,his n-tensebutdistanced laying ut of whatmight ethemost ntimate,hemoststrongly elt, on-stituentsf our ives.Withouthe rucial unction-ingofform,herewouldbe nosenseofstaging.nthe eading f iterature,nemightay,meaningssimultaneouslyormedndperformed.

Thecreativityequiredna justresponse o theothernessf a literaryork,herefore,nvolves otonly singularffirmationfthework's ingularity

based onan apprehensionf ts nventiveeorder-ingoftheculturalmatrix ut lso anaffirmationof tsoccurrence,nbeing ead, s an ntellectual-emotional vent.A straightforwardlyiscursive,analytic ommentary,aluablethough tmaybe,cannotmake hese ffirmations.nly new, npre-dictable, ingular, reative ct, as an inventiveeventn ts urn,an do ustice o a literary ork sliteraryork.

Responsibility

Affirmingheother, henew, n all thedifferentmodes haveconsidered,makesdemands.Atten-tiveness othatwhich s outside hefamiliar e-quireseffort,ven f t is theeffortfresistingeffortfulehavior,femptyingut he oofull, x-cessively oal-orientedonsciousness. hat rivesanddirectshis ffort? e cantalk boutmotiva-tion nterms f thepleasures ndrewards o begainedfromchievingomethingriginal nd n-fluentialrfromoingusticen a creativeesponse

to the niquenessf person r anartifact,utmo-tivationccounts nlyfor hedesire o be inven-

tive,notfor he ct tself. heactsprings romhard-to-explainommitmentothenew, owhats

coming ntobeing.Let meemploy much-usedwordthat,ike anyother might hoose in thiscontext, as ts dvantagesnddisadvantages:e-sponsibility. hat am concerned ith ere sre-sponsibilityortheother,which s significantlydifferentromesponsibilityothe ther. ubstitut-ing a nearsynonymmakes thedifferencevenclearer: obe answerable o someone s notbe an-swerableforhim or her.Responsibilityortheother nvolves ssuming heother'sneeds,beingwilling obe called o account or he ther,urren-

dering ne'sgoalsand desires n deferenceotheother's. Exactly o whomwe areresponsible ranswerablenthis ituationsoneof the uestionsI shallhave o eaveunaddressed.)

Inthe cenario f the nventivectwithwhichbegan his ssay-the creation f a newtext-theothers not person;nevitably,ebegin owrenchwords littlewhenwe talkofresponsibilityorthis ther. utthis orm fexpressions onewayof ndicatinghe trangeompulsionnvolved ncreative ehavior, compulsionhats manifestn

a minorwayas I grope or entences o articulateideasthat o nothave ny ubstantialxistence e-fore he entences ome to meand s muchmoreconsequentialnmajor cts of nventiveness,er-bal or otherwise.t is a compulsion hat eads torisk, crucial onceptnany onsiderationfcre-ativity.incebydefinitionhere an benocertaintyinopeningneself o the ther,veryuch peningis a gamble. trustheother efore knowwhatthe therwillbring.'8t maybethebest; tmaybetheworst. take esponsibilityor he ther efore

any alculation-forhe isk snecessarilyncalcu-lable. affirm,herish,ustain he ther, ot nspiteof butbecauseof tsotherness, hich spreciselywhatmakes he ther aluable ome, ndwithoutanyguaranteesundertakeo realize his themessas fullys possible.

Conventional oral odesrequire ertain indsofsupportndsuccor or ther ersons, utmy e-sponsibilityor heother erson s other smoredemandinghan hese.Aswhen create new rti-fact rmode fthought, y bligations to refash-

ionwhat thinkndwhat am norder otake hefullest ossible ccount f-to respect,afeguard,








and earnfrom-theothernessndsingularityftheotherndtodo so withoutny ertaintybout

the onsequencesfmy ct.The same s true f heproductsfhuman reativity.

Responsibilityor heothers not dditional otherequirementfresponsivenesshat have al-ready iscussed. nlike esponsivenessophysicalstimuli, esponsivenesso the ther ecessarilyn-volves somethingike responsibilityecausetheother omes nto xistencenlywhent s affirmed,welcomed, rusted,urturedeventhough,s wehave een, omingnto xistencenvolves easingto be other). urthermore,nresponsibilityre-

spondwithmuchmore hanmy ognitiveaculties:my motional ndsometimesmyphysical elf realsoat stake. ence he isk nvolved-I amobligedto affirmomethingwith ll that am beforeknowwhat t s, before,nfact,t s. There s nostraightforwardhronology ere: his s oneoftheways nwhich nvention oes not onformonor-malcausality. nly naccepting esponsibilityortheother o I bringt-or let tcome-into exis-tence; ndtheres a sense nwhich he esponsibil-ity recedesven he thats saidtoaccept t, ince

the ct lways emakeshe ctor.

