Books by Lisa Foran
This book presents the relation between the subject and the other in the work of Jacques Derrida ... more This book presents the relation between the subject and the other in the work of Jacques Derrida as one of ‘surviving translating’. It demonstrates the key role of translation in thinking difference rather than identity, beginning with the work of Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Levinas. It describes how translation, and its ethical demands, acts as a leitmotif throughout Derrida’s writing; from his early work on Edmund Husserl to his last texts on politics and hospitality. While for both Heidegger and Levinas translation is always possible, Derrida’s account is marked by the challenge of impossibility. Expanding translation beyond a merely linguistic operation, Foran explores Derrida’s accounts of mourning, death and ‘survival’ to offer a new perspective on the ethics of subjectivity.
Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida: The Question of Difference, 2016
This book explores the relation between Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida by means of a dialogue wit... more This book explores the relation between Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida by means of a dialogue with experts on the work of these mutually influential thinkers. Each essay in this collection focuses on the relation between at least two of these three philosophers focusing on various themes, such as Alterity, Justice, Truth and Language. By contextualising these thinkers and tracing their mutually shared themes, the book establishes the question of difference and its ongoing radicalization as the problem to which phenomenology must respond. Heidegger's influence on Derrida and Levinas was quite substantial. Derrida once claimed that his work 'would not have been possible without the opening of Heidegger's questions.' Equally, as peers, Derrida and Levinas commented on and critiqued each other's work. By examining the differences between these thinkers on a variety of themes, this book represents a philosophically enriching project and essential reading for understanding the respective projects of each of these philosophers.
Translation and Philosophy
Book Chapters by Lisa Foran
Derrida The Subject and the Other, 2016
Ch. 4 of Derrida, The Subject and The Other (Palgrave, 2016). A critical summary of Derrida's wri... more Ch. 4 of Derrida, The Subject and The Other (Palgrave, 2016). A critical summary of Derrida's writings on translation and their relationship to broader intersubjective ethical concerns.
Key Words: Derrida, Translation, Other, Border, Identity
Key Words: Derrida, Translation, Other, Border, Identity
Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Ireland, 2020
L Foran, 'Who’s Afraid of the Irish Language? The National-Philosophical Possibilities of a Lost ... more L Foran, 'Who’s Afraid of the Irish Language? The National-Philosophical Possibilities of a Lost Tongue' in C Fischer and A Mahon (eds) "Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Ireland" (Routledge, 2019) pp.230-245
Ireland is an unusual post-colonial country in that few of its citizens speak its original language as their first tongue. On a daily basis just 1.7 percent of Irish residents speak Irish, whereas 12 % speak a language other than Irish or English. What does this mean? It would be crass to suggest that national or cultural identity rests only on the ability to speak one’s language, but it would be equally facile to pretend that the loss of a national language has no impact on one’s identity. Why did the (already small) number of Irish speakers rapidly decline with Irish independence from British rule? Why has a de jure bilingual state produced a de facto monolingual population? And, more importantly what are the consequences of this situation: what does being Irish without Irish mean?
Jacques Derrida describes nationalism as a ‘philosopheme’ and one that cannot be separated from questions of linguistic identity. In this paper I draw on the work of Derrida and Barbara Cassin to describe the connection between nationalism, language and philosophy. I then go on to examine the role of the Irish language in imaginings of Irish identity and nationalism. I argue that Ireland’s strange and disjointed relationship to its own tongue provides hope for the most hospitable kind of nationalism and the most philosophical kind of identity.
Ireland is an unusual post-colonial country in that few of its citizens speak its original language as their first tongue. On a daily basis just 1.7 percent of Irish residents speak Irish, whereas 12 % speak a language other than Irish or English. What does this mean? It would be crass to suggest that national or cultural identity rests only on the ability to speak one’s language, but it would be equally facile to pretend that the loss of a national language has no impact on one’s identity. Why did the (already small) number of Irish speakers rapidly decline with Irish independence from British rule? Why has a de jure bilingual state produced a de facto monolingual population? And, more importantly what are the consequences of this situation: what does being Irish without Irish mean?
Jacques Derrida describes nationalism as a ‘philosopheme’ and one that cannot be separated from questions of linguistic identity. In this paper I draw on the work of Derrida and Barbara Cassin to describe the connection between nationalism, language and philosophy. I then go on to examine the role of the Irish language in imaginings of Irish identity and nationalism. I argue that Ireland’s strange and disjointed relationship to its own tongue provides hope for the most hospitable kind of nationalism and the most philosophical kind of identity.
