At the Frontiers of the Institution 1991–1992 447
mathematician René Thom. According to their letter – which
cannot fail to evoke the novels of David Lodge – Derrida’s ‘nihilist’
work posed formidable dangers. Its main eff ect was ‘to stretch the
normal form of academic scholarship beyond recognition’:
M. Derrida seems to have come clos[e] to making a career
out of what we regard as translating into the academic sphere
tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists or of the
concrete poets. Certainly he has shown considerable originality
in this respect. But [.. .], we submit, such originality does not
lend credence to the idea that he is a suitable candidate for an
honorary degree.^21Over the following few weeks, the polemic was widely publicized,
in Britain and elsewhere. In order to stigmatize Derrida’s style and
thought, a perfectly imaginary formula (‘logical phalluses’) was
attributed to him. Howard Erskine-Hill, a professor of English
literature, was one of the most virulent detractors of the author
of Glas. In his view, Derrida’s methods were so incompatible with
the very concept of higher education and knowledge in general
that to give him an honorary doctorate would be like appointing
a pyromaniac to the post of chief fi reman.^22 A university lecturer,
Sarah Richmond, suggested in the German weekly Der Spiegel that
Derrida’s ideas could be poison for young people – a nicely ironic
allusion to the charge laid against Socrates twenty-fi ve centuries
earlier. Meanwhile, The Observer described Derrida’s work as a
‘computer virus’. Everything was roped in to attack the French
philosopher: in certain articles, it was even said that he had been
arrested in Prague for ‘drug traffi cking’, without any mention of the
fact that it had been a set-up job.
On 16 May, Cambridge lecturers were asked to vote for or against
Derrida’s honorary doctorate: ‘placet’ or ‘non placet’. It was the fi rst
time that such a vote had been called for thirty years. The opponents
were obliged to admit they were beaten: the ‘yes’ vote won, 336 to
- On 12 June 1992, in the neo-classical décor of the Senate House
in the venerable shade of King’s College, Jacques Derrida, in full
academic fi g, received his honorary degree from the hands of Prince
Philip, Chancellor of the University. As the British monarchy was
going through a rather rough patch that year, the Prince Consort
murmured to Derrida that deconstruction had started to aff ect the
Royal Family too.^23
In October, The Cambridge Review devoted a detailed special
issue to the aff air, followed by a long interview with Derrida. He
explained that he had deliberately held back from any intervention
in the media before the story had come to a conclusion. But when he
received other honorary doctorates, he did not fail to mention the