From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 13:19:04 EST
> I don't have my own copy of this book. But I think this interview is > in the Althusserian Legacy, ed. Michael Sprinker and E.Ann Kaplan. Rakesh, Thanks. You pointed me in the right direction: http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/7.2/McHoul.html This review gives the citation and it comes from an article/ interview called "Politics and Friendship." Regarding Althusserian Marxists, Derrida commented: "there was, let's say, a sort of theoretical intimidation: to formulate questions in style that appeared, shall we say, phenomenological, transcendental or ontological was immediately considered suspicious, backward, idealistic, even reactionary." McHoul summarizes Derrida as saying "In particular Derrida argues that Althusser's critique of historicism moves on too quickly, refusing to engage with 'the history of the meaning of being of which Heidegger speaks' (193) and this, Derrida goes on, is the ultimate reason why Marxism in France was washed up by the early 1970s -- too simplistic a theory of being, hence too simplistic a conception of science and what would constitute 'real' politics. Particularly shaky was its party manifestation -- the PCF. 'The two alternatives were: either it hardened and lost out or else it softened and blended with the Socialist Party and there would be no more need for it.' (211)". Derrida also commented: "Marxist discourse at the time, including its Althusserian branch, was incapable of analysing the socio-political- economic reality of that time and regulating its practice based on that analysis." [More can be found at the above site.] Are these fair criticisms by Derrida of Althusser and Althusserians? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EST