作者/Jacque Derrida

翻譯/君士坦丁堡不相信眼淚

校對/讀者諸君

前言：德里達在這封寫給井筒俊彥的信中精煉地解釋了他思想中最為關鍵的概念——“解構”（?Déconstruction）。在信中，通過對于源頭（對于西方形而上學的考察）和流變（美國耶魯學派對于其的誤讀）的進一步說明與辨析，德里達指明了解構這個詞于其思想的意義和正確的理解方向，并回應了外界對于他的誤解和攻擊?？梢哉f，這封信對于深入了解德里達“解構”思想是最不可無視的文本。? ? ? 本文主要依據英文版本與日文版本進行翻譯，少數片段求教大佬（鑒于筆者嬰兒級的法語水平）參照對比了法文原版。本文已有周榮勝教授翻譯的版本，只不過在譯文的開頭周教授就將筒井翻譯成了五十鈴（兩個詞在日文的假名羅馬音中有“細微的”差別：井筒“Izutsu”和五十鈴“Isuzu”），故而譯者對于該譯文版本的準確性持略微的懷疑態(tài)度。譯者并非專業(yè)譯者，如有失當之處望您見諒并指出。怡情小譯，如侵速曉。

? ? ?"Letter to a Japanese Friend"

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jacques Derrida

10 July 1983

Dear Professor Izutsu,

At our last meeting I promised you some schematic and?preliminary reflections on the word "deconstruction". What we?discussed were prolegomena to a possible translation of this word into Japanese, one which would at least try to avoid, if?possible, a negative determination of its significations or?connotations. The question would be therefore what?deconstruction is not, or rather ought not to be. I underline these?words "possible" and "ought". For if the difficulties of translation?can be anticipated (and the question of deconstruction is also?through and through the question of translation, and of the?language of concepts, of the conceptual corpus of so-called?"western" metaphysics), one should not begin by naively?believing that the word "deconstruction" corresponds in French to?some clear and univocal signification. There is already in "my"?language a serious [sombre] problem of translation between?what here or there can be envisaged for the word, and the usage?itself, the reserves of the word. And it is already clear that even?in French, things change from one context to another. More so in?the German, English, and especially American contexts, where?the same word is already attached to very different connotations,?inflections, and emotional or affective values. Their analysis?would be interesting and warrants a study of its own.

1983年7月10日

親愛的井筒教授，

? ? ? ?

在我們的上一次會面時，我答應給你一些關于 "解構 "這個詞的方案和初步的思考。我們的討論或許為其翻譯到日語拉開了可能性的序幕。如果可以的話，至少要盡量避免對其意義或內涵的負面判斷。因此，這個問題將是解構主義不是什么，或者說不應該是什么。我強調了 "可能 "和 "應該 "這兩個詞。因為如果可以預見翻譯的困難（而解構的問題也是貫穿于翻譯的問題，以及概念的語言和所謂的 "西方 "形而上學的概念庫的問題），我們就不應該一開始天真地認為 "解構 "這個詞在法語中對應于某種明確的和統(tǒng)一的符號。在 "我的 "語言中，任何可以為這個詞所設想的東西與這個詞的用法本身，即這個詞所儲存的意義之間，已經存在著一個嚴重（sombre）的翻譯問題。而且早已清楚的是，即使在法語中，事情在不同的語境中也會發(fā)生變化。而在德語、英語，尤其是美國語境中則更是如此，在那里，同一個詞已經被附加了非常不同的內涵、語氣和情感或情緒價值。他們的分析將是有趣且必要的。

When I chose the word, or when it imposed itself on me - I think?it was in *Of Grammatology* - I little thought it would be credited?with such a central role in the discourse that interested me at the?time. Among other things I wished to translate and adapt to my?own ends the Heidggerian word Destruktion or Abbau. Each?signified in this context an operation bearing on the structure or?traditional architecture of the fundamental concepts of ontology?or of Western metaphysics. But in French "destruction" too?obviously implied an annihilation or a negative reduction much?closer perhaps to Nietzschean "demolition" than to the?Heideggerian interpretation or to the type of reading that I?proposed. So I ruled that out. I remember having looked to see if?the word "deconstruction" (which came to me it seemed quite?spontaneously) was good French. I found it in the Littré. The?grammatical, linguistic, or rhetorical senses [portees] were found?bound up with a "mechanical" sense [portee "machinique"]. This?association appeared very fortunate, and fortunately adapted to?what I wanted at least to suggest. Perhaps I could cite some of?the entries from the Littré.

