Single Numbers

“the universality of the singular” (Derrida 104)

There is something odd about the singular. It is something that can only occur once;
something different from all else, it is not normal. Yet in the quoted phrase, it seems
Singular that the singular can also be universal. In the index entry in Roget’s
Thesaurus, singular is associated with the irregular, but also with “one”.
- Remarkable
However “one” is a possible meaning for universal as well. One is
- Special
therefore at the same time connected to the odd and the most general of
- Unusual
all. Commented [CR1]: Excellent.
- One
- Grammatical In this close reading I will attempt to deconstruct this universal singular
(Roget’s as a metaphor for democracy, using the universal singularity of the
Thesaurus 740 – number as a lens – one pair of binoculars, if you will. Commented [CR2]: Good.
index)
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a democracy is “a
Universal method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality
- Extensive
among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making”
- Whole (Christiano). Often, this collective decision making needs to amount to a
- Generality singular decision, an outcome that will be accepted by all. All the singular voting
- Universal members form a unity in this basic acceptance of the outcome of the democratic
- One process. Commented [CR3]: Great.
- Cosmic
A democracy at work at state level is often a Democracy
- Orthodox
representative democracy: a parliament is formed Origin
(Roget’s in which all members of the state, all citizens, are Late 16th century: from French
thesaurus 800 – said to be represented. A number of politicians
index) démocratie, via late Latin from
represent a larger number of citizens. All singular Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos
citizens are brought together in this number. They
‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.
might be spread over the different representatives of (“Democracy”)
their choice, but in the end, they do not posses more
particularity than being part of this backing number. A democracy presupposes a people,
All citizens are thus represented by a reduction of the which is already a unity rather than
a collection of singular persons.
manifold of singularities into one unit, a number. Commented [CR4]: Good.

A number is a single, simple being. We can call a

number, we can say it – we do it all the time – but we seem hardly able to grasp what
we mean exactly by this number. Can we understand what it means to live in a
democracy representing 17 million people if we do not count all the singular
individuals 1? Are we able to address all of these singularities? Commented [CR5]: Excellent maths!
Commented [CR6]: Good, I like these questions. This last
Moreover, this number of persons is fundamentally impersonal as well. Suppose the question is the one that Derrida seems to focus on in parts of
population of the Netherlands has been approximately 17 million for five years. This the text; it is the question of how we address singularity in
democracy, which seems to turn singularity into universality.
approximate number feigns stability over time, yet on an individual level, it will have We give singularity the platform, and in doing so, the
ultimate singularity is a universality. Rather than merely
posing these questions, perhaps it would be more beneifical
15.92
1To say “één” twenty times took me 15.92 seconds, so one person would take = 0,796 seconds. According to for the close reading to focus on providing some kind of
20
CBS latest estimation, the Netherlands has 17257803 inhabitants, so to count each single person would last discussion of them. Remember to try to avoid rhetorical
13737211,188 questions like this. Or if there is no space for that, then think
13737211,188 seconds, which is = 3815,9 hours, which means I would be counting for 159 days – about how to incorporate this thought into the larger close
(60∗60)
more than 22 weeks, or almost half a year (“Bevolkingsteller”). reading.
changed significantly. More than 750.000 people will have died, while a similar
number of babies have been born. The number of inhabitants is only denotes a
people, not an aggregate of individuals. Commented [CR7]: Good.

The paradox of the (im)possibility of democracy becomes clear. We cannot count

every singularity every time, our numbers quickly got out of hand. But if we
necessarily reduce a collection of singularities to general unity, we are at risk not to
fulfil the demand of “equality among the participants”. The largest number might
become the significant number, the only number that still counts. Commented [CR8]: Good – this paradox this important –
perhaps spend a bit more time on this, rather than changing
Furthermore, the unity of number, the desire to have all citizens united in a single the tone in the next paragraph.
number – e pluribus unum – might be a precondition for a productive, lasting
democracy, but it will also deny the singularity democracy claims to protect. This
democracy becomes the universalisation of the singular in name of the singular. It is
a system that attempts to protect the individuality of all, to keep the singular by
submerging it in the universal. This makes democracy an inherent paradox; it makes
a democracy Derrida would welcome exactly that: a democracy that cannot (yet)
exist as such, that is still “to come” (Derrida 104). Commented [CR9]: This is an excellent essay and a
pleasure to read. A few comments to think about for next
time.

Grade: 9

Works Cited

“Bevolkingsteller”. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-

nl/visualisaties/bevolkingsteller. Accessed 10 October 2018, 21:44.

Christiano, Tom. “Democracy” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by

Edward N. Zalta, fall ed., 2018,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#DemDef. Accessed 10 October
2018.

“Democracy”. Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2018,

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy. Accessed 10 October
2018.

Derrida, Jacques. The Politics of Friendship. Translated by George Collins, Verso,

2005.

Roget’s Thesaurus. Revised edition by George Davidson, Penguin Books, 2004.