I’ve resisted the temptation for several days of writing anything about Jacques Derrida. The so-called “Father of Deconstruction” died this past week and thereby passed into history…which he didn’t think existed…or did it?

Monsieur Derrida was, to put it mildly, an obscurant. His writings at various times were called, illogical, raving, beautiful, and piquant. His seminal work on language “Of Grammatology,” so beloved by comparitive lit teachers and social critics in the west, was a masterpiece of obfuscation. And that was the point; that lanuage is tyranny, meaning is meaningless.

What made Monsieur Derrida so attractive to western intellectuals was that at bottom, deconstructionism was a scathing social critique of hierarchical societies, capitalism, nationalism, racial dominance, imperialism, and culture. It allowed for relativistic formulations of concepts once thought to be unchallengable like truth, morality, even science. He turned the academic world upside down in the 1970’s as “theory” replaced “literature” as scholarship.

Deconstructionism fell out of favor in the 1990’s when many of its adherents tried to apply the theory to the sciences. This led to some (thankfully) shortlived movements such as “women’s physics” and “african biology”...movements where enthusiastic boosters tried to overturn the empiricism of the natural sciences in favor of the idea that, since most scientists were white males, the data was corrupted by a privileged frame of reference.

Why was this important? It’s my belief that Monsieur Derrida and his collegues severely undermined faith and belief in western civilization amongst the intellectual left in Europe and the United States. As a method of textual analysis, it was a benign force for change in criticism of the arts. As a vehicle for social commentary, it was a disaster.

Deconstruction is a very difficult concept to get my mind around. In many ways, it reminds me of how I “understand” quantum mechanics…I can “see” what they’re getting at, I just can’t quite understand it. Perhaps I misunderstand what this counterintuitive theory is all about…but there’s no mistaking in my mind what the effects have been. Our best and brightest; those who in the past gave life and breath to the liberal democratic ideas embodied in western culture, abandoned the society that nurtured them to embrace a formless intellectual conceit which may yet lead us all to destruction.

Better explanations here and here.



Update:


My brother Jim from the left coast has joined the colloquy. I’ll quote extensively from the e-mail, without giving away all those family secrets like…”remember when you got drunk and threw up on the piano?”...or “was that you or your brother Larry who I caught naked, smeared with peanut butter, and dancing in the garden with that blonde chick?”...nothing embarrasing don’t worry. And while I usually like fisking right smartly the odd moonbat who visits, I’ll make an exception in your case.

“I think that this piece, like all your stuff I’ve read, is literate and thoughtful (even when raving – I love that ‘rightwingnut” site name!), and it shouldn’t surprise you that I agree with your conclusion.”

Actually, it DOES surprise, but pleaes continue…

“Mother and Daddy grew to intellectual maturity in the era of the beginning of the New Critics like F.R. Leavis, Jerome Buckley, and jeez, I can’t think of all the other names I used to quote so freely. It’s now called formalism, and its basic tenet is exactly the opposite of Derrida – that the text is everything and to be trusted implicitly for meaning (you can see exactly what Derrida was reacting against). History, biography, psychology – these are far less relevant than the actual words in front of you.

New Criticism was a product of 30’s liberalism, which is why Daddy was enraptured of it. It was in its turn rejecting the idea of literature/art as historical artifact only. It’s how we all grew up reading books; it’s the fundament of the way I’ve taught for 30 plus years”

So far so good…and sure’n if yer not a fine taicher, me good lad.

“Deconstruction grew out of or up with the New Left, so called – the Left of quotas, pc, anything-but-white, American hisotry as genocide, and other such delightful ideas. Classic liberals cut from our parents’ cloth (and that would of course include me and I believe those of your siblings who lean this way) may appreciate a good revisionist take on an issue now and again – but we ain’t gonna go into the woods, put on paint and feathers, and wish that we were Lakota and not Irish.”

I dunno…sometimes you go on the warpath when we talk about Kissinger or Reagan so go easy on the Lakota refs.

“As I’ve observed in some of my internet writings, the “New Left” isn’t left at all – it’s arrogant Stalinism that has hijacked the cause of Progressivism and in fact undermined it by creating both Neocons and pusillanimous centrists like Clinton and gutless wonders like Kerry (you didn’t think he would actually appeal to me, did you? – not that I’d vote for GWB in a millenium).”

Well, we agree on something…and for that last rant, you’ve been granted honorary access to THE HOUSE whenever you wish. As for your thoughts about Bush, this IS the new millenium and…well, in the words of that famous deconstructionist and towering intellectual giant Roseanne Roseanna Danna:

NEVER MIND!