當我選擇這個詞時，或者當它強加給我時-——我想是在《論文字學》（Of Grammatology）*中——我沒有想到它在當時使我感興趣的論述中會被賦予如此重要的作用。在其他方面，我希望將海德格爾的Destruktion或Abbau這個詞翻譯出來并適應我自己的目的。在這種情況下，每個詞都意味著對本體論或西方形而上學的基本概念的結構或傳統(tǒng)架構的操作。但在法語中，"distraction"顯然意味著一種湮滅或消極的減少，其也許更接近于尼采的 "拆除"（demolition），而不是海德格爾的解釋或我提出的那種閱讀方式。所以我排除了這一點。我記得我曾追尋過 "解構 "這個詞（它似乎很自然地出現在我面前）是否是合適的法語。我在《Littré》中找到了它。語法、語言或修辭的意義（portees）被發(fā)現與 "機械 "的意義（portee "machinique"）結合起來。這種聯系顯得非常幸運，并且幸運地適應了我至少想要建議的內容。也許我可以引用《Littré》中的一些條目。

"Deconstruction: action of deconstructing. Grammatical term.?Disarranging the construction of words in a sentence. 'Of?deconstruction, common way of saying construction', Lemare,?De la maniére d'apprendre les langues, ch.17, in *Cours de?langue Latine*. Deconstruire: 1. To disassemble the parts of a?whole. To deconstruct a machine to transport it elsewhere. 2.?Grammatical term... To deconstruct verse, rendering it, by the?suppression of meter, similar to prose. Absolutely. ('In the system?of prenotional sentences, one also starts with translation and one?of its advantages is never needing to deconstruct,' Lemare, ibid.)3. Se deconstruire [to deconstruct itself] ... to lose its?construction. 'Modern scholarship has shown us that in a region?of the timeless East, a language reaching its own state ofperfection is deconstructed [s'est deconstruite] and altered fromwithin itself according to the single law of change, natural to the?human mind,' Villemain, *Preface du Dictionaire de l'Academie*."?Naturally it will be necessary to translate all of this into Japanese?but that only postpones the problem. It goes without saying that if?all the significations enumerated by the Littré interested me?because of their affinity with what I "meant" [voulais-dire], they?concerned, metaphorically, so to say, only models or regions of?meaning and not the totality of what deconstruction aspires to at?its most ambitious. This is not limited to a linguistico-grammatical?model, let alone a mechanical model. These models themselves?ought to be submitted to a deconstructive questioning. It is true?then that these "models" have been behind a number of?misunderstandings about the concept and word of?"deconstruction" because of the temptation to reduce it to these?models.

"解構(Deconstruction)：解構（deconstructing）的行動。語法學術語。擾亂句子中詞語的結構。關于解構，結構的常用說法"，Lemare, De la maniére d'apprendre les langues, ch.17, in *Cours de langue Latine*。?解構（Deconstruire）：1. 將一個整體的各個部分分解開來。分解一臺機器，把它運到別的地方。2. 語法學術語... 解構詩詞，通過壓制韻律，使其與散文相似。絕對的。('在前概念句子系統(tǒng)中，人們也是從翻譯開始的，其優(yōu)點之一是永遠不需要解構，'Lemare，同上。)3.Se deconstruire（解構自身)......失去其結構?，F代學術研究向我們表明，在永恒的東方的一個地區(qū)，達到其自身完美狀態(tài)的語言被解構（s'est deconstruite），并根據人類思想自然的單一變化規(guī)律從其內部進行改變，'Villemain，*Preface du Dictionaire de l'Academie*。" 自然，有必要將所有這些內容翻譯成日語，但這只是推遲了問題的解決。不言而喻，如果Littré列舉的所有符號都因為與我的 "意思"（voulais-dire）相近而使我感興趣，那么，從隱喻上來講，它們只涉及意義的模型或區(qū)域，而不是解構主義最雄心勃勃的全部。其（野心）并不限于語言-語法模型，更不用說機械模型了。而這些模式本身應該受到解構主義的質疑。這些 "模式 "確實是于對 "解構 "的概念和詞的一些誤解的背后，因為這里存在把它簡化為這些模式的誘惑。

