Missional Implications of The Differend by J.F. Lyotard pt.2

Last updated on: October 31, 2012 at 5:40 pm by Michael D. Bobo

Missional Implications of The Differend by J.F. Lyotard pt.2 2012-10-31T17:40:51-05:00 Michael D. Bobo

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the second part of this series, Lyotard’s exploration of the historical debate surrounding Auschwitz is a case study in The Differend in which he establishes a powerful message. What do you do when the victims of differend suffer without a voice and die in that state? This is the greatest injustice in Lyotard’s opinion.

The horrific acts that occurred at Auschwitz are the most extreme example of this principle. The idiom of the suffering that was experienced cannot be rectified by a legal idiom in a court of law before a “jury of peers” since there is no one living capable of relating to the degree of suffering that the victims encountered at the hands of the Nazi regime. Lyotard further explores this injustice, causing him to declare a chilling statement that has not been properly addressed in political philosophy. Speaking of Nazism, Lyotard declares: “It has not been refuted” (The Differend 106). For who could possibly refute the terrors of Auschwitz when the very individuals who were mercilessly annihilated cannot bear witness to the atrocities? Movie reels, photographs, and survivors’ testimonials do not account for the victims who have no voice. This is the paramount example of what the differend means, which is why Lyotard starts and finishes The Differend with meditations on Auschwitz.

The differend can be considered inexplicable since the victim does not have the means to justly communicate about the wrong. In an interview conducted by his translator Georges Van Den Abbeele shortly after The Differend was distributed in English for the first time, Lyotard explains, “Even Le différend (1984), which I spent nine years elaborating and writing, remains a sketch, whose master I have not been” (16). Lyotard himself has been reduced to silence to some degree because one of the fundamental aspects of the differend is its self perpetuating nature. In order to discuss a particular differend, there will inevitably create another gap in the dialogue that the original victim will feel by the attempt to discuss in the idiom of another party what the wrong done to him or to her has been. Silence best addresses the differend. In a book entitled Peregrinations written four years after the English translation of The Differend was published, Lyotard delivers a personal account of his understanding of the differend and its inexplicability, which typifies his personal sense of awe at the discovery of the differend. Speaking of the differend he suggests: “It’s the emptiness, the nothingness in which the universe presented by a phrase is exposed and which explodes at the moment the phrase occurs and then disappears with it” (Peregrinations 31). Although the emphasis upon silence and impermanence may seem to serve little purpose or to possess little value, there is an ethical implication found in it. Nicholas Strobbe draws this out in his essay “Political Identification or the Differend:” “Lyotard constructs this concept in order to make possible an ethical response to silence, most particularly, to that of the ‘victim’ deprived of the means to articulate the wrong that is done to him or her” (10). The differend challenges philosophers to consider the ramifications of the victim who cannot speak on his or her behalf. Silence is meaningful to the victim without a voice and without an idiom.

In these historic moments of oppression and terror, recollection or remembrance does not resolve the injustice which stripped victims of a voice. Death silenced their narratives and stripped them of an idiom. For Lyotard, the consequential ineffability in the wake of such events demands silence in order to recognize the gravity of these injustices which cannot be legally resolved. The finality of the grave silences any efforts to linguistically vindicate the victims. Auschwitz happened as a historical series of events; subsequently, language games (narratives) emerged following the discovery of these events. If the events cannot be rightly adjudicated, so what purpose do the language games serve?Documentation of these events does not resolve the atrocity; it merely informs us. Both cases are atrocious. Both the events and the language games undermine the dignity of the victims. Both violate a most precious boundary of human experience.

The resulting silence Lyotard asserts evokes a few more missional implications. I find them to be poignant messages to 21st century Christian communication. Language games labeled evangelism or pastoral counseling are under scrutiny if we consider this a valid post-modern argument.

First, silence in missional/incarnational conversations can be as powerful as a phrase as any other. Oftentimes the best response is to sit silent and let the gravity of the moment speak on behalf of the victims.

Second, cases of differend pose tremendous ramifications for conversations surrounding the role of God in vindicating unrighteous deeds or human atrocities. Lyotard does not envision a divine deliverance, and to what extent should we? I’ve heard arguments of God being in the moment with the victims or that character is built in the process. Such language perpetuates the differend by imposing our Christian idiom in addition to the experienced atrocity which leads to a violation in the name of God on top of the human action. More succinctly, “Why do we need to involve God in these horrors?”

Finally, Lyotard’s philosophical/linguistic exploration speaks volumes when appropriated to the future of missional dialogues.

a) How do we move beyond Lyotard’s silence? Silence is not the only approach, but it is the most logical one he presents. Where do we go then from the silence to address the victims and offer healing and purpose? What message do we communicate when acts of human depravity strip the voice of the victim and impose an idiom that is controls the presentation of the case?

b) How profitable is it to insert Christian legal idioms concerning God’s role in these cases? Does the argument for divine vindication work in post-modernity To attempt a platitude creates a further injustice that attempts to give reason to something indefensible. Whether it be God or humans, legal idiom is the problem, not the solution.

As post-modern Christians we need to have an in-house discussion about the nature of our language in these unique cases in order to profitably communicate a message of love and hope to victims. I believe firmly the life and death of Jesus can offer a phrase — a narrative. Jesus lived with those who experienced the pain of rejection through labels of “leper” and “unclean”, “prostitute” and “tax collector,” “demoniac” and “Gentile dog.” Maybe the incarnational presence of Christ in our lives — the suffering silently alongside the survivors — is a “silent action” to begin the process of creating a new idiom?

Any other suggestions? What is that first word beyond Lyotard’s phrase of silence? [Continue to Part 3]

Jean-Francois Lyotard

Previous Post

October 14, 2012

An Interesting Take on Emergence Christianity

Next Post

October 21, 2012 The City of God

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Addiction Advent Atheism Authority Bible Cartoons Christian Year Christmas church church planting Civil Rights Community Contemplative Spirituality Culture emerging church Empire Eschatology Evangelism Events Gender Healing Humanism Islam Justice Kingdom Lent Movement Building Multi-Faith Music mysticism New Wave Emergence origins Personal Poetry politics Prayer Preaching Privilege Racism Religious naturalism Resurrection salvation SKEPTIMERGENT Theology Trauma Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2017 November 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who did God call as a boy in the Tabernacle, saying his name three times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eli David Saul Samuel