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy, 2018
IN: Philip Wilson and Piers Rawling (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy (... more IN: Philip Wilson and Piers Rawling (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy (Routledge 2018). pp. 90-103
For both Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur understanding is a condition of human existence. Both thinkers describe understanding itself as translation insofar as understanding involves a transformative relation between people which produces meaning and which is never finished. This chapter begins by examining Gadamer’s philosophical heritage of romantic hermeneutics and phenomenology, paying particular attention to the influence of Martin Heidegger and the latter’s accounts of thrownness and situated understanding. It goes on to describe the role of crucial ideas such as prejudice (Vorurteil), dialogue, the hermeneutic circle and the ‘fusion of horizons’. Specifically, how these concepts impact both on what the aim of translation is and on how a practicing translator is to proceed.
The second half of the essay turns to Ricoeur and his shared phenomenological heritage with Gadamer. However, translation for Ricoeur is a much broader concept that concerns not only an operation between languages but also offers itself as a paradigm for intersubjective relations. Here I outline Ricoeur’s account of interlingual translation as a choice between faithfulness and betrayal. I then go on to explore the manner in which he understand translation as a political and cultural model of exchange.
Translation necessarily gives rise to a number of ethical and political questions which are difficult to address. While both thinkers share a number of positions and concepts, this essay’s central claim is that Ricoeur’s expanded account of translation is more attuned to those difficulties than Gadamer’s.
For both Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur understanding is a condition of human existence. Both thinkers describe understanding itself as translation insofar as understanding involves a transformative relation between people which produces meaning and which is never finished. This chapter begins by examining Gadamer’s philosophical heritage of romantic hermeneutics and phenomenology, paying particular attention to the influence of Martin Heidegger and the latter’s accounts of thrownness and situated understanding. It goes on to describe the role of crucial ideas such as prejudice (Vorurteil), dialogue, the hermeneutic circle and the ‘fusion of horizons’. Specifically, how these concepts impact both on what the aim of translation is and on how a practicing translator is to proceed.
The second half of the essay turns to Ricoeur and his shared phenomenological heritage with Gadamer. However, translation for Ricoeur is a much broader concept that concerns not only an operation between languages but also offers itself as a paradigm for intersubjective relations. Here I outline Ricoeur’s account of interlingual translation as a choice between faithfulness and betrayal. I then go on to explore the manner in which he understand translation as a political and cultural model of exchange.
Translation necessarily gives rise to a number of ethical and political questions which are difficult to address. While both thinkers share a number of positions and concepts, this essay’s central claim is that Ricoeur’s expanded account of translation is more attuned to those difficulties than Gadamer’s.
Derrida - Levinas: An Alliance Awaiting the Political, 2018
IN: Ombrosi, Orietta and Raphael Zagury-Orly (Eds.) Derrida–Levinas: An Alliance Awaiting the Pol... more IN: Ombrosi, Orietta and Raphael Zagury-Orly (Eds.) Derrida–Levinas: An Alliance Awaiting the Political. (Mimesis International 2018). pp.61-77
In this paper, I begin by exploring the role of language and the ‘third’ in the subject/other relation as described by Levinas. I go on to map the manner in which this triad of subject, other and third plays out in terms of the relation between ethics and politics. Levinas, I claim, offers us a way to view ethics and politics as languages which become in their encounter with each other or in their translating through which the primary signification of responsibility emerges. However, in order to fulfill itself, in order to prevent itself from repeating the tradition it seeks to subvert; Levinas’ account of the political requires a Derridean – and indeed an ethical – supplement of differance.
In this paper, I begin by exploring the role of language and the ‘third’ in the subject/other relation as described by Levinas. I go on to map the manner in which this triad of subject, other and third plays out in terms of the relation between ethics and politics. Levinas, I claim, offers us a way to view ethics and politics as languages which become in their encounter with each other or in their translating through which the primary signification of responsibility emerges. However, in order to fulfill itself, in order to prevent itself from repeating the tradition it seeks to subvert; Levinas’ account of the political requires a Derridean – and indeed an ethical – supplement of differance.
Heidegger Levinas Derrida: The Question of Difference , 2016
IN: Foran, Lisa and Rozemund Uljee (eds). Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida: The Question of Difference... more IN: Foran, Lisa and Rozemund Uljee (eds). Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida: The Question of Difference (Springer 2016) pp.59-74.
