Otherness as a Fatal Strategy

/, Literature, Blesok no. 13/Otherness as a Fatal Strategy

Otherness as a Fatal Strategy

It is, according to A. Kiossev, called – homotopy, i.e. symbolic place, for identity production and construction. It is mostly dealing with the always already prescribed cultural prejudices and is therefore inevitable in its profound activity.
Such homotopies in this drama are just Balkans on one, and Europe on the other side.They produce the fundamental structural split between We (the Western Europe, insiders, liberal, competent) and Them ( the South-Eastern Europe, outsiders, non-liberal, ignorant ones).
And, as far as we can (not only in this drama) be convinced, this intercultural gap of prejudices may not be overlaped at all.
Because, first of all, the very persistance of this gap enables Western-European great masters, to keep (reserve) the exclusive right to confirm, to conserve, to attribute not only the knowledge itself, but also the power ( manipulating, repressing, influenting and ruling with) the politic of knowledge – which, on the other hand means, that they are the only privileged to allow, to direct or to confirm the future developing processes in the so-called second-ordered Balkanian countries.
But, let’s once again go back to Dr. Phallus and his erotic potentials.
His most indicative statement in this drama, happens to be the following one: “I want, all that I know”.
He is a little bit untypicall figure of Teacher. He is primarily playing the role of a Sedducer. And another important fetaure of sedduction is that it is a kind of subversion of the power and the authority of the systems.
If we eventually introduce an alternative kind of knowledge (as an erotic initiation), then, we might be able to avoid the great abuses of knowledge. Or, maybe, try to transgress its evidential limits?
Maybe, we should turn toward another kind of knowledge, not only to the anamnestic, reproductive, but, also, to an ecstatic, enthusiastic, self-enlightening one? Maybe, it would be more recommnadable to install the alternative of personal Wisdom, instead? Or, concerning Schoppenhauer, we should rather see a knowledge as a medium of self– revelation and personal soteriology? Maybe, we should learn how to appreciate more the advatntages of “existential tatooing”?
I think that postmodern thinkers have already turned themeselves to these posibilities, considering the so called body-knowledge as a legitimate, equal-righted part and even a guarantee of the sense of knowledge.
Nevertheless, Dr. Phallus mocks with the traditional concept and image of knowledge – comparing it to the most distant identity group of – the Whores (although, claiming himself to be a rather complex one).
He even among all, calls his science as “prickomancy” ( which it probably is). The trouble with this kind of knowledge is that it only seems to be cumulative, consummering, quantitive one – having no real satisfactory (changeable) effect on its subjects.That’s why Dr. Phallus always turns to be – unsatisfied, unpleased, discontented, dissappointed, empty…
While the young man always remains captured, failed, (mentally) raped, identified (let’s remember that identification means making somebody be the same as the Others).
While, his majesty, the knowledge, always being missing… inconclusive ( as M. Bakhtin used to say)
Longing for knowledge as a fatal curse of our whole lives… knowledge as a threatening force and experience …
We never finally happen to be taught!
On the other side, corresponds with a Lacanian formula of frustrated writing, writing ( here – knowledge), that is always being condemned not to reach its true destination, always cursed to be floating, fluctual, nomad-spirited.
In the preface of his book “Nous et les Autres”, Tzvetan Todorov once again mentions the concept of dialogic criticism: it is the one, which isn’t only supposed to speak about, but also with the books ( texts), the one, which is not only supposed to appeal to the reason, but, is also turned toward the imagination. One of its most indicative statements is:
”I would rather keep looking (searching) for the truth, than having it at my own disposal”.
This dialogic principle, primarily origined from the work of Bakhtine, is basically founded on the self-experienced thought of a humanist scientist, remembering all of us, of the hybrid status of the knowledge and its life “architecture”.
And, finally some observations on the very issue of (not only) our Summerschool. I think it is functionning according to the principles of so called “other spaces”, which actually presents Foucauldian way, to name the spatio-social heterogeneity. Reflecting on the summerschool like for an “autre space” representative, we come to conclusion, that the very existence of such a places, proves that society is capable of excluding, lokalizing, limiting – its own (interior) Other, offering the mirrored, up-side-downed image of Itself.
Being able to execute this “heterotopical function” (A. Kiossev), the knowledge is also capable of deconstructing even something of his own and that is maybe one of the reasons of its irresistiability .
As we can all in it obviously be assurd – through this bizzar photography of techno-dressed Jean Baudrillard, taken in a Las Vegas casino, while speaking, in front of a pin-up figured girl …

Notes
1. Biti, Vladimir (1997): Teorija i postkolonijalno znanje, in: Republika, Zagreb, br. 5-6
2. Delez, Gatari & Gatari, Feliks (1990): Anti-Edip, Sremski Karlovci
3. Derrida, Jacques (1979): Living On. Borderline, in: Deconstruction and Deconstruction, ed. Harold Bloom et alii, New York
4. Dubost, Jacques (1998): Libertinage and rationality, in: Yale French Studies, n. 94
5. Kiossev, Aleksandar (1995): Homotopija i heterotopija, in: Literaturen vestnik, Sofija, 19 dekemvri
6. Kos, Janko (1995): Na poti v postmoderno, Ljubljana

2018-08-21T17:23:55+00:00 March 1st, 2000|Categories: Essays, Literature, Blesok no. 13|0 Comments