Deleuze And Guattari In Cultural Studies - Gregory J. Seigworth and J. Macgregor Wise.pdf - Culture - lady_kitty

C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S 1 4 ( 2 ) 2 0 0 0 , 1 3 9 – 1 4 6

Gregory J. Seigworth and

J. Macgregor Wise

IN T R O D U CT IO N

D E LE U ZE AN D GUATTAR I IN

C U LTU R AL S T U D IE S

N G I V I N G T H I S S P E C I A L issue th e title o f ‘D eleu ze an d G u attar i in C u l-

tural Stu d ies’, th ere is n o sen se in w hic h we are re ally trying to fo o l any bo dy.

A fter all, it’s no t as if D eleu ze an d G u attari are n o t already here. C er ta inly, th en ,

th is issu e is n o t go ing to m ake any g ran d iose claim s ab o ut cu ltu ral stu die s n ee din g

to take th e m on bo ard . T hat wo u ld be a silly an d ve ry tardy pro n o u n cem en t: just

p ick u p m any o f th e w r itin gs by L aw ren c e G ro ssbe rg, D ic k H e bd ige, M e aghan

M o rris, Step he n M u ec ke, E lsp eth P ro byn , M cKe n zie Wa rk, an d o th er s and yo u

w ill Ž n d an o n go ing and ac tive en gagem en t w ith the w or k o f D eleu ze an d G u at-

ta ri. O r, fu r th er, � ip over th eir A Thousand P lateaus an d yo u w ill see it re fere n ced

o n its bac k cove r as ‘P hilo so phy/ C ultu ral Stu d ies’. T his o ffe r s a Ž rst c lu e –

D eleu ze an d G u attari in cu ltu ral stu d ies m ight req u ire u s to ask fresh qu e stio n s

abo u t th e ‘plac e’ o f p hilo so phy in cu ltu ral stu d ies. To m ake it a slightly m o re

‘D eleu ze an ’ q u estio n , o f w hat u se is ph ilo so p hy to cu ltu ral stu die s? W hat is it

th at cu ltu ral stu d ies d o w ith p hilo so p hy?

T here is, o f c o ur se, th e sn ide answ er to th is latter qu estio n , w hic h te n ds to

c om e m o st often from o u tside cu ltural stu die s: ‘In c u ltu ral stu d ies, p hiloso p hy is

th ere fo r w ind ow dre ssing. P hiloso p hy se r ve s to ad d a d ash o f c olo r to th e average

c ultu ral stu d ies’ essay – “L et’s see, hm m m , a N ietzsc hean � o o r c over ing, an

A lthu sser-in sp ired ar m c ha ir, an d a br ightly co lo red B e njam in d rap e. M ayb e a

vase fro m th e H eg e l dy n asty, w ith a tren dy Z ize k bo u qu et, and th e roo m is co m -

p lete.” ’ O r, p hilo so p hy ar rives in cu ltu ral stu d ies w ith an ellip tical ‘o o m p h’ –

‘ “T he re we go ”: th at weighty, clo sin g q uo te fro m Fo u ca u lt o n “power ” c o u pled

w ith th e o p en ing ep ig rap h fro m A d o r no sh o u ld se al my e ssay o ff fro m any

sim p le-hea d ed cr itiqu e.’ In fa ct, th is sp ec ial issu e be gan its life as a pa ir o f co n -

feren c e p ane ls o rgan ize d fo r the 1 9 9 7 In ter n atio n al C o m m u n icatio n A sso c iatio n

c on feren c e as an initial re sp on se to th is ve ry view p o int. O n th e c hief D e leu ze

an d G uattari d isc u ssio n g ro up o n the Wo rld W ide We b, a o n e-line snic kering

joke bo u n ce d aro u n d, d isap pe are d , an d p er iod ically resu rfac ed th ro u gho u t

C ultural Studies ISS N 09 5 0-2 3 86 pr int/ ISS N 1466-4 348 onlin e © 2 000 Tay lor & F ran c is L td

h ttp :/ / w w w.tandf.co.uk/ jour nals/ ro utledge /09 5 02386. htm l

1 4 0

C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S

several m o n th s in 1 9 9 6. T he ‘joke ’, su c h as it is, read: ‘so m etim e s I th ink th at

c u ltu ral stu d ies is fu ll o f fr u strated inte rior d e co rato rs’. Sub seq ue n tly, a fa ir

n u m b er o f resp o n se s arrived to af Ž r m th e statem e n t, ea c h o n e esse n tially o ffe r-

ing assen t: ‘ha ha go o d o n e’, ‘ab solu tely’, etc. N o o ne m o un te d a seriou s c o un -

te rc harge in d efe n ce o f c u ltu ral stu die s; altho u gh som eo n e, th e so n of inte rior

d e co rato rs, d id w rite in to de fe nd his p are n ts an d th eir p ro fessio n fro m su c h an

u n tow ard c om p ariso n .

T he an swe r th at ten d s to c om e fro m insid e cu ltural stu d ies is a bit d ifferen t

bu t m ay b e, in th e e n d, just as p ro ble m atic. ‘C u ltu ral stu d ies plays p ractice to

p hiloso p hy’s th eo ry. P hilo so p hy th inks. C u ltu ral stu d ies ac ts’. W he n o n e tr ies to

Ž n esse su c h a kn ow ingly trou ble so m e m ind / bo dy sp lit, it go es som ething like

th is: ‘p hilo so p hy th inks ac tin g w hile c u ltu ral stu d ies p uts th o u ght into ac tio n .

P hiloso p hy is cu ltu ral stud ies in its q uie t, re � e ctive m o m en ts: w he n it’s no t

r u n nin g an d jum p ing an d kno c king th ings ove r’. B u t th e dic hoto m ou s rhyth m o f

su c h a co n ce ptu alizatio n leave s a lo t to be d esire d. T he ap p aren t m ove m en t fro m

re � ectio n to ac tio n , n o m atter how we ll re hea rsed and n u an c ed , is bo u n d to be

a little b it jerky. Pe rhaps that slashing lin e be tween p hiloso p hy and cu ltu ral

stu d ies – at o n ce, c uttin g an d c o nn e ctin g – o n th e bac k cover o f A Thousand

P latea us is n o t th e re to be c o n tin u ally leap e d ove r (ju m p over th e re an d re � ect

fo r w hile / jum p over here to take ac tio n ) bu t, rathe r, it is a lin e u p o n w hic h we

m u st p la ce o u rselves.

W hat bette r w ay to p la ce o u rse lve s on th e lin e th an in squ ar ing u p to th e

m o st co m m o np lac e re spo n se to th e qu estio n o f p hilo so phy’s u se w ithin cu ltu ral

stu d ies, n am e ly, cu ltu ral stu d ies’ d eto u r th rou gh th eo ry. T he d eto u r th ro ug h

th e or y ha s lon g b ee n o n e o f th e c o re o rgan izin g tro p es o f cu ltural stu d ies and ,

alo n g w ith th e idea o f ar ticu latio n , is co n side red cen tral in d istin guishing its

p ro jec t (at least in its B ritish an d A m er ican co n Ž gur atio ns). C u ltu ral stu die s have

n ever bee n sim p ly c ritical p o litical p rac tice, and n either ha s it b een sim p ly th e

th e or izatio n o f cu lture. A s m o st u su ally de scrib ed , th e d eto u r th ro u gh th eo ry is

an e m inen tly p ragm atic m etho d o lo gy th at b eg ins in th e sp ec i Ž cs o f a situ ation

(o n th e g ro u nd , as it were ), and the n th eo r izes abo u t that situation (the d eto u r).

H oweve r, all su c h d e tou r s m u st retu r n to the o rig inal ro ad even tu ally an d th e

key e le m en t o f th e d e to u r th ro ug h th e o ry is th e retu r n to th e co n cre te w ith th e

th e or y as a p o litic al to o l, intim ately c o nn e cted to th at circu m stan c e in q u estio n.

