The call for unity, especially within the nation-state, has the appearance of benefiting all those involved. But any type of unity can very easily be a movement toward transcendence that creates absolute terms. These absolute terms can be in direct conflict with the objective reality and can be a form of oppression and exclusion. However, this objective reality can only be known by humans through sensory experience and the mediation of structures of meaning. The philosophical genre called poststructuralism has devoted its efforts toward analyzing how structures operate, to such an extent that it may appear that structures actually create reality. On the other hand, there is the rising work of speculative realism that work towards an examination of reality as it exists in itself outside of experience and structures. The examination of reality in itself, in tandem with poststructuralism, can show that reality is much more varied and strange than what humans are able to know. Alongside an understanding of the functions of structures, it is possible to reveal that any call for unity has its origins from a specific political and social agenda and not from a stable basis in reality or truth. In fact, in most cases, a claim on truth can go against how reality and structures actually operate.

Particular structures have a tendency to become universal or at least appear to be universal, unless otherwise prevented. This process transforms immanent totalities into transcendent categories that shifts the emphasis on an internal consistency of the structure to a completeness of the structure. This completeness attempts to be a perfect reflection of reality, and any enforcement of the transcendent structure is therefore an enforcement of reality. The choices, understanding, and creations of universal reality begin through particular structures. The immanent totality is a structure that is a finite subset within reality in a process of immanence. What occurs within an immanent totality is the creation of novelty where the form constantly changes while the content remains the same. This creation of novelty allows the expression of free agency by immanent structures. On the other hand, the transcendent category is the appearance of infinite reality within structures that are in transcendence. The transcendent category, making a claim for absolute reality, will go through structural reproduction instead of the creation of novelty. The form remains the same while the content will change in order to make sure the structure is repeated with no differences. Instead of free agency, the structural reproduction will be a subsumption of reality by transcendent structures. While the structures can either be immanent or transcendent, reality in itself can be a conundrum. Outside of experience and structures, objective reality exists but is not known nor does it have meaning. It is the foundation for any structures that exist but it is covered over by the mediation of structures. For those who claim absolute truth, the emphasis on the mediation of structures has been derided as “moral relativism”. However, acknowledging that an external reality exists must also recognize that it will be much more different than what human expectations will take into account. What can be stated is that reality is in surplus not only to any formation of any particular structure, but to all particular structures. This surplus of reality that is external to structures is also equal to the gaps of contradictions that are internal to structures. The gaps of contradictions are spaces for the creation of novelty, and this creation of novelty is a change in form and the constant of content. It can be almost impossible for humans to understand reality as a surplus external to structures, but as gaps of contradictions within structures it can be a way for humans to make use of reality to change structures. Reality is not taken as a foundation for a universal enforcement of truth but is the raw material for the expression of particular free agency.

The call for unity establishes a relationship between the self and the other, regardless of the appearance of an insurmountable chasm that may exist between the two. In fact, this supposed chasm can be manipulated to prevent any type of tolerance or respect between the self and the other. The nature of tolerance must first be examined. At its most minimum form, tolerance allows something to exist with no regard as to supporting or having any positive attitude toward the thing. Tolerance without acceptance is the isolation of various groups whether they are race, religion, gender, sexual identity, or ethnicity. Tolerance without justice is the perpetuation of binary oppositions of the self and the other, and will maintain the separation of a unified self and a marginalized other. On the other hand, tolerance with acceptance is the understanding of common cultural forms, while tolerance with justice is the active creation of political equilibrium. To begin a tolerance of the self and the other, integrated with acceptance and justice, one must begin with the self. A tolerance of the self is based on a ubiquitous structure that allows the use of the world through a system that allows meaning. The awareness of a structure of meaning is caused by the disruption of structures and its seamless nature. Therefore, there is a requirement of an awareness of structures in order to have a tolerance of the other. When one is able to understand how the structure of meaning operates, one is then able to extend a tolerance of some significant substance towards the other, who is no longer presented as absolutely different and impossible to understand. Once the structure is disrupted and made apparent, a creation of novelty can occur as a change in form in order to understand the content of humans who were considered the other.

