How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of
advertisement
How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida Author(s): Michele Lamont Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Nov., 1987), pp. 584-622 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780292 . Accessed: 10/02/2013 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida' Michele Lamont PrincetonUniversity How can an interpretive theorygain legitimacyin two cultural marketsas different as France and the UnitedStates?This study examinesthe intellectual,cultural,institutional, and social conditionsof legitimation ofJacquesDerrida'sworkin thetwo countries and develops hypothesesabout the processof legitimationof interpretivetheories.The legitimationof Derrida's work resulted froma fitbetweenit and highlystructured culturaland institutional systems.In France,Derridacapitalizedon thestructure oftheintellectualmarketbytargeting hisworkto a largeculturalpublicrather than to a shrinkinggroupof academic philosophers.His workappealed to the intellectualpublic as a statussymboland as a novel and sophisticatedway to deal withlate 1960spolitics.In theUnited States,Derrida and a groupof prestigiousliterarycriticsreframed his theoryand disseminatedit in university of literadepartments ture. His workwas importedconcurrently withthe workof other Frenchscholarswithwhomhe shareda market.Derrida'ssupport is moreconcentrated in one disciplinethanthesupport and stronger forotherFrenchintellectuals.In America,professional institutions and journalsplayeda centralrolein thediffusion ofhiswork,while culturalmedia were morecentralin France. Sometimein the early 1970s we awoke fromthe dogmatic slumberofour phenomenological sleepto findthata new presence had taken absolute hold over our avant-gardecritical imagination:Jacques Derrida. ... The shift to post1 oftheAmerican at theannualmeeting An earlierversionofthispaperwas presented D.C., August1985.I wishto thankHoward SociologicalAssociation,Washington, Becker,AaronBenavot,DeirdreBoden,PierreBourdieu,PriscillaP. Clark,Randall Collins, Paul DiMaggio, Frank R. Dobbin, Marcel Fournier,WendyGriswold, MartinLipset,and Ann AnnetteLareau,CharlesLemert,Seymour FredricJameson, Universeminarheldat Stanford ofthelegitimation Swidler,as wellas themembers of and discussions forusefulcomments referees sityin 1984-85,and theanonymous des affaires supportoftheMinistere thefinancial acknowledge thepaper.I gratefully du Francais,and oftheFondsF.C.A.C., Gouvernement Gouvernement etrangeres, Quebec. Requestsforreprintsshouldbe sentto MicheleLamont,Departmentof 08544. New Jersey Princeton, University, Sociology,Princeton ? 1987 by The Universityof Chicago. All rightsreserved. 0002-9602/88/9303-0002$01.50 584 AJS Volume 93 Number3 (November1987): 584-622 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher structuralist directionand polemicin theintellectualcareersof Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, GeoffreyHartman, Edward Said and JosephRiddel-all of whom were fascinatedin the 1960s by strainsof phenomenology-tellsthe whole story.In the space of five or six years, Derrida had arrived;had attractedsome extraordinarily committedand giftedstudentson both coasts; had spawned two new journals . . . , both of which,in spiteof theiryouth,have achievedremarkablevisibilityand attention.[LENTRICCHIA1980, p. 159] The successfulintroduction ofJacquesDerrida'sworkto Americanliterary criticismraises interesting sociologicalquestions.The evaluationof culturalgoods is highlydependenton contextualculturalnorms.How then does a culturalgood gain legitimacyin two culturalmarketsas different as Franceand theUnitedStates?Or, How can a Frenchphilosophergain acceptancein theland ofempiricism? More generally,whatare theconditionsunderwhicha culturalproductbecomesdefinedas important?This paper analyzesthecultural,institutional, and social conditions ofinterpretive theoriesby analyzingthelegitimation ofJacquesDerrida's workin France and the UnitedStates. In the sociologyof science, several areas of researchare concerned of withunderstanding theprocessofthelegitimation directlyor indirectly theories.Studieshave focusedon scientific innovation,paradigmshifts, communication,diffusion,scientificproductivity,and the evaluation, and attribution stratification, ofrewardprocessesin science.These works deal almostexclusivelywiththeoriesin theempiricalsciences.Studiesof interpretive fieldsare mostlyhistoricalcase studiesnot concernedwith intellectuallegitimation per se (e.g., Radnitsky1973;Janikand Toulman 1973;Jay1973;Kuklick1977;Axelrod1979).Othersanalyzetheinterpretationand receptionof work froma semioticor historicalperspective of (Jauss 1982; Chartier1982). The sociologicalstudyof thelegitimation philosophical,historical,and literarytheorieshas beenalmostcompletely neglected(but see Turkle 1978; Simonton1976; Amsterdamska1985). A separateconsiderationof nonempiricaltheoriesis in order.2 2 Whileimportant recentFrenchworkin thesociologyof knowledgehas discussed fields(e.g.,Bourdieu1983, inthescientific, literary, andartistic aspectsoflegitimation 1986;Charles1983;Fabiani 1983;Karady1979;Pinto1984;and Pollack1979),these theoryof the do not attemptto developan explicitand systematic contributions theories.Nor do theyaddresstheissueof the of interpretive processof legitimation focusis Theirprimary environments. theoriesin different ofinterpretive legitimation lookingat topicssuchas the ofculturalproducts, thesocialdetermination on analyzing of of the"field,"similarities habitusof theproducerand theaudience,thestructure positiontakingsamongagentswho occupysimilarpositions,etc. (Bourdieu1971, of to studythe legitimation pp. 12-18). I will draw on some of theirsuggestions theories. interpretive 585 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology The firstobjective of this studyis to develop hypothesesabout the processof legitimationof interpretive theoriesby examiningthe case of JacquesDerrida'swork.Intellectuallegitimation is definedas theprocess by whicha theorybecomesrecognizedas a partof a field-as something thatcannotbe ignoredby thosewho definethemselves,and are defined, as legitimateparticipantsin the construction of a cognitivefield.3I contendthatthe legitimation of interpretive theoriesdoes not proceedfrom theirintrinsicvalue but resultsfromcoexisting,highlystructured interrelatedculturaland institutional systems.I also argue thatlegitimation resultsfromtwo distinctbut simultaneousprocesses:(1) the processby whichtheproducerdefineshimselfand histheoryas important, legitimizing and institutionalizing this claim by producingworkmeetingcertain academicrequirements, bymakingexplicithis contribution to a cognitive field,and bycreatingresearchteams,researchinstitutes, journals,and so forth;and (2) the processthroughwhich,first,peers and, second, the intellectualpublic defineand assess a theoryand its produceras imporofthetheoryand the tantand, bydoingso, participatein theconstruction institutionalization of thattheoryand its author.This suggeststhatcultural marketsare not unifiedmarketsbut that theyare segmentedby definitions of good work. The secondobjectiveis to understandhow an interpretive theorymay becomelegitimizedamongvariousaudienceswhose normsofevaluation of differ.Several authorshave noticedand criticizedthetransformations theoriesintroducedintonew culturalmilieus(e.g., Cardoso 1977;Janik and Toulman 1973). I arguethattheintellectuallegitimation of a theory in different settingsdependson its adaptabilityto specificenvironmental requirements, whichpermitsa fitbetweentheworkand specificcultural featuresofvariousmarkets.I showthatthelegitimation and institutional of Derrida'sworkin the UnitedStateswas made possibleby its adaptationto existingintellectualagenda and by a shiftin publicfroma general audience to a specializedliteraryone. Also, Derrida benefitedfromthe concurrentimportationof a numberof other French authors,which createdan AmericanmarketforFrenchinterpretive theories. I proceedby reconstructing theintellectual,cultural,institutional, and social conditionsoftheintellectuallegitimation ofDerrida'swork.These conditionsreferto (1) the construction, assessment,and institutionalization of deconstruction theoryas an importanttheoryby Derrida, his peers, and the intellectualpublic and (2) the structuredculturaland institutional systemofenvironmental constraints on theconstruction pro3 This definition is different fromBourdieu's(1969,p. 103)analysisof legitimacy in thatI emphasizethe public'srecognition of a work,independent of its value. For Bourdieu,legitimacy is theaffirmation ofthepositionofthework. 586 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher cess, that is, the rules of the game, the structuralrequirementsthat Derrida'sworkand personaltrajectory had to meetin orderforhistheory to be definedas important.I identifytheserequirements by comparing theworkand trajectoriesof a representative sampleofrenownedFrench I also analyzethecontextin whichthesephilosophers philosophers.4 were legitimizedand in whichtheirworkwas framed.The attributes of these intellectualsdefinewhat a legitimateFrench intellectualis and what characteristics one has to have in orderto be considereda memberofthat group.A moresystematicanalysisof theserequirements, and especially of the effectsof the marketstructureon the opportunityand reward structure, would requirefurther study. The firstpartof mydiscussionbriefly presentsthe centralelementsof Derrida'stheory.I identifyaspectsof his workthatare necessaryconditionsforits intellectuallegitimation, giventhe Parisianintellectualand institutional contextof the 1960s. Here, the focusis on the fitbetween Derrida'sworkand an existing,highlystructured culturalsystemand on analyzingthe featuresof Derrida'sintellectualworkthatcontributedto its diffusion,such as his writingstyle.The second part contendsthat intellectuallegitimation dependson institutional supports,thattheaccess to institutional supportsdependson intellectualcollaboration,and that culturalcapital has an importantrole in eitherblockingor facilitating access to intellectualcirclesand institutions thataffectthe institutionalizationprocess.I argue that Derrida capitalizedon the structureof the intellectualmarketby directinghis workto several alreadyconstituted publics ratherthan to a shrinkingphilosophypublic and that cultural media had a central role in disseminatingDerrida's work to a large ofDerrida'sworkin the public. The thirdpartdiscussesthelegitimation United States. The conditionsof importationof Derrida's theoryare identified, especiallyitsadaptationto thetheoretical debatesin American literarycriticism,its incorporationinto the work of well-established I scholars,and its diffusionthroughprestigiousacademic institutions. focuson the fitbetweenDerrida's work and distinctivefeaturesof the Americanmarket.I arguethata shiftin publicwas essentialto Derrida's 4 This samplewas constructed by usingtheeliteidentification technique(Kadushin 1974).In the summerof 1980,I asked 10 important Frenchphilosophers and five journalistsand editorsof major intellectual journalsto list the 10 mostimportant contemporary Frenchphilosophers. The resultswereverysimilartothoseobtainedby Descombes(1980),who usedthesamemethod.Montefiore's (1983)sampleofFrench philosophers is also verysimilar.I conductedinterviews withseveralofthesephilosophersto collectdata on theirintellectual and institutional trajectories. I also used varioussecondary sourcesand bibliographies in orderto supplement thisinformation (see App.). The listincludedLouis Althusser, JeanBaudrillard,FrancoisChatelet, GillesDeleuze,JacquesDerrida,EmmanuelLevinas,MichelFoucault,Jean-Francois Lyotard,Paul Ricoeur,and MichelSerres. 587 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology successin the UnitedStates,and thatprofessionalinstitutions and journals playeda centralrolein thediffusion of his ideas, whereasin France culturalmedia were moreimportant.I also arguethatDerrida'ssupport is concentratedin literaturedepartmentsand is exceptionallystrong,in contrastto that forotherFrenchintellectuals,such as Foucault, whose supportis morespread out.5 My analysisis based on biographicalinformation, on recentworkon thehistoryof contemporary literarycriticismand philosophy,and on the literature on thesociologyofFrenchintellectuals.Supplementary data on Derrida and otherintellectualswere collectedduringinterviewsin 1980 and 1984withFrenchand Americanphilosophers and literarycriticsand with individuals involved in the diffusionof intellectualproductsin France (e.g., journalistsand editors).A bibliographicalsourceon structuralism(Miller 1981) was used to identifythe diffusioncurves of Derrida'swork. DERRIDA'S THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A goodfirst stepmight be thatverycombination ofexasperationandinsight whichwefeelwhenwegraspthatanyattempt togivean accountofwhatDerridasaysis a falsification ofhis is unavoidable.