Michael Jimenez

Conference on Faith and History 2008

Barth and Derrida on the Neighbor

Recently the town of Santa Paula in California, known mostly for its agriculture, has

made the news. About four hundred people from the white minority (three-quarters of the

35,000 residents of the town are Latino) have signed a petition to seek to place a moratorium on

low-income housing. What is fascinating about this story is that the proponents of the

moratorium have openly acknowledged that it targets the Latino, immigrant farm workers in

particular. One resident in favor of the moratorium contends that what the city needs is balance

stating, “Let the free market run.”1

Perhaps the two sides of the immigration debate would read this story in a typical

fashion. The pro-immigrant side would bewail the intolerance that manifests itself in the

legislation proposed by the white citizens of Santa Paula while the anti-immigrant side would

praise their bold move. However, what I would like to point out today is not a mediating third

side to this debate, but instead look at the lack of hospitality that is being expressed in Santa

Paula and in similar situations across the world. Hopefully, we will be compelled to ask where

exactly is the Christian idea of loving your neighbor found here.

This paper will accomplish this task by looking at the French philosopher Jacques

Derrida and the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Why Derrida and Barth? Because both thinkers

wrote much on how human beings relate to one another and to the outside world at a time the

world was still struggling to find meaning in the post-Holocaust world and in the midst of the

Cold War. Moreover, their names are often associated with the postmodern movement. We will

first look at Derrida and his beliefs about hospitality toward one another especially found in his

work “On Cosmopolitanism” which was focused on hospitality toward asylum seekers. Second,
1
Scott Gold, “In Santa Paula, a White Minority Blames the Poor for the Town’s Problems,” Los Angeles Times, 22
August 2008.
 Jimenez 2

we will examine Barth’s ideas about the Near and Distant Neighbor found in his Church

Dogmatics 3:4 published in German in 1951 and English in 1961. Finally, we will conclude by

asking how their ideas may help us in our current situation where a lack of hospitality is evident

by new walls being built to separate people. This paper will use the ideas of Slovenian

philosopher Slavoj Žižek to further probe the reasons behind the inhospitable actions of

communities.

Derrida and Hospitality Toward All

One of Derrida’s most famous ideas that surfaced during his so-called ethical-turn was

the idea of hospitality. Derrida spent much of his time deconstructing the history of the word. In

one sense he wanted to see what this word really says regardless of how some considered its

meaning today. He pondered over the conditionality of hospitality that occurs toward asylum

seekers, immigrant workers or any other group of people that might fit the label of the other.

This so-called ethical-turn was greatly influenced by the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas,

and his ideas about the other.

Derrida suggests that showing hospitality to friends and family is easy and somewhat

safe; real hospitality is given without any consideration of gain and with an element of risk

involved. It is allowing oneself to be open and vulnerable before the other, even the uninvited

other. Derrida writes:

The Great Law of Hospitality – an unconditional Law, both singular and

universal, which ordered that the borders be open to each and every one, to every
other, to all who might come, without question or without their even having to
identify who they are or whence they came.2

2
Jacques Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, trans. Mark Dooley and Michael Hughes (New York:
Routledge, 2004), p. 18. For a similar definition see Derrida, Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle invites Jacques
Derrida to Respond, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 25.
 Jimenez 3

Why did Derrida address such an impossible idea of hospitality at the end of his life?

Derrida’s biographer Jason Powell suggests that Derrida took up the cause of the outsiders, the

immigrants, the minorities because of a heightened awareness of cruelty that developed under the

anti-Semitism that he faced as a young man.3 He was born in Algeria, so he never felt fully

French. Derrida noticed a growing anti-immigrant trend in modern politics found in such things

like the Debret Laws. He believed that the French government had made it a point to target the

sans papiers (French for those without papers) especially because they are mostly made up of

low income, Muslim immigrants. He was disturbed at the lack of hospitality being shown by

France and other European nations toward the immigrant community.

Derrida’s work on hospitality is basically his statement on ethics. Derrida declares,

“Insofar as it has to do with the ethos, that is, the residence, one’s home, the familiar place of

dwelling, inasmuch as it is a manner of being there, the manner in which we relate to ourselves

and to others, to others as our own or as foreigners, ethics is hospitality.”4 What is at stake are

those institutions that should be welcoming to the other and indeed, on a smaller scale, “the

nature of intersubjective relationships.”5 Therefore, there is a restless questioning posed in all

walks of life and in all human relations; there can never be complete satisfaction in that we have

finally arrived at perfect harmony. Thus, Calvin College professor James K. A. Smith asserts

that from the very beginning Derrida has been concerned with the other; in other words, from the

very beginning deconstruction is “a response to the other.”6

Derrida knew that the openness delineated in his ideas on hospitality would be

conditioned by human laws. However, he hoped his ideas would at the very least help serve as a

buttress to forms of life that promoted hostile or selfish ideas. For example, Derrida declares
3
Jason Powell, Jacques Derrida: A Biography (New York: Continuum, 2006) pp. 16-7.
4
Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, pp. 16-7.
5
James K. A. Smith, Jacques Derrida: Live Theory, (New York: Continuum, 2005), p. 69.
6
Smith, Jacques Derrida: Live Theory, p. 13.
 Jimenez 4

what is often the reaction of those that have a heightened desire for security and safety: “Anyone

who encroaches on my ‘at home,’ . . . on my power of hospitality, on my sovereignty as host, I

start to regard as an undesirable foreigner, and virtually as an enemy. This other becomes a

hostile subject, and I risk becoming their hostage.”7 Moreover, Derrida notes how the issues of

economics dictate how a nation will practice hospitality to the outsider: “When the economy is

doing well, and workers are needed, one tends not to be overly particular when trying to sort out

political and economic motivations.”8 However, upon the limits of ideas like immigration control

people are welcomed under the condition that they will not “expect the slightest economic

benefit upon immigration.”9

Both these conditions, the feelings of security and economic stability, reveal the position

of those not wanting to relinquish their power over the other; even when they, the host, show

hospitality their expectation for something in return spoils it. Therefore, the basic premise to

Derrida’s hospitality is the risk involved behind all relations, even those that are unexpected. He

holds the idea of an unconditional hospitality as a way to reflect on the ways individuals,

communities and nations fall short in their openness to the other.

Barth and the Near and Distant Neighbor

Karl Barth is an important figure to look at because he was in the middle of one of the

biggest political crisis of all time. In fact, being in the midst of a crisis seemed to be his natural

place. One would simply have to read some of his published speeches to agree with Barth

scholar Frank Jehle that “Barth was not the type of person who, in a critical situation, was

especially reserved.”10 For example, during his first pastorate in Safenwil he represented the

7
Derrida, Of Hospitality, pp. 53 and 55.
8
Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, p. 10.
9
Ibid., p. 12.
10
Frank Jehle, Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and Martha Burnett
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 29.
 Jimenez 5

factory workers in their dispute against the owners, earning the title “the Red Pastor.” The

complacency of German intellectuals during World War I provoked him to violently respond to

liberal theology in his famous Romans commentary. He was openly critical of the Nazis and

was the principal author of the Barmen Declaration of 1934; he continued to speak out against

the Nazis even when he was exiled from Germany. Even at the time of his death, Barth was a

gadfly toward both the West and the East during the Cold War.11

Barth is in some sense infamous for his overtly Christ-centered theology. According to

Barth, the Church’s only commitment is to be a faithful witness for Jesus Christ and the gospel;

the gospel in and of itself has enough political force to evoke real, substantial change. Jehle

suggests what this type of preaching may look like: “For Barth it was important that one not

orient oneself one-sidedly in preaching in the name of Jesus Christ to the politically (and

economically) powerful. Often, but not always, it was about swimming against the stream.”12

Thus, in 1946, Barth insists that “the Church must concentrate first on the lower and lowest

levels of human society. . . . The Church must stand for social justice in the political sphere.”13

An excellent area to examine Barth’s concern for social-political concerns in the light of

the gospel of Christ is to see how he applies his understanding to the relationships between

people of different cultures. Barth calls those that are of the same nationality and race “near

neighbors” and those that are considered foreigners “distant neighbors.”14 Barth notes that God

calls each person to be obedient in a specific time and place; he calls each person as they are in

relation to both the near and distant neighbor.

11
Joseph L. Mangina, Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2004), pp. 1-6. Mangina opens Chapter 1 with an excellent yet brief biography of Barth’s life.
12
Jehle, Ever Against the Stream, pp. 98-9.
13
Karl Barth, Community, State, and Church (New York: Anchor Books, 1960), p. 173.
14
Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/4, trans. G. W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark,
1961), p. 286.
 Jimenez 6

Barth deals with the relationship between the near and distant neighbor as a topic for

Christian ethics. God has created human beings to communicate, to fellowship and to praise him

together. Therefore, language is a central aspect for Barth. However, who gets the burden of

learning the language to be able to communicate? According to Barth, it is the duty of the host

people, who value the fellowship commanded by God, to learn to understand the foreigner’s

language:

We shall then try to understand and speak this foreign language to the best of our
ability, and as we do so in this respect at least a section of the barrier which seems
at first invincibly to separate one nation from another will be removed, and even
those who seem to be very distant will become relatively near. Where it is a
matter of the command of God, this is necessary. Our own language must not be
allowed to become a prison for ourselves and a stronghold against others.15

