Abstract

Ovaj rad želi u dilemama s kojima se suočavaju suvremene društvene znanosti pri nastojanju artikuliranja koncepcije kolektivnog identiteta prepoznati motive mišljenja identiteta koje je već iskušavala spekulativna filozofska tradicija. Čini se da jednim zaobilaznim i tako reći »empirijskim« putem prve ponavljaju paradokse potonje: udarajući na samu granicu diskurzivnog poimanja identiteta, svjedoče o unutrašnjoj proturječnosti i, istovremeno, neophodnosti njegovog instaliranja. Oba pristupa ustanovljuju neizbježnu »dijalektičku« suigru identiteta i razlike, koji se, čak i u svojim radikalnim samoafirmacijama, međusobno podrazumijevaju, konstituiraju i podržavaju. Upitno, međutim, ostaje koliko je takva njihova »apstraktna« strukturalna su-upućenost operativna, kao i je li moguće misliti mimo ili preko nje.In confronting dilemmas of contemporary social science when attempting to articulate the concept of collective identity, this paper would try to recognize the motives of thinking the identity that has already been tried by the speculative philosophical tradition. It appears that in roundabout, so called “empirical” way the former are repeating the paradox of the latter: aiming at the boundary of the discursive understanding of the identity, they testify inner contradictions, and at the same time, necessity of establishing it. Both approaches ascertain unavoidable “dialectical” inter-play of the identity and the difference, that even in their radical self affirmation, imply, constitute, and endorse one another. However, there is still the question of how much is this “abstract” structural co-dependency operative, and also, is it possible to think past it or over it