[CULLER project,but thatsuchfalsification 1975, p. 156] In orderto understandthe nexusof Derrida'stheoryand its intellectual environment, it is necessaryto considerthemain argumentsof Derrida's work.6I arguethatcertainfeaturesofDerrida'swork,suchas itswriting style,facilitatedits diffusionin Frenchintellectualcircles,fittedextant 5 It shouldbe notedthatBourdieuand colleagues'workon culturallegitimacy also focuseson legitimacy as theproductofnetworks ofrelations.However,theyhave a veryspecificconception of networks as "fields,"where,similarto de Saussure'sconceptionofsystems ofsigns,thevalueandmeaningofeachelement (cultural producers, works,aestheticand politicalpositiontakings,institutions) is definedrelationally. E.g., "[Everypositiontaking]receivesitsdistinctive valuefromitsnegativerelationshipwiththecoexisting position-takings to whichit is objectively relatedand which determine it by delimiting it" (Bourdieu1983,p. 313),or "theemergence ofa group capableof'makingan epoch'ofimposing a new,advancedpositionis accompanied by thedisplacement ofthestructure oftemporally hierarchized positions opposedwithina field;eachofthemmovesa stepdownthetemporal hierarchy whichis at thesametime a social hierarchy" (p. 340). My own argumentis not concernedwithsystemsof of such analysis.I am more positionsas such,althoughI recognizethe usefulness concernedwiththe structural featuresof nationalintellectual fields(e.g., cultural requirements, theroleofvariousinstitutions in regulating thefield,thestructure of intellectual markets,etc.). 6 Foran introduction toDerrida'swork,seeJameson(1972);Culler(1975);Descombes (1980);Lentricchia (1980);Norris(1982);and Leitch(1983). 588 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher culturalrequirements,and helped its institutionalization as important work.The diffusion ofDerrida'sworkin France in thepast 20 yearswas also aided bythreeofitscharacteristics: (1) itfittedin withtheintellectual cultureof specificfractionsof the Frenchupper-middle class; (2) its politics appealed to French intellectualsat the end of the 1960s; and (3) it appealed to theprofessional interests ofphilosophersbypromoting a new image of theirfieldduringan institutional legitimacycrisis. Deconstruction The startingpoint of Derrida's inquiryis the famousCours de linguistique ge'ne'rale(Course in generallinguistics[1915] 1972) of Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-1913), whichis regardedas the seminaltextof structuralism.De Saussuredistinguishes thesignifier (a soundor writtensign) fromthe signified(a conceptor idea) as the two primaryconstituents of language. He arguesthatthe associationbetweenthesetwo elementsis arbitrary.Nothingjustifiesthe associationbetweenthe idea "pipe" and thewrittensign"p-i-p-e."Languages are understoodas systemsof signs formedby arbitrarily and signified.The meaningof associatedsignifiers fromother each sign is relational,that is, definedonlyby its difference signs. For instance,the letter"a" is meaningfulonlyin relationto b, c, has a ... z. Languages are systemsofrelationsin whicheach constituent meaningonly in relationto otherconstituents.In his structuralarguments,de Saussurecontradictsthephilologicalapproachthatdominated 19th-century linguisticsand that centeredon the historicalevolutionof languageconceivedas a humanproduct.In contrast,de Saussure'sstructuralistapproachemphasizessynchrony and syntax. Derrida questionsthe Saussurian idea of difference, which assumes thatX is clearlydistinctfromY. He arguesthatpuredifference does not exist:X containsY, as it is partiallydefinedby it. Signsbothsupplement and partiallyexpressone another.The relationshipbetweenelements, signs, or "traces" (writtensigns)is one of "Difgrrance" (Derrida 1972, pp. 24-28). The conceptof "diffgrance," createdby Derrida,is centralto his theoreticalsystem.It means bothto differ(beingdistinct,discernible)and to defer(beingpresentwhile being omitted,the omissionhavinga significance in what is present).Both meaningsare subsumedin the French verb differer. Stated in Derrida's terms, is whatmakesthemovement of signification Differance possibleonlyif isrelated eachelement thatis "present," onthestageofpresence, appearing to something and otherthanitselfbutretainsthemarkofa pastelement to a future alreadyletsitselfbe hollowedoutbythemarkofitsrelation element. Thistracerelatesnolesstowhatis calledthefuture thantowhat 589 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology whatis calledthepresent bythisvery is calledthepast,andit constitutes is not;thatis, noteventoa towhatitis not,towhatitabsolutely relation as modified present.In orderforit to be, an past or futureconsidered thatconstiinterval mustseparateit fromwhatit is not,buttheinterval mustalso,andbythesametoken,dividethepresent tutesitin thepresent thatcan be everything in itself,thusdividing,alongwiththepresent, forourmetaphysconceived onitsbasis,thatis everybeing-inparticular, orsubject.[Derrida(1967)1973,pp. 142-43] icallanguage,thesubstance Any elementcontainsotherelements.Therefore,the idea of an origiinstanceor presenceis logicallyimpossible.The worldis nal, determining elements,noneofwhichhas precedence.These made up ofinterreferring attackon the whole propositionsare the startingpointfora full-fledged philosophicaltraditionthat,Derridaargues,restson dichotomouscategoDerrida and nature/culture. truth/error, ries such as being/nothingness, characterizesthe Occidentalintellectualtraditionas a searchfora transcendentalbeingthatservesas the originor guarantorof meaning.Folis logocenlowingNietzsche,he arguesthatthe philosophicalenterprise tricin its attemptto groundthe meaningrelationsconstitutiveof the worldin an instancethatitselflies outsideall relationality. De Saussure'sworkis centeredon the analysisof spokenlanguage,as he assumesthatspeechmorefullyrevealsmeaningthandoes thewritten Derridadeniestheexistenceofessentialmeansign.In OfGrammatology, ingsand proposesan approachto thestudyof writtensignsthatexposes He promotesdeconstruction of possibleinterpretations. the multiplicity meanings thevariousand oftencontradictory as a methodfordecodifying ofa text.Much likeBarthes,Derridashowsthatthereis no vantagepoint externalto the discoursefromwhich it is possible to identifya transcendentalmeaning.In line with this approach, books themselvesare consideredcollectionsofsigns,as are thenamesoftheauthors.Texts are abstractedfromthe presumedintentionsof the authorsand fromtheir literaryand social contexts.The traditionalseparationbetweenliterature and criticismbecomesmeaningless,as any readingis a re-creationof a (Derrida [1967] 1976, text, a never-endingprocess of interpretation p. 226). The goal of deconstruction is to uncoverthe implicithierarchiescontainedin anytextbywhichan orderis imposedon realityand bywhicha subtlerepressionis exercised,as thesehierarchiesexclude,subordinate, and hide the various potentialmeanings."To 'deconstruct'philosophy, thus,would be to think-in the mostfaithful,interiorway-the structuredgenealogyof philosophy'sconcepts,but at thesame time,to determine-from a certainexteriorthat is unqualifiableor unnameableby philosophy-what this historyhas been able to dissimulateor forbid, makingitselfintoa historybymeansofthissomewheremotivatedrepres590 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher is thusconceivedas a sion" (Derrida[1972] 1981a, p. 6). Deconstruction metasciencesurpassingthe metaphysicsof logocentricsystems:"It inscribesand delimitsscience;. . . it marksand at thesametimeloosensthe (Derrida 1981a, p 36). limitswhichclose classical scientificity" Understandingthe nexus of the theoryitselfand its intellectualenvironmentis crucial here. Many elementsof the style and contentof and meritconsideration: (1) Derrida'sworkcontributeto its legitimation Derrida's writingand argumentationstylesmeet the culturalrequireof Derrida's mentsof the French intellectualmilieu; (2) the originality work,itsexplicitassociationwithphilosophicalclassics,and itscontributionto intellectualdebates fulfillcertainacademic requirements; (3) the applicationof deconstructionto classics and its transcendenceof the philosophicaltraditiongive it prestigeand contributeto thetheory'spotentialforintellectualdiffusion, as does therepetitive natureoftheframework. Academicand CulturalRequirements Derrida describeshis writingstylein the followingterms:"To be eninsistentand tangledin hundredsof pages of a writingsimultaneously elliptical,imprintingas you saw, even its erasures,carryingoffeach or confusing chainofdifferences, surrounding conceptto an interminable itselfwith so many precautions,references,notes, citations,collages, is not, you will agree, the supplements-this'meaning-to-say-nothing' mostassuredof exercises"([1972] 1981b,p. 14). Some have describedthisstyleas a game,a "pleasurewithoutresponsibility,"and others,as a deliberateattemptto confusethereader,a "technique of trouble"(Watson 1978,p. 13). Derrida,like otherFrenchinteland somewhatobscure lectuals,is renownedforwritingin a sophisticated Frenchphilosostyle(Lemert1981,p. 10). Moreover,mostcontemporary phers share Derrida's highly dialectical style of argument.Postwar Frenchintellectualswere stronglyinfluencedby Hegel and Marx, who shaped theirbasic culturalframework(Descombes 1980). To writeand sharedby intellectualsis to capiarguewithinthe dialecticalframework talizeon theestablishedthinkingand readinghabitsoftheFrenchpublic and to increase,ipso facto,one's potentialfordiffusion (Bourdieu 1975, p. 110). In contrast,Jacques Bouveresse,one of thefewFrenchanalytic philosophers, writes,in his "WhyI Am So VeryUnFrench":"I have been toldthatmyown workswerepracticallyunreadablebytheFrenchphilosophical public because they were concernedessentiallywith 'logic' (whichmeantin additionthattheywerenotin any eventworthreading, inasmuchas theycontainednothingthat was properlyphilosophical)" (1983, p. 10). 591 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology A sophisticatedrhetoricseemsto be a structural requirement forintellectual legitimationin the French philosophicalcommunity:rhetorical virtuosity contributesto the definition of statusboundariesand maintenance of stratification amongFrenchphilosophers.To participatein the field,one has to playtherhetoricalgame,and thisenvironmental characteristicis presentin Derrida'swork. A highlyrhetoricalwritingstyleis shared or emulatedby manyless successfulFrench philosophersand is therefore not a decisiveor automaticcriterion ofintellectuallegitimation. More important is thecreation of a theoreticaltrademarkframedwithinan establishedintellectualtradition(Bourdieu 1986,p. 159). Derridahas createda theoreticalapparatus thatis clearlydistinctfromotherphilosophicalsystems.Deconstruction presentsa set of "non-concepts"-to use his term-such as trace, gramme,supplement,hymen,tympan,dissemination,and metaphor, thatserveto designatethe phenomenastudied.Derrida'stheoreticalapparatusis so clearlypackaged and labeled thatit can readilycirculatein the intellectualcommunity.As Heirich(1976, p. 37) argues,packaging ideas as commoditiesimprovestheirpotentialexposureand facilitates theirpenetrationinto various intellectualmilieus. Sartre's"existentialism," Althusser's"epistemologicalbreak," Lefebvre's"quotidiennete,," Lacan's "unconscioustext"and "mirrorstage,"Foucault's"archaeology," and Deleuze's "schizo-analysis"(Descombes 1980; Kurzweil 1980) may well have served as theoreticaltrademarksin the legitimationof their work. Academicworksneed to be framedin relationto themajordebatesofa fieldand associated with the major authorsin orderto be legitimated (Adattoand Cole 1981; Bourdieu 1975). Deconstruction resembledother theoreticalsystemsenoughto fitand be incorporatedinto the Parisian intellectualmilieu of the 1960s, that is, to be judged sufficiently and relevantby the philosophicalaudienceto be includedin significant thesystemofdiffusion. to thetranscendence Derrida'sreferences ofphilosophicaldiscourseand theend ofphilosophywerecentralthemesoftexts widelyread in the 1960s (Althusser'sFor Marx and Marx and Engels's GermanIdeology[Ferryand Renaut 1985]).Also centralwere references to the Saussurianquestionsand to themultiplicity ofmeaningand intertextuality, themesthatare basic to semiology.He presentedhis theoretical innovationsas a continuationof the writingsof Husserl,Heidegger, and Nietzsche, and in oppositionto Hegel. Husserl's phenomenology, of the philosophicaltradition, Heidegger'scritiqueof the logocentrism and Nietzsche'scritiqueofhumanismare explicitly presentedas thetheoDerrida'sconceptionof interpretareticalantecedentsof deconstruction. tionas a freeplay of the mindis also borroweddirectlyfromNietzsche. Derridadefineshimselfin oppositionto Hegel and criticizestheHegelian 592 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher ideas of totalityand contradiction as the epitomesof the ideas of unity and presence(Derrida 1981a, pp. 40-41). Finally, like Barthes, Foucault, and Lacan, Derrida builds on the Europeanintellectualpublicwhen establishedcultureoftheleft-oriented he focuseson the relationshipbetweenpower, on the one hand, and on theother.The Frankfurt school, culture,knowledge,and rationality, theBirminghamschool,and Italian Marxismall makethisissuea central in socialistthought,as been important one. This questionhas historically seen in the rolesof the partyand of intellectuals. Prestigeand Diffusion The legitimationof Derrida's work is facilitatedby the philosophical traditionin which he situatesit: deconstruction gains prestigefromits of affiliation withHeidegger,Husserl,and Nietzsche,its transcendence the philosophicaltradition,and its application to classics (Boltanski and its adaptabilityto any 1975). Also, the ambiguityof thisframework of Derrida's textfavorits reproduction.By enhancingthe diffusibility usefulto It is therefore work,thesefeaturescontribute to itslegitimation. considerthe effectof thesefeaturesin greaterdetail at thispointin my discussion. Heidegger,Husserl,Nietzsche,and Hegel are amongthe mostprestigious philosophersin what is seen in France as perhapsthe mostprestigiousphilosophicaltradition-German philosophy(Wahl 1962; Descombes 1980). By carryingon a dialogue with these classics, Derrida acquires some of theirprestigeand positionshimselfin a theoretical traditiondefinedas important.Had he workedon Hume, Locke, or Mill, the storywould have been ratherdifferent and for reasons relatively unconnectedwiththe actual substanceof his analyses. Derridaattackswhathas beendefinedas one ofthecentralproblemsof philosophy,whichis, as he putsit moreprecisely,theproblemofthefate ofphilosophyitself;he questionsits groundingsand triesto overcomeits seeks both to contain insufficiencies. As a metascience,deconstruction and transcendphilosophy.This subsumingfeaturehas helped to define givesits his workas important(Boltanski1975). Further,deconstruction audiencethe means to interpret the whole philosophicaltraditionand to overcomeit by becomingacquainted with a singlesystem.As such, it offersimportantpayoffsto those unfamiliarwith the classics; for example,one ofmyinformants has observedthat,on thebasis ofDerrida's American work, undergraduatestudentsin literarycriticismcurrently discuss the logocentrismof the philosophicaltraditionwithouthaving read a singleclassic of philosophy. Derrida'stheoreticalstrategyconsistsin pointingto implicitmeanings 593 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology and placinghimselfabove thetexts by shifting thefocusofinterpretation themselves.He applies thisstrategyto variousauthorsimportantin the Westerntradition(Rousseau, Mallarme, Freud, Valery, Artaud). The institutionalized prestigeof theseclassicstricklesdown to his interpretatheirwork,Derridacan carryon a dialogue tion.Also, by deconstructing with specialistsin these classics (e.g., Roland Barthes, Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, EmmanuelLevinas, Paul Ricoeur),whose staturewill Derrida's contributeto and complementthe processof institutionalizing workas important. Derrida's focus on implicitmeaning and his dialectical arguments createmuchambiguityin his writingand generateendlessdebateson his work.What Searle has called the "heads I win, tailsyou lose" Derridian because of the argumentmaintainsthe reproductionof deconstruction absenceofnonrelativist criteriato evaluatethetheory.Also, itsreproducoperationscan be tionis favoredby thefactthatthesame deconstructive appliedto anytext.This is an advantageforthosewho use histechnique, in termsbothoftheaccessibilityofworkingmaterialand oftheabilityto transfer theirexpertiseto new textsor fields. Finally, Derrida provides his intellectualpublic with a charismatic imageof theavant-gardeintellectual.Because he conceivesthereaderas similar hisworkas a creativeenterprise re-creating thetext,he represents to thatof an artistor writer(see, e.g., Positions[1981a]). Like Barthes and Levi-Straussbeforehim,Derrida,throughhis work,presentsintellectual lifeas the adventureof a modernPrometheuswhose rationality challengespower. Along with othercharismaticintellectuals,Derrida providesa role model foryoungFrenchintellectualsand has increased the appeal of the humanities. Social, Political,and InstitutionalContexts We have seen thatDerridameetsa numberoftheculturaland academic of the Frenchintellectualscene, such as havinga sophisrequirements and a focuson ticatedwritingstyle,a distinctivetheoreticalframework, questionsdefinedas both importantand concernedwith an important are a partoftheenvironment philosophicaltradition.These requirements these in which Derrida has had to definehis work, and his fulfilling requirementsis a sine qua non forthe legitimationof his work, quite independentof its content.This work, I suggest,also fitsthe larger French intellectual,political,and professionalcontextsthat facilitated of Derrida'sdiffusion. By contexts,I referto (1) theintellectualreferences culture,(2) the politicalcontextof the late French upper-middle-class changesin philosophy. 1960s,and (3) the institutional 594 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher 1. The consumptionhabitsof segmentsoftheupper-middle class (professionalsin the culturalsectorsand humanservices,teachers,civil servants) and their patternsof participationin the intellectualculture facilitatedthe diffusion of Derrida'swork. The verylimitedpossibilities forupwardeconomicmobilitybetweenand withinsocial classes characin educateristicofpostwarFrancewerecompensatedforbyinvestments tionaland culturalmobility,especiallyby the upper-middleclass (Marceau 1977). During this period, members of the cultural segments investedgreatlyin theconsumption ofsophisticated culturalgoods(Bourdieu 1984; Lamont 1987)as a means of maintainingand improvingtheir status.By consuminga culturalproduitde luxe,one becomesan initiated memberof a status group. Among those "products"are sophisticated intellectualgoods,includingdeconstruction itself,whichis barelyaccessible even to thehighlyeducated;it requiresconsiderableinvestment to be understoodand is targetedat an intellectualelite. Along these lines, Lucette Finas, a Parisian proponentof Derrida, notes: "To open to a largerpublica workas importantand difficult as Derrida'swould necessarily create deformities,approximationsand impoverishment.The ofthetextis notan accident.It is linkedto theway knowledge difficulty maybe transmitted throughwriting.JacquesDerridais a writer,and no of what is called his ideas can reprosystematicor didacticpresentation duce theproliferating ofthetext"(Finas 1973,p. 13). Packagcomplexity ing deconstruction as a sophisticatedculturalgood increasesits potential fordiffusion, giventheimportanceof symbolicstatusboundariesforthe targetpublic.Moreover,itimprovesthefitbetweenDerrida'sworkand a largeextantmarket. 2. The diffusionof Derrida's work peaked at the beginningof the 1970s,a fewyearsafterthe Frenchpoliticalclimaxof May 1968. After the studentinsurrection,intellectualshad grownweary of traditional Marxistrhetoric(Judt1986; Wuthnowet al. 1984,p. 135). The post-1968 yearswerea periodofstagnationfortheLeft,and leftistanalyseswerein need of rejuvenation.Derrida providedjust thetheoreticalpositionthat metand matchedthe politicalclimate.Like otherstructuralist and poststructuralistintellectuals (Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault),indeedlike Sartrebeforethem,Derridalookedat moresubtle formsof manifestations of power that had been ignoredby classical Marxism.Similarto Marx'stheoryofideology,Derrida'sworkpostulated thatpowerand hierarchiesare hiddenbehindthe apparentmeaningsof texts. Deconstructingmeant identifying those hierarchiesof meaning. The theoreticalgoal became a "Nietzschean affirmation, the joyous affirmation of the free-playof the word withouttruth,withoutorigin, offeredto an active interpretation" (1981a, p. 43). As Jay(1984, p. 516) 595 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology and Ryan (1982, p. 213) pointout, thisframeworksustaineda formof theoreticalanarchism.It fittedthe climateoftheFrenchculturalmarket in the late 1960s. 3. The diffusion of Derrida'sworkwas favoredby its connectionwith the professionalinterestsof philosophers.French philosophywent througha legitimacycrisisin the 1960s and 1970s. The government atin lycees,and the social temptedto reducethe philosophyrequirements scienceslaunched strongcritiquesagainst the philosophicalenterprise. Derridadefendedphilosophyby attackingthelogocentrism ofthesecriticismsand by reformulating the philosophicalprojectas the intellectual thattakesthemostfar-reaching enterprise and criticalanalyticalperspective (G.R.E.P.H. 1977). By doing so, he promoteda positiveimage of philosophy-criticizing, followingBarthes,"old academism"and counteringsimultaneously the declineof the field.He attemptedto delegitimatescienceas a logocentric discourse.His epistemological answerto the crisis spawned a large followingin certain circles. The fit between Derrida's conceptionof philosophyand the disciplinarycrisis again favoredthe diffusionof his work. In this sectionI have been concernedwiththe effectof a producer's of his theory.I have also been interested workon theinstitutionalization in delineatingthe link betweenDerrida'sworkand the culturaland inthat it existsin. I will now be concernedwith stitutionalenvironment uncoveringa secondlayerofintellectual legitimation, namely,theprocess throughwhichpeersand the intellectualpublic came to definea theory and its produceras "important." DERRIDA'S INTELLECTUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRAJECTORY The legitimation of culturalproductsis highlydependenton intellectual collaborationand institutional settings.I argue that(1) institutional settings(schools,journals, professionalassociations)and Derrida's participationin the structuralist debate contributeto thedefinition of his work as important;(2) Derrida'sprofessionaltrajectory meetsthe institutional requirements definedbythetrajectory ofotherintellectuals; (3) his access to thesesettingsis conditionedby his displayofspecificformsof cultural capital; (4) Derrida's intellectualcollaboratorshave providedhim with the institutional supportsessentialto the intellectuallegitimation of his work; (5) intellectualcollaborationand institutional supportare highly interrelated; and (6) deconstruction is not disseminatedin a unifiedmarket but ratheramong actors whose definitionof good work segments culturalmarkets. 596 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher InstitutionalSupportsforIntellectualLegitimation Derrida participatedin institutions thatcontributed to disseminating his work and definingit as important.Because many French intellectuals have access to thesame prestigious Derrida'sparticipation institutions, in thoseinstitutions-journals,schools,culturalmedia,professional associations-can be consideredas meetingstructural requirements forintellectual legitimation in France. The schoolswhereDerrida receivedhis philosophicaleducationgave him legitimateculturalcodes. He studiedphilosophyat the Ecole normale superieure(rued'Ulm),whichis themostprestigious Frenchinstitutionforthe studyof philosophyand one of the centersof philosophyin France (Clark and Clark 1982). He also studiedat the Sorbonnewith Hippolyteand Gandillac.The supportoftheseinfluential professors gave Derridahisfirstopportunities to publishand helpedmarkhimas a promisingbeginner."Ulm" and the SorbonneprovidedDerrida with an institutional contextforpeerassessmentofhis aspirationsand capabilities. Most membersoftheParisianintellectualeliteattendedUlm and formed circlesin thisschool thatplayed an importantrolein theircareers.Studentssharedthesame intellectualworld;therefore, theytendedto define the same questionsas important(Bourdieu 1969, p. 113). Two journals were especiallyinfluential in the diffusionof Derrida's work and its institutionalization as a significant contribution: Tel Quel and Critique. Similar to Sartre'sLes Temps modernes,these journals publishedessaysin literarycriticismand philosophydirectedtowardthe Parisian academic public. Critique,edited by Jean Piel, presentedthe work of various renownedphilosophers,includingGilles Deleuze, EmmanuelLevinas, MichelFoucault,and Paul Ricoeur.WhileCritiquewas more eclectic,Tel Quel was at the centerof the Nouvelle Critique,an intellectualmovementthatinvolvedimportantintellectualssuch as Roland Barthes,Julia Kristeva, and Phillippe Sollers. This journal embodied the shared views of its collaboratorsand institutionalized