Sub-Versively Protective: In The Service of Language

If pluralist discourse presented us with anything, it is a versatility of vocabularies. If such a diversity brought anything to the world imprisoned in the stagnancy of grand narratives, it is a liberty to acknowledge each idiolect as equally valid. Such an anti-hierarchical shift is a triumph of human striving to achieve a cultural context that can enable fruitful exchange. To recognize each idiosyncratic variant as worthy of hearing is to get rid of the ages long marginalization, muted voices, and underprivileged social strata.  Such a reconfiguration of the socioscape is a promising move in thinking patterns of the humans.

To accept potential validity of voicing out what no longer need be suppressed is to create room for cultural dialogue that entails opening up other, more fruitful, paths of living out a sense of communality. This, more often than not, implies a recognition of different modes of speech, different lifestyles as a manifestation and demonstration of different perceptions of the culture flux, different affinities for the verbalization of such perceptions, and different moral tastes.

To approve the legitimacy of every single of them, in some intricate way brings the whole thematic closer to the legal vernacular. In the language of deceptive, fabricated realities, the contingency of the world is taken to be the wager for the equation between legitimacy and legality. Now, if you are a believer in law, you might as well want it to act as an arbitrator in regulating social phenomena and moral conduct. That might be a good way of imagining a society of sensible denizens. And yet, when legal vocabulary enters conversation with economy, than ethics becomes as arbitrary as it gets and its practitioners devotees of economics.

If it is yet another piece of evidence for its contingent character, that fact even ethics itself would not deny.  And yet, when such a reality starts conspiring with the medical sphere, then all somnambulist philosophies of the world cannot beat the inexplicability (for the lack of a better word) of the combination in question. To allow such an aesthetic would mean to rebuke the assumption that a human being is capable of reasoning. To agree with such a postulate would be another instance of an erroneous identification between contingency and chaos, polyphony and confusion. This, again, would render supracultural superfluous. To attune to such a tonality would indicate a misconception of the totality of the dictatorship of the cacophonic buzz. To even think of accepting the noise of fiscal orgies would mean dismissing the power of dissensus--something that some of us do not share at all. Even if one would, language—being innately subversive--would protect humanness.