Derrida’s Double Life: Between Activism and Bureaucracy

Jekyll and Hyde. AI art

Introduction

Few thinkers of the twentieth century have divided opinion as sharply as Jacques Derrida. Celebrated as the father of deconstruction, he became a rallying figure for radical intellectual movements, especially in the Anglo-American world. Yet, as Jonathan Rée observed in his review Metaphor and Metaphysics: The End of Philosophy and Derrida, Derrida embodies a striking contradiction. At times he appeared as an incendiary political voice, attacking the foundations of Western thought and calling for its transfiguration. At other moments he seemed a consummate insider, directing state-sponsored institutions and pursuing a career indistinguishable from that of any other academic philosopher. This duality—radical prophet abroad, bureaucratic professor at home—defines Derrida’s “double life.” Far from being an incidental detail, it reveals both the mechanisms of his reception and the fractured nature of subjectivity itself.

The Political Hyperactivist

In the turbulence of 1968, Derrida momentarily adopted the rhetoric of upheaval. Rée recounts that “lecturing in New York that October, Derrida presented himself as a bold political hyperactivist with the courage to call Vietnam by its name, and suggested that his work was part of an irreversible transfiguration of the West itself” (Metaphor and Metaphysics, p. 31). His lecture, later published as The Ends of Man, evoked the trembling of Western oikonomia—the very household or structural order of metaphysical thought. In dense and apocalyptic prose, Derrida declared:

“Is not this security of the near what is trembling today, that is, the co-belonging and co-propriety of the name of man and the name of Being, such as this co-propriety inhabits… the language of the West… and such as it is awakened also by the destruction of ontotheology?” (Margins of Philosophy, p. 133).

This passage illustrates the prophetic register Derrida occasionally assumed. For his listeners in the United States, it positioned him as the philosopher who dared to call for the destruction of metaphysical foundations, aligning philosophical critique with political insurrection. In English departments, Derrida’s name quickly became shorthand for resistance against entrenched hierarchies.

The Academic Insider

Yet within France, the image was markedly different. Rée notes with dry irony that Derrida “has been able… to pursue a normal and brilliant career as a professional academic philosopher, and is now director of a Mitterandist promotion of French philosophy, the College International de Philosophie in Paris” (Metaphor and Metaphysics, p. 31). Far from storming barricades, Derrida cultivated institutional roles and thrived under state patronage. Whereas Sartre risked his reputation in public protests and Foucault actively participated in prison reform movements, Derrida’s political interventions were cautious and often external—support for dissidents in Eastern Europe, for example, rather than mobilizations on French soil.

The contrast is telling. Sartre fused intellectual work with militant activism, Foucault blurred scholarship with direct struggle, but Derrida navigated within the safety of academic corridors. His institutional accomplishments were considerable: as co-founder of the Collège International de Philosophie in 1983, he secured a permanent structure for critical thought, funded by taxpayer resources. This was hardly the profile of a revolutionary agitator.

The Split Subject: A Lacanian Reading

To read this divergence as hypocrisy would be simplistic. Lacan reminds us that the subject is always divided, fractured between conscious discourse and unconscious positioning. The self is not a unity but a fissured construct. Derrida himself deconstructed the notion of stable identity through his concepts of différance and trace. The apparent dissonance between apocalyptic agitator and state philosopher can thus be understood as an enactment of the split subject.

In Lacanian terms, Derrida was both at once: the signifier “Derrida” circulated internationally as a revolutionary emblem, while the man Jacques Derrida inhabited the symbolic order of French academia. The gap between these two Derridas is not an accident but a structural necessity. It demonstrates how reputation, discourse, and institutional life produce multiple, irreconcilable versions of the subject.

Reputation and Misrepresentation

Rée sharpens this point when he observes that “Derrida’s reputation rests mainly on the use of his name and his works as a rallying-point… To many, his work is known through simplified, often idolatrous, summaries, rather than through his own writings—‘Derrida’s Digest’, as someone said” (Metaphor and Metaphysics, p. 31). Abroad, he was celebrated as the philosopher who had proved that distinctions such as True/False or Good/Evil were “unsustainable and reactionary.” From this caricature followed the conclusion that philosophy itself, obsessed with Truth, should be abandoned, while even literary criticism needed revolutionizing in light of deconstruction.

The symbolic Derrida was therefore less an author than a floating signifier: a name that gathered hopes, fears, and intellectual fashions. His writings became less important than the aura they generated. As Rée quips, “outside France, the apocalyptic Derrida lives on.” Within France, however, what endured was the measured professor, directing institutions and securing salaries.

Conclusion

Derrida’s double life—hyperactivist abroad, bureaucrat at home—captures both the paradoxes of intellectual reputation and the instability of subjectivity itself. Unlike Sartre or Foucault, he did not merge philosophy with street politics. Instead, he oscillated between incendiary rhetoric and administrative power. To dismiss this as opportunism would be to miss its deeper significance: the divided subject cannot be otherwise. Derrida’s contradiction illustrates his own lesson—that there is no origin, no unified self, only traces and differences that refuse to cohere. The apocalyptic prophet and the academic bureaucrat are not two masks hiding a true Derrida; they are the very constitution of his identity.

Bibliography

• Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Harvester, 1983.
• Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966.
• Rée, Jonathan. “Metaphor and Metaphysics: The End of Philosophy and Derrida.” Metaphor and Metaphysics, 1983.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. Situations. Paris: Gallimard, various volumes.
• Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. Pantheon, 1980.