Severed Ties 1972–1973 233
I try never to defi ne my position, in a theoretical or political
debate, by giving way to any potential or actual haste or intimi-
dation. It’s diffi cult, it’s never purely and simply possible, but
trying to do so is a (theoretical and political) rule that I have
hitherto observed. My break with Tel Quel also has – though
not only – this meaning.^10So it was only ‘in the name of friendship’ and without any view
to publication in TXT that Derrida agreed to reply to Clémens. But
he argued his case point by point, in detail. On the question of the
Communist Party, to begin with: ‘The fact that there are people
claiming today – to whom, and with what credibility, I have to
wonder – that I’m an ally, even a member, of the Communist Party,
hostile to China (!!!!), is something that, not to put too fi ne a point
on it, just makes me laugh.’ As far as China was concerned, he said
he was not in principle opposed: he even made more concessions to
Clémens that in all his public texts:
On the historico-theoretical level, and in the fi eld we share, I
don’t think I was the last (litotes) to refer to it. [.. .] On the
most contemporary political level, nothing against it, either.
The fact remains that between this clear fact (the need for a
positive reference to the Cultural Revolution) and all the con-
sequences to be drawn from it [.. .], there lies the space of a
rigorous, diffi cult analysis: I have not carried out this analysis,
but I can’t see any evidence that it has been carried out any-
where else, probably for reasons that are already susceptible
to analysis. In any event, I really must maintain the coolest
vigilance towards everything that people might try to propose
to us on this subject.As for the ‘split, in all its aspects – not at bottom theoretical,
perhaps’, mentioned by Clémens at the end of his letter, Derrida
feared that his correspondent was simplifying things just a little
bit too much. Admittedly, the fi nal incident was ridiculous, but
it would not have taken place ‘without a charged, long-standing,
complex background’, impossible to analyse in a mere letter. ‘It
was intimated to me that it was judged unacceptable for me to meet
(later on it was added, [.. .] that I meet without consulting Tel Quel)
Casanova from La Nouvelle Critique.’ This brief encounter had,
however, been without any practical consequence, any commitment
on his part: ‘If my gesture – agreeing to this meeting without asking
for the “authorization” of Tel Quel – has any political signifi cance,
it is this one, which I completely take upon myself: these days, it is
not forbidden to meet a member of the CP, or a sympathizer of the
Communist Party, and even less to discuss matters with him.’^11