Work #1504 · Late period

Specters of Marx

Derrida's 1993 reflection on Marxism after the Cold War — hauntology and the New International

Jacques Derrida · 1993 · French · Philosophical monograph (lectures expanded)

Tradition: Deconstruction / late post-Marxism / political philosophy

Derrida's 1993 'Specters of Marx' — hauntology, the New International, and 'one must read Marx' after the fall of the Wall

Delivered as a keynote at the 'Whither Marxism?' conference at UC Riverside in April 1993 and expanded into a book published in October 1993 by Galilée (English translation by Peggy Kamuf published 1994 by Routledge), 'Spectres de Marx: l'état de la dette, le travail du deuil et la nouvelle Internationale' (Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International) is Derrida's late, sustained reflection on Marxism after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Against Francis Fukuyama's 1992 'The End of History and the Last Man' triumphalism (Fukuyama is one of the book's principal polemical targets), Derrida argues for a 'hauntology' (a deliberate pun on ontology — the spectre haunts being from the outside, refuses to be reduced to presence) in which Marx's spectres continue to haunt the present. The book contains four major movements: (I) the defence of the necessity of reading Marx — 'It will always be a fault not to read and reread and discuss Marx'; (II) the analysis of the 'ten plagues' of the new world order — Derrida's polemical catalogue of contemporary planetary crises (unemployment, exclusion, economic war, market deregulation, foreign debt, arms race, ethnic war, mafia organisations, the limits of international law, the new conjuncture); (III) the work of mourning and the spectres that resist mourning; (IV) the 'New International' — Derrida's proposal for an emerging non-party, non-class, non-national community of those who refuse the triumphal-capitalist consensus, bound together by a 'messianic without messianism' — a structure of expectation without determinate content. The book is the most explicit late-Derrida political-philosophical intervention; it shaped the post-1989 left-wing reception of deconstruction.

Author

Editions cited

  • Spectres de Marx: l'état de la dette, le travail du deuil et la nouvelle Internationale (Galilée, Paris, October 1993)
  • English trans. Peggy Kamuf, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International (Routledge, 1994)
  • Critical responses: Michael Sprinker (ed.), Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx (Verso, 1999)
  • Companion engagements: Antonio Negri, 'The Specter's Smile' (in Sprinker, 1999); Jameson, 'Marx's Purloined Letter' (in same)

School Embodiments

Deconstruction · 22%
Dialectical Materialism · 22%
Critical Theory · 18%
Postmodernism · 14%
Rabbinic Judaism · 14%
Historicism · 10%
Continental Philosophy · 8%
Post-Structuralism · 8%

Defining late-deconstructive intervention in political philosophy.

"There is no future without the spectre — and no spectre without inheritance." (Specters of Marx, ch. 1)

Major post-Cold-War rereading of Marx.

"It will always be a fault not to read and reread and discuss Marx." (Specters of Marx, exordium)

Critical engagement with the post-1989 conjuncture.

"The plagues of the 'new world order': the ten plagues." (Specters of Marx, ch. 3)

Late post-structuralist political thought.

"Hauntology, not ontology, names what is at stake." (Specters of Marx, ch. 1)

'Messianic without messianism' — Levinasian-Benjaminian register.

"A messianic without messianism — a structure of expectation without determinate content." (Specters of Marx, ch. 2)

Historicist sensitivity to the post-Cold-War conjuncture.

"To inherit Marx is to inherit a task, not a doctrine." (Specters of Marx, exordium)

Continental-philosophical tradition.

Post-structuralist tradition.

Internal Tensions

Late Derrida's most explicitly political book; coined 'hauntology', deeply influential on post-1989 left-wing thought. The hauntology concept has been continuously productive (Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism' 2009 and 'Ghosts of My Life' 2014 build directly on it); the 'New International' framework has shaped subsequent radical-democratic political thinking.

I. Time

April 1993 conference keynote; October 1993 French publication; 1994 English publication. The book appeared four years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991).

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Continuous Freedom: NDet Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

UC Riverside (conference venue) / Paris. The intellectual space is the post-Soviet conjuncture in which Marxist intellectual traditions were being widely declared obsolete.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Single late monograph (~270 pages in Kamuf's translation). Form is sustained philosophical-political-rhetorical essay; Derrida's late-prose style combines extended close reading (of Marx, of Shakespeare's Hamlet, of Marx's Communist Manifesto) with direct political engagement.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Late Derrida. The observer-philosopher is the most prominent post-structuralist intellectual making an explicit political-philosophical intervention in the post-Cold-War conjuncture.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Mediate Knowledge Retainment: Limited Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Political-philosophical energies of the post-1989 conjuncture. The book combines deconstructive analytical method with the most direct political engagement of Derrida's late career.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Single volume, expanded from a lecture. The four major movements (necessity-of-Marx / ten plagues / work of mourning / New International) provide the central informational structure.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Jacques Derrida

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Specters of Marx resolves each dilemma

48 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 16 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 9 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
On relational views, money is not a substance you have; it is a record of who owes whom what. Debts and credits are real because the relations they track are real — to kin, to community, to ancestors, to land. Money is the form this …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (55%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
On relational views, the nation is the relational fabric — extended kinship, ancestral inheritance, shared ecology, communal practice — that hosts a people across generations. Borders matter less than belonging; lineage and land carry the weight that political structures only ratify.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (55%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
On relational views, identity is not a property a person has alone; it is constituted by the web of recognition the person sits in. What makes someone a man or a woman in any thick sense is the relations of kinship, community, ritual, and recognition …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (55%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (55%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
On this view, matter is not a stuff but a patterning — the standing relations among things, ancestors, processes, and places. The creatio-ex-nihilo question doesn't quite arise, because the ontology has no slot for a free-standing substance to be created or eternal. What persists is …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
On relational views, person was never the name of a thing that exists on its own — it is the name of a node in a web of recognition, obligation, kinship, and ecology. The question of when a being becomes a person is the question …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (55%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
On relational views, marriage is not a thing in itself but a node in a web — a configuration of obligations to children, extended kin, ancestors, ecology, and community. Its definition is what the network of relations is, and any attempt to specify it apart …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (55%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · “Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world.
On these views, humans were never outside nature, and the question of our 'place in' it is the question of how to live within the relations that already constitute us. Plants, animals, rivers, ancestors, descendants are not resources or stage scenery; they are kin and …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (50%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Subject to a real natural order we did not make. (12%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking.
On relational views, space colonisation is the abstract endpoint of the same pattern that produced ecological crisis on Earth: humans treating themselves as separate from the more-than-human world they are actually inside. To go to Mars in the spirit of leaving Earth is to leave …
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (50%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows. (12%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow.
On relational views, organisms are not isolated substrates whose genomes can be edited without consequence; they are nodes in webs of mutual constitution with soils, ecologies, ancestors, and human cultivars. Genetic editing changes the node in ways the web has not had time to integrate. …
Roads not taken Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (50%) · What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) · Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints. (12%)
26 mainstream positions
What makes someone the same person over time? There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. 14% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. 14% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 14% What happens to "you" when you die? You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. 18% Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 47% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 47% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 43% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 36% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 36% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 36% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 30% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 30% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters. 14% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have. 10% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have. 10%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1503 Limited Inc All Works #1505 De Trinitatis Erroribus →