<< Post-Modern Monday: Rhinoplasty | Front Page | A crowd's job of work >>
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Deference/Deférrance
I am a bit late to contribute to Joseph’s thread, but let me suggest a possible name for his fallacy.
First, there is a thing we may as well call ‘the narcissism of small deferences’: sloppy sort of citational practice we are all familiar with. ‘As X has masterfully shown ...’; ‘As Y has argued ...’; ‘Z’s profound insight that ...’ For any sufficiently large X, Y, or Z, academic fame-wise.
It then follows that the name for what Joseph is on about should be: ‘the narcissism of small deférrances’: sloppy sort of defensive move, in which, for any critiqued X, by Y (if Y is sufficiently large) you are entitled to demand a reading of Z. (’Deférrance is quasi-transcendental: neither a point of etiquette, nor a concept.)
Comments
sloppy sort of defensive move, in which, for any critiqued X, by Y (if Y is sufficiently large) you are entitled to demand a reading of Z.
Very frequently, a reading of S/Z.
’Z’ is clearly Zizek, and ‘Y’ might be Yourcenar, but I’m stumped as to the identity of ‘X’.
Umpossible. ‘Z’ is Zorro.
First, there is a thing we may as well call ‘the narcissism of small deferences’: sloppy sort of citational practice we are all familiar with. ‘As X has masterfully shown ...’; ‘As Y has argued ...’; ‘Z’s profound insight that ...’ For any sufficiently large X, Y, or Z, academic fame-wise.
Wait, we’re not supposed to do the bowing? (Our grad advisor calls it “bowing” --- I’m trying to interpret that as Jane Austen dances and politeness rather than leaving offerings at a shrine)
Could you specify more about how this is sloppy or bad citation work? Is it just the “masterfully” thrown in there, or is there something else I’m not getting?
X (says Kripke) is nobody’s name.
Admittedly, the ‘as Y as argued ...’ one is unclear. The idea is that what would follow would be a statement of the conclusion, without any presentation of the general argument.
The fallacy is the deployment of success terms like ‘brilliant, ‘proved’, ‘insight’, without providing evidence of success. When in fact a reasonable person might doubt the success in question.
If what your advisor meaning by ‘bowing’ is this sort of illegitimate cross between ‘dress for success’ and ‘we’ll dress them up in voices’, which gets you over the socially awkward phase of reason-giving, then I have to say I’m anti-bowing.
Hunh. I think it’s more of a case of “no one will believe you invented the concept of the trace, so you’d better tip your hat to Derrida” in what I’ve been told.
I think the temptation to throw in a “brilliant” or “incisive” here and there is often a case of enthusiasm and trying to convey excitement over this other person’s ideas rather than a case of anxiety or boot-licking. Being told your article is 1000 words over is a sure way to cure it, though.
Well, of course you have to credit your sources. But one thing that makes for a tempting fallacy is, precisely, resemblance to something that you are obliged to do. It is, in biological terms, a form of protective mimicry - excuse me, memicry. You ward off attack by resembling something that others have learned should not be attacked.
The thing that makes my Freud joke appropriate is that what looks like deference to others - that is, a form of social respect - is really self-indulgence: self-flattery of your own ideas, in the mirror. You are saying someone else is brilliant. But really, functionally, it amounts to a pat on your own back, regarding whatever you are doing. That’s the danger.
Xenophanes?