We call this call and refusal ethics or politics. It circulates as nature's general economy. But another less philosophical and more human way of asking the same question is to ask where norms come from, or what is the nature of the social bond, our belonging together. Instead of a preoccupation with the forces of the politics that sustain authority, as an external phenomenon to our experience, despite the author's professed intent, this would mean assuming sense and meaning, and not assuming their deconstruction, and it would focus upon our experience, and our interaction, not our ideas and the discourse they have generated. Therefore, again, it is rather that the authority of law is in us not in it, for we must ask how do we live in society, bonded, with norms, in the order we accept.
Hope springs eternal.
All we can know is injustice not justice, but that is because to us in fact order is primordial, though we may imagine chaos to have been there first, and we know this through our bodies, their rhythms, embeddness, dependency. It is not that there is nothing left when deconstruction is over, as some hope, but only that it leads us nowhere, asking only for followers. In the end, the author does not make out his case but only asserts and reasserts that what is primordial, before time, is injustice. But now the work begins. Unfortunately the only fitting response is to overcome the polarization and offer that both justice and injustice oscillate around something more basic, against which they stand out from the perspective of philosophy, namely, our experience of order, in which they are both contained by the ways we inhabit our bodies, show ourselves to be, to others, and are interrelated.