Derrida for Sociology? A Comment on Fuchs and Ward

Abstract

Fuchs and Ward's (1994) premise is that deconstruction can be mapped onto Kuhn's distinction between normal science and paradigmatic shifts, differentiating and versions of deconstruction. Owed to the work of Jacques Derrida (1973, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988), the radical version of deconstruction emerges from periods of scientific crisis, when a textual field is disorganized. In the context of crisis, everyone questions everything, even basic assumptions. Fuchs and Ward argue that moderate deconstruction takes over when a field organizes itself around certain assumptions which are exempt from deconstruction so that practical work can go forward. In this context, moderate deconstruction becomes merely a form of intellectual contest (e.g., in science and law) and not a groundless critique of everything conducted in nonrepresentational playful writing. This seemingly harmless duality of radical and moderate deconstructions decides in favor of the moderate version, which is precisely what Derrida says always happens when people present neat dichotomies. Moderate deconstruction is not deconstruction because it embodies foundationalism (the posit of first principles or assumptions), which Derrida criticizes as metaphysically and politically freighted. Moreover, as I argue below, radical deconstruction is perfectly capable of generating a disciplined intellectual program, even a version of sociology. My thesis is that Fuchs and Ward have got deconstruction wrong. Most important, they have Derrida wrong. They fail to read him as a social theorist, indeed as a left and feminist one. At the very least, Derrida is a sociologist concerned with the politics of discourse:

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.