<< Tokugawa Blogging: Best of 2006 | Front Page | 'Theory' for me but not for thee >>
Friday, February 02, 2007
Insert pun on ‘arche’, probably
From The Chron of Higher Ed (free link - thanks!):
The University of California has sued the family of Jacques Derrida, a pioneer in contemporary philosophy and literary theory who died in 2004. The lawsuit is the first public eruption of a bitter, behind-the-scenes battle that involves both the papers and, perhaps, the legacy of the thinker.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Central California in late November, focuses on the ultimate disposition of Derrida’s papers, many of which are housed at the University of California at Irvine. At the time of his death, Derrida taught both at Irvine and at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, in Paris.
The Derrida papers at Irvine were donated by the author to the university in 1990. The papers are the centerpiece of the university’s Critical Theory Archive, which is part of the Special Collections and Archives section of Irvine’s libraries.
According to a guide to the Derrida archive, the papers include “manuscripts, typescripts, and recordings” that provide comprehensive documentation of his activities as a student, teacher, and scholar. The collection spans the years 1946 to 1998, the guide adds, but contains “no material that might be described as ‘personal,’ such as private correspondence.”
What is at stake in the battle may be the remainder of Derrida’s papers, which are held by his estate or in other repositories, including the Institute of Contemporary Publishing Archives, known by its French acronym IMEC, near the city of Caen, in northwestern France.
Well, I have no opinion about this, really, except that it is sure to be irony-fodder, one way or another. I was unaware that Derrida was married with sons. I thought he was a life-long bachelor.
Comments
I thought he was a life-long bachelor.
John, see if you can get a copy of the “Derrida” film that came out a few years ago. Besides the scenes of family life that are in the film, there may be some other surprises there for you.
It’s sort of odd. I have no real knowledge of the man’s personal life (obviously). But at some point I definitely acquired the impression that he was unmarried.
John Cage’s publisher (Edition Peters) has sued the composer of a one-minute silent passage in one of his pieces (in homage to Cage’s “4’33”.) Peters claims ownership of the very idea of silent music.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
Just a reminder than law and finance rule everything, even dada. Forsake all hope.
I don’t know if this is the same guy, John, but one alleged plagiarist had in his defence that his silence was digital, not merely analogue. That made my day.
I read Derrida; I become Derrida. I am a life-long bachelor. My three sons inevitably refer in my mind to a fictitious drama of a father with three sons, My three sons in a world with three suns shining in a firmament of my reading, wherein I construct the context of my life-long bachelorhood. Derrida, I am Derrida. As I read Derrida I create the author in my image. Works for me.
Actually, didn’t Derrida write a bit about wanking as the pharmakon, or something like that?
...that dangerous supplement…
Married or not, Professor Derrida’s papers would make a very fine pile of fish wrap.
John Cage’s publisher (Edition Peters) has sued the composer of a one-minute silent passage in one of his pieces (in homage to Cage’s “4’33”.) Peters claims ownership of the very idea of silent music.
As I recall what happened, the person sued credited Cage as the composer (he was offering an “arrangement"). In that case, the publisher’s actions make more sense.
Well, dada isn’t supposed to make sense, but publishing and finance are. If there was ever any idea that Cage was getting outside the commodity system, reframing the idea of “art”, or doing any of those other good things, the lawsuit certainly laid that idea to rest.
The fact that the lawsuit was settled before trial for an undisclosed six-figure sum (with a decimal point?) tells me that it may have been a publicity stunt.
Nietzsche wrote someplace that philosophers shouldn’t get married and that the exceptions, such as Socrates, only married ironically. It figures tht Derrida would improve on straightforward irony. If you believe the folklore about Xantippe, Socrates had the decency to marry unhappily while by all acounts Derrida married very well indeed, an amazing aporia.
Actually, if anybody needed to get married, it was Nietzsche. At the very least it would have gotten him out of the clutches of his awful sis when he got sick. Unfortunately, poor guy fell for the Lou Salome type, who were not about to hitch their wagon to his star.
Things might have been so much different if he’d met a nice italian gal in Turin, gotten his notes together, been able to achieve a regime that would banish the headaches and the stomach ache.
Nietzsche is exhibit number one as to why philosophers should get married.
So what exactly is the dispute here? Is UC Irvine claiming that he donated ALL of his papers, and therefore the ones still held by his estate are owed to it?
From reading these California estate planning questions, it seems as though this should be a pretty clear matter if his testamentary wishes were clear. Does anyone know the exact manner in which he donated the papers in 1990? Was it in a clear, official way? Or was it informal?