Barth explains that one should be proud of his or her own language and heritage; the

history and culture of one’s people is where God has placed that particular person. However,

this pride should never develop into sanctifying one’s culture or race over another; only God is

holy.16 Moreover, Barth notes that there are aspects of all cultures of the world that could benefit

from the influence of foreign cultures.17

The command of God calls each person out of their familiar cultural world to relate to the

larger world. The covenant the God made with all of humanity is through the Brother and Friend

of all humanity, Jesus Christ. In other words, God is concerned with all of humanity. This

means that each community and nation should be a welcoming people. Barth notes that this is

not a simple task. Furthermore, tensions will arise when people of different cultures and

languages come into real contact with one another. Nonetheless, the challenges and difficulties

that arise from the movements of peoples is not an excuse for a nation or community to be

15
Ibid., p. 291.
16
Ibid., pp. 292 and 295.
17
Ibid., p. 294.
 Jimenez 7

inhospitable toward the distant neighbor. Thus, Barth poignantly describes what a nation’s

borders should be like:

One’s own people in its location cannot and must not be a wall but a door.
Whether it be widely opened or not, and even perhaps shut again, it must never be
barred, let alone blocked up. The one who is really in his own people, among
those near to him, is always on the way to those more distant, to other peoples.18

In other words, Barth contends that there may be situations that force a particular nation to try to

secure itself at the expense of hospitality. However, Barth declares that even the so-called “iron

curtain” was only for a season.19

Žižek, Violence and Why the Problem is not at the Border for Santa Paula

After looking at both Derrida and Barth, we can now ask how to deal with the growing

tension in Santa Paula and in other places across the globe. The story about this town serves as a

good example on the micro level of society’s problem with its lack of hospitality. Its openness

about the Latino people group being the source for the town’s economic woes highlights what is

oftentimes behind much of the discourses about the immigration debate.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in his new book Violence, suggests that now the

politics of anti-immigration have gone mainstream; he writes that “the main [political] parties

now found it acceptable to stress that immigrants are guests who must accommodate themselves

to the cultural values that define the host society – ‘It is our country, love it or leave it.’”20 In one

sense, just as actual written legislation is oftentimes ignored by the public toward immigrants

about their actual legality, this can be accomplished under the banner of altruistic motives, while,

at the same time, practicing inhospitable informal laws, unwritten laws acted out by society,

toward them.

18
Ibid., p. 294.
19
Ibid., p. 301.
20
Slavoj Žižek, Violence: Six Sideway Reflections, (New York: Picador, 2008), p. 41.
 Jimenez 8

The topic of immigrant’s rights is one that is beginning to divide American evangelicals

especially over the issues of justice and upholding existing laws. Some Christian believers often

point to biblical passages like “the welcoming of the stranger” in Matthew 25: 35 as a context for

hospitality toward immigrants, legal or illegal. One of their favorite passages is Leviticus 19:33-

34: “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who

resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for

you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” However, in a Washington Post

article in 2006, a Hispanic pastor, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic

Leadership Conference, declares his disappointment of the lack of white evangelical voices for

compassionate immigration reform.21 It is noted in the article “that two-thirds of white

evangelicals consider new immigrants a burden on society, compared with about half of all

Americans who hold that view.”22 Rodriguez insists that if white evangelical leaders do not

become more vocal for the humane treatment of immigrants then he suggests that the growing

Hispanic evangelical community may not take part in social-political concerns with the white

evangelical community.

How can the ideas of Barth and Derrida help with the problem of inhospitality? The

main problem in both Derrida’s and Barth’s ideas are that they are not concrete enough. What

does real, concrete hospitality look like? How does one begin to implement it? However, the

ideals explored in both thinkers are reference points to use to critique certain forms of life that

breed inhospitality. For example, Derrida frames his discussion along the lines of the “cities of

refuge” passages in Numbers to illustrate the religious dimension behind the obligation of

21
Alan Cooperman, “Letter on Immigration Deepens Split Among Evangelicals,” Washington Post, 5 April 2006,
sec. A04. The reforms mentioned in the article are such things as procedures for reuniting families, and ways for
undocumented workers to become legal. Of course, it also mentions that the path to citizenship includes fines, back
taxes, criminal background checks and the successful attempt at learning English.
22
Ibid.
 Jimenez 9

nations to be open to the foreigner especially if he or she is seeking refuge.23 Furthermore,

Derrida perspicaciously dissected the very hypocritical talk of politicians who often speak of

such things like an ideal world without borders, or a nation founded by and made up of a

citizenry of immigrants. Do they really mean it? Do they really envision a world without

borders? Are we really prepared for a world without borders?

Many thinkers and politicians speak of tolerance and acceptance in our day and age; an

acknowledgment of the other is at the center of many speeches. Nevertheless, has talk about the

other really solved the issue? Do not the white minority of Santa Paula identify the other in the

Latin immigrant community? Is not this the actual problem?

