I think this is an interesting question, much more complex than it may appear. The first myth to be abandoned, I think, is the idea that we live in a cynical era where nobody believes no values and so on, and that there were some times, more traditional, where people still believed, relied of some sort of substantial notion of belief, and so on and so on. I think it’s today that we believe more than ever, and, as fuller develops it in a nice, ironic way, the ultimate form of belief for him is deconstructionism. Why? Again, I’m going back to that question of, quote, Marx, no? Look how it functions, deconstructionism, in its standard version, already at the texture of style. You cannot find one text of Derrida without (A) all of the quotation marks,and (B), all of this rhetorical distanciations. Like… I don’t know.
To take an ironic example, if somebody like Judith Butler were to be asked: “What is this?” she would never have said, “This is a bottle of tea.” She would have said something like: if we accept the metaphysical notion of language, identifying clearly objects, and taking all this into account then may we not, (she likes to put it in this [rhetorically]), risk! the hypothesis, that in the conditions of our language game - This can be said to be a bottle of tea, so on and so on.
So it’s always this need to distanciate. It goes even for love, like nobody almost dares to say today I love you. It has to be, “as a poet would have put it, ‘I love you,’’’ or some kind of a distance. But what’s the problem here? The problem is that… why this fear? Because I claim that, when the ancients directly said “I love you,” they meant exactly the same. All these distanciations were included. So it’s we today who are afraid that, if we were to put it directly, “I love you,” that it would mean too much. We believe in it.