their intellectualcircle.Derrida'scollaborationwiththisjournalwas based on culturalaffinities, whichillustratesthatintellectualcollaborationresults in institutional support.Tel Quel's intellectualprojecthas been to deconstructhierarchiesbased on a transcendental signified(Caws 1973;Jameson 1980, p. 732). During the 1960s, thisjournal exercisednotableinfluenceon leftistintellectuals.Its critique of traditionalacademism symbolizedforsometheintellectualavant-gardebeliefsofMay 1968.The influenceof Tel Quel shiftedthe focusof attentionto its contributors. The diffusionof Derrida'sworkto the generalintellectualpublic was theresultofits coverageby themain culturalmedia. Culturalmagazines 597 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology and newspapershave become centralto Parisianintellectuallifeas they definewhat one has to read in orderto be considered"literate"(Debray 1979;Hamon and Rotman1981). They caterto theintellectualcultureof the upper-middleclass, and theircontrolover access to thatmarketis a structural featureoftheFrenchintellectualscene.It is therefore essential forintellectualproducersto fitintothe circlesof theseculturalpublications(Pinto 1981). They gave increasingprominenceto Derrida's work followingan interesting double tourde force:in 1967,Derridapublished threemajor books-Of Grammatology (1976), Speech and Phenomena (1973), and Writingand Difference ([1967] 1980). In 1972,he again published simultaneouslyDisse'mination(1981b), Positions (1981a), and Marges de la philosophie.In 1967-68, his work was reviewedby La Quinzaine Litteraire,Le Nouvel Observateur,and Le Monde. In 1972, Les Lettresfrancaises publisheda specialissue on his work,as did Arcin 1973. An article published in Le Nouvel Observateurin 1975 placed Derrida among the four"high priests"of the French university, along with Barthes, Foucault, and Lacan. During this period, Derrida was stronglysupportedat Le Monde by a formerstudent,Christiande la Campagne, and at Le Nouvel Observateur.7 Derridajoined thefull-time facultyof theEcole normalesuperieurein 1967 and startedteachingat the Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales around 1984. Louis Althusser,Michel Foucault, and Jacques Lacan, to name only a few, have also taught at the Ecole normale superieure,and a largenumberofimportantspecialistsin thesciencesde l'hommeteachat theEcole des hautesetudes.Derrida'spresencein these prestigiousschools furtherinstitutionalized his vision of the world and also himselfas an important philosopher.It also allowedhimto developa circle of Ulm studentswho created a journal-Digraphe-publishing articlesinspiredby his work. They editedbooks and interviewson and withDerridasuchas Ecarts (Finas et al. 1973),Mime'sisdes articulations (Agacinskiet al. 1975), and Le De'clinde l'e'criture (Laruelleet al. 1977) and organizedimportantconferences aroundDerrida'sworkin 1976and 1980. Lucette Finas, Sarah Kofman,PhillippeLacoue-Labarthe,JeanMichelRey,Jean-LucNancy, and othersused theDerridianproblematic as theirtrademarkand createdtheirown theoreticaland institutional nicheswithdeconstruction. thesedisciplesparticipated Simultaneously, in the institutionalization of the Derridianproblematicin the Parisian intellectualfield. Two organizationsassociated with the defense and promotionof 7 It shouldbe notedthat,relative tootherFrenchintellectuals, Derridahas notsought widemediacoverage. 598 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher French philosophyalso enhanced Derrida's visibilityand intellectual legitimacy.In 1974, Derrida and his studentscreated the Groupe de recherchesur l'enseignement de la philosophie(G.R.E.P.H.) in orderto jobs in philosophy.Derrida's resista governmentalreformthreatening politicaldeclarationconcerningthe"ReformeGiscard-Haby"steeredthe of the profession.Around media's attentionto him as a representative 1981, the Socialistgovernment appointedhim as one of the directorsof the College internationalde philosophie,whose publiclyacknowledged thepresenceofFrenchphilosmissionis, amongotherthings,to reaffirm reinforced his poophyinternationally (College 1982). This appointment sitionin the Frenchintellectualfieldand legitimizedhis presencein the UnitedStates. was greatlyfacilitatedby his Finally,Derrida's access to institutions culturalcapital.8Several featuresof Derrida'sworkdefinedit as a highstatusculturalgood,particularly itsreferences to a prestigious intellectual cultural traditionand its displayof erudition.Referencesto high-status works seem to have greatinfluenceon the legitimationof interpretive is facilitatedby cultural theories.Also, access to prestigiousinstitutions capital, thatis, by cues indicatingthe sharingof a commonhigh-status cultural background,whetherit is the cultureof the Ecole normale ofimportant questions,or superieure,thesharingofa commondefinition experiencing situationssimilarly(DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). The Structuralist Debate bycriticizing thestructuralDerridadefinedhimselfas a poststructuralist istenterprise in itssearchforstructural explanatory forbeinglogocentric principlesand forgivingpriority to language.In "Forceet dissemination" (1963), he had attackedFoucault and Levi-Strauss,thefoundingfather, throughde Saussure. Foucault repliedto Derridain The OrderofThings: An Archaeologyof the Human Sciences and in the second editionof Madness and Civilization,criticizinghis interpretation of the Cartesian cogito(Giovannageli 1979, pp. 161-71). This debate gave Derrida the to displayhis distinctivetheoreticaltrademarkpubliclyand opportunity to be identified as a majoractorin thestructuralist controversy and as one of the main criticsof structuralism. A centralthemeforstructuralists is theirongoingattackon the Western emphasis on humanism.They also look for hidden structuresof 8 Cultural capital is definedhere as high-statuscultural goods and practices that are used as bases of social selection (see Bourdieu 1981; for discussion, see also Lamont and Lareau 1987). 599 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology meaningand the organizationalprinciplesof systems(Kurzweil 1980). Derrida recognizedthe importanceof theseissues throughhis workon implicitmeaningand his critiqueofthehumanisttradition.His critiques it as a school of helped to legitimatestructuralism and institutionalize thought.Concurrently, by respondingto Derrida'sobjections,structuralcritic,thuscontributing istsrecognizedand affirmed himas a significant to his intellectuallegitimation(Bourdieu 1983, p. 323). Levi-Strauss, reputations in Roland Barthes,and Michel Foucaulthad well-established themid-1960s,and theirprestigetrickleddownto Derrida.As withother participantsin this debate, Derrida's personallegitimacygrewthrough thisassociation,and his legitimacybecamelinkedto thelegitimacy ofthe structuralist circleitself.Participationin a majorpublicdebateis characteristicof several otherimportantFrenchphilosophers.These debates, such as betweenBarthesand Picard (1966), Foucault and Sartre(1966), Levi-Straussand Revel (1957), and Levi-Straussand Sartre(1962) were extensivelycoveredby the media and providedunparalleledvisibility. The philosophicalgenerationthat dominatedthe Frenchintellectual sceneuntilthe 1980swas beingconstituted at theend ofthe 1960s.In the space of a few years, a numberof importantbooks were published: Althusser'sFor Marx ([1965] 1969) and Reading Capital ([1965] 1977), Foucault's The Order of Things([1966] 1971) and The Archaeologyof Knowledge ([1969] 1972), Lacan's Ecrits ([1966] 1977), Derrida's Of Grammatology (1976) and Writingand Difference(1980), and Deleuze's Difference et repetition(1968). This philosophicalgenerationproduceda distinctive typeofintellectualproductthatwas nottargetedat a specialized academic public of philosophersor historiansbut thatwas diffused largelyby culturalmedia such as Le Nouvel Observateur.These intellectuals engaged(and partlygenerated)a wide intellectualpublic made up froma growingstudentbody in the humanitiesand the social sciences (Bourdieu,Boltanski,and Maldidier 1971). Derrida benefitedfromhis associationwiththisintellectualgenerationboththroughitsaccess to the culturalmedia and the generalgrowthof the intellectualpublic. Figure 1 describes the intellectualand institutionalpositioningof Derrida'spredecesDerridain France and theUnitedStates.It identifies and disciples.It also presentsthe sors,supporters,opponents,diffusers, and professional specializedjournals, mass media, teachinginstitutions, supportsforhis work. This figure organizationsthat were institutional links the intellectual and institutionalsupports described herein. (Derrida'spositioningin the United Stateswill be explainedin the next section.)It pointsout tiesamongtheoreticalpositions,intellectualcollaband shows thatintellectualcollaboraoration,and access to institutions tionprovidesthe means of diffusion. 600 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher ( INTELLECTUAL Philosophy AND INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONING FIELD S FRANCE - - Literary Criticism UNITED STATES FRANCE UNITED STATES PREDECESSORS Coalitionsand Applications Heldegger Nietzsche O ppositions Descartes Hegel Hussed Supporters -Hippolyte -Gandillac Ricoeur --L6mnas Rousseau Saussure Rorty Barthes Sollers Knsteva DeMan Bloom Hartman Miller Searle Bataille Abrams ,Piel Opponents L1-Strauss FouceultBot Diffusors %Chitel et Deleuze Kofman Disciples Fines Rey Gravel Nancy -- La.coue-Labarthe -De LaCampagne LRevue delM6taphyiQue _ et de Morale Journas cntLqiie Cultural Magazines Teaching - Arac C uller Research m Phenomenology -TeliQuel Digraphe Poeticque LeMonde LeNouvelObseeur Ecole des Haute3 Etudes en Sciences Socil 1es Professional Organizations GR E P H CollIge International YevFe Diacohics ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sub-Stance Glyph Quinzaine E NS Institutions YaleFrench Yl Northwestern Yale JohnsHopkins Cornell MLA de Philosophle FIG. 1.-Intellectual and institutional positioning ofJacquesDerridain philosophyand literarycriticism(France and the UnitedStates). This figuredoes not includeall the actorsand institutions withwhichDerridahas been involvedbut onlythosewhose rolesare describedherein.A numberof actorscould have been included,bothin philosophyand literarycriticism and in morethanone category or position.For instance,mostdiffusers are also supporters,and manyFrench philosophersare simultaneously in philosophyand literarycriticism. 601 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology The Diffusionof Derrida'sWork The diffusionof Derrida's workis characterizedby threetrends:(1) Althoughhis workwas firsttargetedto a specializedaudienceof phenomenologists,it becameofinterestto severaldiversepublicsin themid-1960s; (2) concurrently, phenomenologists lostinterest in Derrida'swork;and (3) the diffusionof deconstruction theorydecreasedsignificantly in France aftera 1972-73 boom, while it increased consistentlyin the United States,attractingmostlyliterarycritics. Table 1 showsthepublicationhistoryofDerrida'sworkin France,the UnitedStates,and othercountries.Withineach country,publicationsare brokendown into philosophyand literarycriticismjournals and books. Derrida'sfirstpublicationswerein Frenchphilosophicaljournals.At the beginningof his career, his intellectualpath followedthe typicalacademicmodelin philosophy,whichconsistsin performing an exegesisofa classic. He firstworkedon Husserland publishedin thespecializedphilosophyjournals-the Revue de metaphysiqueet de morale,Les Etudes philosophiques,and Cahiers pour l'analyse-put out by the Ecole normale superieure.His participationin Critiqueand Tel Quel markeda and beganto addresshimself shift,as he widenedhis theoreticalinterests to a largeraudience. His theoreticalnicheis at thejunctureofphilosophy and literarycriticism,because literarycriticsare concernedwith quesand meaning.Deconstructiontheoryalso intertions of interpretation debate. Psyestedsocial scientists,who wereengagedin thestructuralist choanalysts,feminists,and art historiansalso became interestedin applyingthisinterpretive techniqueto theirdomains.The potentialfor diffusion ofDerrida'swork,whichwas locatedat thejunctureofseveral as Derridacapitalized alreadyconstituted publics,increasedsignificantly, hisworkto the on characteristics oftheculturalenvironment whilefitting structureof the intellectualmarket. Speaking simultaneouslyto several publics is typical of dominant Frenchintellectuals.For instance,Foucaultaddresseshimselfto doctors, social scientists,historians,and philosopsychoanalysts, criminologists, phers(Wuthnowet al. 1984,p. 134). Deleuze and Lyotardare ofinterest to Marxists,psychoanalysts,and philosophers,and Ricoeur addresses and literarycritics.They all enlarge phenomenologists, psychoanalysts, theirpublic by raisingtheoreticalproblemsin morethanone field(e.g., Foucault's analysisof power and knowledgecodes in mentalhospitals base and prisons).Developinga largeraudienceand a broaderlegitimacy is a successfuland adaptive strategywhen the specializedpublic of professionalphilosophersis shrinking. in the Some ofthechangesin thepublicforDerrida'sworkare reflected typesofjournalshe publishedin. Despite a notableincreasein thenum602 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher TABLE ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRIES OF DERRIDA'S AND TYPE FRANCE Ph. 1959 2.... ... 