In Support of Philosophy 1973–1976 275
the plan appears clearly to be adopted. No systematic introduc-
tion to philosophy could possibly be attempted in three hours
a week. How can one doubt that? Since students will have had
no other access to philosophy as such during their entire studies,
the candidates for the ‘philosophy’ option will be more and
more rare.^23Derrida rejected any corporatist-style defence. His combat was
explicitly political. The ‘destruction of the philosophy class’ that
in his view was imminent would have the main eff ect of ‘stopping
‘most lycée students from exercising philosophical and political
critique. Historical critique as well, since history is once again the
target associated with philosophy’:
In the lycées, at the age when one begins to vote, is the philoso-
phy class not, with the exception of history, the only place in
which, for example, texts on theoretical modernity, those on
Marxism and psychoanalysis in particular, have some chance
of being read and interpreted? And there is nothing fortuitous
in the fact that the pressure from those in power has become
continually more pronounced against this class and certain of
its instructors and students since 1968 and the ‘protests’ that
developed in the lycées.^24In Derrida’s view, maintaining, in a purely defensive way, the
teaching of philosophy in terminale in its existing form would
mean giving weapons to the forces of repression. While fi ghting the
Haby Reform, he wanted also to promote an idea that was close to
his heart, that of extending philosophy lessons to other classes in
secondary schools and thus to younger pupils:
Let us quickly forestall the self-interested objection of those
who would simply shrug. There is no question of transport-
ing into the sixième a teaching that is already impracticable in
Terminale. But rather of accepting here, as is done in all other
disciplines, the principle of calculated progressive stages in ini-
tiation into, apprenticeship in and acquisition of knowledge.
As everyone knows, in certain conditions – and it is these which
must be given their freedom – the ‘philosophical capacity’ of a
‘child’ can be very powerful. The progression would concern
as much the questions and texts of the tradition as those of
modernity. [.. .] In particular, critical articulations would need
to be made between this philosophical teaching and the teach-
ing of other subjects, which is itself being transformed. Or
rather, they would need to be reorganized: after all, who can
doubt that a very defi nite philosophy is already being taught