Introduction. Deconstruction post mortem Half a century has now passed since the birth of Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction, during which time its death has been pronounced a number of times. Although deconstruction ultimately managed somehow to rise from the grave, it seemed fated to live on as a toothless bogeyman, no longer capable of evoking fear. This is hardly surprising – such is often the case with subversive ideas: they come into their own, quickly gain influence, then slowly enter a dormant phase, ultimately ending up as a museum piece. Deconstruction’s early, ‘strategic’ form,1 with its aim of ‘destabilizing’ [labilité] fossilized structures by ‘shaking’ them up and making them ‘tremble’ [soliciter],2 was well suited to the turbulent atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s in both France and America. The term itself became a watchword for intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic, providing them with a convenient opportunity for carrying out a ‘revolution on paper’ in the privacy of their cosy offices, without the need for carrying protest signs or chanting radical 3 slogans. As the main ‘critical force’ behind postmodernism and poststructur- alism,4 Derrida’s project and its subsequent variations, the aims of which often 1 Derrida described his early deconstruction practices as a ‘general strategy of decon- struction’, which differed from later variants. See e.g. J. Derrida,Positions , trans. A. Bass. Chicago 1981, p. 41. Hereinafter PO, followed by the page number. 2 Derrida’s term, see ‘Différance’,Margins of Philosophy, trans. A. Bass. Chicago 1982. pp. 1–29. Hereinafter DI, followed by the page number. See also J. Derrida,Writing and Difference, trans. A. Bass. Chicago 1978. Hereinafter WD, followed by the page number. 3 J. Culler’s term. See On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. New York 1982. Hereinafter OD, followed by the page number. 4 Although I consider poststructuralism to be a current within postmodernity (especially given Derrida’s views, for which structuralism as a philosophical current was the latest strong accent within the metaphysical tradition); nevertheless, although the issues that most interested many poststructuralists were not always the same ones being addressed by postmodern thinkers, critical postmodernity (postmodernism) undoubtedly enriched the intellectual resource base available for their investigations. Poststructural criticism, broadly speaking, was much more interested in the problems of literature as a discipline (in particular the problematics of modern theory) than the problems of phi- losophy as a discipline (in particular the problematics of the Metaphysics of Presence, as Heidegger described it). In the thinking of Derrida, these two currents of reflection merged, but this was not the case with many other poststructuralists for whom criti- cism of the metaphysical philosophical tradition was a tangential concern. Therefore, in most cases, I refer to poststructuralism and postmodernity separately. See e.g. S. Weber, Anna R. Burzyska - 9783631674345 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 09:12:22PM via free access 10 Introduction. Deconstruction post mortem departed significantly from those of its architect, proved remarkably effective. No one can deny deconstruction’s role in arousing a sense of intellectual vigi- lance in academia by questioning the seemingly obvious, unmasking stereotypes and dogmas, shaking up the institutional foundations of the humanities, and above all, provoking a change in thinking about the shape and duties of philos- ophy, hermeneutics, and the study of literature. At the time, there was indeed a very real need for ‘a profound change in the self-image of Western intellectuals’,5 which Jacques Derrida and his American disciples strove to effect. The need for such a change had been expressed earlier by Richard Rorty, the author of the passage quoted above, as well as by many others who likewise supported a fun- damental reform of the ‘human sciences.’ While it would be wrong to trivialize the role that Derrida’s deconstruc- tion and its offshoot deconstructionism played during that period, their main achievements are now largely historical events, and can (and even should) be considered fan important but closed chapter in the history of twentieth-century humanistic thought. Though deconstruction once provided an effective means for reassessing various intellectual (already ‘exhausted’) traditions during the 6 early, critical phase of postmodernity and poststructuralism, now that it has fulfilled its ‘mission’,7 there is little sense in discussing it further. This is particu- larly true given that the humanities (along with philosophy and literary studies) today are preoccupied with a completely different set of issues, among them, the search for new ways to draw positive conclusions and build positive projects from the ‘fragmented’ accomplishments of various earlier ‘posts’ (postmod- ernism, poststructuralism, etc.). ‘Postmoderne und Postatrukturalismus’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation 1986, vol. 17, no. 63, pp. 105‒122. See also my essays ‘Po czym rozpoznać poststrukturalizm?’ and ‘Podsumowanie (poststrukturalizm w pigułce)’ in AT. 5 R. Rorty, ‘Deconstruction’, The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, Volume 8: From Formalism to Post-Sructuralism. Cambridge 1995, pp. 166‒196. Hereinafter D, followed by the page number. 6 I consider the critical phase of postmodernism and poststructuralism to be the period from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, sometimes (especially in American terminology) also called the phase of ‘critical theory’. 7 I wrote about this in detail in my book Dekonstrukcja i interpretacja. Kraków 2001 (hereinafter DI, accompanied by the page number), particularly in the chapter ‘Misja dekonstrukcji’. Anna R. Burzyska - 9783631674345 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 09:12:22PM via free access Introduction. Deconstruction post mortem 11 This has led to a number of so-called ‘turns’ in the humanities – including the ethical, political, performative, and empirical8 turns (followed by many others) – a few of which are discussed in detail in this book. In efforts to diag- nose their causes, two perspectives have gained prominence: the first view is that these ‘turns’ are a direct or indirect consequence of earlier critical trends (including deconstruction),9 and thus a product of ‘late’ (or ‘very late’) postmod- ernity and poststructuralism. The second, competing view is that everything that has occurred in thinking in the humanities since the early 1980s has been a reaction against allegedly ‘revisionist’ (and therefore negative) tendencies, a ‘resistance movement’ that arose in opposition to ‘critical theory’, which was already in decline. Proponents of the first view generally value the impact of the critical phase of deconstruction, especially its reexamination of two enormous monoliths – philosophy and literary studies – and stress that without the radical gestures of the thinkers involved in the early phase of this movement, the sub- sequent transformations that occurred in various disciplines in the humanities would never have been possible. Supporters of the second view, in turn, tend to question the value of the early phases of the ‘posts’, seeing this period in the his- tory of twentieth-century humanistic thought as a strange and incomprehensible interruption, during which a group of fanatical intellectuals were determined to destroy the greatest achievements of humankind, including a cultural heri- tage that represented the endeavours of countless generations, reaching back to ancient times. Such opinions are still commonly expressed, and deconstruction remains the primary target of these harsh assessments. Another very common view is that the ethical and political turns in the humanities provided the prover- bial ‘wooden stake’ that finally put an end to the deconstructive daemon reck- lessly conjured up by a certain French philosopher. The mild irony in this last sentence suggests my own inclinations to support the first of these views – a position I will try to defend it in this book. I believe that even if so-called ‘critical theory’ (a term often used to designate the early 8 The term ‘turn toward experience’ is more commonly used, but I have chosen to use the term ‘empirical turn’, which possesses a certain elegance, though reservations could be raised against it (especially in the context of Derrida’s thought. For more, see the section in this book titled ‘Derrida and Experience’). 9 This lasted more or less from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. I have written about this in e.g. my book Anty-Teoria literatury. Kraków 2006 (hereinafter AT, followed by the page number), and in the chapter ‘Poststrukturalizm’, Teorie literatury XX wieku. Kraków 2006, co-written with M. P. Markowski. Hereinafter TL, followed by the page number. Anna R. Burzyska - 9783631674345 Downloaded from PubFactory at 09/26/2021 09:12:22PM via free access 12 Introduction. Deconstruction post mortem stages of postmodernity and poststructuralism) did not directly shape the posi- tive projects in the humanities that followed deconstruction, it undoubtedly pre- pared the ground for these subsequent shifts. I also firmly believe that Derrida’s thought played a key role in this overall process of reform. Moreover, many cur- rently fashionable terms, such as ‘ethics’ and ‘politics’,10 or ‘performativity’ and ‘experience’, terms which today light up the faces of scholars of the humanities, first appeared some time ago, times