I have written a rather long-winded a-grammatical reply to a post by Steve Shaviro on what he calls the “differend between dialectics, with its notes of crisis, contradiction, and antagonism, and pluralism of the Deleuzian variety, with its rejection of any thought of the negative and its insistence on the metastability of the virtual as the source of change.” (I am pretty sure ‘differend’ is meant in the Lyotardian sense.) When I get to the point of my reply, I eventually ask:
“Does everyone have to become Deleuzian just to understand what is going on [in the work of Deleuzians]?!?! Is the labour of â€˜translationâ€™ (as you phrase it between â€˜dialecticâ€™/’multiplicityâ€™) something that is expected of people who use Deleuze and Guattari in their work? Why? How much should Deleuzians â€˜expectâ€™ of their readers/audience (to know the Deleuzian metalanguage)?”Â
This is troubling to me as I need to do this work in my dissertation! Should I just assume that I am writing for someone who has read all the ‘theory’ stuff (and more than) that I have read? Do I need to do translate work, not only into ‘common’ academic jargon, but ‘everyday’ language, too? Why should I?
Jon at Posthegemony also has a post on Steve’s post.