DIFFERENTIAL CONTOURS

One’s sense of self is always mediated by the

image one has of the other. (I have asked myself

at times whether superficial knowledge of the

other, in terms of some stereotype, is not a way

of preserving a superficial image of oneself).

—Vincent Crapanzano

“Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.” 

—Audre Lorde

Differences matter. Yet, in the hands of those who have the power to shape collective perceptions—not for the sake of peaceful coexistence but to reinforce skewed power dynamics—discourse around representation and difference becomes a dangerous tool for division and control.

Those who, in multiple dimensions and layers, differ from a hegemonic group are often pushed to the periphery—not fully excluded yet never truly integrated. They exist at the margins, policed from all directions, held in a paradoxical limbo. They are encouraged to "be themselves," yet only within the parameters set by the dominant order. Inclusion is dangled before them, conditional and always just out of reach, framed by false promises of justice and representation.

Betwixt and between host and guest, socially unstructured... The Other remains a complementary figure to the dominant group, never fully autonomous.

The construction of a sense of self and this complementary position of the other — as in being defined in terms of and in reference to the image that reifies the normative identity groups —  are derived from a logic that dictates reflexive ways of producing knowledge. Namely, representationalism.

Representationalism happens to be an inevitable byproduct of the Cartesian way of thinking that is so deeply ingrained within Western culture. A very clear division between the knower and the known; the internal and the external, the subject and the object. The knowing happens from a distance within the realms of this discourse. What we have failed to consider here is that we are inseparably interwoven with the reality that an absolute objectivity is impossible. “Representation”, in its most basic sense, refers to the taking-inwards of an external perception of a thing or the conceptual qualities of an idea, in order to believe in its existence in the world. A transcendental, performative alternative to this approach would be, as briefly mentioned above; that an a priori rational construct would not be possible as the knowing emerges from a “direct material engagement with the world”.

What this dualistic framework fails to acknowledge is that we are inseparably interwoven with reality—absolute objectivity is an illusion. Representation, at its core, entails internalizing an external image to validate its existence. But what if knowledge did not have to be mediated in this way?

BEYOND REPRESENTATION

If we are to move beyond the constraints of representationalism, we must embrace an alternative mode of knowing—one that does not rely on a priori constructs but emerges through direct material engagement with the world. Knowledge is not a static reflection but a process, unfolding through interaction, embodiment, and lived experience.

To dismantle the entrenched binaries that uphold hegemonic power, we must recognize that identity is not a fixed essence but a dynamic interplay. True inclusivity does not demand conformity but cultivates spaces where difference can exist on its own terms—unapologetically, irreducibly, and beyond the confines of imposed structures.

The challenge is not merely to critique the system but to enact ways of being that refuse its logic entirely. What would it mean to exist without the need for validation from a dominant gaze? Perhaps the answer lies in the spaces between—the liminal, the fluid, the uncontainable.

Difference is not a problem to be solved. It is the very condition of possibility for new ways of thinking, relating, and becoming.