DERRIDA MAILBAG: I’m in plain text, readers are in bold. Rob Dakin: In terms of “scattering” vs. “community”–wouldn’t you derive the best results from independent free agents voting their individual consciences? Is the herd instinct ever a positive binding agent, or does it merely give us more or less benign “mobs”?

Is it not possible that representatives elected by voters with no particular group identity would more objectively represent the best interests of a society comprised of that kind of voter?

Perhaps our problem in the U.S. is the two party system (that is dangerously close to being a one party system, as is often pointed out from both the far left and the far right), which leaves little room for diversity of political vision, or even exercise of individual conscience (too many issues packaged together).

I replied: Hey–thanks–I think my use of the term “political” may have gotten in the way here. I wasn’t thinking about voting as a bloc–which has its uses, but isn’t really a good sign OR effect of “community”–I was thinking more of political action a la the Montgomery bus boycott. And, even more so, I was thinking about the social/communal support that can be provided by self-conscious “communities”–the way that people, no matter how conflicted or alienated, can draw strength from having a community that offers them a home.

So I don’t really disagree w/what you’ve written–

He replied: I really wasn’t trying to make a point in what I wrote. I was interested by what you wrote and kind of “thinking out loud.” I, personally, am, seemingly constitutionally, a bit of a loner–not a joiner–but I certainly recognize that “voting with your feet,” as in the Montgomery bus boycott, is often the best way to go to achieve positive effects for a group, or community.

On the other hand, group identity can be used to the benefit of rabble-rousers and demagogues to very bad effect, and I’m not sure where to reach to get a grip on the handbrake. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Historically, HAVE the benefits outweighed the risks? I honestly don’t know…

The Chickpea Eater: One thought on the Derrida post — I don’t have the book in front of me, but I think you may be misreading the book. You say that he privileges fissures over unity, scattering over gathering. But I can imagine that there might be some line like this in there, “In the very privileging of fissures, the unity of community comes to light.” I remember that, for example, Deconstruction is said to uphold the idea of the “justice which cannot be deconstructed.” The idea being, I think, that if we deconstruct as much as we can, we will be left with reality-as-it-truly-is (or the community, or justice, or the gift, or whatever). So what seems to be a dichotomy actually turns out not to be — in pointing out the fissures, he’s supposedly exposing the community. In scattering, he is actually gathering. Deconstruction only makes sense with reference to some not-to-be-deconstructed and as-yet-hidden ideal (be it justice, community, the gift, whatever). At least, that’s how I understood it.

In any case, after reading the book, my conclusion is basically this — deconstruction may not say anything that is terribly offensive, but it also doesn’t say anything that is important which hasn’t been stated more clearly by someone else. Unlike Heidegger, who really does bitchslap Kant (and, possibly, reductionism/scientism) in new and fun ways.

Well, but the “justice which cannot be deconstructed” also cannot be defined; it’s always the “avenir,” the “to come.” So I’m not sure that it does any work as foundation for community.