300 Derrida 1963–1983
of philosophers whom he esteemed ‘and also to many who are still
very young’.^3 Jean-Luc Nancy and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, who
had been asked to contribute, were hesitant. Derrida would have
preferred that neither he nor they contributed to the issue, since
they had no idea in whose company they would fi nd themselves, and
what would come out of it:
I don’t want to judge Piel (there would be too much to say, and
if I left Critique, it was only after I had spent considerable time
weighing up the eff ects of his practice, but never mind that),
but one thing is sure: for a long time he’s done nothing posi-
tive in ‘our’ direction, and he is motivated mainly by the desire
to defend against the nouveaux philosophes something which I
personally am not sure I support [.. .].
The analysis of the scene that has produced the big neo-
philosophical bubble is not something to be improvised,
especially not in a letter, but we can agree on one point, I
think: the forces that are currently dominant in it, or are taking
advantage of it, are of such a nature that they grow every time
anything advances onto their ground, or speaks as loudly as
they do, even (and especially) when it is to attack them. Some
apparent, clearly demarcated silences, some indiff erent perse-
verances, on another ground, can sometimes be more eff ective,
more intimidating.^4A few days later, Derrida said the same to Piel, but his tone was
diff erent. Of course, he felt very concerned by the question that had
been asked, especially the question of the nouveaux philosophes. And
naturally, he had wondered what might be ‘the answers that would
be the most effi cient, relevant, political, etc., and the most affi rma-
tive too’, apart from the ‘distaste’ that ‘the grim phenomenon’
aroused in him. But he was just about to leave for the United States
for fi ve weeks, and his schedule there was packed. Now, if he did
want to write anything, Derrida said, he would want it to be a close
analysis, so that he could really measure up to a phenomenon that
he considered to be profound and important, ‘in spite of or because
of the symptomatic paltriness of the work produced and the agents
who are pushing themselves in it’:
In a force fi eld that is obviously so favourable to it and at
present conditions all forms of public exchange, the neo-
philosophical circus can easily grow and extend its territory,
in short draw advantage from anything that takes up a posi-
tion towards it. [.. .] You know that neo-philosophy – and this
is no coincidence – can avail itself of powerful loudspeakers
in all the press apparatuses, from Marie-Claire to the Nouvel