The word ‘saying’ is used in English to translate both die Sage in the work of Martin Heidegger, and le dire in that of Emmanuel Levinas. Here I sketch the manner in which these two ‘sayings’ converge and diverge around the place of language. Broadly speaking I argue that in their treatment of this word Heidegger and Levinas remain within the tradition of metaphysics insofar as the term ‘saying’ names. It names precisely a difference within the space of which the human subject dwells – either in the space of the ontological difference both named yet concealed in the essence of language (Saying) in Heidegger; or in the space of the ethical difference named in the primary signification of the responsibility of the one-for-the-Other (saying) in Levinas. The naming of such a difference within which the human subject dwells means that it is a difference translatable. The naming of such a difference establishes limits which circumscribe a space or place for the subject. For Derrida, beyond such a difference between the one and the other, or between Being and being, is another difference: a difference that remains radically impossible. It is approached through numerous terms such as différance, supplement, trace, and so on in Derrida’s work. But this very multiplicity of terms itself reveals the radical impossibility of it being named as such. Here, having outlined the accounts of Heidegger and Levinas, I conclude by approaching this radically untranslatable/unnameable/unsayable in Derrida through the word Khōra.
The word ‘saying’ is used in English to translate both die Sage in the work of Martin Heidegger, and le dire in that of Emmanuel Levinas. Here I sketch the manner in which these two ‘sayings’ converge and diverge around the place of language. Broadly speaking I argue that in their treatment of this word Heidegger and Levinas remain within the tradition of metaphysics insofar as the term ‘saying’ names. It names precisely a difference within the space of which the human subject dwells – either in the space of the ontological difference both named yet concealed in the essence of language (Saying) in Heidegger; or in the space of the ethical difference named in the primary signification of the responsibility of the one-for-the-Other (saying) in Levinas. The naming of such a difference within which the human subject dwells means that it is a difference translatable. The naming of such a difference establishes limits which circumscribe a space or place for the subject. For Derrida, beyond such a difference between the one and the other, or between Being and being, is another difference: a difference that remains radically impossible. It is approached through numerous terms such as différance, supplement, trace, and so on in Derrida’s work. But this very multiplicity of terms itself reveals the radical impossibility of it being named as such. Here, having outlined the accounts of Heidegger and Levinas, I conclude by approaching this radically untranslatable/unnameable/unsayable in Derrida through the word Khōra.
IN Lisa Foran (Ed.) Translation and Philosophy (Peter Lang 2012) pp.75-87
This essay offers a br... more IN Lisa Foran (Ed.) Translation and Philosophy (Peter Lang 2012) pp.75-87
This essay offers a brief summary of the writings of both Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) on the theme of translation. Given the importance both thinkers accord language and the text; the theme of translation, while not always explicit in their writings, is certainly a background concern throughout them. We will here, however, focus on their specific dealings with the theme and how these might relate to theories of the Other. What will be revealed is that, although both writers differ on various points, ultimately they both argue for the necessity of translation for the survival and enrichment of a language; and that this positive aspect of translation in linguistic terms might be viewed, analogously or not, as an argument for the necessity of the Other in the constitution, and indeed the very survival of the self. Central to this analysis is the role played by the text, by meaning, and by the dichotomies of faithfulness/betrayal and translatability/untranslatability
This essay offers a brief summary of the writings of both Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) on the theme of translation. Given the importance both thinkers accord language and the text; the theme of translation, while not always explicit in their writings, is certainly a background concern throughout them. We will here, however, focus on their specific dealings with the theme and how these might relate to theories of the Other. What will be revealed is that, although both writers differ on various points, ultimately they both argue for the necessity of translation for the survival and enrichment of a language; and that this positive aspect of translation in linguistic terms might be viewed, analogously or not, as an argument for the necessity of the Other in the constitution, and indeed the very survival of the self. Central to this analysis is the role played by the text, by meaning, and by the dichotomies of faithfulness/betrayal and translatability/untranslatability
Journal Publications by Lisa Foran
Perspectives Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 2022
Untranslatability has been seen as a problematic concept in Translation Studies, rooted in outdat... more Untranslatability has been seen as a problematic concept in Translation Studies, rooted in outdated views of translation as doomed to failure. In this paper, I argue against such a view of untranslatability to make two claims. The first is that at least a temporary untranslatability is the condition of translation, without it translation would be redundant. The second is that untranslatability offers us both an ethical and descriptive model for intersubjective relations such that it does not merely refer to a textual practice but also to ways in which we relate to each other as human beings. In the first part of the paper, I engage with two critics of untranslatability-Ricoeur and Venutito claim that in their rejection of the untranslatable, they lose something productive. Against a view of the untranslatable as something 'sacred', as described by Heidegger; I argue that we might think of the untranslatable as that which exceeds our understanding yet generates the desire to understand at all. Drawing on the work of Derrida, Levinas, and Cassin, I claim that the untranslatable offers us a way of thinking of translation and understanding in general as ethical when they are paused, suspended, or interrupted.
