Malgosia is right to point out that Deleuze does refer to periods
of intellectual history, social classes, etc. I would say that one should
recognize, however, that for Deleuze this is a way of referring to
expressions or hierarcherizations of power, or desire, or energy. Deleuze's
crowned anarchy, called nomadology, is not an attempt to throw out all
hierarchization, but is rather an attempt to change the values Homo
sapiens practice, in Nietzschean terms, to become active rather than
reactive. Classes or periods of intellectual history are expressions of
force. Deleuze's attempt to throw these things out, however, is an
attempt to REVALUE VALUES. In this respect, he is both Spinozist and
Nietzschean. This is made very clear by Deleuze in NIETZSCHE & PHILOSOPHY,
and the stuff on univocal being in DIFFERENCE & REPETITION and THE LOGIC
OF SENSE. All of ATP is an attempt at such a revaluation. In his writings
on aesthetics Deleuze often appears 'softer' on such issues. But if you
read his work on Francis Bacon, Kafka, and Cinema along with his other
work i think you will find that his aesthetic philosophy is just as revolu-
tionary as nomadology in general. Aesthetics are very important to Deleuze,
i'm not suggesting that they are not. But i think his aesthetic philosophy
de-psychologizes art just as much as his ecological ethic de-psychologizes
subjectification. The essays in GILLES DELEUZE AND THE THEATER OF PHILOSOPHY
edited by Dorthea Olkowski and Constantin Boundas on art point this out
repeatedly.
chris
------------------