Werner Hamacher “Affiemative, Strike”(Carodozo Law Review 13-4[December 1991], pp.1133-1157)を参照しつつ、
For Geroge Eliot the coherence of the self and the coherence of sign it proffers for other selves’ misreading is the effect of an anonymous inaugurating power all persons share. This force is properly performative, or rather what Werner Hamacher calls “affirmative,” a preperformative, a deposing positing. This force works by putting forth words or other signs in the baseless fiat of a speech act. It builds airy, orderly structures of signs over a chaos that cannot be counted on to hold up anything. (p.77)
何故かMillerはここでデリダの名前を挙げていないのだが、これはデリダが1984年に東京のホテル・オークラで思いついたという二重の肯定（Oui, oui）（cf. 高橋哲哉『デリダ』、p.168ff., pp.313-314）、特に最初のoui、「もはや「ノン」に対立する副詞」でもなく、「言語以前に到来し、パロールであれエクリチュールであれ、語であれ文であれ、およそ何らかの発言がなされるときはつねにすでにそれに伴い、それを可能にしている「根源的」な肯定」としてのoui（p.169）を想起させる。また、デリダ自身の言葉としては例えば、
When I say “yes” to the other, in the form of a promise or an agreement or an oath, the “yes” must be absolutely inaugural. Inauguration is a “yes.” I say “yes” as a starting point. Nothing precedes the “yes.” The “yes” is the moment of institution, of the origin; it is absolutely originary. But when you say “yes,” you imply that in the next moment you will have to confirm the “yes” by a second “yes.” When I say “yes,” I immediately say “yes, yes.” I commit myself to confirm my commitment in the next second, and then tomorrow, and then the day after tomorrow. That means that a “yes” immediately duplicates itself, doubles itself. You cannot say “yes” without saying “yes, yes.” That implies memory in that promise. (…) the “yes” keeps in advance the memory of its own beginning, and that is the way traditions work. (…) “yes” has to be repeated and repeated immediately. That is what I call iterability. It implies repetition of itself, which is also threatening, because the second “yes” may be simply a parody, a record, or a mechanical repetition. You may say “yes, yes” like a parrot. The technical reproduction of the originary “yes” is from the beginning a threat to the living origin of the “yes.” So the “yes” is haunted by its own ghost, its own mechanical ghost, from the beginning. The second “yes” will have to reinaugurate, to reinvent, the first one. If tomorrow you do not reinvent today’s inauguration, you will be dead. So the inauguration has to be reinvented everyday. (“The Villanova Roundtable: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida” in John D. Caputo (ed.) Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, pp.27-28) *3
See also http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20071206/1196915428 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20080718/1216359742 or http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20091120/1258688054
Dorothea’s saying yes to Will Ladislaw is, in Nietzsche’s phrase, “ungeheure unbegrentzte ja,” her prodigious yes. This yes, however, is not based, any more than her initial commitment of herself to Casaubon, on verifiable knowledge of the other. It is an ungrounded speech act, not a cognitive insight. As Dorothea gently tells her sister when the latter asks her to explain how it came about that she is to marry Ladislaw: “No, dear, you would have to feel with me, else you would never know”(880). Feeling that leads to performative commitment takes precedence here over knowing. The novel has abundantly demonstrated the severe limitations of this “feeling with.” The commitment of Dorothea and Will to one another does not give either of them insight into the inner self of the other. That remains an irreducible alterity, a “ruin,” “chaos,” or inarticulate “roar” hidden even from the consciousness of the person himself or herself. What that reciprocal commitment does is to create out of signs the shared fabric of their life together, with its beneficent but incalculable effects(…) (p.78)
*2:George Eliotについては取り敢えずhttp://www.victorianweb.org/authors/eliot/index.htmlを。また、バイオグラフィとしては、例えばPetri Liukkonen “George Eliot (1819-1880)” http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gelliot.htmとか。
*3:See also John D. Caputo “A Commentary: Deconstruction in a Nutshell”, pp.41-42, p.181ff.