Book Description: Cult of the Kill

As a thorough introduction to the complex landscape of postmodern language theory, Cult of the Kill examines the latent violence inherent in language as a tool for community formation and deformation. Each chapter examines different ways in which key postmodern thinkers contribute to an understanding of the metaphysical underpinnings of radical conflict and exclusionary scapegoating practices.

The ominous title borrows a phrase made famous by American cultural critic and language theorist Kenneth Burke. Burke claims that within its many resources language introduces one in particular—the negative—that inclines humans toward modes of evaluation and discrimination that present many inducements toward what Burke calls “congregation by segregation.”

Through seductive opportunities for reductionistic varieties of “sacrificial” negation, language advances a fixation on purification with predictable cycles of ritualistic scapegoating violence (both real and symbolic). These cycles of violence permeate individual, social, and cultural levels and, according to Burke, may be justly said to constitute a culture as a “cult of the kill.”

The introduction orients the reader toward metaphysical tensions embedded within the structural layers of language that have likely figured in crucial ways in the 20th Century’s “cult of the kill” history. It explores the question: To what extent may a less violent future lie in the possibility of a metaphysical choice that departs from the tradition of the use of the negative that Burke identifies? This question bears importantly on the questions raised in each of the chapters. These questions explore in parallel fashion the apparent controversy between Enlightenment based forms of humanism and rationalism and postmodern trends toward rhetorical and cultural relativism.

The book will appeal to readers with interests across subjects such as American and Continental language philosophy, critical theory, literary theory, rhetorical theory, postmodernism, deconstruction, and conflict theory as these relate to the potential for violence as well as the potential for community. Because it does not assume considerable depth in background reading, the book is also a good introduction to the featured work of Friedrich Nietzsche, Kenneth Burke, Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, and John Macksoud as well as the interpretive approaches of dramatism, deconstruction, and hermeneutics. Since the book addresses many of the major criticisms of deconstruction, it also serves well as a primer for the pros and cons of a postmodern view of language.

Chapter One: To what extent can the roots of deadly violence be traced to different approaches toward critical and evaluative judgment and corresponding competing models of drama and conflict in life?

Chapter Two: To what extent can language be relied upon as a means of communication and is communication the best model for understanding the fundamental function of language?

Chapter Three: Martin Heidegger is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. He was also a member of the Nazi Party and never fully renounced affiliation with a form of National Socialism. In relation to his philosophy, does that affiliation constitute something that should be regarded as superficial and ultimately of marginal concern or does it reflect something deeply significant and troubling at the core of Heidegger’s thinking?

Chapter Four: Is the product (knowledge) of the science of inquiry, in any field of investigation, relative to and in some important way contingent upon human design and construction (whether conscious or unconscious). If yes, what may be the consequences for the quality of inquiry and human community?

Chapter Five: What do contemporary insights of postmodern theory tell us about the nature of language and about the meaning of and the possibility for truth?

Appendix C: What ethical considerations guide, or ought to guide, evaluative and interpretive judgment and how should these imperatives be observed in communication, community, and collective judgment?

1) the Sokal Hoax controversy of 1996, presenting a challenging critique of Sokal’s position from a perspective grounded in Sokal’s own field—physics (Chapter Four)
2) the question of Heidegger’s Nazi affliliation and its significance for assessing the import and value of his philosophy for future generations (Chapter Three)
3) the question of Paul de Man’s ties to a pro-Nazi newspaper and his possible anti-Semitism (Appendix C)
4) the controversies surrounding Derrida’s “defenses” of Heidegger and de Man (Appendices B and C)
5) the question of Kenneth Burke’s status as a modern or postmodern language philosopher (Appendix A).

