History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
In the spirit of Cliopatriarchal bi-partisanship, here's a link to Daschle v Thune, the blog of South Dakota State University historian, Jon Lauck. Memo to David Horowitz: a Republican history professor, who is not forced into discrete silence. He even writes for National Review.
Whatdaya mean DeVoto isn't the greatest historian of the American Frontier?
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/12/2004
The Times did make an attempt to let deconstructionism speak in its own words. The Times quoted Derrida:
"Needless to say, one more time, deconstruction, if there is such a thing, takes place as the experience of the impossible."
I hope that cleared things up -- I'd hate to be mistaken for a narrow-minded loyalist to analytical philosophy.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/12/2004
I would put the analytic approach as a majority, not a hegemony, and therefore it hardly explains how Derrida was not much addressed even within the continental tradition of philosophy in the US. And this may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who believe it is possible to write clearly about continental philosophers, and in the continental tradition. The cleavage is not between analytic and non-analytic approaches, but those who strive for clarity, and those (like Judith Miller) who believe that their thoughts are so incredibly deep and complex that they lie beyond our capacity for clear expression. Compare Walter Kaufmann on Friedrich the N with any discussion of the guy in a deconstructionist piece in, say, the MLA.
My sympathies aren't kneejerk elicited in terms of diversity of any kind. You will find me unimpressed with Aristotle's physics, to the point where I don't think his views need be expressed in physics departments as a matter of diversity. But perhaps you think the analogy not apposite, and that philosophy more approaches poetry than science. I believe there is progress of a sorts in philosophy, and that Quine is far superior to the muddled mutterings of, say, Bergson.
Derrida poses certain problems for a discussion of his work in an obituary. One could quote him, but I'm afraid the obituary would suffer, since his pronouncements are deliberately vatic, so as to elude clear understanding but provide work for a cottage industry of interpreters. One would have to fall back on interpreters, who would argue among themselves -- forget for the moment the occasions where Derrida contradicts himself. Still, difficulties and all, one could make the attempt.
The Times reached a compromise of sorts. It had an obituary. And it had an appraisal. So maybe an obit should discuss the work, but to what depth? Is it an aknowledgment of Derrida's influence that he had a separate appraisal, where Quine did not?
I would add that an obit of DeVoto that proclaimed him a great historian would similarly be a train wreck.
Lloyd Kilford -
10/12/2004
After finally getting past their registration page, I found myself frustrated by the article's lack of a good definition of what deconstructionism actually *is*. Although right at the end Derrida himself is quoted as saying (when asked to give such a definition) "It is impossible to respond. I can only do something which will leave me unsatisfied."
There also seemed to be a large number of hostile quotes from people who thought Derrida was wrong. Now although I think that (what I understand as) deconstructionism is a blind alley, it seems a little ungracious to not make at least a token attempt to understand it and to let it speak in its own words.
And I don't know how exactly to write an obituary for someone whose results I didn't find particularly useful or profound.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/12/2004
Richard, Your argument conveniently ignores the hegemony of analytic philosophy in American departments and that it regards continental philosophy as, well, much as you do. In other circumstances, I would have thought, your sympathies would tend to support diversity in academic communities. Here, somehow you support the monolith. Increasingly, however, I find you merely endorsing reigning powers, wherever they are found.
Beyond that, your point isn't in response to what I said. An obituary that ignored Bernard De Voto's work and concentrated on gossip would be a train wreck of an obituary.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/12/2004
McLemee's article goes further, but not much further. He sort of dances around certain topics. First, Derrida is introduced as a "thinker", influential in the humanities, who was a professor at times in the US (though it never mentions that he was never a member of a philosophy department here). The term 'philosopher' isn't introduced to until the second graph. Then it says he had a devoted following in the US, without mentioning that that following was almost exclusively outside philosophy, and that those who most declare his philosophical greatness are literary types with, on average, no great training in the field of philosophy, nor a great command of its literature.
One could argue that disciplinary boundaries are artificial. Still, it's a little irksome to be told ad infinitum by literary types what a great philosopher Derrida was. With allowances made for hyperbole, how would historians take to being lectured by literary types that Bernard DeVoto was the greatest historian of the frontier?
But that suggests another question. An obit is not a festschrift (I probably blew the spelling). Nor is it a critical examination of a life's work. Just what are the accepted outlines of an obituary such that it is distinguished from other forms?
