explain it
121
His frequent references to “the dialectic” might appear problematic, even dated, because
in its Hegelian and Marxist articulations, it is—unlike irony—a triadic movement, with
the “synthetic” moment representing a stable negation of both thesis and antithesis.
based on a dialectical model of representation must necessarily confront the charge
of seeking moments of stability that will harmonize tensions, and ultimately gather up all
differences and disjunctions into an all-embracing totality.
Since “dialectic” is a term that
he repeatedly uses, it is important to clarify its numerical
value: in other words, to check whether it is an antagonistic dualism or a tripled
unity. In his letter, he is unequivocal about his interpretation of the
dialectic as an unresolved dualism closely aligned with irony:
I'd have to contest the disqualification of dialectic by reference to an implied
trivalent synthesis, since activation of consciousness by the contraventions of
attention precisely will not come to stable focus between cynical expedient and
mortified division, at least as I understand the use of a term like irony as
intrinsically unhypostatic and incapable of self-support. (43)
There is no stable middle ground where contradictory movements can be reconciled:
both irony and dialectic are thus not geared towards resolution, but generate zones of
being and knowledge for which unresolved tensions are the very condition of
possibility.21