I haven't read much Derrida to be honest, but let me try to mount a defense of postmodern thought in general.
I think the case against pomo and its proponents too often relies on 'extreme adherents' types of examples, flattening out the argument to the level of 'postmodernists don't believe in reality', which obviously does it a lot of disservice. in fact, let's note right up front that I believe the French system of Intellectual Celebrity has caused what I consider 'the French strain' or the 'post-Marxist strain' (see below) of postmodernism to be taken as the end all and be all of pomo thought. I don't know about you all, but I also regard American neo-pragmatist types like Richard Rorty as quintessentially postmodernist, a kind of sunny American postmodernism that I happily identify as the quintessential contemporary American worldview. um, or at least MY American worldview.
but anyway, let's stick with the French for now and take Lyotard's seminal definition of postmodernism (No More Grand Narratives) as a starting place, I do - it doesn't claim that superstition is always and everywhere equal to science so much as it puts them on the same playing field, it recognizes science and superstition as playing by the same rules, e.g. language. different Language Games, each with their own internal rules (science, economics, aesthetics, justice, &c), attempt to offer the best explanation of any given situation, and you kind of do your own refereeing and figure out which game (or, in practice, usually a combination of games) most usefully represents the reality of that situation as best you understand it. no Reasonable Person would deny that Science is hugely important and powerful system/Game, but it's NOT a complete description of the world - I think we'd all agree that there are cases where scientific perspectives on problems miss out on important, even crucial, aspects that are revealed by examining other perspectives.
and while an analysis of language alone won't get you very far in life, it's obviously very useful in all sorts of situations to deconstruct the information you're getting (wherever it's from) and understand where it comes from, what it's trying to do. we do this All The Time, of course - pomo didn't invent being a reasonable person, but it kind of invented being a reasonable philosopher. postmodernism to me (and to Lyotard, as far as I understand him) isn't so much a triumphal nihilism effacing Real Meaning from our language as a flexible and valuable bulwark against uncritical acceptance of any overarching explanation for Life/Universe/Everything.
which is in fact the reason why I DO feel that postmodernism is inimical to The Left in the Best Possible Way, if you understand The Left as basically Marxism, the quintessential MODERNIST political philosophy that offers the largest Grand Narrative ever conceived: a worldview in which the entire world is divided into two economic classes and you guide your actions by always siding with the Right side, uh, rather, the Left side, which is to say the Proletariat. Armed Lib's instinct on pomo ('in the service of tyranny') reveals him, to no surprise at all, to be a good old lefty at heart - back in the '80s, the old Marxist guard totally freaked out about postmodernism because it was a stake in the heart of traditional Communist/Marxist ideology - in fact, these early Marxist critiques of postmodernism frequently described postmodernism as NEOCONSERVATIVE.
the comment by 'Annoying Old Guy', above, totally nails this - I feel like the particular brand of Popular Postmodernism that draws so much ire from reasonable folks like Joe "Screw Him" Katzman is not 'Real Postmodernism' but basically Post-Marxism in disguise, a doctrinaire Left on its last legs that is using the rhetoric of postmodernism to dress up old-fashioned Marxism, substituting Oppressed Narratives for The Oppressed but basically still manifesting the same reflexive, ideological opposition to Power (formerly The Bougeoise). French intellectuals like Derrida and Foucault grew up Marxists and acted as such in their political life, but I think that the core of their ideas is quite subversive to their politics. what do you expect, they're philosophers, they don't know shit about politics!
which brings me, finally, to the invaluable role postmodernism has played in my own transition to 'the service of tyranny', by which I mean an acceptance of a lot of 'neoconservative' ideas and support for the war in Iraq and, increasingly, a likely vote for Bush (thanks Joe!) that would've been unthinkable to the post-Marxist Nader voter I was in 2000. a real, constructive engagement with postmodernism led me out of the woods of woolly old Leftism by encouraging me to seriously read some Serious Conservative Thinkers (Carl Schmitt, anti-hero of the pomo left, among others) - relativism begins at home, right? - as well as to thoroughly deconstruct all the old Marxist frameworks I had busily, thoughtlessly built up through my first couple years of college.
I believe that a postmodern perspective is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of World Government (e.g. giving the Security Council or foreign public opinion a veto on US foreign policy) as well as the Westphalian fiction (represented by the UN) that imagines that all the entities we call 'states' are equally legitimate and sovereign. in practice they are certainly not all equally sovereign (see: sanctions, no-fly zones, &c), and according to my oft-used Basic Fucking Morality language game, some 'states' are definitely Pretty Fucking Illegitimate to say the least. and, from my postmodern perspective that, as much as it 'values' anything, highly values freedom of thought and free information, a totalitarian police state like Saddam's is just about the closest you get to Objectively Evil. not that I believe we should topple all Evil Totalitarians, natch - that would be another Grand Narrative - but in this situation, considering our specific history and Saddam's specific history, considering the nature of his regime and the region, AND after consulting my Deterrence language game module, I thought it was correct to confront Saddam and then remove him from power when he challenged us.
who knows if I'll support the next Grand Distraction from the War on Terror, of course - the great thing about postmodernism is that you just kind of make it up as you go along, acquiring new Games along the way and plugging them in as needed. of course, if I keep my wits about me (definitely an open question at this point and with my lifestyle), as I play these Games again and again under different conditions I expect I'll develop something resembling a basic, relatively consistent understanding of The World, my own John Atkinson Grand Narrative. but I'm in no rush, especially at a time when so much is already changing and so much (politically, technologically, and otherwise) will change in the years to come.
this isn't rocket science, obviously, this is just a description of being a reasonable person in a crazy and to some degree unknowable world and going about it in a self-conscious way, AND it's a description of Postmodernism in Action. what's wrong with that?
