POST #1
It appears that some of the text of my "Introduction" to this list was
dropped out of the version I posted. I have rewritten and revised it,
for new folks and as a first step toward getting our reading of _MP_
going.
I had hoped to start with a reading of _Deleuze's_ "I have
nothing to admit," allowing a sort of free-for-all response/discussion
of that text, written shortly after _Anti-Oedipus_ while _Mille Plateux_
was in the process of being conceived. Deleuze their discusses his
vision for _Mille Plateaux_, as well as making some brief remarks on
his career and writings (similar to those that appear in the first
part of _Dialogues_), and also takes up the question of how he should
be read. I planned to follow that up with a synopsis of the various
"topics" covered in the "plateaus," and get input as to which one's
folks would like to start out with, or whether people want to read
straight through - which would be fine, but it certainly is not
necessary, as even D&G point out.
It appears that, due to possible copyright considerations, I cannot find
an ftp site to house "I have nothing to admit." (Anyone have any
ideas?) I am not really comfortable starting there without an ftp
site, because I think many folks would have trouble finding the journal
containing the English translation. I don't really want to wait for
however long it might take the Semiotext(e) people to grant a
permission, if one is really necessary (I am ignorant on these points),
either, since this reading group has been delayed too long. One
possible alternative is that I would e-mail each interested person a
copy, but I don't know if that is feasible either.
Feedback?????
In the alternative, whatever else we decide, I think at minimum a
reading of "Introduction: Rhizome" is necessary whether we read
straight through or pick and chose from there. I can and will post
some notes on "Rhizome," but I would be interested in one or two
other folks volunteering to do the same, just to get the discussion
off to a good start. These need not be "high-level scholarly"
notes - it is not my intention to conduct this list like a college
course. A simple outline of impressions and questions is fine, and
I am more interested in ones from folks encountering the text for the
first time or who have many questions than ones from the "experts on the
list."
Any volunteers?????
Please, give me feedback. I want to see *something* underway by next
week.
(Perhaps by the time we finish "Rhizome," I can get the issues around
"I have nothing to admit" cleared up and make it the *second* reading.)
Thanks, folks, and many apologies for the delay, due to illness, which
has kept me from getting underway for so long.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #2 - TO FOLLOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #3
Summary for those of you who are too weary to read this post, though I
really hope you will - We are getting underway. Please start reading
with "Introduction: Rhizome" and try to be ready to discuss, or at least
follow discussion, by roughly a week from today.
Hi,
1.) (A Personal Note) Sorry for taking soooooooo long to get things
underway. I have just not been well. Friday it was finally determined
that I have diabetes (along with everything else). Not very happy news,
but at least it is no longer a mystery and treatment can begin. At the
same time, my anti-depressant medication has stopped working, as tends
to happen frequently to me (Sigh). Changes will be made this week - if
there are any left to be made - and that also tends to be very taxing.
PLEASE, bear with me, and if I miss my own deadlines, understand
that my life is going through some serious adjustment just now. . . .
(I can't tell you how odd I feel discussing this here. I'm
afraid there are no good schizoanalytic practitioners here in Iowa.
Perhaps we should all gather at La Borde. . . .)
2.) From your responses, I gather that an initial reading of
"Introduction: Rhizome" is acceptable to folks. That is fine with me.
*****YOU SHOULD START READING "RHIZOME" AS SOON AS YOU CAN.******
3.) Over the course of the next week or so, I will be posting a variety
of quotations from Deleuze and perhaps from some commentators about
"philosophy," reading, and the relationship between between the two
parts of _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_. Hopefully these will stimulate
some discussion. . . .
*****To start, I will set a goal of having completed my work and posted
my notes on "Rhizome" by one week from today. If this proves too slow
or fast a pace, we can adjust from there. If you have questions or
things you want to share as you are reading along, jump right in and
post them.***** (Thanks, Mark Zamierowski, for jumping in already!)
I've never done such an on-line reading group before, so I don't know
exactly what my notes can/will contain. . . . Suggestions?