Provocations, 2020
A critical response to Lawrence Venuti's "Contra Instrumentalism" (University of Nebraska Press, ... more A critical response to Lawrence Venuti's "Contra Instrumentalism" (University of Nebraska Press, 2019) in "Provocations" 4 (2020), pp. 17-27.
This article compares Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida on the theme of translation and in particu... more This article compares Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida on the theme of translation and in particular the ethical implications of the different ways in which they approach the untranslatable. While Ricoeur's account of translation as linguistic hospitality does offer a model for an ethical encounter with the other, I argue that this account does not go far enough. My central claim is that Ricoeur's treatment of translation overemphasizes the movement of appropriation and integration. While it may not be his intention, this emphasis could lead to a certain kind of complacency that would challenge the ethical claims Ricoeur makes in favour of translation as a paradigm. I propose to supplement Ricoeur's hospitality with Derrida's untranslatable, in order to create a situation of constant discomfort thereby guarding against ethical complacency.
International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Jan 1, 2011
Review of Patrick O'Connor's Derrida: Profanations (Continuum: 2010) published in The Internation... more Review of Patrick O'Connor's Derrida: Profanations (Continuum: 2010) published in The International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2011
Other Publications by Lisa Foran
Irish Independent, 2020
An opinion piece for the "Irish Independent" drawing on Kantian ethics to think about how we can ... more An opinion piece for the "Irish Independent" drawing on Kantian ethics to think about how we can we deal with lockdown lag, that frumpy older sibling of the jet-setting kind, that brings all of the bleariness with none of the glamour.
Talks by Lisa Foran
Keynote address at 'Translating Philosophy and Theory: Style Rhetoric and Concepts' May 2019.
In... more Keynote address at 'Translating Philosophy and Theory: Style Rhetoric and Concepts' May 2019.
In this paper I argue that the question of style is key to philosophy and to the translation of philosophy.. I begin by discussing what our thoughts about the relation between philosophy and style can reveal about our philosophical (and indeed socio-political) commitments, I then discuss the nature of our relationship to our mother tongue and I open a kind of parenthesis to discuss Derrida’s notion of monolingualism and finally I offer a second way of thinking about style in terms of philosophy and the significance this might have for translation. There can be a tendency to think of style as something superfluous or incidental and I suppose my paper today is a really a very long way of saying ‘style matters’ – my subtitle in fact might be ‘in defense of style’…
In this paper I argue that the question of style is key to philosophy and to the translation of philosophy.. I begin by discussing what our thoughts about the relation between philosophy and style can reveal about our philosophical (and indeed socio-political) commitments, I then discuss the nature of our relationship to our mother tongue and I open a kind of parenthesis to discuss Derrida’s notion of monolingualism and finally I offer a second way of thinking about style in terms of philosophy and the significance this might have for translation. There can be a tendency to think of style as something superfluous or incidental and I suppose my paper today is a really a very long way of saying ‘style matters’ – my subtitle in fact might be ‘in defense of style’…
Keynote Address Translation and Philosophy Conference Liege May 2017, 2017
Key note address at 'Traduction et Philosophie / Translation and Philosophy' Universitie de Liege... more Key note address at 'Traduction et Philosophie / Translation and Philosophy' Universitie de Liege May 2017.
In this paper I draw on the work of Derrida, Levinas, Ricoeur and Cassin to argue that the untranslatable offers an ethical way to disrupt contemporary political narratives of exclusion.
In this paper I draw on the work of Derrida, Levinas, Ricoeur and Cassin to argue that the untranslatable offers an ethical way to disrupt contemporary political narratives of exclusion.
