Deleuze in the Age of Posttheory

Author(s): Jeffrey R. Di Leo

Reviewed work(s):
Source: symplok, Vol. 6, No. 1/2, special issue: Practicing Deleuze & Guattari (1998), pp. 174-
179
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40550431 .
Accessed: 25/05/2012 13:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to symplok.

http://www.jstor.org
DeleuzeintheAge
of posttheory

JeffreyR. Di Leo

At no othertime have therebeen so many literaryand critical

theoristson universityfaculties. Furthermore, the numberoftheory
coursesofferedto undergraduateand graduatestudentsseems to be
onlyincreasing. Yet despite these institutionaltrends,there are a
numberof indicationsthat the contemporary scene in literaryand
criticaltheoryis undergoinga radical transformation.One senses a
noticeablechangein attitudein academia regardingthe use oftheory
and its general value. What then is the impetus forthis change?
Whynow aftertheoryand theoristshave finallycome of age in the
academyis the term"posttheory" appearingwithgreaterfrequency in
the verycommunitiesthat struggledso hard to establish a place for
theory within the academy? Moreover, how does this alleged
"posttheoreticalturn" alter the role and significanceof postwar
Frenchtheoristslike Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles
Deleuze? Does the comingofposttheory signal a diminishingrole in
scholarship for "theorists"like Deleuze? Paradoxical as it might
sound,the comingofan age ofposttheory need not necessarilyentail
the dwindlingsignificanceof traditionallytheoreticalwriters. One
finds,forexample,that the workof Deleuze onlyincreases in value
and relevancyin the age ofposttheory.We see thisveryclearlywhen
we lookat just whatbroughtus intothe"age ofposttheory," and what
exactly is meant by thisenigmaticphrase.
The road to posttheory beginsin the '70s, whendoubtsabout the
usefulness of theorybegan to give way to the practice of rich,
theoretical readings of literary artifacts. Elegant and close
structuralist, deconstructive, Marxist, and psychoanalytic
interpretations began to seriously compete with older, more
traditionalwaysofreadinglike the New Criticism;competingnotjust
forcredibilityamong academics, but also forlimited institutional
space. The practiceoftheoryin the academiccurriculumas well as

symplok Vol. 6, No. 1-2(1998)ISSN 1069-0697,174-179.

 symplok 175

the hiringand tenuringoftheorists wouldserveto bothlegitimate

and promotetheoryas well as the varyingpoliticaland social
agendasofthe theorists.Increasingly, emphasison the libidinal,
politicaland/or socialnatureofsignification wouldcometo challenge
theveryprofession ofliterarystudiesbylayingthe groundwork for
cultural studies. In retrospect,the death of the literary in
departments whichfocuson theteachingofliterature was hastened
bythebirthoftheory.
Throughthe'80s,theorycameto encompassa widening fieldof
perspectives.Race, class, and genderstudiesbeganto eclipsethe
moreformalist theoriesoftheliterary whichdominated thelate '70s
and early'80s. Structuralism and deconstruction werebecoming
traditionaland evenreactionary in comparison to the progressive,
emerging discoursesof culturalstudies. More and more,emphasis
was beingplacedby theoristson the personal,social and political
dimensionsof interpretation. Afterthe institutionalization of
deconstruction and structuralism in the UnitedStateslostsightof
the social and politicaldimensions ofinterpretation (e.g.,theYale
a
school), growinggeneration of critics sought contextualize
to
criticism. Thehightheory ofthe'70s whichwas comingto acquirea
timeless,ahistorical, permanence in the'80s through its codification
in method was givingwaytothelowtheory ofculturalstudieswhich
re-emphasizedthe contingent,local, historical,and contextual
character ofall culturalartifacts.
By the '90s, cultural studies had broadened to include
postcolonial, queer,andmediastudies,whiletheory was showing only
thefaintest of Not
signs development. only theory did nolongergive
the appearanceofa unitarybodyofwork - an appearancewhichit
hadheldforsometime - butit had also cometobe regarded bymany
similarlyto the way thatthe New Criticism was regardedtwenty
yearsearlier. High theorieslike deconstruction and structuralism
had becomeantiquated,and were at best seen only as flawed
predecessors tothelowtheories ofculturalstudies.
It mightbe arguedthatthelowtheory ofthe'80s whicheclipsed
thehightheory ofthe'70s in turnhad givenwaytothestudiesofthe
late '90s. Forward-looking membersof our fieldnow focustheir
attention onculturalstudies,notculturaltheory, postcolonial studies,
notpostcolonial theory,and so on. Moreover, thisshiftfromtheory to
studiesis widelyregardedtobe morethanmerelycosmetic. Studies
are producedby criticalwritingpractices,and do not necessarily
immediately providethemeaningofa culturalartifact.Attheirbest,
theyare self-reflective enterprises thatare creditedand discredited
relativeto historicaland socialpressures.To putit bluntly, thereis
no absolutemeaningin and methodforstudies. Whatcountsas a
176 R. Di Leo
Jeffrey Deleuze in theAgeofPosttheory

