Emmanuel Levinas uses this concept of "usurpation" as a direct, radical critique of Martin Heidegger, while Jacques Derrida later complicates the idea by arguing that violence is completely inescapable.

Here is how both philosophers approach the issue.

---

1. Levinas’s Critique of Heidegger: Ethics Before Ontology

Levinas believed that Heidegger’s philosophy was not just abstractly wrong, but ethically dangerous. He argued that Heidegger’s thought paved the way for totalitarianism because it prioritized Ontology (the study of Being) over Ethics (our relationship with others).

Heidegger's View:  [Being / The Self]  ───►  Encountering Others (Secondary)
Levinas's View:    [The Other]         ───►  Demands the Self's Responsibility (Primary)

• The Problem with Dasein: Heidegger defines human existence (Dasein) by its "care" (Sorge) for its own being. For Heidegger, my primary drive is to understand my own existence and survive. Levinas argues that this makes the self an imperialistic ego that treats everything—and everyone—else as objects to be used, understood, or conquered.
• The "Usurpation" of Being: When Levinas asks if his Dasein is a "usurpation," he is targeting Heidegger's "right to be." Levinas argues that we do not have an automatic, innocent right to exist. My "being-there" (Da-sein) inherently takes away from the Other.
• First Philosophy: For Heidegger, Philosophy begins with the question: "Why is there being rather than nothing?" Levinas changes this completely. For him, Philosophy begins with the ethical question: "How do I justify my existence in the face of the Other whom I am displacing?" Therefore, Ethics, not Ontology, is First Philosophy.

---

2. Derrida’s Response: The Paradox of "Originary Violence"

Jacques Derrida, a close friend and admirer of Levinas, engaged deeply with this idea in his famous essay "Violence and Metaphysics." While Derrida agreed with Levinas’s ethical intentions, he argued that Levinas’s dream of a completely non-violent, pure relationship with the Other is conceptually impossible.

Derrida introduced a series of critiques regarding "originary violence":

• Language itself is Violence: Levinas wants a pure encounter with the Other through speech. But Derrida points out that the moment we use language, we use general categories (e.g., calling someone a "person," "stranger," or "friend"). By forcing the unique, infinite identity of the Other into finite words, we commit an act of conceptual violence.
• No Pure Innocence: Levinas implies that we can overcome our "usurpation" by being entirely for the Other. Derrida argues that violence is transcendental—it is built into the very structure of experience. You cannot escape violence; you can only choose how to navigate it.
• Economy of Violence: Because total non-violence is impossible, Derrida argues that ethics is not about being perfectly innocent. Instead, ethics is about choosing the least possible violence. We must constantly negotiate our boundaries, laws, and language to minimize harm, knowing we can never eliminate it entirely.

---

Summary Comparison

Concept	Emmanuel Levinas	Jacques Derrida
The Self's Existence	An inherent "usurpation" and violence against the Other.	An inescapable space that is structurally violent by existing.
The Goal of Ethics	To radically surrender the self's priorities to serve the Other.	To responsibly negotiate and choose the least amount of violence.
Language & Thought	A way to welcome the Other and bridge the gap.	A necessary tool that inherently categorizes (and violates) the Other.

Would you like to dive deeper into Derrida's specific text (Violence and Metaphysics), or explore the historical context of how Heidegger's real-world political choices influenced Levinas's critique?