It must also be said that the word was rarely used and was?largely unknown in France. It had to be reconstructed in someway, and its use value had been determined by the discourse?that was then being attempted around and on the basis of *Of?Grammatology*. It is to this value that I am now going to try to?give some precision and not some primitive meaning or?etymology sheltered from or outside of any contextual strategy.?A few more words on the subject of "the context". At that time?structuralism was dominant. "Deconstruction" seemed to be?going in the same direction since the word signified a certain?attention to structures (which themselves were neither simply?ideas, nor forms, nor syntheses, nor systems). To deconstruct?was also a structuralist gesture or in any case a gesture that?assumed a certain need for the structuralist problematic. But it?was also an antistructuralist gesture, and its fortune rests in part?on this ambiguity. Structures were to be undone, decomposed,?desedimented (all types of structures, linguistic, "logocentric",?"phonocentric" - structuralism being especially at that time?dominated by linguistic models and by a so-called structural?linguistics that was also called Saussurian - socio-institutional,?political, cultural, and above all and from the start philosophical.) This is why, especially in the United States, the motif of?deconstruction has been associated with "poststructuralism" (a?word unknown in France until its "return" from the States). But?the undoing, decomposing, and desedimenting of structures, in a?certain sense more historical than the structuralist movement it?called into question, was not a negative operation. Rather than?destroying, it was also necessary to understand how an?"ensemble" was constituted and to reconstruct it to this end.?However, the negative appearance was and remains much more difficult to efface than is suggested by the grammaar of the word (de-), even though it can designate a genealogical restoration [remonter] rather than a demolition. That is why the word, at least on its own, has never appeared satisfactory to me (but what word is), and must always be girded by an entire discourse. It isdifficult to effect it afterward because, in the work of deconstruction, I have had to, as I have to here, multiply the cautionary indicators and put aside all the traditional philosophical concepts, while reaffirming the necessity of returning to them, at least under erasure. Hence, this has been called, precipitately, a type of negative theology (this was neither true nor false but I shall not enter into the debate here). All the same, and in spite of appearances, deconstruction is neither an analysis nor a critique and its translation would have to take that into consideration. It is not an analysis in particular because the dismantling of a structure is not a regression toward a simple element, toward an indissoluble origin. These values, like that of analysis, are themselves philosophemes subject to deconstruction. No more is it a critique, in a general sense or in Kantian sense. The instance of krinein or of krisis (decision, choice, judgment, discernment) is itself, as is all the apparatus of transcendental critique, one of the essential "themes" or "objects" of deconstruction.

