390 Jacques Derrida 1984–2004
I started my thesis at the University of Louvain in 1986. I
planned to write a study on the theoretical and critical work of
Paul de Man, but I knew that he came from Antwerp and I’d
heard about his uncle, the famous Henri de Man, an important
socialist in the period between the world wars who later col-
laborated with the Germans. Even though it was of somewhat
secondary importance when compared with my subject, I was
curious to read Paul de Man’s fi rst publications, before he left
for the United States. In the Archives of Flemish cultural life,
there was a dossier on him. I fi rst came across some articles that
had appeared in 1942 in the newspaper Het Vlaamsche Land.
In November 1986, I wrote to Yale French Studies to fi nd out
whether a publication on this subject might be of interest to
them, but they never replied. In spring 1987, I came across the
bulky dossier of Le Soir volé: 170 articles published between 24
December 1940 and 28 November 1942 in the biggest French-
language Belgian daily, at the time kept under tight control
by the occupying forces. I familiarized myself with these texts,
many of which were quite innocuous but some of which were
much more signifi cant, though I didn’t quite know what to do
with them. In July, an international literary conference took
place in Louvain, at which I presented a paper on the theoreti-
cal work of Paul de Man. Among the other speakers were Sam
Weber and Gayatri Spivak, and I told them about my recent
discoveries. As soon as he returned, Sam Weber informed
Derrida, who immediately showed the greatest interest in the
question. Hastily, just before I left to do my military service, I
sent him a series of photocopies, highlighting those that stood
out most for ideological reasons.^24By the end of August 1987, Derrida was convinced that the arti-
cles in question should all be made public, as quickly and widely as
possible.
The necessary conditions had to be created so that everyone
could read them and interpret them in total freedom. No limit
should be set on the discussion. Everyone should be in a posi-
tion to take his or her responsibilities. For one could imagine
in advance the eff ect that these ‘revelations’ were going to
produce, at least in the American university. One did not
have to have second sight to foresee even the whole spectre of
reactions to come.^25Derrida suggested taking advantage of the conference on aca-
demic institutions and politics (‘Our Academic Contract: The
Confl ict of the Faculties in America’) scheduled for a few weeks