Listen to Researcher Marco Piasentier’s talk from the workshop Europe and the Crisis of Reason: “Deconstruction, Disenchantment, and the Voice of Europe.” https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/eurostorie/episodes/Marco-Piasentier-Deconstruction--Disenchantment--and-the-Voice-of-Europe-e2p68h3/a-abif2ag
Full Transcription:
And then probably someone may also wonder, what is the relationship between the question of the "Enlightenment" in Hayek and the paper on Derrida. And the initial idea, was really to address some views, about the European discourse on philosophical modernity. And, I think, that both Hayek and Derrida have something very important to say. And, I thought, that it would be interesting also to spend some words about Hayek and the question of the "Enlightenment", just to somehow situate the broader view, that I would like, then to narrow down with Derrida. So, according to Hayek, there are two types of "Enlightenment". And there is an "Enlightenment" that develops thanks to "Scottish Enlightenment" and then there is a more continental one. And he thinks, that the true one is of course the "Scottish Enlightenment", that then continues with Darwinism and he calls it the Evolutionary Rationalism. Then there is the other tradition, that is the one that Marianne was mentioning yesterday, that is called Constructivist Tradition. And the Constructivist Tradition has different branches, and Socialism is one of them. And for him, Socialism is the worst among all the branches. Because, the "Continental Enlightenment", according to Hayek, is not modern at all. It's a primitive way of thinking, that has been translated in modern grammar. And Socialism is primative in two ways, not only, because, through a very strict concept of order, it projects the tendency of human beings to anthropomorphize the world and so, to think that they can create and see human order everywhere, whereas in reality the idea of order, according to Hayek, is spontaneous. But, Socialism is also primitive, because, so a form of enlightenment, because it has to do with solidarity and solidarity it is an instinct, that according to Hayek works only in small primitive tribes, but not in complex great societies, so, why now I spent a few precious minutes to tell you all of this. Because, I think, that this is one of the main tendencies, to somehow, diminish your adversaries. So, in this way you show, that the other person, the person that has a view that is different from yours, actually do not belong to the same space of reason, but has a very primitive way of thinking. This is not the only argument or strategy, when it comes to decide, what is the legacy and the present of the discourse, the philosophical discourse about European modernity. Another tendency is, to claim, that there is a post, so, that post-truth, post-modernism. So, instead of placing your enemy in a primitive stage, you place it in another dimension, in another temporal dimension, that is a dimension, after reason. So, one strategy is to place your enemy before reason, then the other strategy is to place your enemy after reason. And, I guess, in post-truth in this way today, is another example of this. So, if, you think about the narrative according to post-truth, is that we were living in an empty political situation, until Brexit and Trump came, without really trying to understand the reasons, that led to this and also to think, that probably politics of truth has never really existed. So, what I'm trying to do in this presentation, is to, somehow, challenge these arguments, from the perspective of deconstruction. So, what I would like to show, is that deconstruction can be read as a form of disenchantment. And the idea why, I picked, the idea of disenchantment, is that disenchantment, I think, is a key modern term. So, modernity, somehow, is a synonym of disenchantment. So, my point is that, if, I somehow, for some weird reason, manage to show, that deconstruction is a form of disenchantment, and disenchantment is an archetype of modernity, then it is no longer possible to claim, that deconstruction belongs to a post, and so, that we are all competing in the same modern space. And so, what I'm trying to do here, is really two simple things. The first one, is really to show that, deconstruction is a product of European modernity, actually, it is a quintessentially modern gesture. And the second one, that the deconstruction of the idea of Europe, elaborated by Derrida, does not really entail the elimination of what I shall call the voice of Europe, but rather a redefinition of it. Of course, I will have no time to do all of this, and since I will be strict with all the other speakers, I hope you will, especially, you will be very strict with me and tell me when it is time to shut up. I already have the feeling of having spoken too much. But, going through, the structure of the presentation, I will introduce the notion of phonocephalism, that is a key-term in deconstruction, that serves the purpose of showing why deconstruction is a form of disenchantment. I will say a few words on disenchantment and then I will connect the two. And then I will address Derrida´s critique of the idea of Euro as a form of disenchantment. So, phono-centrism, for those who are not very familiar with Derrida, and well done for that, because, I mean, there are better things to do in life. [laughs:00:06:40] Sorry for the philosophers in the room. But, according to Derrida, the idea of the voice is very problematic, because, it signals a sort of an original foundation, an original point. And in the metaphysical tradition, I suppose in these very broken and unnecessary terms, the metaphysical tradition has always given a priority to the voice, when compared to the written text. And the written text appears to be something secondary or representational. So, it is a sort of technology, that tries to meet the original foundation of human thinking, that is speech. And so the voice, preferred to the writing text, the trace is always inferior compared, to the voice. And the aim of the construction is to problematize this dichotomy. So, it's to show, that actually this dichotomy, that is also an hierarchy, does not really exist. In summary, phonocentrism, is a binary system, that opposes an entity, that is the voice, an intelligible entity, to a sensible one, that is the trace. And of course, the essence of the voice more broadly, is grounded in a series of positions, so, originally derived, where the trace is derived, universal, particular, pure, organic. So, now to the question of disenchantment. So, disenchantment is a term, that is most famously introduced by Weber. And the term disenchantment in German does not really have an etymological connection, with the idea of the voice, which was a great disappointment for me, because, one month ago, I had all my theory figured out and then I thought, wait a second. Probably they should be taken into consideration. But, thanks to some German friends, I managed to find my way out. But, when it comes to the idea of disenchantment, so, basically the sum of our [???evening:00:09:17] [xxxx:00:09:19] they can really imagine the superstition from the board and the idea of the voice, at least from the etymological perspective, is quite