An alternative history: what if Derrida had just been accepted into analytic philosophy?


Author: Terence Rajivan Edward
Abstract. What if, instead of a scandal, Jacques Derrida had been accepted by the community of analytic philosophers? My prediction is that little-known philosophers would make points like some which I have made: counterexamples to his claims. There is a different reaction to the question which I consider though, according to which these skills do not just transfer from topic to topic and would not be "activated" by Derrida's philosophy.
Draft version: Version 1 (6th December 2022; postscript added 2026 and websites)


        There was a famous scandal involving Jacques Derrida and the awarding of a degree by the University of Cambridge, with various philosophers in the analytic tradition protesting. But what if Derrida had just been accepted into analytic philosophy instead?


What I imagine is that various claims of his would be disputed by little-known philosophers, in ways which are not already in the secondary literature. This is the disreputable John Searle presenting a claim Derrida emphasizes:
"As Derrida is aware, any linguistic element written or spoken, indeed any rule-governed element in any system of representation at all must be repeatable, otherwise the rules would have no scope of application." (1977: 199)
In response, I offered the example of a peculiar situation in which the sign of dissent for a specific individual is suicide: "If you want to dissent to this proposal raise your hand, except Jones. Jones, if you want to indicate dissent to this proposal, you have to commit suicide." (Edward 2022a) Analytic philosophers will find counterexamples to his claims, like this attempt of mine. (Apologies for the recycling. I suppose Derrideans would regard such counterexamples as vulgar and lacking appreciation of the depth of Derrida's thought.)


This is Sarah Richmond presenting another claim:
"According to Derrida, Western thought, from at least Plato onwards, has repeatedly propagated a false hierarchy, placing speech above writing. Philosophers have regarded writing with suspicion, as a dangerous repository of thought, in which the speaker’s intentions are likely to be betrayed." (1996: 39)
I drew attention to how a utilitarian philosophy would sometimes favour writing, for spreading information to lots of people or making learning easier (Edward 2022b). If Derrida were accepted, I suppose there would be more counterexamples to this claim of his.


        Now someone might have a different response to the question of what would have happened, which is perhaps even a rejection of it. "A camera can be used to photograph one thing or another or a third thing, etc., but the skills of the average analytic philosopher are not like that. They do not just work from topic to topic. You cannot give them Derrida, or even Derrida with these expositions by others, and ask for responses. The skills just do not activate for Derrida. (Why is that? Various explanations!) Instead you will get a disgust reaction and corresponding expressions of disgust. And dismissals as well." I don't know if that is true or not. But I believe various analytic philosophers would not have problems coming up with points like mine above.


Postscript (2026)
The view that almost all analytic philosophers cannot produce these or similar objections to Derrida - counterexamples - because "He is not one of us" seems more plausible to me today. A parent who has a child and plans for them to be an analytic philosopher might well think, "What is the value of their being able to extend their skills just anywhere, because all the goods of the community are available otherwise, i.e. without doing so?" (How many analytic philosophers have family members who are or were philosophers, by the way?) When one encounters the skilled analytic philosopher in Britain say, with a degree from Oxford or Cambridge (often), one assumes them to be a generally academically clever person - a person who must have got good grades in school in numerous subjects - but are they actually more like these movies houses which lack roofs, because the appearance of a house on television does not require a roof?! (Well, my French skills are not impressive!)


References
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2022a. Must a sign be repeatable? Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWMAS
And:
https://website2.net/searlederrida_signs.txt
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2022b. Utilitarianism versus the privileging of speech. IJRDO Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research 8 (11): 12. Available at:
https://ijrdosshr.com/article/view/5400/3489
And:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWUVT
And:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365086859_UTILITARIANISM_VERSUS_THE_PRIVILEGING_OF_SPEECH
And:
https://www.academia.edu/109842457/Utilitarianism_versus_the_privileging_of_speech
Richmond, Sarah. 1996. Derrida and Analytical Philosophy: Speech Acts and their Force. European Journal of Philosophy 4 (1): 38-62.
Searle, John R. 1977. Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida. Glyph 2: 198-208. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/15932757/Reiterating_the_Differences_A_Reply_to_Derrida_by_John_R_Searle
And:
https://coehuman.uodiyala.edu.iq/uploads/Coehuman%20library%20pdf/English%20library%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B2%D9%8A/linguistics/Searle%20Reply%20to%20Derrida.pdf