Adrian Blau has an entertaining discussionÂ of whether Derrida’s analysis of why we refer to 9/11 in the way we do is bullshit or simply crap.Â A taste:
Iâ€™ll focus solely on Leiterâ€™s 2003 blog entry, â€˜Derrida and Bullshitâ€™, which attacks the â€˜ridiculousnessâ€™ of Derridaâ€™s comments on 9/11. This came from an interview with Derrida in October 2001. Here is an abbreviated version; you can see the full thing on p. 85 onwards ofÂ this book.
â€¦ this act of naming: a date and nothing more. â€¦ [T]he index pointing toward this date, the bare act, the minimal deictic, the minimalist aim of this dating, also marks something else. Namely, the fact that we perhaps have no concept and no meaning available to us to name in any other way this â€˜thingâ€™ that has just happened â€¦ But this very thing â€¦ remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept, like a unicity with no generality on the horizon or with no horizon at all, out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain that admits to not knowing what itâ€™s talking about.
9/11 turned the world upside down. Or at least 45 degrees to the side.
So, is this bullshit, on the Frankfurt and/or the Cohen notions of bullshit? I would say no. I take Derrida to be saying the following.
We often repeat the name â€˜9/11â€™ without thinking much about it. But the words we use can be very revealing. Why do we try to reduce this complex event to such a simple term? Because the event is so complex we cannot capture it properly. Precisely by talking about it in such a simple way, we admit that we donâ€™t really understand it.
If I have understood Derrida â€“ tell me if I havenâ€™t â€“ this explanation is surely wrong.
Read the whole thing and the discussion to follow.Â Reminds me of the game some of us played in graduate school: interpret the work of Derrida usingÂ a simple phrase.Â My favorite: “Aporias or ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales.'”
2 thoughts on “Fun with Derrida”
Your article is a citation of a reference to an article that cites references; How Derridaean.
And your comment references all of it and this one that!
Comments are closed.