Differences & Repetitions

I’ve been thinking lately about Deleuze’s essay “Postscript on Control Societies,” published in the book Negotiations. I’m wondering if anyone knows why the essay announces itself explicitly as a postscript.

Now, I realize that Deleuze frames the essay as a response — or really a critical rejoinder — to Michel Foucault’s explication of the “disciplinary society” in Discipline and Punish. It may well be, therefore, that Deleuze offers the piece on control societies as a postscript to Foucault’s work.

I am, however, mistrustful of that interpretation. I trace my suspicion mainly to the last few lines of the “control societies” piece. There, Deleuze states that it’s the job of “young people” to “discover whose ends these [aspects of control societies] serve, just as older people discovered, with considerable difficulty, who was benefiting from disciplines” (p. 182).

It seems to me that Deleuze, rather than composing a postscript, is actually outlining a research program. This conclusion would also seem to follow from the proliferation of critical research on control, neoliberalism, governmentality, etc. So would it be more apt, then, to call the essay a “prolegomenon ” on control societies? If so, then what might have been Deleuze’s motivation for labeling the piece a postscript in the first place?

Looks great…

4th Biennial Philosophy and Literature Conference at Purdue University
April 9-10, 2010
Purdue University, West Lafayette

Deadline for Paper Submission:
January 15, 2010

The philosopher Michel Serres once described Gilles Deleuze as “an excellent example of the dynamic movement of free and inventive thinking.” Without a doubt, Deleuze was one of the most singular and prolific philosophers of the 20th century. It is no surprise then, that the impact of Deleuze’s thought continues to reverberate throughout a host of diverse disciplines including Philosophy, Literature, Political Theory, Law, Visual Arts, Film Studies, and Education. With recognition of Deleuze’s influence in these various fields, and in the spirit of Serres’ assessment, this conference seeks to motivate an exploration of Deleuze’s inventive thinking in the particular areas of politics and ethics.

Thus, this conference will serve as a platform, bringing together graduate students and faculty interested in engaging, developing, or critically examining the political and ethical dimensions of Deleuze’s work. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: immanent vs. transcendent criteria in ethics, political theory, law and jurisprudence; the role of the State in relation to capitalism; the possibility of social forms of organization radically exterior to the State forms; the positive or productive function of desire as a creative force directly invested in the social field; the problem of micro-fascism with respect to individual and collective processes of subjectivation; the forms of resistance enabled by minor literature and other processes of becoming-minor; the conception of cartography as a critical and transformative social analytic of power relations. This two-day conference will consist of four panels, each with three to four accepted graduate students presenting, three keynote addresses, and a wine and cheese reception.

Keynote Speakers
We will host three preeminent Deleuze scholars as keynote speakers: Daniel Smith and Arkady Plotnitsky, from Purdue University, and Eugene Holland, from Ohio State University. Dr. Smith is known for national and international projects including translations of Deleuze and Klossowski and several works on Deleuze leading up to the forthcoming publication of his book on Deleuze’s philosophical system. Dr. Holland specializes in social theory and modern French literature, history, and culture. He has published widely including a 1999 volume on Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus and a forthcoming book on Nomad Citizenship. Dr. Plotnitsky has contributed numerous publications on Deleuze and on the topics of science, literature, and philosophy. He is currently working on a book entitled Space-Time-Matter-Thought: Non-Euclideanism from Riemann and Deleuze, and Beyond.

Conference Eligibility and Submission Process
We welcome submissions from graduate students of any discipline working on the political or ethical facets of Deleuze’s philosophy. Submissions will be accepted via email at phil-lit-conference@purdue.edu. The deadline for submissions is January 15, 2010. Authors should attach both the paper and an abstract (500 word limit) as a Word document. The author’s name and affiliation should be omitted from the body of the paper. In addition, the author should include the text of the abstract in the body of the message. Be sure to include the following information in the email: full name, departmental affiliation, degree program, and the title of your paper. Accepted authors will receive notification no later than February 15, 2010.

