From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org
Subject: Re: Re : [postanarchism] Kropotkin-Newman (Sasha's review) (fwd)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:26:33 US/Eastern


Tom wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 swilbur-AT-wcnet.org wrote:
> 
> > 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? Does 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.
> 
> The predominant sense used in texts using the word 
> "deconstruction" appears to me to be un-construction, 
> just as anarchy could perhaps be written as "de-archy", 
> though that seems to carry with it an interesting
> active sense of taking-apart, and not just because of 
> the deconstruction resonance: rather the "de-" seems to 
> involve a special kind of active component. 

OK. Finally, we get down to an argument from the texts.
I think in this case, it is you who are engaged in a
destructive, domesticating reading. If we're talking
about Derridean deconstruction, which is the only sort
i'm prone to talking about, and, thus, presumably what
you are reponding against in my writing, then perhaps
you could point out a single text in which the approach
to the text is primarily negative, or un-constructive.
It strikes me that one could object to the almost
formulaic manner in which Derrida's analyses begin with
the side-tracking "de-," move through the possibility
of the bad-construction "de-," and finally move towards
the "de-" of construction to-the-limit. 

Similarly, it would be interesting to hear how anarchism,
either theoretical or practical, is *primarily* negative,
beyond the very visible, but not always very anarchistic
protest culture that some of the movement is involved in.

> > 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. 
> 
> Of course it isn't, if I understand you correctly. 

A productive undecideability at the heart of the "de-,"
particularly if taken in the context of simultaneity
with the "con-," looks like pretty rich stuff, if this
kind of approach yields useful results. It parallels
the "a/e" of "differance" and the step/not of the "pas,"
lending some force to the notion that this is a valid
reading of what is going on in the designation
"deconstruction." 

> I still think, in my limping, dirty way, that the 
> tendency for there to be a "movement-under-a-banner" 
> that is too bound in social practices is there.

This just isn't clear. The context for your intervention
was a clarification between me and Philip, necessary
because, whether or not there is a "movement" around
"deconstruction," there isn't enough shared sense of
definitions, even in a fairly specialized forum like 
this one, to carry meaningful discussion. Just because,
in this instance, my understanding of the term was to
some degree accepted doesn't mean anyone here is marching
in lockstep. Honestly, on the hard questions, we simply
don't have the option. You can field a kind of general
resistance to "the enlightenment" or to the "humanism"
in "classical anarchism." We can nearly all agree that
we're "anti-manichaean." But when it comes to anything
more than these broad gestures, we're mostly groping
around in the dark just trying to find each other. 

> The question of meaning operates, in this sort of context, 
> in a definite horizon of a certain ideal of autonomy, 
> and I think this happens every time one works over meaning 
> etymologically. I think more of it is needful regarding 
> deconstruction as it links, or as you push for it to link, 
> with anarchism/post-anarchism. I think this with some kind 
> of balls in conjunction, precisely, with limping. A 
> problematic combination.

And i think it is very easy to quibble about parts of words
without having much of a clue how the words are being used.
I've done my best to take this etymological approach seriously,
but it seems very far from the real stakes of anarchism, 
whether with poststructuralism or without. "Postanarchism"
remains a term i'm not terribly taken with. 
 
> > Now dig a little deeper.
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> > 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? 
> 
> I'm not. This is very nice and quite interesting. ANd 
> yes in a way I'm sure that is part of it. *On the other 
> hand*, the difference between de-con- ala Derrida (who 
> after all probably doesn't use the word all that
> much) and Destruktion ala Heidegger might be worth 
> thinking about. 

It might be, but, honestly, i'll have to opt out. 
Heidegger's Destruktion certainly is "in the text"
of Derrida's deconstruction, but, personally, it the 
two are not the same. And my interests are elsewhere.
Perhaps someone else will take you up on the comparison,
but it won't be me. 

> > 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? 
> 
> They are really interesting. In spite of all that, I 
> have to wonder whether you are not so much nipping out 
> into context as nipping into this mode of meaning/textual
> /philosophemic analysis from the realm of social
> practice. 

I think the move is simple enough. There is a question
to be addressed regarding the sense, in a specific body
of work, of certain elements. The "pattern of aporia"
in Derrida's work seems well established, and thus
potentially useful in addressing this question. How
does Derrida use the terms "deconstruction"? Well, 
how does he use other, related terms?

[snip]

> > 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.
> 
> Merely? This "insertion" I suggest is a lot more difficult 
> and important that it seems at first. It seems to hit off 
> a certain *structure of iteration* that parallels the 
> iteration aspect of language. 

It simply isn't clear that, etymologically, the "en-"
is as profound or suggestive as you claim. And it's also
unclear that iteration is what's at stake. In the case of
the en-semble, which you seem to privilege in other posts,
multiplicity is manifested "in simultaneity" (an almost
literal gloss of the elements.) 

[snip]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I tend to disagree, as you know. I don't think the 
> de- does rock so positively, or else perhaps some more 
> thinkin into the meaning of "rock" is needful. 

At the very abstract level of this etymological game,
the "de-" seems delightfully "multiple." The "en-,"
without considerable embellishment, not so much...

Whether this very abstract analysis is worth a damn
is certainly open to question. 

> > 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.
> 
> Yes, I have not made the argument yet. I've been 
> rather busy limping. Should there be a space for the 
> "argument", can you suspend your sanctioned violence 
> to allow for a space in which, if the direction of
> argument has something good in it, you might not 
> militate against it violently? 

Look. For someone insisting that i speak more 
personally, you talk to me a lot as if i'm a text
or a symptom of something. that's going to piss most
folks off. 

> This means a certain space of discourse that, while not
> totalized, has a radical moment of nonviolence in it.

