{"id":31796,"date":"2021-03-01T06:00:43","date_gmt":"2021-03-01T05:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/a-desk.org\/magazine\/el-desorden-del-discurso\/"},"modified":"2023-07-09T14:45:22","modified_gmt":"2023-07-09T12:45:22","slug":"el-desorden-del-discurso","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/a-desk.org\/en\/magazine\/el-desorden-del-discurso\/","title":{"rendered":"The disorder of the discourse"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2026 or maybe there is. Because a certain contradiction exists between thinking and writing about obsolescence and ruin with a well-constructed text: one comprising an introduction, development, and conclusion. As if it were a building (as Proust said with his textual cathedral<\/em>), wanting to construct<\/em> a text in order to talk about two notions invoking precisely deconstruction<\/em> could seem insensitive (or lacking \u201crigour\u201d, maybe, lacking in language politics, perhaps): <\/em>ruin and obsolescence invoke, indeed, the deconstruction of something regarded both as a spatial whole and a temporal whole. A building, a commodity, or any other entity, even a text as a whole of meaning, spatial and temporal. A whole as a unit, as a presence.<\/p>\n

\u2026 sometimes, always. Maybe, too, in what Blanchot said when he wrote that there must exist some complicity between a text and what it talks about, beyond content. Or, to use terms I have been working on for years: the way something is said means more than what is said. The how <\/em>of a text is therefore a component of more importance in the politics of meaning than shared content itself. Ranci\u00e8re writes: \u201cwhat we have ultimately proven is that a theory\u2019s political effect depends less on its phrasing than the position it adopts in enunciation\u201d. And, thus, a theory of writing perfectly appropriate for this text on ruin and obsolescence: \u201cin the same way the proletarian becomes split into himself and into a bourgeois, in which the plebeian becomes split into himself and a patrician, a split <\/em>takes place there too, within the language. A split takes place, on the one hand, in theory, content, and on the other hand, in praxis, in ways of enunciation: the how <\/em>of writing becomes split in itself and the \u2018what\u2019 to interrupt that non-equality of meaning in the textual community. Language praxis would say, then, to theory: \u201cI, like you (I count too in what the text accounts for, I am also capable of meaning, I, too am capable of politics, etc)\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a> First, Jacques Ranci\u00e8re; then, myself. See Jacques Ranci\u00e8re and Javier Bassas, El litigio de las palabras. Di\u00e1logo sobre la pol\u00edtica del lenguaje<\/em>, NED Ediciones, Barcelona, 2019, p. 12 and 13.<\/span><\/span>