es uernaa1 Michěle Lamont Princeton University How can an interpretive theory gain Jegitimacy in two cultural markets as different as France and the United States? This study examines the intellectual, cultural, institutional, and social conditions of legitimation of Jacques Derrida's work in the two countries and develops hypotheses about the process of legitimation of interpretive theories. The legitimation of Derrida's work resulted from a fit between it and highly structured cultural and institutional systems. In France, Derrida capitalized on the structure of the intellectual market by targeting his work to a large cultural[ pjjbljc rather ■^ than 1q. a.sh.ri.nkin^grp,up. o.f academic phil.qsophers,i.His work ap--/-- pealed to the intellectual, public as a. status symbol .and as .a novel "~ and sophisticated way to deal with late 1960s politics. In the United States*," Derrida and a group of prestigious literary critics reframed his theory and disseminated it in university departments of literature. His work was imported concurrent]}' with the work of other French scholars with whom he shared a market. Derrida's support is more concentrated and stronger in one discipline than the support for other French intellectuals. In America, professional institutions and journals played a central role in the diffusion of his work, while cultural media were more central in France. Sometime in the early 1970s we awoke from the dogmatic slumber of our phenomenologicaJ sleep to find thai a new presence had taken absolute hold over our avant-garde critical imagination: Jacques Derrida. - . . The shift to post- 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1985. I wish to thank Howard Becker, Aaron Benavot, Deirdre Boden, Pierre Bourdieu. Priscilla P. Clark, Randall Collins, Paul DiMaEgio. Frank R. Dobbin. Marcel Fournier. Wendy Griswoid, Fredric Jameson. Annette T rrau "'"ir'ii '.er-rn, Seynour Martin Ltpsei. and Ann Swidler. as well as the members of trie legitimation seminar held at Stanford University in 1984-85, and the anonymous referees for useful comments and discussions of the paper. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ministere des affaires rtraneeres. Gouvernement Fran^ais. and of ihe Fonds F.C.A.C, Gouvernement du Quebec. Requests for reprinu should be sent to Michele Lamonl. Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, New jersey OS54J c 198" by The University of Chicago All richts reserved. OOO; -96Ó2/S8/930J-OOO2S01.50 584 AJS Volume 93 N'umber J (November 1987). 584-622 aBwasjwaaa^^MaK»^^ - 1 French Philosopher structuralist direction and polemic in the intellectual careers of Paul de Man, J. HUlis Miller, Geoffrey Hartman. Edward Said and Joseph Riddel—all of whom were fascinated in the 1960s by strains of phenomenology—tells the whole story. In the space of fiveor six years, Derrida hadj^rnyed;_had.at; "tŕäctedsóme extraordinarily committed and gtftedjííídMtson Both"coasts; had spawned two new Jöürö which, in spite of theirľyouth, have achieved remarkable.visibility and attention. [Lentrjcchia 1980, p. 159] The successful introduction of Jacques Derrida's work to American literary criticism raises interesting sociological questions. The evaluation of cultural goods is highly dependent on contextual cultural norms. How then does a cultural good gain legitimacy in two cultural markets as „different as France and the United States? Or, How can a French philoso-pher gain acceptance in the land of empiricism? More generally, what are tHTcöScirüonlun^ product becomes defined as impor- tant? This paper analyzes the c^turalvinsto of interpreüve ÜiVories by analyzing the legitimation of Jacques Derrida's work"in France: and the Uhitéä'States. "InThFTöciölogy^ of science," several areas of research are concerned directly or indirectly with understanding the process of the legitimation of theories. Studies have focused on scientific innovation, paradigm shifts, communication, diffusion, scientific productivity, and the evaluation, stratification, and attribution of reward processes in science. These works deal almost exclusively with theories in the empirical sciences. Studies of interpretive fields are mostly historical case studies not concerned with intellectual legitimation per se (e.g., Radnitsky 1973; Janik and Toulman 1973; Jay 1973; Kuklick 1977; Axeirod 1979). 0^rsMa^Jbemt«pre-tation and reception of work from a. semiotiepr hktoricaI_£ereB«íixe (Jäúss 1982; ChartiérÍ982pThe sociological study of the legitimation of philosophical, historical, and literarytheories has been 'almost completely neglected/but see Turkle 1978; Simonton 1976; Amsterdamská 1985). A separate consideration of nonempirical theories is in order. 1 While important recent French work in the sociology of knowledge has discussed aspects of legitimation in the scientific, literary, and artistic fields (e.g., Bourdieu 1983, 1986; Charles 1983; Fabiáni 1983; Karady 1979; Pinto 1984; and Pollack 1979), these contributions do not attempt to develop an explicit and systematic theory of the process of legitimation of interpretive theories. Nor do they address the issue of the legitimation of interpretive theories in different environments. Their primán- focus is on analvzmg the social determinauon of cultural products, looking at topics such as the habitus of the producer and the audience, the structure of the "field." similarities of position takings among agents who occupy similar positions, etc. (Bourdieu 1971. pp. 12-18). I will draw on some of their suggestions to study the legitimation of interpretive theories. 585 American Journal of Sociology The first objective of this study is to develop hypotheses about the process of legitimation of interpretive theories by examining the case of Jacques Derrida's work. Intellectual legitimation is defined as the process by which a theory becomes recognized as a part of a field—as something that cannot be ignored by those who define themselves, and are defined, as legitimate participants in the construction of a cognitive field >fcon-tend that the legitimation of interpretive theories does not proceed from their intrinsic value but results from coexisting, highly structured interrelated cultural and institutional systemsyl also argue that legitimation results from two distinct but simultaneous processes: (I) the process by which the producer defines himself and his theory as important, legitimizing and institutionalizing this claim by producing work meeting certain academic requirements, by making explicit his contribution to a cognitive field, and by creating research teams, research institutes, journals, and so forth; and (2) the process through which, first, peers and, second, the intellectual public define and assess a theory and its producer as important and, by doing so, participate in the construction of the theory and the institutionalization of that theory and its author. This suggests that cultural markets.are. not unified markets. but that they are segmented by definitions of good workfV : Trie second objective is to understand how an interpretive theory may become legitimized among various audiences whose norms of evaluation differ. Several authors have noticed and criticized the transformations of theories introduced into new cultural milieus {e.g., Cardoso 1977; Janik and Toulman 1973). Iar^ue_ihaXiheJnUHectual legitirnatic^jrfajheory in different settings depends on its adaptability to specificenyjronmental requirements, which permits a fit between the work and specific cultural ariďiňštitutional features of various markets/I show that the legitimation of J3ernda's workJn the United,States was made possible by~its~adapta-tion to existing intellectual agenda and by a shift in public from a general audience ^^s^oí^ěc^ntej-arxooe^lso, Derrida benefited from the concurrent importation of a number of other French authors, which created an American market for French interpretive theories. I proceed by reconstructing the intellectual, cultural, institutional, and social conditions ofJ.be intellectual legitimation of Derrida's work. These conditions refer to (l),the construction, assessment, and institutionalization of deconstruction theory as an important theory by Derrida, his peers, and the intellectual public and (2) the structured cultural and institutional system of environmental constraints on the construction pro- 1 This definition is different from Bourdieu's (1969. p. 103) analysis of lecitimacy in that I emphasize the public's recognition of a work, independent of its value. For Bourriieu. legitimacy is the affirmation of the position of the work. 586 French Philosopher cess, that is, the rules of the game, the structural requirements that Derrida's work and personal trajectory had to mset in order for his theory to be defined as important. I identify these requirements by comparing the work and trajectories of a representative sample of renowned French philosophers.4 I also analyze the context in which these philosophers were legitimized and in which their work was framed. The attributes of these intellectuals define what a legitimate French intellectual is and what characteristics one has to have in order to be considered a member of that group. A more systematic analysis of these requirements, and especially of the effects of the market structure on the opportunity and reward structure, would require further study. The first part of my discussion briefly presents the central elements of Derrida's theory. I identify aspects of his work that are necessary conditions for its intellectual legitimation, given the Parisian intellectual and institutional context of the 1960s. Here, the focus is on the fit between Derrida's work and an existing, highly structured cultural system and on analyzing the features of Derrida's intellectual work that contributed to its diffusion, such as his writing style. The second part contends that intellectual legitimation depends on institutional supports, that the access to institutional supports depends on intellectual collaboration, and that cultural capital has an important role in either blocking or facilitating access to intellectual circles and institutions that affect the institutionalization process. I argue that Derrida capitalized on the structure of the intellectual market by directing his work to several already constituted publics rather than to a shrinking philosophy public and that cultural media had a central role in disseminating Derrida's work to a large public. The third part discusses the legitimation of Derrida's work in the United States. The conditions of importation of Derrida's theory are identified, especially its adaptation to the theoretical debates in American literary criticism, its incorporation into the work of well-established scholars, and its diffusion through prestigious academic institutions. I focus on the fit between Derrida's work and distinctive features of the American market. I argue that a shift in public was essential to Derrida's * This sample was constructed by using the elite identification technique (Kadushin 1974). In the summer of 1980. I asked 10 important French philosophers and five journalists and editors of major intellectual journals to list the 10 most important contemporary French philosophers. The results were very similar to those obtained by Descombes (I960), who used the same method. Montefiore's (1983) sample of French philosophers is also very similar. I conducted interviews with several of these philosophers to rollect data on their intellectual and institutional trajectories. I also used various secondary sources and bibliographies in order to supplement this information (see App.). The list included Louis Althusser, Jean Baudrillard. Francois Cháteiet. Gilles Deieuze. Jacques Derrida. Emmanuel Levinas. Michel Foucault. Jean-Francois Lyotard. Paul Ricoeur. and Michel Serres. 