還必須說的是，這個詞在法國很少使用，而且基本上不為人知。它必須以某種方式被重建，而它的使用價值已經被當時圍繞和基于《論文字學》*所嘗試的話語所決定。我現在要做的就是對這一價值給予一定的精確性，而不是在任何語境策略之外庇護一些原始的意義或詞源。關于 "語境 "的問題，再多說幾句。在那個時候，結構主義占主導地位。"解構 "似乎也在朝這個方向發(fā)展，因為這個詞意味著對結構的某種關注（這些結構本身既不是簡單的思想，也不是形式，更不是綜合，也不是系統(tǒng)）。解構也是一種結構主義的姿態(tài)，或者在任何情況下都是一種假定對結構主義問題的某種需要的姿態(tài)。但它也是一種反結構主義的姿態(tài)，它的部分地依賴于這種模糊性。結構將被取消、分解、消解（所有類型的結構，語言的，"logocentric"，"語音中心"——結構主義在當時尤其被語言學模式和所謂的結構語言學所主導，這種語言學也被稱為索緒爾式的——社會、體制、政治、文化，最重要的是，從一開始就是哲學的。） 這就是為什么，特別是在美國，解構的主題一直與 "后結構主義"（這個詞在法國不為人知，直到它從美國 "回歸"）聯系在一起。但結構的撤銷、分解和去污，在某種意義上比它所質疑的結構主義運動更具歷史性，并不是一種消極的操作。與其說是破壞，還不如說是理解一個 "組合 "是如何構成的，并為此目的而重建它。然而，負面的外觀過去和現在都比這個詞（de-）的語法所暗示的要難得多，盡管它可以指定一個譜系的恢復[remonter]而不是拆除。這就是為什么這個詞，至少就其本身而言，在我看來從未令人滿意（但什么詞是），而且必須始終被整個話語所束縛。它之所困難是因為在解構的工作中，我不得不，就像我在這里所做的那樣，增加警戒性的指標，把所有傳統(tǒng)的哲學概念放在一邊，同時重申回到這些概念的必要性，至少在抹殺之下。因此，這被倉促地稱為一種否定神學（這既不是真的，也不是假的，但我將不在此進行辯論）。盡管如此，盡管表面上看，解構主義既不是一種分析，也不是一種批判，其翻譯必須考慮到這一點。它不是一種分析，特別是因為結構的拆解并不是向著一個簡單的元素，向著一個獨立的元素倒退。一個簡單的元素，走向一個不可分割的起源。這些價值，就像分析的價值一樣，本身就是受到解構的哲學。它不再是一般意義上的批判，也不是康德意義上的批判。krinein或krisis（決定、選擇、判斷、辨別）的例子本身，就像所有超越性批判的裝置一樣，是解構的基本 "主題 "或 "對象 "之一。

I would say the same about method. Deconstruction is not a?method and cannot be tranformed into one. Especially if the?technical and procedural significations of the word are stressed.?It is true that in certain circles (university or cultural, especially in?the United States) the technical and methodological "metaphor"?that seems necessarily attached to the very word deconstruction?has been able to seduce or lead astray. Hence the debate that?has developed in these circles: Can deconstruction become a?methodology for reading and for interpretation? Can it thus be?allowed to be reappropriated and domesticated by academic?institutions?

我會對方法也有同樣的看法。解構不是一種方法，也不能被轉化為方法。尤其是如果強調這個詞的技術和程序性意義。誠然，在某些圈子（尤其是在美國的大學或文化領域），似乎必然與"解構"這個詞緊密相連的技術和方法論式的“隱喻”已經能夠將其誘惑或引入歧途。因此在這些圈子中出現了這樣的辯論：解構是否可以成為閱讀和解釋的方法？它是否可以被學術機構重新擁有和馴化？

It is not enough to say that deconstruction could not be reduced?to some methodological instrumentality or to a set of rules and?transposable procedures. Nor will it do to claim that each?deconstructive "event" remains singular or, in any case, as close?as possible to something like an idiom or a signature. It must?also be made clear that deconstruction is not even an act or an?operation. Not only because there would be something "patient"?or "passive" about it (as Blanchot says, more passive than?passivity, than the passivity that is opposed to activity). Not only?because it does not return to an individual or collective subject?who would take the initiative and apply it to an object, a text, a?theme, etc.

僅僅說解構不能被還原為某種方法論工具或一組規(guī)則和可轉移的程序是不夠的。也不能聲稱每個解構的“事件”都保持獨特，或者無論如何都盡可能接近類似成語或簽名的東西。還必須明確指出，解構甚至不是一種行為或操作。這不僅是因為它可能具有某種“被動”的性質（如布朗肖所說，比被動更被動，比與活動相對立的被動更被動）。也不僅因為它不回歸到一個個體或集體主體，后者會采取主動，將其應用于對象、文本、主題等等。

Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the?deliberation, consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even?of modernity. It deconstructs itself. It can be deconstructed. [?a?se deconstruit.] The "it" [?a] is not here an impersonal thing that?is opposed to some egological subjectivity. It is in deconstruction?(the Littré says, "to deconstruct itself [se deconstruire]... to lose?its?construction"). And the "se" of "se deconstruire," which is not?the reflexivity of an ego or of a consciousness, bears the whole?enigma. I recognize, my dear driend, that in trying to make a?word clearer so as to assist its translation, I am only thereby?increasing the difficulties: "the impossible task of the?translator" (Benjamin). This too is meant by "deconstructs".If deconstruction takes place everywhere it [?a] takes place,?where there is something (and is not therefore limited to meaning?or to the text in the current and bookish sense of the word), we?still have to think through what is happening in our world, in?modernity, at the time when deconstruction is becoming a motif,?with its word, its privileged themes, its mobile strategy, etc.?I?have no simple and formalizable response to this question. All?my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable?question. They are modest symptoms of it, quite as much as?tentative interpretations. I would not even dare to say, following a?Heideggerian schema, that we are in an "epoch" of being-indeconstruction, of a being-in-deconstruction that would manifest?or dissimulate itself at one and the same time in other "epochs".

解構發(fā)生，它是一個事件，不等待主體的審議、意識或組織，甚至不等待現代性的出現。它自我解構。它可以被解構。"?a se deconstruit." 這里的 "?a" 并不是一個與某種自我主觀性對立的無人稱的事物。它就在解構中（Littré說，“自我解構 [se deconstruire]... 失去了它自己的構造”）。而"se"在 "se deconstruire" 中，并不是自我或意識的反身性，它承載著整個謎團。我承認，親愛的朋友，當我試圖讓一個詞變得更清晰，以幫助它的翻譯時，我只是增加了困難："翻譯者的不可能任務"（本雅明）。這也是 "deconstructs" 所意味著的。

如果解構無處不在，它就發(fā)生在那里，存在于某種事物（因此并不僅限于意義或以當前和書本意義為詞的文本）的地方，我們仍然必須思考在我們的世界中，現代性中發(fā)生了什么，就在解構成為一個主題的時候，伴隨著它的詞，它的特權主題，它的移動策略等等。

對于這個問題，我沒有簡單和可形式化的回應。我所有的論文都是與這個強大問題較量的嘗試。它們只是它的些許癥狀，同樣也是嘗試性的解釋。我甚至不敢像海德格爾的措施一樣，說我們正處于一個"此在于解構之中的時代"，一個在其他"時代"中也會同時顯現或隱藏的"此在于解構中的時代"式的“此在”。

This thought of "epochs" and especially that of a gathering of the?destiny of being and of the unity of its destination or its?dispersions (Schicken, Geschick) will never be very convincing.?To be very schematic I would say that the difficulty of defining an?therefore also of translating the word "deconstruction" stems?from the fact that all the predicates, all the defining concepts, all?the lexical significations, and even the syntactic articulations,?which seem at one moment to lend themselves to this definition?or to that translation, are also deconstructed or deconstructible,?directly or otherwise, etc. And that goes for the word?deconstruction, as for every word. *Of Grammatology*?questioned the unity "word" and all the privileges with which is?was credited, especially in its nominal form. It is therefore only a?discourse or rather a writing that can make up for the incapacity?of the word to be equal to a "thought". All sentences of the type?"deconstruction is X" or "deconstruction is not X" a priori miss the?point, which is to say that they are at least false. As you know,?one of the principal things at stake in what is called in my texts?"deconstruction" is precisely the delimiting of ontology and above?all of the third person present indicative: S is P.

這關于“時代”的思想，尤其是關于存在的命運和其命運的統(tǒng)一性或分散性（Schicken，Geschick）的聚集，將永遠不會令人非常信服。為了嚴謹起見，我會說，定義一個詞的困難，因此也是翻譯“解構”這個詞的困難，源于一個事實：所有的謂詞，所有的定義概念，所有的詞匯意義，甚至句法結構，在某一刻似乎傾向于適用于這個定義或那個翻譯的情況下，也都是被解構或可被解構的，會是直接地或間接地等等。這對于“解構”這個詞，以及對于每個詞都是如此?！墩撐淖謱W》對“詞語”的統(tǒng)一性提出了質疑，以及它被賦予的所有特權，尤其是在名詞形式中。因此，只有一個言論，或者更準確地說，一種書寫，能夠彌補詞語無法等同于“思想”的無能。所有類型的句子，比如“解構是X”或“解構不是X”，從一開始就忽略了要點，也就是說，它們至少是錯誤的。正如你所知，我在我的文本中所謂的“解構”所涉及的主要問題之一，恰恰是界定本體論，尤其是第三人稱現在時陳述句的范圍：S是P。

