102,846
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to search→Criticisms of Derrida's work
==Criticisms of Derrida's work==
==Criticisms of Derrida's work==
A broad overview of the history of Derrida's reception, covering the period until the publication of ''Specters of Marx'' (1994), is given in ''The Reception of Derrida: Translation and Transformation'' (2006).
A broad overview of the history of Derrida's reception, covering the period until the publication of ''Specters of Marx'' (1994), is given in ''The Reception of Derrida: Translation and Transformation'' (2006).
===Lack of philosophical clarity===
===Lack of philosophical clarity===
Though Derrida addressed the American Philosophical Association on several occasions{{Fact|date=June 2007}} and was highly regarded by contemporary philosophers like [[Richard Rorty]], [[Alexander Nehamas]],<ref>"Truth and Consequences: How to Understand Jacques Derrida," The New Republic 197:14 (October 5, 1987)</ref> and [[Stanley Cavell]], his work has been regarded by other Anglophone philosophers, such as [[John Searle]] and [[W. V. Quine]], as [[pseudophilosophy]] or [[sophistry]]. [[John Searle]], a frequent critic of Derrida dating back to their exchange on [[speech act theory]] in ''[[Limited Inc]]'' (where Derrida strongly accused Searle of intentionally misreading and misrepresenting him), exemplified this view in his comments on deconstruction in the ''[[New York Review of Books]]'', February 2, 1994 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5964], for example:
Though Derrida addressed the American Philosophical Association on several occasions{{Fact|date=June 2007}} and was highly regarded by contemporary philosophers like [[Richard Rorty]], [[Alexander Nehamas]],<ref>"Truth and Consequences: How to Understand Jacques Derrida," The New Republic 197:14 (October 5, 1987) and [[Stanley Cavell]], his work has been regarded by other Anglophone philosophers, such as [[John Searle]] and [[W. V. Quine]], as [[pseudophilosophy]] or [[sophistry]]. [[John Searle]], a frequent critic of Derrida dating back to their exchange on [[speech act theory]] in ''[[Limited Inc]]'' (where Derrida strongly accused Searle of intentionally misreading and misrepresenting him), exemplified this view in his comments on deconstruction in the ''[[New York Review of Books]]'', February 2, 1994 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5964], for example:
...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.
A controversy surrounding Derrida's work in philosophy and as a philosopher arose when the [[University of Cambridge]] awarded him an honorary doctorate, despite opposition from members of its philosophy faculty and a letter of protest signed by eighteen professors from other institutions, including [[W. V. Quine]], [[David Malet Armstrong|David Armstrong]], [[Ruth Barcan Marcus]], and [[René Thom]]. In their letter they claimed that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigor" and described Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the [[Dada]]ists." The letter also stated that "Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university."<ref>Barry Smith et al., "Open letter against Derrida receiving an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University," ''The Times'' [London], May 9, 1992. [http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/againstdsdegree.htm]</ref>
A controversy surrounding Derrida's work in philosophy and as a philosopher arose when the [[University of Cambridge]] awarded him an honorary doctorate, despite opposition from members of its philosophy faculty and a letter of protest signed by eighteen professors from other institutions, including [[W. V. Quine]], [[David Malet Armstrong|David Armstrong]], [[Ruth Barcan Marcus]], and [[René Thom]]. In their letter they claimed that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigor" and described Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the [[Dada]]ists." The letter also stated that "Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university."<ref>Barry Smith et al., "Open letter against Derrida receiving an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University," ''The Times'' [London], May 9, 1992. [http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/againstdsdegree.htm]</ref>
===Intentional obfuscation===
===Intentional obfuscation===
[[Noam Chomsky]] has expressed the view that Derrida uses "pretentious rhetoric" to obscure the simplicity of his ideas.<ref name=zmag>{{cite journal|url=http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1995----02.htm|year=1995|title=Rationality/Science|
[[Noam Chomsky]] has expressed the view that Derrida uses "pretentious rhetoric" to obscure the simplicity of his ideas.[http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1995----02.htm|year=1995|title=Rationality/Science|
Z Papers Special Issue|first=Noam|last=Chomsky|quote=I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. He groups Derrida within a broader category of the Parisian intellectual community which he has criticized for, on his view, acting as an elite power structure for the well educated through "difficult writing]]" and [[obscurantism]]. Chomsky has indicated that he may simply be incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is suspicious of this possibility.