587 r" American Journal of Sociology success in the United States, and that professional institutions and journals played a central role in the diffusion of his ideas, whereas in France cultural media were more important. I also argue that Derrida's support is concentrated in literature departments and is exceptionally strong, in contrast to that for other French intellectuals, such as Foucault, whose support is more spread out.5 My analysis is based on biographical information, on recent work on the history of contemporary literary criticism and philosophy, and on the literature on the sociology of French intellectuals. Supplementär--data on Derrida and other intellectuals were collected during interviews in 1980 and 1984 witn French and American philosophers and literary critics and with individuals involved in the diffusion of intellectual products in France (e.g., journalists and editors). A bibliographical source on structuralism (Miller 1981) was used to identify the diffusion curves of Derrida's work. DERRIDA'S THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A good first step might be that very combination of exasperation and insight which we feel when we grasp that any attempt to give an account of what Derrida says is a falsification of his project, but that such falsification is unavoidable. [Culler 1975, p. 156] In order to understand the nexus of Derrida's theory and its intellectual environment, it is necessary to consider the main arguments of Derrida's work.61 argue that certain features of Derrida's work, such as its writing style, facilitated its diffusion in French intellectual circles, fitted extant s It should be noted that Bourdieu and colleaeues' work on cultural legitimacy also focuses on legitimacy as the product of networks of relations. However, they have a very specific conception of networks as "fields," where, similar to de Saussure's conception of systems oi signs, the value and meaninR of each element (cultural producers, works, aesthetic and political position takings, institutions) is defined regionally E.g., "(Even.- position taking] receives its distinctive value from its negative relationship with the coexisting position-takings to which it is objectively related and which determine it by delimitine it" (Bourdieu 1983, p. 313), or "the emergence of a group capable of 'making an epoch' of imposing a new, advanced position is accompanied by the displacement of the structure of temporally hierarchized positions opposed within a field; each of them moves a step down the temporal hierarchy which is at the same time a social hierarchy" (p. 3401. My own argument is not concerned with systems of positions as such, although I recognize the usefulness of such analysis. I am more concerned with the structural features of national intellectual fields (e.g., cultural requirements, the role of various institutions in regulating the field, the structure of intellectual markets, etc.J. * For an introduction to Derrida's work, see Jameson (1972); Culler (1975), Descombes (1980). Lentricchia ti98Ql, Norm (1982); and Leitch (1983). 58H French Philosopher cultural requirements, and helped its institutionalization as important work. The diffusion of Derrida's work in France in the past 20 years was also aided by three of its characteristics: (1) it fitted in with the intellectual culture of specific fractions of the French upper-middle class; (2) its politics appealed to French intellectuals at the end of the 1960s; and (3) it appealed to the professional interests of philosophers by promoting a new image of their field during an institutional legitimacy crisis. Deconstruction The starting point of Derrida's inquiry is the famous Cours de Unguis-tique generale (Course in general linguistics [1915] 1972) of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), which is regarded as the seminal text of structuralism. De Saussure distinguishes the signifier (a sound or written sign) from the signified (a concept or idea) as the two primary' constituents of language. He argues that the association between these two elements is arbiträr.'. Nothing justifies the association between the idea "pipe" and the written sign "p-i-p-e." Languages are understood as systems of signs formed by arbitrarily associated signifiers and signified. The meaning of each sign is relational, that is, defined only by its difference from other signs. For instance, the letter "a" is meaningful only in relation to b, c, . . . z. Languages are systems of relations in which each constituent has a meaning only in relation to other constituents. In his structural arguments, de Saussure contradicts the philological approach that dominated 19th-century linguistics and that centered on the historical evolution of language conceived as a human product. In contrast, de Saussure's structuralist approach emphasizes synchrony and syntax. Derrida questions the Saussurian idea of difference, which assumes that -V is clearly distinct from Y. He argues that pure difference does not exist: -V contains V, as it is partially defined by it. Signs both supplement and partially express one another. The relationship between elements, signs, or "traces" (written signs) is one of "Difference" (Derrida 1972, pp. 24-28). The concept of "difference," created by Derrida, is central to his theoretical system. It means both to differ (being distinct, discernible) and to defer (being present while being omitted, the omission having a significance in what is present). Both meanings are subsumed in the French verb différer. Stated in Derrida's terms, Diffe'rance is what makes the movement of signification possible only if each element that is "present." appcarinc on the stage of presence, is related to somethini: other than itself out retains the mark of a past element and already1 lets itself be hollowed out by the mark of its relation to a future element. This trace relates no less to what is called the future than to what 5S9 American Journal of Sociology is called the past, and it constitutes what is called the present by this very relation to what it is not, to what it absolutely is not; that is, not even to a past or future considered as modified present. In order for it to be, an interval must separate it from what it is not, but the interval that constitutes it in the present must also, and by the same token, divide the present in itself, thus dividing, along with the present, everything that can be conceived on its basis, that is every being—in particular, for our metaphysical language, the substance or subject. (Derrida (1967) 1973, pp. 142-43] Any element contains other elements. Therefore, the idea of an original, determining instance or presence is logically impossible. The world is made up of interreferring elements, none of which has precedence. These propositions are the starting point for a full-fledged attack on the whole philosophical tradition that, Derrida argues, rests on dichotomous categories such as being/nothingness, truth/error, and nature/culture. Derrida characterizes the Occidental intellectual tradition as a search for a transcendental being that serves as the origin or guarantor of meaning. Following Nietzsche, he argues that the philosophical enterprise is logocen-tric in its attempt to ground the meaning relations constitutive of the world in an instance that itself lies outside all relationality. De Saussure's work is centered on the analysis of spoken language, as he assumes that speech more fully reveals meaning than does the written sign. In Of Grammatology, Derrida denies the existence of essential meanings and proposes an approach to the study of written signs that exposes the multiplicity of possible interpretations. He promotes deconstruction as a method for decodifying the various and often contradictory meanings of a text. Much like Barthes, Derrida shows that there is no vantage point external to the discourse from which it is possible to identify a transcendental meaning. In line with this approach, books themselves are considered collections of signs, as are the names of the authors. Texts are abstracted from the presumed intentions of the authors and from their literary and social contexts. The traditional separation between literature and criticism becomes meaningless, as any reading is a re-creation of a text, a never-ending process of interpretation (Derrida [1967J 1976, p. 226). The goal of deconstruction is to uncover the implicit hierarchies contained in any text by which an order is imposed on reality and by which a subtle repression is exercised, as these hierarchies exclude, subordinate, and hide the various potent»^ meanings. "To 'deconstruct' philosophy, thus, would be to think—in the most faithful, interior way—the structured genealog)- of philosophy's concepts, but at the same time, to determine—from a certain exterior that is unqualifiable or unnarneable by philosophy—what this history has been able to dissimulate or forbid, making itself into a history by means of this somewhere motivated repres- 590 French PhUosopher sion" (Derrida [1972) 1981a, p. 6). Deconstruction is thus conceived as a metascience surpassing the metaphysics oř logocentnc systems: It inscribes and delimits science;... it marks and at the same time »sens the limits which close classical scientincity" (Dernda 1981a, p 36). Understanding the nexus of the theory itself and its intellectual environment is crucial here. Many elements of the style and content of Derrida's work contribute to its legitimation and ment consideration: U) Derrida's writing and argumentation styles meet the cultural requirements of the French intellectual milieu; (2) the originality of Dernda s work, its explicit association with philosophical classics, and its contribution to intellectual debates fulfill certain academic requirements; (3) the application of deconstruction to classics and its transcendence of the philosophical tradition give it prestige and contribute to the theory s potential for intellectual diffusion, as does the repetitive nature of the framework. Academic and Cultural Requirements Derrida describes his writing style in the following terms: "To be entangled in hundreds of pages of a writing simultaneously insistent and elliptical, imprinting as you saw, even its erasures, carrying off each concept to an interminable chain of differences, surrounding or confusing itself with so many precautions, references, notes, citations, collages, supplements-this 'meaning-to-say-nothing' b not, you will agree, the most assured of exercises" ([1972] 19816, p. 14). Some have described this style as a game, a "pleasure without responsibility," and others, as a deliberate attempt to confuse the reader, a technique of trouble" (Watson 1978. p. 13). Derrida, like other French intellectuals, is renowned for writing in a sophisticated and somewhat obscure stvle (Lernen 1981, p. 10). Moreover, most contemporary French philosophers share Derrida's highly dialectical style of argument. Postwar French intellectuals were strongly influenced by Hegel and Marx, who shaped their basic cultural framework (Descombes 1980). To write and argue within the dialectical framework shared by intellectuals is to capitalize on the established thinking and reading habits of the French public and to increase, ipso facto, one's potential for diffusion (Bourdieu 19,5, p. 110). In contrast, Jacques Bouveresse. one of the few French analytic philosophers, writes, in his "Why I Am So Very UnFrench':' I have been told that m. own works were practically unreadable by the French ph-!o-sophicai public because they were concerned essentially with 'logic (which meant in addition that they were not in any event worth readme, inasmuch as they contained nothing that was properly philosophical) (1983. p. 10). 