Equivocation and ambiguity are not always virtues
To be fair to Terry Eagleton, he’s perfectly capable of being entirely lucid and even (dare I say it) sensible. I leafed through The Eagelton Reader earlier today to find a sample – and it was not difficult. From an essay called ‘Deconstruction and Human Rights’:
Equivocation and ambiguity are not always moral virtues; and there seems no doubt that such finespun obliquity on issues of central political importance has done much to disillusion those erstwhile enthusiasts for deconstruction who somewhat gullibly credited its promissory note to deliver some political goods.
There you go. Clear as a bell.
Update: I shortened the quoted passage, to omit a swipe at Derrida that I almost didn’t include to begin with, but ended up including for the sake of offering some context. But Roger points out that it’s inaccurate – and I don’t agree with the point of it anyway (which seems to be that all writing ought to be politically useful in some way, or at least ought to be rebuked for not being), so out it goes. My main goal was just to be fair to Eagleton; and the passage is more elegant on its own anyway.
A well-placed full stop would have improved the first line if that paragraph:
There is a good deal in the recent Derrida about gift and promise, obligation and responsibility; but it is hard to see.
Actually, I don’t see how gross misrepresentation could be clear as a bell, although if your notion is that there is no criterion for saying what a theory is that you dislike, it is just a thing you throw darts at, you might like Eagleton’s description. Otherwise, I would have to say it applies more to Empson than to Derrida. The nice thing about it is that it pretends to respond to what Derrida wrote about gifts and exchanges – which was pretty extensive – what he wrote about violence and responsibility – again, pretty extensive, starting with the essays about Levinas in the 60s – and then proceeds to pay no attention to them.
This is, by the way, the m.o. of those who attack Darwinism, and it makes as much sense, vis a vis Derrida, as it does to say, for instance, that Darwinism basically taught the Nazi ethos – something endlessly repeated by creationists. I’m surprised that you approve of it in Eagleton, O.B. I thought one of the criteria for truth that you strove for was trying to correctly describe even positions you disagree with.
Hm. Well, it is, roger (especially since I’ve just finished fussing at Mark Vernon for, precisely, misdescribing what people say). I hesitated over including the first part of the quotation, actually (everything before the elipse), one because I don’t know if it’s accurate, and two because not all writing has to be brought to bear on the nature of neo-Stalinism or the oppression of women anyway. I should have just done the last part as a stand alone. Maybe I’ll update it! (If I do I’ll say I did. Not trying to erase the record here.) The point wasn’t to get at Derrida but to note that Eagleton himself doesn’t always make a fetish of obliquity (and to be fair to him). I included the first bit to give it a little context. So trying to be fair to Eaglers I was unfair to Derrida – tsk.
Thanks, O.B.