Introduction: “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
“Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida first appeared in 1990 in a collection of essays titled “Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice,” translated by Mary Quaintance. The essay is a dense and challenging exploration of the relationship between law and justice, deconstructing the traditional notions of legal authority and questioning the very foundations of the legal system. Derrida’s signature style, characterized by complex sentence structures and philosophical depth, is evident throughout the essay, making it a quintessential example of deconstructionist thought. Its literary significance lies in its ability to provoke critical thinking about the nature of law and justice, challenging readers to rethink their assumptions about these fundamental concepts.
Summary of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
Police Violence in Democracy vs. Absolute Monarchy:
- “In democracy, on the other hand, violence is no longer accorded to the spirit of the police… it is exercised illegitimately, especially when instead of enforcing the law the police make the law.”
- “In absolute monarchy, legislative and executive powers are united. In it violence is therefore normal, in keeping with its essence, its idea, its spirit.”
Degeneration of Democracy:
- “Democracy is a degeneracy of droit and of the violence of droit; there is not yet any democracy worthy of this name.”
- “Benjamin indicates the principle of an analysis of police reality in industrial democracies and their military-industrial complexes with high computer technology.”
Violence as the Foundation of Legal Contracts:
- “Every juridical contract, every Rechtsvertrag… is founded on violence, there is no contract that does not have violence as both an origin and an outcome.”
Decay of Parliamentary Institutions:
- “When the consciousness of the latent presence of violence in a legal institution disappears, the institution falls into decay.”
- “The parliaments live in forgetfulness of the violence from which they are born. This amnesic denegation is not a psychological weakness, it is their statut and their structure.”
Non-Violence Possibilities:
- “Benjamin does not exclude the possibility of non-violence. But the thought of non-violence must exceed the order of public droit.”
- “Union without violence… is possible everywhere that the culture of the heart gives men pure means with accord in view.”
Mythic vs. Divine Violence:
- “To this violence of the Greek mythos, Benjamin opposes feature for feature the violence of God. From all points of view, it is its opposite.”
- “The mythological violence of droit is satisfied in itself by sacrificing the living, while divine violence sacrifices life to save the living, in favor of the living.”
Critique of Modern State and Law:
- “Nazism leads logically to the final solution as to its own limit and because the mythological violence of right is its veritable system.”
- “Benjamin would perhaps have judged vain and without pertinence… any juridical trial of Nazism and of its responsibilities, any judgmental apparatus, any historiography still homogeneous with the space in which Nazism developed up to and including the final solution.”
Philosophical and Historical Implications:
- “History is on the side of this divine violence, and history precisely in opposition to myth.”
- “The radicalization of evil linked to the fall into the language of communication, representation, information.”
Decidability and Divine Justice:
- “It is neither equally possible nor equally urgent for man to decide when pure violence was effected in a determined case.”
- “All undecidability is situated, blocked in, accumulated on the side of droit, of mythological violence… all decidability stands on the side of the divine violence that destroys le droit.”
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Example |
| Mystical Foundation of Authority | The idea that the authority of law is based on a kind of irrational belief or faith, rather than on reason or logic. | Derrida argues that the decision of a judge, even if based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately rests on a “leap of faith” that cannot be fully justified by reason. |
| Deconstruction of Justice | The process of analyzing and exposing the contradictions and inconsistencies within the concept of justice, revealing its inherent instability and impossibility. | Derrida questions whether justice can ever be fully achieved, given the inherent limitations of language and the law. He suggests that justice is always deferred, always to come. |
| Aporia | A state of perplexity or deadlock, where reason and logic cannot provide a clear answer or solution. | Derrida uses the concept of aporia to describe the fundamental undecidability of legal questions, where there is no single “right” answer that can be definitively determined. |
| Force of Law | The power of law to compel obedience, even in the absence of moral or ethical justification. | Derrida explores the paradoxical relationship between force and law, suggesting that law is both necessary for maintaining social order and inherently violent in its enforcement. |
| Undecidability | The state of being unable to be definitively determined or resolved. | Derrida argues that legal decisions are always undecidable, in the sense that there is no single “right” answer that can be determined with absolute certainty. This undecidability opens up the possibility for alternative interpretations and contestations of the law. |
Contribution of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida to Literary Theory
- Introduction of Deconstruction in Legal Context:
- Derrida extends deconstructive analysis from literature and philosophy to legal theory, challenging traditional views on the foundations of law and authority.
- Interrogation of Law and Violence:
- He critiques the intrinsic relationship between law and violence, suggesting that the foundation of law is rooted in an original act of violence, thus destabilizing the perceived neutrality and objectivity of legal systems.
- Critique of Democratic Institutions:
- Derrida examines the degeneration of democratic institutions, arguing that modern democracies conceal their foundational violence, leading to a critique of liberal parliamentary systems.
- Concept of Undecidability:
- He introduces the notion of undecidability within legal judgments, paralleling similar concepts in literary theory that challenge fixed interpretations and embrace textual ambiguity.
- Mythic vs. Divine Violence:
- Derrida contrasts mythic violence, which founds and conserves law through sacrificial acts, with divine violence, which disrupts and transcends legal systems, providing a framework to analyze power dynamics in texts.
- Temporal and Historical Dimensions of Law:
- By discussing the historical evolution and decay of legal institutions, Derrida’s work encourages a diachronic analysis of texts, exploring how meanings and interpretations change over time.
- Deconstruction of Enlightenment Rationality:
- His critique of the Enlightenment’s faith in reason and universal law parallels literary deconstructions of Enlightenment ideals, questioning the coherence and universality of rational discourse.