Ethics

Responsibilitys an ethicalerm;t mpliesnought.Tobe responsibleor he s yetnonexistentthersto be under nobligation;orespond esponsiblyothe themessf literaryork s to do ustice o t:my ntire iscussion f nnovationo this oint asbeen hot hroughithhe thical. hisraises reshproblems ormy accountof invention,reation,

andresponsiveness. hat s the thical round orattentiono andaffirmationfotherness,hen heresult f this ffort aybe without nyhumanlyrecognizablemerit r ndeedmay erve nhumanends?Theother hat sbroughtnto eingmay urnouttobe a monstrosity.'9e canonly ontinueouse termswith thical mplications,ikerespon-sibility nd obligation-indeed, ethics tself-ifwearepreparedomake omekind f distinctionbetween hemostfundamentalthicaldemands,which lways nvolveunpredictabilityndrisk,

andspecific bligations overningoncrete itua-tionsna socialcontext, hich equire hegreatest

possible ontrolfoutcomes.o the atter,henamemoralitys often iven.20here s nonecessaryon-

nectionetween responsibleelationo othemessas I composemusic rrespond oanothererson rread a novel ndtheobligations have under hemoral odes embodied n socialnorms, eligiousinstitutions,he aw of my ountry,ndprobably,myownsuperego. his s not osaythe wo reasareunrelated;n the ontrary,moral ode, egalsystem,rpolitical rogrammaybe called ethicalif t s informedy somethingike he esponsibil-ity hat have ketched,ven hought will lwaysbe testedndexceeded y uch responsibility.

Notonly s there o moral rpragmatic roundforresponsibility,here s also no philosophicalground. he ethical orce hat onditions he re-ative ct s ungrounded-here evinas'sdifficultthinkings valuable-because that orce sprior oanypossible rounds. hisprioritysnot emporalbutontological though evinaswould nsist hatresponsibilityrecedes ntologys well).Withoutresponsibilityor he ther,s we have een, herewould e noother; ithouthe ther,epeatedlyp-pearing,lwaysdifferent,herewouldbe nosame,

noself, osociety, omorality. e cannot educetheobligation o the other rom heworld;theworld-includinghemeansbywhich nydeduc-tions ould be made aboutethics rresponsibil-ity-is premised n an obligation o the other.Ethics, hen,s thefundamentalelation ot ustbetweenubjects ut lso between he ubject nditsmultiple thers-a relation hat s not relationandthat annot enamed, or t s ogically riororelations nd names,prior n factto logic. Or,puttingtmore entatively,ftheres an ethical e-

lation hat eneratesntersubjectivity,orality,ol-itics, ndculture,t snecessarilyndemonstrable.It s not n t hatwe can nspectraccount or.

Itmaybeobjected hat his seoftermsikere-sponsibility nd ethics, umping ogether indnesstoother eople, estheticreation,nd cts fread-ing, s so broad as to empty hem fanyusefulmeaning.nparticular,tmighte said todissipatethe erms' orce, hich anonly e sustainedfwerecognize heprimacyf nterpersonalelationsnthedeploymentfsuchvocabulary.hiscriticism

has a certain alidityndmightead to theuseofdifferenterms,erms otalready aturated ith







DerekAttridge 29

humanistic oralmplications,ere tnot hat t spreciselyninvoking longtradition fthought

that esponsibility,thics,nd the ikehavepart ftheir alue.Forthe laim mplicitnusing hemsthat he urrentiscussion falteritys both dis-ruptionnda continuationfan ancient iscourse:as always,webring henew ntobeingbyrefash-ioning he ldratherhan y ettisoningt.

Letmetryobe clearer:he thical esponsibilityfor he therhat, argue,s attheheart fcreativ-ity as often een rticulated,ndifferentermsnddifferentontexts,moreor less fully ndcoher-ently, any imesnhistory.hepresentssay san

attemptoderive romomeparts f hisong radi-tion n account fthe ssuesappropriateormytime ndplace. do notmake ny laims bout herelativemportancefthedifferentanifestationsofthe thical elationhat havediscussed: learly,moral rpoliticaludgmentlacesthe esponsibil-ity or uman eings boveresponsibilityor heirproducts ndmeasures reativityy tsbenefitsohumanityortosomeother ategory).heuseful-nessofa nonmoraliscourse fethics sthat tcanprovidensightsnto he undamentalonditionsf

themoral-politicalomain,heworld frules, ro-grams,ategories, ithouteing educedothem.

