postmodern approaches [Was: More on substituting]

[Joel S. Berson]

At 8/5/2011 05:21 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>But Hirschbein seems to
>believe that his use own of "no substitute for" is perfectly lucid. His
>research over the years "focused on postmodern approaches to nuclear
>crises." (Think about *that* one!)

I am thinking.  And I imagine Hirschbein saying about Hiroshima what
Derrida wrote about 9/11, as noted by Edward Rothstein in an
appraisal shortly after he died.  I find I did not ever send this to ADS-L.

The New York Times, Monday October 11, 2004, "An Appraisal: The Man
Who Showed Us How to Take the World Apart", by Edward Rothstein, page
B1 -- its last few paragraphs.  Transcribed by me, at a time when I
did not have access to the NYTimes archives, with apologies for any
typos:  It's still at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/arts/music/11derr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rothtein%20man%20showed%20apart&st=cse

But of course, one reason for the extraordinary success of Derrida's
ideas is that they also followed an orthodoxy in which rebellion is
privileged over tradition and iconoclasm over authority. Independence
is declared; obeisance is dismissed. This devotion to autonomy,
accompanied by a spirit of play, is partly what gave Derrida a
following in America far more enduring than that in France. His
radical anti-authoritarianism and counter-Western ideas also gave him
an empathetic reception on the international political left.
         But this orthodoxy, too, can be as ruthless and demanding as
any other. This may have been why Derrida could often become mannered
and puerile, endlessly turning rebellion on itself. And late in his
life, Derrida, bristling at charges that he was a relativist, tried
to find some sort of firm, unshakeable ground upon which to stand a
notion of political activity and justice that might justify his
triumphant orthodoxy. To no avail. In the recent book, "Philosophy in
a Time of Terror," here is what he said about 9/11:
         "We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this
way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September11. The brevity of the
appellation (September 11, 9/11) stems not only from an economic or
rhetorical necessity. The telegram of this metonymy -- a name, a
number -- points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not
recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify,
that we do not know what we are talking about."
         The rest is silence.

[The last sentence above is not mine; it is the last in Rothstein's article.]

Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org