Deciding What to Forget: Memorialisation and the Politics of the Future
Presented at 'Art | Memory | Place' Irish Museum of Modern Art November 2015
What does it mean... more Presented at 'Art | Memory | Place' Irish Museum of Modern Art November 2015
What does it mean to memorialise? To make memory objective? To ensure that something will be remembered? If memorialisation entails the construction of an object in a public space – a tomb, a statue, a dedicated building but also a poem, an inscription, a dedication – what justifies that object taking up this space? If memorialisation is in some sense telling a narrative – ‘lest we forget’ – what are the narratives it does not tell? What are the narratives it, by necessity, cannot tell? In this paper I discuss the politics of memorialisation and the necessary forgetting they entail. Drawing on the work of Michel de Certeau, Paul Ricoeur and Judith Butler, I ask who decides what is remembered and how do they come to that decision?
In May 2015 a memorial was unveiled for the Irish soldier Private Caomhán Seoighe [Kevin Joyce]. The monument was unveiled in a public ceremony led Irish Minister of Defence Simon Coveney. Kevin Joyce served with the UN Peace Keeping Force and went missing during a tour of the Lebanon in 1981. The comrade he last served with, Private Hugh Doherty was found dead shot in the back, but Joyce’s remains were never discovered. Exactly what happened to the soldiers still remains unclear, although it is thought that they were killed by a Palestinian faction. Former high court judge Roderick Murphy submitted a report to the Ministry of Defence earlier this year, although this has yet to be made public. What is the purpose of this memorial? In some sense it seems obvious, simply a way to mark the death of Kevin Joyce as any tombstone would. But what difference does it make that the memorial was state commissioned (public) and not commissioned by his family (private)? What does it mean to memorialise? What are the relations between public and private in any act of memorialisation? As Ireland enters a year of commemoration, what are the responsibilities the act of memorialisation entails? My interest here is in the role memorialisation plays in the construction of historical narrative, not just in the moment in which it is created, but rather in the future it itself creates. Memorialisation – or at least a certain kind of memorialisation such as this – is the creation of a future as much as the capturing of a past.
Butler has argued that naming the dead and the subsequent right to mourn them is a political event. She highlights in particular those whose names are not made public; those whose stories are not told in the media; those who are not important enough to be mourned. In this paper I supplement Butler with de Certeau, and claim that every act of memorialisation entails this forgetting of the other. Memorialisation has thus a double responsibility: to remember what/who is to be memorialised and, in some way, to justify the future forgetting that that must entail.
What does it mean to memorialise? To make memory objective? To ensure that something will be remembered? If memorialisation entails the construction of an object in a public space – a tomb, a statue, a dedicated building but also a poem, an inscription, a dedication – what justifies that object taking up this space? If memorialisation is in some sense telling a narrative – ‘lest we forget’ – what are the narratives it does not tell? What are the narratives it, by necessity, cannot tell? In this paper I discuss the politics of memorialisation and the necessary forgetting they entail. Drawing on the work of Michel de Certeau, Paul Ricoeur and Judith Butler, I ask who decides what is remembered and how do they come to that decision?
In May 2015 a memorial was unveiled for the Irish soldier Private Caomhán Seoighe [Kevin Joyce]. The monument was unveiled in a public ceremony led Irish Minister of Defence Simon Coveney. Kevin Joyce served with the UN Peace Keeping Force and went missing during a tour of the Lebanon in 1981. The comrade he last served with, Private Hugh Doherty was found dead shot in the back, but Joyce’s remains were never discovered. Exactly what happened to the soldiers still remains unclear, although it is thought that they were killed by a Palestinian faction. Former high court judge Roderick Murphy submitted a report to the Ministry of Defence earlier this year, although this has yet to be made public. What is the purpose of this memorial? In some sense it seems obvious, simply a way to mark the death of Kevin Joyce as any tombstone would. But what difference does it make that the memorial was state commissioned (public) and not commissioned by his family (private)? What does it mean to memorialise? What are the relations between public and private in any act of memorialisation? As Ireland enters a year of commemoration, what are the responsibilities the act of memorialisation entails? My interest here is in the role memorialisation plays in the construction of historical narrative, not just in the moment in which it is created, but rather in the future it itself creates. Memorialisation – or at least a certain kind of memorialisation such as this – is the creation of a future as much as the capturing of a past.
Butler has argued that naming the dead and the subsequent right to mourn them is a political event. She highlights in particular those whose names are not made public; those whose stories are not told in the media; those who are not important enough to be mourned. In this paper I supplement Butler with de Certeau, and claim that every act of memorialisation entails this forgetting of the other. Memorialisation has thus a double responsibility: to remember what/who is to be memorialised and, in some way, to justify the future forgetting that that must entail.
A Phenomenology of Reading: Deciding the Frontier between Philosophy and Literature
Dewey and Heidegger through the Work of Art