Chris wrote:
>Dear D&G'rs,
>
>In my travels I have encountered a great deal of hostilitytowards D&G
>(who they see as basically indistinguishable from Lacan, Kristeva, Freud
>etc.) from practitioners of what could be described as a type of
>Cultural Studies originating from the Birmingham Centre (often with
>heavy dep on Foucault & sometimes Bourdieu).
>
>There is a kind of orthodoxy which ops by demonstrating via Content
>Analysis of the media a prejudice re: Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender,
>[some few are still interested in Class].
It is a right description that explains the current tendencies of
institutionalising the discourses of cultural and more specifically media
studies.
>It aspires to something like Said's Orientalism. It utilizes the idea of
>the Other cf. Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender etc. But for such an
>orthodoxy the very idea of an unconscious op is redundant, pointless,
>non-demonstrable.
To dispensing the unconscious is a return to the vicious circle of
interpretation; hermeneutic of suspicion and its phenomenology. This is
opposite to what Foucault has struggled hard to clarify. I am convinced that
reading Foucault through Deleuze (and Guattari) can clarify the vacuous
trials of many critiques made against his anti- interpretism. The very idea
of discontinuity that Foucault articulated at various stages of his work is
an inauguration of the unconscious and the necessity of its implication. It
strucks against the *pornograms* of the subjectivity. Unfortunately,
nowadays everybody is celebrating the subject's rebirth through the
alternatives of intersubjectivity, and dialogic.
These alternatives are just an expression of a failure to make the
unconscious operate. The assumption structuring their understanding of the
unconscious is either epistemological or metaphysical. In either case,
Idealism is embedding more than ever before. Activism is at the surface of
collapsing everything to the contours of mastery, neglecting all
distinctions in the relationship of the immanence, concept and persona.
Foucault managed more than anybody else to take Deleuze seriously enough to
make the unconscious function as precursor of creativity and
experimentation. Unfortunately, the multiplicity of his work is put under
the interpretive surgery to pin it down and capture it. What is forgotten is
that *elemental* world of "Tournier's world without the other", the duration
the changes in every act of division, a life that is brought to its test but
escapes through each invention. This is why the integration made on
Foucault's work is a sheer violence that emerges from the work of
interpretation. A coherence is imposed and nuance of inoperability of the
unconscious is produced while experimentation has been the act of Foucault's
immanence that cannot dispense with the unconscious.
amd
>Dear D&G'rs,
>
>In my travels I have encountered a great deal of hostilitytowards D&G
>(who they see as basically indistinguishable from Lacan, Kristeva, Freud
>etc.) from practitioners of what could be described as a type of
>Cultural Studies originating from the Birmingham Centre (often with
>heavy dep on Foucault & sometimes Bourdieu).
>
>There is a kind of orthodoxy which ops by demonstrating via Content
>Analysis of the media a prejudice re: Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender,
>[some few are still interested in Class].
It is a right description that explains the current tendencies of
institutionalising the discourses of cultural and more specifically media
studies.
>It aspires to something like Said's Orientalism. It utilizes the idea of
>the Other cf. Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender etc. But for such an
>orthodoxy the very idea of an unconscious op is redundant, pointless,
>non-demonstrable.
To dispensing the unconscious is a return to the vicious circle of
interpretation; hermeneutic of suspicion and its phenomenology. This is
opposite to what Foucault has struggled hard to clarify. I am convinced that
reading Foucault through Deleuze (and Guattari) can clarify the vacuous
trials of many critiques made against his anti- interpretism. The very idea
of discontinuity that Foucault articulated at various stages of his work is
an inauguration of the unconscious and the necessity of its implication. It
strucks against the *pornograms* of the subjectivity. Unfortunately,
nowadays everybody is celebrating the subject's rebirth through the
alternatives of intersubjectivity, and dialogic.
These alternatives are just an expression of a failure to make the
unconscious operate. The assumption structuring their understanding of the
unconscious is either epistemological or metaphysical. In either case,
Idealism is embedding more than ever before. Activism is at the surface of
collapsing everything to the contours of mastery, neglecting all
distinctions in the relationship of the immanence, concept and persona.
Foucault managed more than anybody else to take Deleuze seriously enough to
make the unconscious function as precursor of creativity and
experimentation. Unfortunately, the multiplicity of his work is put under
the interpretive surgery to pin it down and capture it. What is forgotten is
that *elemental* world of "Tournier's world without the other", the duration
the changes in every act of division, a life that is brought to its test but
escapes through each invention. This is why the integration made on
Foucault's work is a sheer violence that emerges from the work of
interpretation. A coherence is imposed and nuance of inoperability of the
unconscious is produced while experimentation has been the act of Foucault's
immanence that cannot dispense with the unconscious.
amd