Excerpt from "Arguing Violence: The Theory and Politics of Truth," (for the full review see: Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 40, 2004):

Desilet's Cult of the Kill does not appear to be a book about violence in the most common senses of physical aggression, bloodshed, and brutality, at least not at first glance.... A careful reading, however, reveals Desilet's understanding of the complex theoretical... web of metaphysics that makes violent practice thinkable in the first place....While offering an interesting account of a theoretical egress from the prison of traditional metaphysics, the most significant insight of this book lies in its challenge to the metaphysical underpinnings of genocide.... The initial justification for such violence, accomplished philosophically long before the need for an ethical response to the event, begins with the certainty of an objective truth that is then used to justify a genocidal impulse. With this observation, Desilet puts us on the path to an unraveling of the metaphysical basis for at least the extreme instances of violence witnessed in Nazi Germany and under other totalitarian regimes. An internalized commitment to undecidability would short-circuit the violent truth claims necessary for the realization of genocide before they ever achieved the electrifying persuasiveness of "objectivity."... In the end, Desilet provides the theoretical insight needed to recognize the fundamentally metaphysical basis for violence in the contemporary world.

Regarding themes of difference and hierarchy discussed in Chapter Two: “Desilet's reading rightly interprets and presents in a context adequate to its importance what some have misunderstood, namely, that deconstruction, does not presuppose 'difference without hierarchy' in social organization or elsewhere.... Though it can be said that irreducible difference does not imply natural or absolute solidity of hierarchies of difference, it also does not imply an absence of hierarchy. Hierarchy is inevitable—in human society as well as conceptual schemes... Instead, deconstruction, as a mode of intervention and internal critique, destabilizes established hierarchies."

Jacques Derrida
Professor of Philosophy
Late Directeur d' Études at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris

"The title of Desilet's book does not arrive ex nihilo. It is the age of 'cult of the kill'.... and he does not leave the reader to consider the 'cult of the kill' dispassionately as if it were strictly at the level of being and becoming, essence and existence... instead he conveys a powerful sense of the drama, conflict, and consequences at stake within metaphysics and our implicit understandings of language.... Chapter Three is extraordinary in its use of Burke and Heidegger to illuminate each other as well as the profoundly troubling issue of Heidegger's Nazi association. The conclusions formed, though admittedly not final (is there ever closure?), are hard but fair."

W. B. Macomber,
Professor Emeritus, Philosophy
University of California
Author of The Anatomy of Disillusion: Martin Heidegger’s Notion of Truth

"A great collection of essays! The sections on Derrida are very helpful in explaining the postmodern turn in the context of rhetoric and communication studies. The book will be good to have as an additional resource for classes on rhetorical theory and postmodern theory.... I'm especially glad to see the chapter on John Macksoud whose work deserves attention and whose ideas about language are given clear treatment in a lengthy and useful comparison with Derrida's writings."

Craig R. Smith,
Former Professor of Communication Studies at California State University at Long Beach
Current Chair of Film and Electronic Arts at CSULB
Director for the Center for First Amendment Studies
Member of the National Advisory Council of the Media Institute

"Desilet has made an important advance in rhetorical theory. In this work he explores the dark side of community formation and group cohesion. The book is brilliant, fluent, and provocative."

Andrew King
Professor of Communication
University of Louisiana
Past President of The Kenneth Burke Society

"In Cult of the Kill Desilet not only offers a very insightful exploration of the work of key thinkers like Burke, Derrida, Heidegger, and Macksoud but also manages to synthesize these works in a very original way by addressing the themes of scapegoating and violence. Desilet's work is postmodern thought at its best as it examines our conceptual limitations while never falling into nihilism or despair. It is a must read for those interested in the intersection of rhetoric, postmodern theory, and hermeneutics.

Chapter Two is an "exceptionally useful and substantive contribution to the field in its synthesis of the ideas of Heidegger and Derrida and in the important distinction it makes between rhetoric and communication and the way in which that distinction must be conceptualized."

