Egidius Berns

In micro-economic theory of general equilibrium, there is no immeasurability. But an economical agent is not only the subject of this kind of rationality. He is not only a homo economicus. His activity is also, as Paul Samuelson pointed out, ‘future oriented’. This means that he had to put together rational measurability with the immeasurability of an open, unknown future. Because of this ongoing play of measurability and immeasurability, too many options are open. Only choices and institutions can stabilize—for the time being—society.

How to introduce 'politics' as a specific concept within a deconstructive style of thinking? In order to answer this question, this contribution compares Derrida with Laclau. According to the former the starting-point of a deconstructive style of thinking is différance. It links together the economic detour of homecoming and the relation to otherness. Laclau's analysis of politics as hegemonization within a situation of undecidability presupposes this notion of différance and can therefore be useful in introducing politics within a deconstructive style of thinking. But there still is a major difference between Derrida and Laclau's decisionism: if différance as the relation without relation of economy and otherness cannot avoid decisions based on power in order to stabilize the social, these decisions are always marked by passivity and therefore deconstructible in the name of 'justice' that exceeds politics even if it takes place nowhere but within politics. Key Words: decisionism • . Derrida • . hegemony • . Laclau • . law.

In this contribution I ask what could be an “European way” of making use of religion within public debates. In the first part of the essay I tell the history of the realization of the European flag as an illustration of how religious motives and motives as normally used in public and secular debates interact. In the second part I formalize this interaction in terms of the relation between faith and belief on the one side and reason on the other side. In this part I’ll refer to Derrida and Austin, insist on the distinction between fides qua creditur and fides quae creditur , and criticize both an absolute concept of reason and a dogmatic conception of religion

In his hauntology or 'ghost theory', Derrida both subscribes to and rejects Marx's famous exposition on commodities fetishism. He subscribes to Marx's analysis of the world of merchandise as a shadowy world which covers up how exactly society produces this merchandise. His rejection pertains to the invariant structure typical of all discussions of fetishism. This structure, in which the fetish is determined as a substitute for the real item, presupposes a determinable distinction between substitute and the real item. It will be shown that Marx's concept of fetish does indeed rest on this presupposition, because it assumes that the utility value of the commodity can be dissociated fromits market value. Derrida's hauntology wants to retain the critical dimension of Marx'sexposition on fetishism, without incorporating its intrinsic ontology