Infected Identities?

The readings this week discussed how identity is constructed through language. Fanon writes “To speak means to be in a position to use a certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language, but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of civilization” (17-18, The Negro and Language). Participation in language is participation with the dominant social group. His problematic in The Negro and Language is the specific case of the Negro of Antilles learning French in order to be part of the white world. “Mastery of language affords remarkable power” (18). This “power of language” (39) is problematic for Fanon because it denies a space for other (17) identities. 

In relations to Burroughs text, the “power of language” is complicated by his argument that western language has virus-like structures and characteristics. This construction is produced through the falsifications of the syllabic western language: the use of THE, EITHER/OR, and TO BE. These falsifications create the virus which is our notions of identity, “the IS of Identity” (54). Identity is defined clearly by what one is not or by information on a passport.

However, it is “the other” within these texts who is called to use voice and speech as a weapon against a repressive system, to explode and erupt it. This erosive, breaking apart of the system is ending the war game, as Burroughs calls it. But what lies on the other side? If the written word acted as a virus to create the spoken word, then how does the virus go away? Do we lose language and identity, opening up new languages and identities? What marks or damage will the virus leave on a system?