Isn't attacking postmodernism kind of boring/easy these days? Even fellow continental philosophers enjoy indulging in a little pomo-bashing now and then--- it's a favorite pasttime of Slavoj Žižek, for example.
While I don't much like the "school of thought" as a school of thought, I've been somewhat confused by why Derrida in particular seems to anger everyone. As far as I can tell, he's mostly working through some pretty narrow problems in linguistics and literary theory about the difficulty of resolving webs of mutual references into logically consistent, stable frames, not making some sort of general claim about reality (and he rarely mentions science at all). The "Derrideans" may be another story, as often is the case with disciples.
As far as I can tell, he's mostly working through some pretty narrow problems in linguistics and literary theory about the difficulty of resolving webs of mutual references into logically consistent, stable frames, not making some sort of general claim about reality (and he rarely mentions science at all). The "Derrideans" may be another story, as often is the case with disciples.
I think the real problem is not Derrida, who very few people have actually read, but what some of Derrida's followers and imitators have done. If you're interested in how this plays out in a deeper level, Francois Cusset wrote a book called French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States, which delves into how theory and postmodernism became so powerful in the United States. He treats them as epiphenomenon as a way to explore what's happening.
In his description of the 1970s academic milieu, Cusset says that a number of avant garde journals came about, which, although wildly different in concerns, were similar in style: "Acronyms and wordplay, together with a ludic relation to the translated concepts, reduced [the writers'] cultural distance. A similar allusive or parodic relation to one's own erudition signaled a self-critique of academic procedures" (62). That's part of the problem: these kinds of writers lacked Derrida's rigor and narrowness. Some of them still do. The "allusive or parodic relation to one's own erudition" can quickly devolve into "lacking erudition or rigor."
Thanks for the reference; sounds like a book I'd find interesting.
As far as allocating blame, that matches my impression that, although it's often seen as a problem of "French theory", much of the worst stuff is actually by American critical theorists developing it, rather than the original stuff. At least, they're the ones who developed it into a somewhat poisonous and derivative culture, full of political posturing and semi-nonsense writing, and dominated entire fields with that sort of thing (I don't think it has nearly the same dominance in French universities, oddly enough).
Derrida is just one of the most famous names, so he gets an extra helping of scorn. No doubt there are plenty of others who are just as bad or worse, but there's no fun in attacking someone that nobody has ever heard of.
But yes, postmodernism is starting to seem rather last-century nowadays. The cutting edge appears to have moved on from "if you disagree with this it's because you're too stupid to understand" to "if you disagree with this it's because you're a racist. Racist!"
Yeah, that makes sense, but somehow Derrida himself doesn't seem the most objectionable to me, at least on philosophical grounds.
I suppose one can legitimately blame him for some of the writing style, though. In particular, although he argued that all language has multiple meanings / shifting references / etc., he seemed to like emphasizing it by using a writing style that added deliberate multiple readings. For example, something like "we need to (re)construct this meaning", leaving it deliberately ambiguous, with a sort of self-aware textual wink, whether he was "constructing" or "reconstructing" things. Also, lots of puns.
I think he actually pulled it off reasonably well in some parts, and is kind of amusing to read, if you like that sort of thing. In the years since, it's become a really annoying habit that a bunch of folks have picked up, though, most of whom don't do it very well, and take it way too seriously. Now I have this instinctive "argh, I hate you" reaction whenever I see some paper or book title with a construction like "(re)engage".
edit: An interesting oddity is that a lot of the writing style traces back to Nietzsche, even though he himself was quite readable (so much so that teenage kids loving Nietzsche are even a sort of stereotype). He initiated some of the general style of writing half philosophy, half literary performance: jumping from subject to subject, making assertions that you run with and don't carefully argue for, making heavy use of puns in arguments, etc. Maybe the problem is just that most people who try to write like that need to realize that they aren't Nietzsche, and can't pull it off.
It's boring and easy, but it's necessary if one wants to get rid of it. I don't feel like fighting the good fight myself (or even watching it happen), but I'm glad somebody out there is. Really, it's the same situation as with religion.
Exactly! While pointing out that the emperor has no clothes may be a trivially simple exercise, so long as people are willing to support the emperor, we need to keep shouting about his choice of apparel. All the more when (at least in the US) our tax dollars are going to fund his "clothes."
I assume it's a reference to profs at public universities--- though most of the profs being attacked in the linked article are at French public universities.
In the U.S. I think humanities profs are actually often net money-earners for their schools rather than net spenders of taxpayer money, though. Humanities students cost much less each to educate than science/engineering students (no labs, no real equipment, no computers, lower faculty salaries), yet pay the same tuition, which often produces a surplus: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Humanities-Really-Do/64740/
In the U.S. I think humanities profs are actually often net money-earners for their schools rather than net spenders of taxpayer money, though.
Earning money for the school and being a net tax dollar sink are not mutually exclusive. Some of the money being earned for the school may be federal student aid.
Regardless of the return on the investment in Post-Modernist Humanities Professors, I still object to the fact that my tax dollars are funding them. I mean, if I can invest in good humanities profs that have roughly the same ROI, at least my tax dollars are going to educate someone rather than fill heads with unintelligible fluff.
At publicly-funded universities in the US, tuition dollars are supplemented by tax dollars (plus endowments, grants, etc) to pay the total cost of education. This includes professor salaries. This is, of course in addition to Federal Student Aid (and loans) which are also backed by taxes.
While I don't much like the "school of thought" as a school of thought, I've been somewhat confused by why Derrida in particular seems to anger everyone. As far as I can tell, he's mostly working through some pretty narrow problems in linguistics and literary theory about the difficulty of resolving webs of mutual references into logically consistent, stable frames, not making some sort of general claim about reality (and he rarely mentions science at all). The "Derrideans" may be another story, as often is the case with disciples.