It is NOT politically correct these days, is it ?
I get down on it all the time, right ?
I occasionally throw out the question "is it possible to create ANY kind of identity WITHOUT resorting to exclusion" ?
This is not a purely theoretical, hypothetical question. And it ties right into what Thai and I have been discussing on zero sums.
To introduce this problem, I am going to go way back to one of the very best presentations of it : the Genesis creation story, part 2, in the garden (as seen through rabbinic eyes...)
The FIRST commandment reads : "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (some rabbis say that this should read, thou shalt eat, not thou mayest eat...) : But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2,17-18, King James Version
The commandment is "Eat of every tree of the garden EXCEPT, and it is formulated with a negation, NOT, which is the SECOND negation which appears in the creation story, the first being in Genesis 2,5, and which reads : "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew : for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
The two negations are quite different : our first negation "there was not a man" does not take the form of an exclusion, the way the commandment does.
And while the commandment introduces the SECOND negation in the creation story, it introduces the first THOU.
In other words, the first time that God directly addresses man, and speaks to HIM personally, it is in the form of this commandment which presents, first a positive imperative (commandment), then a negative one. "Thou" comes into existence at the same time, simultaneously. BECAUSE God addresses man in the THOU form, he... brings him into existence in language, and while delivering the commandment(s) : eat/not eat.
THOU shalt eat/THOU shalt NOT eat.
So... the exclusion has something to do with the THOU, then, doesn't it ? And the EVERY ?
And God says... the day that THOU eatest what is excluded/set apart, THOU shalt die.
So... for Judaism, there HAVE to be excluded things in order for THOU (a symbol of the interpersonal relation) to exist.
Otherwise, confusion reigns. And we get.... filthy lucre the measure of ALL things, for example ?
Freud will restate all this much later, in his own words...
(Actually, looking back on this post, I am not happy with it. The two negations are not all that different. Two words which repeat in both negations : EVERY, and... NOT.
EVERY seems to go with NOT from a formal logical viewpoint.
Like the French say... tout OU rien ?)