DECONSTRUCTION

I have spent 15 years trying to read Derrida, the clearest “originator” of deconstruction. His work is very difficult because it relies on an in-depth knowledge of Western philosophy, a set of theoretical gambits that are at odds with those implicit in this same Western culture, a use of language that is intentionally metaphoric and no desire to lower his rhetorical or discursive level to please an audience that has not done its “homework.”

Since, as Smith’s article makes manifest, the humanities are assumed to be self-evident and lucid to the average reader, Derrida’s writings have angered those who feel no respect for the discipline of letters or the rigors of philosophy, but who feel instead that their native linguistic abilities alone should be the lift ticket to the top of humanistic learning. This prejudice against the humanities is evident in everything from salaries to the relative support of the National Endowment for the Humanities versus the National Science Foundation.

I was interested, given this decline in the support for humanities and the rise in the sciences, to note that Smith’s impulse for this article came from Caltech. I believe you would not, at that institution, find that the members of the math, physics or chemistry departments “spoke his language” either, but Smith would accord them some respect and recognize that his own ignorance disqualified him from public judgment.

DANIEL D. FINEMAN

OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE

Los Angeles