| Abstrakt: |
Diaphorology, coined by Roland Barthes in relation to his concept of Neutral, remains uncommented upon and insufficiently explained. It is worth noting that this word not only describes but problematizes his pedagogical project. This article defends the thesis that there are multiple points of exchange between the notion of "diaphora" and diaphorology. The didactic role of both is, on the one hand, to de-hierarchize, declassify, and deindividualize differences, showing that dividing an object's features or the recipient's abilities is an unproductive theoretical and pedagogical approach. On the other hand, diaphorology has an explicit self-critical impulse, i.e., it brings both itself and the object of research. What Barthes presented is interwoven with other theoretical constructs: the notion of "diaphora," appropriated from literary and linguistic studies (with the theory of metaphor being the most obvious field of origin), the diaphorological method (as well as a certain motivation or a kind of research intention incorporated in such an approach), and diaphorology itself, but in more extended context. It is important to note that these constructs do not undermine each other but rather form an almost coherent field of knowledge. The didactic power of diaphorology as a science of "small differences" and nuances also becomes a kind of invitation to resist discourses of intimidation, subordination, domination, self-assertion, and arrogance. Other issues considered include whether it is worthwhile to search for one "pure" diaphora and whether the artistic research practice can serve as a non-theoretical alternative to Barthes' approach. In this particular study, the work by Marcel Duchamp is provided as an example. At last, by drawing on Barthes's theory, the study aims to re-examine the significance of a light effect, such as shimmering, in conveying a certain didactic and ethical attitude of the researcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