4.) PLEASE put MP at the beginning of the subject header in all posts
related to the reading group, o.k.? I don't think I am likely to miss
any Deleuze group posting, but I get tons of email, and want to be sure
I see yours. It will be helpful for others as ell.
5.) If you intend to do the reading, or even to *try* to do so, please
drop me a note by PRIVATE E-MAIL. It need contain no more than the word
"yes." I just want to get a sense of how many people are feeling like
participating at this point.
6.) So far, there have been NO volunteers to post notes or reflections
on the reading along with me. I am willing to conduct a monologue for a
while if necessary, but come on, I know at least one of you can
do it.
If you are feeling intimidated, please note three things: a.) I'm
intimidated, too. b.) This book intimidates *everyone*, including
seasoned Deleuze scholars. c.) ******We are going to view this book
the way Deleuze makes it quite clear he intended - as an "open" text
containing something for everyone.***** This is not a list for "Deleuze
experts," but rather for anyone who is committed enough to read the
text. If you do the reading, you are "expert" enough to post questions
and reactions. Indeed, thoughts from those approaching the text for the
first time are likely to be the most fresh and fruitful. We will count
on the "experts" to help us along, but any condescension to other
posters will be discouraged most harshly by me.
Michael
NOTE ON THE TEXT:
Please note that some of the material from _Mille Plateux_ was
published in earlier versions in journals, etc. In this instance, the
first version of _Rhizome_ was published in French as a seperate
booklet in 1976, four years before _Mille Plateau_ appeared. (There is
at least one translation of this earlier version available). Please do
not use it, as it is substantially different from the final version
published in _Mille Plateaux_. Please read the section as it appears in
Brian Massumi's translation, _A Thousand Plateaus_, or in the French
original of _Mille Plateaux_ if you want to show off :). In this
instance, the first half of the Semiotext(e) booklet _On the Line_ *is*
a translation of the final French text, but by a different translator. I
suppose you could compare the two for "extra credit," but I really would
like to stick to the Massumi translation and the final French text so we
can all find things on the same pages.
P.S. Over the course of our discussion on this reading, I will post a
"summary" of the plateaus, borrowed from Charles Stivale, and then we
can discuss what to read next, etc. (It is not necessarily my goal to
"finish" with the reading of the book by the end of the semester or
whenever, as much as it is to sustain an engaging discussion of the text
for however long people are interested.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #4
_MP_ On Approaching the Text, Part I
>From the second paragraph of "Rhizome," we are confronted with the issue
of "the book," and I am hopeful we will have some good discussion about
that. But first, to set the stage, I am going to do some "introductory"
posts that do not directly address what is written in "Rhizome," because
some of you may find approaching the book a difficult, puzzling, alien
experience.
I want to share here a bit of my own understanding of what Deleuze and
Guattari are trying to achive by writing as they do, and provide some
pointers that may help you as you approach the text. I will follow-up
this post with some quotes from other texts by Deleuze that may be
helpful, about what he believes theory is/is for, and about how he and
Guattari intended the book to be read/used. I will also post some
remarks from the book's translator that I think are compelling in this
regard. [Later posts will contain some quotes from Deleuze about
philosophy in specific, and discuss, for those of you who have read
_Anti-Oedipus_, the transition from the first volume of _Capitalism and
Schizophrenia_ (_Anti-Oedipus_) to the second. . . .]
As those of you who have begun the reading and are approaching Deleuze
and Guattari for the first time have no doubt noticed, this is a
different sort of book from the kind that we are used to reading, not at
all like traditional theoretical writing, not even very like most other
French post-structuralist writing, and not like standard creative
writing, either - though finding a "poetry" in the writing is possible
and intended. In some very specific ways, the book is designed to
*work,* to work in and with and through the reader, taking each person
in at least a slightly different direction. That may lead to some
interesting discussion, to say the least.
But it may also make you feel like, "what is this, what am I suppose to
make of this, what am I supposed to do with it?" Most of us would
dispair if assigned to write a short essay for a class on a portion of
this book, or at least feel like it would be a quite different exercise
than usual. First and foremost you must keep in mind that there are not
"right" answers as to where the text is leading, what it is supposed to
mean. It is designed to be an *open system* which you must enter into.