Martha Watson,
Sanford Berman Professor of Communication
Dean of the Greenspun College of Urban Affairs
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

In Chapter One "the argument is swift, accurate, and powerful in its restraint. Burke's work is examined and augmented in a thoroughly responsible manner and the extension into the critical philosophies of Deleuze and Derrida is admirable as well.... Some may find a quotation here or there in Burke or Nietzsche to qualify this reading, but none can deny its powerful and highly intelligent challenge to those who take either writer for granted."

Chapter Four is "a terrific piece of work... stimulating and provocative.... readers will be tremendously impressed by the clarity with which the congruencies between physics and language theory are explained, from the Renaissance through the postmodern period.... This essay is wide-ranging and well-written and is a joy to read... especially in the way the discussion moves back and forth smoothly from its interpretive history of developments in physics to major shifts in the understanding of language in society."

Chapter One addresses issues of identification, victimage, and scapegoating at stake in the tension between the traditional and the postmodern by contrasting the “dramatistic” perspectives toward language offered by Friedrich Nietzsche and Kenneth Burke. Both have been regarded as precursors to postmodern approaches, but Nietzsche is argued to be much more thoroughly and consistently a precursor than Burke. These theorists find common ground in a similar understanding of the hortatory and suasive nature of language-using. But this similarity gives rise to a measure of dissonance when weighed against the radically differing emphasis each places on the negative—Burke featuring a “sacrificial” and traditionally dialectical use of the negative and Nietzsche featuring a “discriminative” and postmodernly nondialectical use of the negative. These differences toward the fundamental role of the negative allow a distinction between two genres of dramatism. By way of illustration, important consequences of the distinction are identified in tragic drama and these consequences are presented as symptomatic of broader contrasting orientations toward symbolic activity in general.

Chapter Two
Heidegger and Derrida: The Conflict Between Hermeneutics and Deconstruction in the Context of Rhetorical and Communication Theory

Having drawn lines and established the stakes in Chapter One, Chapter Two pursues the metaphysical contrast apparent in the views of Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida, arguing that, contrary to appearances, Heidegger also falls short of developing a thoroughly postmodern philosophy of language. Derrida’s deconstructive approach exposes the sense in which hermeneutic strategies fall prey to the “metaphysical exigency”—a subtle choice privileging one side of an oppositional pair functioning elementally in a philosophical position. The roots of this choice come most fully to light in the confrontation between two issues crucial to an understanding of the relationship between language, rhetoric, and communication: intersubjectivity and disclosure of being. The confrontation between deconstruction and hermeneutics on these issues brings into question two relevant concerns: the possibility for communication and the value of communication. This questioning inaugurates a rethinking of the role of communication and creates a context for understanding the benefits of a thoroughly rhetorical understanding of language-using.

Chapter Three
Burke, Heidegger, Derrida and the Specter of Nazism at the Origin of Rhetoric

Chapter Three then moves the comparison to Burke and Heidegger, demonstrating a similarity in their quasi-postmodern views that is all the more astonishing and illuminating against the stark contrast in their responses to Nazism. As perhaps the most engaging chapter in the book, Chapter Three also demonstrates with considerable detail the manner and degree to which Heidegger’s philosophy remained metaphysically consistent with crucial cathartic and collectivistic aspects of National Socialism throughout his career. This chapter also rounds out the discussion of postmodern themes raised in the first three chapters with a conclusion that ties the Burke/Heidegger comparison to the metaphysical contrast raised in the two preceding chapters. This contrast is drawn out by illustrating the differences between Burke and Heidegger on the question of technology and its significance in relation to rituals of scapegoating and associated metaphysical promptings for purification and cathartic renewal.

