Monday, February 09, 2009
Cfp: "Derrida and America," School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, June 12-13, 2009.
Keynote Speakers – Prof. Christina Howells (Oxford University), Prof. Julian Wolfreys (Loughborough University)
In a collection of essays in memory of Jacques Derrida published by Routledge in 2008, Michael Naas and Peggy Kamuf both addressed the topic of “Derrida’s America,” examining the reciprocal influence of Derrida on America and of America on Derrida. Our interdisciplinary conference aims to build upon the work begun in these two pieces, and will address the importance of Derrida’s work for American literature, American philosophy, American Studies, and for understanding the meaning of America in historical, political and conceptual terms. We will also explore the role of “America” as a signifier in Derrida’s own work, and the ways in which he associates it with other concepts, such as sovereignty, religion, and the democracy-to-come.
As this will be an interdisciplinary conference, we particularly welcome contributions that consider issues pertaining to the constitution of the various university disciplines related to Derrida’s work. Derrida’s thought was influential in the permeation of disciplinary boundaries that took place from the 1970s onwards, particularly in the United States, and one of the aims of this conference will be to re-examine Derrida’s claim “Deconstruction is America” in light of events inside and outside the university both before and since. The increasingly central role of borders and boundaries in disciplines such as American Studies intersects with Derrida’s thinking of marginality and limits; therefore, the notion of interdisciplinarity itself, and its recent history in the US and elsewhere, will be a subtheme of the conference.
We suggest below a series of panel topics, and some questions that might be examined within those panels. These are indicative only; we will gladly receive submissions on all aspects of the conference theme, and would warmly welcome suggestions of alternative panels.
1. Derrida and American Literature- How can Derrida’s emphasis on the structural haunting of the centre by marginality help us to understand the massive expansion of the American canon in the last 40 years?- What role do Derrida’s readings of classic American authors such as Melville and Poe have in his work? Can his readings aid our understanding of these authors’ continued influence?- Can the literature of young American writers of today, many of whom studied theory at the height of its popularity within the US university system, be usefully read through ideas drawn from deconstruction?
2. Derrida and American Philosophy- In light of Richard Rorty’s sustained engagement with the work of Derrida, what does deconstruction have to say to American pragmatism?- Various efforts have been made to bridge the analytic-continental divide in philosophy through reading Derrida’s work alongside that of American philosophers such as Quine and Davidson. How successful have these efforts been, and how might they be built upon?
3. Derrida and American Studies- How does Derrida’s reading of “9/11” and the work of Carl Schmitt challenge or abet the “state of exception” thesis that has been so influential in American Studies?- How does Derrida’s “age of writing” and particular understanding of “mondialisation” intersect historically with the concept of “the American century”? - From a methodological perspective, can American Studies’ constitution of itself through historical-political critique be usefully challenged by perspectives associated with deconstruction?
4. America in the Work of Derrida- What status does Derrida’s (in)famous claim “l’Amerique, mais c’est la deconstruction” have in his thought?- What is the relationship between “a certain American hegemony” and a “that strange Europe” in Derrida’s work?- What affects did his prolonged exposure to America and its institutions have on Derrida’s thought over time?
5. The Reception of Derrida in the United States- What role has the deconstruction “primer” played in the reception of Derrida’s work in the US? How did the emphasis on critical and reading methodologies limit aspects of his thought?- What role did Derrida’s work have in the changes in the US university system that took place from the 1970s onwards?- What is the influence of Derrida’s thought in US academic life today? What is likely to be its legacy in the US?
6. Derrida and 21st Century America- Michael Naas has suggested that Derrida would not have put forward the hypothesis “deconstruction is America” under the Bush administration. Does the “event” of Barack Obama’s election change this?- What light can Derrida’s late work, particularly Specters of Marx, shed on the global financial crisis and the US bailout of Wall Street?- Can the continued influence of religious discourse in US culture be approached through Derrida’s late work on messianism without Messiah?
