Bill, the Times got criticized for calling Derrida abstruse in its obit headline, and I think this editorial was a way of making amends (or throwing a bone to influential academics). "Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida: the three most important 20th Century philosophers" is a thesis topic that reads like a TV news headline. It's like, all three must be continental philosphers, and we need one post-structuralist. So Derrida edges out Foucault and Lyotard because D. just died. The piece attempts to humanize him and make him warm and fuzzy for Times readers, with all that talk about religion. The description of deconstruction mutes its dark side: as I understand it, Derrida was saying all sentences were hegemonic, i.e. territory conquering--Taylor softpedals that as "working by exclusion." The conclusion is we don't use "grammatically correct," tightly-constructed sentences to study sentences, we play complex, punning language games that tease out their biases and inadequacies, which Derrida could apparently do well but not everyone has a gift for. The result is legions of mediocre sub-Derridas ensconced in college departments, making students hate reading. That's one reason Derrida's death is a charged issue.
|
- tom moody 10-18-2004 7:48 pm