This Dissertation offers a poststructuralist critique of cool across the discourses of marketing and consumer culture. The starting point for this study was an exploration of the ways in which postmodern marketing's engagement with the literary helps consolidate interpretive approaches that claim to offer a deeper understanding of the more nuanced needs of the sovereign consumer. I challenge this Whiggish version of a 'progressive' marketing by problematising its deployment of the literary, with its focus on the use of irony as a mode of subjective knowingness, but which occludes its disruptive 'other'. I draw on Foucault and Belsey to highlight the discursive practices and techniques entailed in the articulation of subjectivity and knowingness. I also highlight the implications of Derrida's challenge to Western culture's dependence on the logo-centric in its inscriptions of the knowing subject that ultimately effaces the play of textuality and the materiality bf the signifier. Consequently, it is proposed that recognising subjectivity as a function of signifying and discursive practice, and not simply as the manifestation of a logocentric rationality or some deeply embedded psychological need or impulse, has profound implications for consumer sovereignty and choice. This study maintains that the shared logocentric assumptions between articulations of ironic knowingness in relation to literary and postmodern theory 'conspire' to valorise the subjective configurations of the sovereign consumer, most notably promoted as cool. While a poststructuralist mode of research is not without its methodological difficulties it proved particularly apposite in offering a reading of how marketing achieves its effects. A key feature of poststructuralist enquiry, as with the uses of irony configured as a challenge to, rather than a manifestation of, knowingness, is to draw attention to the unsettling, disruptive, decentring, tendencies implicit in the linguistic process. But while this makes for a degree of discomfort and frustration, such critiques also constitute a source of creativity and innovation for configuring the world differently. In this regard, a deconstructive cultural history shows marketing to be divided against itself. Marketing both seeks to specify and satisfy clearly determined needs, desires and aspirations, but at the same time constantly effects to unsettle and reconfigure desire. Those deemed to have a cool, percipient sensibility effectively operate as a conduit for this unsettling of desire. The consequence is that almost before consumer satisfaction can be [re]articulated it is running up against a new unsettling of desire. What the study of the discourses of cool indicate is that this unsettling effectively constitutes a 'creative' strategy by which cool maintains its exclusivity over early and late majority consumers, and in driving forward new 'consumer' priorities. This Dissertation argues that it cannot be inconsequential that the material signifying practices entailed in promoting this unsettling also have the effect of achieving a particular resonance with the priorities of late consumer capitalism - the creation of an ever increasing cycle of demand for products and services.

This thesis erects and defends the proposition that Jacques Derrida's readings of 'metaphysics in deconstruction' and his raising to theoretical consciousness of the 'differential matrix', have the capacity to inaugurate a 'brave new world' in this postmodern 'age of the aporia'. Beginning with an examination of Derrida's readings of Husserl and Saussure, it is argued that the radical historicity uncovered here qua an originary synthesis of language, time and the other, opens the possibility for greatly more democratising and emancipating self-creations and human solidarities to be thought. In terms of 'self-creations', and borrowing from the work of Elizabeth Deeds Errnarth, Chapter Two follows Derrida as modernity's sovereign subject and its 'History' are dis-placed by an absolutely affirmative postmodern subjectivity whose axiom might be 'I inherit, therefore, I am ... yes, yes ... ' Construed through his deconstructive reading of Kant, Derrida shows the way in which this postmodern subjectivity without alibi, makes of us all (like it or not, know it or not) resistance fighters, so many singularities existing in constant tension with all normalising/totalising tendencies (social, economic, techno-scientific, political, legal etc ... ) which profess to know the secret. Turning to co-extensive 'human solidarities', Chapter Three subsequently demonstrates the way in which Derrida's call for a 'New International', orientated through a 'new figure of Europe', enables us to imagine new polysemic communities (local, national, international) founded on the 'aporia of the demos', a 'foundation' that construes its hyper-relativity as a positive (ethico-political) condition of decision in terms of a radical responsibility (on an individual and communal level) for the moral/aesthetic decisions we make. It is thus that I will argue that Derrida's vision for a 'new world order' is born out of an aporetic condition which is both a risk and a chance of both the best - and the worst - happening; as someone who shares Derrida's desire for a fairer, freer, more peaceful world, one respectful of difference and otherness, I believe this to be a 'poker like gamble' well worth taking. Chapter Four offers a comparative analysis between the work of Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard, two theorists counter-signing differently many of the 'same' discourses/ traditions/cultures/languages, etc ... to which they are both heirs. The chapter examines their respective 'quasi-philosophies of the limit', together with their differing conceptions of the issues surrounding globalisation and universalisation, as well as Baudrillard' s elevation of America (as opposed to Europe) as the exemplary site of resistance against the dangers of totalisation in 'postmodem' societies. The central argument here, in line with my previous remarks, is that Derrida's thought arguably remains 'the best' way to navigate the postmodem condition and the challenges it produces. The originality of this thesis lies in two main areas, the first having to do with my presentation and conception of Derrida's oeuvre and the second having to do with the comparisons made in this study between Derrida and Ermarth and Derrida and Baudrillard. In terms of the former, I offer what I consider to be a unique, sustained, in-depth analysis of the 'development' (on a theoretical and practical level) of the thematics of 'radical historicity' and of 'post-historical man' - effectively the development of Derrida's quasi-philosophy of history- from his earliest works so that they can be seen to inform his later intervention(s) in what are conventionally understood as ethical and political matters; transforming this understanding in the process and, after the end of history's ends (upper case, lower case and the totalising 'history of meaning' per se), quite literally and radically changing the way we see what we call 'the world'. For while in the conventional literature Derrida's politics come late, I argue here that his indeed later political work is but an emphasis of constant political thematics acting as a leitmotif from beginning to end. Turning to the latter, in terms of the comparisons I make - first between Derrida and Ermarth in Chapter Two and more especially between Derrida and Baudrillard in Chapter Four - the claim to originality lies in the fact that there is no comparison of any note or depth in the literature between these thinkers; nothing that compares Derrida's 'affirmative postmodem subjectivity' and its 'inheritance' with Ermarth's 'rhythmic time' and 'muIti-level consciousness', and nothing comparing Derrida's corpus - specifically his optimistic emancipating and democratizing hopes for the future - with Baudrillard's more pessimistic conceptualization of 'simulation society' and the loss of our European universal values under the hegemonic, globalising movement of the 'American model'. The aim of these two comparisons is to support my claim that Derrida's historico-political position is the 'best' way of essaying the quasi-ground of an in(different) politics in such a way that it keeps the future open to what he calls a 'better world' to come, a world without ends.