T he refo re, as Stu ar t H all has w ritte n, cu ltu ral stu d ies are c o nc er n ed w ith th e

‘p o litic s o f th e o ry. N o t th eo ry as th e w ill to tru th , bu t th eo ry as a set of c on -

te sted , lo c alized , c o nju n ctu ral kn ow le dg e s, w hic h have to b e d e bated in a d ia-

lo gical w ay’ (1 9 9 2 : 2 8 6 ).

P hilo so p hy o ften b ec om es a graz ing g ro u nd fo r th o se see kin g th eo retical

to o ls, bu t in so d o ing, the d istin c tiven ess o f p hilo so p hy itself as a p ractice co l-

lap ses. B u t, if we fo llow D eleu ze and G u attar i, we m ight see intere stin g an d pro -

d u ctive p aralle ls betwe en c u ltu ral stu d ies an d ph ilo so p hical p rac tice. In the ir Ž na l

c o llabo rative b o o k, D eleu ze an d G u attari (1 9 9 4 ) argu e th at p hilo so p hy’s p ro ject

I N T R O D U C T I O N

1 4 1

is the p ro d uc tion o f co n ce p ts. C o n ce pts are n o t u n iversa ls, an d, as H all w ro te

abo u t th e or y above, are n ot ab ou t a se arc h fo r tr uth. C o n cep ts are eve n ts,

or gan izatio n s against c hao s, c u ts in � u xes o f m ovem en t, p assage s o f inte n sity.

They are n o t re pre sen tative, n o t p ro p o sitio n al, an d – be cau se th ey sin gu la rly

belo n g to th eir ow n u n iqu e situ atio n – th ey d o n ot ar tic ulate cle an ly w ith o th er

co n cep ts. T hat is, c o n cep ts as situ atio n ally circ um scrib ed inte nsities are alw ays

the p ro d u ct o f pa r ticu larly lo ca l circ u m stan ce s, histo rically an d ge og rap hically

bo u n de d (eve n if they ran ge ac ro ss th e glo be ); th ey are, as L aw re n ce G rossb er g

ha s de scrib ed cu ltu ral stu d ies, ‘rad ically c on te xtu al.’ D eleu ze an d G u attari w rite,

‘O f co u rse, new co n c ep ts m ust re late to o u r pro ble m s, to o u r histo ry, an d , ab ove

all, to o u r b eco m ings’ (1 9 94 : 2 7 ).

C o nc ep ts are n o t d escr ipto rs of even ts, bu t th ey are cr u c ial in giving sh ap e

to even ts. C o n cep ts d o n o t so m u c h co m bine th e stage s o f th e d eto u r th ro u gh

the o ry, th eo ry-tu ssle, an d retu r n to th e co n cre te, as th ey cu t acro ss th ese stage s

tran sve rsally. T he tidy lin ea rity o f ‘d e tou r ing’ is inter ru p ted an d th row n o u t o f

any re co gn izable sequ e nc e. Travellin g by co n c ep t is, to be gin w ith, an inc or p o-

real tran sfor m ation o f th e co n tex t from w ithin th e context . C o n c ep ts are m ovem e n t

in plac e: a ho p, a skip, an d a jum p w itho u t d ep ar tu re. ‘The task o f p hilo so ph y

w he n it cre ates co n c ep ts, en tities, is alw ays to ex tract an eve n t fro m th ings an d

bein gs, to set u p th e n ew even t fro m th ings an d bein gs, alw ays to g ive th e m a

new eve nt: sp ace, tim e, m atter, th ou ght, th e p o ssible as eve n ts’ (1 9 94 : 3 3 ). T here

are, o f c o ur se, sign i Ž c an t d iffe ren ce s th at sh o u ld be m arked betwe en p hilo so p hy

an d cu ltu ral stu d ies (these are diffe re n t p ro jec ts, afte r all). B u t D eleu ze an d