Contact Information
For updates, please visit http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/idis/phil-lit/conference/. All additional questions can be directed to Erin Kealey or Rocky Clancy via email at: phil-lit-conference@purdue.edu.

DELEUZE AND ACTIVISM CONFERENCE

The Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory, School of English, Communication & Philosophy in cooperation with Culture, Imagination and Practice Research Group, School of Social Sciences

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY, WALES
12-13 NOVEMBER, 2009

Post-identity – The political Deleuze – The Commons – Activism-s – Geo-activism – Micro-interventions

For more information, please contact Marcelo Svirsky: DELEUZE@CF.AC.UK

Speakers:

Keynote: Ian Buchanan (Cardiff ); Jeremy Gilbert (East London); Paul Patton (UNSW); Nathan Widder (Royal Holloway)

Ronnen Ben-Arie (AVIG, Israel/Palestine); Simone Bignall (UNSW); Hywel Bishop (Cardiff); Steven Brown (Leicester); Christoph Brunner (Montreal); John Cromby (Loughborough); Andrew Dornon (Southwestern); Brad Evans (Leeds); Jan L. Harris; Gašper Kralj (Radical Education Collective, Slovenia); Bryce Lease (Kent); Ioulia Mermigka (Athens); Keir Milburn (Leeds); Rodrigo Nunes (Turbulence); Karl Palmås (Chalmers, Sweden); Dimitris Papadopoulos (Cardiff); Ofer Parchev (Haifa); Bojana Piškur (Radical Education Collective, Slovenia); Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (Cardiff); Remy Robertson (Southwestern); Stevphen Shukaitis (Autonomedia, Essex); Sian Sullivan (Birkbeck); Laurent de Sutter (LSTS, Belgium); Marcelo Svirsky (Cardiff); Vidar Thorsteinsson (Reykjavik Academy)

For registration and programme, visit: WWW.CARDIFF.AC.UK/ENCAP/NEWSANDEVENTS

I’m feeling a little like a deadbeat dad these days, given my neglect of D&R. I’ve been having a blast over on my book blog, The Late Age of Print, but unfortunately that’s taken up a bit too much of my attention. Case in point: Monday, September 14th was the fourth anniversary of the launch of this blog. I’ve been pretty good about marking the occasion in the past, but this year I’m ringing in the new year belatedly. As any deadbeat dad worthy of the name would say, “Hey, at least I remembered.” Sigh.

Anyway, it’s nice to have an occasion in which to reflect a little here. I’ve missed D&R, honestly. Late Age is wonderful in that it gives me ample opportunity to explore issues relating to books, publishing, and reading. Nevertheless, I miss the eclecticism that has come to characterize D&R over the last four years. I wouldn’t say that anything has been fair game for me to address here, but as the tag cloud appearing below and at right shows, this little blog of mine does indeed have quite a range. Sometimes I just prefer broadcasting over narrowcasting.

I’ve been puzzling over something of substance that would be interesting for me to share on this, the belated fourth birthday of D&R. Mostly I have half-formed thoughts about monism and dualism, inspired in part by my reading of Lionel Trilling’s The Liberal Imagination, which I reviewed here this past summer.

Much of my philosophical training in graduate school was spent reading, studying, and discussing the work of Gilles Deleuze. In this I learned to abhor the negative ontology characteristic of dialectical philosophies and to celebrate monism, whose principles of singularity, affirmation, and holism at the time resonated strongly with me. They still do.

Yet, as I myself grow older, and as I grow older with this blog (whose name I cherry-picked from Deleuze’s masterwork, Difference and Repetition), I find myself becoming less patient with monism. I am beginning to see its cracks. Mostly I am concerned with its penchant for disengagement, for its tendency toward monologue, for its unwillingness to let itself be shaken to the core by some other. I see in monism a profound insularity or desire to turn inward (what Deleuze would call “involution”), whereas in dualism I increasingly perceive a desire to experience the world outside of oneself. Could it be that monism is a kind of philosophical agoraphobia?

Again, as I said, these are only half-formed thoughts–significantly a result of my not having given D&R its due this year. Hopefully I’ll be able to get back on course in the coming weeks or months. For now, thanks to everyone for your contributions here over the last year. Your comments and questions challenge me, your readership inspires me.

