A letter to a friend, Igor Juranović, Attorney
Dear Igor,
A French philosopher DERRIDA introduced the term INTERROGATION as an antonym of
INTERSUBJECTIVITY. I have come across the terms DERROGATION AND ARROGATION
but not the term interrogation. However, he did not use the term interrogation alone but he
used it as part of the phrase ‘interrogation valley’. Let me quote his sentence, and I kindly ask
you to tell me your interpretation of the following:
‘...because the fraternal other is not primarily in the serenity of what is referred to as intersubjectivity, but in the suffering and danger of inter-rogation. Above all, he is not certain as to
the serenity of the reply in which the two statements join. However, hard night’s work in the
interrogation valley calls on to him’.
Namely, in my factoring project, I use the premise INVOICE IS MONEY and I wish to show
that relationship though the prism of intersubjectivity and interrogation or use the phrase
INVOICE IS MONEY in the context of transactions (which are, in my opinion, in the sphere of
subjectivity) and the risk-related relations as well (loan, liquidity, market, operational, currency,
etc.).
Could the interrogation issue be the risk issue?
I am interested in the term ROGATIO etymologically!
I hope I have not made it too complicated.
Thank you for your reply!
Reply, Danijela Juranović
Dear Sir, here are several facts that might help answer your question:
The term ‘rogation’ comes from the Latin word ‘rogatio’ - request, query, legal
proposal; the prefix’ inter’ denotes something that is between two things, between two
of the things mentioned or between the mentioned thing and something else.
In the Croatian Encyclopedic Dictionary I have found the term’ interogativ/an’-(Eng.
interrogational) in the form of a question, and it comes from the Latin word
‘interrogativus’, ‘interrogare’- interrogate.
‘Interrogatio’ is also Latin for ‘eroterma'- a rhetorical question or a text written in the
form of a question without the expectation of an answer. In religious texts we come
upon Interrogatio Iohanni or the Interrogation of John the Baptist.
In the mentioned quote I would interpret interrogation as questioning, which is
inconsistent with intersubjectivity which is defined as something shared by two
subjects, something they have in common, something they share, so questioning would
be unnecessary.
The phrase ‘Invoice is Money’ analyzed though the prism of intersubjectivity implies
mutual relationship which is predetermined, consensual, unambiguous, common to a
larger number of subjects (therefore, the relationships are clear – e.g. sale and
purchase agreement – one party receives something from the other party in exchange
for a consideration, usually money), whilst invoice as money shown in the context of
interrogation (by interrogation we mean questioning, which implies a degree of
uncertainty), represents a certain risk, uneasiness, because the unpredictable factors
have to be taken into consideration which might affect the outcome of the process that
relationship should complete (e.g. loan – it is a long term process, with increased risk
factors, high level of uncertainty, and the result depends on a variety of life processes
and situations).
If we apply the claim ‘Invoice is Money’ to quoted sentences (Derrida) where the
fraternal other (is it the subject or some actual other?) does not enjoy the serenity of
determined, clear, known, and is not worried by that; he is troubled and threatened by
interrogation, something questionable, unknown, dependant on multiple factors; we
might say that the issue of interrogation would be the one of risk (loans etc.).
I hope you will find this helpful.
Kind regards.