Spivak, Derrida, and "Anglo-U.S. critics"

Gayatri Spivak is reads certain critics carefully in the following remark in A Critique of Postcolonial Reason:

It is my suspicion that Anglo-U.S. critics such as Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and Frank Lentriccia insist so specifically on the de-centering, and on a narrative of de-centering, because the first and last Derrida they read carefully was "Structure, Sign, and Play" and the first chapter of Of Grammatology, where there is some invocation of "our epoch," meaning, specifically, an "epoch" that privileges language and thinks in structures.

-Critique of Postcolonial Reason, "Culture," 322

Spivak is no doubt referring to the opening of those essays, which state the following:

Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an "event," if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural--or structuralist--thought to reduce or suspect.

-"Structure, Sign and Play," in Writing and Difference, 278

Nevertheless, it is a peculiarity of our epoch that, at the moment when the phoneticization of writing--the historical origin and structural possibility of philosophy as of science, the condition of the epistémè--begins to lay hold on world culture, science, in its advancements, can no longer be satisfied with it. This inadequation had always already begin to make its presence feld. But today something lets it appear as such, allows it a kind of takeover without being able to translate this novelty into clear cut notions of mutation, explicitation, accumulation, revolution, or tradition. These values belong no doubt to the system whose dislocation is today presented as such, they describe the styles of an historical movement which was meaningful--like the concept of history itself--only within a logocentric epoch.

-Of Grammatology, "Exergue," 4

Spivak's comment can now be seen to be an extremely exact distillation of both of these passages. Her claim is that the focus on these texts seem to make Anglo-U.S. critics insist on "de-centering." Why they would do this is because of the "our epoch" or the "something has occurred." What is her logic? We'll get back to this tomorrow sometime.