By Mae Stanton
The January 6 Capitol riot in the United States saw democracy unfolding at the seams—posing a fiery attack on the very workings of democratic elections. Such turbulent scenes bring to life Jacques Derrida’s writings on the transformative status of democratic structures. I argue that the evolving collapse of democracy in the United States—once held to be an impenetrable force in global politics—reaffirms Derrida’s argument that democracy possesses an inbuilt autoimmunity which perpetually threatens its very existence. I will foremost discuss the autoimmune nature of democracy wherein democratic structures demand that governments remain open to self-critique. Democracy is ‘to come,’ for the promise of perfectibility constantly reinscribes democratic structures. Derrida’s work is reaffirmed by the demise of democratic structures within the United States, which demonstrates that democracy is an unstable category that continually compromises its own existence. In the face of such crises, democracy to come provides an opportunity through which individuals can both reimagine, and reshape, the future of democratic structures.
The Derridean concept of autoimmunity outlines the aporetic nature of democracy. In medical terms, autoimmunity occurs when a living being’s immune system attacks its own healthy tissues that provide protection.[i] Autoimmunity thereby refers to an aporetic structure in which an entity, whilst attempting to live, simultaneously threatens its own existence. It must be emphasised that autoimmunity does not attack the whole body, but rather its own protection. This notion provides a framework to conceptualise the internal structure of democracy. Derrida asserts that democracy is “the only system that welcomes in itself that expression of autoimmunity called the right to self-critique and perfectibility.”[ii] This elucidates that the very principle of freedom which underlies democracy ensures that democratic systems remain boundlessly open to ideas—even those which are anti-democratic. In response to such threat, the impulse of ‘perfectibility’ ensures that democracies limit sentiments that oppose democratic ideals. Democracies constrain freedoms for the sake of freedom. In this manner, democracy possesses an innate autoimmunity in which a government must compromise its values to exist. As I will discuss, this aporetic structure directly problematises the manner in which democracy evolves.
Democracy is ‘to come’ because it warrants that democratic structures are perpetually reinscribed in the pursuit of perfectibility. Derrida writes that due to self-critique, democracy “must have the structure of a promise” that “protests against what remains inadequate to the democratic demand.”[iii] Here, Derrida explicates that democracy continuously transforms itself by remaining open to ideas that reinscribe present meanings, and formulations, of democracy. The very foundation of democracy is drawn to perfectibility by promising that democratic structures will become more expansive, equal, and generate greater freedoms. Democracy must demand its perpetual evolution, or else it will cease to exist. Furthermore, the statement ‘to come’ implies that democracy is an inherently ambiguous condition for Derrida does not state when, or how, democracy will come. This aporetic structure constantly hurtles toward an unknown future. It is paramount to note that Derrida does not seek to condemn democracy through his account of perfectibility. On the contrary, Derrida elucidates the possibility of change in democratic structures—whether ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Democracy cannot be conceived of as an absolute structure but rather one in which democratic practices and ideals are constantly subject to reimagination.
However, Derrida is critiqued for putting forward an anachronistic account of democracy. Paul Patton argues that Derrida’s analysis cannot be applied to contemporary forms of liberal democracy that espouse a distinct conception of freedom in which individuals possess liberties insofar as they do not infringe on another’s rights.[iv] In this context, a liberal state does not compromise its commitment to democracy by outlawing individuals who oppose freedom, for this action subsequently upholds liberal democratic principles. It is thereby unnecessary for liberal democracies to remain open to anti-democratic figures as Derrida would suggest. In this manner, democracy cannot be universally conceived of as an aporetic, nor radically evolving, model. To dispute this critique, Derrida argues that it is impossible to conceive of democracy within a Kantian framework of regulative Ideals that relegate concepts to archetypal norms.[v] For example, Derrida asserts that although distinct governments similarly claim to be democratic, this discrepancy can be attributed to the aporetic nature of democracy, rather than issues of pure misunderstanding.[vi] Therefore, the disparities that exist between democratic governments reveal that democracy is an undefinable structure which cannot be understood in relation to static categories. In speaking to Patton’s example, the capacity for freedom in a liberal democracy logically allows for individuals to critique the very conditions of such freedom. It is thereby insufficient to limit democracy to absolute ideals, for specific paradigms of democracy unfold in themselves. In this manner, democracy possesses an inherent autoimmunity which constantly resists and reinscribes existing norms.
The aporetic conditions currently threatening the United States illustrates the underlying autoimmunity of democratic structures. Trump’s role in the 2020 United States presidential election is a pertinent example by which politicians sought to overturn votes—and the election’s outcome by extension—to affirm Trump’s power.[vii] In this context, Trump exploited the democratic electoral system to simultaneously disrupt democratic proceedings. Trump is not outside of democracy. He threatens democracy from within. He does so in the name of democracy—upholding his misjudgement that the public democratically voted in his favour. This reveals the aporetic nature of democracy, in which democratic systems remain open to the very forces which threaten its own existence. The internal tension which pervades United States’ democratic structures thereby underpins Derrida’s thesis that democracy is an autoimmune process which compromises itself.
Furthermore, the demise of democratic structures within the United States reinforces the Derridean conception of democracy to come. Francis Fukuyama famously asserted in 1989 that the Fall of the Berlin Wall marks the “end of history,” for its collapse demonstrates “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government.”[viii] Here, Fukuyama asserts that the Soviet Union’s collapse affirms the triumph of Western liberalism in both the Cold War and remaining future. The assertion that Western democracy is the ‘final’ form of history implies that democracy has evolved into its absolute form. Democracy has come. Fukuyama’s stable conception of democracy seemingly undermines the Derridean conception of democracy to come. However, Fukuyama’s thesis is destabilised by the anxiety that currently pervades Western democracies—wherein mainstream media is flooded by questions of whether the widespread populist distrust of government, and subsequent schisms between political parties, have brought about the final years of American democracy.[ix] Within a matter of thirty years, hegemonic discourse surrounding the alleged endurance of democracy has radically shifted. Hope surrounding the malevolent proceedings of Western democracy has transformed into uncertainty. This diminishes Fukuyama’s description of the ‘end of history’ by revealing that democracy is an unstable category that is continually reinscribed. As such, the fluctuating conditions of democracy within the United States upholds Derrida’s thesis that democracy is perpetually to come.
Such instability paints a tumultuous, and often fatalistic, image of future democratic structures. Despite this ambiguity, autoimmunity remains a useful tool in which society can confront the crises which face modern democracy. Derrida argues that democracy to come necessitates a “militant and interminable political critique.”[x] Here, Derrida elucidates that individuals must never lose sight of democracy’s central tenet in which individual voices, and critiques, are actively heard. Whilst democracy may allow for demagogues and autocrats to take power, this structure nevertheless promises that such figures remain subject to critique. Autoimmunity is both the weakness, and power, of democratic structures. For many, the present-day predicament of democracy may evoke feelings of defeat. However, the Derridean concept of autoimmunity beckons us to continually question, and reimagine, the future of democracy.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ concession speech following the 2024 US election provides a timely and poignant illustration of how autoimmunity is to reshape the crisis of democracy. Standing before the American people, Harris asserts that whilst she “concedes this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign—the fight: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people…That is a fight I will never give up.”[xi] Harris recognises that the election results gave way to Trump’s victory—demonstrating an autoimmune response wherein the United States remains open to figures whom threaten democratic structures. However, this outcome does not perpetually fix the future of Western democracy, for she retains her battle against an emerging Trump era. Harris’ ‘fight’ for democracy is to come. Rather than ‘giving up’ on the future of democracy, it remains critical to uphold the tenets of self-critique and perfectibility that are inherent in democracy.
I have argued that the demise of hegemonic democratic structures in the United States reinforces Derrida’s argument that democracy is an autoimmune process which continuously threatens itself. I primarily discussed the autoimmunity inbuilt within democracy—wherein democratic structures demand that governments remain open to self-critique. It follows that democracy is to come, for the promise of perfectibility perpetually reinscribes democratic structures. Derrida’s work is elucidated by the collapse of democracy in the United States—illustrating that democracy continuously resists definition by threatening its very existence. Despite such crises, autoimmunity must be harnessed to positively shape the future of democracy. In the face of riots, presidential elections, and corruption, Derrida’s writings provide hope that democracy has not yet come to an end.
I have recently completed my undergraduate studies in the Bachelor of Advanced Humanities, majoring in philosophy and art history. Next year, I will undertake honours in art history to research decolonial methodologies of Asian and Pacific contemporary art. My brilliant grandmother, Meg, was also published in one of the original prints of Exordium over 30 years ago.
ENDNOTES
[i] Fred Evans, “Derrida and the Autoimmunity of Democracy,” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 30, no. 3 (2016): 308.
[ii] Jacques Derrida, Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Nass (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 87.
[iii] Derrida, Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, 85-86.
[iv] Paul Patton, “Derrida, Politics and Democracy to Come,” Philosophy Compass 2, no. 6 (2007): 776.
[v] Derrida, Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, 83.
[vi] Samir Haddad, Derrida and the Inheritance of Democracy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 53.
[vii] Rob Wilkie, “A Machine of Affirmations: Fascism in the Age of Trump,” International Critical Thought 13, no. 3 (2023): 370.
[viii] Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” The National Interest, no. 16 (1989): 4.
[ix] David Smith, “‘An End of American Democracy’: Heather Cox Richardson on Trump’s Historic Threat,” The Guardian, 7 October 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/07/american-democracy-heather-cox-richardson-trump-biden
[x] Derrida, Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, 86.
[xi] Time, Read Vice President Kamala Harris’ Full Concession Speech,” 7 November 2024, https://time.com/7173617/kamala-harris-concession-speech-full-transcript/.
WORKS CITED
Derrida, Jacques. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason. Translated by Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Nass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005.
Evans, Fred. “Derrida and the Autoimmunity of Democracy.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 30, no. 3 (2016): 303–15.
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History?” The National Interest, no. 16 (1989): 3–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184.
Haddad, Samir. Derrida and the Inheritance of Democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013.
Patton, Paul. “Derrida, Politics and Democracy to Come.” Philosophy Compass 2, no. 6 (2007): 766-80.
Shattuck, John. “Three Decades Later: A Reflection on Transatlantic Democracy Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall.” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 44, no. 1 (2020): 143–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48599285.
Smith, David. “‘An End of American Democracy’: Heather Cox Richardson on Trump’s Historic Threat.” The Guardian. 7 October 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/07/american-democracy-heather-cox- richardson-trump-biden
Time. “Read Vice President Kamala Harris’ Full Concession Speech.” 7 November 2024. https://time.com/7173617/kamala-harris-concession-speech-full-transcript/.
Wilkie, Rob. “A Machine of Affirmations: Fascism in the Age of Trump.” International Critical Thought 13, no. 3 (2023): 360–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2023.2253410.
Featured photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash.
EXORDIUM 
1 Comment