Hayden White and Ethan Kleinberg: A Conversation at Wesleyan's Center for the Humanities

[@GeoHistory21th]

It is hard to predict future of philosophy of history. Maybe we need more practice in public level.

[@emale03]

ETHAN KLEIN IS A BAD LISTENER!

[@academicpolitics2052]

Hayden White is “offended” by the Derridean ontology because it reveals the inherent weaknesses of his own work, and by implication exposes his limits as a scholar. White continually disparages Derrida, and others, in the most intellectually offensive terms, yet expects respect for his own impoverished position. Kleinberg wasted his time interviewing White.

[@SeaShepherdVolunteer]

What a sad comment and what a cheap axe to grind. To even compare the prolix, absurdist Derrida (has the Sokal affair taught you guys nothing at all?) with a scholar as profound and as intellectually rigurous as Hayden White is already an intellectually dubious act. What exactly did Derrida's "ontology" reveal, except the author's desperate attempts to sound smarter than Lyotard and more profound than Foucault? (And have you really *read* Derrida, and White, comparatively, to allow yourself to take a swing at a man whose contributions to semiotics, linguistics, literary theory and even cultural studies have shook the foundations of history writing and inspired a generation more profound and more diverse than Derrida's relativist "legacy" could ever aspire to be? Bwah - put White's graduates in a room with their Derridean counterparts and you'll see deconstructionism fail by way of dismemberment.

[@academicpolitics2052]

SeaShepherdVolunteer The Sokal Affair went nowhere intellectually. Sokal's claims turned out to be over-reaching statements and showed a lack of understanding of the work he criticized. Moreover, allegations about the supposed motivations of Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault and others are mostly ad hoc hypotheses to explain away the lack of understanding. Sokal and others are unable to read the philosophical literature, and attempt to explain away their personal illiteracy, or what in their mind they perceive as gibberish of the author, with unsubstantiated assumptions about the motivations of the authors. But there is not a shred of evidence that Derrida and others simply talk the way they do to look smart. And yes, I have read Derrida, and I have read White, and I have read what White says about Derrida, which turns out to be quote-mining, and exactly what Sokal did. No doubt White has made contributions to historical writing, but the interviewer (Kleinberg) is also one of the current leading Derridean's in history. So forget about putting Derridean and White graduates in a room together. We already have an interview with two esteemed professors on opposing sides. Furthermore, Kleinberg is the executive editor of History & Theory of which White is on the editorial committee. If Derridean philosophy is so worthless, how can such historian become the chief editor of a prestigious historical journal in which White could easily have voiced his profound and inspiring objection?