Deleuze - Ddi 2015 Sws

8/20/2019 Deleuze - Ddi 2015 Sws

1/64

NotesIf you lose to this a, you literally lose to an a whose

solvency mechanism is a plant.

From Gregg Lambert’s “The War Machine and ‘a people who revolt’”:

“Because everything may seem a bit muddled at this point, let us go back over the majorpropositions so far:1. Provisionally speaking, according to Deleue and !uattari the "ar#machine is invented by thenomads, not by the $tate. $trictly speaking, the $tate invents nothing% it merely appropriates, being itself an “empty form of appropriation.&

'. Being al"ays e(ternal to the $tate#)orm, the "ar#machine in its essence has only one goal, thedestruction of the $tate#)orm% thus in appropriating the "ar#machine, the $tate must al"ays assign itanother object: total "ar against an enemy *Der Feind +. “he -uestion is therefore less the realiation of"ar than the appropriation of the "ar#machine. t is at the same time that the $tate apparatusappropriates the "ar machine, subordinates it to its /political0 aims, and gives it "ar as its direct object .&1

. here are also other situations that Deleue and !uattari allude to "hen they say that under certainconditions, defined by “infinitely lo"er -uantities,& the "ar#machine can make use of "ar in order tocreate something else *e.g., “ne" nonorganic social relations&+.

2. 3o"ever, in both these situations, according to the t"o kinds of "ar machines produced or created,it appears that one thing is absolutely necessary: an object, "hether direct or merely “supplementary.&he problem then becomes: "hat happens "hen this object is not provided, or the $tate fails to resolvethis object#relation correctly4 t is here that "e find the many e(amples of those e(ceptional situations"here the "ar#machine takes itself as an object, becoming a “double suicide machine.&'“

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.3.lambert.html#f31http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.3.lambert.html#f31http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.3.lambert.html#f32http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.3.lambert.html#f32http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.3.lambert.html#f31


2/64

1ac CX questions


3/64

RhizomesWhy vote ne!

Will you "efen" the a"vocacy for the entire "e#ate!

$ow are the millions of %mericans unaware of the e&tent ofovernment surveillance controlle" #y miscofascisms!

What was it that ma"e you start rea"in 'eleuze!

What is #ecomin! Will you "efen" it!


4/64

War (achineWhat is the eect of the a"vocacy statement!

%re there any e&amples of war machines in the status quo!

'oesn)t the *altimore uprisins prove that war machines areonly short live" since the protests laste" less than two wee+s!


5/64

Rhizomes peci-c Case


6/64

Internal in+ wor+


7/64

(isun"erstan"insAlthough panoptic theories of surveillance have accomplished much in surveillance studies, Foucaultfailed to account for ICTs and technical advances such as the internet. Post- panoptic theories have soughtto fill this gap, such as Haggerty and Ericsons !"###$ attempt to reconceptualise surveillance as anassem%lage. The assem%lage considers surveillance to %e a dispersed and rhi&omatic phenomenon, %eing

conducted %y an unrelated multiplicity of groups and practices !Palmas "#''$. The conglomerate ofsurveillance entities instead see(sto %rea( the individual into a desired set of discrete data, called flo)s.These flo)s represent the many streams of information that contri%ute to data%ases, circulate ininformation net)or(s, and form an individual*s data self. The technical developments and implications ofsurveillance have encouraged many theoretical e+planations. Ho)ever these theories often favouranalysing %roader social and technical trends, )ithout considering the individual in the analysis. Haggertyand Ericson!"##$ attempt to include more of the individual %y e+amining flo)s of personal data in theassem%lage, %ut they again ignore the effects of surveillance on the individuals lived e+perience !ood"##/"0$. 1any of these perspectives also assume surveillance to %e a uniform social phenomenon, anddo not attempt to e+plore ho) those under surveillance reactor respond to it. hile the technical andstructural aspects of surveillance are clearly highlighted, ho) the individuals e+perience fits in these

structures is o%scured. 2uch considerations are especially important, given the spread and implications ofsurveillance in contemporary estern society.

