Differend

Phrase is the basic element of language

1 So although one may link on to any phrase in various ways,
the fact of linking is itself necessary and the goal of the
genre of discourse determines which modes of linking are
appropriate.
Behind the motivation of linking, or its justification, is

the genre in which it occurs. Lyotard, therefore,

witnesses that language is used within a genre of
discourse, there is always a goal in speaking or linking.
1 The goal of any particular genre of discourse thus dictates
which phrases are appropriate. In addition "genres are in
incommensurable, each has its own 'interests' the 'force'
of the phrase is judged by the standard of a genre's rules,
the same phrase is weak or strong depending upon what is
at stake.
1 This incommensurability appears to be a problem. There is
a communication breakdown between differing and
sometimes competing discourses. This problem could be
resolved if it were the case that there was one genre above
all others in which each genre could communicate its rivals.

Lyotard says there is no one overriding discourse that

can determine the objective truth, or ultimate meaning,
of any one phrase. There is no grand narrative, or
discourse, into which the others may be translated.

1 As soon as one genre becomes the arbiter of universally

appropriate linkages then all other discourses lose their
abilities to express their unique positions. However, the lack
of Grand Narrative, or recognised hegemonic discourse,
ultimately creates myriad problems for communication

Is an inexpressible feeling, something that cannot be

communicated in the current circumstances. The ability to
link is lacking. One witnesses or recognises that an injustice
has occurred, however this cannot be expressed, there is no
idiom to communicate the idea. Therefore, one loses the

ability to link onto the current discourse in a way that is

meaningful and expresses the injustice that has occurred.
Expressing the Inexpressible
1 The goal of any particular genre of discourse thus dictates
which phrases are appropriate. In addition "genres are in
incommensurable, each has its own 'interests' the 'force'
of the phrase is judged by the standard of a genre's rules,
the same phrase is weak or strong depending upon what is
at stake.
1 This incommensurability appears to be a problem. There is
a communication breakdown between differing and
sometimes competing discourses. This problem could be
resolved if it were the case that there was one genre above
all others in which each genre could communicate its
rivals.

Lyotard says there is no one overriding discourse that

can determine the objective truth, or ultimate meaning,
of any one phrase. There is no grand narrative, or
discourse, into which the others may be translated.

1 As soon as one genre becomes the arbiter of universally

appropriate linkages then all other discourses lose their
abilities to express their unique positions. However, the lack
of Grand Narrative, or recognised hegemonic discourse,
ultimately creates myriad problems for communication

Is an inexpressible feeling, something that cannot be

communicated in the current circumstances. The ability to
link is lacking. One witnesses or recognises that an injustice
has occurred, however this cannot be expressed, there is no
idiom to communicate the idea. Therefore, one loses the
ability to link onto the current discourse in a way that is
meaningful and expresses the injustice that has occurred.

Post Modern theory of Justice

Atomisation of human beings implied by the notion of the
mircronarrative and the language game suggests a collapse

of ethics. It has often been though that universality is a

condition for something to be a properly ethical statement:
'thou shalt not steal' is an ethical statement in a way that
'thou shalt not steal from Margaret' is not. The latter is too
particular to be an ethical statement ('thou shalt not steal
from anyone'). But universals are impermissible in a world
that has lost faith in metanarratives and so it would seem
that ethics is impossible. Justice and injustice can only be
terms within language games, and the universality of ethics
is out of the window. Lyotard argues that notions of justice
and injustice do in fact remain in postmodernism. The new
definition of injustice is indeed to use the language rules
from one 'phrase regimen' and apply them to another.
Ethical behaviour is about remaining alert precisely to the
threat of this injustice, about paying attention to things in
their particularity and not enclosing them within abstract
conceptuality.

One must refer to the Differend

Word Bank:

Hegemony: leadership or predominant influence exercised

by one nation over others

Incommensurable: having no common basis, measure, or

standard of comparison

It is difficult to convey meaning because there is no commonality that everyone

is going to understand in the same way