item in so far as it contains a solecism, which French also contains but not
so blatantly. In fact, the grammar of the noun ‘dispute’ requires that it be
followed by a prepositional phrase beginning with ‘between’. In other words,
for there to be a ‘dispute’, there need to be two parties: this necessity likewise
applies to conflicts. And this noun cannot take an agent introduced by ‘by’
(this is where French is more sly, in that the dein le conflit destravailleurs de
la santé does not so clearly mark an agent). We can draw two conclusions
from this. The first is that the rules of syntax, which are not inscribed in
human nature, are not as stable as all that, since my sentence has not only
been uttered but is perfectly intelligible, and even adapted to its purpose,
which is the subject of my second conclusion. For, obviously, this solecism is
scarcely innocent: it is not politicallyinnocent. By not mentioning it (the fact
that the passive verb takes an agent phrase as its complement transforms the
process denoted by ‘dispute’, which is a process with two actors, into a process
with only one), it exonerates the other party to the conflict – the administrators
or employers – from any responsibility, thereby making the workers exclusively
responsible for the inconveniences caused by the conflict. It therefore seeks
to mobilise the listeners, who are also users and tax-payers, on the side of
one of the two parties to the conflict. And you will have noted that the
utterance avoids the politically taboo word ‘strike’, which is too emotionally
and politically charged. But the most interesting thing is that my analysis,
which is situated at the level of the text, does not need to posit conscious,
malevolent intended meanings on the part of the journalist who is the author
of this sentence: whether there was, or was not, an intended meaning is of
little consequence. It suffices that this solecism surreptitiously introduces the
noun ‘dispute’ into a passive syntactical structure for the political effectivity
of the utterance to be guaranteed. The passive is a weapon in the linguistic
class struggle, whether the individual speaker is conscious of it or not. This
gives a new meaning to what Fredric Jameson calls the ‘political unconscious’.^26
Propositions (II) • 197(^26) See Jameson 1981.