>"John Raulston Saul could not be described as conservative, but like
Scruton, he has
problems with Derrida, arguing that he is obscure, and therefore likely
to castrate the public imagination. Clarity is always the method of
those who serve the public imagination, he says, claiming that obscure
writers serve what he calls 'established power'."<
i watched a telecast of a lecture by Saul here (i think in melbourne) some time ago, and that audience was really quite mesmerised by the idea that they knew exactly what saul was talking about, by its apparent clarity and familiarity. the lecture had something to do with 'the public good', and in a time of increasing privatisations in australia, this was certainly a topic that triggered something apparently rebellious or at least something comforting, especially for an audience that was probably drawn from those who's work (as academics, state personnel and whatever) has been historically legitimated by seeing themselves as 'working for the public good'. that is, this was the 'public', and saul's lecture did very little to interrupt that self-congratulatory image, or indeed talk of its history or new ways of rendering it. in short, all this clarity was really a way of *not* exploring the position from which this 'public good' was enunciated.
catherine wrote:
>These new faithful are looking for a definition of their work as
intellectual endeavour instead of institutional tools rather than they
are
surrendering to enjoyment of the futility of 'post-structuralism' or
'postmodernism' (which are, for god's sake, not the same thing). <
yes, postructuralism and postmodernism aren't the same, not to mention deconstruction (derida, spivak, nancy, lacoue-labarthe) which is something quite different altogether. but, in australia, do you get the impression, as i do, that the wars between 'postmodernism' and 'marxism' have been pretty much left behind as irrelevant and gratuitous in the face of the wars which escalated over 'black armband history', etc? the only ones going on about the dangers of 'postmodernism' now are right-wingers like kramer, who know that both 'postmodernism' (whatever that is) and marxism signal a politicisation of the academy and its work. and that struggle is hardly romantic, especially as it relates to land rights, compensation, apologies and so on. derrida's lecture in melbourne was precisely a way of working through the issues of justice and recompense and apologies -- all very significant issues in australian politics at the moment, and certainly not as self-congratulatory or easy to digest for the audience as a pat on the back for apparently working in 'the public good'.
Angela _________