Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
14Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Deleuze Negotiations

Deleuze Negotiations

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,934|Likes:
Published by MontyCantsin

More info:

Published by: MontyCantsin on Jan 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

10/16/2010

pdf

text

original

 
CONTROL
ND
BECOMING
The probh
of
politics
seems
o have always
bpa
present in
your
intellectual
lifp- Your
involvement in various
nwvpments
(#msoners,
homosexuals, Italianautonomists, Palestinians),
on
he
ont
hand, and the constant problematiu‘ng
of
institutions,
on
he
othet;
follow
on
rotn
one
another and interact w’th
ont
another in
your
work,fiwn
tht
book
on
Hume through
to
tht
me
n
Foucault.
What
are the
mots
of
this
sustained
conm
with
the
Question
of
politics, andhow has it remained sopmutat within yourdmelqtnngwork?
Why
is
tht
TQ~-
tion
between
movemmt
and institution always problematic?
What I’ve been interested in
are
collective creations rather than representations. There’s a whole order of movement in “institutions”that’s independent of both laws and contracts. What
I
found in Hume
was
a very creative conception of institutions and law. I
was
initiallymore interested in law than politics. Even with Masoch and Sade what
I
liked
was
the thoroughly twisted conception of contracts in Masoch,and of institutions in Sade,
as
these come out in relation to sexuality.And in the present day,
I
see Francois Ewald’s work
to
reestablish a phi-losophy of law
as
quite fundamental. What interests me isn’t the law
or
laws(the former being an empty notion, the latter uncriticalnotions), nor even law
or
rights, butjurisprudence. It’s urisprudence,ultimately, that creates law, and
we
mustn’t
go
on leaving this to judges.Writers ought
to
read law reports rather than the Civil
Code.
People
 
170
POLITICS
are already thinking about establishing a system of law
for
modernbiology; but everything in modern biology and the new situations
it
creates, the new courses of events
it
makes possible, is a matter forjurisprudence. We don’t need an ethical committee
of
supposedlywellqualified wise men, but user-groups. This is where we move fromlaw into politics.
I,
for my
own
part, made a sort of move into politicsaround May
68,
as
I
came into contact with specific problems, throughGuattari, through Foucault, through
Elie
Sambar.
Anti-Oediw
was
fiom beginning to end a book
of
political philosophy.
Ymi
took
tht
mmts
of
’68
o
bp
tha triumph
of
tht
UntimP<v,
tht
dawn
of
coun-teractualizntion.* Already in the
years
leading up to
’68,
in your work onNirtzrche and
n
bit later in
Coldness and Cruelty,
you
it
given
a
nmmean-ing to politia-as possibility, euent, singularity.
You’d
found short-circuitswhm hpfilture
bwaks
thmgh into
tht
pesent, mdijjing institutions in itswake. But then
aftpr
’68
you
take
a
slightly diffprpnt appronch: ndicthought alruavs tabs the temporal
fm
f
instantaneous countPractua1iz.a-tion, whik spatially only “minority becoming
is
univmal.
How
should
weundmtand this univmali8
of
the
untiwlv
9
The thing is,
I
became more and more aware of the possibility
of
dis-tinguishing between becoming and history. It
was
Nietzsche who saidthat nothing important is ever free fiom a “nonhistorical cloud.” Thisisn’t
to
oppose eternal and historical,
or
contemplation and action:Nietzsche is talking about the
way
things happen, about events them-selves
or
becoming. What history grasps in an event is the way it’s actu-alized in particular circumstances; the event’s becoming is beyondthe scope
of
history. History isn’t experimental,3 it’s just the set
of
more
or
less negative preconditions that make
it
possible
to
experi-ment with something beyond history. Without history the experi-mentation would remain indeterminate, lacking any initial condi-tions, but experimentation isn’t historical. In a major philosophicalwork,
Clio,
Piguy
explained that there are two
ways
of
consideringevents, one being
to
follow the course of the event, gathering how
it
comes about historically, how it’s prepared and then decomposes inhistory, while the other way is to go back into the event, to
take
one’splace in it
as
n a becoming,
to
grow both young and old in it at once,
 
Control and Becoming
171
going through all
its
components
or
singularities. Becoming isn’t partof history; history amounts only the set of preconditions, howeverrecent, that one leaves behind in order
to
“become,” hat is,
to
createsomething new. This is precisely what Nietzsche calls the Untimely.May
68
was a demonstration, an irruption, of a becoming in
its
purestate. It’s fashionable these days to condemn the horrors of revolu-tion. It’s nothing new; English Romanticism is permeated by reflec-tions on Cromwell very similar to present-day reflections on Stalir~.~They say revolutions turn out badly. But they’re constantly confusing
two
different things, the way revolutions turn out historically and peeple’s revolutionary becoming. These relate to
two
different sets ofpeople. Men’s only hope lies in a revolutionary becoming: the onlyway of casting off their shame
or
responding to what is intolerable.
A
Thousand Plateaus,
which
I
regard
as
a
major philosophical
work,
eemsto
me
at the same time a catalogw
of
unsolved pobk,most particularly inthejield ofpoliticalphilosophy.
Its
pairs
of
contrasting tenn.s+ocess andject, singularity and subject, composition and organization, lines offlight anda#aratuses/strategies, micro ad macro, and
so
on-all
this not
only
remains forever
opett
but
it
5
constantly being reopaed, through an amazing
will
to
theorize,
and with a
violence
reminiscent
of
hereticalproclumtio. Ivenothing against such subversim, qui& the reverse.
.
.
But
I
seem sometimes tohear
a
tragic
note,
at points where it’s not clear where the “war-machine”
is
Rot%
I’m moved by what you say. I think Felix Guattari and I have remainedMarxists, in our
two
different ways, perhaps, but both
of
us. You
see,
we
think any political philosophy must turn on the analysis of capital-ism and the
ways
it has developed. What
we
find most interesting inMarx is his analysis of capitalism
as
an immanent system that’s con-stantly overcoming
its
own
limitations, and then coming up againstthem once more in a broader form, because its fundamental limit isCapital itself.
A
Thousand Plateaus
sets out in many different direc-tions, but these are the three main ones: first,
we
think any society isdefined not so much by
its
contradictions
as
by
its
lines of flight,
it
flees all over the place, and it’s very interesting
to
try and follow thelines of flight taking shape at some particular moment
or
other.
bok

Activity (14)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
batros1 liked this
mesnetsiz liked this
rocketsummer68 liked this
artistpainter liked this
leopard59 liked this
opondos liked this
olushinadebayo liked this
trogoautoegocrat liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->