This is where you can write on difference.You can submit papers on difference-related topics and issues in the form of essays, and commentaries. These can either be peer-reviewed to be published by The Society for the Study of Difference in its journal "Dif-ferance”, or on-line, here on The Difference Site to be public-reviewed by means of an open forum appended to each article. Here are some general directions for writing: thinking, and analyzing difference as such; discussing difference in the light of past thinkers and philosophers; exploring difference in disciplines other than its traditional host - philosophy; considering ways to be different and even act differently; investigating innovation, change and making a difference; considering the value of difference; imagining the other, otherness and self; being critical about difference as such; thinking about dichotomies, oppositions, and paradoxes; questioning the origin and effects of difference; and moreover besides ... .
What marks the difference between humans and animals? This paper seeks to interrogate and problematize the long-established Aristotelian difference between humans and animals based on rationality via Merleau-Ponty’s notions of flesh, interanimality, and life and Deleuze’s notions of meat, becoming-animal, and the zone of indiscerniblility, as they are presented, respectively, in The Visible and the Invisible and in the 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1959-60 courses on nature––––“The Concept of Nature,” “Animality, the Human Body, and the Passage to Culture,” and “Nature and Logos: The Human Body”––––and in the fourth chapter, “Body, Meat, and Spirit: Becoming-Animal,” of the book, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. In addition, Francis Bacon’s paintings are used to illustrate the ambiguity and indiscerniblility between the human animal flesh and the non-human animal meat and reversibly, between the human animal meat and non-human animal flesh. Suffice it to say, the clear-cut traditional distinction between human and non-human animals is called into question and is rethought through their corporeity rather than their intrinsic mental faculties.
In this text Gianni Vattimo compares Heidegger's ontological difference with the basis tenets of the difference philosophy advocated by Derrida and Deleuze to argue that difference is coming to an end.
Rodophe Gasché discusses in this book excerpt a number of issues surrounding difference with a particular emphasis on claims made by Vattimo, Heidegger, Deleuze and Marion.
These Deleuzian innterrogations in the form of conversation explore some of the connections between Deleuzian philosophy, organization theory and work by DeLanda and Protevi. The conversation springs out of questions initially posed by Torkild Thanem to DeLanda and Protevi as well as questions posed by Protevi to DeLanda. Working through these connections carries some sense of tension. Deleuzian philosophy is a fairly recent arrivant on the scene of organization theory. Moreover, both DeLanda and Protevi are outsiders to organization theory, and they both “in their own distinctive ways” critically rethink and reconstruct Deleuzian philosophy. But sometimes tension stimulates creativity.
This paper seesk to demonstrate that we are all victims of social constructivism in that we presume whatever it is that society has taught us in order to think about what we are seeing as a basis for our world understanding. Therefore, in trying to prove that Dr. Z could in fact be considered a pink ‘elephant’ according to the beholder if that is what society has taught them to believe through a discussion of social constructivism, Piagetian theory of assimilation and accommodation, biological essentialism, and the philosophy of language and symbols, the paper aims at stessing the struggle over what signifier is to become common, a struggle over the boundaries of differentiation.
This paper examines the the relationship between modern society and the individual, which is found to be fundamentally antagonistic. The imposition of power structures - government, law, economy, etc. - that are ideologically, teleologically, and physically separate from the individual create a social clime in which individualism is able to be subordinated. In this way, we observe the alienation of the modern individuals from their society, with observable and tangible losses that manifest themselves in the form of a pervasive "social sickness". This sickness causes the individual to become nothing more than an abstraction. The antagonism, then, as a figure of difference expresses the denial and suppression of an individual nature by societal forces.
Does "difference" exist or does it not? Does "difference" presuppose thinking and cognition or do these pre-suppose "difference"? But is not the case that this chicken and egg situation is the very embodiment of difference? ‘The Difference Dialogue’ between Harry and Sacks explores these themes. This is a brief extract, a snapshot, of their ongoing debate and ... differential dialogue.
Having listened to difference present and rhyme experience as difference, having had the opportunity to come closer to what difference may be, I subsequently held the idea that more than a mere presence was necessary. It is hoped that this will occur, and that the wish that difference discusses a number of themes does materialize. With this in mind, and in order to clarify some first issues arising, I thought it was necessary to meet difference again and this time engage in some form of dialogue, to be part of an exchange, or as difference would say ‘be in difference’. Hence the present interview with difference or rather, in difference.
Author copyright is protected by The Difference Site unless otherwise stated
This is where you can write on difference.You can submit papers on difference-related topics and issues in the form of essays, and commentaries. These can either be peer-reviewed to be published by 
