1-22-88 . . . Tonight I read an exchange between Jacques Derrida [1930-2004], the French deconstructionist, and John Searle, the analytic philosopher of language who teaches at the University of California-Berkeley. [Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context," Glyph 1 (1977): 172-97; John R. Searle, "Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida," Glyph 1 (1977): 198-208.] What a treat! Derrida gets things started by criticizing the work of J. L. Austin [1911-1960] on speech acts. Then Searle comes along and accuses Derrida of misunderstanding Austin. The exchange gets sharp at points, with Searle saying things like this: “Derrida has a distressing penchant for saying things that are obviously false.” Although I side with Searle on most issues, there’s something disconcerting about the exchange. It’s as if two cultures had collided head on. Derrida isn’t a theorist or arguer; he’s more of a literary critic. Searle is nothing but a theorist and arguer. So in a sense they weren’t even joining issue with one another; neither denied what the other asserted. But it makes for great reading. One needs to be reminded that what passes for philosophy in one place and time need not be considered philosophy at all by others.