Urizen and Eros

[kenneth.mackendrick]

A Reply

If criticism is limited by its own terms then it does rely upon a theological basis, 
of which it cannot escape (since the idea of critique would be always 
already unfulfilled by its own measure).  This theological basis secures ideological 
closure if it doesn't even promise the actual possibility of escaping the viscious 
hermeneutical circle.  This is at the centre of Horkheimer and Adorno's idea of the 
enlightenment - to brush the ideals of the enlightenment against themselves.  This 
kind of opening, negatively determined, leaves the idea of critique open to a 
postmetaphysical position - a kind of reconciliation with metaphysics.  On Derrida's 
terms this openness is foreclosed and locked in via his interpretation of language 
and grammar.  While deconstruction hopes to leave itself open to the other it 
cannot do so as long as the tenets of the subjective objective construction are 
disintegrated (which is not to say they are beyond critique) - which is precisely why 
Derrida runs into praxis problems and Horkheimer and Adorno don't encounter 
them in the same way.  I suspect this problem appears because of the latent 
anti-humanism institutionalised in too much of postmodern work.  Again - this is 
why I think that deconstruction affirms a mystical basis - since it begins and ends 
with metaphysics (a faith in hope infinitely postponed is no hope at all).

I would argue that negative dialectics severs itself sharply from deconstruction 
precisely because of the humanist twist it lends itself to - something which, in my 
mind, should not be diminished in any way (which certainly does not place it above 
criticism).

ken