Writing and identity
by Sam Kriss
There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility. I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing the other other, the other others… As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty are condemned a priori to paradox, scandal, and aporia.
Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death
0. To write feels like violence. All of us are mortal, but the text can survive long after its author: who are you, fleshy and contingent thing, who wants to live forever? To write is to stain clean paper, press sticks in smooth clay; in some sense always, to deform the world. To write something down is to turn the limitless possibility of what could be into the dead presence of what turned out to have been. A line in Beckett’s Molloy which I always find myself returning to, because it speaks what it isn’t: ‘You would do better, at least no worse, to obliterate texts than to blacken margins, to fill in the holes of words till everything is blank and flat and the whole ghastly business looks like what it is, senseless, speechless, issueless misery.’ Writing obscures the ghastliness of what is, which is speechlessness; it weaves a flimsy veil of presence around the eternal nothing. Writing is a lack, but the lack is not in words but the world that surrounds them.
1. One form of the discourse in question, an instance: Don’t write thinkpieces about Beyoncé (or whatever) if you’re not a black woman. You will not understand the subject-matter, not properly, it will be a waste. It isn’t for you. (As if the commodified culture-object is ever really for anyone.) The really notable thing here is where the demand is placed. What’s needed – and what’s generally articulated – is a critique of the journalistic economy and its deeply unequal hiring and commissioning practices, the thorny nexus of social practices that create a class of profession writers that generally looks like the class of the bourgeoisie from which it is mostly drawn. But what can often occur with it is a metaphysics of the text: illegitimate writing is not even itself, but an absence, the absence of everything else that could have been there instead. Any one person writing means another who can’t; the sin is in its having been written, the fault belongs to the writer as such. But while most writing really is inexcusably bad, the one mark in its favour is that the possibility of writing is limitless. It’s the industrial complex of writing that is restricted, along with the number of people who can sustain themselves in this fairly shabby trade: here, as everywhere, the task is to reproduce in the economy at large the infinity that already exists in the economy of language, to abolish the distinction between the professional writer and the public they serve or negate, to make sure that nobody will ever go hungry again.
2. Instead, a general trend within those discourses that claim to have justice as their aim is the selective and demographic apportioning out of the field of human understanding: black writers may and must write about black celebrities, music, and their own experiences; women writers may and must must write about lifestyle trends, feminism, and their own experiences; trans writers about their own experiences; Muslim writers about their own experiences; disabled writers about their own experiences. In one avowedly intersectional-feminist online publication, female writers are given an ‘Identity Survey,’ a monstrous questionnaire in which they’re asked to list every horrifying experience they had ever survived, and are then told to turn it all into short, shareable, fungible articles for $90-a-day wages. I was raped, I was in an abusive relationship, I had an abortion, I suffered; a strip-mining of saleable identities, a kind of primitive accumulation across the terrain of trauma. Meanwhile the universal subject, the one that need not suffer to be heard, remains white and male. The right of black women to write about Beyoncé is important. But they must also be able to write about deep-sea ecology, Kantian philosophy, writing itself, and what they do not know – and while there are many who do precisely this, the under-representation of writers of colour, queer and trans writers, and other marginalised people on the topics of oceanography, German idealism, deconstruction, and ignorance is significantly more marked. Overwhelmingly it is white men who are afforded the privilege of being other than themselves, of not having to continuously say ‘I’ – not least because the validity of their self-identity is already assured, because the world is already in their image. And while the ability to declare oneself in the face of a world that would prefer you not to to is essential, the dogma that writing must and can only be a self-declaration resigns marginalised people to this condition. My critique here is very limited: within this discourse it has become the case that it is the presence and particularity of the ‘I’ that legitimises writing, that makes it appropriate or inappropriate, that makes it either it either presence itself or the lack of something else. And this is not helpful.
