Difference simultaneously constitutes and limits any unity or totality

Evidence

Thanks to the insights of post-structuralism the project of radical and plural democracy is able to acknowledge that difference is the condition of the possibility of constituting unity and totality at the same time that it provides their essential limits. In such a view, plurality cannot be: eliminated; it bc:comes irreducible. We have therefore to abandon the very idea of a complete reabsorption of alterity into oneness and harmony. It is an alterity that cannot be: domesticated, but as Rodolphe Gasch~ indicates: ‘forever undermines, but also makes possible, the dream of autonomy achieved through a re8exive coiling upon sdf, since it names the precondition of such a desired state, a precondition that represents the limit of such a possibility’. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 145

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Directly relevant to the reader’s test: if alterity cannot be domesticated, can the enemy/adversary be converted into a merely agonistic relation, or does some residue of antagonism remain that no ‘we’ can absorb?
  • XREF: Echoes Derridean différance and the Derrida quote Mouffe later discusses on democracy as ‘to come’ - never fully present, always deferred. — connects to: Unity across difference requires integrating, not absorbing, diverse positions — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 614; Lack presupposes a totality that the existing and the lacking jointly compose; Producing sameness requires creating and externalizing difference — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 20 (+9 more)

Broader Connections