Talk:List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Category 2 Criteria for inclusion 3 Deconstruction is not a mere reading strategy 4 Criteria for inclusion, revisited

[edit] Category

One would think a Category:Deconstructionists would be more appropriate for such a list. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Feel free to change it if you can.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hay4 (talk • contribs) .

I think this should be submitted for AfD since not many people actually call themselves "deconstructionists." Deconstruction is a reading strategy, not a political stance, and it is unreasonable to create a category that most of the inhabitants (notably Derrida) would declare themselves against. Perhaps there is a better term (e.g. "people associated with deconstruction" or something?), but I'm not convinced an animal such as the "deconstructionist" even exists.--csloat 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what it's called. I'd just like to see a list of thinkers that use deconstructive concepts. ADDENDUM: Deconstruction is a political and ethical stance. I still don't care what the list is called, however.Hay4 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Seems like it would be too inclusive of a list to have much value. Sort of like having a list of all "critical thinkers". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more akin to a list of legal realists. Hay4 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sloat and would support a move to a more neutral title like List of deconstructive critics or List of deconstructive philosophers or List of academics using deconstructive ideas (or "deconstructive thinkers," etc.) and/or an AfD. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title; I don't like the new one much but it is far preferable to the old. I would prefer an AfD but if people think it is useful to maintain such a list, let's not use the list to create a category of "deconstructionists" that don't really exist.--csloat 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer an AfD, go ahead and submit it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In support of my posiiton I will say that (1)Derrida did not think there should be a school of thought called deconstruction; (2) plenty of people call themselves deconstructionists. That being said, I don't care what the specific title is. I'm not sure why it bothered you in the first place. Hay4 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 1 actually supports the position I was taking; "deconstruction" is better described as a strategy of reading than a "school of thought." As I said, I don't like the new title much either but it's the best I could think of -- perhaps "thinkers who employ deconstruction" might be better. #2 is fine, but then let's only list those people on the list. People who don't call themselved "deconstructionists" -- e.g. most of the people on the list, including Derrida -- would have to be removed. Such a list would not be useful to anyone, however.--csloat 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that deconstruction is a commonly used word, I would argue that 1 doesn't necessarily support your position. That being said, I really don't care and I don't think this is worth arguing about any further. Hay4 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

What is the criteria for inclusion on this list? IMO, the person must either describe her/himself as a deconstructionist, or there is a citation from a reliable source describing this person as a deconstructionist. It should not just be based on an editor's opinion that such a person is a decon. Otherwise we'll run into problems (ie, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, etc). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Keep in mind this is a very new list. Feel free to contribute to and improve the list. Hay4 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Have your contributions met this standard? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as you can plainly see, I created the page and added 33/34 of the names on the list and cited each and every one of them in less than two days. Hay4 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can plainly see the names on the list (but no citations). The key here is whether the claim that they are indeed "deconstructionists" is verified. For example, in Jack Balkin there is mention that he "employed deconstruction and related literary theories" in one of his works. Ok, says who? And does a (single?) instance of employing deconstruction make one a "deconstructionist" in a larger philosophical sense? It almost appears that people are being added here simply because a search revealed the word "deconstruction" in their primary article. IMO, that isn't sufficient to label someone a "deconstructionist." --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. You asked if I had cited sources when clearly no sources were cited. I'm sorry if that was confusing. Hay4 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the point remains. People should not be on this list unless they either describe her/himself as a deconstructionist, or there is a citation from a reliable source describing this person as a deconstructionist. Mere mention of deconstruction on one's article is not sufficient criteria. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mere mention of deconstruction on one's article is not sufficient criteria." I'm not sure where you got that from. If you'd spend your time citing stuff and not criticizing a brand new list, it would be closer to complete by now. At any rate, the new category is "influenced by deconstruction" which is not a very high bar. Hay4 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstruction is not a mere reading strategy