3. If there must be a rule, then it should be that we must not only write what we know. If we don’t write an ignorance other than ourselves, in the end all that remains is a mute, gnashing, helpless, final I. There is no writing that is only legible to and can only be created by people occupying a particular subject-position; there are experiences that are unique and incommensurable, even incommunicable, but if this were the case here there would be no possibility of writing: everyone who could understand would already know.
4. Derrida notes in Plato’s Pharmacy that ‘the speaking subject is the father of his speech […] Logos is a son, then, a son that would be destroyed in his very presence without the present attendance of his father. His father who speaks for him and answers for him. Without his father he would be nothing but, in fact, writing.’ There is no speech without its anchor in the person that speaks and her physical presence, but in writing – the ‘breathless sign’ – the author is always simply not there, even if she has an active Twitter account. It persists without its creator; what faces you is the text, something entirely different. I speak and say ‘I’ and you know who says the word, but the written ‘I’ is always indeterminate, a tangle of lies and fantasies and ironies and pretences, a person just like you half a world away, the person that you are yourself, an immortal and changing thing. If you speak and someone interprets what you say in a way you didn’t intend, what’s taken place is a misunderstanding. If you write and someone interprets what you’ve written in a way you didn’t intend, what’s taken place is literature. The demand that any text be legitimised by the self-identity of its author is the demand for a text that behaves more like speech. And not just any speech. The writing that responds to this demand is ‘testimonial’ or ‘confessional’ writing, and the place in which one testifies or confesses is in a court. In a courtroom logocentrism holds sway; the preference is for a speaking person, whose truth is guaranteed by a spoken oath, who is present to speak for and answer for their own speech. The discourse here is not one of justice, strictly speaking, but the law. It is the law that, first of all, demands to know who a person is before deciding what to do with them. These are not opposing concepts, necessarily, but they are not the same. The law can be deconstructed. Justice cannot.
5. Whose voice is allowed to speak? Only yours. In Beckett’s novels the reader is lost and confused, stranded in a mire of words that seem designed to be inhospitable and to exclude, accompanying something that speaks its unquestioning I-say-I while forbidding any identification – until you realise that the strange tormenting voice that is mentioned sometimes, the one that tells people what to do, the one that is constantly trying to bring itself to an end but is never able to stop speaking itself, is the same voice that’s been in your head the entire time as you read. It’s shocking, but there’s a sense of joy at the same time. What distinguishes real writing from a legal deposition or a laundry list is its occasional capacity to provoke a kind of joy, even in evocations of sadness, loneliness, misery, loss, repression, and horror, the sheer pleasure of something entirely alien and entirely intimate, of a voice that is nobody’s and everyone’s and yours, there with you in your solitude, of language in the infinity of its play and substitutions, a moment of the freedom that’s still to come.
This is a quite excellent post
Can’t I just write for the sake of writing? Don’t care if someone reads it or not. Truth is that words are powerful…”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” John1:1 Your post is interesting and well written
I couldnt agree more .
wow, i really enjoyed this.
I wrote a first person piece for a major, liberal, news site. The focus was my experience at the sharp end of welfare reform. I asked to be anonymous as I’d discovered that poverty makes people patronise or pity you and i wanted neither, just to provide an account for those too lazy or unwilling to read the legislation itself, or plough through boring academic analysis. Seems many can only understand inequality if its wrapped up in a personal account. Problematic as this renders inequalities personal, anomalous, one-offs, and can block the wider political context. No such thing as a personal problem. The neo-liberals though, love them, the world is entirely personal to them and there’s a thin thread linking vulgar forms of intersectionality with the solipsism of the libertarian. (Of course its a faked personal, the self-made man nonsense etc) Anyway, upshot was the editor sent a congratulatory email. My piece brought lots of traffic to the site and much ‘below the line’ comment. She also said she’d be interested in anything else I wrote as, quote, ;’ its so unusual for someone in your position to write so well’. Now, I have a first class degree. But all she knew of me was my economic situation and poor people aren’t supposed to write well. Have self-declared liberals lost touch with the simple idea that inequality exists and even those with an education can, if you’re suddenly taken ill for example, end up on the breadline.That is what economic inequality does, it has real effects. Her astonishment that I could write was so depressing I’ve never forgotten it. Instead of being an educated person, interested as you say above, in everything but myself I had suddenly become only this marginalised self, only worthy of note for performing the impossible trick of writing whilst poor and only the sum of my own circumstances. And yet, as a sort of Marxist, I don’t want to deny the importance of that inequality either or the relevance of context. But at least understanding these things is half the battle and stepping outside the personal to a wider view of the interrelatedness of things is a sort of giddy transcendence.
