Jump to content
kylerbuckner

Difference vs. Otherness

Recommended Posts

Can someone explain this to me? I'm quite confused on how this operates. I've read the transperancy of evil, granted I was very tired when I did, but he's kind of ambiguous on what his understanding of difference is. Is it like hegelian self-other identification, or is it closer to DnG's conceptualization of difference and virtuality. Thanks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe difference is just difference whereas otherness necessitates exclusion?

"These days everything is described in terms of difference, but otherness is not the same thing as difference. One might even say that difference is what destroys otherness. When language is broken down into a set of differences, when meaning is reduced to nothing more than differentiation, the radical otherness of language is abolished. The duel that lies at the heart of language the duel between language and meaning, between language and the person who speaks it - is halted. And everything in language that is irreducible to mediation, articulation or meaning is eliminated - everything, that is, which causes language at its most radical level to be other than the subject (and also Other to the subject?). The existence of this level accounts for the play in language, for its appeal in its materiality, for its susceptibility to chance; and it is what makes language not just a set of trivial differences, as it is in the eyes of structural analysis, but, symbolically speaking, truly a matter of life and death"

 

 

I think it's a bit more complicated. I'm not sure what the implications are, but I know teams read this portion a ton. 

Edited by DonaldTrump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these cards explain it very well

 

the basic point as victoria grace makes it ---

 

When the Other is foreign, strange, ‘other’, for example, within the order of the symbolic in Baudrillard’s critical terms, there is no scale of equivalence or difference against which discrimination can be performed. Encounter and transformation are fully open and reversible, in all forms (including the agonistic encounter of violence and death). Racism becomes possible when ‘the other becomes merely different’ as then the other becomes ‘dangerously similar’. This is the moment, according to Baudrillard, when ‘the inclination to keep the other at a distance comes into being’ (TE: 129). The intolerable introjection of difference in the case of the construction of ‘the subject’ as ‘different’, or traversed by a multiplicity of ‘differences’, means the other must be exorcised: the differences of the other must be made materially manifest

 

racism is a product of difference - when we envelop the radically other into our (national, cultural, racial) fold, they begin to be perceived as encroaching upon 'our way of life' our jobs etc, what trump is all about because they are 'dangerously similar to us'

 

we must make differences materially manifest - lets build a wall

 

baudrillard's alternative is the agonistic clash between races, a kind of leftist assimilation bad argument, it's not racism per se but instead acknowledgement of the other

 

 

 

 

cards.docx

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these cards explain it very well

 

the basic point as victoria grace makes it ---

 

When the Other is foreign, strange, ‘other’, for example, within the order of the symbolic in Baudrillard’s critical terms, there is no scale of equivalence or difference against which discrimination can be performed. Encounter and transformation are fully open and reversible, in all forms (including the agonistic encounter of violence and death). Racism becomes possible when ‘the other becomes merely different’ as then the other becomes ‘dangerously similar’. This is the moment, according to Baudrillard, when ‘the inclination to keep the other at a distance comes into being’ (TE: 129). The intolerable introjection of difference in the case of the construction of ‘the subject’ as ‘different’, or traversed by a multiplicity of ‘differences’, means the other must be exorcised: the differences of the other must be made materially manifest

 

racism is a product of difference - when we envelop the radically other into our (national, cultural, racial) fold, they begin to be perceived as encroaching upon 'our way of life' our jobs etc, what trump is all about because they are 'dangerously similar to us'

 

we must make differences materially manifest - lets build a wall

 

baudrillard's alternative is the agonistic clash between races, a kind of leftist assimilation bad argument, it's not racism per se but instead acknowledgement of the other

could you explain the alterantive a bit more and where he articulates that or cites referencing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could you explain the alterantive a bit more and where he articulates that or cites referencing it?

 

yeah no problem if you're interested in the primary source lit is the melodrama of otherness, originally published in the transparency of evil but like there's IJBS articles about it too, like http://www2.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol3_1/baudrillard2.htm

 

this passage is key

 

The way in which beings and things relate to each other is not a matter of structural difference. The symbolic order implies dual and complex forms that are not dependent on the distinction between ego and other. The Pariah is not the other to the Brahmin: rather, their destinies are different. The two are not differentiated along a single scale of values: rather, they are mutually reinforcing aspects of an immutable order, parts of a reversible cycle like the cycle of day and night. Do we say that the night is the other to the day? No. So why should we say that the masculine is the other to the feminine? For the two are undoubtedly merely reversible moments, like night and day, following upon one other and changing places with one another in an endless process of seduction. One sex is thus never the other for the other sex, except within the context of a differentialistic theory of sexuality – which is basically nothing but a utopia. For difference is itself a utopia: the idea that such pairs of terms can be split up is a dream – and the idea of subsequently reuniting them is another. (This also goes for the distinction between Good and Evil: the notion that they might be separated out from one another is pure fantasy, and it is even more utopian to think in terms of reconciling them.)

 

IE ideas like race and gender are like yin and yang in that they aren't opposites but instead flow into one another

 

AND reconciliation = utopian fantasy that doesn't acknowledge that there are cultural differences that ebb and flow as part of difference

 

For “We respect the fact that you are different” read: “You people who are underdeveloped would do well to hang on to this distinction because it is all you have left.” (The signs of folklore and poverty are excellent markers of difference.) Nothing could be more contemptuous – or more contemptible – than this attitude, which exemplifies the most radical form of incomprehension that exists.

 

AND

 

Other cultures, meanwhile, have never laid claim to universality. Nor did they ever claim to be different – until difference was forcibly injected into them as part of a sort of cultural opium war. They live on the basis of their own singularity, their own exceptionality, on the irreducibility of their own rites and values. They find no comfort in the lethal illusion that all differences can be reconciled – an illusion that for them spells only annihilation.

 

So your argument (and his is basically)

they = logic of humanism as they attempt to reconcile difference which is violent in its claims to be universal

that causes racism as differences must be made materially manifest

differences are reversible and not fixed, instead of recuperating them within the logic of the universal we should hold the other at a difference in an agonistic exchange

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk if you've read any of William Connolly's work on agonism, but it's that idea basically applied to difference

 

pm me for cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the Other is more of a signifier, and that signifier collapses when it is reduced to actuality because it no longer represents anything. I know that this and my earlier response are very shallow interpretations, just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of Rumsfeld's distinction between known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Otherness is an unknown unknown. Difference can be either a known known or a known unknown. Differences are specific, otherness vague. Differences can be understood, otherness can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...