Here. It’s more of a review of Kevin Hart’s work on Marion than the actual book under discussion–a lovely trick. The conclusion is particularly condescending, especially since, as I know well from having attended graduate school with her, Gschwandtner is not some postmodernist, as he suggests, and her knowledge of the history of phenomenology, I’m sure, outranks the reviewer, whose work on Derrida I’m much more familiar with (and which Martin Hägglund spent much time dismantling in Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life):
One would not read Degrees of Givenness in order to grasp the depths or the nuances of Marion’s creative uses of Husserl and Heidegger: Gschwandtner does not present herself as a historian of phenomenology or seek to evaluate Marion’s contributions to theory of reduction, modes of being, or the extent of phenomenality, for example. Her Marion is a contemporary, someone who has surprised many folk in European philosophy by suddenly [really? Marion is the only one?] insisting on the primacy of Gegebenheit [givenness] and seeming to insist too heavily on it. I do not doubt that there are significant moments in Marion’s work where his drive to present his view of things in a single-minded manner results in a blurring of what gives itself and what shows itself or that at times he is drawn to use a language marked by violence, and Gschwandtner is quite right to express perplexity when she encounters these moments. Perhaps, though, we are in need of another book, one entitled Degrees of Givenness and Showing.