It would probably not be too far off the mark to say that you are
supposed to *write* the book as you read.
Derrida has taught us that, to some degree at least (the exact extent
and implications being subject to much debate) we _always_ rewrite a
text as we read it. The difference with _A Thousand Plateaus_ is that
the authors self-consciously constructed the book with that fact in
mind, utilizing stylistic and organizational techniques that are
designed to take advantage of that fact, to allow *you* to take
advantage of that fact - bringing your own issues, your own questions,
your own goals to the process, and also letting you - in fact, urging
you - to read with your senses. Deleuze says:
(T)he good ways of reading today succeed in treating a book as you
would treat a record you listen to, a film or TV programme you
watch; any treatment of the book which claims for it a special
respect - an attention of another kind - comes from another era and
definitively condemns the book. There's no question of difficulty
or understanding: concepts are exactly like sounds, colours or
images, they are intensities which suit you or not. . . . [1]
This is not how we are taught to read, of course. The extent to which
you allow yourself to engage the text in that way, or conversely, the
degree to which you resist doing so, will play a large role in
determining whether you have a chance to find something "productive" in
the book for you. . . .
More soon.
Michael
[1] Deleuze, Gilles and Clare Parnet. _Dialogues_. [Paris:
Flammarion, 1987] Tran. by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1987. Pp. 9-10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #5
Due to my continuing medical problems, and to the number of people who
have joined the group in the last few days, I am extending until next
Monday the time to complete the reading of "Rhizome: Introduction." I
am now shooting for posting my notes on that day. Those who have
already done the reading are welcome to jump in with questions or
comments at any time.
Based on those people who have contacted me directly to say that they
will be participating in this reading group, we are now up to at least
30 participants. I think this is a *great* response, especially
considering that I am sure some others who have not contacted me will
be following along, and that I know there are several more who will be
joining up once the majordomo is up and running and they can subscribe
(any word on the time-frame for this?????). I look forward to a very
active and engaging group process over the coming months.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #6
_MP_ On Approaching the Text, Part II
My modest scholastic advance did not count for much. . .in the face
of the newcomer's intellectual rigor and speculative reach. The
arguments that my friends and I tossed back and forth among
ourselves were like balls of cotton or rubber compared with the
iron and steel cannonballs that he hurled at us. We soon came to
fear his talent for seizing upon a single one of our words and
using it to expose our banality, stupidity, or failure of
intelligence. He also possessed extraordinary powers of
translation and rearrangement: _all the tired philosophy of the
curriculum passed through him and emerged unrecognizable but
rejuvenated, with a fresh, undigested, bitter taste of newness
that we weaker, lazier minds found disconcerting and repulsive_.
Famed French novelist Michel Tournier describing his
friend Gilles Deleuze while a student at the Lycee Carnot
in the early 1940's [1]
- - - - -
I closed my last post with a quote from Deleuze on "reading." In the
following posts, I will some additional Deleuze quotes, on "reading,"
theory," and the practice of "philosophy" itself.
Deleuze's concepts of "reading" and of "theory" flow from his
philosophical perspective - we will see this both in the text of
"Rhizome" and in later parts of _A Thousand Plateaus_, where Deleuze and
Guattari explicate their approach to the question of "signs." The
injunction/intention that their texts be approached as "tools,"
productive mechanisms from which each reader "takes what they need,"
borrowing from and "deforming" the text according to each person's
micro-political agenda is, I think, quite sincere. Already, in
_Capitalism and Schizophrenia_, they have succeeded in producing an open
system that has begun to be fruitfully utilized by those working in
diverse fields from music and art to computer studies.
But there is also an element of hyperboly in some of these statements -
while Deleuze and Guattari may legitimately _desire_ to produce texts
that "work" and are utilized _outside_ of the academy and the
"intelligencia," their success in that regard has been quite limited.