I’m beginning a new project that explores the relationship of religious book publishing to mid-century (i.e., the 20th) liberalism in the United States. What better way to begin, I thought, than to read Lionel Trilling’s The Liberal Imagination (1950)? There he makes the controversial claim that liberalism was “not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition” prevalent in the United States at the time that he was writing. That much I expected to find in the book; what I got was so much more — an education, really, and a glimmer of one of the paths-not-taken of U.S. cultural studies.

One of Trilling’s themes is untimeliness, and indeed the term aptly describes his own work. He perceptively anticipated many theoretical developments whose “discovery” most would attribute to English and French intellectuals working decades later. Take his definition of culture, for instance: “Culture is not a flow, nor even a confluence; the form of its existence is struggle, or at least debate–it is nothing if not a dialectic” (p. 9). Sounds a lot like E. P. Thompson to me. Or consider this passage, which almost could have come from Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge:

Yet another thing that we have not understood with sufficient complication is the nature of ideas in their relation to their development and in relation to their transmission. Too often we conceive of an idea as being like the baton that is handed from runner to runner in a relay race. But an idea as a transmissible thing is rather like the sentence that in the parlor game is whispered about in a circle (p. 191).

Trilling also argues that literature produces ideas, or philosophy, an argument that brings him within shouting distance of Deleuze. There’s more: he was anti-relativist, believed in the activity of audiences, and understood well the relationship of knowledge production and social control.

But it’s not enough simply to locate Trilling as an unacknowledged forebear of some of our more contemporary theoreticians. It’s also crucial to understand his intellectual style. Trilling could say more in a single, pointed sentence than most highly skilled writers can say in an entire essay, maybe even a volume. What’s more, he did so with the barest minimum of theoretical terminology or jargon.

So, for example, while it’s clear that he drew near to what, two decades later, would become the Foucauldian understanding of discourse, never did he long to coin a phrase to describe self-propagating communication. Trilling insisted that we engage not with catchy theoretical words that one could either “use” or “reject” depending on one’s allegiances. Instead, he demanded that we engage with the full substance of his arguments and reasoning.

Is his having done so a cause of the present abandonment of his work? Did Trilling expect too much of us, his readers and interlocutors?

A partisan of liberalism Trilling may have been, but in all affairs of the heart, mind, and politics he seems not to have been an ideologue. This is reflected, for example, in his discussion of literary criticism, where he deftly navigates the Scylla of historicism (or conditionalism) and the Charybdis of New Criticism. Ultimately he upholds the value of both, but in a masterfully dialectical way in which the one exposes the weaknesses in the other, ultimately opening up both to repair.

Trilling worked at a time when academics, for better or for worse, still were able to write “without apology or self-consciousness” (p. 253). There is evident in his work a deference to tradition and a sense of accountability to what others may hold dear, culturally or politically. Yet there remains a boldness to his work, even a brashness, that would seem almost unimaginable in academic discourse today.

In Trilling’s worst moments, as in his discussion of homosexuality and the Kinsey Report, the change of tone is a welcome one. But in Trilling’s best moments, which are far more numerous, one can register not only the tenderness with which he approached those with whom he disagreed, but also the lack of graciousness endemic to our own critical conversations today.

D&R readers absolutely must watch this video! It’s modeled after the political “attack ads” that appear frequently on U.S. television around election time. Here, though, politicians aren’t dueling, philosophers are, and Immanuel Kant is on the receiving end of the smear campaign. It’s truly hilarious, if, ultimately, rather apt.

Thanks to my colleague John Lucaites for passing along the link. Share and enjoy!

Differences and Repetitions began in many respects as a blog about the individual and collaborative writings of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. It’s always been about more than that, of course, but many of my earliest readers/interlocutors were fellow admirers of their work. I’m writing now to propose an experiment involving those of you with an interest in Deleuze and Guattari, and those of you who might be intrigued to participate for other reasons.

