Last night, between snarky comments about the debate, David Weinberger and I were chatting about postmodern theorists (sorry to sound pretentious; if it makes us sound more down-to-earth, I could quote some of the Halley-inspired political commentary we (all right, to be exact, David) were bandying about). David noted his renewed appreciation for Foucault, and asked whether I had looked over at Steven Johnson’s blog about Derrida. I had looked at it, but was a shade disappointed that Johnson was ready to propose that “the lessons of deconstruction were fundamentally small ones; extremely important to deal with if you were, say, a philosopher of language — but not all that important if you were trying to analyze a novel, or a political movement.the lessons of deconstruction were fundamentally small ones; extremely important to deal with if you were, say, a philosopher of language — but not all that important if you were trying to analyze a novel, or a political movement.” Now, to be fair to Johnson, he was observing that Derrida’s work was also small in the sense that many pivotal discoveries were small; “it’s the little things” (as Timbuk 3 sings) “that make life such a big deal.”
Here are a couple more reasons I’m unsatisfied with Johnson’s generally appreciative memorial. Johnson treats Derrida and “deconstruction,” that labile and elusive philosophical phantasm, as almost interchangeable. Derrida inaugurated and named “deconstruction,” but the phenomenon (predictably, on Derridean premises) quickly escaped any authoritative determination by which he might have controlled it. A tremendous proportion of the foofaraw about big, bad, Deconstruction[ism] entirely missed the rigor and pertinence of Derrida’s work by fixating on the less illuminating and more pointlessly obscure work of his acolytes. That doesn’t make Derrida easy to read, nor does it unbind him from an association of a kind with the work he inspired, but it provides an ironic counter-illustration of the furiously intense precision with which Derrida himself deconstructed. I think one might argue that “deconstruction” was a merely instrumental sidetrack for Derrida, whose greater projects involved explorations of metaphysics, justice, and meaning. He undertook deconstruction as a throat-clearing — then he spoke, ardently and forcefully, on topics which other people wanted to claim that he couldn’t consistently speak.
Likewise, Johnson’s closing anecdote about Derrida as “the author” invokes a shopworn topos in vernacular arguments about postmodernism. There’s so much more to be learned from actually working with Derrida than “the idea that the Author is irrelevant” (which Derrida never would have said) that I’m saddened when sharp observers focus on the popular, but misleading, characterizations rather than on the richer ruminations.
Steven Johnson probably plumbed greater depths of Derrida’s philosophical work than he shows in these four short paragraphs, so I’m not slagging Johnson. Since David asked what I thought, I indicated my dissatisfaction with what Johnson wrote in his blog, that’s all.
Maybe David and I should start a Derrida seminar blog somewhere (in our copious free time). Actually, I think someone may have asked us to do just that in the midst of a previous exchange on the topic. Maybe the Meaning and Ministry tutorial should read some Derrida. Jordon Cooper points to an entry on Stephen Sheilds’ blog listing a variety of starting-points for reading more about Derrida, and I tried to introduce some of Derrida’s ideas gently in the second chapter of my pink book. When I work one week of Derrida into a semester-long course, I usually assign Limited Inc, which involves questions about “deconstruction” and “the author” in as transparent an essay one is likely to read.
DRMA: Big Rock Candy Mountain by Harry McClintock; ; Magic by the Cars; Pacing the Cage by Bruce Cockburn; Hypnotized by Fleetwood Mac; Don't Go by the Hothouse Flowers; Ramble On Rose by the Grateful Dead; Dark Horse by George Harrison; All That Reprise by All That; Thunder by Prince; Ain't Nothin but a House Party by J. Geils Band; Wide Wide River by the Fugs (debate special; is that Ken Weaver actually sounding as though he’s channelling W before W even graduated from college?); Mother-in-Law by Ernie K-Doe; The Gash by the Flaming Lips; Anchorage by Michelle Shocked.
Posted by AKMA at October 14, 2004 10:39 AM | TrackBackIt's been a long time since I read Grammatology (yes I read it), but I remember someone saying at the time that Derrida's strategies were rabbinical methods for gentiles (!). As if to say, "read closer - the meaning is deeper than you think, and more profound, even."
