Deconstruction, which brings to mind the name of Jacques Derrida, has a challenging relation with law and legal studies. Nevertheless, the belief in the obvious clarity of the legal text, and the concealment of the law-making violence, necessitates the deconstruction of the law, and requires consideration of this thought in legal theory. Discussions that have so far focused on the relation between deconstruction and legal studies can be divided into two general categories,The first category seeks to turn deconstruction into a technique of legal reasoning, and the other seeks to address its moral side. But merely establishing a relation between Derrida and law, if at the cost of eliminating the radical side of deconstruction and turning it into a method or moral advice, does not make much difference in status quo. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the transformation of deconstruction in the mainstream legal theory, and to emphasize its intervening aspect. In doing so, one can seek to highlight the third and radical type of legal thinking relation with deconstruction. Accordingly, the present article, after examining the relationship between deconstruction and legal studies, seeks to critically analyze the types of legal theories influenced by Derrida's thinking with an analytical-critical method, and to emphasize the deconstruction of law as a movement which exposes and summons the hidden myths and silenced voices of law, and in this way, breaks the one and only logos of law and opens a way beyond it.

This paper is a study of the ideas of translation and the original text in the writings of Jacques Derrida in order to explicate the curious relation of the original to the translation and ask the following question: Does translation give the original an after-life and enable it to survive, or does it instead 'kill' the original and substitute it with a decayed text? Jacques Derrida, in turn, takes two main themes from Benjamin's essay and gives these terms a more generalized meaning: Derrida examines the notions of the 'kinship of languages' and 'survival' in the act of translation and then situates them within his new definition of the 'text'. I would argue that Derrida sees translation as inevitable. Translation is inevitable in the sense that the translation preserves the multiple meanings of the original text and in turn demands more translations to create more multiple meanings. Translation as an act of interpretation makes every text prone to multiple translations none more authoritative than the other, but the texts demand translation as it is the secret to their survival. In a roundtable on the question of translation and Benjamin, Derrida recapitulates his reading of Benjamin's theory of language. He speaks of a 'mutual contract' between the translation and the original in general terms. The translation and the original not only demand one another and suspend each other's decay but they also enable language to survive through this symbiotic relationship.    

The works written in Persian about Jacques Derrida or the works translated into Persian about and from him have concentrated on Derrida’s aesthetic tendencies and forgotten his political philosophy and thought. But, we should know that his political philosophy and thought are so rich and working on them is necessary for our philosophical communities. In English-speaking world, it is for a decade that Derrida’s political thought has attracted writers’ and scholars’ attention. The works written in this period have concentrated independently on Derrida’s political philosophy and thought or have ‘politicized’ his aesthetic concepts. In this essay, we are trying to investigate the concepts of law, justice and responsibility in the philosophy of Derrida. First, we will clarify the distinctions between law and justice. For doing so, we will pay attention to Derridean concept of ‘deconstruction’. For Derrida, as we will see, law is ‘de constructible’ and justice is ‘undeconstructible’. Second, we will investigate the relations between law, justice and responsibility. We will conclude that justice, contrary to law, does not prevent us from taking responsibility.

The theory of dissemination of meaning is a model that is a subcategory of deconstruction, based on which, the contexts and methods of pluralization of meaning in a text can be investigated. In this descriptive-analytical research, the story of Parrot and the Merchant, narrated in the first book of Masnavi Ma’navi, is analyzed based on Derrida's dissemination model. According to the results of the study, the story of Parrot and the Merchant is organized into ten parts, four of which are esoteric quests. These four sections, which have a narrative, interpretive, and allegorical approach, are placed under the category of transitional dissemination as the field of meaning in these verses changes completely and is detached from the narrative structure governing the story. In addition, in the other six parts in which Rumi narrates the story of the parrot and the merchant, only the first few verses are dedicated to the narrative and the rest of the verses include Rumi's explanations, commentaries, or interpretations, and the field of meaning changes as well. Due to this semantic transformation, it is placed in the field of stative dissemination.

Background and Purpose: Following the Renaissance, the course of social thought in Europe has witnessed the emergence of two separate thought systems: «modern» and «postmodern». The paradigms above have greatly influenced the understanding of security players from security in the contemporary era, and based on their epistemological foundations, they have employed theoreticians and have defined and interpreted security issues from the point of view of those intellectuals. While explaining the causes and factors of a security issue’s occurrence and consequences, the paradigms provide solutions to solve the identified challenges based on the proposed formula of the same theory. Therefore, in the present article, the views of two influential thinkers of the modern and postmodern paradigms, Emile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida, will be examined to analyze their ideas in the field of security and unearth new insights on how to recognize, explain, and manage security issues. Method: Using the qualitative method and content analysis technique, the present research analyzes the social thoughts of Emile Durkheim as a classical and modern thinker of sociology and Jacques Derrida as the most important postmodern figure on the security issue. Relying on a comparative analysis based on theoretical support, it extracts the dimensions of the security problem from the opinions of the two above-mentioned scientists presented in the researcher-made analytical model. Findings: Analytical results indicate that as far as security is concerned; Durkheim, emphasizes the establishment of some security mechanisms such as social laws, regulations, and norms through security players of governance to regulate people’s behavior and prevent conflicts that can disrupt social order, as well as the socialization of people based on common values and norms, and in more general terms, training people and others to enter the system of social distribution of tasks in a fair and satisfactory social environment. In contrast, Derrida challenges the fixed concepts of security by highlighting the inherent contradictions and deprivations in the imposed discourses of security players. Derrida argues that efforts made to establish absolute security often lead to the marginalization or suppression of certain groups, and by densifying and intersecting the social gaps, and creating security issues, pave the ground for the possible radicalization of the rejected groups (security crisis). Conclusion: Therefore, it seems that combining these two viewpoints to achieve a theoretical synthesis for a comprehensive approach to security is pretty essential.

