Response to Dania’s Blog: Libérairance and the Coincident Tyranny of “Versimiltude” and the Modern University Bookstore

Response to Dania’s Blog: Libérairance and the Coincident Tyranny of “Versimiltude” and the Modern University Bookstore

Great Blog, but I have to rebut as a fan of the man. There is a general caveat that I believe should be given with all post-structuralist and (dare I say it) post-post-structuralist thought: we need to keep in mind that différance, like any philosophical conceit, is merely a means (just as traditional dialectical thought was prior to the emergence of différance) of reaching an ends (perhaps a better understanding of the world around us). Lawyers need not agree with Socrates’ vision of “essence” to appropriate his basic argumentative tactic. However, it is also important to remember that through Derrida’s exploration of differential philosophy (as it was explored by previous metaphysicians like Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and FFS Anaximander) we are given access to a verbal toolbox that allows us to view the very idea of a naturalized “core” to linguistic and social intercourse, by which deviant aesthetic and deviant practice is measured as non-approximate and therefore vitiated with its “otherness,” as something that is as contrived as all of the reality shows that emerged in the wake of CBS’s “Survivor.” Concepts of “otherness” didn’t exist (at least in such a vital and robust form as we know it now) in intellectual debate and practice prior to “Structure, Sign and Play,” where Derrida’s systematic deconstruction of the totalizing myths of western metaphysics allows us to begin questioning the idea of a preordained or axiomatic element that pervades, defines, and transcends linguistic and social structure by some divine right of selfsameness or sameness with divinity. This is not to discount prior theory as less than, but see it as something that is not as microscopic and replete in its exploration. Also, this is not to discount later constructionist theory as a concomitant phenomenon or even derivative mode that deserves less attention, but to see it in its modern, post-Derrida form –where it may use differential logic and deconstruction to undermine insidious thought— as a product at the skeletal level of the decenterization of western metaphysics.



Différance is (and here we go) a libérairance (conjunction of the French libérer – to free someone and the French word libraire – a bookseller), a term which I have just now invented and will use to define the simultaneous state being liberated from the mire of sameness and stodgy white, western thought, while at the same time being sold a clutch of really expensive literature theory books based on the same idea that was supposed to free us. Thus there are two reasons to embrace différance; it frees us to look at the world and celebrate difference (though we must navigate it with a modicum of social responsibility), and it keeps me/you/us in business as students of literary theory (though I/you/we must purchase cartloads of books to prove this).

But in all seriousness, let me preface the body of this response by saying that “sameness” grates against my ears, not only because sibilance has always bothered me (it is associated with the devil after all because it is the “same” sound that snakes make) but that conceptually we “know” it is pernicious in its de facto ramifications. Prejudice in all of its forms is based entirely on the concept of verisimilitude, for without a clear cut (although shifting to suit the needs of the present) notion of what we should look for, we would not know what to rail against. I understand that part of this is difference, but what Derrida allows us to do is not deconstruct the difference between the center and structure, but deconstruct the underlying notion that everything is different, but the center. Prejudice, the painful part of noticing differences, can only exist if you undermine the operating concept of essential difference between two individuals by claiming the unity of their respective groups. By destabilizing this center, the one part that exists apart from difference by pointing out its différance, we can make moves toward what we see as ethical progress.

So to continue, “we” are not all the “same.” Take a ride on the subway, or visit the supermarket to see that. Physiologically I may have much in common with most people, but at the same rate I am only 1.4 percent less similar to a chimpanzee than I am to my neighbor—some of you might argue that I am closer to the chimp but we’ll leave that to next week’s blog, which is tentatively titled “A Graduate English department Referendum on Zach, or The Search for the Missing Link at Clark University.” So given the 0.1 percent divergent DNA in each person, and given the general propensity of two people to never agree about which song or station the radio should be tuned to, I can say that we are all “others.” Case in point, I am not even the same as the “other” privileged western, white, middle class fellow who lives next door. I am better looking, smarter, I know I am a better cook, I have an acumen for interior decoration that he does not have, and my football team is far superior (I happen to believe there may be a Raiders fan housed in the next building, unless of course has very poor fashion taste, in which case I also have a better sense of fashion). And in that notion, I loathe the fact that my appearance and mannerism could be used to describe a totalizing aesthetic that posits me as the reference point to which other cultures are differentiated and described. However, part of this (allow the center to exist free from critique, to exist as a naturalized object) is praxis of exclusion made possible by metaphysical notions of the sameness between me and the other people that share common traits.

We are talking about an unjustly time-honored tradition of collecting, categorizing and then collating individuals based (yes in part on difference but) on the “sameness” between the central tradition, its players and its myths, through which difference between the exterior, alien or “other” tradition is engaged and used as a mirror of non-equivalence. That mirror is a picture frame within which exists only a totalized fiction, and aesthetic used to ascribe virtue, and define deceit on its most basic (read intrinsic core of person as virtue or vice) and eventually its extrapolated apparition (intelligent, brave, devoted, fill in the blank with other good civil virtues) while leaving scraps (like secondary virtues that berth from stereotypical image of the “other,” and which always function as a group of marginal talents unnecessary to succeed in the western hemisphere) to the world that exists apart geographically, linguistically, and aesthetically. Hitler asked for verisimilitude, so doesn’t Plato in the “Republic.” We all know what that means.

Moreover, I would argue while “alterity” can be painful, it isn’t necessarily so (at least I would hope not), I know that concepts of verisimilitude are painful (square hole round peg) to all who do not fit the basic criterion. Through verisimilitude I could be linked to Jerry Falwell, George Bush, the Backstreet Boys, and the inventors of fast-food, parachute pants, and the automated telephone answering system. This would be unfair. I certainly celebrate my difference with these characters.

But I love difference and différance. While part of this is rooted in my general self-loathing, the other part is rooted in the idea that realizing and getting over differences has always been a source of serendipity and growth in my life. Without realizing what makes other people unique, I cannot realize what makes me unique. If I look only for sameness, I cannot appreciate life-experience that emerges from without, from “other” people I meet, who exist on the periphery of my personal traditions. If I viewed myself as the undisputed center, and then sought out people that met these criteria I would be a very bored fellow. I would also suggest, that at the philosophical level getting over différance, realizing it is merely a concept for destabilizing untruth rather than a reductive force dissolving language and meaning (and thereby liquidating ethics and morals) into a shapeless and ineffectual liqueur in the crucible of social thought.

On another level entirely, différance keeps me in business, for using the concepts of différance in an essay can account for several pages of literal and figurative word wrangling. It also provides a great center of debate whereby (hopefully) the English departments of the future can continue to feed, and I hope to be there working toward tenure.

And now on to a slight rebuttal. Stating that people learn through sameness is (if we deconstruct the notion) the same as saying people learn through difference. Although baby may need to validate difference through sameness, this is only because of the accumulation of knowledge, and the general need to group, which as I outlined can be very dangerous. Needing to “validate” difference is in and of itself and act of pre-judging an object against a ready defined aesthetic or idea. Thankfully I don’t think this is a necessary or even natural mode of thought, but just a convenient mode of thought. Indeed, while it is easy to move through life grouping like concepts, to accurately tease meaning from something we need to analyze or “To take to pieces; to separate, distinguish, or ascertain the elements of anything complex.” Additionally, it is instincit of the highest order seek difference in difficulty. Just touching on Freud’s notion of “splitting” bears this out. That which is difficult (I would argue impossible) to comprehend in false unity is necessarily divided into constituent elements. Splitting is not an easy process, for the act of distinguishing is more difficult because it requires attention to elements of an object which are unique and not identifiable within the other. It is a last ditch effort to learn something about a concept that is irreducible. To push this idea I will show several more primordial (if you will allow me to misapprehend the roots, and substitute the real Latin meaning of “first thing” with a logic that would assume it can also mean “something that predates order”) acts of learning that involve difference, thus showing how difference preexists verisimilitude.

Part of identity formation is difference, and this is good. If children naturally assumed that everything they see is the "exact" same as themselves—that is learning in the first instance through sameness— they would lead a long and confusing life, but I believe that baby’s initial assumption is that they are different. That is to say, the very first sensory acts involve the recognition that there is [an]other world out there, that is not the self. The eyes open, the ears hurt, the worlds floods in to baby’s life, and hopefully baby cries in a first attempt to communicate with a world that is now necessarily outside and different from baby. Thus, existence itself is an act of differentiating.

If we extend this idea, the first words from baby’s mouth will typically be “Mom” or “Dad.” It is arguably one the first of many chaotic differences a baby encounters, but it is healthy and natural. In that utterance we see inscribed a recognition that binaries and differences do exist on some level (at least if you are not an amoeba), and that part of life is getting over the idea that the other gender has cooties. To continue, the idea of “Mom and Dad,” shares a conjunction, which implies that despite their difference they found a way to get together and bring a new life into the world. In most cases I think this is a good thing, and at the most optimistic it starts life off on the right foot.

Any knowledge acquisition that involves ordering of things based on similarities is not primordial. Order only exists within an order that was itself “constructed” by baby, sometimes through the assistance of others, and thus this order is artificial, and when conceptual clarity is needed the natural mode would be to revert to the first means of acquisition which the search for difference. Verisimilitude (prefect unity) exists outside nature, where even on the atomic level things move in binaries, or at least in moments of difference between things that push beyond binaries, procreative acts (existence as a species) rely on recognition of the differences between the sexes, and the longevity of a species is threatened by a lack of genetic variation.
Now we revisit the brief preface of my little narrative here where I mention that that deconstructive thought should be used responsibly and viewed positively. We can view the definition by difference negatively, where it is merely a means of creating an irreducible concept of language and philosophy, or we can see it as a constructive mode of thought where the individual can be realized. We can choose to look at the parents as a normative model of heterosexual social relation, or we can look at it as the decisive moment where baby learns that differences can be overcome, people can work together to create and people that are the different at the most fundamental level can do some wonderful things when they work together. Moreover, even though Freud would say that through differentiation that baby will eventually form his/her concept of self by identifying with the parent of same gender and contrasting with the parent of differing gender, I like to think of it as cardinal moment where the baby can realize that no two things are the same and that life is full of different ways of forging oneself into an individual. There are no roadmaps, just infinite options.

Lastly, as far as différance the term, part of différance is about change from the previous tradition. So in that notion I added it to my Microsoft Word ™ dictionary, and now spell check will even pick it up if I miss the accent aigu. Whoops, I just had to add aigu. I wonder if French grammar exists. :-) So perhaps there is a lesson here about center and alterity? Word ™ is the center, it is marketed first and best for the English speaking world, and the only francophone terms available for verification (that is to say, we now know they operate outside of our circuit) would be terms that have been previously anglicized or have at the very least found their way into the popular lexicon as idiom or descriptor. Yes, I think it is hegemonic exclusion, for my dictionary readily accepts ‘apologia’ and ‘Cartesian’ among other key terms; so, perhaps there is some exclusion happening here. And on that note, I need to contact that OED so that they can stop discriminating against my term libérairance, and put its true meaning into action by including it in their wonderful book. While they are at it, they could practice its concept by including a comprehensive integrated thesaurus so we can follow chains of signification through synonymic and antonymic function, add a pejorative definition for “sameness” and all related terms, and then drop the retail price of the dictionary to the cost of the material and labor only thus signifying the closure of the practice of making graduate students and undergrads alike pay exorbitant fees for trifles of paper and thought.