I haven't read much Derrida to be honest, but let me try to mount a defense of postmodern thought in general.
I think the case against pomo and its proponents too often relies on 'extreme adherents' types of examples, flattening out the argument to the level of 'postmodernists don't believe in reality', which obviously does it a lot of disservice. in fact, let's note right up front that I believe the French system of Intellectual Celebrity has caused what I consider 'the French strain' or the 'post-Marxist strain' (see below) of postmodernism to be taken as the end all and be all of pomo thought. I don't know about you all, but I also regard American neo-pragmatist types like Richard Rorty as quintessentially postmodernist, a kind of sunny American postmodernism that I happily identify as the quintessential contemporary American worldview. um, or at least MY American worldview.
but anyway, let's stick with the French for now and take Lyotard's seminal definition of postmodernism (No More Grand Narratives) as a starting place, I do - it doesn't claim that superstition is always and everywhere equal to science so much as it puts them on the same playing field, it recognizes science and superstition as playing by the same rules, e.g. language. different Language Games, each with their own internal rules (science, economics, aesthetics, justice, &c), attempt to offer the best explanation of any given situation, and you kind of do your own refereeing and figure out which game (or, in practice, usually a combination of games) most usefully represents the reality of that situation as best you understand it. no Reasonable Person would deny that Science is hugely important and powerful system/Game, but it's NOT a complete description of the world - I think we'd all agree that there are cases where scientific perspectives on problems miss out on important, even crucial, aspects that are revealed by examining other perspectives.
and while an analysis of language alone won't get you very far in life, it's obviously very useful in all sorts of situations to deconstruct the information you're getting (wherever it's from) and understand where it comes from, what it's trying to do. we do this All The Time, of course - pomo didn't invent being a reasonable person, but it kind of invented being a reasonable philosopher. postmodernism to me (and to Lyotard, as far as I understand him) isn't so much a triumphal nihilism effacing Real Meaning from our language as a flexible and valuable bulwark against uncritical acceptance of any overarching explanation for Life/Universe/Everything.
which is in fact the reason why I DO feel that postmodernism is inimical to The Left in the Best Possible Way, if you understand The Left as basically Marxism, the quintessential MODERNIST political philosophy that offers the largest Grand Narrative ever conceived: a worldview in which the entire world is divided into two economic classes and you guide your actions by always siding with the Right side, uh, rather, the Left side, which is to say the Proletariat. Armed Lib's instinct on pomo ('in the service of tyranny') reveals him, to no surprise at all, to be a good old lefty at heart - back in the '80s, the old Marxist guard totally freaked out about postmodernism because it was a stake in the heart of traditional Communist/Marxist ideology - in fact, these early Marxist critiques of postmodernism frequently described postmodernism as NEOCONSERVATIVE.
the comment by 'Annoying Old Guy', above, totally nails this - I feel like the particular brand of Popular Postmodernism that draws so much ire from reasonable folks like Joe "Screw Him" Katzman is not 'Real Postmodernism' but basically Post-Marxism in disguise, a doctrinaire Left on its last legs that is using the rhetoric of postmodernism to dress up old-fashioned Marxism, substituting Oppressed Narratives for The Oppressed but basically still manifesting the same reflexive, ideological opposition to Power (formerly The Bougeoise). French intellectuals like Derrida and Foucault grew up Marxists and acted as such in their political life, but I think that the core of their ideas is quite subversive to their politics. what do you expect, they're philosophers, they don't know shit about politics!
which brings me, finally, to the invaluable role postmodernism has played in my own transition to 'the service of tyranny', by which I mean an acceptance of a lot of 'neoconservative' ideas and support for the war in Iraq and, increasingly, a likely vote for Bush (thanks Joe!) that would've been unthinkable to the post-Marxist Nader voter I was in 2000. a real, constructive engagement with postmodernism led me out of the woods of woolly old Leftism by encouraging me to seriously read some Serious Conservative Thinkers (Carl Schmitt, anti-hero of the pomo left, among others) - relativism begins at home, right? - as well as to thoroughly deconstruct all the old Marxist frameworks I had busily, thoughtlessly built up through my first couple years of college.
I believe that a postmodern perspective is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of World Government (e.g. giving the Security Council or foreign public opinion a veto on US foreign policy) as well as the Westphalian fiction (represented by the UN) that imagines that all the entities we call 'states' are equally legitimate and sovereign. in practice they are certainly not all equally sovereign (see: sanctions, no-fly zones, &c), and according to my oft-used Basic Fucking Morality language game, some 'states' are definitely Pretty Fucking Illegitimate to say the least. and, from my postmodern perspective that, as much as it 'values' anything, highly values freedom of thought and free information, a totalitarian police state like Saddam's is just about the closest you get to Objectively Evil. not that I believe we should topple all Evil Totalitarians, natch - that would be another Grand Narrative - but in this situation, considering our specific history and Saddam's specific history, considering the nature of his regime and the region, AND after consulting my Deterrence language game module, I thought it was correct to confront Saddam and then remove him from power when he challenged us.
who knows if I'll support the next Grand Distraction from the War on Terror, of course - the great thing about postmodernism is that you just kind of make it up as you go along, acquiring new Games along the way and plugging them in as needed. of course, if I keep my wits about me (definitely an open question at this point and with my lifestyle), as I play these Games again and again under different conditions I expect I'll develop something resembling a basic, relatively consistent understanding of The World, my own John Atkinson Grand Narrative. but I'm in no rush, especially at a time when so much is already changing and so much (politically, technologically, and otherwise) will change in the years to come.
this isn't rocket science, obviously, this is just a description of being a reasonable person in a crazy and to some degree unknowable world and going about it in a self-conscious way, AND it's a description of Postmodernism in Action. what's wrong with that?