591 American Journal of Sociology A sophisticated rhetoric seems to be a structural requirement for intellectual legitimation in the French philosophical community: rhetorical virtuosity contributes to the definition of status boundaries and maintenance of stratification among French philosophers. To participate in the field, one has to play the rhetorical game, and this environmental characteristic is present in Derrida's work. A highly rhetorical writing style is'shared or emulated by many less successful French philosophers and is therefore not a decisive or automatic criterion of intellectual legitimation. More important is the creation of a theoretical trademark framed within an established intellectual tradition (Bourdieu 1936, p. 159). Derrida has created a theoretical apparatus that is clearly distinct from other philosophical systems. Deconstruction presents a set of "non-concepts"—to use his term—such as trace, gramme, supplement, hymen, tympan, dissemination, and metaphor, that serve to designate the phenomena studied. Derrida's theoretical apparatus is so clearly packaged and labeled that it can readily circulate in the intellectual community. As Heirich (1976, p. 37) argues, packaging ideas as commodities improves their potential exposure and facilitates their penetration into various intellectual milieus. Sartre's "existentialism," Althusser's "epistemological break," Lefebvre's "quotidienneté," Lacan's "unconscious text" and "mirror stage," Foucault's "archaeology," and Deleuze's "schizo-analysis" (Descombes 1980, Kurzweil 1980) may well have served as theoretical trademarks in the legitimation of their work. Academic works need to bejramed in relation to the major debates of a fielcTand associated withi the "major" authors in OTderTo~be legitimated (Adätto and Cole 1981; Bourdieu 1975). Deconstruction resembled other theoretical systems enoughjp fit and be incorporated into the Parisian intellectual" milieu" of "the 1960s~" "that "is, to ""be'judged" sufficiently significant and relevant by the philosophical audience to be included in the system of diffusion. Derrida's references to the transcendence of philosophical discourse and the end of philosophy were central themes of texts widely read in the 1960s (Althusser's For Marx and Marx and Engels's German Ideology [Ferry and Renaut 19851). Also central were references to the Saussurian questions and to the multiplicity of meaning and inter-textuality, themes that are basic to semiology. He presented his theoretical innovations as a continuation of the writings of Husserl, Heidegger, and Nieusche, and in opposition to Hegel. Husserľs phenomenology, Heidegger's critique of the logocentrism of the philosophical tradition, and Nietzsche's critique of humanism are explicitly presented as the theoretical antecedents of deconstruction. Derrida's conception of interpretation as a free play of the mind is also borrowed directly from Nietzsche. Derrida defines himself in opposition to Hesiel and criticizes the Hegelian 592 French Philosopher ideas of totality and contradiction as the epitomes of the "ideas of unity and presence (Derrida 1981a, pp. 40-41). HnaJl^Jik^Banhí^^ Lacan, Derrida builds on the established culture of the left-oriented European Intellectual public when he focuses on the relationship between power, on the one hand, and culture, knowledge, and rationality, on.the other. The Frankfurt school, the Birmingham school, and Italian Marxism all make this issue a central one. This question has historically been important in socialist thought, as seen in the roles of the party and of intellectuals. Prestige and Diffusion The legitimation of Derrida's work is facilitated by the philosophical tradition in which he situates it: deconstructs n gains prestige from its affiliation with Heidegger, Husserl, and Nietzsche, its transcendence of the philosophies tradition, and its application to classics (Boltanski 1975). Also, the ambiguity of this framework and its adaptability to any text favor its reproduction. By enhancing the diffusibility of Derrida's work, these features contribute to its legitimation. It is therefore useful to consider the effect of these features in greater detail at this point in my discussion. Heidegger, Husserl, Nietzsche, and Hege! are among the most prestigious philosophers in what is seen in France as perhaps the most prestigious philosophical tradition—German philosophy (Wahl 1962; Des-combes 1980). By carrying on a dialogue with these classics, Derrida acquires some of their prestige and positions himself in a theoretical tradition defined as important. Had he worked on Hume, Locke, or Mill, / the story would have been rather different and for reasons relatively unconnected with the actual substance of his analyses. Derrida attacks what has been defined as one of the central problems of philosophy, which is, as he puts it more precisely, the problem of the fate of philosophy itself; he questions its groundings and tries to overcome its insufficiencies. As a metascience, deconstruction seeks both to contain and transcend philosophy. This subsuming feature has helped to define his work as important (Boltanski 1975). Further, deconstruction gives its audience the means to interpret the whole philosophical tradition and to overcome it by becoming acquainted with a single system. As such, it offers important payoffs to those unfamiliar with the classics; for example, one of my informants has observed that, on the basis of Derrida's work. American undergraduate students in literary criticism currently discuss the logocentrism of the philosophical tradition without having read a single classic of philosophy. Derrida's theoretical strategy consists in pointing to implicit meanings 593 American Journal of Sociology by shifting the focus of interpretation and placing himself above the texts themselves. He applies this strategy to various authors important in the Western tradition (Rousseau, Mallarmé, 'Freud, Valéry, Artaud). The institutionalized prestige of these classics trickles down to his interpretation. Also, by deconstructing their work, Derrida can carry on a dialogue with specialists in these classics (e.g., Roland Barthes, Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Emmanuel Lévinas, Paul Ricoeur), whose stature will contribute to and complement the process of .institutionalizing Derrída's work as important. Derrida's focus on implicit meaning and his diaJecticaJ arguments create much ambiguity in his writing and generate endless debates on his work. What Searle has called the "heads I win, tails you lose" Derridian argument maintains the reproduction of deconstruction because of the absence of nonrelativist criteria to evaluate the theory. Also, its reproduction is favored by the fact that the same deconstructive operations can be applied to any text. This is an advantage for those who use his technique, in terms both of the accessibility of working material and of the ability to transfer their expertise to new texts or fields. Finally, Derrida provides his intellectual public with a charismatic image of the avant-garde intellectual. Because he conceives the reader as re-creating the text, he represents his work as a creative enterprise similar to that of an artist or writer (see, e.g.. Positions [1981a]). Like Barthes and Lévi-Strauss before him, Derrida, through his work, presents intellectual life as the adventure of a modern Prometheus whose rationality challenges power. Along with other charismatic intellectuals, Derrida provides a role model for young French intellectuals and has increased the appeal of the humanities. Social, Political, and Institutional Contexts We have seen that Derrida meets a number of the cultural and academic requirements of the French intellectual scene, such as having a sophisticated writing style, a distinctive theoretical framework, and a focus on questions defined as both important and concerned with an important pjnjo^o^hjciijj^djtion. These requirements are a part of the environment in which Derrida has had to define his ^i^J^J}isJ"uJ[fiilingjhese reqmr^rnj'msjs^ji^š^ work, quite independent of its content. Tins work, I SMggest, also fits the larger French intellectual, political, and professional contexts that facilitated Derrida's diffusion. By contexts, I refer to (I) the intellectual references of French upper-middle-class culture, (2) the political context of the late 1960s, and (3) the institutional changes in philosophy. 594 French Philosopher I. The consumption habits of segments of the upper-middle class (professionals in the cultural sectors and human services, teachers, civil servants) and their patterns of participation in the intellectual culture facilitated the diffusion of Derrida's work. The very limited possibilities for upward economic mobility between and within social classes characteristic of postwar France were compensated for by investments in educational and cultural mobility, especially by the upper-middle class (Mar-ceau 1977). During this period, members of the cultural segments invested greatly in the consumption of sophisticated cultural goods (Bour-dieu 1984; Lamont 1987) as a means of maintaining and improving their status. By consuming a cultural produit de luxe, one becomes an initiated member of a status group. Among those "products" are sophisticated intellectual goods, including deconstruction itself, which is barely accessible even to the highly educated;, it requires considerable investment to be understood and is targeted at an intellectual elite. Along these lines, Lucette Finas, a Parisian proponent of Derrida, notes: "To open to a larger public a work as important and difficult as Derrida's would necessarily create deformities, approximations and impoverishment. The difficulty of the text is not an accident. It is linked to the way knowledge may be transmitted through writing. Jacques Derrida is a writer, and no systematic or didactic presentation of what is called his ideas can reproduce the proliferating complexity of the text" (Finas 1973, p. 13). Packaging deconstruction as a sophisticated cultural good increases its potential for diffusion, given the importance of symbolic status boundaries for the target public. Moreover, it improves the fit between Derrida's work and a large extant market. 2. The diffusion of Derrida's work peaked at the beginning of the 1970s, a few years after the French political climax of May 1968. After the student insurrection, intellectuals had grown weary of traditional Marxist rhetoric (Judt 1986; Wuthnow et al. 1984, p. 135). The post-1968 years were a period of stagnation for the Left, and leftist analyses were in need of rejuvenation. Derrida provided just the theoretical position that met and matched the political climate. Like other structuralist and post-structuralist intellectuals (Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault), indeed like Sartre before them, Derrida looked at more,subtle forms of manifestations of power that had been ignored by classical Marxism. Similar to Marx's theory of ideology, Derrida's work postulated that power and hierarchies are hidden behind the apparent meanings of texts. Deconstructing meant identifying those hierarchies of meaning. The theoretical goal became a "Nietzschean affirmation, the joyous affirmation of the free-play of the word without truth, without origin, offered to an active interpretation" (1981a, p. 43). As Jay (1984. p. 516) 595 American Journal of Sociology and Ryan (1982, p. 213) point out, this framework sustained a form of theoretical anarchism. It fitted the climate of the French cultural market in the late 1960s. . 