I always thought thet Derrida's great influence, at least upon my tender young eyes, was to open me up to an understanding that I am within the world, not outside of it, and therefore any reaction I have to what I see around me is an introspective and interpretive one.
What a gift, to have received a teaching that the world is a poem within whose fields of meaning we grow.
Of course I might have had him all wrong, but for me Derrida brought beauty to a whole new level.
Posted by: Chris Corrigan at October 14, 2004 12:07 PMChris, I learned very much the same lesson from Heidegger. (Nicely put, btw, Chris.) With Derrida, I felt he was playing a language game (in the Wittgensteinian sense, not the "you're just playing language games" sense) the rules of which were beyond my ken. And, being an essentially small-minded person, I reassure myself that if I can't understand it, it must not be worth understanding. (This is part of my patented lifetime Stay Stupid(tm) program.)
Posted by: David Weinberger at October 14, 2004 03:27 PMwhen I use derrida in seminary class, i use the article in Semai on Babel which argues that God is a deconstructionist .... it certainly causes some seminary wheels to spin!
Posted by: steve at October 14, 2004 10:54 PMWell David...small minds loosely connected? ;-)
I got that from Heidegger too. That was a very fruitful period in my life, now that I remember it...remembering especially Poetry, Language and Thought.
Posted by: Chris Corrigan at October 14, 2004 11:16 PMI have (almost inexcusably) not looked at Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology” in fifteen years or so — I wonder how it looks in today’s technological culture. . . .
Posted by: AKMA at October 15, 2004 04:09 PMThat would be fun to read with a bunch of bloggers!
Reminds me of how I read the Unibomber's manifesto online, and was struck by the ironic notion that in doing so, I totally undid his message.
Posted by: Chris Corrigan at October 16, 2004 12:44 AMDERRIDA FOREVER
I am of the opinion that not everything is as it seems. Our society,
our tendencies, our very breathing, sometimes... yearns for transparent,
blank truth. The representation that "this" equals "this" or "That"
equals "That"... Unfortunately, life does not always provide the
satisfactory sensation of either knowledge, or certitude. We sometimes
do not know, and we sometimes do not even know that we do not know.
Therefore, my opinion can become useful.
When my instinct remains unguarded, and another intelligence begins to
persuade it, I have recourse to the idea of investigation & analysis. I
may question the authority of the intelligence I am grappling with, and
it may be that I, personally, find it to contain error.
Philosophers are those people gifted at discovering such error in
thought. This is a way of opening thought to different truths. The
truth of one's own conviction, as well as the truth of an other's fault.
Philosophers are often accused of generating the faults they discover.
People who do not love the wisdom involved in examining ideas from many
angles and viewpoints often claim that the myriad ideas philosophers
work with are or may be useless. This is because everyone has their own
level or threshold of investigation.
Jaques Derrida was an abnormally beautiful and gifted philosopher whom I
shall always respect and admire to the utmost depth of my ability simply
because he had the greatest capacity for inquiry of any I've known.
His death has caused controversy, as has his life. But beyond the
challenges he provided, he also provided deep consolation. One may read
in his writings the transcription of pure generosity in the form of
intelligent soul being transmitted as nourishing life force in the form
of symbolic expression. To those who have little time, patience or
ability for comprehension and understanding, he seems difficult. For
those who choose to follow him on his gorgeous, dangerous, adventurous
thinking and being, breathing as they often do, coming up for air,
sometimes, his absence is a kind of presence all its own. Somebody who
inspires your own thought so much you have difficulty deciding where you
and (s)he leave off is amazing... such was Derrida the human, and such
forever will be his work.
His ideas transcend the limiting confines of ordinary consciousness. As
such, they are often maligned. But to those who wish to evolve and
journey further, they are guides, gifts and rewards.
STANLEY GEMMELL
OCTOBER 20, 2004
Temple2 http://www.angelfire.com/il/surlsone
T2 List http://www.topica.com/lists/temple2/read
Parish ministry keeps me far too occupied to explore many seminal work. Therefore, my main exposure to Derrida was derived from John D. Caputo's "The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida."
May light perpetual shine upon him. He spread such light on a dark path. I am grateful for his life and his thought and glad to know his influence spread into my alma mater.