study will changeovertimejust as muchas what stands as its

meaning.
Theory, ontheotherhand,has cometobe associatedwithmethod.
One ofthe majordifferences betweendeconstruction and cultural
studiesis thattheformer can be and has beenreducedto a method,
whereasthe latter(supposedly)cannotbe totalizedin this way.
Furthermore, theorydoes not continuallyseek to redefineitself
througha processofself-analysis and self-reflection. As such,the
dominantand emergentmeta-discourses of today,like cultural
studies,are besttermedas "post-theoretical" - and theresidualones
as "theoretical."
Nevertheless, theterm"post-theoretical" is notmeantto indicate
that "theoryis dead" in our profession,but is ratherused to
acknowledge a changein view withregardto theory.Todaythe
culture, perception and use oftheory is radicallydifferentfromwhat
it was twenty-five yearsago. Theoryis nowregardednotonlyby
students andthebookindustry, butalsobyforward-looking members
ofourprofession as something whichwe can use selectively relative
to theendsofourstudies:in otherwords,theory critical)is
(literary,
thehandmaiden ofstudies(queer,postcolonial, cultural, media,etc.).
It is no longeran end in itselfor somethingto be produced
independently of a criticalwritingpractice. Today literaryand
criticaltheory arecalleduponlesstoworkoutnewtheoretical models
or to expandmodelsalreadyin place thanto be employedin the
articulation ofone'scriticalstudies.Forstudents andfaculty, theory
is something that may be eclecticallyused in the furtherance of
criticalpractice,thatis, to theend ofcontingent socio-culturaland
politicalunderstanding. Nevertheless, noneofthisimpliesan anti-
theoretical position. In additionto resorting totheoretical resources
in criticalwritingpractices,the culturaland politicalefficacy of
extanttheories is thesubjectofongoing interrogation.
Giventhenthis changein view withregardto theory,what
becomesofthewritings andthought ofDeleuze?On thefaceofit,the
answerseemsstraight-forward: as a paradigmatic exampleofthe
hightheory ofthe '70s he
(eventhough beganpublishing his workin
theearly'50s),theworkofDeleuzeshouldloseits relevancy as the
turn
posttheoretical gains momentum. Ifindeed studies are the wave
ofthe future,nottheory,then the thoughtof Deleuze shouldbe
showing signsofa fallfromsignificance. But,oddlyenough, just the
opposite seems to be occurring.
In the'90s,particularly sincehis deathin 1995,thewritings and
thoughts ofDeleuze seem onlyto be as of
increasing objects scholarly
interest.Ifthenumber ofreferences tohiswork,studiesofhiswork,
conferences on his work,and evenInternet sitesdevotedto his work
are anyindication ofthesignificance andrelevanceofhis work,then
 syrnplok 177

Deleuzeis in verygoodshape. On thecontemporary scene,Deleuze

seems even to have movedahead of his contemporaries, Jacques
Derridaand MichelFoucault,in termsofcurrent interest.But why?
Mightthisbe linkedtothepassingfrom theory toposttheory and the
concomitant interestin studies?Whynowat theend ofthe theory
warsis therea resurgence ofinterestand appropriation ofthework
ofDeleuze?
Unliketheworkofhis contemporaries, Deleuze'swritings always
seemedtohavea lesscomfortable relationship withtheory.Whilehe
was generally regardedalongwithFoucaultandDerridaas oneofthe
mostimportant poststructuralistthinkersto comeout of postwar
France,his writing alwaysreceivedmuchless attention thantheirs
both in literarytheorycircles as well as in the philosophical
community. Onemightarguethatthereasonforthisis linkedtothe
factthat Deleuze's writingsare muchmoredifficult to reduceto
methodthanthoseofFoucaultand Derrida. Thisis ofcoursenotto
saythatthelattertwothinkers are reducible to methodorthatthey
shouldbe reducedto method, butratherthatDeleuzeis notoriously
moredifficult.Perhapsthis difficulty is linkedto the natureof
Deleuze'swriting itself;thatit resistsgeneralization becauseofits
and
powerfulsingularity strong link with becomingratherthan
being.For, as Deleuzesays in "Literature and Life,"
Writingis a questionof becoming,always incomplete,
alwaysin themidstofbeingformed, and goesbeyondthe
matterofanyliveableor livedexperience.It is a process,
thatis,a passageofLifethattraversesboththelivableand
thelived.Writingis inseperablefrombecoming: in writing
one becomes-woman,becomes-animalor vegetable,
becomes-molecule to the pointofbecoming-imperceptible.
(1)

