"The case has, in some respects, been not entirely devoid of interest." --Sherlock Holmes

I've been intrigued by Derrida's statement (from the film): "There is not narcissism and non-narcissism; there are narcissisms that are more or less comprehensive, generous, open, extended. What is called non-narcissism is in general but the economy of a much more welcoming, hospitable narcissism, one that is much more open to the experience of the other as other. ...Love is narcissistic."

In terms of post-structuralism, it seems that Derrida is trying to break apart the commonly understood structure between the binary opposites narcissism and non-narcissism. He does this by introducing the idea of love (ideally thought to be non-narcissistic) as being somehow in relation to narcissism. Love is generally thought of as being other-directed, whereas narcissism is, by definition, focused on oneself. Defining love in terms of narcissism seems to exemplify Saussure's idea that there are no positive meanings in language. Meaning is relational. Love, then, would have no meaning if we had no narcissism to measure it against.

To find a point of connection with psychoanalytic theory, we can note that this relation of meanings also reflects a concept from psychoanalytic theory: metaphor. In the use of metaphor, one thing is described in relation to something else. In Freud's work concerning dreams, the notion of displacement has a similar meaning, in which one image comes to symbolize something else.

The second concept of deconstruction that comes in to play here can be described using another example from Derrida. In speaking about forgiveness, Derrida says that there is no such thing as pure forgiveness. Acts of forgiveness may be made for a variety of reasons, but pure forgiveness is impossible. It seems to me that he may be saying the same thing with regard to love. Whereas we may be capable of greater degrees of openness and welcoming of the "other," we are unable to reach a state of complete forgetfulness of self. This concern with "self" and the "other" are also classic psychoanalytic categories.

The point of his quote as I understand it, then, might be put this way: That only in the measure in which I am aware of myself as a person, am I able to recognize--and therefore love--the other. This would be the open, hospitable narcissism of which he speaks. But we are not able to become completely and perfectly free from this innate self-interest (Freud would seem to agree with that). And so Derrida sees pure love as humanly impossible.

Before you hear what I think about all this, check out the following quote. It's taken from a letter by Benedict XVI on the nature of love (Deus Caritas Est), and I found it very meaningful:

"....Eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, [one] cannot live by oblative, descending love alone.... Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift" (#7).

Although I appreciate the insight of much of what Derrida says, it seems to me it tells only part of the story. His point in deconstructing love/narcissism is, I would guess, to point out that there is no ideal "love" somewhere out there, in the sense of classical philosophical forms, essences, etc. However, it seems to me that the very point of love lies in the fact that it pulls us out of ourselves, to look toward the other. In other words, Derrida (and Freud, too, perhaps) seems to address what is referred to above as eros, denying the possibility of agape--which is essential for true growth as persons and genuine human freedom.