See, eg, works written by Derrida after his "Force of Law" essay which kicked off his polito-ethical turn; commentators Mark C. Taylor, Simon Critchley, John D. Caputo, Slavoj Zizek (i.e. A Plea for a Return to Differance), and the huge number of articles online dealing with deconstruction's ethical, political, and religious implications. The Yale School of deconstruction (for which there is a separate wikipedia entry) is the strain of deconstruction that might fairly be characterized as a mere reading strategy. Hay4 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "mere" reading strategy. It is a reading strategy. You are correct that it can have "ethical, political, and religious implications" and that Derrida's "Force of Law" essay examines some of them (though it did not "kick off his politico-ethical turn"; the main ideas in that piece (1990) are explored in earlier essays such as "Declarations of Independence" (1986) and "The Ends of Man" (1968)). That does not mean it is not a reading strategy, or, if you like, a mode of interpretation -- I hesitate to call it a "method". Your reference to the "Yale school" is strange, since, according to that article, at least, Derrida is part of that school.--csloat 07:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just facially wrong. While I'm sure that there were elements of post-"FoL" Derrida before he wrote the essay, the tenor of his work changed and his reception in the US also changed. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. I hope you come across some of Derrida's better commentators to guide your studies. Hay4 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, ditto. You're right that his reception in the US changed, but not because of a major "turn" but rather because he was at the time addressing a brand new audience of American legal scholars. The "turn" was in critical legal studies, not in Derrida. Certainly he studied various topics throughout his career, but what you're calling a "turn" is simply the treatment of a different topic -- a topic he had actually treated in earlier works such as those cited above, among others. A "turn" suggests a whole new direction; perhaps the post-1990 emphasis on some topics was different, but I don't see evidence of a turn. If you'd care to cite the commentators who you claim declare Force of Law a major turn, perhaps you can convince me that there is something more to this claim. (It's not really relevant to any of the points made here, but it is interesting nonetheless).-csloat 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess when you can cite nothing to back up your claims you have to resort to misrepresenting what the other side has said. I named three scholars for you, including a specific essay. You can also check out Critchley's "Ethics of Deconstruciton." You know how to use google, so use it. I'm not interested in this argument.Hay4 06:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy, tiger; I think you are misunderstanding me. I meant do you have citations on the specific claim that there was a Derridean "turn" in 1990 -- I did not see your citations as responding to that question; they seemed to me to be on the more general question of Derrida's ethical implications. I'm not aware of any of those authors having made that claim. I am well aware of authors such as Critchley discussing the ethics and politics of deconstruction. I was making the point that Derrida had discussed these things in earlier essays. I'm not interested in an ego battle over who has read more secondary sources on derrida; I think that is silly. I was refuting the specific claim about a "turn" with "Force of Law." It is true, I have read more Derrida than "works about Derrida" (though certainly the authors you cite are all publishers of original thought in their own right). I am frankly quite familiar with two of the authors you cite and not especially impressed with either one of them -- I stopped reading their work years ago. If Taylor or Zizek is announcing a "turn" in Derrida's work, it is news to me, but I would respectfully disagree with them as I have with you. I believe FOL took up themes that had been clearly evident in his work before (at least as early as 82, but arguably as far back as 68); I do not think it marked a fundamental change in his thinking, and I can cite -- indeed, have cited -- various essays from prior to the Cardozo lecture to back up this claim.--csloat 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So, just to be sure I was not going crazy, I went and read the 2006 Zizek article you cited. As I said, I am no huge fan of Zizek (though he is a marvelous speaker, or at least he was when I listened to him lecture a decade ago), but it surprised me that you would claim that Zizek had made a claim about Derrida that seemed so off-base. Anyway, I read the essay. Not once does he refer to Derrida's "Force of Law" essay, nor does he discuss a Derridean "turn" to the political. He does mention "the last two decades" of Derrida's thought, but he does not characterize 1990 as a turning point (in fact, he situates the Derridean ethical analysis where it was in earlier Derrida - in his relationship to Hegel). I realize you basically said above that I haven't read enough secondary sources to be worth your attention, but if you do happen to read this, I wonder if you would still defend your position about a "turn"?--csloat 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my annoyance with you has subsided for the time being. I used a well-circulated convention that FoL kicked off Derrida's "turn". Like any broad historical categorization, it is an imperfect generalization. In fact, there was a transition in Derrida's work leading up to FoL and themes that he took up late in life are evident at the beginning of his writing career. This is all obvious and uniteresting to me. Just so we are clear, I agree that it's absurd to say it was a "major 'turn'" in Derrida's work that began a "whole new direction" in his work. I didn't intend to say that and the fact that you painted me as saying that is juvenile. The reason FoL is notable in the US is that it is the first time (that I am aware of) that he talked about undeconstructibility. The notion of "undeconstructibility" is the major feature of Derrida II, "differance" is the major feature of Derrida I. This is what I wanted you to see by reading the Zizek article. If you disagree with the idea that we can speak of Derrida I and Derrida II (which is fine) it's because you are not familir with Derrida's later work and the style of deconstruction you are familiar originated with the Yale School. Okay, so now on to your arguments. You seem to arguing two points: 1) There was not a "turn" in Derrida's work and therefore his work is consistent and contiguous; and 2) that even if Derrida's work took two different tenors (an idea you seem to accept in your last post) there was not a sudden major turn. I hope we've established that the first contention is just wrong. The second contention is something that nobody would argue against; the position you're arguing against is a strawman that you made up. Finally, in the future, you should refrain from the the rhetorical trick where specifically ask someone to cite commentators, and after he responds reply by saying that the person was engaging in an "ego battle over who has read more secondary sources on [subject]". This is simply not acceptable behavior and it will not win you friends IRL.Hay4 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm - I'll thank you not to tell me what I am or am not familiar with. Your claim about the Yale School is absurd. I am not familiar with the Yale school. I am familiar with Derrida from reading Derrida. I have been reading Derrida since 1983 when I encountered his essay in Diacritics (nuclear culture issue). Written almost a decade before his so-called "polito-ethical turn." Your words exactly, not a "straw man." I am not the one who argued there was a "turn" in Derrida's work, you are, and you explicitly stated that the "turn" was a turn to writing about political and ethical issues. If I misunderstood you, let's leave it at that, and stop trying to make this a pissing contest. I disagree with the idea of "Derrida II," though you may be right that the term "undeconstructibility" was new. Though it is pretty obviously a concept in the Declarations essay, in the Nuclear culture essay, and in other pre-90 essays. It has been some years since I looked at this stuff but this is still quite obvious to me. I did not make this up as a "strawman," I was simply responding to your point. I'll also thank you not to tell me how to win friends. I thought my response was quite measured and generous given the dismissive "go read some books" tone of your comment. There is no need to chide me about responding to your insult; if you don't want to read stuff like that, don't be condescending in the first place. It's quite simple.csloat 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion, revisited