I’ve just completed a draft of a short paper on Deleuze and Guattari, which I’m scheduled to present at the US National Communication Association convention next week in Chicago, Illinois. It’s part of a panel organized by my friend and colleague, Mehdi Semati, on the theme, “Against Communication: On the Deleuzoguattarian Ethics of Refusal (to Communicate).” Here’s the deal: each of the panelists has chosen a short passage from the duo’s work that says something about communication. My selection, which comes from What Is Philosophy? is this: “We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present” (108; emphasis in original). Our task is to explicate and complicate our respective passages, in the strong sense in which Deleuze uses those terms. “To seek the truth is to interpret, decipher, explicate,” he writes in Proust and Signs. “But this ‘explication’ is identified with the development of the sign itself” (2000: 17).

This is where you come in. I’ve set up a page on wikidot.com, which, like Wikipedia, allows users to view, comment on, and edit the document I’ve drafted. You can access the paper by clicking here. You don’t need to do anything special to edit it; no registration or login is required. All you need to do is click the “edit” box near the bottom of the page, and the rest is more or less self-explanatory. If you’d rather not actively edit, you’re always welcome to read the paper and email comments/ responses to me: striphas@indiana.edu. Alternatively, you can leave your comments here on D&R.

I’m interested in soliciting your input and collaboration for several reasons. For starters, I’d love some advance feedback on the piece before presenting it. But beyond that, having read Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture, and related materials, I find myself becoming increasingly interested in the creative possibilities of distributed peer production. Wikis and other such technologies seem to me commensurate, at least in principle, with Deleuze and Guattari’s injunction from A Thousand Plateaus: “Write, form a rhizome…” (1987: 10). I thought it might be intriguing to try something like dissolving the speaking (or writing) subject in a piece ostensibly about “communication.”

Anyone who contributes will, of course, get appropriately credited on the piece. I thank you in advance for your input and look forward to seeing how the essay shapes up.

A message just came my way via email announcing the latest issue of the journal, Collapse. The previous issue had a more-than-vaguely Deleuzian bent, and this one promises even more. In fact, it contains work by Gilles Deleuze previous unpublished in the English language. The piece I’m especially intrigued by is the one Deleuze penned when he was just beginning his philosophical career at the age of 21.

Anyway, I thought D&R readers might be interested in what the good folks at Collapse have been up to. They seem to be doing something quite engaging indeed, so please pass the word on to others who might be interested.
————————————————————————————
We are delighted to announce that COLLAPSE Volume III will be published in mid-October and is now available for advance purchase online at http://www.urbanomic.com/order.

Collapse Volume III: ‘Unknown Deleuze’ contains explorations of the work of Gilles Deleuze by pioneering thinkers in the fields of philosophy, aesthetics, music and architecture. In addition, we publish in this volume two previously untranslated texts by Deleuze himself, along with a fascinating piece of vintage science fiction from one of his more obscure influences. Finally, as an annex to Collapse Volume II, we also include a full transcription of the conference on ‘Speculative Realism’ held in London earlier this year.

Whilst books continue to appear at an alarming rate which claim to put Deleuze’s thought ‘to work’ in diverse areas outside of philosophy, we submit, in this volume, that his philosophical thought itself still remains enigmatic, both in its detail and in its major themes. The contributors to this volume aim to clarify, from a variety of perspectives, Deleuze’s contribution to philosophy: in what does his philosophical originality lie; what does he appropriate from other philosophers and how does he transform it? And how can the apparently disparate threads of his work to be ‘integrated’ – what is the precise nature of the constellation of the aesthetic, the conceptual and the political proposed by Gilles Deleuze, and what are the overarching problems in which the numerous philosophical concepts ‘signed Deleuze’ converge?

The volume includes two newly-translated articles by Gilles Deleuze along with contributions from Arnaud Villani, Thomas Duzer, Quentin Meillassoux, John Sellars, Éric Alliez & Jean-Claude Bonne, Haswell & Hecker, Robin Mackay, Mehrdad Iravanian, J.-H. Rosny the Elder, Graham Harman, Iain Hamilton Grant and Ray Brassier.

