How+to+Become+a+Dominant+French+Philosopher+The+Case+of+Jacques+Derrida


 * =Title= || "How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida" ||
 * =Author= || Michèle Lamont ||
 * =Date= || //The American Journal of Sociology// 93:3 (November 1987): 584-622. ||
 * =Summary By= || deRaismes ||
 * =Summary= || Main Puzzle: Generally, what are the conditions under which a cultural product becomes defined as important? More specifically, how did Derrida's interpretive theory get legitimized in two distinct cultural environments (France and US)?

Basic answer: Derrida's work is important/legitimate because it fit within two highly structured cultural and institutional systems:
 * In France: Targeted work to large cultural public where his work was seen as a status symbol
 * In US: Originated in élite university literature departments and was diffused by disciples, professional institutions, and journals

Lamont argues that there are two processes for gaining legitimacy:
 * Process by which author defines himself and theory as important
 * Process through which peers and intellectual public define author and theory as important

Generally, Lamont's article tries to locate Derrida's //deconstruction// within the cultural and intellectual landscape of France and the US in the 1970s, proposing that "the evaluation of cultural goods is highly dependent on contextual cultural norms" (585). His main points are that in each case, institutions and systems of acceptance fit with how Derrida presented himself. In France, he helped revivify the Left after a slump since 1968 and became a public darling of snobby intellectuals, furthered by the use of the press. He engaged in debate with the biggest stars of French intellectualism (Lévi-Strauss and Foucault, among others). He published copiously and created journals. He had the right school pedigree (both where he went and where he taught). In the US, he was 'adopted' by élite universities (Yale) and garnered followers who diffused his work. He also published a lot and created new journals.

Lamont concludes that legitimacy depends on adaptability to specific environmental requirements

Derrida's Theoretical Framework: A Few Tidbits

= = = = = = = = = = = =
 * "Languages are systems of relations in which each constituent has a meaning only in relation to other constituents" (589).
 * He questions Saussure and argues that pure difference does not exist: X contains Y and is partially defined by it. Signs both supplement and partially express one another
 * "Following Nietzsche, he argues that the philosophical enterprise is //logocentric// in its attempt to ground the meaning relations constitutive of the world as an instance that itself lies outside all reality" (590).
 * In //Of Grammatology//, Derrida denies the existence of essential meanings and proposes an approach to the study of written signs that exposes the multiplicity of possible interpretations. He promotes deconstruction as a method for decodifying the various and often contradictory meanings of a text" (590). ||
 * =Discussion points= ||  ||

= = = = = = = =

= =