/he a operates un"er a fatal misun"erstan"in of how the

surveillance state has risen to power. /he i"ea of micro0

fascisms can)t #e applie" to surveillance, an" the surveillant

assem#lae "oesn)t e&ist. We have to face the fact that we are

surveille" #ecause we have a "eep0seate" in"ivi"ual "esire

within the *i ther to #e surveille".

mec+er, 12 (Fran! "merican philosopher and social theorist! #e st$died%nglish& 'hilosoph& and 'scholog at )niversit o* +ermont& and is c$rrentlst$ding philosoph at ,$-$esne )niversit! "n emerging voice in the canon o*social theor& contemporar philosoph& and .i/eian dialectics& his topics o*interest incl$de: le*t politics& philosoph& Fre$do0Lacanian pschoanalsis& radicalenvironmentalism& worers1 rights and movements& lit0theor& 2lm& and m$sic!34567!8: The 9ise o* the ig ;ther as ig rother!3 Truthout ! $ne =84?!Web! 45 >$l =84@! http:AAwebcache!google$sercontent!comAsearchB-Ccache:-w?4icvngD>:www!tr$th0o$t!orgAspeao$tAitemA4E4440456780the0rise0o*0the0big0other0as0big0brothercdC4hlCenctCclnglC$sHT

In order to grasp )hat Im getting at here, its important to familiari&e oneself for the time %eing )ith t)o theoreticalterms/ the 3%ig 4ther3 and 3ga&e.3 The latter often lends itself to a multitude of theoretical interpretations, each one replete )ithits o)n definition and conceptuali&ation of functioning. To preempt against too much confusion, ho)ever, )ell focus on the ga&e as discussed

hereunder. To start, the t)entieth century psychoanalyst 5adass, 6ac7ues 8acan, gave an account of the ga&e )ith the follo)ingstory he %orro)ed from 2artre/ The ga&e that I encounter 9...: is not a seen ga&e 9not a set of eyes that I seeloo(ing at me: %ut a ga&e imagined %y me in the field of the 4ther 9...: the sound of rustling leaves heard )hileout hunting 9...: a footstep heard in a corridor 9The ga&e e+ists: not at the level of 9a particular: other )hose ga&e surprises the su%;ect loo(ingthrough the (eyhole. It is that the other surprises him, the su%;ect, as an entirely hidden ga&e. 9e(, calls the 3impossi%le ga&e3/ that uncanny perspective %y means of )hich

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


8/64

)e are already present at the scene of our o)n a%sence. hat this means is that, any good olfantasy functions properly only %y 3removing3 ourselves from the fantasy )e are having. Ta(e as ane+ample ?isneys all-E, the story of a convivial little ro%ot that loo(s li(e an anthropomorphi&ed 1ars rover, that 3falls in love3 )ith Eva, aro%ot that %asically loo(s li(e an egg. Essentially, this is a fantasy of a post-human earth - though of course dreamed up %y someone !human$ and,definitely )atched %y a )hole %unch of !human$ people. Hence the perspective in )hich 3I am present at the very scene of my o)n a%sence3 - thehuman vie)er reduced to the 3impossi%le3 ga&e - as if Im not a part of the very 3reality3 Im o%serving. This is, in a nutshell, the definition of

ga&e. The %ig 4ther, on the other hand, is a %it more involved. Its definition is inherently nuanced. To start off, )hat )ell call the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther is something that is shared %y everyone . It is none other than that )hich em%odies thevery ideological essence of the socio-sym%olic order of our lives @ rules and eti7uette - especially ;uridical 8a) itself - customs and %eliefs, everything you should or should not do, )hat youaspire to)ard, and )ho or )hat you aspire to %e, all of this and more, individually or incom%ination, constitutes the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther. The su%;ects %ig 4ther !hereafter, theImaginary %ig 4ther $, ho)ever, is a sort of private investment in the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther , a personalallegiance to the ruling ideology )hich sustains the narratives , %eliefs , and lived fantasies of thevery culture in )hich the su%;ect is immersed . Each Imaginary %ig 4ther is distinct in its o)nuni7ue )ay/ my Imaginary %ig 4ther may %e, say, a patriotic %ricolage !not really, %ut you get the point$ - a composite of things li(e, e.g.,ncle 2am, the American soldier trope, 3Bod3 and Tim Te%o). And your Imaginary %ig 4ther may em%ody, say, ;ust Emily Post, or may%e some

vague ideological pac(age of some other normative principles. In any case, the Imaginary %ig 4ther , the su%;ects %ig 4ther as such,designates a private virtuali&ation of the socio-sym%olic field in )hich he or she is inscri%ed.hether it e+ists in ones private notion of Bod, or ones notion of government, or family, or 3)hats cool,3 or a com%ination of these things or

)hatever, the Imaginary %ig 4ther refers directly to that distinctly personali&ed social standard %y)hich each of us respectively measures ourselves - "DDe(, the ga&e of the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther is my o)n vie) of myself,)hich I see through eyes that are not authentically my o)n . Here, one should not fail to notice the