Tell you what. You bring the "radical moment of 
nonviolence," but if you want to have the chat, don't go
attributing any of that to me. I think i am wedded to
a bit of violence in our interactions - and perhaps
you should look at your role in that. 

> > > What if an enconstructive philosophy were possible, 
> > > but required a displacement of that Derridan aporia? 
> > 
> > What does it mean to displace an aporia?
> > [snip]
> 
> Good question. Like displacing u-topia or a-topia...and 
> suggesting that these "take place", or happen...then again, 
> deconstruction "happens", in a way, that may be to say, 
> "takes place", and there may be a need to dis-happen 
> deconstruction in a way, or there might be a post-happening
> space, whcih I suggest is the case. 

So, um, what does it mean to displace an aporia?

> I think I can back this up in a way.
> In Derrida, on a broad level, you have a reflection on 
> "western metaphysics", and variously there is also a return 
> to these: "well we can't get entirely past metaphysics". 
> Likewise, in the space of the "decision", while the madness 
> of texts in their decisiveness and totalized meaning can be 
> brought into relief, we find again and again in Derria, it
> seems to me, a re-affirmation of that very moment: as 
> necessary, as a part of responsibility, obligation, etc. 
> Again, it seeems to me that part of what Derrida is about 
> is just to free up authenticity by throwing out authority 
> in the mode of simple sureness, totalized textual voice 
> under grand-narrative, etc. But then we have return to 
> the same metaphysics, the same spaces of decision, etc. 
> And, the whole operation is very time and text consuming. 
> By the time you are done with that, there is little left.
> While every one is rocking, millions continue to perish, 
> and minds upon minds appear to me to be used up, in my 
> view a bit falsely, in this development, which is rich 
> with capitalistic interests (publishing, narcissistic, ec.), 
> which appears to have a lot of stakes in defending a
> status quo and...well here I'm in this most-irritating-to-
> you mode of this very broad indictment kind of thing.

Yes, indeed you are. You address me personally, but really
only want to talk about general issues. Try talking to me,
rather than the Generic Academic, and tell me why, while
"millions continue to perish," you feel you can demand i 
take your "dirty, limping" work seriously. 

> What you say is rocking i say is not.

Actually, what i said was that, at an abstract level of
analysis in which i have only a little faith and interest,
one prefix was more promising than another. You now seem
to want to make that claim relate to the death of millions,
which seems a rather extravagent raising of stakes.

> What you say is responsible I say is not what it claims 
> to be. 

To be "responsible" in the derridean sense is, i take it,
nothing more than to be stretched beyond one's authority.
Awareness of that, once you wrap your head around it, takes
little time or energy, and hardly requires Derrida, although
his approach to the matter has been useful for me. 

Where do you think i'm wrong here? 

> > > 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.
> 
> I agree entirely that it is no matter of some Great Prefix Fix, 
> no simple fix at all. For me it is onely one aspect, 
> perhaps a certain leverage
> point, to opening up a lot of important stuff.
> 
> > > 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...
> 
> "etc.", i.e., not just voices, but political practics, 
> arrangements, that should not be reduced to "voices". 
> In any case, *deconstruction should not
> be the term for this*, I think.

Why should i care what you think? Why are you butting
in here, demanding time and attention? Isn't it quite
possible that deconstruction can work just fine for me,
or for others? There is some hard obstruction, some
deep metaphysics, that keeps you on the attack, keeps
you denying the possibility that "mileages may vary."

> > 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. 
> 
> Closer to suger/spice/everything nice? Hardly.
> 
> > 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? 
> 
> Yeah well I'm not terribly thrilled with being very open 
> to the worst. I mean, I'm sorry but this always has 
> bothered me. Does this mean, if action is possible then 
> we might, say, be open to using the guillotine again? Or
> concentration camps? 

Who *is* thrilled about it? No me. On the other hand, 
radical openness *can't* be just about being open to
what we know, and know we can control. 

> At the same time, in some sense, actually I do
> undestand that that is in a way part of what 
> deconstruction has to mean. And for me, it is a 
> *prerequisite* for the nonviolence I mention. I 
> should hasten then to make clear that there is an 
> explicit/thematic nonviolence that is fully in 
> keeping with a releasement of possibility ala 
> Derrida. And I agree that some responsibiltiyh for 
> violence is there. Interestingly enough, Gandhi was 
> emphatic about that as well. Tell the usual Gandhian
> that he espoused violence were nonviolence impossible 
> for India, and they refuse to believe it. Yet in 
> fact this kin of possibiltiy, the worst, was
> *precisely* a prerequisite *for Gandhian nonviolence*. 
> But this must be made clear: such a nonviolence never 
> the less has its own ways and so forth. 

It seems to me that "nonviolence" in this sense amounts
to "sanctioned violence." If one disrupts relationships,
breaks down bodies, in the correct spirit, without 
malice, then one can claim "nonviolence." Eschewing 
anger can be a virtue. Minimizing violences is often
desirable. But, from both a theoretical and practical
point of view, it's still quite clear to me that the
alibi of "nonviolence" is a potentially dangerous 
sanction. 

[snip]

> > > 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? 
> 
> I believe one can say this without it being the crime 
> you suggest and chastize me for. 

Crime? Try insult, or demand beyond the bounds of our
acquaintanceship. 

> I think you should be able to say, with at least a 
> little more respect and good will, "ok you are really 
> on about something, I think yoiu are wrong, but there 
> is some tension that's got you hot and bothered". Even 
> for me to say I hope you can look for yourself is not the
> crime or over-the-line thing you are taking it to be.

The respect, such as it is, is in the response-at-all. You've 
pissed me off, behaved badly in my estimation. You are 
obviously aware of this. If you would prefer, i'll
simply let all this drop. 

-shawn

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