Bourdieu (unintelligently) wrote of "a class racism", and E. Said accused Chomsky of being a "racist" for not citing Arab scholars of a topic instead of Jewish scholars of the same topic.
If deconstruction is principally the deconstruction of racism (and, I’d say, other prejudicial attitudes, system and mimetic flows: sexism, homophobia, etc.) it is because deconstruction is, always already, (and this is why John D. Caputo sees, in it, a contemporary, and fortifyingly supplemented, refraction of those humane religious visions it is our responsibility to separate from tribalistic religiosity) THE synthesis of faith and reason; reason’s self-complexification via reason, faith’s self-complexification via faith, reason’s complexification via faith and faith’s complexification via reason. These complexifications intersect in response to the attempts to “use deconstruction against itself/Derrida” by nationalistic, racist, sexist, etc. “deconstructionists” (these right-wing deconstructionists exist, and Zizek humorously warns against them); but the processes of deconstruction themselves consistently undermine the aims of right-wing deconstructionists because deconstruction is, formally speaking, a doubt-inducing and space-creating set of practices, whereas right-wing ideology is, at root (more than left-wing ideology, and certainly more than anarchy, non-ideology, etc.) anti-doubt and anti-openness, relying as it does, structurally, upon the quite precisely thought-less and pre-prefrontal-cortical hierarchies that deconstruction, and in fact philosophy in general, cannot help but undermine by showing the comprehensive stupidity of. The ableist presumptions upon which ALL right-wing thought rests are precisely those that deconstruction always, inevitably, unearths and undermines. Thus, to place one’s faith in deconstruction as a process is not so foolish, given the fact that it readily reveals the structural inconsistency of evil and suggests, even if it can never “prove”) the structural integrity, at least provisionally, of goodness, forms of goodness that might always be makeshift and imperfect, but are favorable and demonstrably so.
If there was any justice, Derrida would be brought back from the dead and forced to read this, or even several permutations of it tagged one after another.
Very interesting. Not publicly of course, but I would admit to being prejudiced and slightly racist. However I try to act on its opposite and my philosophy and politics are egalitarian. All people are racist in one way or the other. I think one must recognize their flaws to fight them. I recognize mine, accept it, and fight it.
He skips around from Camus to Heidegger to Hegel to Barthes to Nietzsche. Always thought he originated binary oppositions and privilege to Plato’s Pharamakon. Interesting to him him talk about the privilege given to brother.
1:39Min The role of unions in academia has been to extend what takes place at the place where the parents of the students are exploited. To further neoliberalize it to deprive their kids the capacity to develop their minds, or, humanity. The latter is the legacy of The academic unions in universities.
Well, derrida says here that if you're a white supremacist then you are not necessarily a racist. It simply means you romanticize your own race. If you enslave other race, then that is racism.
