Luke,

First of all, you are citing irrelevant sources.  D'Souza's book is not only wrong about almost everything and a completely shallow, simplistic, and uninformed reading of what it does attempt to discuss, it is not even speaking about Derrida's writing in the section you cite. It is speaking about the work of an American feminist who happens to be a one-time acquaintance of mine, Alice Jardine (with whom, incidentally, I actually disagree about many things).

Also, you are wrong about Derrida. The structure, coherence, meaning, and clarity you speak of are imposed both externally *and* internally.  He says this explicitly, over and over again.

He also says, and demonstrates all the time, that his work is not a "rejection" of any of these things. I've read just about everything ever published by him and some things not yet published, and worked with him on writing of my own, and he is very insistent and consistent on this point. He certainly interrogates concepts and unities such as the ones you cite, but never does he reject them in any way.  You are simply either misinformed or you are speaking about texts you haven't read.

There is no "rejection of absolutes" anywhere in Derrida's work.  Find me some.  Cite a specific passage from a specific text where he actually "rejects absolutes."  Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about and not just miming D'Souza's irrelevant nonsense.

Otherwise, I remain highly skeptical that you know anything about the actual texts you are supposedly discussing.

In favor of informed discussion,

--John

PS:  Derrida is easy to read for me.  He makes arguments, reads texts closely, cites specific language, and offers debates.  Daniel is just incoherent silliness.

PPS:  It really helps, when reading Derrida, if you've bothered to read the texts he is discussing.  Otherwise, I'm afraid you will be in over your head.  Such is not the case with Daniel.