*****Perhaps their works can be better thought of as texts that form a
blueprint, that seek to clear the air and create the conditions of
possibility for such "pop philosophizing," that encourage _us_ to take
up that project; rather than trying to demonstrate, in vain, that their
own texts have achieved that status.*****
Deleuze's statements in this regard are, as both "I have nothing to
admit" and _Dialogues_ make clear, a quite personal reaction to academic
philosophizing, to which he has always maintained an ambiguous
relationship. Deleuze always worked on the margins of the academy, not
outside it, and he remains dedicated to the disciple of philosophy, as
_What Is Philosophy?_ makes clear. He took pains to clarify that he
wished _A Thousand Plateaus_ to be thought of as a work of philosophy,
however alien it seemed to academic philosophers. (Asked in an interview
if the book was "literature," Deleuze responds that it is "Philosophie,
rien que de la philosophie, au sens traditionnel du mot.")[2]
At the same time, he feels that the way philosophy is tradititionally
taught and practiced in contemporary society tends to be neuroticizing,
stultifying and self-referential - an endless discourse of texts and
commentaries upon texts that prevent one from actually "philosophizing,"
or "speaking in one's own name." This tendancy he blames in large part
on the complicity between philosophy as traditionally practiced and the
state, as the final quote I will present makes clear.
For me, at least, this attempt to "throw open the doors," this call to
"speak in one's own name" and the effort to make this possible, forms
the quintessence of Deleuze and Guattari's project - however flawed and
imperfect; it goes to the heart of their philosophico-political project
and of the texts and textual strategies they employ in hopes of
furthering that project. . . .
Michael
[1] Michel Tournier, _The Wind Spirit: An Autobiography_, trans. [of
_Le Vent Paraclet_, Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1977] by Arthur
Goldhammer, Boston: Beacon Press, 1988, pp. 127-128.
[2] See "Entretien 1980," with Catherine Clement. _L'Arc_ 49 (Special
issue on Deleuze), Revised Edition, 1980:99-102, p. 99. For a sampling
of the reaction to the publication of _Mille Plateaux_ see Andre Pierre
Colombat, "A Thousand Trails to Work with Deleuze." _Sub-stance_ 66
(1991):10-23, p. 10 and notes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST #7
_MP_ On Approaching the Text, Part III
In 1973, Michel Cressole of the University of Paris VII published the
first book-length study of Deleuze. [1] He wrote a letter to Deleuze,
which appeared, with Deleuze's response (in slightly abbreviated form),
in the "Polemique" section of _La Quinzaine litteraire_ [2]. Deleuze'
entire letter was reprinted as an appendix to Cressole's book [3]. The
(abbreviated) letter was translated under the title "I have nothing to
admit," and published in the special "Anti-Oedipus" issue of
_Semiotext(e)_ in 1977. [4] At first glance a strange, rambling text,
it in fact constitutes one of the most accessible introductions to
Deleuze's project.
Since I know many of you have difficulty getting your hands on this
text, I have quoted it here at length - passages dealing with
"philosophy," with "reading" and with a look forward from _Anti-Oedpius_
to _Mille Plateaux_. So many key themes are represented here, however,
that I think the excerpts are worth reading in their entirety.
Again, if you have thoughts or questions, please jump right in and post
them.
Enjoy!
Michael
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Since our topic is a book about me - and you are the only one to blame
for this - I would like to explain how I view what I have written. I
belong to a generation, one of the last generations, that was more or
less assassinated with the history of philosophy. History of philosophy
has an obvious, repressive function in philosophy; it is philosophy's
very own Oedipus. "All the same you won't dare to speak your own name
as long as you have not read this and that, and that on this, and this
on that." In my generation, many did not pull through; some did by
inventing their own procedures and new rules, a new tone. For a long
time I myself have worked through the history of philosophy, read such
and such a book on such and such an author. But I managed to compensate
for this in several ways: first by loving authors who were opposed to
the rationalist tradition of that history. I find among Lucretius,
Hume, Spinoza and Nietzsche a secret link that resides in the critique
of negation, the cultivation of joy, the hatred of interiority, the
exteriority of forces and relations, the denunciation of power, etc.)