The theory of dissemination of meaning is a model that is a subcategory of deconstruction,based on which, the contexts and methods of pluralization of meaning in a text can be investigated. In this descriptive-analytical research, the story of Parrot and the Merchant, narrated in the first book of Masnavi Ma’, navi, is analyzed based on Derrida's dissemination model. According to the results of the study, the story of Parrot and the Merchant is organized into ten parts,four of which are esoteric quests. These four sections, which have a narrative, interpretive, and allegorical approach, are placed under the category of transitional dissemination as the field of meaning in these verses changes completely and is detached from the narrative structure governing the story. In addition, in the other six parts in which Rumi narrates the story of the parrot and the merchant, only the first few verses are dedicated to the narrative and the rest of the verses include Rumi's explanations, commentaries, or interpretations, and the field of meaning changes as well. Due to this semantic transformation, it is placed in the field of stative dissemination.

Deconstruction can be considered now as an integrated part of architectural theory, practice and history. It was over 20 years since Derrida's first books were published and his ideas and thoughts have started to trace in architectural discourse. Then, for about a decade from late 1980s to late 1990s, it was full of enthusiasm for deconstruction as a theoretical/practical approach to architecture. This Paper is concerned with the role and influence of deconstruction in contemporary architecture together with the study of deconstructivism and its roots in philosophy, art and architecture. An overview on 20th century major architectural theories shows that the effective life time of theories have been diminished from 40 years of Modernism to 20 years of Post modernism and 10 years of Deconstructivism. Nevertheless, this reduction of duration does not indicate the less importance of the shorter life time theories but indicates the acceleration of changes in architectural beliefs through the time. It should be noted that deconstruction was introduced to Iran contemporary architecture with a delay in early 1990s from a different pathway and process comparing its origin in the west. However it is not a focal point of this paper but it is required to be discussed in another article on deconstruction relation to Iran contemporary architecture. The fact that there is an undoubted link between deconstruction and deconstructivism requires a deep understanding of deconstruction itself if there would be any itself within deconstruction. It is difficult to define deconstruction with the words of western metaphysics because it is the same thing that is under the sharp criticism of deconstruction. Meanwhile, certain definitions of deconstruction are presented with reference to Jacques Derrida and others including Barbara Johnson, John D. Capputo and Paul Ricoeur. It is followed by a precise and brief discussion on the very idea of deconstruction focusing on the metaphysics of presence and its pivotal theme namely logo centrism. Following an overview on Deconstruction in art and architecture the roots and background of Deconstructivism are studied and the relevant samples to visual arts and architecture are identified. Certain art and architecture movements and/or styles of 1910s and 1920s including Dadaism, De stijl and Constructivism should be considered in genealogy of deconstructivism. It should be also noted that there is a difference between deconstruction and deconstructivism i.e. the difference between a philosophical/critical sort of thinking and a kind of architectural style. Deconstructivism has been acknowledged as an architectural style from 1988 especially after the Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition at the Museum of Modem Art in New York and the relevant debates on the term of deconstructivist. Deconstructivism was a call for a new approach to architecture for exploring different responses for may say old architectural questions without denying the values of the past, not for the future but to apply at the present. Although the period of enthusiastic approach to deconstructivism is terminated, but deconstructive thinking about architecture is still going on. At the end of the paper, a brief conclusion is followed by the notes are referred within the text and the complete references are included.

Jacques Derrida, the founder of deconstructive approach, rejects every determinate meaning in a text. He believes that we should deconstruct the foundation of every text and put away all definite meanings. This way, we can reach new meanings of the text. By analyzing the story of Forood, based on deconstructive approach, it is concluded that contrary to the appearance of this story, Kay Khosrow has thought of Forood as a rival. So he plans to kill Forood, the greatest enemy of his state, therefore, he sends Tus along with a big army to kill him, with the pretext of revenge of Afrasiab. This way without arousing any suspicion, he kills his greatest rival of monarchy.

The deconstructionist philosophy is a good example to show how systematic philosophy corresponds with democracy. Through criticizing egocentrism and enmity to others, deconstructionism is after relating the philosophical principles with the principle of acceptance of others and democracy. On the other hand Derrida' s discussion of socio-political democracy like democracy of the future and the challenges democracy faces, also have its roots in his philosophical thinking. So Democracy and deconstructionism are two sides of the same coin and it is not possible to understand one without understanding the other. This is a strong relation and Derrida's idea about philosophy and politics is based on it. The democracy of future as the result of this relation is the mirror of Derridean philosophy and politics. The relation between philosophy and deconstructionist democracy and their interaction and effects on each other are among the main concerns of this paper.