G u attari po int to a p re su m p tio n th at qu ite o ften go es un ac kn ow le d ged in th e

de to ur th ro ug h th e or y. In its pre su m p tion o f th e d eto u r th ro u gh th eo ry as a

pr ac tic al n e cessity, it is n ot so m u c h th at c u ltu ral stud ies d o es n ot kn ow in

advan ce w hat th eo ry is, no r eve n w hat th eo ry m ight be o f u se. B u t rathe r, in th e

de to ur th ro u gh th e o ry, th e im p lic it assum p tion is th at cu ltu ral stu d ies know s

where th eo ry is. T he sp atial traje cto ry an d te m p o ral stages o f th e d e tou r assu m es

that th eo ry (co n cep ts) are e lsew here an d n o t alre ady in th e co n tex t o r situ-

atio n / even t; th e d eto u r th ro u gh th eo ry is the n a tran scen d e nc e o f th e situ atio n

(literally leaving th e g ro u n d to ta ke to th e air), w here as D e leu ze an d G u attar i

argu e fo r a sin gle p la n e o f im m an en ce : utte r u n ivo c ally – ‘the co n cep t sp ea ks th e

eve n t’ (19 9 4 : 2 1 ). C o n c ep ts are n o t arr ived at, th e n, thro u gh a d ep ar tu re fro m

the im m an en t sp ace o f an eve n t, an d so th ere is n o n e ed to go elsew here (m aking

this tr uly ‘rad ically co n tex tu al’).

Pe rhap s it is th at co n ce pts and co n tex ts (even ts/ situ atio n s) arrive w ith a

sim u ltan eo u s kind of ha latio n -effe c t. H alatio n is w hat hap p en s w he n th e br ight-

ne ss-inte n sity of a p hoto g rap hic im age e x cee d s th e b o un d ar ies o f its o bjec t. A

co n cep t e m e rges not as sep arable o r ex ter n al th ing bu t, rathe r, as th at w hich is

intagliated o r ex tr u de d an d , th u s, c an se r ve to u n fo ld th e real but ne ar-im p er-

cep tible atm osp he re o f th ese so r ts of effe c ts. T he c on c ep t, thu s cre ated , en ters

the p ictu re in th e overblo om ed sp ac e o f an halatio n : still in th e situ ation an d

1 4 2

C U L T U R A L S T U D I E S

wo rking in th e co n tex t o f its (the eve n t’s) ‘abo u t’– n o t u n like th e w ay in w hich

an inco rp o real vap o u r hover s ove r a b attle. T his is w hat D eleu ze an d G u attari

m ean w hen th ey ask for a c o nc ep t th at is eq u ivalen t to the even t. C o n ce pt-

c reatio n is so m ething th at ta kes p la ce o n th e sa m e p ro ce ssual lin e as th e even t

bu t alw ays fro m w ithin the even t’s blo om -space : o ffe ring a w ay o f su staining it,

keep ing alive, so th at it c an b e re laye d fu r th er d ow n th e n o n -lin ea r lin e. T his is

D e leu ze an d G u attari’s vitalism o f th e co n ce p t. B u t th ere are also th o se m o m e nts

w hen co n cep ts d ie or w hen a co n ce p t d eser ves to d ie (a ltho u gh gen er ally

D e leu ze an d G u attar i c hoo se to go fo r su p erc essio n or teasin g aw ay fro m o the r-

w ise tire d o r we ary co n ce p ts): like th e co n ce p t of th e ‘su b ject’. A s D e le uz e n o tes,

a co n cep t d ies ‘w hen n ew fu n ctio n s in n ew Ž e ld s d isc harge it. T his is also w hy it

is n eve r very intere stin g to c riticize a c o nc ep t: it is b etter to bu ild th e n ew fu n c-

tio n s and disc over th e n ew Ž e ld s th at m ake it u seless o r inad eq uate ’ (1 9 9 1: 9 4).