What I detested more than anything else was Hegelianism and the
Dialectic. [. . . .]
.........................................................................
Nietzsche whom I read late was the one who pulled me out of all
this. [. . . .] He's the one who screws you behind your back. He gives
you a perverse taste that neither Marx nor Freud have ever given you:
the desire for everyone to say simple things in his own name, to speak
through affects, intensities, experiences, experiments. To say
something in one's own name is very strange, for it is not at all when
we consider ourselves as selves, persons, or subjects that we speak in
our own name. On the contrary, an individual acquires a true proper
name as the result of the most severe operations of depersonalization,
when he opens himself to multiplicities that pervade him and to
intensities which run right through his whole being. The name as the
immediate apprehension of such an intensive multiplicity is the opposite
of the depersonalization brought about by the history of philosophy, a
depersonalization of love and not of submission. The depth of what we
don't know, the deepness of our own underdevelopment is where we talk
from. We've become a bundle of loosened singularities, names, first
names, nails, things, animals, minute events [. . . .] So I began to
work on two books in this immediate direction: _Difference et
Repetition_ and _Logique de sens_. I don't have any illusions: they are
still full of an academic apparatus - they are laborious - but there is
something I try to shake, to stir up within myself. I try to deal with
writing as with a flux, not a code. And there are pages I like in
_Difference et Repetition_, those on fatigue and contemplation, for
example, because they reflect live experience despite appearances. That
didn't go very far, but it was a beginning.
And then, there was my meeting Felix Guattari, the way we got along
and completed, depersonalized, singularized each other - in short how we
loved. That resulted in _Anti-Oedipus_ which marked a new progression.
I wonder whether one of the formal reasons for the hostile reception the
book occassionally encounters isn't precisely that we worked it out
together, depriving the public of the quarrels and ascriptions it loves.
So they try to untangle what is undiscernable or to determine what
belongs to each of us. But since everyone, like everyone else, is
multiple to begin with, that makes for quite a few people. And
doubtlessly _Anti-Oedipus_ cannot be said to be rid of all the fomal
apparatus of knowledge: surely it still belongs to the university, for
it is well-mannered enough, and does not yet represent the "pop"
philosophy or "pop" analysis that we dream of. But I am struck by the
this: most of the people who find this book difficult are the better
educated, notibly in the psychoanalytic field. They say: What is this,
the body without organs? What do you really mean by desiring machines?
In contrast, those who know just a little bit, those who are not spoiled
by psychoanalysis, have fewer problems and do not mind, leaving aside
what they don't understand. Such is the reason for our saying that those
who should be concerned with this book, theoretically at least, are
fellows between fifteen and twenty. There are in fact two ways of
reading a book: either we consider it a box which refers us to an
inside, and in that case we look for the signified; if we are still more
perverse or corrupted, we search for the signifier. And then we
consider the following book as a box contained in the first one or
containing it in turn. And we can comment, and interpret, and ask for
explainations, we can write about the book and so on endlessly. Or the
other way: we consider the book a small a-signifying machine; the only
problem is "Does it work and how does it work? How does it work for
you?" If it doesn't function, if nothing happens, take another book.
This other way of reading is based on intensities: something happens or
doesn't happen. There is nothing to explain, nothing to understand,
nothing to interpret. It can be compared to an electrical connection.
A body without organs: I know uneducated people who understood this
immediately, thanks to their own "habits." This other way of reading
goes against the preceeding insofar as it immediately refers a book to
Exteriority. A book is a small cog in a much more complex, external
machinery. Writing is a flow among others; it enjoys no special
privilege and enters into relationships of current and countercurrent,
of back-wash with other flows - the flows of shit, sperm, speech,
action, eroticism, money, politics, etc. Like Bloom, writing on the
sand with one hand and masturbating with the other - two flows in what
relationship? [. . . .]
.........................................................................
This way of reading intensively, in relation to the outside - flow
against flow, machine with machines, experimentations, events for
everyone (which have nothing to do with a book, but with its shreds and
are a new mode of operating with other things, no matter what. . . etc.)
- is a manifestation of love. Such is exactly the way you approached
the book. And the section of your letter I find beautiful, rather
marvelous even, is that where you explain the manner in which you read
it, what use you made of it on your own account. Alas! alas! Why do
you have to rush right back to a reproachful attitude? "You are not
going to get away with it. We are waiting for the second volume; you
will still be on the same track. . ." No, that isn't true at all. We
do have plans. We will follow up because we love to work together. But
it won't be a sequel at all. With the help of the outside, we'll do
something so different in both language and thought that those who are
anticipating our work will have to say to themselves: they've gone
completely crazy, or they're a couple of bastards, or they've obviously
been unable to continue. Deception is a pleasure. Not that we want to
make believe that we are madmen; we will go mad, though, in our own time
and in our own way. Why are people in such a hurry? We certainly know
that _Anti-Oedipus,_ volume 1, is still full of compromises - too full
of scholarly things that still look like concepts. So, we'll change; we
have already changed; we're doing all right. Some people think we're
bound to stay on the same old path. There has even been some relief we'd
form a fifth psychoanalytic group. Woe unto us. We dream of other
things, more secret and more joyful. Compromise we shall no longer,
because that won't be necessary. And we'll always find allies we want
or who want us. . . .
[1] Michel Cressole, _Deleuze_, Paris: Editions universitaires, 1973.
[2] The exchange appears under the general title, "Gilles Deleuze: se
defend, et attaque," in _La Quinzaine litteraire 161 (April 1, 1973),
16-19. Cressole's letter, titled "Deleuze,tu es bloque, coince,"
appears on pp. 16-17; Deleuze's (slightly abbreviated) response, titled
"Cher Michel: je n'ai rien a avouer," appears on pp. 17-19.
[3] Op. cit., pp. 107-118. The text has also been reprinted, under the
title "Lettre a un critique severe," in Deleuze's _Pourparles
1972-1990_, Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1990, pp. 11-23.
[4] Gilles Deleuze, "`I have nothing to admit,'" trans. Janice Forman,
_Semiotext(e) 2.3 (1977), 111-116.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #8
Hi!
Sorry for once again having disappeared for so long. Seems the list
grows quiet quickly in my absence. People who have physical or mental
ailments soon discover that they spend a frustraiting amount of time
making excuses for themselves. I try to simply be upfront about the fact
that I have problems, that at times they grow acute, and that even doing
the best I can, I am bound to sometimes miss deadlines and disappoint -
and that I am usually at least as disappointed as anyone else could be.
I continue to have periods of each week where I feel very ill, and until
my medications are finally properly adjusted again, that will continue to
be the case. [The past week and a half things have been worse than
usual, because I've had a flare-up of my back condition, which has keep
me in bed and away from a terminal. I WANT A LAPTOP :)] On days when I
feel better, I spend a lot of time dealing with things that were
neglected on the bad days, especially my miserable finances, and trying
to relax and unwind. I let you all in on the fact that I was in less
than optimum health at the beginning, and folks seemed to want me to lead
the _Mille Plateaux_ Reading Group anyway, so I will carry on, as best I
can - at least until you fire me :)
I don't intend to give up by the way. Some of you were afraid that my
message about how quiet the group seemed meant that I was about to stop.
I'm not much of a quitter though, except when I am forced to be. It is
just that carrying on a monologue makes me self-conscious, as it does
anyone, I think, unless they are much less intelligent than they think
they are:)
Thanks, though, for the several who sent words of encouragement. They
are always appreciated.
I suspect I am running up against spring break for many of you. But I am
feeling pretty good at the moment, so I am going to proceed by finishing
up with my "On Approaching the Text Posts" and then move on into the book
where we belong.
Wish me luck.
Sorry for posting so much about me - it probably stretches the boundaries
of what really belongs here, but I do want you all to know that I am
committed to this and am doing the best I can.