- Ethics and Justice Beyond Law:
- Derrida’s exploration of justice as an ideal that transcends legal frameworks resonates with ethical criticism in literary theory, prompting reconsiderations of moral implications in literature.
- Influence on Post-Structuralist Legal Theory:
- The work’s impact on legal theory parallels its influence on literary theory, promoting a post-structuralist approach that views laws, texts, and meanings as constructed, contingent, and open to reinterpretation.
Examples of Critiques of “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
| Literary Work | Critique through “Force of Law” |
| Hamlet | Derrida’s concept of “undecidability” can be applied to Hamlet’s constant hesitation and inability to act. Hamlet’s dilemma is not just a psychological one, but a reflection of the inherent undecidability of moral and ethical questions. There is no single “right” course of action, and Hamlet’s struggle is a testament to this fundamental uncertainty. |
| The Trial (Kafka) | Kafka’s portrayal of a legal system that is opaque, arbitrary, and ultimately absurd resonates with Derrida’s critique of the “mystical foundation of authority.” The law in “The Trial” is not based on reason or justice, but on an irrational power that is beyond the comprehension of the individual. |
| Antigone (Sophocles) | Antigone’s defiance of Creon’s edict, based on her belief in a higher moral law, can be seen as a challenge to the “force of law” that Derrida describes. Antigone’s actions raise questions about the limits of legal authority and the importance of individual conscience in the face of unjust laws. |
| The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare) | The conflict between Shylock and Antonio in “The Merchant of Venice” can be interpreted through Derrida’s concept of the “aporia of justice.” The law in the play is unable to provide a just resolution to the conflict, as both Shylock and Antonio have legitimate claims that are irreconcilable. The play highlights the limitations of the law in dealing with complex ethical dilemmas. |
Criticism Against “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
· Obscurity and Complexity:
- Derrida’s dense and intricate writing style is often criticized for being excessively opaque, making it challenging for readers to fully grasp his arguments.
· Lack of Practical Application:
- Critics argue that Derrida’s theoretical approach lacks concrete solutions or practical applications for real-world legal and political issues, making his ideas difficult to implement in practice.
· Relativism and Undecidability:
- Derrida’s emphasis on undecidability and the instability of meaning is seen by some as promoting a form of relativism that undermines the possibility of reaching definitive conclusions or establishing clear ethical standards.
· Neglect of Positive Law:
- Some legal theorists criticize Derrida for focusing too much on the foundational violence and mythical aspects of law while neglecting the positive, constructive role that law can play in society.
· Overemphasis on Violence:
- Derrida’s analysis is often seen as overemphasizing the violent origins and enforcement of law, potentially overshadowing the law’s capacity for justice, order, and social cohesion.
· Historical and Contextual Oversights:
- Derrida’s philosophical and deconstructive approach is sometimes criticized for lacking sufficient engagement with the historical and socio-political contexts that shape legal systems and practices.
· Complexity of Ethical Implications:
- His ideas on justice and ethics, which transcend legal frameworks, are considered by some as too abstract and complex, making it difficult to derive clear ethical guidelines from his work.
· Influence on Legal Interpretation:
- While influential, some critics argue that Derrida’s work complicates legal interpretation to the extent that it might lead to excessive skepticism or cynicism about the possibility of justice within legal frameworks.
· Ambiguous Stance on Non-Violence:
- Derrida’s treatment of non-violence and its place in legal and ethical systems is seen by some as ambiguous, leaving readers uncertain about his stance on how non-violent principles can be effectively integrated into legal practice.
Suggested Readings: “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
- Cornell, Drucilla. The Philosophy of the Limit. Routledge, 1992.
- Derrida, Jacques. “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”. Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3-67.
- Douzinas, Costas. The End of Human Rights. Hart Publishing, 2000.
- Felman, Shoshana. The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century. Harvard University Press, 2002.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter. Modernism and the Grounds of Law. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Quotations with Explanation from “Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority” by Jacques Derrida
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “There is no such thing as law (droit) that doesn’t imply in itself, a priori, in the analytic structure of its concept, the possibility of violence.” | Derrida argues that violence is an inherent part of the concept of law, suggesting that law’s authority is always underpinned by the potential for coercion. |
| “Justice in itself, if such a thing exists, outside or beyond law, is not deconstructible. No more than deconstruction itself, if such a thing exists.” | This highlights Derrida’s belief in the transcendence of true justice beyond the reach of deconstruction, implying that while laws can be deconstructed, justice as an ideal remains intact. |
| “The law is always in the process of being made, or at least of being interpreted and reinterpreted.” | This underscores the fluid and dynamic nature of law, emphasizing that legal systems are continuously evolving through interpretation. |
| “What is proper to a foundation is to inaugurate something that remains, and the inaugural act must be repeated as a means of conservation.” | Derrida illustrates how foundational acts, like the establishment of law, require continual reaffirmation to maintain their authority and relevance. |
| “The undecidable remains caught, lodged, at least as a ghost – but an essential ghost – in every decision, in every event of decision.” | He emphasizes the presence of inherent uncertainty and ambiguity (the undecidable) in every decision-making process, which challenges the notion of absolute certainty in law and justice. |
| “The interpretation of the final solution, as of everything that constitutes the set and the delimitation of the two orders (the mythological and the divine), is not in the measure of man.” | Derrida suggests that some historical events, like the Holocaust, surpass human capacity for comprehension and interpretation, lying beyond the realm of traditional legal and ethical frameworks. |