Intertextuality requires prior linguistic autonomy rather than fusion

Evidence

But because intertextuality is neither fusion nor confusion, ifit is to be fruitful and capable of transcendence, the languages that end up involved in it must first have been in charge of their own specificities. Consequently, it is aU the more urgent to carefully untangle moments ofdiglossia. Ifone is in too much ofa hurry tojoin the concert, there is a risk of mistaking as autonomous participation something that is only some disguised leftover of former alienations. Opacities must be preserved; an appetite for opportune obscurity in translation must be created; and falsely convenient vehicular sabirs must be relentlessly refuted. — Ɖdouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 620

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Glissant’s argument that entering a creolized ā€˜concert’ prematurely, before securing one’s own specificity, yields disguised alienation — the precise bind relevant to collective strategic essentialism.
  • ADDENDUM: Directly parallels the friction in the reader’s strategic-essentialism question: a collective must first fix its own difference before it can hold that difference strategically within a larger entanglement.
  • XREF: connects to: Relation-thinking opposes monolingual totality through multilingual speech; Linguistics decentered identity by showing subjects are positioned in pre-existing discourse; Real narrative lets characters transform autonomously rather than being fixed by authorial fiat — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 203 (+5 more)

Broader Connections