148 Derrida 1963–1983
make his name. ‘Philosophical exchanges between us were rare, not
to say non-existent,’ Derrida later told Michael Sprinker.^11 This was
not always the case. On 1 September 1964, Derrida gave Althusser
an in-depth analysis of the article that the latter had sent to him –
‘Marxism and humanism’, which was to become the last chapter of
For Marx, the following year. Derrida’s discussion was both frank
and friendly:
I found the text that you sent me excellent. I feel as close as one
possibly could to that ‘theoretical anti-humanism’ that you set
out with as much force as rigour, I fully realize that it is your
position, I also understand, I think, the meaning of the notion
of ‘ideological’ humanism at certain times, the necessity of
ideology in general, even in a Communist society, etc. I was
less convinced by everything that links these propositions to
Marx himself. There is probably a great deal of ignorance in my
mistrust and in the feeling that other – non-Marxist – premises
could lie behind the same anti-humanism. What you set out on
pp. 116 et seq. shows clearly the way Marx broke away from
a certain humanism, a certain conjunction of empiricism and
idealism, etc. But the radicalization often appears to me, in its
most powerful and alluring moments, very Althusserian. You’ll
tell me that the ‘repetition’ of Marx must not be a ‘recitation’,
and that deepening and radicalizing him is being faithful to him.
True. But in that case don’t we end up with the same result if
we start out with Hegel or Feuerbach? And then, though every-
thing you say about over-determination and the ‘instrumental’
conception of ideology satisfi es me completely – about the con-
sciousness-unconscious too, although... – the very notion of
ideology bothers me, for philosophical reasons that are, as you
know, far from ‘reactionary’. Quite the opposite, in fact. The
notion strikes me as still imprisoned by a metaphysics and by
a certain ‘inverted idealism’ that you know better than anyone
in the world. I even have the impression, sometimes, that it
hampers you yourself.... We’ll have to talk about all this, with
Marx’s texts to hand... and you’ll have to make me read.^12At the start of the 1960s, a post as assistant was limited to four
years. So Derrida would inevitably have had to leave the Sorbonne
in autumn 1964. A few months earlier, Maurice de Gandillac had
advised him to ask for two years of complete leave under the aegis
of the CNRS,* so as to complete his thesis. He did so. According
- The CNRS, or Centre National de la Recherche Scientifi que, is a prestigious state-
run organization for research in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. – Tr.