3. The diffusion of Derrida's work was favored by its connection with the professional interests of philosophers. French philosophy went through a legitimacy crisis in the 1960s and 1970s. The government attempted to reduce the philosophy requirements in lycees, and the social sciences launched strong critiques against the philosophical enterprise. Derrida defended philosophy by attacking the logocentrism of these criticisms and by reformulating the philosophical pľoject as the intellectual enterprise that takes the most far-reaching and critical analytical perspective (G.R.E.P.H. 1977). By doing so, he promoted a positive image of philosophy—criticizing, following Barthes, "old academism" and countering simultaneously the decline of the field. He attempted to delegiti-mate science as a logocentric discourse. His epistemologieal answer to the crisis spawned a large following in certain circles. The fit between Derrida's conception of philosophy and the disciplinary crisis again favored the diffusion of his work. In this section I have been concerned with the effect of a producer's work on the institutionalization of his theory. I have also been interested in delineating the link between Derrida's work and the cultural and institutional environment that it exists in. I will now be concerned with uncovering a second layer of intellectual legitimation, namely, the process, through which peers and the intellectual public came to define ajheory ancTits producer as "important." DERRIDA'S INTELLECTUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRAJECTORY The legitimation of cultural products is highly dependent on intellectual collaboration and institutional settings. I argue that (1) institutional settings (schools, journals, professional associations) and Derrida's participation in the structuralist debate contribute to the definition of his work as important; (2) Derrida's professional trajectory meets the institutional requirements defined by the trajectory of other intellectuals; (3) his access to these settings is conditioned by his display of specific forms of cultural capital; (4) Derrida's intelleau*ü collaborators have provided him with the institutional supports essential to the intellectual legitimation of his work; (5) intellectual collaboration and institutional support are highly interrelated; and (6) deconstruction is not disseminated in a unified market but rather among actors whose definition of good work segments cultural markets. 596 French Philosopher Institutional Supports for Intellectual Legitimation Derrida participated in institutions that contributed to disseminating his work and defining it as important. Because many French intellectuals have access to the same prestigious institutions, Derrida's participation in those institutions—journals, schools, cultural media, professional associations—can be considered as meeting structural requirements for intellectual legitimation in France. The schools where Derrida received his philosophical education gave him legitimate cultural codes. He studied philosophy at the Ecole normale supérieure {rue d'Ulm), which is the most prestigious French institution for the study of philosophy and one of the centers of philosophy in France (Clark and Clark 1982). He also studied at the Sorbonne with Hippolyte and Gandillac. The support of these influential professors gave Derrida his first opportunities to publish and helped mark him as a promising beginner. "Ulm" and the Sorbonne provided Derrida with an institutional context for peer assessment of his aspirations and capabilities. Most members of the Parisian intellectual elite attended Ulm and formed circles in this school that played an important role in their careers. Students shared the same intellectual world; therefore, they tended to define the same questions as important (Bourdieu 1969, p. 113). Two journals were especially influential in the diffusion of Derrida's work and its institutionalization as a significant contribution: Tel Quel and Critique. Similar to Sartre's Us Temps modernes, these journals published essavs in literary criticism and philosophy directed toward the Parisian academic public. Critique, edited by Jean Piel, presented the work of various renowned philosophers, including Gilles Deieuze, Emmanuel Lévinas, Michel Foucault, and Paul Ricoeur. While Critique was more eclectic, Tel Quel was at the center of the Nouvelle Critique, an intellectual movement that involved important intellectuals such as Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, and Phillippe Sollers. This journal embodied the shared views of its collaborators and institutionalized their intellectual circle. Derrida's collaboration with this journal was based on cultural affinities, which illustrates that intellectual collaboration results in institutional support. Tel Queľs intellectual project has been to deconstruct hierarchies based on a transcendental signified {Caws 1973; Jameson 1980. p. 732). During the 1960s, this journal exercised notable influence on leftist intellectuals. Its critique of traditional academism symbolized for some the intellectual avant-garde beliefs of May 1968. The influence of Tel Quel shifted the focus of attention to its contributors. The diffusion of Derrida's work to the general intellectual public was the result of its coverage by the main cultural media. Cultural magazines 59T American Journal of Sociology r and newspapers have become central to Parisian intellectual life as they define what one has to read in order to be considered "literate" (Defray 1979; Hamon and Rotman 1981). They cater to the intellectual culture of the upper-middle class, and their control over access to that market is a structural feature of the French intellectual scene. It is therefore essential for intellectual producers to fit into the circles of these cultural publications (Pinto 1981). They gave increasing prominence to Derrida's work following an interesting double tour de force: in 1967, Derrida published three major books—Of Grammatology (1976), Speech and Phenomena (1973), and Writing and Difference ([1967] 1980). In 1972, he again published simultaneously Dissemination (19816), Positions (1981a), and Marges de la Philosophie. In 1967-68, his work was reviewed by La Quinzaine Liltéraire, Le Nouvel Observateur, and Le Monde. In 1972, Les Lettres francaises published a special issue on his work, as did Arc in 1973. An article published in Le Nouvel Observateur in 1975 placed Derrida among the four "high priests" of the French university, along with Barthes, Foucault, and Lacan. During this period, Derrida was strongly supported at Le Monde by a former student, Christian de la Campagne, and at£e Nouvel Observateur.7 Derrida joined the full-time faculty of the Ecole normale supérieure in 1967 and started teaching at the Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales around 1984. Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Lacan, to name only a few, have also taught at the Ecole normale supérieure, and a large number of important specialists in the sciences de ľhomme teach at the Ecole des hautes etudes. Derrida's presence in these prestigious schools further institutionalized his vision of the world and also himself as an important philosopher. It also allowed him to develop a circle of Ulm students who created a journal—Digraph e—publishing articles inspired by his work. They edited books and interviews on and with Derrida such as Ecarts {Finas et al. 1973), Mimesis des articulations (Agacinski et al. 1975), and Le Déclin de ľécriture (Laruelle et al. 1977) and organized important conferences around Derrida's work in 1976 and 1980. Lucette Finas. Sarah Kofman. Phillippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean-Michel Rev, Jean-Luc Nancy, and others used the Derridian problematic as their trademark and created their own theoretical and institutional niches with deconstruction. Simultaneously, these disciples participated in the institutionalization of the Derridian problematic in the Parisian intellectual field. Two organizations associated with the defense and promotion of T It should be noted that, relative to other French intellectuals, Derrida has not soueht wide media coveraee. 598 French Philosopher French philosophy also enhanced Derrida's visibility and intellectual legitimacy. In 1974, Derrida and his students created the Groupe de recherche sur 1'enseignement de la philosophie {G.R.E.P.H.) in order to resist a governmental reform threatening jobs in philosophy. Derrida's political declaration concerning the "Reforme Giscard-Haby" steered the media's attention to him as a representative of the profession. Around 1981, the Socialist government appointed him as one of the directors of J( the College international de philosophie, whose publicly acknowledged v mission is, among other things, to reaffirm the presence of French philosophy internationally (College 1982). This appointment reinforced his position in the French intellectual field and legitimized his presence in the United States. Finally, Derrida's access to institutions was greatly facilitated by his cultural capital.8 Several features of Derrida's work defined it as a high-status cultural good, particularly its references to a prestigious intellectual \ tradition and its display of enidition. References to high-status cultural "\ works seem to have great inSuence on the legitimation of interpretive theories. Also, access to prestigious institutions is facilitated by cultural capital, that is, by cues indicating the sharing of a common high-status cultural background, whether it is the culture of the Ecole normale supérieure, the sharing of a common definition of important questions, or experiencing situations similarly (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). The Structuralist Debate Derrida defined himself as a poststructuralist by criticizing the structuralist enterprise for being iogocentric in its search for structural explanatory principles and for giving priority to language. In "Force et dissemination" (1963), he had attacked Foucault and Lévi-Strauss, the founding father, through de Saussure. Foucault replied to Derrida in The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences and in the second edition of Madness and Civilization, criticizing his interpretation of the Cartesian cogito {GiovannageH 1979, pp. 161-71). This debate gave Derrida the opportunity to display his distinctive theoretical trademark publicly and to be identified as a major actor in the structuralist controversy and as one of the main critics of structuralism. A central theme for structuralists is their ongoing attack on the Western emphasis on humanism. They also look for hidden structures of » Cultural capital is defined here as high-status cultural goods and practices that are used as bases of social selection isee Bourdieu 1981; for discussion, see also Lamont and Lare3u 1987). 