Dear Loren
I have a few problems with the notions regarding deconstruction that Foucault
puts forward. Deconstruction, in as much as it is a method, problematises the
notion of western metaphysics through quasi concepts such as the trace and
differance. Derrida's conception of metaphysics is that it assumes 1) a
hierarchical structure between two apparently opposing terms, 2) an essential
difference between the two terms. Although Derrida's critique of Foucault is at
times bad tempered and impatient, Derrida has a valid point when he suggests
that Foucault's valorising of madness actually reinvokes the hierarchy that he
is supposedly overturning.
Foucault makes some grandiose claims regarding madness and sexuality.
Foucault's "manifesto" would see madness supplant reason and sexuality would
break free of the discursive chains that entrap it. Derrida's response is to
see madness as inherent to reason. Reason has no pure, undivided, relationship
to itself. There is no pure reason uncontaminated by madness just as their is
no pure madness exterior to reason.
Regarding origins, for Derrida these origins are always already complex. There
is no simple origin that becomes corrupted by an external threat. Indeed in Of
Grammatology Derrida analyses how Levi-Strauss falls into the metaphysical trap
of assuming an innocent speech being surpised by a corrupting writing.
Perhaps it would be advantageous to look at ways in which Foucault and Derrida's
positions might be said to be in accord. One concept of Foucault's that Derrida
subscribes to is madness as the absence of work.
Derrida's later essay "'To do justice to Freud' The History of Madness in the
Age of Psychoanalysis" looks at the uneasy position that Freud occupies in
Madness and Civilization.
Nick
"The information contained in this electronic mail message is
intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential,
the disclosure of which is prohibited by law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, please note that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error please notify the sender immediately. Thank you in
anticipation of your co-operation."
I have a few problems with the notions regarding deconstruction that Foucault
puts forward. Deconstruction, in as much as it is a method, problematises the
notion of western metaphysics through quasi concepts such as the trace and
differance. Derrida's conception of metaphysics is that it assumes 1) a
hierarchical structure between two apparently opposing terms, 2) an essential
difference between the two terms. Although Derrida's critique of Foucault is at
times bad tempered and impatient, Derrida has a valid point when he suggests
that Foucault's valorising of madness actually reinvokes the hierarchy that he
is supposedly overturning.
Foucault makes some grandiose claims regarding madness and sexuality.
Foucault's "manifesto" would see madness supplant reason and sexuality would
break free of the discursive chains that entrap it. Derrida's response is to
see madness as inherent to reason. Reason has no pure, undivided, relationship
to itself. There is no pure reason uncontaminated by madness just as their is
no pure madness exterior to reason.
Regarding origins, for Derrida these origins are always already complex. There
is no simple origin that becomes corrupted by an external threat. Indeed in Of
Grammatology Derrida analyses how Levi-Strauss falls into the metaphysical trap
of assuming an innocent speech being surpised by a corrupting writing.
Perhaps it would be advantageous to look at ways in which Foucault and Derrida's
positions might be said to be in accord. One concept of Foucault's that Derrida
subscribes to is madness as the absence of work.
Derrida's later essay "'To do justice to Freud' The History of Madness in the
Age of Psychoanalysis" looks at the uneasy position that Freud occupies in
Madness and Civilization.
Nick
"The information contained in this electronic mail message is
intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential,
the disclosure of which is prohibited by law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, please note that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error please notify the sender immediately. Thank you in
anticipation of your co-operation."