non-identity.

[MSalter1@aol.com]

In a message dated 31/07/97 10:31:09 GMT, Curtis writes:

<< I understand you to mean that these negotiations can occur because 
 acknowledging that one person can "occupy" more than one "subject
 position" can be universally recognized without subordinating any actual 
 individual differences.  (anybody out there who thinks they've
 wrapped their brain around Adorno's notion of non-identity care to 
 comment?) >>

Adorno's latent notion of justice in ND is linked his diagnosis of the
multiple forms of injustice perpetuated by identity-thinking that - in turn -
is linked to the coercice subsumption into pre-conceived stereo-typical
categories of all manner of qualitative differences. Formal law is indicted
here, Equity (which recognises the particuilar and seeks to adjust general
categories to its claims) is seen as a necessary but impossible remedy. It is
impossible because the subject with a clear understanding of her or his
particularity has virtually been abolished, and is necessary for the same
reason.

My little thesis on this is that much of what is both insightful and
self-contradictory with his negative dialectics can be worked up from the
botton up from this instance of its application, a micrology no less. 

Michael S