Some of this might be going back a little way (I only get to read my email a
couple of times a week), but it is keeping me awake at night (I wanna throw
the dice).
1. The bit in Deleuze that most says 'ideology' to me is his account of the
democratic fascism of 'common sense' in Difference and Repetition, which
takes form as an implicit presupposition of a shared understanding, stated
explicitly as "Everybody knows...". Neo-nazi's, prime ministers,
psychologists etc. do not so much transmit ideology when they are outlining
their ideas, but rather when they say "And if people were really honest with
themselves they'd know that deep down they agree with me...", or "And I know
I'm speaking for all of us when I say...", or "Everybody really just wants to
be loved/have sex with mum/be themselves etc.". It's the 'will to
representation' itself, rather than any content of representation, that I
think is ideological, and perhaps to say that 'deep down' we are all embedded
in ideology (of a class, a sex, whatever), is the model of the truly
ideological statement.
This what I think is objected to by D&G in psychoanalysis - not necessarily
any particular propositions, or even a set of them, but that wheedling:
"_really_, what you are saying, loving, doing etc. is this, just like
everybody else." The way it enacts a state of capture by purporting to
colonise a state of nature (the gesture has two moments: the invokation of
depth: "deep down", and the invocation of breadth: "like everybody else" -
both avenues of escape blocked - precisely why the diagonal is required)
Perhaps this is saying that there is no ideology as such (and I think D&G do
say this somewhere in TP - that it never did and never will exist), but I do
think that the invocation of 'common sense' is the paradigm of an
'ideological gesture' - a genuinely bullying gesture, but just that,
bullying, a complete bluff.
2. re: David Rieder 8/10: "That stable subject is time" - I really don't
agree - after all, it is the "pure and empty form of time" (in D&R &
elsewhere) that precisely rifts the subject, it is time as the form of
determinability that makes any claim of determination (an ideological one,
for example) questionable or problematic (the rift being precisely the site
of the question/ problem).
Melissa
Melbourne, Australia.
------------------
couple of times a week), but it is keeping me awake at night (I wanna throw
the dice).
1. The bit in Deleuze that most says 'ideology' to me is his account of the
democratic fascism of 'common sense' in Difference and Repetition, which
takes form as an implicit presupposition of a shared understanding, stated
explicitly as "Everybody knows...". Neo-nazi's, prime ministers,
psychologists etc. do not so much transmit ideology when they are outlining
their ideas, but rather when they say "And if people were really honest with
themselves they'd know that deep down they agree with me...", or "And I know
I'm speaking for all of us when I say...", or "Everybody really just wants to
be loved/have sex with mum/be themselves etc.". It's the 'will to
representation' itself, rather than any content of representation, that I
think is ideological, and perhaps to say that 'deep down' we are all embedded
in ideology (of a class, a sex, whatever), is the model of the truly
ideological statement.
This what I think is objected to by D&G in psychoanalysis - not necessarily
any particular propositions, or even a set of them, but that wheedling:
"_really_, what you are saying, loving, doing etc. is this, just like
everybody else." The way it enacts a state of capture by purporting to
colonise a state of nature (the gesture has two moments: the invokation of
depth: "deep down", and the invocation of breadth: "like everybody else" -
both avenues of escape blocked - precisely why the diagonal is required)
Perhaps this is saying that there is no ideology as such (and I think D&G do
say this somewhere in TP - that it never did and never will exist), but I do
think that the invocation of 'common sense' is the paradigm of an
'ideological gesture' - a genuinely bullying gesture, but just that,
bullying, a complete bluff.
2. re: David Rieder 8/10: "That stable subject is time" - I really don't
agree - after all, it is the "pure and empty form of time" (in D&R &
elsewhere) that precisely rifts the subject, it is time as the form of
determinability that makes any claim of determination (an ideological one,
for example) questionable or problematic (the rift being precisely the site
of the question/ problem).
Melissa
Melbourne, Australia.
------------------