Nonetheless,even if there seems to be some supportfor the

imperceptibility ofDeleuze'swritings,
and singularity noneofthese
thinkers lendthemselves betteror worseto a reduction to method:
eachis ultimatelyequallyreducibleorirreducible
to method.
Anotherpossibleexplanationforthe continuing relevanceof
Deleuze in an age ofposttheory is that Deleuze'sworkhas always
beenperhapsmoreaccurately capturedbytheterm"studies"rather
than"theory." Furthermore, mightarguethatthispositioncould
one
notfullybe appreciateduntilafterthe heydayofhightheoryhad
passed. Afterall, are not Deleuze's readingsofphilosophers like
Leibnizand Bergsonand Nietzschein partattemptsto situatethe
problems raisedbythemin theirproperhistorical context?In Le Pli:
Leibnizet le Baroque(1988),forexample,Leibniz'sperspectivism is
178 R. Di Leo
Jeffrey Deleuze in theAge ofPosttheory

presented in thecontext ofa Baroqueworldwhichhas lostitscenter.

The creationofconcepts in philosophyis linkedherebyDeleuzenet
to abstracttheorizing butto concretehistorical situations.In turn,
Deleuzecontinually showsus howproblems andconcepts withwhich
thinkerslike Bergsonand Nietzscheworkedcan and shouldbe
brought intocontactwithcurrent conceptsand problems.It is here
that Deleuze's worknot onlyseems to be morelike studiesthan
theory,but actuallyeven goes somewhatbeyondwhat has been
characterizedas studies. It is the inabilityof his workto be
subsumedunderboththetitlesof"theory" and "studies"thatbegins
to speak to his continuing influenceand impacton posttheoretical
thinking.
Deleuze's readingsof philosophers alwayslead us away from
philosophy and conceptualanalysis,and intootherfieldssuch as
psychology, mathematics, literature,medicine,politics,art, and
biology. But it is not merelythat he compelsus to become
interdisciplinaryor to breakdownrigiddistinctions whichaccounts
forhis growingimpact,nor is it his destructionof the world,
dissolutionof the subjectand disintegration of the body. Other
thinkershavedonethesethingsbutdo notenjoythefollowing which
Deleuzehas hadandcontinues tohave.
PerhapsDeleuze'scontinued impactbothbeforeand aftertheory
and studiesis foundsimplyin the way in whichhis workstands
beforeus as a signtobe encountered. In Proustand Signs,Deleuze
writesthat
Truth depends upon an encounterwith somethingwhich
forcesus to think,and to seek the truth. The accidentof
encounters, the pressure of constraints are Proust's
fundamental themes. Precisely, it is the sign which
constitutestheobjectofan encounter,and whichworksthis
violenceupon us. It is the accidentofthe encounterwhich
guaranteesthenecessityofwhatis thought.(16)

Deleuze's workis a signwhichincitesus by shockor violenceto

searchforthetruth.It is theshockofour"encounter" withit which
atteststo its stayingpower,and notits theoreticalcompleteness or
the right-directed politicallyof its discourse. And as long it
as
continuesto remain"outside"forus- outsidedisciplinarity, theory,
and containment - and as something whichis always"becoming,"the
and
writings thoughts of Deleuze will continueto remain in the
vanguard ofcritical thought.
UNIVERSITYOF ILLINOIS- CHICAGO
 symplok 179

References
Deleuze, Gilles. Proust and Signs. Trans. Richard Howard. New York:
GeorgeBraziller,1972.
. "Literatureand Life."Essays Criticaland Clinical. Trans. Daniel W.
Smithand MichaelA. Greco. Minneapolis:U ofMinnesotaP, 1997. 1-6.