differend

A differend is a philosophical term introduced by Jean-François Lyotard in The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (1983) to describe a form of dispute that cannot be properly adjudicated within the available rules of judgment. It occurs when a claimant’s injury is legitimate, but no rule acceptable to all parties can render a fair verdict or remedy for that injury. In such cases, the dispute is not about truth or falsity, but about the incommensurability of idioms or language games used to describe the harm.

Core to Lyotard’s account is the idea that social and legal institutions operate with established grammars of judgment. When a harm is phrased in one idiom and the governing grammar refuses to recognize that phrasing as a legitimate complaint, the claim remains unaddressed. The injured party thus speaks a language that cannot be translated into the court’s or the regime’s acceptable terms, leading to a situation in which the offender is judged according to rules that do not recognize the offense as a grievance, or the grievance is dismissed for lack of a compatible category.

The differend highlights a critique of universalist or totalizing notions of justice, arguing that resolution requires acknowledging alternate expressions of harm and potentially allowing the creation or consultation of new languages of complaint. It has influenced discussions in legal theory, political philosophy, translation studies, and ethics, prompting attention to minority rights, intercultural conflict, and the limits of adjudication in plural societies. Critics sometimes challenge the effectiveness of Lyotard’s remedy, arguing for practical mechanisms to translate grievances without collapsing distinct idioms.