relevant. The idea of chant, of canto. So, the etymology comes from the Latin word "incanto", that in turn comes from "canto". that derives in turn, from the classical canon. And there are many other etymological things, that now I will not try to pronounce. So then, what is the relationship between disenchantment and deconstruction? They both are trying to, somehow, take away the voice. Or, in another manner, they are trying to show, that what was considered to be original, in reality, is a chant. It is an illusion. And they try to show, that it is necessary, to expose this illusionary dimension. That this dimension, that is supposed to be original, in reality, it is secondary. Is secondary in the case of the the construction to the trace. And now it comes to the German part. So, Germans are always a bit more complicated, of course. But, the good thing was, that the text, where Weber introduces the idea of disenchantment, has to do with the relationship between science and [???evolution:00:10:57]. and there are many different ways of reading that text but, I think that the key one, that interests me in this context, is that Weber wonders, whether, there is a space for vocation in his disenchanted world. So, again the question of the voice is central, in order to understand the question of disenchantment. And so, I think, that also in light of the works of Weber we can see, that there is a connection between deconstruction and disenchantment. And one could also make a step further and notice, that this enchantment has always to do, at least in its most common understanding, with the idea of science. And also, Derrida, in reality, wants to challenge the phonocentrism, that is still present within the field of linguistics. And so, one could even show this further connection and demostrate how, the construction, somehow, contributes to the scientific process of disenchanting the world. But, in reality, I think, that we should also make a step further and show, that probably the idea of disenchantment has nothing to do, just with, science itself. But, is a broader attempt of challenging dogmatism. And so, probably there is a stronger connection between the critical tradition and the idea of disenchantment itself. So, now for some weird reason, I managed to arrive up to this point. How much time do I have? [You have some half an hour total] Okay, yes, good. So, now that I tried to, somehow, show a possible connection between deconstruction and enchantment, has led to me taking into consideration Derrida's critique, on a certain conception of Europe and showing how this critique of Europe, is really a critique to a phono-centric conception of a dark voice of Europe. And so, what Derrida is trying to do, is disenchanting a certain idea of Europe. And this idea of Europe, has to do with Europe as happy. The term in French, that goes back to the capital of course, nothing as means has strength, aim and so there is a sort of theory, ultimate destination and in this chronological progressive path Europe is the example. So, meaning that is the idea, the content, that will lead the rest of humanity toward peace, enlightenment and so on. So, Focau, writes, Europe, is a according to this narrative, is a geographical headland or heading, that has always given itself the representation or figure of a spiritual heading, at once as a project, task, or infinity, that is to say, a universal idea. And Derrida really wants to put into question, this very idea of Europe. We saw before, that the idea of the voice is grounded in a series of dichotomies, that in reality are a form of hierarchies. And also the idea, what I would like to propose, is the idea of the voice of Europe, has to do with Europe as heading. So, again, this phonocentric interpretation of Europe, of the voice of the identity of Europe, is nothing but another way of somehow, recreating these hierarchies that, according to Derrida, inform the entire Western thought and should be deconstructed. And in light of this idea, of the voice of Europe, the immanent and contingent dimension of European history is [xxxx:00:15:41] when it comes, to understand, the origin, the purity and the universality of the voice of Europe itself. And, so what does it mean, to deconstruct Europe from this perspective? So, does it mean, that deconstructing Europe entails giving away of its own voice? So, is the result of deconstruction of Europe, a voiceless Europe, namely a Europe without an identity? So, are we really taking away, the very possibility of thiniking Europe. Well, first of all, I think, that it is important to say, that even, if, we were doing that, we would still be within the model- process, because, disenchantment, especially, when it is interpreted in a scientific manner, has to do with a radical form of eliminatism. So, the idea, that science shows that such activity itself, is nothing but an illusion, because, in reality we are nothing but brains and physical processes. So, the same idea of this radical eliminatism of the subject, can be applied to the identity of the group. And so, even a process of deconstruction, that would lead to destruction of the world, would still be a longer [xxxx:00:17:11] So, if, phonocentrism is a voice, without a trace, the question is, whether, the construction is a philosophy of the trace, without the voice. And, so, wheter the construction ultimately leads to a form of destruction. So, of course, I think, this is the possibility. But, I don't think, that it is the only one, that we can elaborate through the thought of Derrida, because, as you probably know, this idea of critique of metaphysics, precisely, not to create a sort of reverse metaphysics, was that of taking a step backward beyond the idea of metaphysics. So, in a sense also is a backward beyond the many horizon of the voice. So, the idea is that, the voice, can no longer serve as an ultimate healing ground, because, the idea of the voice is always already traversed by subtleness, that is the trace. But, this does not mean to eliminate the voice, but rather to defend it. And in the text, that Derrida dedicates on Europe, he claims precisely this, when he writes, that there is no culture or cultural identity, without this difference in itself, meaning that every identity, that seems to be original in reality, is always traversed by some seen, by otherness itself. And so, all these considerations, and now I will really conclude, can lead us to, somehow, go back to the question of the unfinished project of modernity, as framed by Habermas. Habermas is also one of the thinkers, that believed, that Derrida, somehow, belongs to the nation of post-reason, of post-truth. But, I think, that, if, we take Derrida seriously, maybe we can give a different interpretation of the unfinished project of modernity. Meaning, that the unfinished project of modernity, is not unfinished in a [???heterological:00:19:34] sense. Meaning, it has to be omitted, but precisely, because, the voice of Europe, the identity of Europe, of European modernity, is always traversed by otherness, its own identity is that of being incomplete and unfinished. So, the dimension of the unfinished Europe is our dimension and it is the probable identity of Europe, that we should take into consideration. Thank you.