onmemo
      ialising
      Paul
      de
      Man
      after
      his
      recent
      death
     
     
      came
      upon
      a
      startling
      discovery
      while
      hunting
      down
     
     
      every
      piece
      of
      written
      work
      by
      de
      Man.
      The
      student
     
     
      found
      180
      articles
      by
      de
      Man
      from
      1941
      and
      1942
      that
     
     
      were
      written
      as
      Nazi
      propaganda
      in
      Belgium
      newspa-
     
     
      pers.
      These
      appeared
      in
      the
      Belgium
      press
      after
      it
      was
     
     
      overrun
      by
      Germany--this
      wasn’t
      exactly
      the
      nicest
     
     
      thing
      that
      de
      Man
      could
      have
      done
      to
      his
      native
      Bel-
     
     
      gium.
      Later,
      to
      get
      into
      the
      United
      States,
      de
      Man
     
     
      lied
      about
      his
      past.
      This
      while
      abandoning
      his
      wife
     
     
      and
      two
      children
      in
      South
      America.
     
    
   
   
    
     
        
     
     
        
     
    
   
   
    
     
      De
      Man
      often
      referred
      to
      writing
      as
      being
      ‘‘experi-
     
     
      enced
      as
      a
      dismemberment,
      a
      beheading,
      or
      a
      castra-
     
     
      tion.’’
      He
      referred
      to
      deconstruction
      as
      the
      ‘‘terror-
     
     
      ism’’
      of
      ‘‘ruthless
      theory.’’
      There
      appeared
      to
      bea
     
     
      little
      obsession
      with
      violence
      in
      de
      Man’s
      work.
     
    

    
     
      Of
      course,
      the
      intelligent
      thing
      for
     
     
      deconstructionists
      to
      have
      done
      would
      have
      been
      to
     
     
      denounce
      de
      Man
      and
      distance
      him
      from
     
     
      deconstruction.
      Instead,
      Derrida
      called
      for
      ‘‘the
      most
     
     
      ‘serious
      and
      careful
      analyses’’
      of
      de
      Man’s
      writings.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      An
      analysis
      by
      Johnathon
      Culler
      which
      was
      approved
     
     
      by
      Derrida
      concluded
      that
      accusations
      of
      anti-
     
     
      Semitism
      were
      exaggerated
      as
      de
      Man
      only
      praised
     
     
      Hitler
      by
      name
      once.
      Perhaps
      they
      missed
      where
      de
     
     
      Man
      called
      for
      the
      resistance
      to
      ‘‘Semitic
      infiltration
     
     
      of
      all
      aspects
      of
      European
      life’’
      or
      where
      he
      called
     
     
      for
      the
      deportation
      of
      Jews
      to
      an
      island
      colony.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      But
      apparently
      there
      wasa
      bright
      light
      in
      only
      want-
     
     
      ‘ing
      to
      ship
      the
      Jews
      off
      to
      acolony,
      analyses
      by
     
     
      Derrida
      and
      de
      Man’s
      Yale
      colleague
      J.
      Hillis
      Miller
     
     
      ‘revealed
      that
      de
      Man’
      s
      works
      were
      meant
      to
      condemn
     
     
      oe
      anti-Semitism.’’
     
    
   
   
    
     
      As
      if
      deconstructionists
      hadn’t
      made
      fools
      of
      them-
     
     
      ‘Selves
      enough
      yet,
      Richard
      Rand’s
      analysis
      found
      that
     
     
      ‘the
      criticisms
      of
      de
      Man
      themselves
      were
      anti-Semitic
     
     
      ~forare
      not,
      indeed,
      Paul
      de
      Man
      and
      his
     
     
      deconstruction
      somehow
      overwhelmingly
      Jewish?”’
     
    
   
   
    
     
      ‘But
      it
      was
      in
      their
      defences
      of
      de
      Man
      that
      the
     
     
      “deconstructionists
      showed
      the
      weaknesses,
      and
      the
     
     
      ties,
      that
      held
      together
      deconstruction.
      J,
      Hillis
     
     
      Miller
      noted
      ‘‘errors’’
      in
      the
      criticisms
      of
      de
      Man,
     
    

    
     
      _
      All
      these
      propositions
      are
      false,
      the
      facts
      are
      other-
     
     
      Wise,’’
      Butaccording
      to
      deconstruction,
      all
      language
     
     
      18
      in
      error,
      and
      there
      are
      not
      knowable
      facts
      in
      the
     
    
   
