Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 00:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Neal Simon <bnsimon-AT-phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: responsibility and decon


Two short (I promise) points:

1) Derrida's most recent turn or maybe it's not a turn but at least he's
foregrounding it more lately is precisely the question of responsibility. 
See "Passions":  An Oblique Offering" in _Acts of Literature_.  His point
is not to say responsibility doesn't exist, doesn't matter, etc., but to
rethink it.  A very useful book that just came out on this topic, which
has a very bad cover (but you can't judge books by...), is _Critical
Encounters:  Reference and Responsibility in Deconstructive Writing_, ed. 
Cathy Caruth and Deborah Esch. I especially recommend Caruth's intro,
Warminski (spelling?)'s essay, and Keenan's essay, which has the
provocative title, "Deconstruction and the Impossibility of Justice." 
Spivak's emphasis on the "ethical singularity" of the "tribals" in her
reading of the pterodactyl story in _Imaginary Maps_ is definitely
indebted to Derrida's theorizing of singularity, and to my mind represents
a fairly successful way, of getting at questions of responsibility and
identity.  And Derrida's _Specters of Marx_ must certainly relevant here 
somewhere.  A short side note:  recent debates remind me of the battles in
England in the '80s over the politics of decon; for theoryheads'
responses, check out _Poststructuralism [or is it "Deconstruction"? I
forget] and the Question of History_, with various eds. including Robert
Young.  End of plugs. 

2) This is not to say that Derrida or Keenan or anyone has the last word
on responsibility, or Avital Ronell's take on the ethics of decisions will
provide a roadmap for proper decision-making in every and all situation
(especially since the focus of the decon take on responsibility is
precisely that it can't be programmed, decided in advance or on the basis
of general rules).  To me, however, the rethinking of responsibility is
crucial today when conservatives in the US are using such language as a
bludgeon.  If pushed though, I'd just say that such reading might be
rewarding, and if one wants to take the time to do it, more power to
him/her.  And there's another reason for checking this stuff out:  Since
the _Critical Encounters_ book is an attempt (among other things) to
counter charges of decon's nihilism, fetishization of the text, mere
playfulness, and so on, would it be out of order to suggest that one
wanting to make the case that theoryheads are irresponsible would make a
truly devastating case by blasting deconstructive arguments about
responsibility out of the water?

--Bruce
bnsimon-AT-princeton.edu



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------