Living Memory 1988–1990 409
very harsh things about the CIPh. In spite of this, the two men
agreed to work together, both convinced that reform was essential.
In an undated note, Derrida described the commission’s work very
directly:
The question and the task were as follows: between Jacques
Bouveresse and myself, as was a secret to nobody, between
the two of us and the other members of the commission- Dhombres, Brunschwig, Malabou and Rosat –, any philo-
sophical similarity didn’t exactly leap to the eyes, nor did any
resemblance in philosophical styles, practices, methods, or
subjects, not to mention the diversity of our professional situ-
ations. This diversity was even the rule governing our assembly.
Between some of us, people have even, on other occasions,
spoken of confl ict. So the question and the task were: what do
we wish for, in common today? On what can we agree so as
to continue the discussion and propose that the discussion be
continued? And thus philosophical work? On what could the
greatest diversity of philosophers and citizens in this country –
whom we will endeavour to represent as best as we can – agree in
order to identify problems, form hypotheses, start a discussion,
to subscribe, in short, to the principles of a discussion?^18
This is confi rmed by Catherine Malabou:
To begin with, Bouveresse and Derrida were both on their
guard. But things fi nally went off okay between them. They
shared the same view of the problem and could easily agree on
a set of proposals. One evening, they even managed to discuss
what lay behind their diff erences: since the Vienna School
and the work of Wittgenstein were in certain respects close to
deconstruction, why had Derrida never taken any interest in
them? They kept up a good relationship until the end of what
was a diffi cult project.^19Among the proposals put forward by the commission they were
chairing was the idea of including a series of clearly defi ned ques-
tions in the syllabus of philosophy classes. This way of making
people’s expectations more specifi c should remedy the mediocre
results of too many of the candidates in the baccalaureate and the
fear which the discipline aroused in a great many of them.
If the great majority of answers in the ‘bac’ do not at present
satisfy minimal philosophical demands, this is mainly because
the pupils, having to foresee any kind of question, have not
been able to prepare anything; as they generally lack basic