AnEverydaympossibility

I beganwith self-reflexiveommentary,y t-tempt o describe hewriting fthisessay as aminor xample fpossible nventiveness.etthetermsnwhich havedescribedhe nnovativect,theustresponseothe thernessfthe ther,maymake it soundlike an extraordinarilyrduous,

rarelyccomplishedask,withmmenseepercus-sions.This mpressions inpart he esultfthen-evitablemagnificationhat ccurswhenfleetingexperiencesredescribedt ength.t salso the e-sult four endencyoconceive fthemind ndofculture s static ndhomogeneousntitiesifonlyto make tpossible otalk bout hem).Whenfullaccount s taken fthefact hat oth recomplexand onstantlyhangingields f nterrelatedorces,possibilities, odes,and tendencies, t becomeseasier oacknowledgehe verydaynessfcreativ-

ity nd nventiveness,heir ccurrencen a scalethat eaches rom heminuteo themomentous.

Virtuallynymode ofwritingmaybe innova-tive, nyvariety f aesthetic reation,nyphilo-

sophicalormathematicalhought,nyscientificadvance, hereading fanytext, venanyprag-matic onceptualizationnpolitics rpersonal ela-tions. nunpremeditatedct-a deedofgenerosity,the movementfa surgeon's and, strokenaball game-can be creative. nequickly ealizesthatreative,esponsibleesponsivenessothe theris not rare henomenonutpart f the exturefdaily ife.Levinas was fondofgiving s an in-stance fethicsnpracticeheAfterouwherebyinvite omeoneto go through doorbeforeme

(e.g.,"Ethics" 97and"Entretiens"08).Thisex-ample sprovocative,ut tcan betaken eriously:theminimalcknowledgmentf the thermplicitina gracious xpressionf deference ayhave nit a grain fethics, never-so-slightreative m-pulse-perhaps hediscoveryf gesture ranex-pressionhat leasesandreassuresmy ompanionnot s a familiarellow uman eing ut, orme nthisnstant,s the ther.

At he ame ime, heres a sense, preciseense,inwhich he nnovativect canbe saidtobe im-

possible.Theirruptionf theothernto he amedoes not ndcannot itcomfortablyithinnyofthe xplanatoryrameworksywhichwe charac-terize he ossible. hemostngeniousxplanationwill lways all hort fthe entral act hat astobeaccountedor: omethingbsolutelyew,whathavebeen callingtheother, omes intothehu-manly onstitutedndconstitutingulturalphereandchanges t.Theothermaybepsychologized,ntermsfmaterial eld nthepreconsciousnd theunconscious;ociologized,ntermsfdimly er-

ceived cultural nheritances;r theologized,ntermsfdivinentervention.oneofthese xpla-nations ranyothers, hateverheir alidity,anclaim opredict;hey annottatenadvancewhenor howaninventivect s totakeplace,who s tobe inventive,rwhat he nventionstoconsist f.This snot ecause hese iscoursesacktheneces-sary ower ndprecision utbecause n nventionthat ouldbefullyccountedor, hat ouldbepro-grammedndpredicted,ouldnot ean nvention.Thediscoursest ourdisposalmayprovide way

ofunderstandingirtuallyverythingbout n n-novative ct-its psychicngredients,tscultural








matrix,tsetiologyndtechnology-but heywillleave unanswered he rucial uestion, ow does

thenew, heother, ome intobeingwhen ll wehave s whatwe have?

Ethicsmakes mpossible emands,hen. ot nlyis it mpossible o conceive fthe ther orwhichamresponsiblenterms hatwould allow me toknow n advancewhatmyresponsibilitymountsto, but also have numerous-indeed, nfinite-responsibilities,ll ofwhich re absolute nd m-mediate n their emandsDerrida,Gift -87).Yetethically esponsiblectsoccur very ay,notustinspite fthismultiplempossibilityut lso in a

sense because of it. f itwerepossible to haveapurely onceptual nowledgefthe thers singu-lar other, o predict r produce ts arrival, eitherotherness or nventivenessould xist. f couldcalculate, pportion,ndsatisfyll my esponsibil-ities, here ould e no such hing s responsibilityor ethics.And, oturn omy nterestnthis ssay,if iterary orks nd ourresponses o them ouldbe programmednadvance, nnovativeiteratureandcreative riticism-literaturend criticismsweunderstandhem-would ease to be.

Notes

I thank omFurniss, or is arefuleadingf nearlier raftfthis ssay, ndtheCamargoFoundation, or rovidingn in-comparablenvironmentor reativehought.