Chapter Four
Physics and Language—Science and Rhetoric: Reviewing the Parallel Evolution of Theory on Motion and Meaning in the Aftermath of the Sokal Hoax

Chapter Four shifts the focus more directly to language and rhetorical theory, venturing into a limited discussion of the historical development of postmodernism and the relevance of its scientific roots in relation to some of its most contentious and vehement criticisms—including the Sokal hoax of 1996 and the Searle/Derrida exchange of 1977. Alan Sokal’s concern about a decline in intellectual standards includes an indictment of what he calls current “subjectivist” trends accompanying a general erosion of “objectivity” stemming from postmodern views such as deconstruction. This erosion is identified most importantly in postmodern claims about the instability of rigorous distinctions between opposites. This study argues that the deconstructive practice of disturbing the status quo between opposites extends as far back as Newton and constitutes one of the central themes of physics since the Enlightenment. Parallel developments in physics and language studies are summarized from Aristotle to Einstein and quantum theory—all in support of the contention that to question postmodern language theory exemplified in deconstruction necessitates questioning also the parallel developments in physics from Newton to the present time. Both physics and language theory make rigorous distinctions between opposites a thing of the past. This circumstance necessitates—contrary to what Sokal argues and consistent with current themes in the rhetoric of science—a construction of reality in language and experience which, like contemporary physics, is not essentially subjectivist, objectivist, or relativist in its philosophical outlook. This outlook may anticipate and ultimately require a radical rethinking of the “being” of all that is examined and investigated—whether texts or elementary particles.

Defending the significance of the postmodern turn in Chapter Four, Chapter Five sets forth, through comparison of the views of Jacques Derrida and John Macksoud, a concise account of the “laws” and parameters of a postmodern and rhetorical understanding of language and interpretation. This view of language emphasizes an inclusive strategy of evaluation and choice. While Macksoud is not well known in or outside the field of rhetoric and communication studies, his writings during the late 1960s and early 1970s emerge as a significant body of work expounding what can now be described as the first coherent postmodern rhetorical theory of language. Although Macksoud’s views are in many respects similar to Derrida’s views on language, Macksoud makes explicit use of expanded notions of rhetoric and persuasion in the process of grounding a theory of language in rhetoric as persuasion. His postmodern account of language progresses inevitably toward a confrontation with the notion of “truth” that presses also toward a rethinking of “truth” just as Chapter Four concludes by pressing toward a rethinking of “being.”

Arguments to the contrary having been addressed in all the preceding chapters, the decisive advantage of postmodern metaphysics—from language theory to human relations—is found to turn upon its inclusive configuring of oppositional relation, which provides new and helpful insight into its radically inclusive and sometimes controversial affirmation of difference.

James W. Chesebro, Phillip K. Tompkins, and George Cheney, among others, have debated the extent to which Kenneth Burke may be characterized as a “postmodern” theorist of language and rhetoric. This appendix offers a brief discussion of Derrida’s deconstructive theme of logocentrism and its relevance to Burke’s views on dramatism and language as these are presented late in his career.

In the same year that Victor Farias published Heidegger and Nazism Derrida published Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question (1987). For many, this temporal context was sufficient to suggest that Derrida’s text constitutes his attempt at a defense of Heidegger’s philosophy in relation to its possible association with Nazism. This appendix argues that Of Spirit is inadequately understood as a “defense of Heidegger” and that instead it should be more narrowly understood as an excavation of the dense, divided, and potentially confusing themes of “spirit” and spirit terminology in Heidegger’s early and later works. Derrida's analysis remains short of, in contrast to Farias’ book, decisive conclusions about the relation of these themes to Heidegger’s National Socialist affiliation. Derrida attempts to chart and explore the crucial points of fissure, rupture, and discontinuity that mark the areas that require close reading. His text ultimately imposes a deferral of immediate judgment in consideration of the need for further investigation of the questions or fissures dividing Heidegger’s philosophy and its possible affinity with historically evident features of National Socialism.

Paul de Man died in 1983. In 1987 it came to public light that he had written approximately 170 articles during WWII for a Belgian collaborationist newpaper. De Man had never spoken publicly about his involvement with this newpaper and many of his followers were shocked. This section discusses Derrida’s response to the revelation about de Man, his reaction to those who viewed him as being unethical in his defense of de Man, and the larger issue of the ethics of “deconstructive reading” and the task of interpretation in general.