The figure of the enemy spans and exceeds separate discursive spheres

Evidence

But the question raised by these events-the question of the enemy-is a discursive question that exceeds each of the particular spheres to which it has largely been confined (the Jew, the Arab, theology, medieval polemics, the history of war, and the Middle Ages in general, as well, for that matter). Where is the enemy spoken of, and, more importantly, not spoken of? What is the discursive specificity of the discourse of enmity, and what are its modes and, most importantly, its relations? What are the links-exegetical, theological, political, and more-that are affirmed between discursive spheres (which may or may not have a relative autonomy), what are those denied, and what are those that have become invisible? — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 205

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames the whole book’s object: the enemy as a cross-discursive figure to be traced through what is said and unsaid about it.
• XREF: This is the theoretical spine claim anchoring the Islamophobia-cluster books — it defines the enemy discourse as exceeding any single sphere.