'This essay consists f a setof nterrelatedections romlongerwork n the ingularityf iteraturend the thics freading. s willbe evident, he rgumentraws oncretelyn

thework f Derrida ndLevinas nd more enerallyn a num-ber fother riters hohavebroached he ssues f lterity,n-vention,ndthenew,ncludingyotard,arthes, lanchot,nd,in a ratherifferentode,Adorno. lso mportantomy hink-ing havebeen myearly rainingncritical eading n SouthAfrica,where he nfluencef F.R. Leavis was strong,ndmylongengagement ith hewriting,othfictional ndnonfic-tional, fJ.M. Coetzee.For hemost art, havenot ttemptedto signal pecific oints f ndebtedness, any f which amdoubtless o ongerware f.

It willbe clear, trust,hatmydiscussion ertainsrimarilytotheWesternultural orms ndpracticeswithwhich ammost amiliar. he doubledemand or nnovationndfidelity

hasoperated ifferentlycrossWesternistory,ut nthis riefessay amconcernednlywith he bservableontinuities.

2This ctivitys alsohistoricallyroduced,f ourse. heap-parently artesianmethod fmy nvestigationhouldnotbe

taken o mply claim hat ranshistoricalndtransculturalx-periences repossible. Such implicit laims naesthetic is-coursehavebeenrightlyriticizedy Bourdieu,mong thers(285-312).

3Another amemight e the unconscious.To followoutthe mplicationsfthis ubstitutionould equiret east fur-therssay.

4Adornoncapsulates his ontradictionna typical pho-rism: Byexigency,henewmust e somethingilled; s whatis other, owever,tcouldnotbewhatwaswilled"22).

5I usetheverbal hrase reak ownbecause tcan refer i-ther o an act or to an event.A related erm, ith more hilo-sophicalpedigree,s aporia-see, e.g., Derrida, porias, ndBeardsworth.oucault's problematization"1 17-19) s anotherrelated ermthough oucaultwouldprobably avecontestedthe onnection).

6Withoutsing he anguage f alterity,ourdieunotes heparadoxhere: Forboldstrokes f nnovationrrevolutionaryresearchohave ome hance f ven eing onceived,t s nec-essary or hem o exist n a potential tate t theheart f thesystem f lready ealized ossibles"235).

71use the erm ct from ow onas a shorthandor heunde-cidable ct-eventtructureiscussedbove.

8Kant,nthe hird ritique, egardshis rocess s character-istic f"genius": The product f a genius . . .] is anexamplethat s meant ot obe imitated,ut obe followed yanothergenius. For inmere mitationheelement fgenius n the

work-what onstitutests pirit-would e lost.)" 186-87).9Derrida's iscussionf nventionn"Psyche"sthe est c-

count f theword'sknot fmeanings.nLyotard's ocabularythe closestterms "paralogy" r "paralogism"PostmodernCondition 3, 61; see alsoReadings 2-74), which enotespractice hat iffersrominnovation"y nventingules. Myuseof nnovationswidern ts pplicationhan yotard's.)

10"Artistic"nventivenesssbynomeans imited o elite ul-ture.Nordoes t xhausthevalueofculturalroductionsrthepleasures nvolvedntheir onsumption:here remany therattributesndeffects orwhich ulturalbjectsmaybe valuedorenjoyed.

1'Finally,hedistinctionannot emaintainedn tspurity.

creative ct sone that ringsnto eingnotmerely henewbuttherecognizably ew, rising utofexisting istorical ondi-tions ythe ogic traced arlier: hats,a creations necessar-ily potentialnvention.

12Frequently,noppressed ulture r people s said tohavebeen ategorizeds otherhence heverb oother).nsuch re-lation,heres nocreativity,oresponse o alteritynd ingular-ity; s Derrida otes, Racism s also an nventionf the ther,but norder oexclude tandtightenhe ircleofthe ame"("Psyche" 36n7).

13InWhats Literature?artre ormulatesview fthe iter-aryworkhat as ome imilaritiesith his ccount.f hisviewof eadingmakes t "re-invention,"e tates,such re-invention

wouldbe as newandas original n act as thefirstnvention"(31). ForSartre his tructuref nventionnswered y nven-







DerekAttridge 31

tion speculiar o the iteraryield; amarguinghattoccursmorewidely.

14Theserules renot nherentn the bject, or othey ec-essarilyorrespondoanythingn the reative rocess; heyre

what onstitutehe object as meaningfuland, ntheir ew-ness, s inventive)n a given ultural ontext. here s noguar-antee that heywillremain nchangedn other emporal rgeographicontexts.

15Derridases the rope fsignaturendcountersignatureodescribe his rocess; ee,for xample, 'This Strangenstitu-tion"'60-70.

16Recentwork nthefield fgenetic riticism,owever,asmade tpossible to engage morefullywith exts nprefinalform. ee, for xample,Genesis, he ournalof the ParisiangroupTEM.

17Far rom eingnew, his onceptionf iteraryeading as

perhaps een hedominant ne n theWesternradition;t m-bracesAristotle n the ppropriatetyle or oetry, onginusand hemany ighteenth-centurynd ater ttemptsodeveloptheoryf he ublime,mostRomanticriticism,reud ndmostofthose nfluencedyhim, nd large wathe fmodernistndpostmodernriticism.do notwish odeny hathe ontraryo-sition-summed p inthe itle f WayneBooth'sbook on theethics ffiction,heCompanyWeKeep, nd nHelenVendler'scommentThe mportanthings tofeel ompanioned,syougothroughife, y host fpoemswhichpeak oyourxperience"(89)-reflects n mportantspect fmany eaders' eelings; yconcern,owever,swithwhat uch naccounteaves ut.

18For discussion fthe mportanceftrustnthe thical e-

lation, eeAttridge,Trusting."191 onsider ome ofthe mplications f thispossibilityn"Expecting."

20Although oralitys definednmanyways, t has oftenbeen said to provide moreknowable ndcodifiable et ofnorms han thics oes. For a recent iscussion hat dverts oother nderstandingsfthese oncepts,eeHarpham 9-56.

Works ited

Adorno, heodorW.Aesthetic heory. rans.RobertHullot-Kentor. inneapolis: ofMinnesota ,1997.

Attridge,erek. ExpectingheUnexpectednCoetzee'sMasterofPetersburgndDerrida'sRecentWritings."pplying:ToDerrida. d. John rannigan,uthRobbins,ndJulianWolfreys.ondon:Macmillan, 996.21-40.

. "TrustingheOther: thics ndPoliticsn J.M. Coet-zee's Age of ron."TheWritingsfJ M. Coetzee.Ed.Mi-

chaelValdezMoses.Spec. ssue f outh tlantic uarterly93.1 1994): 59-82.Barthes, oland. FromWork o Text." mage-Music-Text.

Ed. and trans. tephen eath.Glasgow:Fontana-Collins,1977.155-64.

Beardsworth,ichard. errida nd the olitical. ondon:Rout-ledge, 996.

Booth,Wayne . TheCompanyWeKeep:An Ethics fFiction.Berkeley: ofCalifornia, 1988.

Bourdieu, ierre. heRules fArt:Genesis ndStructuref heLiteraryield. Trans. usanEmanuel. tanford:tanfordUP, 1996.

Derrida,Jacques.Aporias.Trans.ThomasDutoit.Stanford:

StanfordP, 1994.. TheGift fDeath. Trans.DavidWills.Chicago:U ofChicago , 1995.

. "Psyche: nventionftheOther."ActsofLiterature.Ed. DerekAttridge. ew York:Routledge, 992.311-43.

. "'ThisStrangenstitutionalledLiterature': n nter-viewwith acques errida." cts fLiterature.d. DerekAttridge. ew York:Routledge, 992.33-75.

Foucault, ichel. Polemics,olitics,ndProblematizations:nInterview ithMichelFoucault." thics: ubjectivityndTruth. d. PaulRabinow. ew York:New,1997.111-19.

Harpham, eoffrey alt.GettingtRight: anguage,Litera-ture, ndEthics. hicago:U ofChicago ,1992.

Kant,mmanuel. ritique fJudgment.rans.Werner. Pluhar.Indianapolis: ackett,987.

Levinas, mmanuel.Entretiensran,ois oirie Emmanuele-vinas." nterview.mmanuel evinas:Essai etentretiens.ByFran,ois oiri6. 987.Arles:Actes ud,1996.59-169.

. "Ethics f the nfinite."nterview.tates fMind:Dia-logueswith ontemporaryhinkers.y Richard earney.New York:New YorkUP,1995.177-99.

Lyotard, ean-Fran,ois. hePostmodern ondition: ReportonKnowledge. rans.Geoff enningtonnd BrianMas-sumi.Minneapolis: ofMinnesota, 1984.

Readings, ill. ntroducingyotard: rt nd Politics. ondon:Routledge, 991.

Sartre, ean-Paul.What s Literature? 948.Trans.BernardFrechtman.ondon:Methuen, 967.

Vendler, elen.Poems, oets, oetry: n ntroductionndAn-thology.oston:Bedford,997.

Attridge Derek

Documents

Transcript of Attridge Derek