>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.
it is so frustrating that it seems impossible to discuss post-structuralism or even recent cultural theory in any form with Americans without having to talk about some all too vague and loose version of 'postmodernism' meaning, it often seems to me: everything that doesn't agree precisely with me and which i will therefore call imprecise which doesn't agree with my sense of things and which i will therefore call nonsensical which doesn't proclaim any truths i recognise and i will therefore call untruthful.
the worst thing about this is the amount of things that thus get lumped together indiscriminately.
i don't think derrida is postmodern in any sense that is at all useful or clear.
>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.
certainly not an insignificant swathe though if any analysis or philosphy can reach a large number of 'students and teachers' then it has done something important and should be approached carefully in discussing how productive it is i don't think 'obscurantist' (defined as what is not clear to me or other people i know) constitutes such care i agree with much of christian gregory's post on this thread and i don't think either he or angela or i could be read as awe-struck or adulatory with regard to derrida even though we are (in perhaps different ways) taking issue with some of the dismissals expressed here derrida has been and continues to be influential in significant ways and warrants, therefore, thoughtful consideration of his work and how it and he are deployed
>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.
it is bizarre and yet unsurprising to find emerson being used as a image of a 'good "public" intellectual'. what public was he popular with exactly? i mean, how was that public defined, who constituted it, and who was excluded from it? what did that 'public' use emerson for? in relation to what social fields and structures? it is all too easy to reach back into 'the past' (particularly such a romantic individualist and nationalist past) and say -- there, that's how thinking and writing should be done. it's known, it's given, its canonised and in the present unsurprising and not uncomfortable for anyone.
>I think there are alternatives beyond: (a) pedantry, (b) demagoguery, or (c)
>cant.
derrida is not pedantic, not demagogic, and does not pronounce cant. what exactly are you talking about?
catherine