A co n cep t w ill live as lo ng as th e blo o m th at gave it its rise is still vibran t.

N o n e o f th is is m ea n t to argu e th at cu ltu ral stu die s sh ou ld be co m e a p hilo -

so p hical p ro jec t, o r vice versa . B u t rather to say th at a D ele u zo -G u attar ian p hil-

o so p hy o f bo th th e gen er atio n an d d iscovery o f co n ce p ts, fo llow ing th em as th ey

m o ult an d sh ift, traversin g strata an d sp ace -tim e, c an Ž n d a u seful reso n an ce in

c u ltu ral stu d ies wo rk.

O n e o f th e p rim ary p re su m ed d an ge rs in cu ltural stu d ies’ ‘ � ir tatio n ’ w ith

th e or y o r p hilo so p hy is th at o f se d uc tion : th e se d uc tion o f ide as an d d isco u rses

abo u t idea s. T his is th e da n ger th at c om es w ith a cer ta in th eo re tic al glib n ess –

o n e th at view s itself as e m inen tly tran sferable into var iou s d ifferen t situ atio ns:

an e xp lan ato ry g rid th at on e lifts u p an d p resses d ow n u p o n a wo rld th at w rig-

gles ben e ath it. B u t a co n ce pt sh o u ld neve r rem ain still – fo r to be ad eq uate to

its even t or its co n te xt, it m ust be pre p ared to m ee t th e wo rld (its wo rld ) w r iggle

fo r w riggle. H all (1 9 92 ) w rite s that th e or y sh o u ld be a str ug gle, and p o ints ou t

th e pro fo un d d an ger s o f th eo retic al � u e nc y. A n d D e le uz e and G uattari (1 9 94 )

argu e th at p hilo so p hy is n o t abo u t d isco u rse s or d iscu ssio ns (‘E very p hilo so p he r

r u n s aw ay w hen he o r sh e hea rs so m e o ne say, “let’s d iscu ss th is” ’(p. 2 8 )), ‘but

rather o ne o f cre atin g co n cep ts fo r th e u n d isc u ssable p ro blem p ose d ’ (p. 2 8).

T his is o n e o f th e re aso n s D ele u ze d isliked trave llin g, e sp ecially to c o n fere n ces.

H e says, hum o rou sly, th at acad e m ics ‘trave l by ho t air’ an d th at:

[I]n telle ctu als are wo n de rfu lly c ultivated , th ey have view s o n everyth ing.

I’m n o t an intelle c tu al bec au se I ca n ’t su p p ly view s like th at, I’ve got no

sto c k o f view s to d raw o n . W hat I know, I kn ow o n ly fro m so m e th ing I’m

ac tu ally wo rking o n , an d if I c o m e bac k to so m e th ing a few year s later, I

have to lear n eve ryth ing all ove r.

(D eleu ze, 19 9 5 : 1 37 )

So m e tim es, th en , w hile th e life sp an o f a co n c ep t o ften e x ten d s n o fu r th er th an

th e w idth o f its e m er gen ce into co n tex t, it c an also b eg in its fa d e alo n g th e

I N T R O D U C T I O N

1 4 3

lead ing e d ge o f th e Ž r st sh ad ow th at falls acro ss m em o ry. M ay be, th o ug h, th e

m o st e nd u ring co n cep ts are th o se th at p er sist acro ss the gap s in fo rgettin g, risin g

up to sh ake o ff th eir Ž lm (or even laye rs) o f se d im en t an d on ly half-re m em b er-

ing w hat th ey ha d sa id b efo re – bu t, just as well, sin ce in e ac h n ew instan tiatio n ,

the ir la n gua ge wo u ld have to be stu ttered an ew.

