journal of the theoretical humanities volume 10 number 3 december 2005

Not man as the king of creation, but rather as the being who is in intimate contact with the profound life of all forms or all types of beings, who is responsible for even the stars and animal life, and who ceaselessly plugs an organ-machine into an energy-machine, a tree into his body, a breast into his mouth, the sun into his asshole: the eternal custodian of the machines of the universe. Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus 4

i introduction
he aim of this article is to outline the various aspects of machinic thought relevant to the theorising of environmental problems. Whilst there is a considerable literature devoted to applying poststructuralist (as well as postmodernist) thought to environmental dilemmas,1 there is, somewhat incredibly, very little work examining the environmental implications of two of the most important poststructuralist thinkers of ´ the last three decades – Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.2 This may simply be due to the fact that Deleuze, but less so Guattari, spend very little time actually talking about environmental problems (at least in the orthodox sense). Or it may be due to the dense and frustratingly elusive nature of their work. Whatever the reason, the prime objective of the present article is to demonstrate that Deleuze and Guattari are highly relevant to environmental matters. On a first count, and in the tradition of Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari make thinking an inherently ethical project – meaning that when one thinks one is in fact never ‘‘One’’ (a rational, independent subject) but a site always already infused by multiple forces and trajectories (or machines, see below for clarification of this concept).

mark halsey ECOLOGY AND MACHINIC THOUGHT nietzsche, deleuze, guattari
There are no individual statements, there never are. Every statement is the product of a machinic assemblage, in other words, of collective agents of enunciation (take ‘‘collective agents’’ to mean not peoples or societies but multiplicities). The proper name (nom propre) does not designate an individual: it is on the contrary when the individual opens up to the multiplicities pervading him or her, at the outcome of the most severe operation of depersonalization, that he or she acquires his or her true proper name. The proper name is the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity. The proper name is the subject of a pure infinitive comprehended as such in a field if intensity.3


There can be, therefore, no proper or authentic voice of/for the environment. Further to this,

ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/05/030033^23 ß 2005 Taylor & Francis and the Editors of Angelaki DOI: 10.1080/09697250500423017


ecology and machinic thought
Deleuze and Guattari argue that the only ‘‘true’’ form of thought is that which breaks with orthodox or traditional understandings of what it is to think. This orthodox understanding of thinking is termed by Deleuze the image of thought (and later in conjunction with Guattari the strata). The image of thought – the discursive structuring and limiting of what can be said and done – rigidly marks out the thresholds dividing self from other, inside from outside, the familiar from the unfamiliar, and, importantly, the ecologically significant from the ecologically expendable. On this basis, disengaging the image of thought – or ‘‘the figure in which doxa is universalized by being elevated to the rational level’’ – becomes, for Deleuze and Guattari, the key to rewriting the world, and thereby socioenvironmental issues, anew.4 But it is their sustained capacity to contort and invent the world through conceptual phenomena that makes them integral to theorising environmental dilemmas. Whether it be the concept of socius or assemblage or that of the plane of consistency or the fold, there is something in their work (both independently and collectively) that provides the basis from which to think about environmental harm and regulation in quite different ways than has hitherto been the case. On a second count, the work of Deleuze and Guattari provides a means for keeping pace with the mobility of environmental problems by considering Nature and systems of environmental regulation as always already discursively produced and contested. They make no grand claims concerning ‘‘solutions’’ or the precise conditions for long-term ‘‘ecological sustainability.’’ Indeed, terms such as these should be subjected to rigorous interrogation and perhaps ultimately effaced from the lexicon of environmental struggle. In a sense, it may be better to do to Society and Nature what Nietzsche did to God and Man. The claims, therefore, made by Deleuze and Guattari are decidedly modest. In the remainder of this paper I want to do two things. The first – foreign as it may seem – involves very briefly surveying the significance of Friedrich Nietzsche’s thought. For in many ways Nietzsche was the thinker who provided the bridge between the processual/machinic philosophies formulated in Greek thought (predominantly Ionian cosmology) and the poststructuralist/ postmodernist enterprises emanating from France during the 1960s and beyond with such figures as Lyotard, Foucault and Derrida. The second and more extensive task will be to introduce several of Deleuze and Guattari’s key concepts in order to offer an account of how they might be put to work with respect to environmental problems.

ii precedents to machinic thought
To think machinically is to view the world in terms of an incessant mutability or flux. Perhaps the first individual to articulate the machinic or processual nature of the world was Thales. His speculations (and subsequently those of Heraclitus, Homer, Anaximander and Cratylus) seriously undermined the deifying/Apollonian overtones of ancient Greek thought. Although Thales’ work on the subject is thought never to have existed in chirographic form, it is commonly understood that he conceived water – rather than Man or God – to be ‘‘the reality of all things.’’5 The interesting issue here is why water should be chosen to fulfil this role. Thales himself left no explanation.6 However, several reasons come to mind. First, and as Aristotle ventured, ‘‘moisture is necessary for the nourishment of every organism’’ whereas Man has long posed a threat to such organisms. Second, and again as Aristotle proffered, ‘‘every animal’s life begins in seminal fluid’’ making Man – from the very ‘‘first’’ – the subject of a flow rather than a structure or teleology.7 Third, water is active and transformative whereas Man is reactive and imitative. Fourth, water is always arriving or exiting whereas Man is characterised by a becoming-still. Fifth, water is composed of infinitely varied speeds whereas Man is something constant, predictable and habitual. Finally, water – through processes such as evaporation and osmosis – makes a mockery of the reactive forces of containing, trapping, fixing and dominating. Man, on the other hand, revels in being the object of such forces – that is, reactive Man desires to be folded, subjected, limited. In effect, water is chosen by Thales for its ability to proliferate a philosophy of flows and becomings instead of a metaphysics of structures and beings.


consciousness. He must become judge and avenger and victim of his own law. is a terrible. continues to be a slave (of other people’s drives) rather than a master (of ‘‘his’’ own desires). Its impact on men can most nearly be likened to the sensation during an earthquake when one loses one’s familiar confidence in a firmly grounded earth. without beginning.’’9 The risks inherent within such a task (of becoming-legislator of one’s own existence) are many. . The question emerging here is: how does one impose form and predictability in a world declared (by Ionian cosmology. a sea of forces flowing and rushing together. by what authority does one begin to legislate where God. Indeed. at least) to be in a constant state of flux? Relatedly. in other words. Nietzsche stands alone as the figure who never tired of proclaiming processuality as the defining (or in Deleuzian terms immanent) aspect of the cosmos. eternally flooding back. as a play of forces and waves of forces.’’ As Zarathustra remarks: ‘‘And this is the great noontide. increasing here and at the same time decreasing there. which constantly acts and comes-to-be but never is. discourses of right. not a space that might be ‘‘empty’’ here or there. as Zarathustra declares: [C]ommanding is more difficult than obeying. .. Yes. as Bauman shows. creative and as existing in a realm ‘‘beyond good and evil. . enclosed by ‘‘nothingness’’ as a boundary. And Nature continues to be something fixed. of embracing the great noontide. Reason.12 This is where the journey of self-overcoming. Man is like a child who gets the toy (i. the impermanence of everything actual. active. they have functioned. freedom from Idols/Ideals) he desires minus instructions for its safe or benign use. exterior. order). cause. with an ebb and a flood of its forms. flow. and that this burden can easily crush him. . explicable. with tremendous years of recurrence. . to be an experiment and a risk: and the living creature risks himself when he commands. paralyzing thought. In commanding there appear[s] .13 Man.11 The everlasting and exclusive coming-to-be. At such a point. Logic and so forth have all imploded? These are the questions 35 .’’8 Dangerous in the sense that this freeing of active or Dionysian forces demands that each and every body becomes a commander of its own capacities and desires – that each invents what Nietzsche called a radical ‘‘will to self-responsibility. a firm. Nietzsche writes: And do you know what ‘‘the world’’ is to me? . eternally changing. at the same time one and many. This world: a monster of energy. .halsey It was precisely this philosophy of fluxes and becomings (of decentred subjects (humans) and objects (world)) that proved too much for the ancients (and nearly all subsequent epochs) to bear. it is when man stands at the middle of his course between animal and Superman and celebrates his journey to the evening as his highest hope: for it is the journey to a new morning. most What is crushing here is the preponderance of Dionysian forces (flux. Again. but rather as a force throughout. change. even when he commands himself: then also must he make amends for his commanding.e. iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller. And not only because the commander [active force] bears the burden of all who obey [reactive force]. out of the simplest forms striving toward the complex. as Heraclitus teaches it. Liberating in the sense that a philosophy of flows promotes a newfound lightness of the relation between culture and earth – a space where life can be affirmed as something joyful. and controllable. . that does not expend itself but only transforms itself. Why? Chiefly because a philosophy of flows – living one’s life as a becoming-other – is both liberating and dangerous. Man recoils on ‘‘ultimate man’’ instead of unleashing the ubermensch. of starting the perilous journey toward the overman (or toward what Deleuze and Guattari term a body without organs) proves too hard for the majority – and most certainly for all social and political systems (of modernity). With a vigour and style like none before him.. effect). rationality. Here. structure. .e. . as its essential aporia.10 which have for so long haunted modernity. out of the stillest. without end. sameness. . chaos) over Apollonian forms (stasis. In terms of those who have struggled to free the human subject – and indeed Nature – from the discourses spawned by the Enlightenment (i.

most turbulent. what is relatively most enduring is – our opinions’’. images and representations (of thought) constructed by certain metaphysicians (Plato. . the production of differential forces could only be realised via an ongoing pathos of distance and a belief in the transience of all things (even of his own philosophy). One would have to know what being is in order to get the sum from the cogito. reciprocity. and when we falsely introduce this world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though this symbol-world were an ‘‘in-itself’’. everything – came to pass. still affirming itself . they make small. this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight. the production of difference meant believing in the transience of scientific knowledge: ‘‘There are no facts. most self-contradictory.16 In the second case. contains 36 . namely mythologically[.ecology and machinic thought rigid. out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord.]20 and the transience of being: cogito ergo sum: that means: Something is believed therefore something is believed – a vicious circle. Rousseau) – bodies. kings. but if it wishes to maintain itself it must not evaluate as its neighbour evaluates’’. Aristotle.18 The objective in this remarkable passage is to destroy the bodies. elusive. One knows. indeed. no disgust. compulsion. law. . the eternally selfdestroying. In the first case. freedom. one would also have to know what ‘‘knowing’’ is: one starts from the belief in logic – in the ergo before all else – and not uniquely from the position of fact!21 For Nietzsche. diseases – in a word. . without will. motive. Socrates.19 the transience of first principles: It is we alone who have fabricated causes. this meant upholding a pathos within and between But Nietzsche also insisted that if one was to fully comprehend those factors which contributed to the demise of difference (to the colonisation of earth as unbounded matter and energy) one had necessarily to be aware of the hypostatising and reifying effects of language. This world is the will to power – and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power – and nothing besides!14 cultures: ‘‘No people could live without evaluating. relativity. they are the levelling of mountain and valley exalted to a moral principle. coldest forms toward the hottest. cowardly and smug – it is the herd animal that triumphs with them every time. unless a ring feels good will toward itself – do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? . as a becoming that knows no satiety. succession.’’ As Deleuze writes: The will to power is the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation. The will to power is therefore immanently antiarborescent in that it is opposed to foundations or original causes. of the manner by which the intra. The will to power here reveals its nature as the principle of the synthesis of forces. This was a world where seasons. number. what they bring about: they undermine the will to power. . everything is in flux. no weariness: this my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating. In this synthesis – which relates to time – forces pass through the same differences again or diversity is reproduced. incomprehensible. ‘‘I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’. reduction to the herd animal. Kant. friends. beyond its own image of the universe and the established ‘‘order of things. Liberalism: in plain words.and intergenerational qualities of discourse (re)present certain ways of articulating bodies as natural and/or timeless. images and representations which have long served to imprison or tame the active forces within human beings/Nature. and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance. we once more behave as we have always behaved.’’ without goal unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal. conversations. purpose. cities.17 as well as within and between institutions: Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: subsequently there is nothing more thoroughly harmful to freedom than liberal institutions. thoughts. like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself’. Like Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of desire (see below) it proliferates beyond itself.15 The concept ‘‘will to power’’ was invented by Nietzsche because he felt it best reflected the world of which he was a part. diets. my ‘‘beyond good and evil.

to an audience of two). biodiversity. were something factual. a place it took to be so firmly set that. The twentieth century indeed fostered a will to fascism (to a becomingthe-same. the publication of such works as Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations – would comment on the limits of language. that is afraid to reflect. the concept ‘‘man’’. the monkey-wrenchers. whereas it is surely only something we have constructed through a process of ignoring all individual features. From the present vantage point. Hitler’s Germany.25 It should come as no surprise that Nietzsche – well before. . according to the form). ‘‘No herdsman and one herd. ‘‘The significance of language for the evolution of culture lies in this. Like any erudite thinker. the tree huggers. violently. Furthermore. that mankind set up in language a separate world beside the other world. after all. convenor of a course on Rhetoric at Basel University (taught. And arborescence. ‘‘The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth – the compulsion to grand politics. uranium and so forth. In fact. We presuppose that nature behaves in accordance with such a concept. In or around 1870.’’27 Does this not speak directly of the politics of denial currently practised in respect of ecological ruin? ‘‘[T]here will be wars such as there have never yet been on earth. Rather. appears to us to be a multiplicity of properties and relations is something doubly anthropomorphic: in the first place. with tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly. fishing stocks. the new-agers. But this is a fascism not only rooted within those so-called ‘‘evil’’ and ‘‘barbaric’’ nations of Mussolini’s Italy. he observed: All the knowledge which is of assistance to us involves the identification of things which are not the same. does not exist. e. The omitting of what is individual provides us with the concept. Everyone wants the same thing. it is a fascism which holds equal sway (under different guises and channels) in Bush’s USA. to a becoming-herd-conscious) across much of the earth. We produce beings as the bearers of properties and abstractions as the causes of these properties. the violence of concepts. That a unity. each relation is not the true.’’29 The marginalisation of the ‘‘loony Left. but is again anthropomorphically colored. a tree. that no longer reflects.’’24 Nietzsche was one of the first to point out the violence attached to speaking and writing – or. 37 . process) is threatened whenever and wherever a will to a system predominates. Stalin’s Russia. it could lift the rest of the world off its hinges and make itself master of it. our whole European [read global] culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe. absolute relation. categories and names.’’28 Wars over ozone. difference (flow. of things which are only similar. everyone is the same: whoever thinks otherwise goes voluntarily into the madhouse. salinity.’’ the hippies. But the essence of things does not correspond to this: it is a process of knowledge which does not touch upon the essence of things. it is arbitrary to carve out a thing in this manner (according to the eye. like a river that wants to reach the end. headlong. such knowledge is essentially illogical. The fact that Nietzsche took seriously the epistemological and ethical issues at stake in the relation between word and world means that he must stand at the forefront of any poststructuralist analysis of the discursive and textual (re)production of environmental conflict and its regulation. standing upon it. purportedly. and elsewhere. ‘‘tree’’. fresh water. the ‘‘full-time’’ dissenters.g. For all systems are founded on – take root around – arborescent principles.’’26 One might also include here the compulsion to ‘‘grand corporatism’’ and the commodification of the Other. Howard’s Australia. even. e. Only in this way do we obtain a concept. Blair’s Britain. Then afterwards we behave as if the concept. Nietzsche knew better than most the danger(s) of ignoring his word. In other words. and with this our knowledge begins: in categorizing. to what amounts to the same thing.g.’’23 And again. . But in this case first nature and then the concept are anthropomorphic. this delimited unity. it was as if Nietzsche was gazing into a crystal ball. He was. Deng’s China or Castro’s Cuba. in the establishment of classes.halsey a contradictio in adjecto: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!’’22 ‘‘I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar. ‘‘For some time now. oil.

Finally. All this in a world where there is and can be no intrinsic congruency between reality (world) and representation (signs) and no definitive or consistent ontological divide between subject (‘‘Man’’) and object (‘‘Nature’’). arguably. analytical research is given a dimension of finitude. unheard-of affects. not fewer. This is. socio-ecological vitality. will eventually ruin the entropic limits of the earth (not to mention other planets/bodies – witness the geological and topographical surveys of Mars and the moon). technological and so forth. Moreover. Like Nietzsche. biological. to a fostering of forces which allow for the proliferation of active bodies and.33 This is. . they are questions that treat seriously the cultural (masculine. and otherwise wholly sufficient to their 38 . is antithetical to processuality. scientific. monstrous) alignments? What is it. the subjugation of women and men. the unfolding of life becomes an immanently ethical process since it is always already tied to all manner of other bodies – social. of course.ecology and machinic thought according to Deleuze and Guattari. [T]here are neither ends nor means. nothing but processes. Deleuze and Guattari are deeply troubled by the subjectivities holding sway in contemporary culture. this is a central environmental issue given the fact that more than eighty per cent of the world’s ‘‘original’’ or old-growth ecosystems have been demolished in the last two centuries or so. It assumes that one has discarded the idea that one must absolutely master an object or a subject – and that . schizoanalysis (thinking machinically) As already explained.32 [The] idea of process is fundamental. feminine. political. . processes auto-constructing life. exponential material growth. legal. molecular.31 iii deleuze and guattari It is within the above context that the work of Deleuze and Guattari gains much of its significance. There is no disputing the idea. when we make the body of the Slender Tree Fern stand alongside the body of a forest coupe plan? What kinds of becomings are either facilitated or cast aside in such scenarios? These kinds of questions guide the tenor of this article. unforeseen. My objective now will be to offer a general overview of Deleuze and Guattari’s thought and its significance for thinking through environmental issues. Processes or machines bring an omnipresent volatility to the concepts (ways of thinking) and subjectivities (ways of existing) previously understood to be immutable. geological. to a maintenance of the conditions for difference. For present matters. quite clearly. the crucial question is this: on what authority – by what epistemological criteria – do we presently name particular kinds of bodies and force them to stand in multifarious (indeed some would say. that politicosocial ‘‘systems’’ founded on. normal. for instance. singularity. precariousness in relation to time and values . then. Indigenous). . They are questions which arise from a realisation that current methods of regulating environmental harm/conflict tend too often toward the preservation and legitimisation of the kinds of subjectivities or existential territories30 responsible for such conflict. And like Nietzsche they interpret the so-called ‘‘lack’’ of a transcendental foundation or teleology as leading to more. with mutant. existential delimitation. the kind of conflict that has at one time or another featured in most regions of the globe. to think machinically is to invoke a processual conception of society and subjectivity. geographic. only processes. . In order to bring their concepts into clearer relief – and to show their transversality – I will discuss each of them with reference to the key terms most often associated with forest conflict. in other words. ethical decisions. economic (material) and epistemological (philosophical) dimensions of humaninduced environmental damage. auto-constructing the world. a very different conception of social relations and ‘‘self-hood’’ than that configured by modernity. Here. industrial. for example. They are also questions formulated in the knowledge that there can be no single solution to socio-ecological problems – that the destruction of the earth derives from a multiplicity of sources (hence the need for a schizoanalytic rather than purely structuralist or modernist account of socioecological ruin). and/or a fervent disdain of philosophical inquiry. that we do.

statements. But neither is there good reason for thinking the opposite. metaphor. but through an abstract machine that produces continuums of intensity. Mapping the lived and potential effects and affects of these lines is the task that Deleuze and Guattari set themselves. and. everything creates – never alone. in Deleuze’s own terms.’’ ‘‘crime. It suggests that the greatest problem confronting ‘‘humanity’’ 39 . mimesis and so forth)? In other words. a form of protest. as Nietzsche would say.’’ ‘‘object. on the one hand.’’ and ‘‘old-growth.’’ The notion that society is constantly ‘‘slipping away’’ is an extremely important one..halsey task. might there not be something of a ‘‘minor bureaucrat’’ in the forest protester? There is no good reason for thinking that the hands which operate a chainsaw cannot or will not one day be those holding an anti-logging placard.. or whatever.e. a kind of odour. Deleuze and Guattari call their philosophy schizoanalysis (also termed throughout their work micropolitics. For when. a certain section of forest. Under this scenario. such divisions hold good only to the extent that Aristotle’s law of contradiction is uncritically assented to? – a law which dictates that ‘‘we are unable to affirm and deny one and the same thing.’’ ‘‘geographic representation unit. or of what Deleuze and Guattari term the mechanosphere. pragmatics. one could pose the question: on what authority do we assert the forester body to be wholly divorced from that of the protester body? Might there not be. Schizoanalysis is therefore concerned both with what gets captured and with what eludes categorisation – whether this be a crime. words. once the privileged position of the signifier has been undermined). has the effect of circumventing the arborescence of state philosophy (or Royal science) and its longing for permanent closure around such notions as ‘‘subject. ‘‘is something that never stops slipping away.’’ ‘‘cause’’ and ‘‘effect. The kinds of concepts of relevance here are those such as ‘‘sustainable yield.’’ ‘‘forest perimeter.’’ The subjectivities at stake are those such as ‘‘forester.e... precisely. say. bodies. implode the division between subjects and objects and cause certain bodies to resist or complicate the roles and categories to which they have been assigned. and extracts expressions [i. the ‘‘world’’ is no longer conceived (as is in Foucault’s writings on panopticism) as some kind of unity or series of disciplinary regimes where nothing flees. something highly unsettling happens to each of these once the idea of process has taken the place of structure (i. synecdoche. on the other. signs] and contents [i. representations.’’ ‘‘rationality.’’34 Alternatively.’’ and ‘‘consumer.’’35 The social.’’ such as that a consumer is always already immersed in urban and rural flows and that even the division between these flows is one which has more to do with grammar than some enduring ‘‘reality. does a heathland ‘‘end’’ and a forest ‘‘begin’’? At what point. effects conjunctions of deterritorialization.’’36 Such a view of socio-ecological relations.’’ ‘‘sustainability. Instead.e.’’ ‘‘environment. it may be asked. the guiding thought is that ‘‘Everything escapes.’’ Arguably.’’ ‘‘protester. All that can be said is that ‘‘reality’’ – the common ordering of uncommon events – assumes its forms according to the lines or machines which run through and across the plane of consistency (earth) from moment to moment. rhizomatics and nomadology). the tropes of metonymy. does/should/ can a forest be classified as ‘‘negligibly disturbed’’ rather than ‘‘old-growth’’? How does/can one know that a forest is adequately represented or conserved? On what basis do we chart the distinction between the ‘‘ecologically significant’’ and the ‘‘ecologically insignificant’’? Questions such as these have no definitive answers and yet modern environmental regulatory strategies have always given the opposite impression – as if the aporia at work here were merely a fleeting itch to be scratched rather than an enduring ethical moment to be seriously contemplated. things]. something of a ‘‘minor protester’’ in the forest bureaucrat? Equally. in other words.e.’’ ‘‘conservationist. Schizoanalysis is intimately interested in the machines or lines which. divide the world into subjects and objects and make certain bodies knowable and recognisable. is it not probable that. One could also ask: how is it that consumers of. building products or copying paper are conceived as inhabiting logically distinct worlds to that of a forest? Is it not possible that the divisions erected between ‘‘everyday’’ consumers and so-called ‘‘distant’’ forests are sustained by nothing other than rhetoric (i.

of the national body known as the Resource Assessment Commission). judges. knowledge. on occasion. work and so forth. genes. then. more particularly. army. Leakages here – in the form of publicly disseminated information about greenhouse gas emissions – could effect a rupture in the equation ‘‘economic growth ¼ ecosystemic health. Instead. friendship. tougher penalties for protesters). the equivalent to saying that earth is coded and inscribed in multiple ways producing a certain alignment of bodies. waiving of environmental impact statements for large firms which bring money to governments. eats away and brings about leakages in political notions of resource use (leading to the establishment. Leakages in this notion may secrete new forms of subjectivity or ‘‘singularised existential territories’’ freed from the constraints and neuroses produced by present configurations of the social machinery. Species. These leaks in the notion of resource use can and sometimes do effect leakages in the concept of economic rationalism (leading to the concept of ‘‘ecologically sustainable development’’). the numerous ‘‘directors’’ of apparatuses of control (politicians. the subsidisation of the practice of clearing native vegetation. none or only one or two of these mutations may occur. Worse still. metal. Conflict.39 The opportunity for a relative deterritorialisation40 of the ecologically injurious body may be passed over in favour of a reterritorialisation of the consumerdriven subject. the mad. which needs to be carefully theorised in the context of environmental struggle. the resonance apparatus. CEOs. the trace (same) may well prevail over the map (diagram).41 Second. Woman. when Deleuze and Guattari talk about machines they are not talking about some inhuman or purely mechanical device. in Australia in the late 1980s. and the overcoding machine: things that are attributed to a ‘‘change in values. But it is this fleeing. Two points are worth making here. they are talking about the processes which give to the earth its discursive qualities and quantities (the effects levied by abstract machines of coding) and which. in some sense. this continual secretion of difference in the face of representation. implode the logic underpinning such qualities and quantities (the effects levied by abstract machines of absolute decoding). how to incite change. and most significantly.. that escapes the binary organizations. teachers) is how to prevent the world from fleeing in all directions and not. parents.’’ The persistence of environmental conflict works on. there would pass the continual variation and return of the flow of unformed elements unmarked by anthropomorphisms or distinctions between words and 40 .38 And then again. There is always something that flows or flees. It is wrongly said (in Marxism in particular) that a society is defined by its contradictions. In Deleuze and Guattari’s terminology. leaks may be met by a proliferation of molar blockages (e. Instead. All this depends largely on the nature of the various apparatuses of capture and the speed with which they are able to recode those bodies attempting to give force to a particular mode of becoming. and the like. For such representation equates to what Deleuze and Guattari term the organisation or ‘‘machining’’ of the plane of consistency. scientists. Man. the approval of pollution permits.g. wood. Environmental Harm. there would be no such thing as Nature. Incorporeal universes and asignifying regimes may cease to proliferate. From the point of view of micropolitics. etc. First. Forest. women.ecology and machinic thought and. plane of consistency Schizoanalysis posits the operation of multiple abstract machines across what Deleuze and Guattari call the ‘‘plane of consistency’’ – which is. Without machines. the function of machines is to break and redirect flows – flows of capital. which are molecular. police. Leakages in the notion of ecologically sustainable development on occasion produce leaks in the practices of heavy industry (heralding the establishment of public databases such as the National Pollution Inventory). That is true only on the larger scale of things.’’ the youth. as some would have it. a society is defined by its lines of flight. The potentially liberating affects of smooth space may be forsaken for the ‘‘security’’ of striated space.’’ This in turn could lead to ruptures in the ethic driving consumer culture. a ‘‘leak’’ may in fact become a ‘‘rupture.37 In short.

channeled.42 (environmental) thought). in no way necessary. leisure. [is] . the management plan) and makes historically and politically specific relations seem timeless and immutable. The prime function incumbent upon the socius . Holderlin. . to record them.45 From this passage it can be said that schizoanalysis is concerned to show the price paid for blocking/ filling out the plane of consistency with particular kinds of bodies – forests. Capitalist societies secrete a society.’’47 It is. health. This moment of ‘‘pure intensities’’ is the plane of consistency and presents as an important concept for teasing out the effects of naming. and in compositions of corresponding intensive affects ..43 As Guattari remarks: ‘‘Destiny is not inscribed in an infrastructure. socius The socius (also termed the ‘‘mechanosphere’’) inscribes the plane of consistency with words (e. cultural and ecological cost do – indeed can – we presently name. chronologies. transport. The plane consists abstractly..’’ ‘‘old-growth’’) and things (‘‘loggers.g. the role of the socius to bring together the molar machines (of agriculture. water quality. policies. legalities. is opposed to the plane of organization and development. . ‘‘the proper’’ (e. form or function). It assembles the subject (the organism. to codify the flows of desire.. 41 . . Never unifications. races. The plane of consistency . in any case. the administrator) and the object (the organs. Organization and development concern form and substance: at once the development of form and the formation of substance or a subject.. A sustained engagement with Deleuze and Guattari prompts the question: at what social. architectural and engineering bodies. . rivers. the forester. the structuring of what is necessary and what is inevitable – whether this be in relation to environmental conflict and its regulation or something other – occurs at the level of the socius. divide. The social machine or socius may be the body of the earth. becoming-subsistent) permanently to one side. Kleist. . dividing.’’ ‘‘trees’’). in other terms. the forest. . It does everything within its power to keep the question: ‘‘Of what is a body capable?’’ (and responses such as becoming-ecological. are precisely modes of individuation proceeding neither by form nor by the subject. but rather consistencies or consolidations. something be considered ‘‘lost’’ that is always already there? Rather.g. work. . and regulate the plane of consistency? It should not in any way be supposed that the plane of consistency resides as some kind of lost panacea for current ills. regulated. the body of Money . to inscribe them.halsey things. genders. transport bodies.) and collective assemblages of enunciation (farming bodies.’’44 For Deleuze and Guattari. schizoanalysis stands as a technique for problematising and perhaps even disengaging the structures of modernity (or the image of The socius is therefore anti-Spinozist and antiNietzschean. Through its concern to map both the ambiguity of bodies and the (traditionally molar) responses levied by particular agencies to such ambiguity.g. For how could. ‘‘integrated harvesting.g. but really. economies. the body of the Despot. it causes each rendering of ‘‘the real’’ (e. forest or mountain range). . and dichotomising earth. which are inscribed on this plane. in relations of speed and slowness between unformed elements. Spinoza. to see to it that no flow exists that is not properly dammed up. . the plane of consistency (the plane of supermolecular nature) is that which has the potential to radically problematise present ways of conceiving the society–economy–culture–nature nexus. One could very well do something else. and ‘‘the authentic’’ (e.46 It has as its aim the subversion of Nietzsche’s message that ‘‘The body is a great intelligence. . never totalizations. What I refuse is the idea of an inevitable and necessary program. town planning. etc. More than this. law enforcement. a multiplicity’’ and that this body has as its most fervent object a desire ‘‘to create beyond itself. The term ‘‘socius’’ is indicative of the fact that social relations always already involve a contorting of individuality and a limiting of various bodies’ potentials. Nietzsche are ¨ the surveyors of such a plane of consistency. But the plane of consistency knows nothing of substance and form: haecceities. a subjectivity which is in no way natural. custodian or administrator) to be put asunder.

employment and training bodies. The nonlimitative body without organs of a socius is the sum total of its constituent supermolecular bodies.51 The idea expressed here is thoroughly Nietzschean. slogans). or incestuous. notion. the delineation and othering of wilderness. the (un)well. Guattari states: [D]esire is everything that exists before the opposition between subject and object. Together.’’ ‘‘this is good environmental management’’). Within this context we were led to forge a new notion in order to specify in what way this kind of desire is not some sort of undifferentiated magma. organs. decoding and recoding of all such bodies (the (un)fed. the censoring of art. The socius is the abstract machine par excellence since it extracts bodies of finitude and molarity (similarity) from a sea of infinitude and multiplicity (difference/plane of consistency). the better to exploit their habit-forming potential. science and so forth. whatever its powers of extraction or coding.ecology and machinic thought medicinal bodies. location.g. where necessary. in their interaction. the socius continually contorts and assembles the flow of desire. segmentation. coding and. material flows. It is. or individuals. suspicious. In contrast to authors such as Freud and Lacan. It’s everything whereby the world and affects constitute us outside of ourselves. and semiotic flows. the (un)housed. In this sense the socius functions only by producing and attaching itself to bodies (student. the (im)mobile. writes: A society is a dissipative structure with its own determining tension between a limitative body without organs and a nonlimitative one.. and thereby dangerous. prosecution bodies. faulty exhaust. It’s everything that overflows from us. environmental activist) and statements (end-of-term reports. whether it be a lack that hollows it out or a pleasure that fills it.g. politician. they are called a ‘‘socius’’ (the abstract machine of society). ecological sustainability) and things (e. But so too is the idea/stereotype/ moralised construct Nature or the conceptions of ‘‘nonhumanity’’ erected by government. objective redundancy. coupe plans. in Massumi’s terms.. ‘‘this is pollution. law. before representation and production. in tracing the work of Deleuze and Guattari. desire is held by Deleuze and Guattari to be ‘‘a process of production without reference to any exterior agency. maiden speeches. And it is here that another of Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts comes to the fore..48 encounter’’49 What Massumi is saying here is that the socius brings together words (e. For whatever the machine. in order to indicate that there is as yet no question here of ‘‘structure’’. of any subjective position. or coordinates of reference. if complex.g. ‘‘the overall abstract machine [which] brings the content formed by the machinic assemblage and the expression formed by the collective assemblage of enunciation into an asymptotic 42 . forest. for instance. Witness. society and culture are structures which tame and subdue creative forces. the marginalisation of subsistence living. regrowth forest) and makes them stand in an orderly and knowable (or ‘‘asymptotic’’) fashion (e. in spite of ourselves.’’50 Elaborating on this definition. the (un)lawful. regulatory bodies. that is. of ‘‘desiring machines’’. tourism and sporting bodies) in order to ensure the arrangement. in other words for the undetermined selection of singular states as a locally–globally correlated population. judge. desire Desire is an incredibly important. sentences. The limitative body without organs of a socius is a set of whole attractors proposed by a society for its individuals. Machines arrange and connect flows. So we speak of machines. They do not recognize distinctions between persons. and the suppression of ‘‘youthful’’ desires. environmental crime. Massumi. Far from cultivating freedom and spontaneity. the (un)employed. That’s why we define it as flow [ flux]. In very simple terms it is that which flows at different speeds and intensities across the plane of consistency. from the point of view of their potential for ‘‘free’’ or ‘‘willful’’ action. Money is an obvious example of an abstract machine feeding into and transforming the socius. the (un)productive) in a manner conducive to the reproduction of capital on ever increasing scales.

departmental. legal. Accordingly. this nature (or Earth without Machines) is that which gets inscribed (given form and function) by all manner of discursive and textual forces. The situation seems inextricable because the axiomatic never ceases to create all of these problems. when Deleuze and Guattari write that ‘‘There is only desire and the social and nothing else’’ they mean there is only flow (molecular nature) and the machinic assemblages of enunciation which extract and ascribe a particular order or (common) sense to such flow. Molar Nature – those places and bodies habitually associated with the ‘‘pristine. Earth without Machines. when Deleuze and Guattari write that ‘‘Desire is always assembled. is earth minus anthropomorphic inventions and interferences. Common-sense scenarios such as: ‘‘economic growth is essential for ecological sustainability’’. codes of practice. It is critical to distinguish. ‘‘molar Nature’’ (plane of organisation) as against ‘‘molecular nature’’ (plane of consistency) – just as it is important to distinguish molar Man and Woman (the becoming-the-same of humanity) from molecular man and woman (the becomingother of humanity). overstorey.56 In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari assert that The four principal flows that torment the representatives of the world economy. this acategorical. ‘‘Nature needs to be managed’’.’’ or ‘‘a mountain’’ is already to have said too much and not enough. the flow of food. species. genus. . This inexpressible. Rather. an interception of many flows.’’ or with what it really means to be ‘‘green’’ or to have an ‘‘environmental conscience’’ – is the worst kind of abstraction because it hypostatises becoming. or dimension but by the nature of the system of reference envisioned. family. one should not assume that such apparatuses represent a complete blockage of desire – that molecular nature is everywhere moralised. understorey.halsey This is a beautiful passage for it expresses what so often passes as inexpressible in the context of environmental conflict and regulation. while at the same time its axioms. scale. deny it the means of resolving them (for example the circulation and distribution that would make it possible to feed the world). molar and the molecular are distinguished not by size.54 Orders such as: subspecies. Hence the importance in Deleuze and Guattari’s work of what they term the three apparatuses of capture – ‘‘LAND (as opposed to territory).’’ And here we return to the concept of socius. it is what the assemblage determines it to be’’53 they are saying that molar Nature – the Nature that resides within and through official or popular discourse – emerges from the combination of particular kinds of captured bodies (political. ‘‘regrowth forest is the sign of sustainability. . slogans). However. a point of destination for the reception of a flow. better yet. Deleuze asks: What is it that moves over the body of a society? It is always flows. green) and well-rehearsed enunciations (laws. and the urban flow. Desire in one sense is this ‘‘first’’ nature. WORK (as opposed to activity) and MONEY (as opposed to exchange). in many ways.’’52 Thus. ‘‘The . policies.’’ ‘‘a river.57 What these passages point toward is a cosmos traversed by flux – by the ceaseless movement of 43 . To speak of ‘‘a forest. canopy. flow and multiplicity One of the key heuristic devices for Deleuze and Guattari is the notion of flow. and a person is always a cutting off of a flow. are the flow of matter–energy.’’55 These are. A person is always a point of departure for the production of a flow. a flow of any kind. ecological vegetation class. logging coupe) and sending it in one direction (contributor to GDP) instead of another (destroyer of biodiversity). But not ‘‘first’’ in the sense of a chronological antecedent. even multiplied. therefore. the flow of population. or. forest type. or of the axiomatic. It is to arrest difference and subordinate it to the constraints of thinking (and speaking) categorically. For it is the socius which arrests desire or molecular nature and puts it to work in a certain manner – moulding it (forest block. broad vegetation type. the three main abstract machines of coding scarring or running across the plane of consistency – each working to produce alignments of bodies conducive to the extension of capitalism. And not the (molar) Nature which (molar) Man has constructed.

this field of individuation is posited only formally and in general: it seems to be ‘‘the same’’ for a given species. but must itself be conceived as an individual difference. For here the guiding objective of environmental regulatory bodies becomes the location and categorisation of a delimited series of attributes common to a field (of species. 44 . of classes. when viewed from a Deleuzo-Guattarian perspective. an incredibly important moment in the will to produce Nature. or elsewhere). It seems. however. to be clear.’’59 Deleuze and Guattari. and to refer us once more to differences borne by the individual. it could be said. However. The form of the field must be necessarily and in itself filled with individual differences. other bioregions. rapidly and irrevocably transformed without serious consequence since there also exist. of types) as opposed to establishing categories on the basis of the relations pertaining between individuals and their associated becomings. waste management stations and the like proceeds precisely according to this logic. in many senses. other oceans. analogies and determined oppositions.ecology and machinic thought unformed elements and intensities (i. as would seem preferable. is that environmental management is a machine whose effects are levied without regard for the differences borne by individuals (and the significance of such differences for ecological renewal). national parks.’’ ‘‘knowledges. therefore. other countries. prevented modern systems of environmental management acting to the contrary. As Deleuze puts it: We invoke a field of individuation or individuating difference as the condition of the organisation and determination of species.’’ This is. in terms of the ‘‘differences borne by individuals. the individuating difference must not only be conceived within a field of individuation in general. the point at which ‘‘environmental issues’’ emerge. identities.58 The primary – and one might say. not to individual differences. To admit as much would mean the sudden and dramatic demise of modern environmental management principles – premised as they are on the notion that great sections of earth can be seriously. this translates into thinking about the size and scale of the units of management ushered in by various politicolegal-scientific machines and the kinds of bodies and processes these units allow one to envisage or speak of. the scientific names Eucalyptus obliqua (Messmate Gum) or Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) not only delineate particular kinds of botanical bodies or a specific field of knowledge so much as they form part of a much wider effort to transform the chaos and dangers of the plane of consistency into knowable and quantifiable terms and images. For instance. Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly point to the ethical weight attached to naming and ordering the world. orders and classes – no longer provide a means of understanding difference by relating it to such apparent conditions as resemblances. species conservation thresholds. What Deleuze and Guattari allow us to recognise. families.’’ and ‘‘forests’’ all occur only as particular kinds of discursive and textual arrangements of the otherwise unbounded and asignificant flow of unformed elements and intensities. Indeed. The tension between having to order difference (having to control flows) whilst maintaining a continuity of resemblance is. There is.. therefore. to depend upon the species and the determination of species. The problem is that there are. other sections ‘‘just like’’ them (whether these be extant in national parks. when all is said and done. and to vary in intensity from one species to another. critical – consequence of constructing a field of individuation (equivalent in many ways to the plane of organisation) is that it enables environmental administrators to classify the world according to the distribution and repetition of so-called ‘‘like groups’’ rather than. therefore. ‘‘Societies.’’ ‘‘selves. In socio-ecological terms. the naming of forest types. a line of thought which environmental regulators want at all costs to keep at bay: namely. the plane of consistency) made periodically into bodies of one kind or another. There is no escaping the fact that environmental law and regulation are violent activities in so far as they distribute and demarcate bodies in places once occupied only by the four previously mentioned flows (but principally that of matter–energy). in fact. no individual differences and no single field of resemblances. This has not. In order for this difficulty to disappear.e. that ‘‘The great taxonomic units – genera.

for instance. As Deleuze and Guattari assert: ‘‘[A] rhizome or multiplicity never allows itself to be overcoded’’ 45 . Indeed.’’ At the same time. a student. a child. ‘‘A multiplicity. it amounts to the same thing to say that each multiplicity is already composed of heterogeneous terms in symbiosis. lexicons and modes of envisioning traditionally associated with late capitalist subjectivities in order to develop and inhabit the worlds of others. it is not divisible.62 The idea that bodies are multiplicities applies as much to the so-called ‘‘nonhuman’’ body of a spent nuclear fuel rod. the containment of Third World labour secreting tropical deforestation). is defined not by its elements. and that a multiplicity is continually transforming itself into a string of other multiplicities. for instance. probably unemployed. to envision in the way of an eagle at a thousand feet. or an electorate. a becoming-fish. a retiree. is unclean. cultural and economic purposes.halsey force the key critical question: what would it mean to cease mapping earth? Alternatively. efforts to ‘‘contain’’ various flows have brought with them all manner of monstrous secretions (the containment of uranium-secreting Chernobyl. Since its variations and dimensions are immanent to it. a becoming-worm. a fully paid professional. as Nietzsche reminds us.’’63 A good example of a despotic agency or overcoded concept is the signifier ‘‘environmental activist. The environmental activist body could also be the body of a concerned resident. as it does to the ‘‘human’’ body of a scientist. all too human. And yet the attempt to plug up or seal off each of these and other flows has been anything but successful. Few.61 For Deleuze and Guattari the disjunction in evidence here has largely to do with the fact that each body – each force erected to capture or contain a flow – is always already a site of instability. nor by a center of unification or comprehension. has little or no respect for authority. a father. the body of law designed to combat the flow of criminality and dissent. To sense like a worm within soils which have evolved over countless millennia. the body of conservation founded to combat the flows of biotic degradation. In fact. and acts on their own rather than on behalf of the ‘‘national interest. to move like a two-thousand-year-old redwood. would be to withdraw from the fields of resemblance and the units of environmental management which presently guide modern thinking about what is sustainable and what is not. or a forest. or a becoming-river? This is what Deleuze and Guattari demand of us – that we move beyond the bodies. bodies are a multiplicity. and to breathe like a fish within a remote freshwater stream. Progress and Reason that have dictated what it is logically possible to say and do about ‘‘environmental problems’’ in recent times. What is most significant about multiplicities is that they never cease to pervade or break through the organised spaces borne by the Signifier – that ‘‘despotic agency that substitutes itself for asignifying proper names and replaces multiplicities with the dismal unity of an object declared lost. a politician or an environmental protester.’’ write Deleuze and Guattari. In this context. the containment of crude oil secreting from the Exxon Valdez. The problem with human bodies is that they are. far from being homogeneous or sutured entities. according to its thresholds and doors. and so forth.60 For it is only by doing so that one begins to move beyond the images of Nature. environmental activists are much more than the sum total of these things. a member of the local Council. a becomingredwood. a mother. or whoever. a becoming-eagle. when written as a multiplicity this body begins to extrude all manner of other meanings and possibilities. what might it mean to map earth according to. modernity can be said to be the era marked by repeated attempts to perfect the kinds of (regulatory) bodies and thresholds capable of dealing with difference – or with things and processes which do not resemble each other but are made to do so for political. It is defined by the number of dimensions it has. the containment of chloroflourocarbons secreting increased skin cancers. in other words.’’ This phrase tends to conjure a particular kind of image or body – one that. have recognised what it means to live as a multiplicity rather than in terms of an identity. The body of science conceived to combat the flow of unknown variables. it cannot lose or gain a dimension without changing its nature. In other words.

in other words. Conflict over Goolengook has been particularly pronounced ever since during the mid-1990s the Victorian government chose to ignore the advice of its own scientists who recommended that the vast majority of forest at Goolengook (including nationally rare occurrences of warm and cool temperate rainforest overlap) should remain free from intensive resource exploitation. leaf-machines.. logging advocates.). In excess of three hundred individuals have been charged with obstructing forest operations at Goolengook (this includes loggers charged with assault whilst attempting It is no longer possible. New South Wales. a forest.g. evil. And wood becomes coal. or roost. cellular. European ‘‘settlement’’ in the mid-nineteenth century. or bridge. I want to offer a brief concrete example of how Deleuze and Guattari can be productively applied to environmental issues. image and world. etc. good. And these ‘‘secondary’’ machines all deterritorialise and reterritorialise around other multiplicities (resident-machines. nature) – although this is in no way to imply that these particular abstract machines have no significant or knowable effect(s). granular. Seeds. There is no unity to serve as a pivot in the object or to divide the subject. the line of flight or deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and connect with other multiplicities. society. with the continued movement of tectonic plates returns to earth. nostalgia-machines) and infuse different kinds of flows (familial. Multiplicities are rhizomatic. invertebrate. seed-machines.’’64 In contrast to the structures erected by binary (or arborescent/modernist) thought. to posit the existence of essences (Truth.) must now be considered as a blockage on the plane of consistency and as a body waiting to flee the categories. industrial) that spill forth various bodies. Proliferation in place of arborescence. insect-machines.ecology and machinic thought since each of these is ‘‘defined by the outside: by the abstract line. In the last eight years. everything that can or ever could be conceived or spoken of (e. etc. Wood is also an excellent example of the immanence of becoming-other. or shelter. a crime. bird-machines. Nature needs to be viewed not in terms of some primordial or eternal entity occupying a space beyond or outside ‘‘humanity’’ but as an affect produced continually alongside – indeed through – the various machines (political. trees decay and become wood. and signifying regimes from one moment to the next. the concept of multiplicity ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object. Queensland and Tasmania to protect areas of old-growth forest from clearfell forestry (a method which removes all vegetation except for several ‘‘habitat’’ trees over an area of up to 120 hectares). Coal eventually turns to diamond. I will focus specifically on a site in south-eastern Australia which at the time of writing stands as witness to the world’s longest-running forest conflict (excepting battles between corporations and remnant tribes in places such as Brazil. scientific. Earth becomes nutriment for seeds. politicians and the (Australian) population more generally simply as ‘‘Goolengook’’ – a word most probably derived from the lexicon of the Bidwell tribe which inhabited this region for approximately eighteen thousand years prior to. Recognising multiplicities is to admit that being is incapable of subsuming becoming.66 The space to which I refer is known to green groups. Over time. with a little bit of luck. for example. A rhizome rather than the root. Here. Trees. or canoe. natural or spiritual reality. codes and laws that produce it. and for a short period following. Under the right conditions and left long enough wood becomes stone or coal. other. playhouse-machines. statements. There is not even the unity to abort in the object or ‘‘return’’ in the subject. worm-machines. neuronal). Instead. sunshine and rain become trees. Goolengook has become emblematic of the struggles not only in Victoria but in Western Australia. Malaysia and Papua New Guinea).65 or status symbol (mahogany). harm) or enduring entities (self. sun-machines. Diamond. are a multiplicity (an excess) in that they open onto a plethora of other machinic assemblages (construction-machines. iv making concepts work Prior to concluding. or plank. and expose arborescent pseudomultiplicities for what they are. 46 .

Goolengook reveals little or no trace of the plane of consistency which threatens to rise up within it from moment to moment. then. Goolengook’s ontological primacy remains bound to its ecological processes and aesthetic attributes. bulldozers) to drive directly through the river corridor. in other words. Such a place or thing does not exist except in relation to the machines that summon forth a particular kind of stratified image of the authentic forest or the proper use to which such a terrain should be put. This is easier said than done because Goolengook has become shorthand for ‘‘Goolengook forest management block’’ (indeed. in effect. Molar response pitted against molar response. In short. been established making it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person (protester) to be within or near current or future sites scheduled for logging. For. endangered species vs. Seek the acategorical. Understand how bodies are put together in order that they may be pulled apart and reassembled anew. have been bulldozed. laypeople. protesters. Goolengook is shorthand for natural wonder and nothing besides. does one make a body (in this case. this is how it was formally enunciated from 1972). And so forth. common. the body of forest conflict) turn slowly away from stratifying forces toward those places where judgement is yet to fall (or at least is of a less categorical kind)? For Deleuze and Guattari. In the case of Goolengook. the answer is quite simple: experiment. environment. jobs vs. for the first time. respectively. In fact. scientists vs. national parks. Desire not a pure Nature but a new problematics of Nature. set alight. Goolengook has been given over to the hermeneutician (where its final referents have been rendered apparent) at the expense of ongoing genealogical or schizoanalytic inquiry. think and write Goolengook in terms of the many rather than the One. The problem. Bridges have been dynamited by protesters in an attempt to stop heavy machinery accessing logging areas. of course. Forest operation zones have. Deleuze and Guattari demonstrate 47 . How might it be possible to think through and beyond the territories charted by these and other binaries? Along with Deleuze and Guattari. As such. Sites of potential and actual Indigenous significance have been wantonly and deliberately desecrated by the department responsible for preventing such behaviour. Move away from Goolengook in its molarity (as a body with a prescribed set of attributes and functions) toward Goolengook in its molecularity. How. The effect of this has been to give this space an historically located spine which is nonetheless taken to be an a priori/timeless feature. regrowth forest. In 1998. and pushed into Goolengook River (heritage listed). speeds and intensities which are violently excluded through use of the signifier Goolengook. and so on. for the body without organs accompanying the organised body. Goolengook has the effect of dislodging this space from any preconceived notion of what it has been or might become. Experiment with the Real. is that neither of these reflects the ‘‘true’’ Goolengook. Goolengook is most often enunciated as a site of untapped timber and nothing besides. the first key challenge is to (re)present this term in a manner which speaks both to the forms and functions traditionally attributed to it but also to the multitude of flows. logging zones vs. Look. start with the idea of multiplicity. Here. Trees and tree ferns up to four hundred and one thousand years old. To think Goolengook in its multiplicity – to get past the authentic and the proper images of Nature which constrain thought about socio-ecological issues – it is necessary to decode that which has been overcoded. The relevant minister subsequently and retrospectively amended the Act to make all future logging operations lawful. The department overseeing logging operations has given permission for heavy machinery (trucks. In other words. Like Nietzsche. But for ‘‘green’’ groups. The eternal recurrence (in the crudest sense of the phrase) of the dialectic – loggers vs. one strategy would be to invoke the use of the strikethrough67 as a means of demonstrating that any site of environmental struggle exceeds the meanings associated with one particular term. old-growth vs. As currently written and spoken. Goolengook sets in motion a presence– absence dynamic such that the naming of this space becomes an act of the utmost ethical weight. the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that logging operations had been carried out illegally in breach of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992.halsey to reclaim ‘‘their’’ workplace from protesters).

molecular. It is. plugs it in. This is the kind of situation which forces. geologists. Schizoanalysis forces each to invent ways of living and connecting to the world which go beyond the orthodoxy. it is necessary to bring to light and scrupulously name each machine that has contributed to the lexical/material folding of this space over time – to juxtapose the various visions. More specifically. Schizoanalysis kills teleology.’’ ‘‘dense jungle. developing.’’ It may not even be avoidable. as Nietzsche says somewhere. But this is only half the task. mountain) is equally difficult. in Deleuze’s terms. This is more than simply an enumerating or historical exercise. For Deleuze and Guattari. subsequently. Organisation (of the subject) is painful. Goolengook experienced little 48 . Machines mark and cut into bodies without organs. that Goolengook was once a site of banishment for those who broke ancient tribal law renders impossible the idea that this same site is really just a mix of suitable and unsuitable stands of sawlogs or unprocessed woodchips. To know. machines play a critical role in this regard. legislative decree. For although schizoanalysis requires that the lines (molar. filling out. Organisation of the object (forest. contestable and negotiable. There can be no recourse by various industries to a Nature whose sole and timeless purpose is to surrender its bounty to Man. even more necessary to create. For the Bidwell tribe which once inhabited the region. Instead.68 This is the key task. surveyors) spoke of Goolengook as ‘‘back country. This raises the final point to be dealt with here concerning how best to (re)build a deterritorialised body (or ‘‘forest’’). For close on two centuries Goolengook has been enunciated in terms of a lack – as something that needs improving. for Deleuze and Guattari it is about the transformative potential accompanying the writing or enunciation of the machinic phylum of a particular body. for instance.’’ and. speeds. In Deleuze and Guattari’s parlance. it is. Even though destruction is necessary.70 With the exception of several pastoralists who grazed their cattle on the alluvial flats of various rivers and streams. the task becomes one of understanding how the socius assembles desire (how the former contorts the latter. Here. managing. the first legislative decrees from the British Empire in the late eighteenth century declared Goolengook to fall within the ‘‘wastelands of the Crown. supermolecular) composing bodies be carefully traced prior to being diagrammed (or put back together in new ways). And so is the division of the world into subjects and objects. therefore. law and so forth). names and affects that have contributed to the construction of Goolengook. science. each to encounter rather than recognise the world. and the occasional tree felled for firewood to power the steam engines of the gold rush era. More needs to be done. To rebuild Goolengook it is necessary to reflect upon the machinic phylum which has contributed to the production of Goolengook as event. This must be done in order to render defunct any attempt to align this site with the possibilities attached to this or that political platform. to make mutable and unknowable that which previously presented as unified and plain – to turn a molarity into a multiplicity.’’69 The first (formally archived) handwritten notes taken of the area (by botanists. river. Indeed. little good ever comes from permanent destratification. But it is not ‘‘unnatural. within the ‘‘unsettled districts. In Anti-Oedipus Deleuze and Guattari write that the sound of a machine is ‘‘unbearable’’ to each body without organs (9). it does nonetheless require that engagement with the strata (world) continue. It is not enough to rename the world in order to change it.ecology and machinic thought that the most subtle and insidious forms of violence are bound up with the lexicon. subjects it to flows of money. Goolengook was a place that no one should enter – lest they wear the mark of social transgression. Similarly. it is necessary to understand the interaction between the socius and desire. In the case of Goolengook. Deleuze and Guattari are not interested in changing the world so much as they are interested in changing the tree (the seed of arborescence) growing in people’s heads. or epistemological foundation.’’ ‘‘poor pastoral land’’ and as ‘‘economically worthless’’ – especially to would-be miners. however. But neither can there be recourse by green groups to an unadulterated Nature which must be preserved at all costs. Schizoanalysis – in so far as it coaxes the virtual through incessant engagement with the actual – helps get us to the point where other things are possible.

leaving Nature ‘‘alone. the smallest inventions levied – and continue to result in – the most intense deterritorialisations. This again goes to the importance of Deleuze’s 49 . in spite of (or perhaps because of ) its mysterious and intangible status. And yet. pastoral run applications) spoke its name during this period. in fact. They bring bodies into being – those of police. as peripheral. scientific data. cool temperate rainforest. negligible disturbance. feel (in short. For Deleuze and Guattari. and consuming Nature to the Western world generally and southeastern Victoria specifically. But. Here. riparian forest. as anti-civilisation.’’ perhaps the way to rebuild the body of Goolengook is to insist that this space be mapped more frequently using a multitude of techniques and scales. but especially the last. Articulated vehicles meant that logging trucks could climb roads and access previously inaccessible areas. 15 reptile). Common sense suggests that if Goolengook has been overcoded then the task should be one of pulling back. The critical point is that no matter what the text. But from around 1970. chainsaw). scientific. and so forth. species (328 vascular plant. Still others outlined how various ‘‘parts’’ of Goolengook should be ‘‘managed. The texts which enunciate Goolengook are machinic because they literally transform (both corporeally and incorporeally) the assemblages common to this site from moment to moment. Instead of withdrawing. 34 mammal. Goolengook – the body once cast as the distant remainder of the city and all that is ordered. wet forest. Goolengook as forbidding. shrubby dry forest. montane wet forest. brought with them new speeds and intensities and new ways of envisioning. But it is only possible to approach this limit by imposing upon the machine the obligation to move. Goolengook was cast as Other. whilst others mentioned the volume of timber extant at the site. memoirs. each text cuts across the body of Goolengook dividing it into various zones (general management. Goolengook is contested because each machine (protest. and this goes against virtually every environmental strategy employed around the globe. ages (oldgrowth. 8 amphibian. 77 bird. Goolengook as heart of darkness. loggers. One person could fell in an hour what previously took one week to fell with an axe. to quantify this in economic terms. some spoke of its rare and visually spectacular attributes. knowing. see. Bulldozers turned dense and forbidding territories into economically viable resources. slender tree ferns.halsey human-induced impact from 1788 to the mid1970s. protesters but also those of heritage rivers. the object is not to eliminate machines (an impossible task) but to influence the nature and speed of becomings-other capable of arising within particular contexts. there is also an argument to say that Goolengook needs to be subject to a more intense coding.’’ whilst some lamented the deliberate destruction of biodiversity and tried. significant disturbance). or Truth. heights (foothill forest). the textual production of Goolengook increased more than ten-fold. damp forest. as exemplifying the unknown. Some of these texts spoke of the logic underpinning the positioning of the boundary of the forest block. of subtracting or destroying machines one by one. histories (undisturbed. Goolengook remained subject throughout this period to all manner of political (a bureaucratised and rationalised system of natural resource management). legal precedent. But. public opinion. Its precise form and function is to have no precise form and function. political) carries with it the force of the moral high ground.000 cubic metres of sawlog material of Cþ grade or better). proper and legitimate – even featured in the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Goolengook flows beyond all these machines. 181 stands). Orders in Council. economic (post-war housing boom) and technological changes (footed track. law. classes (lowland forest. For nearly 150 years. as waste – indeed less than a dozen texts (historical notes. retiring. of disengagement. There comes a point where each machine runs up against a limit. negligibly disturbed forests and the Powerful Owl. regrowth). montane damp forest. special protection) and ascribing it particular dimensions (15 compartments. warm temperate rainforest). for the sake of political leverage. sense) in ways previously discounted. Others spoke of the different kinds of forest within its borders. social (increased consumerism matched with a decline in rural populations). oscillation ring. volumes (200. All of these.

environment) with a preference for mapping the composition. bioregion. does one reassemble Goolengook? By becoming-inhuman. and so forth). configuring an individual. family. in effect. such recoiling is a reaction to sensing (or momentarily glimpsing) bodies and worlds which threaten to transform how each engenders the ‘‘human’’ and the ‘‘Natural. in so doing. direction. regulatory institution. This is not to say that writing the world in its multiplicity leads automatically to chaos or disorder – to a random distribution of bodies and abstract machines with no way of unfolding an ethic. block. economy. effects and affects of bodies and their alignments. one creates a more intense body by pushing past the point where molar politics can do nothing other than recoil. By engaging the speeds and flows of matter(s) typically deemed outside political. one can add that (molar) Nature is as much in our heads as in the world. quadrat). society. industrial zone) – be recast.’’ This is precisely the point where a Deleuzo-Guattarian approach to ecological problems begins. a new ethics of (human) conduct would begin to emerge (which would. one would venture to say. Clearfell logging – the monstrous body upon which much forest conflict feeds – proceeds on the basis that similar areas and their associated biota and landforms are elsewhere ‘‘adequately represented’’ (in national parks. and there can be no ‘‘it’’) should be studied. Aerial photographs of Goolengook create the impression of one vast forest. These machines all enunciate the bodies of Nature through the logics of mimesis. draws energy from. of course. v conclusion The proliferation of multiplicities – the immanent deterritorialisation or dissipation of bodies – enables machinic thought to replace the traditional pedagogical concern with structures (of the brain.ecology and machinic thought idea concerning the differences borne by individuals. or a forest as a multiplicity is an act which has very serious consequences for the 50 . or whatever – continually faces. For. in other countries). But what if the key unit of management and way of moving were dictated by an earthworm? What if one was required to map and enunciate all bodies competing for and occupying each and every square metre? (And this for two metres below the topsoil and 100 metres above the forest floor. It does not. forest. One commentator has written that ‘‘[T]he brain is as much in the world as it is in the head. compartment. Goolengook and places/spaces like it (although there can be no such additional spaces/places. as river. By resisting the tendency to conflate one body with another. or a group. district. In sum. but also a collective assemblage. its fluxes of deterritorialization. therefore. in other states. or the conservation machine (national park. is defined first by its points of deterritorialization. experienced and enunciated using smaller and smaller units of measurement. Rebuilding the body of Goolengook entails that the units of (natural resource) management – whether those of the forestry machine (forest management area. But the Powerful Owl knows every inch of the tree it dwells within and those of its home range. In fact. intermingles with. or opens onto other bodies which are themselves multiplicities.’’72 ‘‘Immanent deterritorialization’’ means that everybody – whether it be a flower. The same goes for the quadrat (which denotes a randomly prescribed area where all biota are manually listed/recorded) and the concept of the national park (which discursively produces surrounding terrains as less than sufficient to their task as forest. How. Driving through the terrain gives the idea of similar stands of trees and plants.71 The importance of deterritorialisation to machinic thought is borne out by Deleuze’s remark that ‘‘A society.’’73 In keeping with the ideas presented above. as geological formation. coupe). consider one tree to be ‘‘just like the next.’’ The same most likely goes for the Spotted Quoll. bring with it new sets of dilemmas but of distinct speeds and proportions). science machine (geographic representation unit. Walking gives a different image again. and. industrial and even ecological purviews.) It is likely that one would begin to speak in terms of the irreducible differences between bodies and terrains. or a corporation. One stand of trees is appraised and then duly used as a template for the (supposed) form and content of all surrounding stands. the Long-Footed Potoroo and the countless other organisms which dwell within and beyond Goolengook. bird. stand.

‘‘Policing Nature’’. Cheney. notes The author would like to express his gratitude to the reviewers of this article. Acampora. Gare. the task would be to dislodge the image of thought currently investing those assemblages deemed responsible for ‘‘managing’’ Nature. abstract yet real and individual. terrestrial). as sites for the possible diminution of human-induced environmental damage. ‘‘Using and Abusing Nietzsche for Environmental Ethics’’.76 In this regard. logging coupes. Philosophy in the T ragic Age of the Greeks 42. Their comments were of great assistance in preparing this piece for publication. Darrier. its pieces are the various assemblages and individuals. subject and object. Knowing something about environmental problems. Conley. 4 Deleuze. cf. it would seem.’ ’ 3 Deleuze and Guattari. Luke. ‘‘On Environmentality’’ and Ecocritique. speeds and intensities of the cosmos. the challenge set by Nietzsche. Ozone Discourses.77 The politico-ethical strength of a schizoanalytic of environmental problems is that such an approach views all bodies as conduits for the varying flows. 5 Nietzsche. 2 For notable exceptions. heritage rivers. national parks. and so forth. aquatic. they are one and the same essential reality. The Idea of Nature 30 ^32. Environment and Modernity. A Thousand Plateaus 37 . Chawla. Rutherford. 1 Cf. etc. and Environmental Ethics’’. is to develop a lexicon which does the least violence to the nuances of each (socioecological) event. Deleuze and Guattari is to experiment with the plane of consistency in order to implode the (modernist) will toward the categorical. the bodies at stake here necessarily go far beyond the ‘‘human’’ subject. Halsey. Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis. Litfin. and. Ecopolitics. rather. In other words. ideation.halsey socius. the artificial and the natural. ‘‘Governing the Environment’’. ‘‘Gilles Deleuze and Naturalism’’. ‘‘Nietzsche’s Environmental Ethics’’. forest blocks. Open Sky.74 A decade later – using slightly different terminology – they write: [E]ach individual is an infinite multiplicity. Risk. Hallman.75 to become cognisant of the flows. as illustrated above. Szerszynski and Wynne. Landprints. Deleuze and Guattari provide a means of speaking and writing about the machines which configure/stratify earth without having to ascribe humanity an enduring ontological place – a place that has historically taken as its starting point the dichotomy human/ nonhuman. What else are environmental problems other than the visible and audible result of attempts to constitute various portions of earth as a unity in spite of its being a multiplicity? The challenge. Hayden. each of which groups together an infinity of particles entering into an infinity of more or less interconnected relations. Difference and Repetition 134. As Deleuze and Guattari put it: [M]an and nature are not like two opposite terms confronting each other – not even in the sense of bipolar opposites within a relationship of causation. Conley. Of equal importance are the bodies of experts. Lash. and the whole of Nature is a multiplicity of perfectly individuated multiplicities. endangered species. Seddon. ‘‘Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis’’. Bruner and Oelschlaeger. Ecopolitics. or expression (cause and effect. ‘‘Rhetoric. In all instances. Peace. the producer-product. Discourses ofthe Environment. 6 Collingwood. But. Production as process overtakes all idealistic categories and constitutes a cycle whose relationship to desire is that of an immanent principle. Why? Because ‘‘the social’’ and ‘‘the environmental’’ is a decidedly false (reactive) dichotomy. speeds and intensities of matter (organic and inorganic) and energy (kinetic and potential) which pass through and across particular kinds of bodies (atmospheric. therefore. There is therefore a unity to the plane of nature. Environmentalism. ‘‘Environmental Discontinuities. means 51 .). therefore.‘‘Postmodern Environmental Ethics’’. which applies equally to the inanimate and the animate. The plane of consistency of Nature is like an immense Abstract Machine. Virilio.

Ecce Homo 127 . A Thousand Plateaus 507 43 As a metamodel. 44 Guattari. 30 Guattari. 20 Nietzsche. 15 Cf. Soft Subversions 277 . Soft Subversions 277 . every flow. emphasis added. 22 Nietzsche. ‘‘What distinguishes metamodelization from modelization is the way it uses terms to develop possible openings onto the virtual and onto creative processuality’’ (Guattari. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 61^ 63. Philosophy and T ruth 51^52. 33 Guattari. ‘‘Nietzsche’s Environmental Ethics’’. TheWill to Power ‰ 516. ‘‘Descartes Entrapped’’ 178. 31. Halsey. A Thousand 40 ‘‘Deterritorialisation’’denotes an‘‘uprooting of structure organized within a definite territory’’ (Guattari. Amniotic fluid spilling out of the sac and kidney stones. Parkes. Spinoza.Chaosmosis 31). 35 Deleuze and Guattari. 9 Nietzsche. Nietzsche and Philosophy 50. Philosophy in the T ragic Age of the Greeks 54. 34 Cf.‘‘Codes. All Too Human 1 1. or urine that are produced by partial objects and constantly cut off by other partial objects. 38 Guattari. 8 Nietzsche. A Thousand Plateaus 216. flowing hair. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 84. here and throughout.Chaosmosis 1^32. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 46.Guattari. 26 Nietzsche.’ In Anti-Oedipus Deleuze and ’ Guattari write: 52 . 31 Cf.‘‘The Wood for the Paper. 29 Nietzsche. 12 Nietzsche. 41 Cf. Hallman. A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia 76.’ ’ 16 Deleuze.Chaosmosis 52. Anti-Oedipus 33. Anti-Oedipus 36. 42 Deleuze and Guattari. 55 Deleuze and Guattari. of authenticity. 52 Deleuze and Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus 443^ 44. A Thousand Plateaus 468. 36 Deleuze. Anti-Oedipus 29. interrupted by other partial objects. 45 Deleuze and Guattari. Ethics 71^74. a flow of sperm. 13 Nietzsche. 27 Nietzsche. Twilight ofthe Idols/The Anti-Christ 102. Difference and Repetition 251^52. 56 Deleuze. 23 Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 46 ^ 47 .’ ’ 32 Cf. 19 Nietzsche. A Thousand Plateaus 154. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 137 . a flow of spittle.‘‘Staying Loyal to the Earth. 49 Ibid. 28 Nietzsche. Nietzsche. A Thousand Plateaus 217 . TheWill to Power ‰ 604. 50 Deleuze and Guattari. 46 Cf. 18 Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil 138.Twilight ofthe Idols/The Anti-Christ 48. unless stated otherwise. . Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ 102.‘‘Codes’’ 271. TheWill to Power ‰ 2. A Thousand Plateaus 142. 47 Nietzsche. 24 Nietzsche. of representation. 37 Deleuze and Guattari. The Will to Power ‰ 1067. Beyond Good and Evil 46. schizoanalysis knows nothing of the model. 10 Nietzsche. Human. 51 Guattari. 17 Nietzsche. Deleuze and Guattari. 27. shit. Deleuze and Guattari. 54 Deleuze and Guattari. original emphasis. Beyond Good and Evil 51.Chaosmosis. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 104.‘‘Three Ecologies’’). 25 Nietzsche. (6) 57 Deleuze and Guattari. the fragmentation of the object.ecology and machinic thought 7 Ibid. 229. 21 Nietzsche quoted in Kofman. Every ‘‘object’’ presupposes the continuity of a flow. Plateaus 14. 58 Deleuze. 39 Cf. 11 Bauman. which in turn produce other flows. 53 Ibid.‘‘A Liberation of Desire’’ 205. 14 Nietzsche. Postmodern Ethics. 48 Massumi.

Bauman.‘‘Environmental Visions. A Thousand Plateaus 249. Environmentalism. Germinal Life.’ and is dated ’ 23 Apr. 62 Deleuze and Guattari.1995. In the context of the present argument. In relation to the former he remarks. Postmodern Ethics. Anti-Oedipus 4 ^5.) 68 Cf. Virilio goes on to contend that with the application of the ‘‘absolute velocity of electromagnetic waves’’ to certain bodies (such as nuclear reactors) we are now in the midst of technologies that allow for the occurrence of the integrated or generalised accident (40). 64 Ibid. 53 . And this. 74 Deleuze and Guattari. Oxford: Blackwell. Halsey. is concerned with originary presence.’ ‘‘greenies. other times ‘‘ferals.’ Environmental Ethics ’ 16 (1994):187^94. as logging zone. a dedicated group of people (sometimes called protesters. Government Gazette (7 Oct. 76 Cf.1847).’ ’ Environmental Ethics 16 (1994): 377^96. Peter Rush.’ ’ 61 The ideas expressed here echo the distinction drawn by Virilio between the‘‘specific’’ and ‘‘generalised’’ accident. Parables for the Virtual. and neither. County of Croajingolong. 28. (Thanks to John Fitzgerald for assisting the author with this matter. Deleuze and Language. Dialogues II 125.1999. London: Routledge. ‘‘[E]very time a technology is invented. A Thousand Plateaus 254. as is well known. as ecological site. Aug. 71 Massumi. The block itself (shaped almost exactly like a pear) envelopes an area of around nine thousand hectares (about the size of Manhattan). Bruner. in this case. Lecercle. Ansell Pearson.’ ‘‘dole bludgers. the shipwreck. industrial or conservation areas lose their signfi(c)ance as forest. ‘‘Using and Abusing Nietzsche for Environmental Ethics. Michael and Max Oelschlaeger. 8. take shipping for instance. 72 Deleuze and Parnet. 9. Victoria the First Century: An Historical Survey (Melbourne: Robertson and Mullens.1997 . Derrida. bibliography Acampora. 70 These are examples of the handwritten terms (dating from the late nineteenth century) displayed on the Survey Plans for various parishes which intersect Goolengook forest block. 1888.Germinal Life 178. 65 Ibid.1847 as published in the New SouthWales . the possibility arises that it might destroy everything’’ (41). Halsey. therefore. and Environmental Ethics. For ‘‘unsettled districts’’ see Order in Council of 9 Mar. Ralph. Arguably. 248. an accident is invented together with it. are Deleuze and Guattari. 69 For the term ‘‘waste lands’’ see Historical Subcommittee of Centenary Celebrations Council. in turn.’ and the like) ’ ’ ’ have agitated against the logging activities carried out in Goolengook forest block in far eastern Victoria. Keith. more importantly. The term ‘‘back country. ’ appears on Plan 44E/8248. the omnipresence of erasure functions as a machine of deterritorialisation. As he comments: ‘‘[ W ]hen an event takes place somewhere today. 63 Ibid. which is exactly contemporaneous with the invention of the ship’’ (‘‘From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond’’ 40). 77 In conversation.halsey 59 Ibid. 73 Ansell Pearson. 75 Deleuze and Guattari.’ for instance.‘‘Rhetoric. Rivers and Creeks. The strikethrough forces each and every body (word and interpreter) to reckon with multiplicities in place of unities. is to commence a line of flight (however treacherous) toward a different kind of ethic(s). 60 Cf. 67 This borrows from Derrida’s analytic that all words are always already under erasure (sous rature). It helps bring forth the virtual from the actual in order that so-called forested. Deleuze and Environmental Damage. ‘‘Tracks. Zygmunt. ‘‘Croajingolong’’ is a variation on the Aboriginal term for the area now called East Gippsland. the division and organisation of terrains such as those spanning south-eastern Australia or California’s coast are apt to produce the generalised accident of habitat loss/depletion of biodiversity. 66 Since late 1996. Australia (situated about five hundred kilometres east of Melbourne and about ninety minutes over unsealed roads to the nearest town). 1934) 124. I am not.

16 Nov. Hayden. 54 . A Thousand ¤ Plateaus. Trans. Paul Bains and ¤ Julian Pefanis.1994. Sydney: Power.). Trans. Paul Patton. David Sweet ¤ and Chet Wiener. Felix. Guattari. Halsey.1990. Jean-Jacques. 2005. Mark Seem and Helen Lane.’ Lecture. 2002. Massumi. Halsey.J. London: Routledge. London: Duke UP. Friedrich. Ecce Homo. Gilles. Mark.’ Michel ’ Foucault: Critical Assessments. Eric (ed. Nietzsche and Philosophy. Mark. Dialogues II. ’ Kathryn Aschheim.’ Environmental Ethics ’ 13 (1991): 253^ 62. London: Oxford UP. Mark. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Soft Subversions. Timothy.‘‘Nietzsche’s Environmental Ethics. London: Penguin. ‘‘Three Ecologies.1991. Discourses of the Environment.’ ’ Cultural Critique (fall 1995): 57^ 81. Arran. Trans. Available <http://www.1996. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.ecology and machinic thought sommaire.1996. 1988. Hollingdale. Felix. Gilles. ¤ Trans. R. Trans.1987 . Ecocritique. Robert Hurley. Timothy. Trans.1992.1996. Brian.’ Ethics & the Environment ’ 9 (2004): 33^ 64. R.Cambridge.’ Criminal Justice Policy Review 10 (1999): ’ 213^55. Hemp Production and Environmental Harm.1999. Guattari. Deleuze. ’ Kofman. Gare. Who Comes After the Subject? Eds.Trans. Robin. Nietzsche. Deleuze. Gary Genosko. Soroj. ‘‘Postmodern Environmental Ethics: Ethics as Bioregional Narrative. Hollingdale. Eduardo Cadaua. Guattari. Barbara Habberjam and Eliot Albert. New Y ork: Columbia UP. HughTomlinson. NewY ork: Semiotext(e). Environment and Modernity. Hugh Tomlinson.1960. ‘‘Codes. Massumi. Brian.1996.’ Australian and New Zealand ’ Journal of Criminology 30 (1997):121^ 48. Halsey.webdeleuze. Ozone Discourses. ‘‘Descartes Entrapped. Chaosmosis. Friedrich. ’ 1971. Deleuze.1997 . Oxford: Blackwell. Barry Smart. London: Ashgate. Difference and Repetition. Jim. Cheney. London: Routledge. Ecopolitics.‘‘Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis.html> (English translation). 26 Nov. Patrick. Gilles and Felix Guattari. Ed. Politics. New York: Columbia UP. Parables for the Virtual. Deleuze. London: Penguin. Lecercle. Gilles. New York: Routledge. Hallman. Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis. Deleuze. Beyond Good and Evil. Anti-Oedipus. Conley. Collingwood. ‘‘The Wood for the Paper: Old-Growth Forest.1983. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Luke. Scott. Luke. Deleuze. The Guattari Reader. Sarah. Brian Massumi. Deleuze. Max. Gilles and Felix Guattari.). Risk. Felix.1995. Deleuze and Environmental Damage: Violence and the Text. 1997 . Gilles and Clare Parnet. Verena.1994. Oxford: Blackwell.‘‘On Environmentality: Geo-Power and Eco-Knowledge in the Discourses of Contemporary Environmentalism. ‘‘Environmental Discontinuities: The Production and Regulation of an EcoExperience. Peter Connor and Jean-Luc Nancy. London: ICAVideo (no. Gilles. ‘‘Foucault and the Prison. 2002. Karen. Bronislaw Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (eds. ‘‘Gilles Deleuze and Naturalism: A Convergence with Ecological Theory and Politics. Sylvere Lotringer. Ethics and T ruth.1995. MA: MIT P. Litfin.1994. A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 404). New Y ork: Palgrave Macmillan. The Idea of Nature. Halsey.‘‘Environmental Visions: Deleuze and the Modalities of Nature.’ Trans.J. London: Sage. Nietzsche. ‘‘A Liberation of Desire. New York: Columbia UP. Darier. Ed. Lash.’ Environmental ’ Ethics 11 (1989): 1 17^34. Trans.’ ’ Environmental Ethics 13 (1991): 99^125.1979. Felix.’ Trans. Trans. New York: Routledge. Deleuze and Language. ’ ¤ George Stambolian.’ Environmental Ethics 19 (1997): 185^204. London: Athlone. Guattari. Mark.’ Presentation ’ ¤ delivered to Psychoanalytic Forum.1995. Ed.

Nietzsche. Brisbane: Queensland U of Technology P.1969.J. Cambridge: Spinoza. Brisbane: Queensland U of Technology P. Rutherford.1997 . Daniel Breazeale. Friedrich. London: Penguin.1968. Philosophyand T ruth: Selections from Nietzsche’s Notebooks ofthe Early1870s. Trans. Graham. Hollingdale. Human. Philosophy in the T ragic Age of the Greeks. Ed. Nietzsche. Julie Rose.1997 . Washington. London: Penguin. Ethics. London: . Open Sky. Seddon. Peace. Benedict. All Too Human. and trans. Hollingdale.’ Ed. Walter Kaufmann and R. Ade. Edwin Curley. Ed. London: Verso.Trans. Martin’s. ‘‘Governing the Environment: The Programs and Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ed. Paul. Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and New Y ork: Vintage. Ed. Parkes. DC: Regnery. Hollingdale. ’ Nietzsche’s Futures. Atlantic Highlands. Trans. R. John Lippitt. Twilight of the Idols/The AntiChrist. ‘‘From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond: An Interview with Paul Virilio. Mark Halsey Department of Criminology University of Melbourne Level 4 234 Queensberry Street Carlton Victoria 3053 Australia E-mail: mhalsey@unimelb. Paul. NJ: Humanities.1992. Friedrich. Friedrich. Marianne Cowan.J. John Armitage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Natural Science and Biopolitics. Trans. The Will to Power.Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Virilio. 2000. ‘‘Staying Loyal to the Earth: Nietzsche as Ecological Thinker. ‘‘Policing Nature: Ecology.1997 . Virilio. New Y ork: St.’ ’ Trans. Friedrich.1997 . and trans. Paul.J.’ Foucault: The ’ Legacy. R. R. and trans. Friedrich. George.J.1999.halsey Nietzsche. Hollingdale. London: Sage. Nietzsche.1994. Cambridge UP. Friedrich.’ Foucault: The Legacy. Clare O’Farrell.1996. Landprints. Nietzsche. Clare ’ O’Farrell. Nietzsche. 1990. Trans. Patrice Riemens. Ed.1991. Ed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful