Denying confrontation can itself be a deliberate strategic displacement of an argument’s horizon

Evidence

But in truth, we shall progressively see it, all is much more complex. As are the matters at stake. … Malabou distinguishes, in what we could call her discourse on method – or her discourse on war – the theme and the strategy. She does it precisely in order to justify her recourse to the couple ‘plasticity’ – ‘to see (what is) coming’, terms which designate, not so much thematic concepts, but rather operative figures, motifs or ‘motors’. As figures or ‘schemes’, these must keep something like a sensuous body in the translation of the categories. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 80

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes theme (conceptual content) from strategy (operative figures/motors) — a precise conceptual distinction relevant to unpacking how ‘plasticity’ functions.
• QUESTION: Derrida flags the refusal of confrontation as a strategic displacement — worth chasing whether this strategy of horizon-displacement models how the passive victim-figure (plastic receptivity) could achieve autonomy by refusing the definer’s frame.
• XREF: connects to: Attacking the arguer substitutes for refuting arguments that challenge consensus. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 2389