In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

30 2 a Political Paradigm if conflict cannot be eliminated, how can we live together with it? how should we contemplate a form of consensus that does not revert to the demand for unanimity found in so many totalitarian regimes? how to make consensus and pluralism cohabit in a single public space? as an uninterrupted dialogue, palabre embodies dissensus in a peaceful social space. it establishes the limits between the tolerable and intolerable, allowing one to evaluate and strengthen the connections between them. Palabre as dissensus Palabre can generally be defined as a movement that brings violence to a halt after heated debate. it leads conflicting individuals toward consensus. in palabre—according to this perspective—one exorcises disagreement in order to foster unity, and create a people united and indivisible. Palabre would therefore give a society the opportunity to achieve a symbolic order and “develop” into a new state.1 The authoritative article on this notion is by benoît atangana, entitled “actualité de la palabre?”2 This article views palabre as a contradictory process inexorably leading to the restoration of harmony. The important thing is not so much the opening created by discussion as the final benefit: reconciliation. atangana asserts that “the deliberation of whites aims at establishing a system of justice, while that of blacks seeks to reestablish harmony and unity.”3 and yet such emphasis on consensus harbors three illusions: that of transparency, of unity, and of power or ability. by insisting on the restoration of unanimity, these authors make palabre into the site of transparency: since the discussion is public, nothing can be hidden. To listen A Political Paradigm | 31 to them, word and speech would be entirely transparent, which is contradicted by all research in pragmatics. To the contrary, such scholarship shows that words are opaque and can—in certain cases—form a screen between the subject and reality. The same applies to speech: a well-placed word has a displaced meaning. in its flight, speech draws us toward an elsewhere in which transparency cannot be grasped. This rush to retain nothing of palabre but its result cheapens the dynamic of conflict. Through its “openness” [publicité], palabre plays with misunderstanding more than with consensus . This is why it effects a continuous shift of meaning/perspective and proves itself rebellious toward any closure in communion. it is dissensus that creates distance and that allows society to find another terrain. The illusion of unity was also one of the reasons put forward to exclude african societies from history. because they were fundamentally repetitive, consensual, and conformist, they were thought to be incapable of producing the famous “movement that displaces lines.”4 These are cold societies whose concern is simply to maintain order, which palabre could restore but not create.5 africa maintains “a society of conformity and consensus that leaves no room . . . for dissatisfaction and therefore for contestation. Meanwhile, it has efficient conflict resolution mechanisms at its disposal, which allow it to reduce all elements of disagreement.”6 Too much emphasis on rediscovering consensus denies conflict a constitutive place in the social realm. dissensus becomes nothing but a temporary moment that culminates in reconciliation. in fact, dissensus should be an all-encompassing element that frames every relation to the political, because beginning from the existence of desire—in the double sense of affirmation in being (as in Spinozist conatus) and greed—subjects return to divergent relationships at the heart of a common political space. consensus-driven palabre develops into aporetic palabre, which displays a society’s founding symbols while simultaneously staging misunderstandings about them. rather than harmony, this kind of palabre contributes to compromise, temporary agreements that respect particularities and alterity. Such a compromise implies a “concrete utopia”: the promise. compromise signifies a confirmation of this promise —namely, to resume discussion. The compromise is both an appeal and a reminder: “as promised . . . , i . . .” The compromise is moreover an appeal to our memory and our responsiveness, and, finally, to our resurgent activity. in the ideology of consensusdriven palabre, one proceeds toward a “resolution of conflicts,”7 whereas in aporetic palabre, conflict is only suspended. Palabre as Tolerance Palabre implies the concept of tolerance. a form of tolerance that usually runs from “why not?” to “Leave them alone” [laissez-faire] does not fundamentally threaten its participants’ regime of truth. but this is the concept of tolerance that prevails today in the course of africa’s westernization. in all areas of life, it was clear that this process only tolerated...

Share