No generalizable strategy of action in Relation can be developed
Evidence
Anyone who wishes tn intervene in modes of Relation (coloring, balancing, changing them perhaps) will find his action on unsure footing because of this indeterminacy between active and neutral relays. This is why such an intervention âin Relationâ can only lâeally happen âin a place,â one simultaneously closed in on its components and open to its returning echoes. There is no generalizable strategy of action in Relation that can be developed. Ideology has increased its âdisciplinedâ efforts to go beyond this stubborn limit, precisely by making generalizations: the proletariatâs final lâOle, permanent revolution, a nation âs civilizing mission, universal defensc of freedom, or even the anticommunist crusade (we have to hope that oppressors of every stripe will soon find this pretext lacking), etc. These attempts at repossession or global action run up against the singularities of Relation every time. Relation is only universal through the absolute and specifie quantity of its particularities.* *Thc actions I. â Ădouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 898
Categorization
- XREF: Directly relevant to the readerâs inquiry: this is Glissant denying any generalizable identity strategy, which bears on whether strategic essentialism could work collectively rather than only for individual subjects. â connects to: Culture in Relation divides and specifies without claiming primordial status â Ădouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 814; Defending the idealized version of a practice cannot guide real-world policy â , The Rod and the Child: A Global HistoryâŠ, 6473; Abyss-tested peoples live Relation without claiming chosenness â Ădouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 106 (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- Defending the idealized version of a practice cannot guide real-world policy
#corroborates(0.75) â , The Rod and the Child, 6473 - Abyss-tested peoples live Relation without claiming chosenness
#qualifies(0.72) â Ădouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 106