This article focuses on an analysis and evaluation of the importance Derrida's work may have for a theory of the social. It is argued that both his earlier and his later works are important in this respect, albeit at a high level of abstraction. In his early work the social is seen as an open `field of meaning' while in later work differentations within this field, such as the level of the `phantasmatic', are introduced. This is a direction of theorization (...) that has to be developed, although the way the `openness' of this field is to be conceived needs to be re-elaborated. However, Derrida's account in recent work of the structure of ethical/political action, based on `emancipatory promises', is not satisfactory and runs the danger of regressing to subjectivism. Instead, the existence of structural determinations - of a `history' - within the subject has to be theorized without reducing the subject to a form of self-presence. This history, alongside the contextuality of the moment of action, delineates the framework for ethical/political action. (shrink)