File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0404, message 30


From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org
Subject: Re: Re : [postanarchism] Kropotkin-Newman (Sasha's review) (fwd)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:06:35 US/Eastern


Tom wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 swilbur-AT-wcnet.org wrote:
> > 
> > Deconstruction is always concerned with the 
> > "more than one voice"/"no more one voice" that
> > appears to haunt the most authoritative of texts.
> > "There is unraveling," we might say. But there's 
> > a difference between paying attention to the
> > other ways in which a text might speak and
> > simple unraveling. 
> 
> Still, might not one conceive of a more positive 
> affirmation of a multiplicity based not on the 
> negational "de-", and rather on a post deconstructiona 
> "en-", as the enconstructive, the en-sembling of 
> voices, etc. 

Well, Tom, one *might* do a lot of things, but it 
isn't clear that the things you want to do make any
sense. If we take very seriously your joined concerns
with language and affirmation of multiplicity, we can
ask some potentially useful questions about this 
prefix-fix business. But the answers don't appear to 
lead where you want to go. 

Take the "negational 'de-'," to begin with. Unless i
am very badly misreading the OED, the 'de-' is not
*primarily* negational, *unless* one has established
closeness to pure latin forms as an authoritative
criteria. (We might question whether this was the 
right move in dealing with French theory.) The various
other forms of 'de-' take quite different paths. At
this level of analysis, what is "deconstruction" 
likely to be? Do the 'de-' take 'construction' (which
may itself be subject to further analysis at this 
level)down, or away, off its track? Does it make for
bad construction, or construction to the limit, to
exhaustion? Unconstruction, from the reversing form
of 'de-' is the last sense cited, and the least french.

Is the question decideable, in the sort of analysis
of language-autonous-from-practices that you've been
engaging in? It doesn't appear to be. 

Now dig a little deeper. Are we sure that the 'de-'
acts on 'construction', rather than, say, the 'de-'
and the 'con-' working - *precisely* in en-semble
(which is to say, in simultaneity) - on the final 
term? There is (if we may nip out into the world of
context for a moment) plenty of aporetic precedent
for this sort of thing: the 'pas' and step/not, etc.
Of course, the 'con-' is usually a sort of mutation
of the 'com-'. Don't we want to keep all of these
multiplicities in play? 

Then there is the matter of the contender, the 'en-'.
In the en-semble, it is the second element which 
brings things together. The 'en-' merely inserts.
One logical sense of 'en-archy' would be 'in power.'
The word enarchy is actually used to denote the 
technocratic elite schooled at the french ENA. It
is certainly *possible*, given the very minimal
defining force of the 'en-' to do many things with
it, but it doesn't seem to be the guardian of
positive multiplicity that you wish to make it. The
'de-' on the other hand, positively *rocks*, in that
regard. 

> Doesn't Derridean deconstruction really have at a 
> certain authoriality as singularity, yet, at the 
> same time, doesn't this in turn, perhaps (or maybe 
> not perhaps) lead in the end to a certain re-
> affirmation of that very monolithic mode of 
> authorility, albeit one that is perhaps a
> bit more "ownmost"? 

I think i've said my piece about the persistence
of "the author" recently. But i'm very curious,
finally, what you have in mind instead. You have,
after all, called me out on a couple of occasions
for not speaking in My Own Voice. You have also 
made recourse to the category of the "authentic"
in much the same regard. I'm quite comfortable
with the notion of the "i" as a "necessary 
arrogation," and also as the occasion of a move
into that lovely derridean form of "responsibility."
I say "i" and, from that point, "i" am on ground
where all my bases cannot be covered, where there
are no alibis. To say i was simply "reporting"
would be, under the circumstances, a bit of a 
relief, but it wouldn't be an accurate description
of what happens when we speak - even when we stay
close to the voice of another. 

However, the vague charge of a "return" to some
"monolithic form of authorility" seems like a 
particularly clear case of, as you so sweetly
put it, "missing the boat." You have made the
charge that Derrida (and i) ultimately support
the status quo, but you haven't made an argument
yet. You're full of rhetorical questions and
obviously derridean "perhaps"-es and "certain"-
ties, but you're a little short on the concrete.