Wow! Excellently written! I loved it!
“whose voice is allowed to speak? Only yours.” love that!
It was a completely no glass at all scenario. Like never seen anything like this. Great. But still a bit of confusion as to what can be derived of writing now!
Unique perspective. Beautiful.
Fantastic… It’s superb
Nice post, thanks for sharing with us!
The first para took my attention and forced to read all till the end. “To write feels like violence……..”If writing is violence” then I wish to be very violent. Thanks for sharing
Interesting! Great post, thanks for sharing
Enjoyed the post. I have enjoyed writing sine I was in 9th grade many, many moons ago! Keep writing. It’s one way to become immortal!
Great work there !
Wow! Very deep and totally interesting. I need to read it again. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks very much for this. I like your points about the issues surrounding identity writing (i.e. don’t write about Beyonce unless you’re a black woman) as addressing real world issues but at the same time not feeling bad about expressing ourselves. I love how writing somehow becomes a freedom in your piece. Very beautifully written as well. Hope to read more from you!
from the very first line till the end , you’ve got me reading this with sincerity .
1. work shirts – colours; 2. socks; 3. t-shirts, (not whites); 4. Jeans; 5. work itself, if it fits, and only if colour itself can drain. Ps. Might need a bigger machine. Do they have them in abyss size?
“Overwhelmingly it is white men who are afforded the privilege of being other than themselves, of not having to continuously say ‘I’ – not least because the validity of their self-identity is already assured, because the world is already in their image.” – You are really a good observer! Great job.
Really an amazing perspective.
[…] dött och avgränsat, ett kvävande medium, alla stormande förväntningars krassa baksida. ”Writing is a lack, but the lack is not in words but the world that surrounds them.” Att bli till text är att reducerats, att inte bara berövas en del av sig själv utan att […]
Mesmerizing. I got the wind knocked out of me the first time I read Derrida, had my first panic attack cracking open, again, a book by Foucault (maybe?) … and other funny stories. I believed everything they said, still do, but at the end of the day, I would gladly will my relapse, past the darkness & nothingness, “to earnestness, to home.”
This is everything I needed
My job required me to administer intelligence tests to elementary students to qualify them for special programs, special Ed and gifted. The school was in a “poverty infested neighborhood.” From my experience I believe that there is no correlation between poverty and intelligence. I was always humbled when I met an eight year old who could answer questions that I know I couldn’t.
It’s like, literally out-of-the-world kinda amazing. I haven’t ever thought this deep without sinking. You really know how to dive in to the deepest, and swim back to the brim.
Your last sentence is pure magic.
This is absolutely beautiful. <3
Its heavenly, your writing speaks for itself.
‘ Writing obscures the ghastliness of what is, which is speechlessness; it weaves a flimsy veil of presence around the eternal nothing. Writing is a lack, but the lack is not in words but the world that surrounds them.’ This is why I read – and I think William Golding is a brilliant shining example of writing that does this.
[…] articol din 2017, Sam Kriss observa că există „un curent general în acele discursuri care pretind că au ca […]
Beautifully written and thanks for remiding me about Derrida.
It would have been easier for me to read this piece if the font size would haven been larger. After a certain age size starts to matter more and more as human eyes are becoming more unreliable.