599 American Journal of Sociology meaning and the organizational principles of systems (Kurzweil 1980). Derrida recognized the importance of these issues through his work on implicit meaning and his critique of the humanist tradition. His critiques helped to legitimate structuralism and institutionalize it as a school of thought. Concurrently, by responding to.Derrida's objections, structuralists recognized and affirmed him as a significant critic, thus contributing to his intellectual legitimation (Bourdieu 1983, p. 323). Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, and Michel Foucault had well-established reputations in the mid-1960s, and their prestige trickled down to Derrida. As with other participants in this debate, Derrida's personal legitimacy grew through this association, and his legitimacy became linked to the legitimacy of the structuralist circle itself. Participation in a major public debate is characteristic of several other important French philosophers. These debates, such as between Barthes and Picard (1966), Foucault and Sartre (1966), Lévi-Strauss and Revel (1957), and Lévi-Strauss and Sartre (1962) were extensively covered by the media and provided unparalleled visibility. The philosophical generation that dominated the French intellectual scene until the 1980s was being constituted at the end of the 1960s. In the space of a few years, a number of important books were published: Althusser's For Marx ([1965] 1969) and Heading Capital ([1965] 1977), Foucaulťs The Order of Things ([1966] 1971) and The Archaeology of Knowledge ([1969] 1972), Lacan's Ecrits ([1966] 1977), Derrida's Of Grammatology (1976) and Writing and Difference (1980), and Deleuze's Difference et repetition (1968). This philosophical generation produced a distinctive type of intellectual product that was not targeted at a specialized academic public of philosophers or historians but that was diffused largely by cultural media such as Le Nouvel Observateur. These intellectuals engaged (and partly generated) a wide intellectual public made up from a growing student body in the humanities and the social sciences (Bourdieu, Boltanski, and Maldidier 1971). Derrida benefited from his association with this intellectual generation both through its access to the cultural media and the general growth of the intellectual public. , Figure I describes the intellectual and institutional positioning of Derrida in France and the United States. It identifies Derrida's predecessors, supporters, opponents, diffusers, and disciples. It also presents the specialized journals, mass media, teaching institutions, and professional organizations that were institutional supports for his work. This figure links the intellectual and institutional supports described herein. (Derrida's positioning in the United States will be explained in the next section.) It points out ties among theoretical positions, intellectual collaboration, and access to institutions and shows that intellectual collaboration provides the means of diffusion. 600 French Philosopher INTELLECTUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONING FRANCE PREDECESSORS CotWtoni tnů Asplicsiioni Oppositions Suppertera UNITED STATES Literary Criticism FRANCE j UNITED STATES Opponenls Diiluson Disciples JourntJ] Cullurw Mtflfcimes T etc mng Institutions Professional Orjtniltlionj Keiůegger Niítľsche- -Hegti Hussert rHippoiyle j-Gtndült: l^pRicoeur Léttnu ■ Pit! léw-Strauss Fe ucítil t — Cfiitelet Dtleuľe — Rorty S t vie RoujJtiu Ssussurí Kalmin- fr\»3 — Grtve! — Nwicy ' — Lsceue-LiDirtrie De LtCimpagne Revue íeMěUoriVSKiue « OtMorait 'LeMonOe LeNouveiOtscrvtíeur E.NS ----------- Ecoi* aes Htuíes EluOes efi Sciences Sooiiti GRE PM ------------- CoHéfle Hemtlícnti d« Philosophie Research m Phi no me nolo [y Nort five si em • 6*1 h es ■ Seien-Knstfv» fitlulle Ufley -TtiOuet Kgniphe Peeiique Qwnztm* UltTWÍ DeMtn l— BI e p m |— Hvtmin tMtí — Afcrtms Booth CuCer. Ytie French Reviev Dttcntics Sut-SItnte Glyp* NY R B -T L S Víle Johns Hepími Černeli...... M L A Fie. I.—Intellectual and institutional positioning of Jacques Derrida in philosophy and literary criticism íFrance and the United States!. This figure does not include all the actors and institutions with which Derrida has been involved but only those whose roles are described herein. A number of actors could have been included, both in philosophy and literary criticism and in more than one category or position. For instance, most diffusers are also supporters, and many French philosophers are simultaneously in philosophy and literary criticism. 601 American Journal of Sociology The Diffusion of Derrida's Work The diffusion of Derrida's work is characterized by three trends: (1) Although his work was first targeted to a specialised audience of phenomenologists, it became of interest to several diverse publics in the mid-1960s; (2) concurrently, phenomenologists lost interest in Derrida's work; and (3) the diffusion of deconstruction theory decreased significantly in France after a 1972-73 boom, while it increased consistently in the United States, attracting mostly literary critics. Table 1 shows the publication history of Derrida's work in France, the United States, and other countries. Within each country, publications are broken down into philosophy and literary criticism journals and books. Derrida's first publications were in French philosophical journals. At the beginning of his career, his intellectual path followed the typical academic model in philosophy, which consists in performing an exegesis of a classic. He first worked on Husserl and published in the specialized philosophy journals—the Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Les Etudes philosophiques, and Cahiers pour l'analyse—put out by the Ecole normale supérieure. His participation in Critique and Tel Quel marked a shift, as he widened his theoretical interests and began to address himself to a larger audience. His theoretical niche is at the iu^ture_pXßfeÜ.ßSöpJiy and literary criticism, because literary critics are concerned with questions ~öf interpretation andlmeaning. Deconstruction theory aJso interested social'š^ntistšT'wfi'črw'ere engaged in the structuralist debate. Psychoanalysts, feminists, and art historians also became interested in applying this interpretive technique to their domains. The potential for diffusion of Derrida's work, which was located at the juncture of several already constituted publics, increased significantly, as Derrida capitalized on characteristics of the cultural environment while fitting his work to the structure of the intellectual market. Speaking simultaneously to several publics is typical of dominant French intellectuals. For instance, Foucauit addresses himself to doctors, psychoanalysts, criminologists, social scientists, historians, and philosophers (Wuthnow et aJ. 1984, p. 134). Deleuze and Lyotard are of interest to Marxists, psychoanalysts, and philosophers, and Ricoeur addresses phenomenologists, psychoanalysts, and literary critics. They all enlarge their public by raising theoretical problems in more than one field (e.g., Foucault's analysis of power and knowledge codes in mental hospitals and prisons). Developing a larger audience and a broader legitimacy base is a successful and adaptive strategy when the specialized public of professional philosophers is shrinking. Some of the chances in the public for Derrida's work are reflected in the types of journals he published in. Despite a notable increase in the num- 602 French Philosopher TABLE 1 Annual Distribution of Derrida's Publications by Countries and Type of Journal _^______ ft, L.C. Books Ph. txiA_2oofa_^!^^ 1959...... 1 ...... ■"" '" [__ 1960............ ...... 1961............ ......... 1962............ * 1963...... 3 1 1964...... 5 1 1965...... * l 1966...... 3 2 ......... 1967...... 5 1 3 ... j 1968...... 2 3 _ ! 1969......... ] ■■' l ■;' 1970...... 1 2 ■■ l ! ... 3 1971......... 4 * '*" 2 »».......3- j s ■ - ■;■ '. - 1973...... 3 2 ■ ■ j ! 1974..... 2 1 2 ■■' j 2 1975...... 2 3 2 I -I" 1977...... 4 2 .. A ' i \ 1 4 * 1978......... 2 3 1979......... ■- ■■■ "■ '"' 1980......... ' 1981......... 1982 ...... " " 3 ... 1 I » 2 2 -.3 »™.......r ! y I ! 1984..... 1 -■ '_______\_______.______________.-------------■--------— NoT,_P„ . pni.o^v, LC. »-y T.,c,sm P-^^,^" ^a,wÄ^ Lruur. and ttlutd lop.csl .nd SUbs,c.,ons on cm«»!» and """>""" ctarly not cxhausuvc bu< sUf*c«nt for p»rpo*s o( II« curnnl »nal»». ber of Derrida's publications, the number of articles he published in ph Iosophv journals has decreased since 1967, and several art.de. pub-Ushed in ph iosophv journals after 1974 pertain to Dernda's defense of the nst tu ľonal poskion of the field -Miller 1981. pp. «0-66). In contrast. he number of arucles in literary criticism journals mcreased after 196, and has remained greater than the number of philosophy art.cles^ In table J. publication, on Derrida have been broken down by type of jouľnal .philosophv or literature) and country (France or the Un.ted States. The decline diffusion of Derrida's work in French ph.losophy 603 American Journal of Sociology TABLE 2 Publications on Derrida's Work by Country (France/United States) and by Type of Journal (Philosophy/Uterary Criticism), 1963-1984 France United States Literary Literary Philosophy Criticism Philosophy Criticism 1963.......... 2 1964............. 1965............. 1966.......... 1 1967.......... 3 2 1968.......... 5 1 1969.......... 6 2 1970.......... 2 4 1971.......... 1 4 1972.......... 3 17 1973.......... 16 13 1974.......... 5 10 197S.......... 1 4 1976.......... 4 1977.......... 2 1978............. 1979.......... 1980.......... 1981.......... 2 1982.......... 1 1983.......... I 1 1984............. 2 1 3 1 4 8 7 12 IS 10 10 7 6 22 27 16 26 56 Note.—Articles published in specialized journals and literary maaaiines. reviews and review articles. u well as books. In the case of collected editions, each article is counted as a publication. When the classification of articles by type of journal was impossible, the publications were classified on the basis of (I) the topic of the article and (2) the field of the author, if available. The publications thai did not fit in one of the categories were excluded from the sample (A' = 51. including 21 publications published in other cow nines for the period 1963-78). Belgian publications are included in the French sample, and Canadian publications in the American one. For the penod 1963-78, the sample includes all the numbered items of Miller's (1981. pp 130-66) bibliography, which has been supplemented by Leave y and Allison's (1977) bibliography For the period 1979-84, data are from the /Htrmottonal Bibltotraphy of Bookt and ArttcUj on Modern Languages and Literature, vols. I. 2. and 4. subsections on deconstruc-uonist literary theory, deconstructionist criticism, poststructuraiism. "Dernda" (in categories "subject" »nd "Literature—ÍOlh Century"*- The 1979-84 data are clearly not exhaustive but sufficient for purposes of the current analysis journals is shown in the decrease of articles on his work published in French journals after 197-í. The decline of his popularity among philosophers can be related to Derrida's refusal to respect academic professional norms by choosing not to write a dissertation until 1980. Others, like Althusser and Foucault, had also decided not to pursue their doctoral d'etat. One of my informants, who also made this choice, observed that this refusal expressed an important feature of the French intellectual 604 French Philosopher 60 50 40 JOURNALS 30 20 10 0 o~o—O"*0<^4—i---1 'i * ■■-'—<■—(—4—i—h—i---'---'—'—*---'—' 63 64 65 S6 67 G8 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR ■** PHILOSOPHY ■°- LITERARY CRITICISM Fig. 2.