   
    
     
      ntat
      Yale
      w
      how
      was
      pniteniii
      ing
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Tn
      fact,
      as
      can
      be
      seen
      by
      the
      defences
      of
      de
      Man
     
    
   
   
    
     
      above,
      all
      the
      deconstructionists
      tried
      to
      apply
      some
     
     
      meaning
      to
      the
      writing
      of
      de
      Man.
      As
      Peter
      Shaw
      has
     
     
      pointed
      out,
      ‘in
      defending
      de
      Man,
      Derrida,
      J.
      Hillis
     
     
      Miller,
      Geoffrey
      Hartman,
      and
      their
      followers
      ended
     
     
      up
      doing
      to
      deconstruction
      what
      deconstruction
      had
     
     
      set
      out
      to
      do
      to
      meaning
      and
      certainty:
      they
      left
      it
      in
     
     
      ruins.’’
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Perhaps
      the
      deconstructionists
      could
      have
      passed
      off
     
     
      de
      Man
      as
      an
      exception
      if
      it
      had
      not
      been
      for
      the
      fact
     
     
      that
      in
      that
      same
      year
      it
      was
      revealed
      that
      Martin
     
     
      Heidegger,
      whom
      Derrida
      referred
      to
      as
      the
      progenitor
     
     
      of
      deconstruction,
      was
      also
      found
      to
      be
      a
      Nazi
      sympa-
     
     
      thiser.
      As
      were
      some
      of
      Heidegger’s
      students.
     
     
      Heidegger
      wrote
      in
      November,
      1933
      that
      ‘‘the
     
     
      Fuehrer,
      and
      he
      alone,
      is
      the
      sole
      German
      reality
      and
     
     
      law,
      today
      and
      in
      the
      future.’’
      In
      one
      letter
      to
      his
     
     
      academic
      colleagues
      asking
      for
      signatures
      ona
      public
     
     
      version
      of
      a
      speech
      he
      stated
      ‘‘Of
      course,
      it
      is
      clear
     
     
      thatno
      non-Aryans
      should
      appear
      on
      the
      signature
     
     
      page.’’
      Hepaid
      throughout
      the
      war
      his
      Nazi-party
     
     
      dues,
      and
      always
      signed
      any
      letter
      of
      correspondence
     
     
      **Heil
      Hitler!
      Yours,
      Heidegger.’’
      After
      the
      war,
     
     
      Heidegger
      lied
      and
      claimed
      that
      he
      had
      tried
      to
      pre-
     
     
      vent
      the
      Nazi
      burning
      of
      books
      in
      the
      universities.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      So
      apparently
      not
      all
      deconstructionists
      were
      the
     
     
      nicest
      ofpeople.
      Other
      deconstructionists
      then
      went
     
     
      to
      ridiculous
      extremes
      to
      try
      and
      defend
      this
      behav-
     
     
      iour.
      Funny
      how
      the
      politically
      correct
      movement
     
     
      tends
      to
      call
      people
      ‘‘racist’’
      and
      ‘‘homophobic’’
     
     
      when
      it
      has
      embraced
      a
      “‘performance’’
      with
      Nazi
     
     
      roots,
      a
      ‘‘performance’’
      (THEORY!)
      that
      is
      authori-
     
     
      tarian
      in
      the
      manner
      it
      tries
      to
      reduce
      everything
      to
     
     
      nothingness.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      We’
      ll
      leave
      you
      this
      week
      with
      one
      of
      the
      most
      ironic
     
     
      passages
      ever
      taken
      from
      any
      work,
      this
      coming
      from
     
    
   
   
    
     
      de
      Man’s
      Allegories
      of
      Reading
      (1979):
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Itis
      always
      possible
      to
      excuse
      any
      guilt
      because
      the
     
     
      experience
      always
      exists
      simultaneously
      as
      fictional
     
     
      discourse
      and
      as
      empirical
      event
      and
      it
      is
      never
     
     
      possible
      to
      decide
      which
      one
      of
      the
      two
      possibilities
     
     
      is
      the
      rightone.
      The
      indecision
      makes
      it
      possible
      to
     
     
      excuse
      the
      bleakest
      of
      crimes.
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Tell
      it
      to
      the
      relatives
      of
      the
      six
      million
      Jews
     
    
   
   
    
     
      ‘“deconstructed’’
      by
      the
      Nazis.
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
       
     
    
   
   
    
     
      February6,
      1992
     
    
   
   
    
     
      Page
      23