K-Punk on deconstruction

Always WORTH READING.

“I should preface this with the inevitable disclaimer: clearly, I regard some of Derrida’s ideas as important, and I’m pleased to have them in my conceptual armoury. However, I think a hostility towards deconstruction is justfied on at least two grounds.”

For the people just a bit older than me, it was a liberation from fossilized Husserlianism, and I can understand that. But by the time I hit the graduate school scene, it was cripplingly hegemonic, and I can promise you that there wasn’t an ounce of realist spirit in the movement. (Just as there isn’t in Derrida, I repeat.)

One of the reasons I really like Hägglund, in fact, is that he’s just young enough to be radically innocent of the crimes of the early 1990’s. There’s a freshness to his interpretation that makes Chernobyl safe to visit again.

If you can prove Derrida is a realist, more power to you; I’ll gladly greet the new ally. But to say that it’s “obvious” that Derrida is a realist doesn’t pass the straight face test.

It reminds me of Raymond Chandler’s complaint about people who play cards using decks that are all aces. It’s important to be able to speak at different volumes and with different degrees of spice for different occasions.

Anyway, Mark is usually a good guide through the forests, so enjoy his post.