Few of De Man’s articles appeared inrnprestigious refereed journals. Of the essaysrnin Blindness and Insight, one appearedrnin Modem Language Notes. Thernrest appeared first in Festschriften, specialrnissues of journals, unrefereed journals, orrnin the Acta of conferences. One piece ofrnthe newly reprinted Critical Writings appearedrnfirst in Comparative Literature;rnthe rest in foreign reviews, literary journals,rnor the hlew York Review of Books. Arngood scholar will appear in such places,rnof course, but he will also appear in refereedrnjournals and presses. None of DernMan’s articles concerned the kind of historicalrnand textual questions for whichrnadequate standards have been developedrnover the years, hlis style is a mush of obfuscatingrnjargon, about which his disciplesrnboasted. (Attempting to show the influencernof Sartre on De Man, StanleyrnCorngold wrote in 1982, “Here is Sartre’srndeliberate antibourgeois refusal to writernwell. . . that has proved congenial to DernMan.”) If Yale was not only tenuring andrnpromoting De Man, but giving him itsrnmost prestigious chair of the humanities,rnit was for reasons other than publication.rnWas it because of cr)’pto-Nazism in literaryrnacademia, as Jon Wiener hinted?rnOn the surface the idea is not absurd.rnLiberalism, communism, and fascismrnare all revolutionary movements that developedrnout of opposition to traditionalrnEuropean values and norms. They arernnot the same, but they share many ideasrnand instincts. An intelligent Nazi wouldrnnot easily give himself away in an Americanrnuniversit}’, any more than smart communistsrnbetrayed themselves in the StaternDepartment of the 40’s. J. Hillis Millerrnclaims that Dcconstruction helps to underminern”totalizing and totalitarianrnthinking.” Gerald Graff tells us thatrnMarxist New Historicists and feministsrnhave seized upon Dcconstruction as anrnessential tool in their attack on America.rnMiller cites no evidence to support hisrnclaim, while Graffs statement is easy tornconfirm. The fact that Marxists use arnmethod docs not of itself prove that tiiernmethod is totalitarian. If, however, wernthen discover that one of the founders ofrnthis method was in his youth a Nazi, canrnwe honestly act surprised?rnWhat about De Man’s antisemiticrnarticle? This is what Jacques Derridarncalled the “open wound.” J. Hillis Millerrntells us that the article is a defense of Jewsrnand literary modernism against “vidgarrnanti-Semitism.” Then one reads the article.rn”Vulgar anti-Semites” think thatrnJews are intelligent and aggressive andrnrun modern culture. De Man tliinks, aurncontraire, that Jews are second-rate asrnthinkers and mediocre as writers. If theyrnwere all shipped off to Madagascar, Europernwould lose some mediocre talents.rnIn his later academic life, De Man’s colleaguesrnincluded Geoffrey Hartman,rnHarold Bloom, and Jacques Derrida.rnDid their thinking and writing give himrncause to change his mind? We havernmany statements that he did not gornaround Yale making openly antisemiticrnremarks. In other words, he was not stupid,rnwhich no one accuses him of being.rnThe issue is, did he ever change his mindrnfrom his clearly expressed opinion ofrn1941, that shipping, for example. Hartman,rnBloom, and Derrida off to “a Jewishrncolony isolated from Europe would notrninvolve, for the literar)’ life of the West,rndeplorable consequences”?rnIt is clear from a reading of the essaysrnon De Man that the only aspect of DernMan’s past that bothers most theorists isrnhis contempt for Jews. There is not a singlernattack on De Man because he was arnQuisling, because he betrayed his countr}’rnfor an ideolog)’. The normal, healthyrnperson loves his country as he loves hisrnfamily, not because they fit into a theor’,rnbut because they are his. If your son failsrnan examination or your country loses arnbattle to Germany, you do not abandonrnhim or repudiate it. Tliat is what StephenrnDecatur meant when he made his famousrntoast: Our countr)’, right or wrong.rnMost Americans know this instinctively,rnjust as they know what kind of manrndeserts his wife and children or flattersrnbrutal dictators for self-advancement.rnWe begin to understand De Man’s obsessionrnwith Rousseau, to whom he attributesrnhis own views. They were the samernkind of person, although even Rousseaurnnever managed to achieve De Man’srntriple of Quisling, bankrupt, and deserterrnof his family.rnTotalitarianism has lost, when it hasrnlost, because of the existence of thernUnited States of America. The Americanrnway of life represented in the 40’s, as itrnstill does, a profound commibnent to therntraditions —political, ethical, and religiousrn—that have developed out of ancientrnGreece, Rome, and Israel; traditionsrnthat helped form Europe. It standsrnas the great alternative to the deracinatedrnideologies that almost destroyed Europernduring World War II. These Europeanrntraditions survive in many ways, in memory’rnand in practice, but one of the mostrnimportant ways they survive is in books.rn. . . Within English literature, from thernpoet of Beowulf to Walker Percy, theserntraditions are presupposed and represented.rnThey live there, among other places.rnIf young people read these great works,rnthese traditions will seize on their mindsrnas they have on so many other generations.rnThe genius of Dcconstruction is that itrnallows the teacher, the transmitter of societ)”’rns values, to concentrate on what is notrntalked about. Is Pamela frigid? Is Jim inrnlove with Huck Finn? Wliy are the worksrnof the canon permeated with Platonism,rnor Christianity, or patriarchy? What isrnthe feminist perspective on Shakespeare?rn. . . 1 he teacher may spend class time,rnand the student may pass hours writingrnpapers, exorcising these demons. In onernessay, De Man showed that Derrida falselyrnattributed to Rousseau a simplisticrnview of progress that was clearly and explicitlyrnrejected in Rousseau’s text. Itrndoes not matter, though, De Man tells us.rnDerrida’s attitude is still the right one.rnThe critic’s blindness, what we lesserrnbreeds without the Law call his blunders,rnare essential to his genius. The point isrnnot to enter into a sympathetic relationshiprnwith the author. That implies a falsernmetaphysic of presence. The truest criticismrnis to interrupt the Great Gonversationrnwith our own concerns and to shoutrndown, or deny tenure to, the reader,rnphilologist, or historian who would letrnthe authors speak for themselves. . . .rnThe dream of the literary theorist is thernfinal solution to our country’s historyrn(which is only “a written text,” accordingrnto De Man) and literature and culturernand religion. It is the way for us to freernthe world from “totalizing thinking,”rnfrom learning from literature how tornmake sense of our own lives and our culture,rnfrom the delusion that wise menrnhave distilled their wisdom for us in thernhoney of words.rnThe irony of human life lies hidden inrndie mystery that in order to reach out tornspeak to or to understand someone else,rnwe have to be firmly rooted in family, inrnnation, in religion, in culture. Withoutrnthat there is no creativity and no comprehension,rnno art and no criticism. “Yournmust not think that living according tornyour country’s way of life is slaver)’,” saysrnAristotie; “it is the way home.” By betrayingrnhome and fannly Paid de Man cutrnhimself off from ever understanding greatrnliterature. crn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn