Deconstructin(g) Jazz Improvisation: Derrida and the Law of the Singular Event
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking as its point of departure the improvised jazz-text collaboration between Ornette Coleman and Jacques Derrida at the 1997 Paris La Villette jazz festival, this article critiques the dominant positioning of Western law and jazz as that which is either completely devoid of improvisation (law) or founded solely upon such (jazz). By reading Derrida’s texts on law and justice in tandem with his views on invention, the impromptu nature of improvisation is confronted and its relation to both jazz and law is interrogated. In his work on law and invention, Derrida probes the problematic relation between the singular and the general in order to challenge the supposed uniqueness of invention, along with the universality, which is said to propel occidental law. These observations, when applied to the critical study of improvisation, disrupt the prevailing understanding of the “extempore” and illustrate how improvisation so defined can be neither total in jazz nor totally absent in law. Instead, the singular (extempore) event exists solely as aporia in both fields. This unpacking of the aporetic nature of singularity reveals not only the inevitability of legal invention, but also the necessity of the “jazz form”. Beyond this, however, and perhaps shedding some light on Derrida’s participation in the “improvised” event described above, there exists an openly responsive dimension to the both jazz and law. This dimension, although never complete or absolute, glances towards the singular other and keeps alive the possibility of creativity, ethics, democracy and justice in Western law and society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it