Derrida's Paternal Imagery

Dear Professor Kearney,
I was wondering if you could explain why, as Derrida argues, hospitality is an act initiated by the familial despot (149).  Derrida's emphasis on acting from the norms of rights or obligations (the "pact") seems to belie the very spirit of hospitality as being spontaneously volitional, generous, even excessive.  If we were seeking means congruent with the end of hospitality, I would imagine they'd be more democratic than despotic (though I'm aware the 'master' of the house is the one in best position to extend the offer of hospitality -- I just wonder if despotic language befits the contemporary household).  I find Derrida's paternal imagery all the more striking/surprising when I think of how hospitality has been reclaimed (in theology and ministry) as part of a feminist critique (I am thinking of someone like Letty Russell, for example).
Marc

Dear Marc
Excellent question. When Derrida speaks of hospitality as predicated upon a sovereign paterfamilias who decides which strangers to host, he is speaking of conditional hospitality. That is, hospitality as understood by Benveniste, as a pact between two sovereign clans or warriors. For this to occur, the host has to have power over his own home so as to control who comes in or out. Lot can welcome angels, keep out Sodomites and hand over daughters. So yes, there is an implicit despotism and violence inherent in all forms of conditional (or practicable) hospitality.
This is why, arguably, Derrida needs absolute and unconditional hospitality to safeguard the hope of hosting strangers beyond sovereignty, reciprocity and power. Such 'pure' hospitality is, of course, impossible for Derrida. But it always remains a promise or desire of justice-to-come, a justice (and perhaps love) which would transcend and transgress the laws and rights of ordinary, impure hospitality.
To return to your question then, democratic hospitality would always be a promise of 'democracy-to-come', the promise of a Messianicity more 'feminine' (like Derrida's khora) than paternalist. In short, the kind of hospitality more likely to come from Lot's daughters than from Lot himself, from the concubine than from the Levite master or her knife-wielding spouse...
Hope that helps? We can return to this in next class.
Best,
Prof Kearney