T his is w hy Stu ar t H all’s o th er ‘m e ta p ho r fo r th e o retical wo rk: th e m etap ho r

of str u ggle, o f w re stlin g w ith an gels’ (1 9 92 : 2 8 0) su its u s b etter. R ather th an

m ain tain ing a slash ing lin e (that sever s m o re th an it co n n ects) be twee n

the o ry-bu ildin g an d p o litical actio n , H all o ffe rs a m o re po sitive in � e ctio n by

de scrib ing it as a n ec essary (an d , we w ill ad d, m u tu al) ‘te n sio n ’ th at e x ists, w ithin

cu ltu ral stu d ies, betwe en its p o litical p ro jec t an d its th e ore tical wo rk. It is a

ten sion th at H all says has ‘so m e th ing to d o w ith th e c on d itio n s an d p roblem s o f

deve lo p ing inte llectu al an d th eo retical wo rk as a p o litic al p ractice . . . [C ]u ltu ral

stu d ies as th eo re tic al p ractice [a nd n o t a d eto u r into o n e!] . . . m ust go o n an d

on living w ith th at ten sio n’ (19 9 2 : 2 8 1 – 2 82 ). W here as H all d raw s o n A n to n io

G ram sci an d his co n cep t o f th e ‘o rgan ic intelle c tu al’ as a w ay not to reso lve th is

ten sion bu t to live w ith it (to ke ep it alive as m o tivating fo rce), Walte r B en jam in

m ak es th is ten sio n eve n m o re e xp licitly p ro d u ctive. In ‘ The A uth or as Producer ’,

B en jam in (1 9 7 8 ) d escr ibes th e au th or as an ind ividu al w ith two c hief du ties: ‘ Ž r st

to ind u ce o th er p ro du c er s to p ro d u ce, an d sec o nd to p u t an im p roved ap p aratu s

at th eir d isp o sal. A n d th is ap p aratu s is be tte r th e m o re c o n su m er s it is able to

tur n into p ro d u cer s – th at is, re ad er s an d sp e ctato rs into co llabo rato rs’ (B e n-

jam in, 1 9 7 8 : 2 33 ). T his is to argu e, th e n , th at the w riter o f c u ltu ral th e or y an d

cr iticism is n ever m e rely an inte rp rete r o r a tran slato r o f cu ltu re into d isco u rse

but is, inste ad , so m e o ne w ho ac ts as an integ ral pa r t o f a relay (w ho, by ne ce s-

sity, w ill tran sfor m w hat is tran sm itted as we ll as alter the ap p aratu s o f tran s-

m ission ) in an alw ays o pe n -en d ed circ u it o f c u ltu ral th eo ry/ pr ac tice.

G ille s D e le u ze c on c eives o f th e re latio n be tw een th eo ry an d p rac tice in a

very sim ilar m an n er. In an inte r view w ith M ichel Fo uc au lt (1 9 7 2/ 1 9 7 7 ), he

argu e s th at:

F ro m th e m o m en t a th e o ry m oves into its pr op e r d o m ain [alw ays lo ca l an d

re lated to a lim ite d Ž e ld ], it b eg ins to en co u n ter ob stac les, w alls, and blo c k-

ages w hich requ ire its re lay by ano th e r typ e o f d isco u rse (it is th ro u gh th is

d isco u rse th at it eve n tually p asses to a d iffe ren t d om ain ). P rac tice is a set

o f relays fro m o ne th eo retic al po int to ano th er, an d th eo ry is a re lay fro m

o n e p ractice to an o th er. N o the o ry c an deve lo p w itho u t eve ntu ally e n co u n-

te ring a w all, an d p ractice is n ec essary fo r p iercin g th is w all.

(Fo u cau lt, 1 9 7 2 / 1 97 7 : 2 0 6 )

Pr ac tic e, fo r D eleu ze, sh o u ld n o t b e un d er sto od the n as th e d ire ct ap plication o f

the o ry o n to a p ar tic u lar se t o f circu m stan ces. T he th eo retical d oe s n o t ev ap o rate

into its instan tiatio n in the p ractic al. In stead , th ey m ainta in a cer ta in d eg ree o f

Deleuze And Guattari In Cultural Studies - Gregory J. Seigworth and J. Macgregor Wise.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: