Afterlab - Deleuze and Guattari
(As ever – feel free to notes directly on this document)
Totally unrelated
ISIS and the 4th of July:
Office of Personnel Management 2.0
Before We launch into the glossary…
The game within the game
Who are Deleuze and Guattari ?...
Before we start – there are three basic things to know:
The idea of the Truth-Power Kritik:
Going to the left of “The Left”:
Explaining the Truth and Power Argument in the context of Deleuze:
The idea of “reification” (in a debate sense or philosophical sense):
The idea of capital T “Truth”:
A glossary of terms Deleuze and Guattari use
If you want to read more:
All of this can be very confusing. The following two citations – which heavily influenced the glossary
below – might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about this subject.. or if you are
interested in teaching this subject to peers on your team back home:
http://www.mantlethought.org/philosophy/microfascism
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/hrc/theory/holyfools/t.4.9.1%5B2%5D.html
“De-Territorialisation” or “Territorialisation”. Let’s explain territorialisation first. It’s a term to describe
how the authors feel that the media, psychoanalytic appeals, and certain use of language is used by the
state to control everyday life in the modem world. “De-Territorialisation” looks to new social
movements. The trick – for the authors – is to find new participants that have not been tainted by the
reach of the State. This involves reaching out to members of the “non-guaranteed” sector (below).
“Flux” and “Becoming” – both concepts speak to the idea that ideas should not be “fixed” or – in the
extreme – that ideas and people cannot be “fixed”. Concepts are “indeterminate” and exist in a state of
“flux” (or “constant becoming” of something different, new, and potentially revolutionary). The Kritikside will often defend “flux” as presumptively good. They will then argue that their opponents have
presented “fixed” understandings or Truths – which stall or hamper “becoming”. “Becoming” is not a
term found solely in this particular critical literature – and is also often a component of other Kritiks.
The “guaranteed sector” and the “non-guaranteed sector” – The “guaranteed sector” is what the
authors refer to workers that have public sector jobs (government employees) or private sector jobs in
companies that uphold government interests. The “non-guaranteed sector” involves those less
influenced by the reach of the State. Examples that are cited by the authors might include youth groups,
feminists, ecologists, gay rights activists and immigrant communities. As part of the 'non-guaranteed'
sector, people in these movements were excluded from the system and thus may be more eager to fight
for revolution.
“Lines of Flight” – it has no relation to physically flying. It is from the French word “fuite” – which can
mean leaking, fleeing, or escaping. It is an extremely abstract concept – but one that gets at the
“Alternative”. In some ways, it is similar to “deterritorialisation” (above). New social movements (from
the “non-guaranteed” sector) have pent-up energies (frustrations). These pent-up energies – when
released – can break through the cracks in a system of conventional control and shoot off on the
diagonal. By the light of their passage, they reveal the open spaces beyond the limits of what exists. A
“line of flight” is a path to the new reality. Sometimes your opponent will say that they do not “solve” –
but that by critiquing alone, they can reveal “a line of flight” to new realities and Neg ideas.
“Machinic assemblages” – tools used by the State for control and to advance what the authors refer to
as “territorialisation” (see above). Media, psychoanalysis, and language are examples of these tools.
Micro-Fascism. A lot of Deleuze and Guatarri’s argument comes back to “drives” and “libidinal energies”
– a concept explained in a prior afterlab. But, they use the concept of psychoanalytic “drives” to explain
the deeply-ingrained notion that humanity tends to regulate and oppress itself. Micro-fascism is
explained via this example – (from http://www.mantlethought.org/philosophy/microfascism)
“D&G’s
answer relies heavily on the notion of Microfascism, which is related to the micropolitics mentioned
related to the way desire produces rules. For instance, when I ride the subway, I follow
a rule that tells me to take my MetroCard out before I get to the turnstile. Or, to take another example,
I try to walk on the right-hand side of the stairs. But, frequently, I find myself behind someone
who doesn’t take their subway card out beforehand, or who meanders around the stairs like it
above. It’s
doesn’t matter. In response I think: they should follow the rules!— this is microfascism . It’s
fundamentally the desire for the trains to run on time. But, notice, what I want here is for others
to follow my rule. Maybe I even have reasons for this—it’s a good rule, after all!—but, regardless, this amounts to
imposing my desire on others. Write this large and you get Mussolini or Franco or whatever.”
The “Molar” and “The Molecular” – “Molar” is a term used to describe State power and governmentalbased movements (the authors are presumptively opposed to these movements). “The Molecular”
describes non-state based movements favoring anarchy (no government) or communist-style change
(away from capitalism as the reigning economic structure). This is relevant to “nomads” (below).
The “Nomad” or nomadic practices - Far from trying to seize political power, “nomads” frame a new
form of opposition that use their mobility (outside of State power) to avoid the 'territorialised' control of
the authoritarian state. These groups are not just defined in their opposition to government – but they
are to remain autonomous from all hierarchical tendencies or centralized planning. This makes the
nomad distinct from traditional “Left” social movements – which often have hierarchies, or have elected
leaders, or rely on financial support from mainstream corporations or governments.
"rhizome" and "rhizomatic" – These serve as additional adjectives that get at explanations of the Alt.
This concept gets very far-Left – going so far as to reject conventions like form, organization, rationality,
or even time.
The "rhizome" is a place where the oppressed would escape from the control of the authoritarian state
into autonomous arenas formed by the new social movements. In a less-physical sense of the word,
"rhizomatic" can mean ideas or research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical understandings. Nontraditional “openness” and creativities outside of convention could be called "rhizomatic". A more direct
quote might help understand how far-Left this idea is:
a 'rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things…. The movement
of the rhizome resists chronology and organization, instead favoring a nomadic system”
“Schizo-politics” or “schizoanalysis" or “The schizoid” – For Deleuze and Guattari, the overthrow of
political power was only the beginning. Individuals tend to repress themselves. Political domination –
according to the authors - is only made possible through personal repression and self-regulating
conformities. True revolution had to liberate the libidinal energies of people from all forms of social
control (family control, religious control, market control, etc). The alternative to “the normal” and “the
rational” is schizo-politics. In the 'schizo-politics' of Deleuze and Guattari, the revolution would destroy
bourgeois rationality so each individual could become a holy fool. What follows is a direct quote –
pardon the gendered language in the original:
"[The Fool]...is the vagabond who exists on the fringe of organised society, going his own way,
ignoring the rules and taboos with which men seek to contain him. He is the madman who
carries within him the seeds of genius, the one who is despised by society yet who is the catalyst
who will transform that society. "
This last point was highlighted because it starts to get at the connection between Deleuze and the
increasing frequent strategy of high school teams that try to advance comical… or
foolishly” illogical arguments.
Some pro-tips
Some of your opponent’s goals will be to achieve the following great thrill:
Some other instances where this all comes-up:
If you are neg and going for topicality:
Some ideas for answering their K
#1 - Addressing the Truth-Power Argument specifically.
# 2 Deleuze & Guattari are so far Left, that ….
#3 – How did their authors “see the light”
#4 - The idea of reification:
#5 - the idea of a positive project
#6 – Just play the “nonsense card”
#7 – using their “foolishness” themes against them
#8 - Idealizing schizophrenia