—Publications on Derrida's work by type of journal (philosophy/literary criticism) for France and the United States, 1963-84. ethos: the power of the Cartesian cogito is proved by one's ability to win the game without playing by the rules. As shown in figure 2, publications in specialised philosophy journals on Derrida's work started in 1963 and remained greater than publications in literary criticism journals until 1968. After a 1973 boom, the number of articles was quite irregular in philosophy journals. In contrast, publications in literary journals became important in 1970. A 1972-73 boom was followed by a progressive decline. However, on the average, literary criticism articles clearly outnumber philosophical articles after 1972. This figure illustrates that, over time, literary critics constituted a growing part of Derrida's public, while the proportion of philosophers decreased. In the next section. I will argue that Derrida's penetration of the American intellectual market was conditioned by a shift in public. Figure i shows a time lag between French and American publications, which corresponds to the timing of the diffusion of Derrida's work in both countries. The French 1972-73 boom—associated with Derrida's simultaneous publication of three books and coverage of them by the mass media—was followed by a sharp decline in publications. In the United States, articles on deconstruction increased in number in 1973. after the 605 ./ ° O—Q. azX±J "V''V X es Journal of Sociology 60 t 50 40 • JOURNALS 30 20 -■ IC # 0 o^o—o**o«i 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60 81 82 83 84 YEAR ■•- FRANCE ■o- UNITED STATES FiC. 3.—Publications on Derrida's work by country (France/United States) for philosophy and literary criticism journals, 1963-84. publication of Speech and Phenomena in English. These also increased significantly in 1977, after the translation of Of Gmmmatology and the active promotion of deconstruction by a group of critics at Yale. The diffusion of Derrida's work is relatively weak in countries other than the United States and France. For instance, between 19S1 and 1984, the International Bibliography of Books and Articles on Modern Languages and Literature lists only 14 British entries referring to deconstruction in contrast to 103 American entries." Following Miller (1981), only 11 British articles and books published between 1962 and 1978 concerned Derrida's work, in contrast to 87 for Barthes and 52 for Foucault.10 During this period, 31 articles and books published in countries other than France, the United States, and the United Kingdom concerned * This includes entries for hooks and articles listed in the following categories: decon-structiomst criticism, reconstructive literary theory, and postslructuraiist literary theory In this last category, or>ly the titles mentioning "deconstruction" or "Derrida" are counted. Canadian and American publications are counted together, as are publications from Belgium and France. "' Despite the absence of Barthes in my original sample of philosophers tBarthes's beine more a literary critic than a philosopher). I am comparinc the diffusion of Derrida's work with thai of his and Foycault's work because comparable data on these three intellectuals are available in Miller tl°81) 606 French Philosopher Derrida's work in contrast to 58 for Barthes and 98 for Foucauit. The nihilism implicit in Derrida's work might partly explain this difference, as Derrida's diffusion is especially weak in countries where there is a strong leftist tradition among intellectuals. Foucauit is relatively strong in such countries, with 32 Italian references and 35 Spanish and Latin American references for the 1962-78 period in contrast to 10 and eight, respectively, for Derrida. In 1981, Lire, a major French cultural magazine, asked 600 French intellectuals to identify the three most influential living French intellectuals. Academics, teachers, writers, artists, editors, politicians, and journalists were asked to answer the question. On the list of 36 intellectuals selected, Foucauit came in third after Claude Lévi-Strauss and Raymond Aron. Among the philosophers, Bernard Henri-Levy, a nouveau philosopke, was ninth, René Girard, fourteenth, Michel Serre, twentieth, Phillippe Sollers, twenty-fourth, and Louis Althusser, twenty-sixth. Derrida's name was absent. These results corroborate the sharp post-1973 drop in the diffusion of French articles on Derrida's work shown in figure 3. This decline can be partly explained by Derrida's distance from the political scene. Unlike Foucauit, Derrida did not become involved in the political events that mobilized the French intelligentsia after 1975 (e.g., the Polish resistance and the gay and antinuciear movements). Foucauit actively supported these movements, which gave him an impressive presence in the cultural magazines, especially in Le Nouvel Observateur.11 Several features of diffusion of Derrida's work support the hypothesis that (1) the legitimation of theories depends on a fit between his work and a structured cultural environment and (2) that these cultural markets are not unified markets, but rather they are segmented by definitions of good work. For example, the diffusion of this work was limited in several countries with a strong leftist intelligentsia. In France, the legitimation of Derrida's work was facilitated because, as noted earlier, rather than addressing this work to a shrinking philosophy public, Derrida spoke to several already constituted publics, capitalizing on the structure of the Parisian intellectual market. In his transition from a limited to a larger public, Derrida adapted his work, which became increasingly unfit for the academic philosophy audience. His writings did not follow the traditional norms of the discipline: "The directions I had taken, the nature and diversity of the corpora, the " The cultural media, i.e.. the newspapers and macazines that provide a relatively laree amount of cultural information, published 95 articles on Foucauit or his work between 1966 and 1978, with 34 for Derrida and 61 for Barthes. They include Le Souvet Observateur, Le Monde (including "Hebdo" and Le Monde des tivrrs). La Quinzaine Liitérairr. L'Express. Figaro littératre. Data are from Miller (1981). 607 American Journal of Sociology labvrinthian geography of the itineraries drawing me on toward relatively unacademic areas, all of this persuaded me that ... it was, in truth, no longer possible ... to make what I was writing conform . . ." (Derrida 1983, p. 42). His style, his unconventional approach, his rejection of the logocentric tradition, and his popular support may also have contributed to the sharp decline of the diffusion of his work in French philosophy journals. The characteristics of the intellectual market (e.g., the growth and decline of disciplines, the presence of a large intellectual public) are environmental features that shape the potential diffusion and legitimation of works. In this section, I have focused on the institutionalization of Derrida's work by the public and his peers. I have contended that the legitimation of cultural products is dependent on institutional supports and that access to these supports is dependent on cultural collaboration—the structured cultural and institutional systems being highly interrelated (fig. I). Sharing a common definition of good work is essential not only for the integration of a theory into a cultural milieu but also for its actual diffusion. To understand this legitimation process, it is necessary to identify channels of diffusion; cultural products are not diffused in unified markets but rather among actors whose definition of good work segments cultural markets. This hypothesis, which will be sustained by findings presented in the next section, has also been suggested by sociologists of science (Whitley 1984; Isambert 1985) and seems to be important for understanding the legitimation of both empirical and nonempirical theories. THE AMERICAN CONNECTION The legitimation of Derrida's work in America results from mechanisms similar to those active in its legitimation in France, that is. (1) the definition of this work as important by Derrida. his peers, and the public. and (2) a fit between Derrida's work and the American intellectual and institutional environment (i.e., its adaptation to already existing intellectual agendas and its diffusion by prestigious universities and journals). I contend that the second factor is the key to its diffusion among highly differentiated publics in France and the United States. I first describe the conditions under which structuralism was legitimated in the United States, given the fact that structuralism prepared the ground for decon-struction and that several factors that influenced the diffusion of structuralism also influenced the diffusion of deconstruction. Second. I describe the conditions of the legitimation of deconstruction in American literary criticism. Third, I contend that the diffusion of deconstruction was limited in American philosophy by preexisting intellectual norms. Finally, I argue that the diffusion of structuralism was linked to struc- 608 French Philosopher tural trends in American literary criticism, such as the concurrent importation of the work of several other French, intellectuals, a disciplinary-crisis, and the hegemony of theorists in the discipline. Structuralism in America The legitimation of Derrida's work was related to the cultural context that predated its importation and that contained conditions favoring its diffusion. New Criticism was among the most influential theories in the field of American literary criticism from the 1940s to the end of the 1950s. In 1957, Northrop Frye published his Anatomy of Criticism, launching a powerful attack against the textual emphasis of this approach. In conjunction with other critiques published previously (see Sutton 1963, pp. 219-67), Frye's critique precipitated a deep crisis in American literary criticism. The extant paradigm was rejected, and new paradigms gained consensus and filled the void. French structuraJism was successfully introduced, partly as a response to the vacuum created by the end of New Criticism; it indirectly prepared the ground for the arrival of de-construction. An international conference on structuralism was organized at Johns Hopkins in 1966 under the title "The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man" (Macksey and Donato 1970). Many French intellectuals associated with structuralism were invited: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Serge Doubrovsky, Lucien Goidmann, Jacques I^can, and Tzvetan Todorov were all present. This was the first large-scale introduction of structuralism to America, and it was followed by the publication of a special issue of Yale French Studies in 1966 on structuralism. However, structuralists did not gain a substantial American following until the beginning of the 1970s, when several books were published introducing structuralism to the American public (e.g., Jameson's Prison-House of Language, Boon's From Symbolism to Structuralism, and Scholes's Structuralism in Literature) (Ruegg 1979). Several further factors favored the diffusion of structuraJism in the United States. A limited number that also contributed to the diffusion of deconstruction can he pointed to here: First, comparative literature departments did not have a long intellectual tradition and were in search of a paradigm. French specialists have long enjoyed a high status in comparative literature, which faciHtPted t^e spread