Can we please try to articulate a clear and meaningful set of criteria for inclusion in this list? It seems to me that the list is becoming less useful, less meaningful, and less worth retaining on Wikipedia the more it expands. Being "influenced by deconstruction" in itself is not a sufficiently high bar for inclusion, as it's easily argued to be true of almost all (or at least a very large amount of) scholarship in literature and continental philosophy from the last thirty or forty years -- so the list would either be quite arbitrary or infinitely expandable. To be more concrete: of the people whose work I know on this list, Bloom, Cavell, Delany, Jameson, and Said seem clearly out of place (as none of their work is particularly centered on deconstruction any more than it is on a hundred other topics), and Laclau, Mouffe, Hardt, and Rorty seem like boundary cases that might or might not belong, depending on what the implicit criteria for inclusion are. I see no problem with creating a list of thinkers who are clearly and centrally interested in deconstruction, but we need a clearer way to determine who belongs on it, or else it will not be a maintainable Wikipedia article. -- Rbellin|Talk 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems ok to me. Mtevfrog 08:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the list makes no misrepresentations, I don't see a problem with including people with a range of interests of which deconstruction is one. Hay4 15:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloom contributed to the famed Deconstruction and Criticism (though IIRC the introduction hedges on whether he's really a "deconstructionist," if there is such a thing), so I should think he gets in automatically. --zenohockey 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)