The interplay of unity and tolerance function on the structural level in a formation of meaning that emerges from a pure reality that is indifferent to this process. The definition of the self arises within structures. This then develops a relationship of hierarchy between the general and the particular of being within structures as well. But it must be remembered, even though structures are the way reality is defined, that both structures and experience are finite subsets of partial difference and partial equivalence. This interplay of connection and disconnection allows comparison and contrast in meaning, and it makes reality intelligible to the human experience of reality. However, reality in itself exists before, during, and after the structures and experiences of humans. Therefore, these structures and experiences are a subjective contingency of necessity. Their need to exist is not based on a necessary cause in reality. Something else in reality could have allowed structures and experience to be possible. The definition of the other also arises within structures. A relationship of binary opposition between presence and absence develops within structures, in tandem with the general and the particular of being. The other is portrayed as that which is absent or the part of reality that is outside of the ability to give it meaning, and therefore the ability to see that the other is not that different from the self. This ties into the aspect of reality where it exceeds any attempt to be structured. The surplus of reality is external to structures and experience as well as the contradictions between structures and within structures. The surplus of reality is an infinite field of absolute difference that is not yet broken up into various connections or causality. Therefore, the surplus of reality is an objective necessity of contingency. The only thing that is necessary in reality in itself is that it is completely contingent. The self is constructed in a limited fashion that reflects the finite structure of meaning, while the other is constructed as a reflection of the structure’s limits on defining reality. This not only points to the small part that humans occupy with their structures and experience, but that reality can exist independently of this small part while still escaping concrete definitions.

What can be ascertained at this point is that a call for unity, that also identifies an other to be marginalized as its consequence, is a particular motion that is constrained by the limits of the human intervention in reality. It is also a political and social motion that pretends to be a direct reference to reality and truth posed as absolute. The political always occurs within structures. It is the creation of immanent structures that can become transcendent structures. This transcendence through sovereignty, hegemony, and governmentality is the alienation of the political that is immanence. There is an appearance of unlimited choice which obscures the containment by structures and precluded choices. The containment by structures is based on the distinction between that which is internal and external to structures. Democracy can be seen as the conscious immanent structures of the political and a purposeful prevention of transcendence.

Any structural mediation can be seen as a discontinuity from reality in itself. The structural mediation of reality acts as the foundation for the experience of the objective world and the content of the subjective experience within an interdependence that makes it very difficult to look at reality outside of structures or experience. A structural mediation of experience, posing as universal, allows the representation of the objective to be the appearance of reality in itself. But this appearance is only superficial since structures are simultaneous to the mediation of reality, which allows for a chance of free agency within structures. In other words, the structures do not precede the mediation of experience, and are not a component of reality outside of its human use. The interaction of structures with reality is also a full realization of the role of the objective and the subjective. The objective is the form that arises after the organization of content, and the objective in itself is a universal contingency. On the other hand, the subjective is the content after the mediation of form with the subjective for itself as a particular necessity.

The call to unity, though appearing as a way for people to free themselves through working together, is actually a method to enforce control. This control is based on the preexisting assumptions that would be made by a binary opposition of a unified self and a marginalized other. The call for unity is usually made in a time of supposed scarcity, and unity would actually be based on a system of exploitation and inequality. On a structural level, regardless of the conditions of reality, the transcendent category is a ubiquitous form of power, meaning, and production. The transcendent category of scarcity precedes any formation of hierarchy and inequality, and this scarcity is the background for an artificial unity that perpetuates the binary opposition of the self and the other. The appearance of this transcendent category as a necessity obscures the immanent totality as inherently a contingency. When a call for unity enacts the transcendent category of scarcity, there is no real universal unity but only a reason to continue systems of hierarchy and inequality. All of this is presented as reality, but reality in itself operates on its own in ways that have no regard to this consolidation of power, meaning, and production. In contrast, the immanent totality is an apparent form for free agency. Since free agency is the expression of desire, this desire precedes individuals and collectives. Desire is also the individual creation that is a disruption of the transcendent category that already exists, as well as the collective use of the immanent totality in the social field. The immanent totality, as an instrument of freedom, becomes a transcendent category in collective formations and will only then give the appearance of freedom that is conditioned by scarcity and that is also presented as a natural state. The immanent totality begins as a multiplicity of singularities brought together through a common opposition and a unique desire. The transcendent category is a universality of particulars through a structural mediation and a uniform drive. The appearance of a transcendent category that precedes its structured reality obscures the actual reality that precedes any immanent totality. In other words, any call for unity that is based on scarcity and a fear of the other does not originate from reality in itself. It is in fact a formation by humans who wish to perpetuate various systems of hierarchy and inequality that deny the possibility of not only tolerance with acceptance, but real collective efforts at expressing individual desire.