The term Diremption means dissolution, its usage by Sorel gives expression to the fact that correct social thought is fatally determined to give rise to a multiplicity of areas of analysis, rather, than constituting a coherent unity. Social reality once cognized gives rise to numerous compartmentalized ideologies in the mind that become more separate as we gain a broader knowledge since social reality is riddled with contradictions and multiplicities.
"Man cannot create unity in his thought unless he allows himself to give up part of reality. In order to construct a new metaphysics that corresponds to our needs, it must be admitted that in coming into contact with the world, our mind divides itself into distinct ideologies, which deal with areas that become more separate as we gain a broader knowledge [connaissance] of the real. Humanity has always acted as though it understood this metaphysics and the evidence of history legitimizes the enterprise of those who seek to create this philosophy of diremption to replace that of unification."
— Georges Sorel, Socialist Studies
Creating a unity in thought means effacing a part of reality, to adapt historical materialism to the practical needs of the socialist movement, a new metaphysics of multiplicity must be devised. Ideologies serve practical and material necessities, not the other way around because these necessities enter the mind as a multiplicity, namely, distinct areas of thought. These ideologies become distinct and more separate as we gain a broader connaissance of the real. For example, Marxism ends where modern geo-politics begins, Leninism must take after where Marxism ended and must adapt the separate and distinct writings of John Atkins Hobson on imperialism to the Marxist system, but a total unification never occurs, rather, we have an associated multiplicity of ideologies forming Marxism-Leninism. This metaphysics does not have to be purely constructed as humanity has always acted as though it understood this metaphysics. The Hegelian unification in the Aufhebung must be excised from correct social thought as the healing of the rents in thought content does not occur, rather we have a dissolution into distinct parts or a diremption. However, the concept of unity is to be taken seriously as there are real forces in the world that produce this unity.
"That in many circumstances, and especially in those which are most related to acting on the everyday constructions of the mind which we attribute to common sense, the unity of society must be taken into very serious consideration is something that no reasonable person will dream of disputing."
— Georges Sorel, Unity and Multiplicity, Reflections on Violence
The forces producing unity are that we have a unification of economic-juridical life insofar as we are bound by a hierarchy that binds its citizens to a uniform application of the law. This informs our commonsense judgments but cannot explain the entirety of social thought which proceeds along the lines of diremption.
Sorel continues:
"Similar observations could be made with regard to workers' organizations; they seem under an obligation to vary themselves to infinity, to the extent that the proletariat feels itself more capable of taking its place in the world; the socialist parties believe themselves charged with providing ideas to these organizations, advising them and grouping them into a class unit, at the same time as their parliamentary activity would establish a connection between the workers' movement and the bourgeoisie; and we know that the socialist parties have taken from democracy their great love of unity. In order properly to understand the revolutionary movement, we must place ourselves in a position diametrically opposed to that of the politicians. A large number of organizations are merged, to a greater or lesser extent, into the economic-juridical life of the whole of society, to the extent that whatever unity is required in society is produced automatically; others, less numerous but well selected, lead the class struggle; it is these that discipline proletarian thought by creating the ideological unity which the proletariat needs in order to accomplish its revolutionary work; – and the guides ask for no recompense and in this, as in so many other things, are very different from the Intellectuals, who insist upon being maintained in a joyous way of life by the poor devils before whom they consent to hold forth."
— Georges Sorel, Unity and Multiplicity, Reflections on Violence
The parliamentary socialist parties feel compelled to be merged into the economic-juridical life of the whole society, adapting themselves to the processes contained within bourgeois society viewing the socialist transformation bound up with the liberal revolution. Other groups, though less numerous but well selected, lead the class struggle and discipline proletarian thought to create a practical unity or useful abstraction, that the proletariat needs to accomplish its revolutionary task. In this form the proletarian revolution is seen as a sharp break with the traditions of liberalism and not its continuation or unification with it; thus we have a diremption.
"It is not necessary to be a very profound philosopher to recognize that language deceives us constantly as to the true nature of the relationships that exist between things. Before commencing a systematic critique of a system, there would often be a very real advantage in finding out the origin of the images which are frequently encountered in it. In the present case, it is evident that the sociobiological analogies indicate the reverse of reality."
— Georges Sorel, Unity and Multiplicity, Reflections on Violence
Social thought has been riddled with physiological terms borrowed from biology that obfuscate the true relationships that exist between things, namely that society is comprised of antagonistic forces akin to grinding gears and failing components, and not a body where all its parts when analyzed must take their functions as it relates to the whole. Thus "sociobiological" analogies indicate the reverse of reality, the social bodies do not exist to serve the functions of the whole, rather the whole exists because of the very real social war of antagonistic bodies, which without the whole would mean the war of all against all.
"The fundamental difference that exists between the methods of social philosophy and those of physiology now appears to us more clearly. The latter can never consider the functioning of an organ without relating it to the whole of the living being; one could say that this whole determines the type of activity into which this element enters. Social philosophy, in order to study the most significant phenomena of history, is obliged to proceed to a diremption, to examine certain parts without taking into account all of the ties which connect them to the whole, to determine in some manner the character of their activity by pushing them towards independence. When it has thus arrived at the most perfect understanding it can no longer attempt to reconstitute the broken unity."
