>I wouldn't approve of simply throwing literary texts

>I call my students in France back to the most traditional ways of reading before trying to deconstruct texts; you have to understand according to the most traditional norms what an author meant to say, and so on. So I don't start with disorder; I start with the tradition. If you're not trained in the tradition, then deconstruction means nothing. It's simply nothing.

File: marx.jpg (40KB, 444x444px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 444x444px

>>9711895
>Hey, I have a theory about reading texts to enhance our collective understanding of the processes of writing and the underlying presuppositions of social norms.

>EVISCERATE THE BOURGEOISIE

>Wait, that's not...

Every time.

>I think that if what is called "deconstruction" produces neglect of the classical authors, the canonical texts, and so on, we should fight it. I wouldn't be in favor of such a deconstruction. I'm in favor of the canon, but I won't stop there. I think that students should read what are considered the great texts in our tradition-even if that's not enough, even if we have to change the canon, even if we have to open the field and to bring into the canonical tradition other texts from other cultures. If deconstruction is
only a pretense to ignore minimal requirements or knowledge of the tradition, it could be a bad thing. So when those colleagues complain about the fact that some students, without knowing the tradition, play at
deconstruction, try to behave deconstructively, I agree that that's a mistake, a bad thing, and we shouldn't encourage it. However, sometimes some colleagues refer to these situations simply in order to oppose deconstruction: "Well, the effect of deconstruction is this, so we must exclude deconstruction." That's what I would call bad faith in the service of conservative politics. So, I would say that we should require, according
to the situation-which may be very different from one country to the other, one city to the other-a minimal (the definition of minimal is
problematic, I know) culture and minimal knowledge of the basic foundations of the canon. On this ground, of course, students could develop, let's say, a deconstructive practice-but only to the extent that they "know"
what they are "deconstructing": an enormous network of other questions.

>Sometimes feminism
replaces phallogocentrisim with another kind of hegemony. I wouldn't say that all women do that, but it's a structural temptation. It's perhaps inevitable at some point that they try to reverse the given hierarchy, but if they do only that-reverse the hierarchy-they would reinscribe the same scheme. Sometimes feminism, as such, does that, and I know that some women are not happy about that.

>>9711895
he seems to imply conservatism is bad. why?

>I think that the people who try to represent what I'm doing or what so called "deconstruction" is doing, as, on the one hand, trying to destroy culture or, on the other hand, to reduce it to a kind of negativity, to a kind of death, are misrepresenting deconstruction. Deconstruction is essentially affirmative. It's in favor of reaffirmation of memory, but this reaffirmation of memory asks the most adventurous and the most risky questions about our tradition, about our institutions, about our way of teaching, and so on.

Feminism can be just as hegemonic as anything else.

>>9711968
He is implying that some of his critics think that deconstruction is by nature incompatible with any sort of tradition, canon and consensus. Derrida disagrees, and sees the proof of it in his conservative teaching style.

>>9711972
>>9711934

>>9711968
I understand why Vincent Leitch says what he says. In fact, according to the privilege you give to one or another aspect, deconstruction may look conservative. I'm in favor of tradition. I'm respectful of and a lover of the tradition. There's no deconstruction without the memory of the tradition. I couldn't imagine what the university could be without reference to the tradition, but a tradition that is as rich as possible and that is open to other traditions, and so on. That's conservative; tradition is conservative to that extent. But at the same time deconstruction is not conservative. Out of respect for the tradition, deconstruction asks questions; it puts into question the tradition and even the concept of "question" (which I did in
OfSpirit: Heidegger and the Question [Chicago UP, 1989])-and this, clearly, is a nonconservative stand. So this oscillation is not pertinent here. Deconstruction is, at the same time, conservative and nonconservative.

>>9711970
>Deconstruction is essentially affirmative. It's in favor of reaffirmation of memory, but this reaffirmation of memory asks the most adventurous and the most risky questions about our tradition, about our institutions, about our way of teaching, and so on.
nice read OP, but this last part sounded like wishful thinking on his side i think

>>9711978
>>9711968
He's saying through all the layers of Heideggerian bullshit he tries to shock people with, he goes home at night and eats chips and drinks champagne in a massive house.

>>9712017
Nice deconstruction you've got there.

File: foucault.png (501KB, 1023x646px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1023x646px

>all that the socialist tradition has produced in history is to condemn

Wtf I love Foucault now

Behind the vapors of french theory, you occasionally see from its most eminent thinkers very conservative ideas.

I think a conservative reading of Foucault, Baudrillard is very possible for example.

>>9712092
>conservative
>baudrillard
>possible

try mandatory

>ctrl + f = "jew"
>0/0
How do you, /lit/, expect to understand jewish philosophy if you aren't even aware that it's a product of judaism and jewing?