I'm not sure what Foucault would say about Specters. But I think what
is more telling is the way a number of critics attack that text, insofar
as their attack parallels Derrida's attacks on Foucault. That is to
say, they argue that while Derrida can certainly point to hauntaulogy as
an excess that Marx papers over through his focus on ontology, and while
he can also tie hauntaulogy to a certain conception of the promise, the
always-to-come, as an emancipatory moment which is structurally
inescapable, he cannot tie this to any particular emancipatory program,
i.e., to the ideal of democracy he puts forward. What these critics say
is that Derridean deconstruction disables such a commitment -- it
amounts to Derrida's attempt to ground an ethic, which deconstruction
itself shows cannot be done. I can't think of any names of these
critics at the moment, other than Ernesto Laclau. His review of
Specters can be found in Emancipation(s) (Verso, published around
1997). I think Kate Soper wrote something similar for a symposium on
Specters which was published in Radical Philosophy.
Now, to take Derrida's side on this, saying that deconstruction does not
allow you to put forward any sort of positive ethic, beyond some sort of
abstract structural promise, requires a fairly selective reading of
Derrida's corpus. But the point is that this is something like the way
Derrida himself attacked Foucault. The critics say that hauntaulogy can
only work if it remains at a sort of abstract level, and so with limited
political potential.
You can, I suppose, use this to suggest that the later Derrida does in
fact move closer to Foucault. That, at least, is what some people say,
though I can't say I've kept up with the recent work other than
Specters.
Does that help?
Nathan
n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
loren wrote:
>
> 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
is more telling is the way a number of critics attack that text, insofar
as their attack parallels Derrida's attacks on Foucault. That is to
say, they argue that while Derrida can certainly point to hauntaulogy as
an excess that Marx papers over through his focus on ontology, and while
he can also tie hauntaulogy to a certain conception of the promise, the
always-to-come, as an emancipatory moment which is structurally
inescapable, he cannot tie this to any particular emancipatory program,
i.e., to the ideal of democracy he puts forward. What these critics say
is that Derridean deconstruction disables such a commitment -- it
amounts to Derrida's attempt to ground an ethic, which deconstruction
itself shows cannot be done. I can't think of any names of these
critics at the moment, other than Ernesto Laclau. His review of
Specters can be found in Emancipation(s) (Verso, published around
1997). I think Kate Soper wrote something similar for a symposium on
Specters which was published in Radical Philosophy.
Now, to take Derrida's side on this, saying that deconstruction does not
allow you to put forward any sort of positive ethic, beyond some sort of
abstract structural promise, requires a fairly selective reading of
Derrida's corpus. But the point is that this is something like the way
Derrida himself attacked Foucault. The critics say that hauntaulogy can
only work if it remains at a sort of abstract level, and so with limited
political potential.
You can, I suppose, use this to suggest that the later Derrida does in
fact move closer to Foucault. That, at least, is what some people say,
though I can't say I've kept up with the recent work other than
Specters.
Does that help?
Nathan
n.e.widder@xxxxxxxxx
loren wrote:
>
> 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