> What if an enconstructive philosophy were possible, 
> but required a displacement of that Derridan aporia? 

What does it mean to displace an aporia?
[snip]

> I know you favor just working out what "deconstruction 
> really is"

If by that, you mean that i think that, when trying to
understand Derrida, it is more useful to read Derrida
than to speculate on whether he uses words that somehow
taint the whole project - yes, i'm a lot more interested
in Derrida's texts than the next Great Prefix Fix.

> No, meanings became much more important, not
> less. 

Who are you saying "No" to, Tom. I don't think 
i've expressed any opinion about whether meanings
become more or less important with or without
deconstruction. I'm not sure it's even an interesting
question. 

> When I harp on "econstruction", and perhaps other 
> designations are possible as well, that is part of 
> what  I am meaning. And when you keep on affirmation 
> "deconstruction" as "affirmation of multiplicty of 
> voices" or whatever, in fact it is eventually 
> supposed to designate every thing positive or 
> somthing I suppose...(sorry don't mean to be rude), 

"Or what-EVER...!" Good fucking grief...

The affirmation you're talking about is not exactly
of sugar and spice and everything nice, you know. I
suspect "ur-nonviolence" might be closer to that. 
If you've learned more from Derrida than to cop his
style then you ought to be aware that the opening
in deconstruction is always an opening to the
possibility of "the worst," as well as to the more
"positive" forms of differance. Remember, too, our
little chat about nonviolence, where i took the line
that some responsibility for violence was part and
parcel of human responsibility as such? 

> I strongly think you are really missing the boat 
> on the matter of meaning, designation, naming, 
> nomination, semantic cahe, thought/language, etc. I
> just can't write a disseration to back this up well 
> enough and have to depend, rather, on making 
> (presumably good) indications in these directions 
> and hope that you can look for yourself and gather 
> that perhaps, primae facie, that this may be the case. 

Whoa. Hold on. You can't tell me what i'm "missing,"
although you're sure of it. All you can give me is a
jumble of key words. But you're sure i haven't "looked
for myself," and that if i do, i'll see it your way. 

Honestly, Tom, who the fuck do you think you are? 
Apparently, you think we should be talking about
"tenure," although i work in bars doing live sound
work - where we don't get tenure, or even benefits,
beyond free beer, secondary smoke, progressive 
hearing loss, and the company of drunks. Apparently,
you think that Philip and i clarifying our basic
agreement about deconstruction relates to *something*
dark and vague relating to Heidegger. 

> The person who you are talking to in your dialogue 
> has this difficulty I think I tend to have. I presume 
> and doen't mean to speak for him/her, but I can see 
> the signs of it quickly. YOu move to indoctrinate 
> him in the Deconstructive Project. 

Bwahahahaha! Caught in the act, am i? Since i'm
supposed to think of myself in terms of Heidegger,
i'm beginning to wonder if perhaps the Deconstructive
Project is a neo-nazi skinhead crew i'm unfamiliar 
with. 

But seriously, Tom, what do you expect in response
to this kind of crap except, "Hey, fuck you!"? You 
claim you don't want to legislate what kinds of 
discussion go on here. You think things are being
"domesticated." But, honestly, you're the one here
who seems dead set on making certain things "mean
what they mean" (whether or not that conforms even
to the dictionary's authority) and that any attempt
to pursue the conversation about poststructuralism
and anarchism into specifics doesn't get too far
without vague and ominous warnings about the dangers
of using the wrong prefixes. And yet you also 
refuse to be responsible for what you say. You get 
up in my face and demand i look into this or that,
but couch all of your demands in the language of
"limping" - and then admit it's all "goofy" and 
that you can't even be bothered to read the texts
we're talking about. 

I question how good this is, whether what you're
up to is in fact all that good, whether these
matters are adequately addressed, etc...

[snip]

I'll stop there, since this already borders on
comic book thuggery - just a G thing, ya'll -
and spare all of us my intellectual Mick Foley
impression. 

-shawn


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005