No single characterization of conviviality should define the politics of living with difference.
Evidence
Zooming back in enables us to shift the frame and advance the conversation – putting focus on the question of how best to live together, while nonetheless continuing to refute those who associate difference with social breakdown or who treat the reproduction of inequality as inevitable. This further question, however, only comes into focus when we attend to a plurality of different modes of relating, each marked by their own distinctive possibilities and limits. These possibilities are irreducible to, and have often been obscured by, the more dominant ways in which conviviality has been characterised. For instance, it becomes harder to recognise the value of thick, situated relations of care within Heil’s framing of conviviality as ‘minimal consensus’, or to recognise the force of ethically compelling opacity within Amin’s emphasis on plenitude and ease. Although these characterisations of conviviality can be productive, we ought not to take them – or any other mode of relating – as exhaustively defining the political project of living with difference. — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others, 81
Categorization
- XREF: Relates to the elsewhere-argued position that framing difference as breakdown is the conventional target; also chimes with pluralist critiques of universalising ethical frameworks in moral/political theory. — connects to: No institution can fully reconcile social uniformity and individual differentiation. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 710; Conviviality matters only as care against racist structures. — Luke de Noronha, The conviviality of the overpoliced,…, 11; Philosophy’s territory cannot be framed from a single cultural perspective. — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 383
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 81
Related
- Conviviality matters only as care against racist structures. (similarity 0.82)
- Farhan Samanani — Conviviality and its others for a plural politics of living with difference (similarity 0.82)
- No institution can fully reconcile social uniformity and individual differentiation. (similarity 0.80)
- Universalising models of conviviality inevitably exclude those who cannot embody them. (similarity 0.80)
- Specific relational modes offer more analytic traction than generalized conviviality. (similarity 0.79)
- Everyday convivial civility can both preserve difference and transform identities. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- No institution can fully reconcile social uniformity and individual differentiation.
#complicates(0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 710 - Philosophy’s territory cannot be framed from a single cultural perspective.
#corroborates(0.80) — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 383 - Conviviality matters only as care against racist structures.
#contradicts(0.75) — Luke de Noronha, The conviviality of the overpoliced,…, 11