NOTE:
I did read the post from John Omlor on the Derrida list that was cross-
posted here, and Jon Murray's note. I'm working on a response this
evening. There was also a somewhat related post on the Derrida list by
Michael Bruce McDonald that I want to post and discuss here, but elm
seems to have eaten my copy, so I have to get ahold of another one before
I can answer.
Also, I *do* still remember the posts from Dan Harwig and Mark
Zamierowski to this list that went basically unanswered. I have copies
of both. They will fit in well with our "Rhizome" discussion and I will
re-post them when I post my notes, and try to comment on them as best I
can.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #9
_MP_ On Approaching the Text, Part IV
The following is the original source for Deleuze's oft-quoted formulation
of "theory" as a "toolbox." It comes from a recorded conversation, on
the role of intellectuals in politics, between Deleuze and his (then)
close friend Michel Foucault, on March 4, 1972. [1]
"A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with
the signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for
itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself
(who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless
or the moment is inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but
construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It is
strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure
intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a pair of
glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find
another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which
is necessarily an instrument for combat. A theory does not
totalize; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also
multiplies itself. It is in the nature of power to totalize and it
is your position, and one I fully agree with, that theory is by
nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a
particular point, we realize that it will never possess the
slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally
different area."
[1] Deleuze, Gilles, and Michel Foucault. "Les intellectuals et le
pouvoir." _L'Arc_ 49 [Special Issue on Deleuze] (1972): 3-10. Rpt.
1980.
[2] "Intellectuals and Power: A Conversation Between Michel Foucault and
Gilles Deleuze." Trans. Donald F. Bouchart and Sherry Simon. In
_Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews By
Michel Foucault_. Ed. Bouchart. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1977, pp. 205-217, 208.
An earlier translation, by Mark Seem, was published as "The Intellectuals
and Power: A Discussion Between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze," in
_Telos_ 16 (Summer 1973): 103-109.
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #10
_MP_ On Approaching the Text, Part V
The following quotation from Deleuze, dating from the time that _A
Thousand Plateaus_ was being written, brings together many of his comments
about "philosophy" and "theory" that I have posted so far and gives them
a very explicitly "political" formulation:
"The history of philosophy has always been the agent of power in
philosophy, and even in thought. It has played the oppressor's
role: how can you think without having read Plato, Descartes, Kant
and Heidegger, and so-and-so's book about them? A formidible
school of intimidation which manufactures specialists in thought -
but which also makes those who stay outside conform all the more to
this specialism which they despise. An image of thought called
philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops
people from thinking. Philosophy's relationship with the state is
not solely due to the fact that recently most philosophers have been
"public philosophers" [i.e., employees of state universities - mjc]
. . . . The relationship goes back further. For thought borrows
its properly philosophical image from the state as beautiful,
substantial or subjective interiority. It invents a properly
spiritual State, as an absolute state, which is by no means a dream,
since it operates effectively in the mind. Hense the importance of
notions such as universality, method, question and answer,
judgement, or recognition, of just correct, always correct ideas.
Hense the importance of themes like those of a republic of spirits,
an enquiry of the understanding, a court of reason, a pure `right'
of though, with ministers of the Interior and bureaucrats of pure
thought. Philosophy is shot through with the project of becoming
the official language of a Pure State. The exercise of thought thus
conforms to the goals of the real State, to the dominant meanings
and to the requirements of the established order." [1]
[1] Deleuze, Gilles, and Claire Parnet. _Dialogues_. [Paris:
Flammarion, 1977]. Trans. Hugh Tomlinsin and Barbara Habberjam.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1987. P. 13.
Michael
--
---------------------------Michael J. Current----------------------------
mcurrent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -or- @ins.infonet.net -or- @nyx.cs.du.edu
Specializing in Philosophy, Queer Studies, Depression, & Unemployment :)
737 - 18th Street, #9 * Des Moines, IA * 50314-1031 *** (515) 283-2142
"AN IMAGE OF THOUGHT CALLED PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN FORMED HISTORICALLY
AND IT EFFECTIVELY STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING." - GILLES DELEUZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------