IV. Conclusion

Here I'd like to return to my initial question. What would be the point in ordering the computer classroom chaotically? Our will to order is made manifest in any attempt to structure student subjectivity via literacy, ordered rooms, and technology. Our attempt to structure destructions is simply supported by the antithetical fact that destructions also structure. What can we do in terms of structuring the computer classroom to offset this? Almost nothing. In terms of practicality, I am positing the claim that one thing we can do is mimic the unstable subject by putting the students in differing contexts and trying to make them aware of their instability. Regularly shifting contexts gives students concrete examples of difference and how different contexts create different conditions of possibility for texts. But the other point of my paper is that the will to order is futile, yet inevitable. The eternal return of difference is the engine of all wills to order, so rather than devise a better order (for the classroom), why not embrace all order(s) and all chaos(es). [?] The mutual relationship between stability and instability is brought home for me in one of my favorite quotes from Foucault: 

But no sooner have they been adumbrated than all these groupings dissolve again, for the field of identity that sustains them, however limited it may be is still too wide not to be unstable; and so the sick mind continues to infinity, creating groups then dispersing them again, heaping up diverse similarities, destroying those that seem clearest, splitting up things that are identical, superimposing different criteria, frenziedly beginning all over again, becoming more and more disturbed, and teetering finally on the brink of anxiety....The uneasiness that makes us laugh when we read Borges is certainly related to the profound distress of those whose language has been destroyed: loss of what is 'common' to place and name" (The Order of Things, xviii).