of their influence. Second, structuralism "epitomized dangerously seductive qualities of style; as intellectual fashion goes, it was flashy, different, ingenious, and slightly exotic" (Ruegg 1979, p. 189). These qualities offered hope of rejuvenation for the traditionally austere and meticulous American literary criticism. Third, some American scholars saw the chance to build their own institutional and intellectual positions 609 American Journal of Sociology by promoting the importation of structuralism, and they organized an impressive number of colloquia. Structuralism was a way for a growing new generation to construct and secure a niche in opposition to older scholars by introducing new theoretical standards. Fourth, like New Criticism itself, structuralism was a theoretical approach, and. as such, it could be applied to many kinds of literary products. It constituted a potentially powerful basis of intellectual influence extending across literature departments and bridging the gap between specialists in different periods and national literatures. The Diffusion of Deconstruction Derrida arrived on the American scene in the same period as structuralism. At the Johns Hopkins conference, he presented a vitriolic critique of Lévi-Strauss. The prestige of French literary criticism and of structuralism in particular trickled down to deconstruction, which soon became "le hip du hip" as it superseded the trendiest of new theories. A complex interaction of factors facilitated the diffusion of Derrida's work in the United States, several of which were associated with the possibility of integrating it into already existing intellectual agendas and of disseminating it through prestigious institutions. This diffusion was greatly aided by the presence of the "American Connection" in private elite universities that had been centers of American literary criticism, particularly Yale, Cornell, and Johns Hopkins. Furthermore, the diffusion of Derrida's work from prestigious to less prominent departments (e.g., UC-Irvine, UCLA, SUNY-Binghamton [Arac, Godzich, and Martin 1983, p. xiii]) enhanced its potential for legitimacy on the periphery. This factor is important given the size and the decentralization of the American academic structure. The process of diffusion was also aided by several journals that published work on deconstruction regularly: Diacritics, Sub-Stance, Glyph, and the Georgia Review. These journals, which played for deconstruction a role similar to that played by the Kenyon Review and the Sewanee Review for New Criticism, helped in creating an audience for Derrida and in institutionalizing deconstruction as a legitimate theory, as did a number of books and articles treating deconstruction in relation to Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, and so forth.i: J. Hillis Miller, a Derri-dian scholar, was elected president of the Modern Language Association in 1986 (Campbell 1986). The recognition of modern French literary criticism by this conservative professional association contributed greatly to '•' In Miller 119811. I have identified 12 articles published between 1968 and 197: linkini: Derrida to Dante. Pirandello. Russell. Wittgenstein, etc. 610 French Philosopher the legitimation of Derrida's work. It also aided in diffusing it in various language departments {English, German, Italian, etc.) and provided de-construction with a wider and growing audience. The diffusion of Derrida's work in the United States required the interest of renowned scholars who could incorporate it into their own work, while presenting it to the American audience as something important and worth reading. Paul de Man and J. Hillis Miller attended the Johns Hopkins conference and later became energetic proponents of Derrida's work, as did Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman. They ail began to integrate deconstruction into their intellectual agenda and to translate Derrida's work in terms both accessible and attractive to the larger American audience. For instance, Culler's Structuralist Poetics (1975) associated Derrida's work with Chomsky's and argued that it transcended de Saussure's, Lévi-Strauss's, Barthes's, and so on. De Man assimilated some aspects of deconstruction to New Criticism (Gasché 1979), while others presented deconstruction as a technique of reading, building on New Criticism's technique of "close reading" (Atkins and Johnson 1985). As a sophisticated Parisian cultural good, Derrida's work could and did reinforce the disciplinary position of the Yale scholars, whose influence had traditionally depended partly on the display of high-status cultural references. Each member of the Yale enclave already had a reputation by 1975, but they did not constitute a cohesive group. Derrida's theoretical contribution provided them with a shared interest and focus on which to base a solid alliance that would propel them to the summit of their discipline. They came to define themselves as a group as they published in collaboration (e.g., Deconstruction and Criticism [Bloom et al. 1979]) and, starting in 1976, debated criticism at conferences and professional meetings. They soon were labeled the "Yale Critics" or the "Yale School of Criticism" (Arac et al. 1983; Campbell 1986; Davis and Schleifer 1985) and gained considerable visibility in most language departments by the end of the seventies. In a small sample of manuscripts submitted to the Publications of the Modern Language Association in 1979, they were among the most-often cited authors, with, in decreasing order, 10 mentions for Derrida, seven for Barthes, six for J. Hillis Miller, five for Paul de Man, and four each for Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman (Conarroe 1980, p. 3). Also illustrative of Derrida's and the Yale Critics' influence is the fact that, durinc that period, their work became the center of major debates in the held. Lentricchia states the situation cogently: "Derrida and his followers have managed to create a genuine controversy by solidifying an opposition party whose various constituents, until now, never have had much use for one another. The traditional historicists, the Chicago neo-Anstotelians, the specialists in American literature, the Stanford moral- ôll American Journal of Sociology ists, the myth critics of the Frye type, old-line Freudians, critics of consciousness ... the budding structuralists and the grandchildren of the New Critics ... all have found themselves united against a common enemy in a Traditionalism which, though imposed upon them by the Derridian polemic, has seemed to suit these strange bedfellows just fine" (Lentricchia 1980, p. 159). This large opposition was related to Derrida's attack on the basic tenets of the humanist tradition and interpretive activity. The very violence of these attacks contributed to the institutionalization of deconstruction; it indicated that Derrida had become a force to be contended with (Arac et ai. 1983, p. xiii; Martin 1983). The influence of the Yale Critics on the diffusion of deconstruction is extremely important. Derrida's position in the United States is greatly dependent on this exceptionally strong and concentrated academic support in literature departments. No other French intellectual has as strong an academic base in the United States-—for instance, on the average, between 1978 and 1984, 26 pieces related to Derrida's work were published in literary journals per year in contrast to 14 for Foucault.13 Furthermore, Derrida's support outside literature departments is relatively weak. For instance, his American public is narrower than Foucault's; between 1981 and 1984, on the average, Foucault had 280 citations a year in the Social Science Citation Index in contrast to 59 for Derrida. in part because of Foucault's strong support from Marxists in various disciplines. Along with Sartre, Lévi-Strauss, and Barthes, Foucault is more strongly supported by cultural magazines such as Commentary, New Republic, the New Yorker, or the New York Review of Books than Derrida.14 This suggests that the mechanisms through which Derrida penetrated the French and the American markets differ. In America, professional institutions such as prestigious departments, journals, and associations have been essential. In France, access to the large intellectual public through the cultural media was more important. This illustrates the difference in the structures of the two markets—the general intellectual 11 Based on entries listed under "Derrida" and "Foucault" in the catecories "subject" and "French liierature—20th centun-" in the International Bibliography of Books and Articles on Modern Languages and Literature. The difference between Derrida's and Foucault's diffusion in literature journals is in reality much sreater, as several categories that contain references to Derrida's work are no: incfuded here, i.e.. deconstruc-tive approach, deconstructive criticism, and deconstructive theory. 14 Between I960 and 1979, Derrida was covered six times by British and American cultural media, in contrast to 43 times for Barthes and 4-i for Foucault. in these American and British publications: the A*«ť York Times, the Guardian (and Guardian Weekly], Xeu-sweck, the Times Literary Supplement, the AVir York Review of Books, the Christian Science Monitor, Times (Sundav), and the Economist. Data are from Miller tl981). 612 French Philosopher milieu having more influence on French than on American upper-middle-class culture through the cultural magazines that provide the French upper-middle class with intellectual culture as an important form of cultural capital. In contrast, in the United States, intellectual life is not as central to upper-middle-class culture. Thus, cultural capita] seems to take expressive rather than cognitive forms and to be expressed through other forms of high culture and through behaviors such as conspicuous consumption, self-reliance, individualism, problem-solving activism, entre-preneurship, and leadership (see, e.g., the analyses of the American middle class by Bellah et al. [1985] and Varennes [1977]; see also Lamont and Lareau 1987). The success of Foucault with the American cultural magazines is somewhat exceptional and might suggest a change in the relationship between the culture of specific fractions of the American upper-middle class and the intellectual culture. Derrida's work was largely ignored by American philosophers until the mid-1970s, except for some phenomenologists at Northwestern University for whom his writings offered a new and seductive way of formulating traditional hermeneutic questions. It was only later that it spread to the wider American philosophical public, via Derrida's debate with John Searle in the New York Review of Books (1983) and via Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979). Its reception was necessarily limited because, in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, the philosophy of language occupies a central place, while phenomenology has been relatively marginal. Moreover, the emphasis that analytic philosophy puts on language is antagonistic to the primary assumption of decon-struction concerning logocentrism. The intellectual operations and style typical of deconstruction are in decided opposition to the ethos of analytic philosophy, which emphasizes precision, clarity of language, and detailed argumentation. The differences between analytic philosophy and deconstruction explain the lesser visibility of Derrida in both American and British philosophy, where its diffusion is also limited by the presence of a strong Marxist