PETER SHAW
261 ,
Not only biographers are celebrating freedom from fact these
days, but also scholars throughout the humanities and social
sciences, while some theorists of science edge in the same direction.
Thus deconstruction proves to have provided the philosophical justi–
fication for a broad movement away from Western objectivity and
rationality. In this perspective it has to be judged a success, having
helped to bring about a number of results in the intellectual world: a
retreat to relativism of values; distaste for the assertion of either in–
tellectual authority or its correlate, social control; and an instinctive
attraction to the delegitimizing tendency, whether in the intellectual,
social, or political realm.
Faced by deconstruction's unmistakable challenge to the in–
tegrity of their calling, academics not only failed to defend them–
selves, but also shirked their clear responsibility as scholars: that is,
to report fully on the true nature of the phenomenon set before
them . Instead their responses ranged from ignorance to credulity,
reflecting either innocent self-deception or submissiveness in the face
of intimidation - or a bit of each. In retrospect it appears that the
peculiar aura of distinguished difficulty and intellectual superiority
surrounding deconstruction functioned in a positively intimidating
manner. Just as at present "no one
dares
to utter a liberal doctrine"
when literary theory is discussed, so from the beginning observers
retreated in the face of what Michel Foucault has revealingly called
the
"obscurantisme terrorist"
of Derrida's prose style. One understands
Foucault to be referring to the fact that any straightforward remark
about Derrida's work, or about deconstruction in general-let alone
a remark critical of either- is certain to be greeted with the- most
powerful weapon in the academic arsenal: intellectual contempt.
This contempt, moreover, is always likely to be compounded with
the ever ready charge of political reaction.
Both of these techniques of intimidation were used against
E. D. Hirsch, whose literary theory amounted to asserting that it is
possible to arrive at a close approximation of an author's intended
meaning. One critic called this assertion "the intellectual equivalent
of aggressiveness and a wish to dominate" and branded it as "part of
an ideology of society that is authoritarian and hierarchical." Terry
Eagleton called Hirsch "authoritarian and juridical" and added, pre–
dictably enough, that "the aim of all this policing is the protection of
private property."
Just how much support Hirsch received from his non-decon–
structionist colleagues can be surmised from the following remark by
