From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Wed Oct 13 2004 - 08:02:09 EDT
It is difficult to discuss Derrida, I mean it is difficult to have a rational discussion of a texts so confused when judged by normal standards as for example Spectres. In my opinion Derrida is not to be compared to Marx at all. Neither method nor approach to science, nor degree and kind of political activity. You can read Derrida as mystical poetry, confused, strange, hallucinating, and maybe inspiring for the followers. No movement, neither intellectual or social can be build on or enriched Derrida. A rather naked emperor in my opinion. Just now I only have "Specters" in Norwegian, but there are far too many parts of this book that are just a stew of words. I could give you several examples. Let's not start a big discussion on Derrida, I have no time for that. Just wanted to express that I think that a critical approach to Derrida is necessary than that Callari voices. My opinion is close to Terry Eagelton in his "The illusions of Post-Modernism", the main line of arguemnt you will find in this small book. Regards Anders Ekeland Norway At 17:36 11.10.2004, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: y >From: "antonio callari" <antonio.callari@fandm.edu> >Date: Mon, October 11, 2004 > > >The idea I remember the most immediately from Specters of Marx is, almost >present in the title as compellingly as a specter can be to those who >would accept specters, is the idea of Marx as the Specter to bourgeois >society. I think that's quite a powerful image--beyond the analytical >details about Capital (which I don't recall off-hand). But Derrida's >meaning for (and contribution to) Marx/ism, I think, goes beyond this >evocation of an "image" and is invested with the full force of his >philosophical approach--which I believe we will live as a legacy. I >think that Derrida may indeed be the philosopher of Marx of our times, >and not the destroyer of Marx/ism that many critics of deconstruction >fear. In my view, Derrida's contribution was to develop the instincts and >practices of reading out of >"system." All of the interventions of his that I have read ask the reader >to see that which lives outside of systems as they are given: to see that >which system would silence, to give scope to a vision of a life (of >ideas, philosophically, but of life in general) moved by prerogatives >other than those of a given system, to enable the >experience (philosophical and, thence, political) of a different >system, with different priorities, values, energies, agents, urges, etc. >etc. This is Marx: or this is the development of a >philosophical approach that matches Marx's critical urges and that covers >and comforts the whole point and structure of Capital. > >Traditional philosophers (who like systems) did not much like >Derrida. He jabbed their totalitarian confidences. They wanted to defend >"meaning" as it is/has-been constituted. He wanted to create the >philosophical space (and capabilities) to create 'different' >meanings, and in the process to liberate that which had been >oppressed within the existing. He wanted to do this as a general >philosophical point: not to create one other system. one other >meaning, but as an affirmation of the idea that life is about >creating, continuously and forever, not an abiding of that which has >already been created. Marx too wanted nothing other than a way of >organizing life (and hence also ideas) in a way that "freed" humans from >the tyranny of the given. Marx and Derrida are brothers in >deconstruction (there is quite a bit of deconstruction in Marx's >reading of the works of political economists): keepers of the "trace" of >human freedom. > >In mourning, > >Antonio > > > > >It might be a good time to ask: to what extent has Derrida > >influenced Marxian political economy? > > > >Steve C used to teach Derrida in a graduate course on > >"Re-Valuing Marx, Representing Capitalism." Maybe he > >still does. In any event, maybe we should have a > >dialogue about something that was a focal point of > >that course: namely, the connections that could be made > >betwen Marx's _Capital_ and Derrida's _Spectres of Marx_? > > > >In solidarity, Jerry > > >-- >Antonio Callari >E-MAIL: A_CALLARI@ACAD.FANDM.EDU >POST MAIL: Department of Economics > Franklin and Marshall College > Lancaster PA 17604-3003 >PHONE: 717/291-3947 >FAX: 717/291-4369
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 14 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT