I returned after a day's absence to find my LBO e-mail folder all aglow. I see we're back in the pomo inferno after all.
Many points have been expressed in this thread subsequent to what I said the other day, and it's difficult to respond to the full sweep of sophisticated opinions that have been stated. I hope what I add here is not just a "tedious iteration" of what I said months ago about Judith Butler, but what bothers me most about this obscurantist school of thought is the contempt shown the public at large -- a stance consistent with that of, say, the Pharisees and Scholastics but at odds with what I believe the contemporary left is supposed to represent. While Catherine notes that some people do find Derrida "inspiring and challenging," his fans clearly are not drawn from the general public. The report on Derrida's Melbourne visit says he was "mobbed by awe-struck students and teachers," not a very broad swath of society.
That presents a contrast, I believe, with leading intellectuals of the past -- who seemed able to communicate complex, subtle, ennobling thoughts that had resonance with the general public. For instance, as I understand it, Ralph Waldo Emerson had a great popular following his day. His use of language was often challenging -- a far remove from today's self-help texts -- but the overall effect was lyrical and inspirational. Whenever I dip into his writings, I feel better about myself and the human prospect. Emerson's thoughts always incline me simultaneously to have greater confidence in my own opinion and to be more aware of my connections with -- and responsibilities toward -- the rest of humanity. I gather he had the same effect on contemporaries, including people from many walks of life.
I think there are alternatives beyond: (a) pedantry, (b) demagoguery, or (c) cant.
Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/19990903/87440a23/attachment.htm>