Abstracts of 200-300 words should be submitted by e-mail as an MS Word attachment to Derrida.America@gmail.com by 30th March 2009. Submissions should also include name, affiliation, email address, title of paper, and, if possible, the panel the applicant feels their paper will best contribute to. We also welcome joint proposals for panels of three papers on themes other than those stated above. Applicants will be informed by mid-April as to their inclusion in the conference program. Please also note that we intend to pursue publication avenues stemming from the conference theme.
Further information is here: http://www.ucd.ie/philosophy/derridaamerica/cfp.html.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Derrida (and others of his time, such as Badiou, Baudrillard, Deleuze) drive a lot of people crazy because they substitute imagination for perception in their thinking, (a) without knowing this themselves, and (b) of course without informing their readers of it.
ReplyDeleteThis is out-of-body thinking, and something they have in common with, for example, Creationists. If you go to a creationist museum and see the dioramas of humans and dinosaurs and ask, "What is missing here?", the answer is "sensory evidence". That is why Creationism is not science but religion.
Likewise, D and co. do not produce philosophy, but poetry, a combination of perception and imagination, but unmarked a such. Salvador Dali's melting watches also mix perception and imagination, but we all get that, and so we appreciate the lesssons of Surrealism.
The evidence for D's surrealism is right there in his text. He gets the language for his epistemology from Husserl. Phenomenology starts with a "principle of principles" that "primordial presence to intuition is the source of sense and evidence, the a priori of a prioris."
This means that "the certainty, itself ideal and absolute, that the universal form of all experience (Erlebnis), and therefore of all life, has always been and will always be the present. The present alone is and ever will be. Being is presence or the modification of presence. The relation with the presence of the present as the ultimate form of being and of ideality is the move by which I transgress empirical existence, factuality, contingency, worldliness, etc." [Speech and Phenomena, 53-54.]
However, the choice of the words "present" and "presence" to indicate the ground of all knowledge has some very unfortunate consequences. That choice sets up a confusion between two completely different meanings of the word "presence."
One meaning is "phenomenological presence". This refers to the immediate access to being in the original act of knowledge. It does not refer to time at all. So, phenomenological presence might be better expressed by calling it presence-to-being. That would save it from being confused with the other meaning of "presence", what we should call "temporal presence", that is, the occurrence of an event at a particular moment in time.
Derrida also calls this living presence "the now". This reinforces the confusion between presence-to-being and occurrence-at-a-particular-moment-in-time. It is also unfortunate that Derrida uses the word "form" in the phrase "the universal form of all experience". What he wants to refer to is the "universal basis of all experience", which is not a form. It is an act. But this word-slippage is also quite telling, and one of the many clues in Derrida's work that he is confusing the order of abstract concepts and the order of actual reality.
This epistemology leads to the cornerstone mistake of claiming that iterability is an a priori condition of knowing, whereas in fact iterability is an a posteriori result of knowing. An original presence-to-being (insight) occurs in time. Consequently it is repeatable. So, iterability is not "inside" phenomenological presence, it is extrinsic to it. This mistake is made all the more easy since both relationships are necessary. Once you get this, then all of Derrida's objections to realist epistemology collapse, and his core philosophical system collapses into imaginary ashes.
I have discussed these issues at length in my article "Dealing With Derrida", which you can find on the Radical Academy web site. http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphilmhd1.htm
Although running down Derrida's mistakes in his text is difficult, once you get the key point that he was dissociated, the whole pattern of his out-of-body thinking makes sense. Once you discover Derrida's dissociation, you find it in many thinkers. There is a lot of out-of-body thinking in philosophy and social theory, but Derrida's contemporaries carried it to extremes.
Dissociation is the result of trauma, and trauma is easy to come by. There are many sources of insight into dissociation. I recommend Trauma and the Body (2006) by Pat Ogden et al. as a start.