1963 ...... 1961 ...... ... ... 1962 ...... 3 1963 ...... 1964 ...... 5 1965 ...... 1 1966 . . 3 5 1967 ...... 1968 ...... 2 .. 1969 ....... 197 ...... 21 .. 1971 ...... 1972 . . ... 1973 . . 3 2 .. 1974 . . 1975 . . 2 . 2 1976 . 4 1977 ....... . ... 1978 ...... . ... 1979 ...... . ... 1980 ...... ... 1981 ....... . ... 1982 ...... . ... 1983 . 1 1984 ...... L.C. 1 ... 1 1 ... ... 1 ... ... 3 ... ... 1 2 2 1 3 5 2 2 ... 3 2 1 ... L.C. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3 ... 2 2 2 ... 3 ... 1 . 2 1 1 ... ... ... 1 ... ... ... ... 1 ... 3 1 ... . .1 ... ... 1 OTHER COUNTRIES Books ... Books ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 3 2 . Articles ... ... ... ... 2 1 3 ...2 Ph. ... ... 2 PUBLICATIONS OF JOURNAL UNITED STATES Books ... 1 2 2 2 4 .3 .3 1 3 1 2 1... ... 1 1 1 ... ... ... 1 1 1 1 1 2 ... ... 1 ... 1 1 1 1 ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3 2 ... 1 2 1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... NOTE.-Ph.: philosophy;L.C.: literarycriticism.Data for1959-78 based on Miller(1981, pp. 13066), supplementedby Leavey and Allison(1977). Data for1979-84 are fromtheInternationalBibliography ofBooks and Articleson ModernLanguagesand Literature,1979-85, includingsection4 (general literatureand relatedtopics) and subsectionson criticismand literarytheory.The 1979-84 data are forpurposesof the currentanalysis. clearlynot exhaustivebut sufficient ber of Derrida's publications,the numberof articleshe publishedin philosophyjournals has decreasedsince 1967, and several articlespublishedin philosophyjournalsafter1974pertainto Derrida'sdefenseofthe institutional positionof the field(Miller 1981, pp. 130-66). In contrast, the numberof articlesin literarycriticismjournals increasedafter1967 and has remainedgreaterthan the numberof philosophyarticles. In table 2, publicationson Derridahave been brokendown by typeof journal (philosophyor literature)and country(France or the United States). The decliningdiffusionof Derrida'sworkin Frenchphilosophy 603 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology TABLE PUBLICATIONS AND BY TYPE ON DERRIDA'S 2 WORK BY COUNTRY OF JOURNAL (PHILOSOPHY/LITERARY (FRANCE/UNITED CRITICISM), FRANCE Philosophy 2 196. STATES) 1963-1984 UNITED STATES Literary Criticism Philosophy Literary Criticism ... ... ... 1964 .......... ... ... ... ... 1965 .......... ... ... ... ... 1 1 1 ... 2 ... 2 3 1 1 ... 2 1 2 4 4 17 13 10 4 1966. 1967 .......... 1968 .......... 1969 .......... 1970 .......... 1971 .......... 1972 .......... 1973 .......... 1974 .......... 1975 .......... 1976 ........... 1977 .2 1978 .......... 1979 .......... 1980 .......... 1981 .......... 1982 .......... 1983 .......... 1984 .......... 1 5 5 6 2 1 3 16 5 1 4 2 1 3 1 4 8 7 12 15 ... 10 10 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... 8 3 2 ... ... 2 3 7 6 22 27 16 26 56 2 1 1 ... NOTE.-Articles publishedin specializedjournalsand literarymagazines,reviewsand reviewarticles, as well as books. In the case of collectededitions,each articleis countedas a publication.When the ofarticlesbytypeofjournal was impossible,thepublicationswereclassifiedon thebasis of classification (1) thetopicof thearticleand (2) thefieldoftheauthor,ifavailable. The publicationsthatdid notfitin one of the categorieswere excludedfromthe sample (N = 51, including27 publicationspublishedin othercountriesforthe period 1963-78). Belgian publicationsare includedin the Frenchsample, and Canadian publicationsin the Americanone. For the period1963-78, the sample includesall the numbereditemsof Miller's(1981, pp. 130-66) bibliography, whichhas been supplementedby Leavey and Allison's(1977) bibliography.For the period 1979-84, data are fromtheInternationalBibliographyof Books and Articleson ModernLanguagesand Literature,vols. 1, 2, and 4, subsectionson deconstructionistliterarytheory,deconstructionist "Derrida"(in categories"subject" criticism,poststructuralism, forpurposes and "Literature-20thCentury").The 1979-84 data are clearlynotexhaustivebutsufficient of the currentanalysis. journals is shown in the decrease of articleson his work publishedin Frenchjournalsafter1974. The declineofhis popularityamongphilosopherscan be relatedto Derrida'srefusalto respectacademicprofessional normsby choosingnot to writea dissertationuntil 1980. Others,like Althusserand Foucault, had also decided not to pursue theirdoctorat d'etat. One of myinformants, who also made thischoice,observedthat this refusalexpressedan importantfeatureof the French intellectual 604 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher 60 0 50 40 JOURNALS 30 20~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10 24 4, _/D_o-o''__-* O'c-c-c_or I I __++ I I I I I I I - I I I 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR - PHILOSOPHY ?-0 LITERARY CRITICISM FIG. 2.-Publications on Derrida'sworkbytypeofjournal(philosophy/literary criticism)forFrance and the United States, 1963-84. ethos:thepowerof the Cartesiancogitois provedby one's abilityto win the game withoutplayingby the rules. As shownin figure2, publicationsin specializedphilosophy journalson Derrida'sworkstartedin 1963and remainedgreaterthanpublicationsin literarycriticismjournals until1968. Aftera 1973 boom, the numberof articleswas quite irregularin philosophyjournals. In contrast,publicationsin literary in 1970.A 1972-73 boomwas journalsbecameimportant followedby a progressivedecline. However, on the average, literary criticism articlesclearlyoutnumberphilosophicalarticlesafter1972. This figureillustrates criticsconstituted a growingpart that,overtime,literary of Derrida's public, while the proportionof philosophersdecreased.In the nextsection,I will argue thatDerrida'spenetrationof theAmerican intellectualmarketwas conditionedby a shiftin public. Figure3 showsa timelag betweenFrenchand Americanpublications, whichcorrespondsto thetimingofthediffusion ofDerrida'sworkin both countries.The French 1972-73 boom-associated withDerrida'ssimultaneous publicationof threebooks and coverageof themby the mass media-was followedby a sharp declinein publications.In the United increasedin numberin 1973, afterthe States,articleson deconstruction 605 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology 60 . 50 40 JOURNALS 30 20 *? 10 . _ ? I ? 0O o-ot-O I I I I I ___+ I ++ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR FRANCE ?- UNITED STATES FIG. 3. -Publications on Derrida's work by country(France/United States) for philosophyand literarycriticismjournals, 1963-84. publicationof Speech and Phenomenain English. These also increased in 1977, afterthe translationof Of Grammatology and the significantly active promotionof deconstruction by a groupof criticsat Yale. The diffusionof Derrida's work is relativelyweak in countriesother thantheUnitedStatesand France. For instance,between1981and 1984, the InternationalBibliographyof Books and Articleson Modern Lanto deconstrucguagesand Literaturelistsonly14 Britishentriesreferring tionin contrastto 103Americanentries.9FollowingMiller(1981),only11 Britisharticlesand books publishedbetween1962 and 1978 concerned Derrida's work, in contrastto 87 for Barthes and 52 for Foucault.'0 During this period, 31 articlesand books publishedin countriesother than France, the United States, and the United Kingdom concerned 9 Thisincludesentriesforbooksand articleslistedin thefollowing categories: deconstructionist criticism, deconstructive literary theory, and poststructuralist literary theory.In thislastcategory, onlythetitlesmentioning "deconstruction" or "Derrida"are counted.Canadian and Americanpublications are countedtogether, as are publicationsfromBelgiumand France. 10 Despitethe absenceof Barthesin my originalsampleof philosophers (Barthes's beingmorea literarycriticthan a philosopher), I am comparingthe diffusion of Derrida'sworkwiththatofhisand Foucault'sworkbecausecomparable dataon these threeintellectuals are availablein Miller(1981). 606 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher Derrida's work in contrastto 58 forBarthesand 98 forFoucault. The as nihilismimplicitin Derrida'sworkmightpartlyexplainthisdifference, Derrida'sdiffusion is especiallyweak in countrieswherethereis a strong leftisttraditionamongintellectuals.Foucault is relativelystrongin such countries,with32 Italian references and 35 Spanishand Latin American references forthe 1962-78 periodin contrastto 10 and eight,respectively, forDerrida. In 1981, Lire, a major French culturalmagazine,asked 600 French livingFrenchintellecintellectualsto identifythe threemostinfluential tuals. Academics, teachers, writers,artists,editors,politicians,and journalistswere asked to answerthe question.On the listof 36 intellectualsselected,Foucaultcame in thirdafterClaude Levi-Straussand Raymond Aron. Amongthe philosophers,BernardHenri-Levy,a nouveau MichelSerre,twentieth, philosophe,was ninth,Rene Girard,fourteenth, Phillippe Sollers, twenty-fourth, and Louis Althusser,twenty-sixth. Derrida'snamewas absent.These resultscorroborate thesharppost-1973 ofFrencharticleson Derrida'sworkshownin figure dropin thediffusion 3. This decline can be partlyexplainedby Derrida's distancefromthe politicalscene. UnlikeFoucault, Derridadid notbecomeinvolvedin the after1975 (e.g., politicaleventsthatmobilizedthe Frenchintelligentsia the Polish resistanceand the gay and antinuclearmovements).Foucault activelysupportedthesemovements,whichgave himan impressivepres" ence in the culturalmagazines,especiallyin Le Nouvel Observateur. Several featuresof diffusion of Derrida'sworksupportthe hypothesis that(1) thelegitimation oftheoriesdependson a fitbetweenhisworkand a structured culturalenvironment and (2) thattheseculturalmarketsare ofgood notunifiedmarkets,but rathertheyare segmentedby definitions work. For example, the diffusionof this work was limitedin several In France,thelegitimation of countrieswitha strongleftistintelligentsia. Derrida'sworkwas facilitatedbecause, as notedearlier,ratherthan addressingthis work to a shrinkingphilosophypublic, Derrida spoke to several already constitutedpublics, capitalizingon the structureof the Parisianintellectualmarket. In his transitionfroma limitedto a largerpublic,Derridaadapted his work,whichbecameincreasingly unfitfortheacademicphilosophyaudience. His writingsdid not followthe traditionalnormsof the discipline: "The directionsI had taken,thenatureand diversityof thecorpora,the 11The culturalmedia,i.e., thenewspapersand magazinesthatprovidea relatively largeamountof culturalinformation, published95 articleson Foucaultor his work between1966 and 1978,with34 forDerridaand 61 forBarthes.They includeLe NouvelObservateur, Le Monde (including"Hebdo" and Le Monde des livres),La QuinzaineLitte'raire, L'Express,Figarolitte'raire. Data are fromMiller(1981). 607 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology labyrinthian geographyoftheitineraries drawingme on towardrelatively unacademicareas, all of thispersuadedme that. .. it was, in truth,no longerpossible . . . to make what I was writingconform. . ." (Derrida 1983,p. 42). His style,his unconventional approach,his rejectionofthe logocentric tradition,and his popularsupportmayalso have contributed to the sharp decline of the diffusionof his work in Frenchphilosophy journals. The characteristics of the intellectualmarket(e.g., the growth and declineof disciplines,the presenceof a largeintellectualpublic)are environmental featuresthatshape thepotentialdiffusion and legitimation of works. In thissection,I have focusedon the institutionalization of Derrida's workby thepublic and his peers.I have contendedthatthelegitimation ofculturalproductsis dependenton institutional supportsand thataccess to thesesupportsis dependenton culturalcollaboration-the structured culturaland institutional systemsbeinghighlyinterrelated (fig.1). Sharinga commondefinition ofgood workis essentialnotonlyfortheintegrationof a theoryintoa culturalmilieubut also forits actual diffusion. To understandthislegitimation channelsof process,itis necessaryto identify culturalproductsare notdiffusedin unifiedmarketsbutrather diffusion; of good worksegmentsculturalmarkets. amongactorswhose definition This hypothesis, whichwill be sustainedbyfindings presentedin thenext section,has also been suggestedby sociologistsof science(Whitley1984; Isambert1985)and seemsto be important forunderstanding thelegitimationof bothempiricaland nonempiricaltheories. THE AMERICANCONNECTION The legitimation of Derrida'sworkin Americaresultsfrommechanisms similar to those active in its legitimationin France, that is, (1) the definition ofthisworkas importantbyDerrida,hispeers,and thepublic, and (2) a fitbetweenDerrida's workand the Americanintellectualand institutional environment (i.e., its adaptationto alreadyexistingintellectual agendas and its diffusion and journals).I by prestigiousuniversities contendthat the second factoris the key to its diffusionamong highly differentiated publicsin France and theUnitedStates.I firstdescribethe conditionsunder which structuralismwas legitimatedin the United States,giventhe factthatstructuralism preparedthe groundfordeconstructionand that se'veralfactorsthatinfluencedthe diffusionof structuralismalso influencedthe diffusionof deconstruction. Second, I dein American scribethe conditionsof the legitimationof deconstruction literarycriticism.Third, I contendthatthe diffusionof deconstruction was limitedin Americanphilosophyby preexistingintellectualnorms. was linkedto strucFinally,I argue that the diffusionof structuralism 608 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher turaltrendsin Americanliterarycriticism, suchas theconcurrent importationof the work of several otherFrench intellectuals,a disciplinary crisis,and the hegemonyof theoristsin the discipline. in America Structuralism The legitimationof Derrida's work was relatedto the culturalcontext thatpredatedits importationand thatcontainedconditionsfavoringits diffusion.New Criticismwas amongthe mostinfluential theoriesin the fieldofAmericanliterarycriticism fromthe 1940sto theend ofthe 1950s. In 1957,NorthropFryepublishedhisAnatomyofCriticism,launchinga powerfulattack against the textualemphasisof this approach. In conjunction with other critiquespublished previously(see Sutton 1963, pp. 219-67), Frye's critiqueprecipitateda deep crisisin Americanliterarycriticism.The extantparadigmwas rejected,and new paradigms gained consensusand filledthe void. Frenchstructuralism was successfullyintroduced,partlyas a responseto the vacuum createdby the end of New Criticism;it indirectly preparedthegroundforthearrivalofdeconstruction. An internationalconferenceon structuralism was organizedat Johns Hopkins in 1966 under the title"The Languages of Criticismand the SciencesofMan" (Mackseyand Donato 1970).Many Frenchintellectuals associated with structuralismwere invited: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Serge Doubrovsky,Lucien Goldmann,Jacques Lacan, and TzvetanTodorovwereall present.This was thefirstlarge-scaleintroductionof structuralism to America,and it was followedby the publication of a special issue of Yale FrenchStudies in 1966 on structuralism. Howdid not gain a substantialAmericanfollowinguntil ever, structuralists thebeginningofthe 1970s,whenseveralbookswerepublishedintroducing structuralism to the Americanpublic (e.g., Jameson'sPrison-House of Language, Boon's From Symbolismto Structuralism,and Scholes's in Literature)(Ruegg1979). Severalfurther Structuralism factorsfavored thediffusion ofstructuralism in theUnitedStates.A limitednumberthat also contributed to thediffusion ofdeconstruction can be pointedto here: First,comparativeliterature did nothave a longintellectual departments traditionand werein searchof a paradigm.Frenchspecialistshave long enjoyed a high status in comparativeliterature,which facilitatedthe spreadof theirinfluence.Second, structuralism "epitomizeddangerously seductivequalities of style;as intellectualfashiongoes, it was flashy, different, ingenious,and slightlyexotic" (Ruegg 1979, p. 189). These austereand qualities offeredhope of rejuvenationforthe traditionally meticulousAmericanliterarycriticism.Third, some Americanscholars saw thechance to build theirown institutional and intellectualpositions 609 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology by promotingthe importationof structuralism, and theyorganizedan impressivenumberof colloquia. Structuralism was a way fora growing new generationto constructand secure a niche in oppositionto older scholars by introducingnew theoreticalstandards. Fourth, like New Criticismitself,structuralism was a theoreticalapproach,and, as such,it could be applied to many kinds of literaryproducts.It constituteda potentially powerfulbasis ofintellectualinfluence extendingacrossliteraturedepartmentsand bridgingthe gap betweenspecialistsin different periodsand nationalliteratures. The Diffusionof Deconstruction Derrida arrivedon theAmericanscene in the same periodas structuralism. At theJohnsHopkinsconference, he presenteda vitrioliccritiqueof Levi-Strauss.The prestigeof Frenchliterarycriticismand of structuralismin particulartrickleddown to deconstruction, whichsoon became "le hip du hip" as it supersededthe trendiestof new theories. A complexinteractionof factorsfacilitatedthe diffusionof Derrida's work in the United States, several of which were associated with the it intoalreadyexistingintellectualagendas and possibilityof integrating This diffusionwas of disseminatingit throughprestigiousinstitutions. greatlyaided by the presenceof the "AmericanConnection"in private elite universitiesthat had been centersof Americanliterarycriticism, the diffuparticularlyYale, Cornell,and JohnsHopkins. Furthermore, sion of Derrida's work fromprestigiousto less prominentdepartments (e.g., UC-Irvine,UCLA, SUNY-Binghamton[Arac,Godzich,and Martin 1983, p. xiii]) enhancedits potentialforlegitimacyon the periphery. This factoris importantgiven the size and the decentralization of the Americanacademic structure. The processof diffusionwas also aided by severaljournals thatpublishedworkon deconstruction regularly:Diacritics, Sub-Stance,Glyph, and theGeorgiaReview. These journals,whichplayedfordeconstruction a role similarto that played by the KenyonReview and the Sewanee Review forNew Criticism,helped in creatingan audience forDerrida and in institutionalizing deconstruction as a legitimatetheory,as did a in relationto Marxnumberofbooks and articlestreatingdeconstruction ism, feminism,psychoanalysis,and so forth.'2 J. Hillis Miller,a Derridian scholar,was electedpresidentof theModernLanguage Association in 1986(Campbell 1986). The recognition ofmodernFrenchliterarycriticism by thisconservativeprofessionalassociationcontributedgreatlyto 12 In Miller (1981), I have identified12 articles published between 1968 and 1972 linkingDerrida to Dante, Pirandello, Russell, Wittgenstein,etc. 610 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher thelegitimation ofDerrida'swork.It also aided in diffusing it in various languagedepartments(English,German,Italian, etc.) and provideddewitha widerand growingaudience. construction The diffusion ofDerrida'sworkin theUnitedStatesrequiredtheinterest of renownedscholarswho could incorporateit intotheirown work, it to theAmericanaudienceas something and whilepresenting important worthreading. Paul de Man and J. Hillis Miller attendedthe Johns Hopkins conferenceand later became energeticproponentsof Derrida's Hartman. They all began to work,as did Harold Bloom and Geoffrey into theirintellectualagenda and to translate integratedeconstruction Derrida'sworkin termsbothaccessibleand attractiveto thelargerAmerPoetics (1975) associican audience. For instance,Culler'sStructuralist ated Derrida's workwithChomsky'sand arguedthatit transcendedde Saussure's, Levi-Strauss's,Barthes's, and so on. De Man assimilated some aspects of deconstruction to New Criticism(Gasche 1979), while otherspresenteddeconstruction as a techniqueof reading,buildingon New Criticism'stechniqueof"close reading"(Atkinsand Johnson1985). As a sophisticatedParisianculturalgood, Derrida'sworkcould and did reinforcethe disciplinarypositionof the Yale scholars,whose influence had traditionally dependedpartlyon the displayof high-statuscultural references. Each memberof the Yale enclave alreadyhad a reputationby 1975, but theydid notconstitutea cohesivegroup.Derrida'stheoreticalcontributionprovidedthemwitha sharedinterestand focuson whichto base a solid alliance that would propelthemto the summitof theirdiscipline. Theycame to definethemselvesas a groupas theypublishedin collaboration(e.g., Deconstruction and Criticism[Bloomet al. 1979])and, starting in 1976,debatedcriticismat conferences and professional meetings.They soon were labeled the "Yale Critics"or the "Yale School of Criticism" (Arac et al. 1983; Campbell 1986; Davis and Schleifer1985) and gained considerablevisibilityin mostlanguage departmentsby the end of the seventies.In a smallsampleofmanuscripts submittedto thePublications oftheModernLanguageAssociationin 1979,theywereamongthemostoftencited authors,with,in decreasingorder,10 mentionsforDerrida, sevenforBarthes,six forJ. Hillis Miller,fiveforPaul de Man, and four each for Harold Bloom and GeoffreyHartman (Conarroe 1980, p. 3). Also illustrativeof Derrida's and the Yale Critics'influenceis the fact that,duringthatperiod,theirworkbecamethecenterofmajordebatesin the field.Lentricchiastatesthe situationcogently:"Derrida and his followershave managed to createa genuinecontroversy by solidifying an oppositionpartywhose various constituents, untilnow, neverhave had muchuse forone another.The traditionalhistoricists, the Chicago neoAristotelians, the specialistsin Americanliterature,the Stanfordmoral611 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology ists,the mythcriticsof the Fryetype,old-lineFreudians,criticsof consciousness. . .the buddingstructuralists and the grandchildren of the New Critics . . .all have foundthemselvesunitedagainst a common enemyin a Traditionalismwhich, thoughimposed upon them by the Derridianpolemic,has seemedto suitthesestrangebedfellowsjust fine" (Lentricchia1980, p. 159). This largeoppositionwas relatedto Derrida'sattackon thebasic tenets of the humanisttraditionand interpretive activity.The veryviolenceof theseattackscontributedto the institutionalization of deconstruction; it indicatedthatDerridahad becomea forceto be contendedwith(Arac et al. 1983, p. xiii; Martin 1983). The influenceof the Yale Criticson the diffusion of deconstruction is extremelyimportant.Derrida's positionin the United States is greatly dependenton thisexceptionallystrongand concentratedacademic supportin literaturedepartments. No otherFrenchintellectualhas as strong an academic base in the United States-for instance,on the average, between 1978 and 1984, 26 pieces relatedto Derrida's work were publishedin literaryjournals per yearin contrastto 14 forFoucault."3 Furthermore,Derrida's supportoutsideliteraturedepartmentsis relatively weak. For instance,his Americanpublic is narrowerthan Foucault's; between1981and 1984,on theaverage,Foucaulthad 280 citationsa year in theSocial Science CitationIndex in contrastto 59 forDerrida,in part becauseofFoucault'sstrongsupportfromMarxistsin variousdisciplines. AlongwithSartre,Levi-Strauss,and Barthes,Foucaultis morestrongly New Republic,the supportedbyculturalmagazinessuchas Commentary, New Yorker,or the New YorkReview of Books than Derrida.'4 This suggeststhat the mechanismsthroughwhich Derrida penetratedthe French and the Americanmarketsdiffer.In America,professionalinstitutionssuch as prestigiousdepartments,journals, and associations have been essential.In France, access to the large intellectualpublic throughthe culturalmedia was moreimportant.This illustratesthe differencein the structuresof the two markets-the generalintellectual 13 Based on entries listedunder"Derrida"and "Foucault"in thecategories "subject" in theInternational and "Frenchliterature-20th century" Bibliography ofBooksand Articleson ModernLanguagesand Literature. The difference betweenDerrida'sand in literature Foucault'sdiffusion journalsis in realitymuchgreater, as severalcategoriesthatcontainreferences to Derrida'sworkare notincludedhere,i.e., deconstructiveapproach,deconstructive and deconstructive criticism, theory. 14 Between1960 and 1979,Derridawas coveredsix timesby Britishand American culturalmedia,in contrastto 43 timesforBarthesand 44 forFoucault,in these Americanand Britishpublications: theNew YorkTimes,theGuardian(andGuardian theNew YorkReviewofBooks, Weekly), Newsweek,theTimesLiterarySupplement, theChristianScienceMonitor,Times(Sunday),and theEconomist.Data are from Miller (1981). 612 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher milieuhavingmoreinfluenceon Frenchthanon Americanupper-middleclass culturethroughthe culturalmagazines that provide the French upper-middleclass withintellectualcultureas an importantformof culturalcapital. In contrast,in the UnitedStates,intellectuallifeis not as centralto upper-middle-class culture.Thus, culturalcapitalseemsto take expressiveratherthancognitiveformsand to be expressedthroughother formsof high cultureand throughbehaviorssuch as conspicuousconactivism,entresumption,self-reliance, individualism,problem-solving preneurship, and leadership(see, e.g., theanalysesoftheAmericanmiddle class by Bellah et al. [1985]and Varennes[1977];see also Lamontand Lareau 1987). The successofFoucault withtheAmericanculturalmagazinesis somewhatexceptionaland mightsuggesta changein therelationship between the cultureof specificfractionsof the Americanuppermiddleclass and the intellectualculture. Derrida'sworkwas largelyignoredbyAmericanphilosophersuntilthe Univermid-1970s,exceptforsome phenomenologists at Northwestern sityforwhomhis writingsoffereda new and seductiveway of formulating traditionalhermeneutic questions.It was onlylaterthatit spread to thewiderAmericanphilosophicalpublic,via Derrida'sdebatewithJohn Searle in the New YorkReview ofBooks (1983) and via RichardRorty's Philosophyand theMirrorofNature(1979). Its receptionwas necessarily limitedbecause, in theAnglo-American philosophicaltradition,the phihas losophyof language occupies a centralplace, while phenomenology been relativelymarginal.Moreover,the emphasisthatanalyticphilosophyputson languageis antagonisticto theprimaryassumptionofdeconstructionconcerninglogocentrism.The intellectualoperationsand style are in decidedoppositionto theethosofanalytic typicalofdeconstruction philosophy,whichemphasizesprecision,clarityoflanguage,and detailed The differences argumentation. betweenanalyticphilosophyand deconstructionexplain the lesser visibilityof Derrida in both Americanand Britishphilosophy,whereitsdiffusion is also limitedbythepresenceofa thatculturalenvironstrongMarxisttradition.This further demonstrates mentsdefineand delimitthe value and, moreimportant,the scholarly receptionof a body of work. The diffusion by ofDerrida'sworkin theUnitedStateswas structured featuresand trendsin Americanliterarycriticism.First,as notedabove, Derrida'sworkwas importedconcurrently withthatofa numberofother Frenchscholars(e.g., Roland Barthes,GillesDeleuze, MargueriteDuras, MichelFoucault,Rene'Girard,Luce Iriguay,JuliaKristeva,and Jacques Lacan) and profitedfromthatassociation.Frenchintellectualswerepresentedas a package (e.g., in Descombes'sModern FrenchPhilosophy, Dews's French Philosophical Modernism,and Fekete's The Structural Allegory:Reconstructive EncounterswiththeNew FrenchThought),de613 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology spite sometimesweak substantivesimilaritiesin theirworks and, at times,decidedlydivergentaspectsoftheiroverallpositions.Partlyon the basis oftheworkoftheseintellectuals, a numberofnew groupsofcritics grewthatprovidedone anotherwitha public and a market,as articles comparingtheseapproacheswithone anotherwere published.Feminist criticism,hermeneuticand postmodernist theories,psychoanalytic criticism, poststructuralism, semiotics,Marxism,structuralism, and deconstructioncreatedan intellectualsubculturein not onlyliteraturedepartments but also other interpretivefieldssuch as communicationsand anthropology. Like Barthes's,Foucault's,Levi-Strauss's,and Sartre'sbeforehis,Derrida'stheoreticalcontribution could helplegitimatethetransition of "soft"disciplinesfrombeing descriptiveenterprisesto more theoreticalones. The reference to Frenchintellectualsbytheory-oriented groupsin interpretive disciplinesaided thelegitimation ofdifferent traditionsand standardsof evaluation. of deconstruction Second,thediffusion was facilitatedbecause literary criticismhad becomea dominantsubfieldin languagedepartments since the fiftiesand the hegemonyof literarycriticswas alreadyestablished (Alter1984; Graffand Gibbons 1985). Because of its theoreticalnature, literarycriticismpotentiallyhad a wide audience,in contrastto phonetics, forinstance.Third, deconstruction was an answerto a disciplinary crisis. The legitimacyof literaturedepartmentshad been consistently weakened by the increasedpressureforacademic researchorientedtoward social needs. In thiscontext,thosedepartments tendedto reaffirm the"distinctivefeatures"on whichtheirprestigewas based, thatis, high culture;a conversionto instrumentalknowledgewas excluded by the natureoftheirintellectualproject.Derrida'strademarkhappenedto embody these featuresand was promotedby elite departmentsand espethatbestembodiedthosefeatures, cially,as notedabove, bydepartments such as Yale's. Also, like Foucault or Habermas,Derridaoffered American humanistsa criticismof sciencethatwas much needed to promote theirown intellectualproducts. CONCLUSION This studyhas been one stepin thedevelopmentofa groundedstructural ofinterpretive theories.I theoryoftheprocessofintellectuallegitimation have soughtto demonstratethatthelegitimation of a theorydependson both the producer'sdefinitionof his own work as importantand the institutionalization ofitsimportanceby peersand thegeneralintellectual institutional public,as well as on a fitbetweentheworkand a structured and culturalsystem.The legitimationof theoriesresultsmore froma complexenvironmental interplaythanfromtheintrinsic qualitiesoftheo614 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher riesthemselves.Theoriescannotthusbe consideredin isolation,even if theyare experiencedthroughtheirown logic and in theirown cultural realmby theirproducersand consumers. In thefirstsection,I suggestedthatfeaturesofDerrida'sworkcontributedto itslegitimation in France by (1) meetingexistingculturalrequirementsthrougha distinctive writingstyle,a strongtheoretical trademark, and a focuson questionscentralto the Frenchintellectualmilieuat the end of the sixties,and (2) favoringits diffusionby being ambiguous, adaptable, and packaged as a distinctproduct.His workwas also integratedinto an importantintellectualtraditionand presenteda charismaticimageoftheintellectual.I have triedto arguefurther thatDerrida's work helped its own institutionalization as an importantcontribution because he himselfdescribedit as answeringfundamental questions,contributingto the project of importantphilosophers,and transcending classic philosophicalwork. I have also proposed that the fitbetween Derrida's work and upper-middle-class culture,the Frenchpoliticalclimate of the 1960s, and the disciplinarycrisisof philosophyhelped the diffusionof deconstruction theoryin general. In the secondsection,I emphasizedthatDerrida'sinstitutional trajecof the Frenchintellectualscene torymeetstheinstitutional requirements as definedby thetrajectory of otherintellectuals.I arguedthatDerrida's access to institutional settingsand his participationin the structuralist as an debatehelpedin thediffusion ofhisworkand itsinstitutionalization I contendedthatDerrida'sparticipationin both importantcontribution. is a Tel Quel and thestructuralist debateshowsthattheoretical agreement conditionof intellectualcollaborationand of diffusionand that the institutional and culturalsystemsare interrelated, as are intellectualcollaborationand institutional support.I contendedthatculturalcapitalaffects access to institutionsand that high-statusculturalreferencesare very effectiveas a basis of legitimationin interpretive disciplines.Finally,I arguedthatthediffusion ofDerrida'sworkwas improvedbyhis abilityto capitalize on the structureof the marketby addressinghis work to alreadyconstitutedmarketsratherthan to a shrinking philosophypublic. In the thirdsection,I extendedthe discussionto propose that the legitimationof Derrida's work in the United States proceededfromits and culturalfeaturestypicaloftheAmeriadaptabilityto theinstitutional can scene, thatis, its adaptationto intellectualdebatesand its diffusion by prestigiousscholarsand journals. The adaptabilityofDerrida'swork, frombeing a criticismof structuralism fora large Frenchpublic to one thatinterestsmostlyAmericanliterarycritics,is one of the mostimportant conditionsof its success in these two quite distinctand, at times, theories divergentculturalmarkets.In orderto be definedas important, have to be reframedso thattheybecomeunderstandable and relevantfor 615 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology by the new audiences.The importanceof thisfitis clearlydemonstrated lessersuccessofDerridain thefieldofAmericanphilosophy.As withthe diffusion ofDerrida'sworkin France,thefitbetweentheauthor'sbodyof work and the structuralcharacteristics of the Americanmarketwere and crisisofliterarycriticism important, especiallygiventhedisciplinary the concurrentimportationof Derrida's work and that of otherFrench intellectualsin the mid-1970s. in the conditionsof legitimationof There are importantdifferences of Derrida'sworkin France and the UnitedStates,as the segmentation the two intellectualmarketsdiffersconsiderably:in the United States, professionaljournals and institutionshave an importantinfluenceon legitimation, while culturaljournals have a minorrole. In France, culturaljournals cater to an importantand influentialpublic and further affectthe legitimationof theoriesby controllingaccess to the market. Professionaljournals appear to be less influentialthan in the United States.However,it is importantto notethattheprocessesoflegitimation of Derrida's work in France and the United States also have several commonfeatures,whichmightindicatethenecessaryconditionsforintelsupportsand lectual legitimationin general.In both cases, institutional intellectualcollaboratorswere the sine qua non forintellectuallegitimation,as is the fundamentalfitbetweenthe workand its intellectualand culturalcontexts. More studiesare neededin orderto evaluateto whatdegreetheprocess of legitimation of Derrida'sworkis unique and how it differsfromother cases. A few similaritiesand differencesbetween Derrida and other French philosophersmight be pointed out here. On the one hand, and intenDerrida'scase seemsto be exceptionalin termsofthestrength sityof his institutionalsupportin one disciplinein the United States, especiallygiventhe weaknessof his supportin otherdisciplines.This is confirmedby data on the diffusionof Barthes'sand Foucault's work. Also, in contrastto Foucault's, Derrida's Frenchand Americanpublics seem to be morehighlydifferentiated. On the otherhand, Derrida's work resemblesotherimportedFrench works in several respects.Most of these are sophisticated interpretive culturalgoods thatmightbe used to increasethe legitimacyof theoreticallyorientedscholarsin the UnitedStates,and, in France, theycan be class. French culturalgoodsbytheupper-middle displayedas high-status intellectualsgenerallyprojectan inspiringand oftencharismaticimageof intellectuallife (e.g., Culler 1983). Also, theyhave access to cultural magazines, participatein public debate, and locate theirwork at the junctureof severalalreadyconstitutedmarkets. among French intellectualsand beThe similaritiesand differences tween the legitimationprocessesof Derrida's work in France and the 616 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher UnitedStates suggestdirectionsforfuturesystematicstudiesof the protheoriesand for distincess of intellectuallegitimationof interpretive guishingbetween necessaryand peripheralconditionsto intellectual legitimation. Sociologistsshouldalso explorewhetherthesmallerinstitudisciplinesaffectnormativecontionalresourcesavailable in interpretive of the trol and consequentlythe degree of stabilityand structuration disciplines.Futurestudieswould also legitimation processin interpretive in do wellto contrasttheformsofculturalcapitalthatare mostinfluential access to resourcesin interpretive and empiricaldisciplines. facilitating APPENDIX: LIST OF SECONDARY SOURCES Bibliographic de languefrancaise Cataloguedes publicationspe'riodiquesuniversitaires (1969-77). FrenchXX Bibliography(1968-77). Index Translation(1968-75). Repertoirebibliographiquede la philosophie(1971-75). On Teaching and ResearchInstitutes Centre national de recherchescientifique.Annuaire des sciences de l'homme(1979). Centrenationalde recherchescientifique. Rapportnationalde conjoncture(1963-64). Directiongeneralede la recherchescientifiqueet technique.Repertoire nationaldes laboratoires(t. 3, 1974). Ministerede l'education nationale. Annuaire de l'education nationale (1970). Ministere de 1'education nationale. Rapport de l'aggre'gationde philosophie(1958-78). Ministere de 1'education nationale. Rapport du C.A.P.E.S. de philosophie(1958-78). On the Institutionaland IntellectualTrajectoriesof Philosophers Associationamicale des anciens eleves de l'ecole normalesuperieure. Annuaire(1979). Cercle de la librarie.Guide des prix litte'raires (1965-71). CurrentBiography(1979). Fondationnationalede science politique.Annuairedes anciens de science politique(1979). Literaryand LibraryPrizes (1972-78). Who's Who in France (1979). 617 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology Periodicals Critique(1963-79). Esprit (1960-80). NouvelleRevuefranSaise(1963, 1973, 1977). La Pense'e(1974, 1979). Tel Quel (1972-75). Les Tempsmodernes(nos. 20, 27, 32, 64). General Files of Ecole normalesuperieure,Archivesnationalede France. Catalogue of doctoraldissertations,Ministerede l'educationnationale (1950, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1967-70). National fileson dissertations, Universitede Nanterre. Press files,Pressesuniversitaires de France and Editionsdu seuil. REFERENCES Adatto,Kiku,and StephenCole. 1981."The Functionsof ClassicalTheoryin Contemporary SociologicalResearch:The Case ofMax Weber."Knowledge andSociety 3:137-62. Agacinski,Sylviane,et al. 1975. Mimesis des articulations.Paris: Aubier-Flammarion. Alter,Robert.1984."The Declineand Fall ofLiterary Criticism." Commentary 77 (3): 50-56. Louis. (1965) 1969.For Marx. London:Lane. Althusser, Althusser, Louis, and EtienneBalibar. (1965) 1967.ReadingCapital.London:New Left. Amsterdamska, Olga. 1985."Institutions and SchoolsofThought:The Neogrammarians."American JournalofSociology91 (2): 332-58. Arac,Jonathan,Wlad Godzich,and Wallace Martin,eds. 1983. The Yale Critics: Deconstruction in America.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress. Atkins,G. Douglas,and MichaelL. Johnson.1985.Writing andReadingDifferently: Deconstruction and theTeachingofComposition and Literature.Lawrence:UniPressof Kansas. versity Axelrod,CharlesD. 1979. Studies in IntellectualBreakthroughs: Freud,Simmel, Buber.Amherst: University ofMassachusetts Press. Bellah, Robert,RichardMadsen, WilliamW. Sullivan,et al. 1985. Habits of the Heart. Berkeleyand Los Angeles:University ofCaliforniaPress. and Bloom, Harold, Paul de Man, JacquesDerrida,et al. 1979. Deconstruction Criticism.New York: Seabury. Actesde internationaux." Boltanski,Luc. 1975."Notesurles echangesphilosophiques la recherche en sciencessociales5-6:191-9. to Structuralism: Levi-Straussin Literary Boon, JamesA. 1972. FromSymbolism Tradition.Oxford:Blackwell. Field and CreativeProject."Social ScienceInBourdieu,Pierre.1969."Intellectual 8 (2): 89-119. formation et habitusde classe."Scolies . 1971. "Champdu pouvoir,champintellectuel 1:7-26. 618 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher . 1975."L'ontologiepolitiquede MartinHeidegger."Actesde la recherche en sciencessociales5-6:109-56. . 1981."Les troisetatsdu capitalculturel."Actesde la recherche en sciences sociales30:3-6. . 1983. "The FieldofCulturalProduction, or:The EconomicWorldReversed." Poetics 12:311-56. . 1984. Distinction:A Social CritiqueoftheJudgement ofTaste.Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press. . 1986. "The Productionof Belief:Contribution to an Economyof Symbolic Goods." Pp. 164-93 in Media, Cultureand Society:A CriticalReader,editedby RichardCollinset al. BeverlyHills, Calif.:Sage. Bourdieu,Pierre,Luc Boltanski,and Pascal Maldidier.1971."La Defensedu corps." Social ScienceInformation 10 (4): 45-86. Bouveresse, Jacques.1983."WhyI Am So VeryUnFrench."Pp. 9-34 in Philosophy in France Today,editedby Alan Montefiore. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Campbell,Dolin. 1986."The TyrannyoftheYale Critics."New YorkTimesMagazine,February9. ofDependency Cardoso,FernandoHenrique.1977."The Consumption Theoryinthe U.S." LatinAmericanResearchReview3 (7): 7-24. Caws, Mary. 1973."Tel Quel: Text and Revolution."Diacritics3:2-8. Charles,Christophe.1983. "Le Champuniversitaire parisiena la findu 19e siecle." Actesde la recherche en sciencessociales47-48:77-89. Chartier,Roger. 1982. "IntellectualHistoryor Sociocultural History?The French Trajectories." Pp. 13-46 inModernEuropeanHistory:Reappraisalsand NewPerspectives, editedbyDominickLaCapra and StevenL. Kaplan. Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity Press. Sourcesof French Clark,PriscillaP., and TerryN. Clark. 1982."The Structuralist Structuralism." Pp. 22-46 in Structuralist Sociology,editedby Ino Rossi. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. de philosophie.1982.Rapportpresentea MonsieurJean-Pierre Collegeinternational Ministred'Etat, Ministerede la Rechercheet de L'Industrie Chevenement, par FranSoisChdtelet, JacquesDerrida,Jean-Pierre Faye et DominiqueLecourt. Paris. Conarroe,Joel.1980."Editor'sColumn."PublicationsoftheModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica95 (1): 3-4. Poetics.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity Press. Culler,Jonathan.1975. Structuralist . 1983. RolandBarthes.New York:OxfordUniversity Press. Davis, RobertCon, and RonaldSchleifer.1985. Rhetoricand Form:Deconstruction at Yale. Norman:University ofOklahomaPress. Debray, R6gis. 1979. Teachers,Writers,Celebrities:The Intellectualsof Modern France.London:New Left. Deleuze,Gilles.1968.Difference etrepetition. Paris:Pressesuniversitaires de France. Derrida,Jacques.1963."Forceet signification." Critique15:483-99. 1972. Margesde la philosophie.Paris:Minuit. (1967) 1973. SpeechandPhenomena.Evanston,Ill.: Northwestern University Press. (1967) 1976. OfGrammatology. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press. (1967) 1980. Writing and Difference. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. (1972) 1981a.Positions.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. (1972) 1981b.Dissemination. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. . 1983. "The Time of a Thesis: Punctuations." Pp. 34-50 in Philosophyin FranceToday,editedbyAlanMontefiore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Saussure,Ferdinand.(1915) 1972.Coursde linguistique generale.Paris:Payot. 619 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology Descombes,Vincent.1980.ModernFrenchPhilosophy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Dews, Peter. 1986. French PhilosophicalModernism:A Critique of Derrida, Foucault,Lyotardand Lacan. New York: Schocken. DiMaggio,Paul, and JohnMohr. 1985. "CulturalCapital,EducationalAttainment JournalofSociology90:1231-61. and MaritalSelection."American les hommesetles oeuvres:Professeurs Fabiani,Jean-Louis.1983."Les Programmes, en en classeet en villeau tournant du siecle."Actesde la recherche de philosophie sciencessociales47-48:3-21. Encounters withtheNew Allegory: Reconstructive Fekete,John.1984.TheStructural ofMinnesotaPress. FrenchThought.Minneapolis:University conFerry,Luc, and Alain Renaut.1985.La Pensee68, essai sur l'anti-humanisme temporain. Paris:Gallimard. Le Monde(des Finas, Lucette.1973. "Etude. JacquesDerrida:Le deconstructeur." livres)no. 8838,July14, pp. 22-23. Finas,Lucette,et al. 1973.Ecarts:Quatreessaisa proposde JacquesDerrida.Paris: Fayard. A HistoryofInsanityin theAgeof Foucault,Michel.1965.Madnessand Civilization: Reason. New York: Pantheon. oftheHumanSciences. . (1966) 1971. The OrderofThings:An Archaeology New York: Pantheon. ofKnowledge.New York:Harper. .(1969)1972.TheArchaeology as Criticism." Glyph6:177-215. Gasche,Rodolphe.1979."Deconstruction et repetition: Daniel. 1979. E9criture Approchesde Derrida. Paris: Giovannangeli, Uniongeneraledes e'diteurs. Evanston, Graff,Gerald,and ReginaldGibbons.1985.Criticismin theUniversity. Press. Ill.: Northwestern University 1977.Qui a de la philosophie). G.R.E.P.H. (Groupede recherche surl'enseignement Paris:Aubier-Flammarion. peurde la philosophie? Expeditionen haute Hamon,Herve, and PatrickRotman.1981.Les Intellocrates: intelligentsia. Paris:Ramsay. ofCulture, Pp. 23-40 inTheProduction Heirich,M. 1976."CulturalBreakthroughs." editedby RichardA. Peterson.BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage. ofBooks and Articleson ModernLanguagesand LiteraInternational Bibliography ture.1981-84.New York:ModernLanguageAssociation. fort'en sociologiede la science?" 1985."Un 'programme Isambert,Francois-Andre. RevuefranSaisede sociologie26:485-508. N.J.: Princeton Jameson,Fredric.1972. The Prison-HouseofLanguage.Princeton, Press. University Press. . 1980. ThePoliticalUnconscious.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversity Vienna.New York: Janik,ClairA., and StephenE. Toulman.1973. Wittgenstein's Simon& Schuster. University ofReception.Minneapolis: Jauss,Hans Robert.1982.Towardan Aesthetic of Minnesota Press. School Jay,Martin.1973. The DialecticalImagination:A HistoryoftheFrankfurt and theInstituteofSocial Research,1923-1950.Boston:Little,Brown. ofCaliforand Los Angeles:University . 1984.Marxismand Totality.Berkeley nia Press. Judt,Tony. 1986.Marxismand theFrenchLeft.Oxford:Clarendon. Elite. Boston:Little,Brown. Kadushin,Charles.1974.TheAmericanIntellectual de la sociologie de reussiteet modesde faire-valoir Karady,Victor,1979."Strategie RevuefranSaisede sociologie20:49-82. chezles durkheimiens." Kuklick,Bruce. 1977. TheRise ofAmericanPhilosophy.New Haven, Conn.: Yale Press. University 620 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FrenchPhilosopher Kurzweil,Edith. 1980. The Age of Structuralism: Levi-Straussto Foucault. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Lacan, Jacques.(1966) 1977.Ecrits:A Selection.New York:Norton. ofIntellectuals ontheProduction ofCulturein Lamont,Michele.1987."TheInfluence in Liberal Franceand theUnitedStatessinceWW II." In TheRole ofIntellectuals Democracies,editedbyAlainG. Gagnon.New York:Praeger. Lamont,Michele,and AnnetteLareau. 1987. "CulturalCapital in AmericanResearch:Problemsand Possibilities." Working Papersand Proceedings oftheCenter forPsychosocialStudies.Chicago:CenterforPsychosocial Studies. Laruelle,FranKois,et al. 1977.Le D6clinde l'ecriture. Paris:Aubier-Flammarion. Leavey,John,and David B. Allison.1978. "A DerridaBibliography." Researchin Phenomenology 18:145-60. Leitch,VincentB. 1983.Deconstructive An AdvancedIntroduction. Criticism: New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Lemert,Charles,ed. 1981.FrenchSociology:Ruptureand Renewalsince1968. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Lentricchia, Frank. 1980.AftertheNew Criticism.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Macksey,Richard,and EugenioDonato. 1970.TheStructuralist BaltiControversy. more:JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press. Marceau,Jane. 1977. Class and Status in France: EconomicChangeand Social Immobility, 1945-1975.New York:OxfordUniversity Press. Martin,Wallace. 1983. "Introduction." Pp. xv-xxxviiin The Yale Critics:Deconstruction in America,editedby Arac et al. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. Marx,Karl,and Friedrich Engels.1972.GermanIdeology.New York:International. A Multidisciplinary Miller,J. M. 1981. FrenchStructuralism: Bibliography. New York:Garland. Montefiore, A., ed. 1983.Philosophyin FranceToday.Cambridge:CambridgeUniPress. versity Norris,C. 1982.Deconstruction: Theoryand Practice.London:Methuen. Pinto,Louis. 1981."Les Affinit6s electives:Les amisdu NouvelObservateur comme 'groupeouvert.'" Actesde la recherche en sciencessociales36-37:105-24. .1984. "La Vocationde l'universel. La formation de la representation de l'intellectuelvers1900."Actesde la recherche en sciencessociales55:23-33. Pollack,Michel.1979."Paul Lazarsfeld,fondateur d'unemultinationale scientifique." Actesde la recherche en sciencessociales25:45-59. Radnitsky, Gerard.1973.Contemporary SchoolsofMeta-Science.Chicago:Regnery. Rorty,Richard.1979.Philosophy and theMirrorofNature.Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press. Ruegg, Maria. 1979. "The End(s) of French Style: Structuralism and Postin theAmericanContext."Criticism29 (3): 189-216. Structuralism Ryan,Michael. 1982. Marxismand Deconstruction: A CriticalArticulation. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press. Searle,J. R. 1983. "The WordTurnedUpsideDown." New YorkReviewofBooks October27, pp. 74-78. in Literature. Scholes,RobertE. 1974.Structuralism New Haven, Conn.:Yale UniPress. versity Dean. 1976."The Socio-Political ContextofPhilosophical Simonton, Beliefs."Social Forces 54:513-23. Sutton,WalterE. 1963.ModernAmericanCriticism.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Turkle,Sherry.1978. Psychoanalytic Politics: Freud's FrenchRevolution.New York:Basic. 621 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournalof Sociology Diversityin a Midwestern Structured Varennes,Herve. 1977.AmericansTogether: Town.New York:TeachersCollegePress. Wahl,Jean.1962.Tableaude la philosophie franpaise.Paris:Gallimard. Watson,George.1978.ModernLiteraryThought.Heidelberg:Carl WinterUniversitatsverlag. of the Sciences. Whitley,Richard.1984. The Intellectualand Social Organization Oxford:Clarendon. and EdithKurzweil.1984.CulWuthnow,Robert,J. D. Hunter,AlbertBergensen, turalAnalysis:The WorkofPeterL. Berger,MaryDouglas,MichelFoucaultand JurgenHabermas.Boston:Routledge& KeganPaul. 622 This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:45 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
