Let me see if i can tie this into a specific account of a reading Derrida
does.
In Specters of Marx, Derrida ultimately critiques marxism for its favoring
of ontology (concrete labor, a grounded communism, theory of value, etc) and
pushes aside hauntology (which is quasi-present in Marx's texts, i.e. "there
is a specter of communism haunting europe")--Derrida then calls for a New
International that affirms a spirit of marxism while shying away from its
ontological traps that caused the failures and atrocities of Stalinism,
etc..
Would Foucault's response to Derrida's handling of Marx pursue the path of
"emergence"--that is--what social and historical practices gave rise to
either Marxism (this is obviously covered in his work) or the practices of
Stalinism, etc? Would Foucault argue that Derrida ignores the constitution
of Marxism and capitalism and loses it in a mesh of ontology v. hauntology
and limits our political action or agency to "spectrality"--which is
abstract and risks becoming metaphysical?
I'm not sure who has read the Spanos book Heidegger and Criticism, but it
seems spanos' critique of Derrida "the indifference of differance" is
similar to foucault's--that emergence is left out. However, Spanos also
critisizes foucault for ignoring ontology.
loren
----- Original Message -----
From: Widder,NE <N.E.Widder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 5:33 AM
Subject: RE: Foucault & Derrida
> Hi Loren,
>
> OK, fair enough. This is your question, and I took quite a bit of license
> with it in responding to Nick's post. But I think that the concerns you
are
> outlining here really feed in to what I was saying. More important, I
think
> they have to feed in, or else you end up seeing the Derrida/Foucault
> exchange as a series of knee-jerk reactions to each other, or you reduce
> important distinctions between the two thinkers. You suggest a reduction
> yourself when you say that if you treat the world as a text than
> deconstruction and genealogy fit rather well together. Perhaps, but they
> only fit together in the broadest sense of being anti-foundationalist.
> Further, there are certainly knee-jerk responses on both sides of the
> divide: Derrida consistently states that Foucaultian archeology is
history,
> when Foucault explains over and over again that it is not. Foucault
> suggests that Derrida's texts are nothing more than books, which is silly.
> And both the debate between Derrida and Foucault and among interpreters of
> their exchanged is tinged with a rather odd understanding of the division
> the early Foucault enacts between the discursive and non-discursive,
whereby
> everyone seems to suggest that the discursive is the realm of meaning and
> the non-discursive is not.
>
> Still, since I said in the last post that I'm on Foucault's side here,
I'll
> suggest a way of making sense of his claim that Derrida fails to take
> context into account. It's not that Derrida focusses on writing rather
than
> wider social and economic factors; it's rather, I think, that he remains
> committed to a certain relation between identity and meaning while
ignoring
> the conditions of emergence of that commitment. Irigaray says the same
> thing about Lacan and psychoanalysis generally when she says that they
> remain committed to the economy of the Phallus as the only economy
possible,
> precisely because they haven't taken the time to examine the real
capitalist
> economy which supports such a commitment (and Lacan precisely refuses to
> look at such things, saying that if one does than one is not doing
> psychoanalysis anymore, one is doing sociology or even something else).
> That's why, from Foucault's perspective, Derrida has illicitly reduced his
> (Foucault's) options to thinking within a broken ontotheological framework
> (while failing to see that the framework idea is itself an ontotheological
> remnant) or engaging in some idealistic impossibility to breach language
all
> together and get at some immediate truth. It's because deconstruction,
for
> Foucault, ends up staging things in terms of this last binary option that
it
> refuses to give up, that it ends up being a shallow practice, and why it
> really effects a return to metaphysics.
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: loren [SMTP:lorendent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 14 February 2000 23:22
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Foucault & Derrida
> >
> > Thanks for the responses. However, my question focuses more on whether
> > Derrida's reference to differance and the trace might replicate 2
origins
> > that seems to indicate a return to metaphysics.....It seems that this
was
> > Foucault's critique of Derrida---It also seems that foucault critisizes
> > the
> > shallow textual practice of deconstruction--that it ignores the specific
> > historical and political formations of a text or a particular origin.
> > That
> > foucault is perhaps more concerned with not just dispelling origins and
> > binaries, but understanding how they are produced and in what context
they
> > emerge-. I'm not saying I agree w/ foucault, it seems to be a knee-jerk
> > response, because it seems to me that if one reads the social space as a
> > text, then geneology and deconstruction would align themselves rather
> > nicely.