tradition. This further demonstrates that cultural environments define and delimit the value and, more important, the scholarly reception of a body of work. The diffusion of Derrida's work in the United States was structured by features and trends in American literary criticism. First, as noted above, Derrida's work was imported concurrently with that of a number oľ other French scholars (e.g., Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, Marguerite Duras, Michel Foucault, René Girard, Luce Iriguay, Julia Kristeva, and Jacques Lacan) and profited from that association. French intellectuals were presented as a package (e.g., in Descombes's Modern French Philosophy, Dews's French Philosophical Modernism, and Fekete's The Structural Allegory: Reconstructive Encounters with the New French Thought), de- 613 American Journal of Sociology spite sometimes weak substantive similarities in their works and, at times, decidedly divergent aspects of their overall positions. Partly on the basis of the work of these intellectuals, a number of new groups of critics grew that provided one another with a public and a market, as articles comparing these approaches with one another were published. Feminist criticism, hermeneutic and postmodernist theories, psychoanalytic criticism, poststructuralism, semiotics, Marxism, structuralism, and decon-struction created an intellectual subculture in not only literature departments but also other interpretive fields such as communications and anthropology. Like Barthes's, Foucaulťs, Lévi-Strauss's, and Sartre's before his, Derrida's theoretical contribution could help legitimate the transition of "soft" disciplines from being descriptive enterprises to more theoretical ones. The reference to French intellectuals by theory-oriented groups in interpretive disciplines aided the legitimation of different traditions and standards of evaluation. Second, the diffusion of deconstruction was facilitated because literary criticism had become a dominant subfield in language departments since the fifties and the hegemony of literary critics was already established (Alter 1984; Graff and Gibbons 1985). Because of its theoretical nature, literary criticism potentially had a wide audience, in contrast to phonetics, for instance. Third, deconstruction was an answer to a disciplinary crisis. The legitimacy of literature departments had been consistently weakened by the increased pressure for academic research oriented toward social needs. In this context, those departments tended to reaffirm the "distinctive features" on which their prestige was based, that is, high culture; a conversion to instrumental knowledge was excluded by the nature of their intellectual project. Derrida's trademark happened to embody these features and was promoted by elite departments and especially, as noted above, by departments that best embodied those features, such as Yale's. Also, like Foucault or Habermas. Derrida offered American humanists a criticism of science that was much needed to promote their own intellectual products. CONCLUSION This study has been one step in the development of a grounded structural theory of the process of intellectual legitimation of interpretive theories. I _ have sought toidemonstrate that the legitimationjjfa theory depends on both the producer's definition ofjiis own work as importaňVančTífiě institutionalization of its importance by peers and the general intellectual public, as well as.pn„a~J5C6"é.twéen the work and a structured institutional and cuituraljaystem. The legitimation of theories'results more from a complex environmental interplay than from the intrinsic qualities of theo- 614 French Philosopher nes themselves. Theories cannot thus be considered in isolation, even if they are experienced through their own logic and in their own cultural realm by their producers and consumers. In the first section, I suggested that features of Derrida's work contributed to its legitimation in France by (1) meeting existing cultural requirements through a distinctive writing stvle, a strong theoretical trademark, and a focus on questions central to the French intellectual milieu at the end of the sixties, and (2) favoring its diffusion by being ambiguous, adaptable, and packaged as a distinct product. His work was also integrated into an important intellectual tradition and presented a charismatic image of the intellectual. I have tried to argue further that Dernda s work helped its own institutionalization as an important contribution because he himself described it as answering fundamental questions, contributing to the project of important philosophers, and transcending classic philosophical work. I have also proposed that the fit between Derrida's work and upper-middle-class culture, the French political climate of the 1960s, and the disciplinary crisis of philosophy helped the diffusion of deconstruction theory in general. In the second section, I emphasized that Derrida's institutional trajectory meets the institutional requirements of the French intellectual scene as defined bv the trajectory of other intellectuals. I argued that Dernda s access to institutional settings and his participation in the structuralist debate helped in the diffusion of his work and its institutionalization as an important contribution. I contended that Derrida's participation in both Tel Quel and the structuralist debate shows that theoretical agreement is a condition of intellectual collaboration and of diffusion and that the institutional and cultural systems are interrelated, as are intellectual collaboration and institutional support. I contended that cultural capital affects access to institutions and that high-status cultural references are very effective as a basis of legitimation in interpretive disciplines Finally, I arcued that the diffusion of Derrida's work was improved by his ability to capitalize on the structure of the market by addressing his work to already constituted markets rather than to a shrinking philosophy public. In' the third section, I extended the discussion to propose that the legitimation of Derrida's work in the United States proceeded from its adaptability to the institutional and cultural features typical of the American scene, 'that is, its adaptation to intellectual debates and its i-ffuMon bv prestigious scholars and journals. The adaptability of Dernda s work, from beinc a criticism of structuralism for a large French public to one that interests mostly American literary critics, is one of the most important conditions of its success in these two quite distinct and, at times, divergent cultural markets. In order to be defined as important, theones have to be reframed so that they become understandable and relevant for 615 American Journal of Sociology new audiences. The importance of this fit is clearly demonstrated by the lesser success of Derrida in the field of American philosophy. As with the diffusion of Derrida's work in France, the fit between the author's body of work and the structural characteristics of, the American market were important, especially given the disciplinary crisis of literary criticism and the concurrent importation of Derrida's work and that of other French intellectuals in the mid-1970s. There are important differences in the conditions of legitimation of Derrida's work in France and the United States, as the segmentation of the two intellectual markets differs considerably: in the United States, professional journals and institutions have an important influence on legitimation, "while" cultural journals have a minor role. In France, cul-turaTjournals cater to an important and influential public and further äTfecTTfiTTegitimation of theories by controlling access to the market. Professional journals appear to be less influential than in the United States. However, it is important to note that the processes of legitimation of Derrida's work in France and the United States also have several common features, which might indicate the necessary conditions for intellectual legitimation in general. In both cases, institutional supports and intellectual collaborators were the~sine "qua £*on for intellectual legitimation, as is the fundamental fit between the work and its intellectual and cultural contexts. More studies are needed in order to evaluate to what degree the process of legitimation of Derrida's work is unique and how it differs from other cases. A few similarities and differences between Derrida and other French philosophers might be pointed out here. On the one hand. Derrida's case seems to be exceptional in terms of the strength and intensity of his institutional support in one discipline in the United States, especially given the weakness of his support in other disciplines. This is confirmed by data on the diffusion of Barthes's and Foucaulťs work. Also, in contrast to Foucaulťs, Derrida's French and American publics seem to be more highly differentiated. On the other hand, Derrida's work resembles other imported French interpretive works in several respects. Most of these are sophisticated cultural goods that might be used to increase the legitimacy of theoretically oriented scholars in the United States, and, in France, they can be displayed as high-status cultural goods by the upper-middle class. French intellectuals generally project an inspiring and often charismatic image of intellectual life (e.g.. Culler 1983). Also, they ha*'e access to cultural magazines, participate in public debate, and locate their work at the juncture of several already constituted markets. The similarities and differences among French intellectuals and between the legitimation processes of Derrida's work in France and the 616 French Philosopher United States suggest directions for future systematic studies of the process of intellectual legitimation of interpretive theories and for distinguishing between necessary and peripheral conditions to intellectual legitimation. Sociologists should also explore whether the smaller institutional resources available in interpretive disciplines affect normative control and consequently the degree of stability and structuration of the legitimation process in interpretive disciplines. Future studies would also do well to contrast the forms of cultural capital that are most influential in facilitating access to resources in interpretive and empirical disciplines. APPENDIX: LIST OF SECONDARY SOURCES Bibliographic Catalogue des publications périodiques universitäres de langue francaise (1969-77). French XX Bibliography (1968-77). Index Translation (1968-75). Repertoire bibliographique de la philosophic (1971-75). On Teaching and Research Institutes Centre national de recherche scientifique. Annuaire des sciences de ľhomme (1979). Centre national de recherche scientifique. Rapport national de conjuncture (1963-64). Direction generale de la recherche scientifique et technique. Repertoire national des laboratoires (t. 3, 1974). Ministěre de ľeducation nationale. Annuaire de ľeducation nationale (1970). Ministěre de ľeducation nationale. Rapport de {'aggregation de philosophic (1958-78). Ministěre de ľeducation nationale. Rapport du C.A.P.E.S. de philosophic (1958-78). On the Institutional and Intellectual Trajectories of Philosophers Association amicale des anciens élěves de ľécole normale supérieure. Annuaire (1979). Cercle de la librarie. Guide des prix littéraires (1965-71). Current Biography (1979). Fondation nationale de science politique. Annuaire des anciens de science politique (1979). Literary and Library Prizes (1972-78). Who's Who in France (1979). 617