While I don't so much disagree with what Chris has said, I do think some
points need to be made.
1. To reduce deconstruction to an anti-epistemology is a little (not
necessarily alot) unfair. I think people like Ernesto Laclau and Simon
Critchley have done important work with deconstruction in this regard (
whether Derrida himself has or has not, as well as whether an awful lot of
Derridians have or have not, is another issue), in the areas of politics and
ethics respectively. Gasche's work on infrastructural chains can also be
important in this regard.
2. Derrida does have his moments too. He's probably at his best when
he talk about force -- i.e., "Force and Signification" in WRITING AND
DIFFERENCE". It's not a Deleuzian force, but it does have promise.
3. As a sort of elaboration or addition to #1, I think it's important
to say that the horizon that deconstruction makes available (i.e., what sort
of 'beyond' to representation it points to) is an area of contention. Again,
this is not to deny that alot of Derridians do not shy away from this horizon
in the name of some sort of perpetual deferral. But this is not the case
for all of them.
4. Nomadology as a way of life vs. deconstruction as mere anti-
epistemology. What, exactly, counts as a way of life? Is Critchley's work
on ethics or Laclau and Mouffe's work on politics and political action not
important aspects of a way of life.
Finally, a disclaimer: I'm not saying here that I prefer Derrida over Deleuze,
or that I don't find Deleuze in many ways more promising (because I do find him
in many ways more promising), and in many ways more extensive. But I do think
Derrida and deconstruction can be put in a better light than it has been so
far.
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------
points need to be made.
1. To reduce deconstruction to an anti-epistemology is a little (not
necessarily alot) unfair. I think people like Ernesto Laclau and Simon
Critchley have done important work with deconstruction in this regard (
whether Derrida himself has or has not, as well as whether an awful lot of
Derridians have or have not, is another issue), in the areas of politics and
ethics respectively. Gasche's work on infrastructural chains can also be
important in this regard.
2. Derrida does have his moments too. He's probably at his best when
he talk about force -- i.e., "Force and Signification" in WRITING AND
DIFFERENCE". It's not a Deleuzian force, but it does have promise.
3. As a sort of elaboration or addition to #1, I think it's important
to say that the horizon that deconstruction makes available (i.e., what sort
of 'beyond' to representation it points to) is an area of contention. Again,
this is not to deny that alot of Derridians do not shy away from this horizon
in the name of some sort of perpetual deferral. But this is not the case
for all of them.
4. Nomadology as a way of life vs. deconstruction as mere anti-
epistemology. What, exactly, counts as a way of life? Is Critchley's work
on ethics or Laclau and Mouffe's work on politics and political action not
important aspects of a way of life.
Finally, a disclaimer: I'm not saying here that I prefer Derrida over Deleuze,
or that I don't find Deleuze in many ways more promising (because I do find him
in many ways more promising), and in many ways more extensive. But I do think
Derrida and deconstruction can be put in a better light than it has been so
far.
Nathan
widder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------