Home
Random Page
CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
|
| SOCIAL MACHINES AND THE STATE |
| Kenneth Surin draws attention to this feature of Deleuze and Guattari’s analysis of capitalism, suggesting that the capitalist axiomatic is capable of regulating the interaction of a series of cultural and social ‘accords’, such that in its current phase it should be regarded as a meta- or mega-accord: ‘As a set of accords or axioms governing the accords that regulate the operations of the various components of an immensely powerful and comprehensive system, capital is situated at the crossing-point of all kinds of formations, and thus has the capacity to integrate and recompose capitalist and noncapitalist sectors or modes of production. Capital, the “accord of accords’’ par excellence, can bring together heterogeneous phenomena and make them express the same world’ (Surin 1998).
| |
| This phrase from Nietzsche, cited by Deleuze and Guattari 1977:34, comes from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part 2, ‘Of the land of culture’.
| |
| Deleuze and Guattari suggest that the despotic machine involves a ‘formation’ that may be found in spiritual as well as in secular empires. They point to paranoia as the equivalent formation of desire, suggesting that ‘the despot is the paranoiac’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1977:193).
| |
| See the commentary on the Qin dynasty treatise on government, The Book of Lord Shang, by Kenneth Dean and Brian Massumi (1992:11–71).
| |
| Elsewhere in Difference and Repetition, Deleuze points out that for every philosophy that begins from a subjective or implicit claim about what everybody is supposed to know, there is another that denies this knowledge or fails to recognise what is claimed. Such philosophies rely not upon the common man but on a different persona: ‘Someone who neither allows himself to be represented nor wishes to represent anything’ (Deleuze 1994:130). In the interview ‘Intellectuals and Power’, he suggests that it was Foucault who taught the intellectuals of his generation the indignity of speaking for others: ‘We ridiculed representation and said it was finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this “theoretical” conversion—to appreciate the theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf (Foucault 1977b:209).
| |
| Holland 1991:57. See also the extended discussion of deterritorialisation and decoding in Holland 1999:19–21.
| |
| See the theorems of deterritorialisation elaborated in Plateau 7, ‘Year Zero: faciality’ and in Plateau 10, ‘1730: becoming-intense, becoming-animal, becoming-imperceptible’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:174–5; 306–7).
|
Date: 2015-01-11; view: 704
|
|