Repository | Book | Chapter

It is the aim of this chapter to explore the idea that Derrick's work was "domesticated" by American deconstruction, and to decide which articulations of a "domestication narrative" can be defended and which cannot. It was usually assumed by narrators of the "domestication narrative" that the relation of deconstruction in America to Derrida's work was one of straightforward genealogical descent, and that deconstruction in America was bound by some obligation to remain faithful to its Derridean origins. Even if we were to accept this assumption and this obligation, it can be argued that the tellers of these stories, emphasizing as they did the loss of engagement with history in American deconstruction, never adequately explored Derrida's position on historical explanation, or for that matter the positions of his American followers. If we follow the lead of those who have formulated the domestication argument and focus this problem on the relationship between Derrida and de Man, we can argue that when this exposition is performed, the question of history does not in fact provide a clear basis for distinguishing between Derrida and some domesticated discourse that derives from his work. The distinctly American preoccupation with the status of historical explanation produced strange, slightly distorted accounts of Derrida's and de Man's attitudes to history in the service of a domestication narrative.

DOI: 10.1057/9781137307033_3

Full citation: