Skip to main content

(For)Giving

Jacques Derrida (as quoted in How to Read Derrida pg 77):
For there to be a gift, there must be no reciprocity, return, exchange, countergift, or debt. If the other gives me back or owes me or has to give me back what I give him or her, there will not have been a gift, whether this restitution is immediate or whether it is programmed by a complex calculation of a long term deferral or difference [differance]. This is all too obvious if the other, the donee, gives me back immediately the same thing...For there to be a gift, it is necessary that the donee not give back, amortize, reimburse, acquit himself, enter into a contract, and that he never have contracted a debt...The donee owes it to himself even not to give back, he ought not owe and the donor ought not count on restitution. Is it thus necessary, at the limit, that he not recognize the gift as gift? If he recognizes it as gift, if the gift appears to him as such, if the present is present to him as present, this simple recognition suffices to annul the gift. Why? Because it gives back, in the place, let us say of the thing itself, a symbolic equivalent.  
During a recent book club of discussing Paradise Lost, the idea of what people owe God because of the gift of life He gave them surfaced. Milton, pious Puritan that he was, would absolutely agree that, because of what God gave us, we ought to do something in response.

Derrida disagrees.

The thing is, as rare as it is for me to disagree with Milton, I think Derrida has a point. Under this calculation, even expecting a "Thank you" changes a gift into a payment, a delivery in exchange for niceties. Derrida pushes it further, arguing that a gift calculated to be a gift could not truly be a gift (because that would mean that the unexpectation of reciprocity would have to be contingent, which it can't be), and therefore can only work on "its conditions of possibility [that] amount to its conditions of impossibility" (ibid. 78).

Taking this further, Derrida claims that forgiveness is impossible unless that forgiveness forgives the unforgivable. I made a milder (or maybe more radical?) claim before, but I didn't realize that I was arguing both in favor and against Derrida: In favor, because, whether or not I recognized it, I was channeling the importance of forgiveness in a deeper way than I normally think of it; against, because I don't make the final leap (that true forgiveness is impossible) and say that God is capable. But it could even be argued, perhaps, that God has to do that impossible thing of forgiving the unforgivable. That is done through the sacrifice, death, and Atonement of Christ, which is both a true gift (given without expectation of reciprocity) and true forgiveness (the unforgivable act--deicide--forgiven by virtue of the gift of Christ).

Or maybe not.

It does make me wonder how many people would expect a theological assertion backed up (kind of) by Jacques Derrida.

Popular posts from this blog

Teaching in Utah

The Utah State Board of Education, in tandem with the state legislature, have a new answer to the shortage of Utah teachers: a bachelor's degree and a test are sufficient qualifications for being a teacher. I have some thoughts about this recent decision, but it requires some context. Additionally, this is a very  long read, so I don't blame you if you don't finish it. Well....maybe a little. But not enough to hurt our friendship. Probably. ARLs and Endorsements Teaching is a tricky career, and not all teachers start out wanting to be in the classroom. Fortunately, there are alternatives for people to become licensed teachers who come from this camp. We have a handful of possibilities, but the two I want to focus on are ARLs (Alternative Routes to Licensure) and endorsements. Both already require the bachelor's degree as the minimum requirement, and since that doesn't change in the new law, we'll set that aside as a commonality. As additional context, h

Teen Titans GO!

While I was at my writing retreat this last June, I happened upon two cartoon series that I hadn't seen before. (This isn't that surprising, since I don't watch a lot of TV programming, preferring, as many millennials do, to stream the content I want on demand.) One was The Amazing World of Gumball  and the other was Teen Titans GO! It's hard to say which strikes me as the preferred one--they have differing styles, different approaches, and different animation philosophies. Nevertheless, their scattershot, random, fast-paced humor is completely on my wavelength. Recently, I picked up four DVDs worth of Teen Titans GO!  I am trying to be parsimonious with them, but it's hard not to binge watch everything. While I've seen some of the episodes before, watching them again is almost as enjoyable as the first one. I've found myself adopting some of their style of humor into my teaching, and I'm pretty sure some of my future cartooning will be influenced by t

On Cars 3

Note: To discuss the themes of Cars 3 and look at how they affected me, I have to talk about the end of the movie. In that sense, I'm spoiling the film...or, at least, the film's plot . Don't read if you don't want to (which is always the way it works, obviously), but I feel like there's more to this movie than the story and whether or not it's "spoiled". And though I believe that, I wanted to make this paragraph a little longer to ensure that no one catches an eyeful of spoilers that they didn't intent.  Major spoilers. ( Source ) Pixar's third entry into its Cars  franchise is significantly better than Cars 2 , in large part because Mater isn't around very much at all so the story instantly improves. Okay, that's probably not fair. Cars 2  had some endearing zaniness, and the chance to expand the world of the franchise was a natural step: First film, bring the urban to the rural; second film, bring the rural to the urban. Both