Honig begins
his article by outlining the difference between his definition of “difference,”
stating how the past definition presents difference as “nothing more than
[something that] identities different
from ‘ours,’” an idea synonymous with pluralism. Honig explains that the
definition of “difference,” the one he uses and supports, evolved to include a
difference in identity, focusing on how this identity is formed and the concept
of “that which resists or exceeds the closure of identity.” Unlike the past
definition where difference was in fact a difference from others, this definition took on an approach where the
difference stemmed from within. One
of the major challenges of difference to democratic theory and practice is the
adherence to the previous definition, from which division and segregation stem.
As Honig states, “difference as simply a different identity enables them to
affirm a diversity that is potentially unruly but is also reassuring insofar as
it does not threaten to be ungovernable;” this is exactly what the true threat
is. This diversity originates from a perceived division that, according to the
past definition of difference, stems from the difference in identity. This is
misconceived and allows for the development of the idea of the ‘other’ from
which the hurtful and prejudicial side of ‘difference’ develops. An identity
that stems from within impedes outward difference, as in, difference that is
perceived based upon a physical or visual variance. Any type of difference that
can be identified or labeled by an outside party, as the first definition
practically defines, allows for a division to be made from the outside instead
of from the inside. Division from the inside does not mean more segregation,
but individuality, a concept the second definition promotes and encourages.
Individuality allows democracy to prosper, while division based upon an outward
difference promotes segregation and inequality.
It is from this first definition
that Honig suggests that the other threats of difference, such as
ungovernability, stem. Though Honig goes to outline various other issues
difference confronts democratic theory and practice with, I believe the one he
opens and details in the first part of his article is the most important.
Fernanda,
ReplyDeleteI think your post does a good job of explaining the various ways "difference" can manifest itself. I admit that I found this article was confusing at times and your post helped me understand the different nuances between difference that Honing was getting at. I do think that it would be helpful to talk more about how differences affect political theory, and especially how Honing contrasts her opinion with William's. Honing calls out William for neglecting to acknowledge difference as anything but an issue that affects local politics, and in doing so he fails to realize how “relatively reassuring” claims of multiculturalism and pluralism simply serve to protect those already in power, those who are not considered “different.”