It strikes me as distinctly odd - one could say perverse even - of Hugh Willmott (Letters, February 23) to defend Foucault and Derrida as champions of "radical enlightenment" and to lump them in with Habermas, who rightly calls their forms of relativism and holism reactionary and self-defeating.
Foucault's reductive materialism, collapsing mind and the ideal into the material, and his antihumanist demolition of subjectivity, mean no difference - and hence no dialectics - between positive and negative terms: freedom and constraint, concept and object, agency and structure.
This also applies to Derrida's linguistic determinism and indeterminacy of meaning reducing the world to signifier and text, his deconstruction without reconstruction.
It can be said that Habermas too does not have the criteria (of perception) to show whether we are great minds thinking alike or small ones who seldom differ.
But when modish, influential theories are themselves presented as "invisible dogmas" and not as claimed, then we have to ask what hope there is for the unexamined life snapping its chains?
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Sign in now