For anyone wanting to go right to the core of Deleuzian philosophy and to experience the challenge of Deleuze’s thought, the articles collected in Collapse III will provide a virtually inexhaustible treasury of insights. As the featured authors shed light on this challenge from different points of view, they produce unexpected points of convergence, providing important resources for a more complete conceptual ‘portrait’ of Deleuze, and suggesting further lines of thought to be investigated. For anyone looking for an alternative to the emerging orthodoxy seemingly bent on broadcasting an ‘image of Deleuzian thought’, Collapse III provides a wide-ranging but uniformly rigorous and innovative survey of Gilles Deleuze’s thought, and an illustration of the fact that, even if it is already fashionable to evoke a ‘post-Deleuzian’ era, we have not yet begun to draw the properly philosophical consequences of this thought.

– Mathesis, Science and Philosophy, written by a 21-year-old Gilles Deleuze, has never before appeared in print in English and is published in Collapse in a new translation. Written as an introduction to a 1946 republication of a 19th-century esoteric philosophical work by Dr Johann Malfatti de Montereggio, this text offers a fascinating glimpse, set in an unexpected context, into the themes of Deleuze’s early work, as they emerge, in an already characteristically-dazzling style. Meanwhile, in the brief but illuminating 1981 interview with Arnaud Villani, Answers to a Series of Questions (also appearing here for the first time in English), Deleuze provides some tantalising intimations regarding the enduring concerns of his work over the years.

– In his own contribution to the volume, philosopher-poet Arnaud Villani (whose 1999 The Wasp and the Orchid was one of the first books to be published in France treating Deleuze’s work as a whole) reflects on Deleuze’s affirmation that he considered himself a ‘pure metaphysician’: what, precisely, does metaphysics mean for Deleuze? Through a sophisticated reading utilising the resources of aesthetics, poetics and philosophy, Villani not only defines the object of this metaphysics, but also shows clearly why it cannot be severed from its links with these other realms of thought, or from the question of the political or moral ‘decision’.

– This allusion reminds us that an examination of Deleuze today would be unthinkable without reference to Alain Badiou’s provocative Deleuze: The Clamor of Being, and in his article In Memoriam of Deleuze, Thomas Duzer undertakes, through a survey of the major axes of Deleuze’s philosophy, to locate the precise nature of their now famous ‘nonrelationship’; his defence emphasises that the positive features of Deleuze’s thought cannot be reduced either to a ‘phenomenology’ or to Badiou’s polemical opposite.

– In an exclusive translated extract from their new book Matisse-Thought: Portrait of the Artist as Hyperfauve, philosopher Éric Alliez (former student of Deleuze’s and author of The Signature of the World) and art-historian Jean-Claude Bonne analyse the revolution inaugurated in painting by Matisse during his ‘Fauvist’ period of 1905-6, discovering that the rigorous ‘quantitative’ conception of the intensive which Matisse proposes allows not only a new understanding of the significance of Fauvism for his later work, but also clarifies and reaffirms the philosophical pertinence of a Nietzschean-Deleuzian thinking of intensity and extensity, the qualitative and the quantitative.

– On the basis of an examination of a ‘fragment’ from Deleuze and Guattari’s What is Philosophy?, Quentin Meillassoux, in a philosophical tour de force, meticulously reconstructs the nature and the measure of Deleuzian ‘immanence’, proposing finally a ‘subtractive’ reading drawing on Bergson’s Matter and Memory, allowing us to understand, step-by-step ‘from the inside’ the construction of that singular network of concepts found in Deleuze’s work.

– Sound artists Russell Haswell and Florian Hecker contribute some strange and beautiful images taken from the electronic ‘score’ of their new sound work Blackest Ever Black, an ‘introduction to synaesthesia’ created using composer Iannis Xenakis’s computerised UPIC system to transform contemporary images into sound. An accompanying text by Robin Mackay analyses the affinities between Xenakis’s conception of a musical ‘polyagogy’ and Deleuze’s ‘transcendental empiricism’.