The word "deconstruction", like all other words, acquires its value?only from its inscription in a chain of possible substitutions, in?what is too blithely called a "context". For me, for what I have?tried and still try to write, the word has interest only within a?certain context, where it replaces and lets itself be determined by?such other words as "ecriture", "trace", "differance",?"supplement", "hymen", "pharmakon", "marge", "entame",?"parergon", etc. By definition, the list can never be closed, and I?have cited only names, which is inadequate and done only for?reasons of economy. In fact I should have cited the sentences?and the interlinking of sentences which in their turn determine?these names in some of my texts.

像所有其他詞語一樣，“解構”這個詞只有在可能的替換鏈中被書寫時才獲得其價值，也可以說，在過于輕率地稱之為“語境”的東西中。對于我來說，對于我所嘗試寫作的內容，這個詞只有在特定的上下文中才是我對其有興趣，在這個上下文中，它替代并被諸如“書寫”、“痕跡”、“差異”、“補充”、“連接”、“藥物”、“邊緣”、“切入”、“外部”等其他詞所確定。根據定義，這個列表永遠不可能被關閉，而我只引用了一些名稱，這是不足的，也只是出于經濟的考慮。實際上，我應該引述句子和句子之間的相互鏈接，而同時，這些句子反過來在我的一些文本中確定了這些名稱。

What deconstruction is not? everything of course!?

What is?deconstruction nothing of course!?

I do not think, for all these?reasons, that it is a good word [un bon mot]. It is certainly not?elegant [beau]. It has definitely been of service in a highly?determined situation. In order to know what has been imposed?upon it in a chain of possible substitutions, despite its essential?imperfection, this "highly determined situation" will need to be?analyzed and deconstructed. This is difficult and I am not going?to do it here. One final word to conclude this letter, which is?alread too long. I do not believe that translation is a secondary?and derived event in relation to an original languag or text. And?as "deconstruction" is a word, as I have just said, that is?essentially replaceable in a chain of substitution, then that can?also be done from one language to another. The chance, first of?all the chance of (the) "deconstruction", would be that another?word (the same word and an other) can be found in Japanese to?say the same thing (the same and an other), to speak of?deconstruction, and to lead elsewhere to its being written and?transcribed, in a word which will also be more beautiful. When I?speak of this writing of the other which will be more beautiful, I?clearly understand translation as involving the same risk and?chance as the?poem. How to translate "poem"? a "poem"?...

解構不是什么？當然是一切！

什么是解構？當然什么也不是！

基于所有這些理由，我不認為它是一個好詞。它顯然不夠優(yōu)雅。在一個高度確定的情境中，它確實發(fā)揮了作用。為了知道在可能的替換鏈中它所承載的內容，盡管它本質上不完美，需要對這個“高度確定的情境”進行分析和解構。這是困難的，我在這里不打算詳述。最后一句話來結束這封已經太長的信。我不相信翻譯是相對于原始語言或文本的一種次要和衍生的事件。而且正如我剛才所說，“解構”是一個基本上可以在替換鏈中被替代的詞，所以這也可以從一種語言翻譯成另一種語言。首先，“解構”的機遇在于，在日語中可能會找到另一個詞（相同的詞或其他詞）來表達相同的事物（相同的事物或其他事物），來談論解構，并引導其在別處被書寫和轉錄，用一個同樣更美的詞。當我談論將用更美的方式寫下的這種他者的寫作時，我清楚地理解翻譯涉及與詩歌相同的風險和機會。如何翻譯“詩歌”？一首“詩歌”？……