— Georges Sorel, Unity and Multiplicity, Reflections on Violence
These social components, in order to determine the character of their activity must be pushed towards independence. When the most perfect understanding has been achieved, correct social thought can no longer attempt to reconstitute the broken unity.
"Diremption alone makes possible the recognition of this internal law of the Church; in the periods when the struggle is intense, Catholics claim for the Church an independence conforming to this internal law and incompatible with the general order established by the State; most often, ecclesiastical diplomacy arranges agreements which, for the superficial observer, dissimulate the absoluteness of its principles. Harmony is only a dream of the theoreticians, which corresponds neither to the internal law of the Church nor to practical arrangements, and which serves to explain nothing in history. With each renaissance of the Church, history has been thrown into confusion by manifestations of the absolute independence claimed by Catholics; it is these periods of renaissance that reveal what constitutes the essential nature of the Church; and thus fully justifies the method of diremption outlined at the end of section II."
— Georges Sorel, Unity and Multiplicity, Reflections on Violence
Diremption of social bodies alone makes the internal law of the Church recognizable. As a de-territorialized social body, it claims for itself independence from the politics of nations and its autonomy puts it in collision with the social basis of the state, either the sovereignty of the monarch and its subjects or, in a republic, the will of the people. The idea that there has ever been harmony between the church and the state is a dream of the theoreticians. This is most exemplified in the Lateran pact, where the Fascists, in order to secularize Italian politics, had to push the Church towards regional independence from Italy by forming the Vatican City State. Only then could the Italian state have sovereign control over the politics of its territory. The Church, given its geopolitical sovereignty, can be reconciled with its long-held principle of independence.
Here is another example of the method of diremption being used earlier in Reflections on Violence, this time on the question of electoral democracy:
"Electoral democracy greatly resembles the world of the Stock Exchange; in both cases, it is necessary to work upon the simplicity of the masses, to buy the cooperation of the most important papers, and to assist chance by an infinity of trickery; there is not a great deal of difference between a financier who puts grand-sounding concerns on the market, which come to grief in a few years, and the politician who promises his fellow citizens an infinite number of reforms, which he does not know how to bring about and which resolve themselves simply into an accumulation of parliamentary papers. Neither one nor the other knows anything about production and yet they manage to obtain control over it, to misdirect it and to exploit it shamelessly: they are dazzled by the marvels of modern industry and they each imagine that the world is so rich that they can rob it on a large scale without causing any great outcry amongst the producers; to bleed the taxpayer without bringing him to the point of revolt, that is the whole art of the statesman and the great financier. Democrats and businessmen have a very special science for the purpose of making deliberative assemblies approve of their swindling; parliamentary regimes are as fixed as shareholders' meetings. It is probably because of the profound psychological affinities resulting from these methods of operation that they both understand each other so perfectly: democracy is the paradise of which unscrupulous financiers dream."
— Georges Sorel, The Ethics of The Producers, Reflections on Violence
Here electoral democracy greatly resembles the world of the stock exchange, but it is not unified with it, rather it forms its own antagonistic body in a composition of grinding gears and failing components that are joined by a shared economic-juridical life in a unified multiplicity. The fundamental contradiction is that both assemblies know nothing of production but manage to maintain control over it. Both assemblies are pushed towards independence, and we understand their character more precisely, the broken unity that ties these assemblies to the rest of society is not healed with the aufhebung but rather proceeds along the lines of a diremption. It is probably because of the profound psychological affinities resulting from these methods of operation that they understand each other so perfectly. And we end with a useful and practical abstraction, that democracy is the paradise of which unscrupulous financiers dream.
The history of socialism also gives us examples of the philosophy of diremption. The Cultural Revolution for instance saw the growing autonomy, autonomy which comes at the expense of other bodies, of the collectives and rebel leaders against the party and its bosses in rural areas. The unity of party authority was in essence dirempted during this time as the collectives gained greater independence for themselves. Later in reform and opening up the collectives were parceled out to households and managerial authority was restored in the enterprises, a diremption of the collective authority for the greater autonomy and sovereignty of the Communist party in the affairs of China. Society is not geared towards unity but rather multiplicity, and socialism, if it is to succeed, must adapt to this fact. This fact has been rectified in modern China which seeks to avoid both the Chaos of the Cultural Revolution and also the chaos in the 90s and early 2000s after Reform and Opening Up. The result was an embrace of a mixed economy with the firm hand of the party, securing its autonomy, through corporate governance and a social credit system. Collectives, like Huawei, that are managed by a trade union committee are also facts corresponding to multiplicity. The unification of the plan is matched with the dynamism of the socialist market economy, but it is precisely this antagonism that drives China forward. The end goal is nothing, unification is a desire by theoreticians, while the reality of the social war is everything. Socialism is best equipped with the philosophy of diremption. Correct social science does not deal with the rhythmic movement of society towards an artificial unity, rather this rhythm is more like an atonal roar of grinding gears and failing components.