> >
> > Loren
does.
In Specters of Marx, Derrida ultimately critiques marxism for its favoring
of ontology (concrete labor, a grounded communism, theory of value, etc) and
pushes aside hauntology (which is quasi-present in Marx's texts, i.e. "there
is a specter of communism haunting europe")--Derrida then calls for a New
International that affirms a spirit of marxism while shying away from its
ontological traps that caused the failures and atrocities of Stalinism,
etc..
Would Foucault's response to Derrida's handling of Marx pursue the path of
"emergence"--that is--what social and historical practices gave rise to
either Marxism (this is obviously covered in his work) or the practices of
Stalinism, etc? Would Foucault argue that Derrida ignores the constitution
of Marxism and capitalism and loses it in a mesh of ontology v. hauntology
and limits our political action or agency to "spectrality"--which is
abstract and risks becoming metaphysical?
I'm not sure who has read the Spanos book Heidegger and Criticism, but it
seems spanos' critique of Derrida "the indifference of differance" is
similar to foucault's--that emergence is left out. However, Spanos also
critisizes foucault for ignoring ontology.
loren
----- Original Message -----
From: Widder,NE <N.E.Widder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 5:33 AM
Subject: RE: Foucault & Derrida
> Hi Loren,
>
> OK, fair enough. This is your question, and I took quite a bit of license
> with it in responding to Nick's post. But I think that the concerns you
are
> outlining here really feed in to what I was saying. More important, I
think
> they have to feed in, or else you end up seeing the Derrida/Foucault
> exchange as a series of knee-jerk reactions to each other, or you reduce
> important distinctions between the two thinkers. You suggest a reduction
> yourself when you say that if you treat the world as a text than
> deconstruction and genealogy fit rather well together. Perhaps, but they
> only fit together in the broadest sense of being anti-foundationalist.
> Further, there are certainly knee-jerk responses on both sides of the
> divide: Derrida consistently states that Foucaultian archeology is
history,
> when Foucault explains over and over again that it is not. Foucault
> suggests that Derrida's texts are nothing more than books, which is silly.
> And both the debate between Derrida and Foucault and among interpreters of
> their exchanged is tinged with a rather odd understanding of the division
> the early Foucault enacts between the discursive and non-discursive,
whereby
> everyone seems to suggest that the discursive is the realm of meaning and
> the non-discursive is not.
>
> Still, since I said in the last post that I'm on Foucault's side here,
I'll
> suggest a way of making sense of his claim that Derrida fails to take
> context into account. It's not that Derrida focusses on writing rather
than
> wider social and economic factors; it's rather, I think, that he remains
> committed to a certain relation between identity and meaning while
ignoring
> the conditions of emergence of that commitment. Irigaray says the same
> thing about Lacan and psychoanalysis generally when she says that they
> remain committed to the economy of the Phallus as the only economy
possible,
> precisely because they haven't taken the time to examine the real
capitalist
> economy which supports such a commitment (and Lacan precisely refuses to
> look at such things, saying that if one does than one is not doing
> psychoanalysis anymore, one is doing sociology or even something else).
> That's why, from Foucault's perspective, Derrida has illicitly reduced his
> (Foucault's) options to thinking within a broken ontotheological framework
> (while failing to see that the framework idea is itself an ontotheological
> remnant) or engaging in some idealistic impossibility to breach language
all
> together and get at some immediate truth. It's because deconstruction,
for
> Foucault, ends up staging things in terms of this last binary option that
it
> refuses to give up, that it ends up being a shallow practice, and why it
> really effects a return to metaphysics.
>
> Nathan
> n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: loren [SMTP:lorendent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 14 February 2000 23:22
> > To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Foucault & Derrida
> >
> > Thanks for the responses. However, my question focuses more on whether
> > Derrida's reference to differance and the trace might replicate 2
origins
> > that seems to indicate a return to metaphysics.....It seems that this
was
> > Foucault's critique of Derrida---It also seems that foucault critisizes
> > the
> > shallow textual practice of deconstruction--that it ignores the specific
> > historical and political formations of a text or a particular origin.
> > That
> > foucault is perhaps more concerned with not just dispelling origins and
> > binaries, but understanding how they are produced and in what context
they
> > emerge-. I'm not saying I agree w/ foucault, it seems to be a knee-jerk
> > response, because it seems to me that if one reads the social space as a
> > text, then geneology and deconstruction would align themselves rather
> > nicely.
> >
> > Loren