Žižek notes the irony of the differences between the Berlin wall, which was set up to

keep people in, with the many proposed walls like the one between the Mexican-American

border, which is set up to keep people out. The further irony is these new walls are being set up

by those nations that preach the ideology of tolerance. Žižek declares,

This is a clear sign of the limit of the multiculturalist “tolerant” approach, which
preaches open borders and acceptance of others. If one were to open the borders,
the first to rebel would be the local working classes. It is thus becoming clear that
the solution is not “tear down the walls and let them all in,” the easy attempt
demand of soft-hearted liberal “radicals.” The only true solution is to tear down
the true wall, not the Immigration Department one, but the socio-economic one:
to change society so that people will no longer desperately try to escape their own
world.24

Žižek’s point is that the real problem is not language or certain cultural aspects and the level of

tolerance we have for one another. The problems that come with language and cultures are

constant, as Barth noted. The real issue is the socio-economic divisions in Santa Paula, France

and in the immigrant’s countries of origin.

23
Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, p. 17.
24
Žižek, Violence, pp. 103-4.
 Jimenez 10

Think about the phrase from the white citizen of Santa Paula: “Let the free market run.”

Here we find two ideas that are keys to understanding the problem. First, there is a way to lay

responsibility at a non-partial entity: the market. Second, that the problem is that something is

holding back the freedom of the market. In other words, the white minority is not culpable for

the proposed expulsion of the Latin immigrants; it is simply the workings of the market that will

move them out. Žižek asserts that “this violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals

and their ‘evil’ intentions, but is purely ‘objective,’ systemic, anonymous.”25 We might ask what

if it is the workings of the market that is at fault? What if the problem is that the market is

running unabated too long? Thus, noting Žižek’s argument, it is indifference or ignorance to

systemic violence, in the workings of socio-economic injustice, as the real culprit. When a group

of people have left their homeland that they love for better opportunities for themselves and their

families, one must ask, why did they leave in the first place?

What exactly is systemic violence? Žižek points out that there is both a subjective and

objective form of violence. The subjective form is what we typically understand as violence; it

is when one person does physical, bodily harm to another person. Objective, systemic violence

is what underlies subjective violence. It is at all levels of society and oftentimes goes

unnoticed.26

Systemic violence aims precisely at the other through the machinations that support the

socio-economic system. Again, this happens subtly and without much fanfare. For example, it

is the type of systemic violence detailed in Ron Sider’s book Rich Christians in the Age of

Hunger.27 The premise behind Sider’s book is to raise awareness, especially for Christian

25
Ibid., p. 13.
26
Ibid., p. 11. Žižek also mentions a third mode of violence: the symbolic. Symbolic violence is the way language
serves as a violent tool to control people. Again, this happens subtly and often unnoticed. For the sake of brevity it
is not discussed in this paper.
27
Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson, 2005).
 Jimenez 11

believers from affluent nations, on how they and the rest of society help contribute to much of

the poverty in the Third World. He suggests a few tempered ways to stop some of the habits that

contribute to this systemic violence.

The problem is that people are often quick to respond to examples of subjective violence,

yet oftentimes need convincing that there is even such a thing as systemic violence. This mood

is evident in that fact that two-thirds of white evangelicals simply see the immigration problem

as a burden to their own society. Perhaps, if the argument was phrased around the issues of

systemic violence, that is happening here and over there, and under the topic of ethics, as both

Barth and Derrida suggest, then more white evangelicals would be open to comprehensive

immigration reform.

Conclusion

How should evangelicals respond to the issues of inhospitality addressed in this paper?

Barth’s teaching is helpful here. According to Barth, it is the role of the Christian to be

concerned and active on behalf of the distant neighbor even when he or she may be at one’s

doorstep or in a far away land. This is an ethical command from God. Barth’s plea is for

Christians to be less concerned about their own nationalistic interests, whom he assumes is

natural for them, and to move out of their homeland and look for ways to embrace their fellow

humanity, who have a common brother in Christ. Moreover, Barth suggests that fidelity to

Christ, as seen in Barth’s own stance against Hitler, comes before anything else.

As we have seen, the distant neighbor often arrives because of issues of systemic

violence, which we might, to some extent, even be culpable. Awareness of this fact should

produce self-examination of both our private and public lives and a better response of hospitality

than what is often expressed. However, we must not simply worry about how hospitable we
 Jimenez 12

come across, but actually try to accomplish concrete reform for both the near and distant

neighbor. Perhaps, evangelicals could deal with the concrete situation in Santa Paula and serve

as channels of reconciliation there. Instead of arguing about putting a wall up or down, we can

get involved in particular situations involving near and distant neighbors that need reconciling

and a little hospitality.