[[Emir Rodríguez Monegal]] famously derided Derrida, alleging an obfuscated recycling of the ideas of [[Jorge Luis Borges|Borges]] (from essays and tales such as "La fruición literaria" (1928), "Elementos de preceptiva" (1933), "[[Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote|Pierre Menard]]" (1939), "[[Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius|Tlön]]" (1940), "Kafka y sus precursores" (1951)
Quotation|Siempre me ha resultado difícil leer a Derrida. No tanto por la densidad de su pensamiento y el estilo moroso, redundante, repetitivo en que éste aparece desarrollado, sino por una causa completamente circunstancial. Educado en el pensamiento de Borges desde los quince años, muchas de las novedades de Derrida me han parecido algo tautológicas. No podía entender cómo tardaba tanto en llegar a las luminosas perspectivas que Borges había abierto hacía ya tantos años. La famosa "desconstrucción" me impresionaba por su rigor técnico y la infinita seducción de su espejo textual pero me era familiar: la había practicado en Borges ''avant la lettre''.
I've always found it difficult to read Derrida. Not so much for the density of his thought and the heavy, redundant, and repetitive style in which it is developed, but for an entirely circumstantial reason. Educated in Borges's thought from the age of fifteen, I must admit that many of Derrida's novelties struck me as being rather tautological. I could not understand why he took so long in arriving at the same luminous perspectives which Borges had opened up years earlier. His famed "deconstruction" impressed me for its technical precision and the infinite seduction of its textual sleights-of-hand, but it was all too familiar to me: I had experienced it in Borges ''avant la lettre''.|[[Emir Rodríguez Monegal]]||from "Borges and Derrida. Apothecaries" (translation of "Borges y Derrida: boticarios", 1985), in ''Borges and His Succesors. The Borgian Impact on Literature and the Arts.'', 1990, p. 128
Critical obituaries of Derrida were published in ''[[The New York Times]]'' ("[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/obituaries/10derrida.html?ex=1255147200&en=bc84f1b2c5f092c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland Jacques Derrida, Abstruse Theorist, Dies at 74]") and ''[[The Economist]]''[http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3308320]. Both of these obituaries were criticised by academics supportive of Derrida; other obituaries were less critical.
Critical obituaries of Derrida were published in ''[[The New York Times]]'' ("[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/obituaries/10derrida.html?ex=1255147200&en=bc84f1b2c5f092c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland Jacques Derrida, Abstruse Theorist, Dies at 74]") and ''[[The Economist]]''[http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3308320]. Both of these obituaries were criticised by academics supportive of Derrida; other obituaries were less critical.
In ''[[Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity]]'', [[Richard Rorty]] argues that Derrida (especially in his book, ''The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond'') purposefully uses words that cannot be defined (e.g. [[Différance]]), and uses previously definable words in contexts diverse enough to make understanding impossible, so that the reader will never be able to contextualize Derrida's literary self. Rorty, however, argues that this intentional obfuscation is philosophically grounded. According to Rorty, this technique precludes any metaphysical accounts of Derrida's work. And since his work itself ostensibly contains no metaphysics, Derrida has consequently escaped metaphysics altogether.
In ''[[Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity]]'', [[Richard Rorty]] argues that Derrida (especially in his book, ''The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond'') purposefully uses words that cannot be defined (e.g. [[Différance]]), and uses previously definable words in contexts diverse enough to make understanding impossible, so that the reader will never be able to contextualize Derrida's literary self. Rorty, however, argues that this intentional obfuscation is philosophically grounded. According to Rorty, this technique precludes any metaphysical accounts of Derrida's work. And since his work itself ostensibly contains no metaphysics, Derrida has consequently escaped metaphysics altogether.
{Rorty, Richard. ''Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-521-36781-6. Ch. 6: "From ironist theory to private allusions: Derrida")
===Charges of nihilism===
===Charges of nihilism===