– Examining Deleuze’s famous use of the supposedly Stoic theory of Chronos and Aîon in Logic of Sense, John Sellars (author of The Stoics and The Art of Living) examines just how much it owes to actual stoic theories of time, thus providing both a case-study in the Deleuzian ‘ventriloquism’ in the history of philosophy and an informative example of the ‘stratigraphic’ time in which, according to Deleuze, philosophy takes place.

– Iranian architect Mehrdad Iravanian constructs a ‘graphitext’ which, taking as its starting point a page from Deleuze’s The Fold, undertakes a non-interpretative ‘ex-pli-cation’ of its content. Employing a hybrid methodology at once literal, textual and architectural, he brings to light structures secreted within the folds of the text itself.

– One of the many obscure ‘personae’ in the background of Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, the mysterious figure J.-H. Rosny the Elder not only supplied that work’s repeated formula for the nature of intensity-as-difference, but, as both philosopher and pioneering science fiction author, was also a living embodiment of the notion that ‘philosophy is a kind of science-fiction’: in his astonishing 1895 tale Another World, appearing here in English for the very first time, Rosny evokes an alien world of abstract lifeforms intersecting with our own, and examines with philosophical acuity the process of bringing such unknown beings within the purview of scientific knowledge.

– As if all this were not enough … Following the ‘dossier’ on Speculative Realism in the previous volume of Collapse, Volume III also includes a full transcription of the colloquium of the same name held at Goldsmith’s University of London in April 2007 featuring presentations by Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton Grant, Graham Harman and Quentin Meillassoux on the problems, and the promise, of this renewal of speculative philosophical thought. Running to well over 100 pages, this is an important and exciting document of contemporary philosophy in the making, proposing new conceptual approaches, exploring the borders between science and philosophy, and mining the history of thought for fresh insights into Nature, objectivity, and the legacy of ‘correlationism’.

Advance online orders for Volume III are priced (including postage) £10 (UK) / £13 (Europe) / £16 (Elsewhere).

(Unfortunately a vastly increased page count, together with regular unpredictable postal rate rises, have necessitated an increase in price for this volume.)

***4-Volume subscriptions are also available online at a reduced price.***

Readers will shortly be able to download a preview of the introduction to Volume III from the website http://www.urbanomic.com/dl.php, where introductions to Vols I and II are already available.

Help us: if you are able to post a notice in your place of work or study, please download and print the flyer for Collapse Volume III from http://www.urbanomic.com/dl.php. We would also welcome and reciprocate all links into the Urbanomic website from blogs, etc. Finally, please forward this bulletin on to anyone you know who is not on our mailing list but who may be interested.

COLLAPSE Volume III
October 2007.
Paperback 115x175mm 515pp (TBC)
Limited Edition of 1000 numbered copies.
ISBN 0-9553087-2-0

After sifting through what can only be desribed as an avalanche of entries (there were four), I’m pleased to report that the winner of the first ever D&R caption contest is “caraf.” Her entry: “Daddy, it’s not what my poop MEANS, but rather what it DOES that matters!” Smart, witty, and creative stuff. Her caption kind of reminds me of the line from A Thousand Plateaus, “Words are not tools, but we give children language, pens, and notebooks as we give workers shovels and pickaxes” (p. 76).

Caraf is hereby bestowed with the title of WINNER!!! and is presented with the following certificate, which, no doubt, will find a prominent place among her other honors and awards.

Thanks to all of you who shared your time and creative energies. Please don’t feel discouraged if you didn’t win. It was, honestly, a pretty competitive pool. And besides, I’ll probably have another caption contest next year, assuming that I can find an interesting enough image.

A colleague of mine passed along the following photo to me, and I’ve been meaning to blog about it for awhile now. There’s just one problem: I’m not particularly witty. So I leave it to you, dear readers, to come up with an appropriate caption for the photo–humorous or otherwise. The winner of the first ever D&R caption contest will garner the acclaim of dozens of blog readers from around the globe and will have conferred upon her/him by yours truly the euphonious title of…WINNER!!!!

You can enter by leaving a comment below. Have fun, keep it reasonably clean, and enjoy. The deadline for entries will be, well, whenever I decide….