2ym%olic %ig 4thers stri(ing resem%lance to 5enthams 3Panopticon,3 that omnipresent, omniscient 3Bods-

eye-vie)3 intended to )atch over us )herever )e go. The li(eness is unmista(a%le, simply %ecause 5enthams little )et dream em%odies the %ig

4ther as such. The essential point to ta(e a)ay from this is that ones sense of !political$ 3self3 is inevita%ly %ound up)ith the locali&ation of the panoptic ga&e - that centrali&ed point of omnipresent, omniscientsurveillance. herever )e go, our image of self, as seen %y the ga&e of the %ig 4ther, al)aysfunctions for another. And further, in these times, do )e not receive constant arousal, en;oyment, from theact of )atching our o)n image of self, controlling our o)n image of self, trac(ing our o)nimage of self Though its not/ as if )e )ere the Panopticon itself, %ut rather/ %ecause )e are the Panopticon itself . e


9/64

%ring the Panopticon, the ga&e of the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther as such, )ith us )herever )e go. 2ocialnet)or(ing sites such as Face%oo(, T)itter, Instagram, etc., instantiate this. 5ut )hat, precisely, does this even mean ell, this is )here thingsget %oth revelatory and a %it complicated. The trou%le )ith all this is that, to return to Cop;ecs analysis, the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther is 3a point of

convergence of the general )ill-of-the-people.3 hat this means - and %ear )ith me here, %ecause this may turnconfusing - is that the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther, as such, signifies the very mode of appearance in)hich )e appear to ourselves, for ourselves, as )e desire to appear as such. 2o it )ould follo) that, if )eappear to ourselves, for ourselves, as images to %e controlled , manipulated, trac(ed, )atched,and so on, as )e certainly do in today s digital medium of social net)or(ing - )hich, %y the )ay,)e collectively, )illfully and, pleasura%ly participate in - then this &eitgeist of the modernma;ority )ill inevita%ly converge at a centrali&ed point/ )hich is to say, the %ig 4ther, %oth its2ym%olic and Imaginary incarnations, )ill appear in the guise of 35ig 5rother.3 At the individuallevel, each of us em%odies 35ig 5rother 3/ )e are intrigued )ith the act of )atching, trac(ing,manipulating, images of ourselves. At the 2ym%olic level, the truth of this en;oyment e+pressesitself today in all of its unsettling perversity/ PGI21.

$aerty "epro#lematizes the su#3ect 4 he misrepresents the

surveillance su#3ect as the operator of surveillance systems.

(c5rath, 6 (>ohn %! Loving Big Brother: Performance, Privacy and SurveillanceSpace! London: 9o$tledge& =887! 465! 'rint!HT

Ipiva s$ggests that readings o* the desiring machine which de0 emphasiJe thes$bKect in *act simpl de0problematiJe it 0 reinstating a transcendental s$bKect ! Wehave seen thro$gho$t o$r analsis ;* s$rveillance space that the sel* $ptaing the per*ormativit o* this space 2ndsitsel* ambig$o$sl placed in relation to s$bKectAobKect position! "s in speech acts& when the obKect o* an en$nciationma need to be s$bKectivel involved in the speech act *or it to be 1happ1& so in o$r relation to s$rveillance spacewe s$bKectivel $ptae o$r obKect position in the space! "s noted partic$larl in hapter =& part o* this $ptae o* o$robKect position ma involve the *antas o* a transcendental s$bKect o$tside o$rselves& perhaps lined to the role ;*the s$per0ego in o$r psches! Icher1s installations remind $s that this transcendental s$bKect is indeed a *antas! n*act& there is no ig rother to watch $s! Which is not to sa (and Icher certainl wo$ld not saH that the eNect ;*

s$rveillance sstems cannot be real and omino$s! ertainl& there are agents in the creation o*

s$rveillance sstems whose intents o* control are realO b$t the are notcomprehensive and the are ePceeded b the networ o* sstems ! 'olice chie*s ma*antasiJe abo$t total vis$al overview o* cit centres O bans ma long to lin o$rcredit and medical recordsO politicians ma wish to pre0 dict and marginaliJe tro$blemaers& b$t the growth o* s$rveillance sstems ePceeds all ;* these desires! t is$nderstandable& then& i*& as in Ipiva1s reading o* ,ele$Je and G$attari& the desiringmachine o* s$rveillance seems to create a *antas o* a transcendental s$rveil0 lances$bKect (ig rotherH& b$t& *ollowing Ipiva& it is dangero$s i* we con*$se this s$bKectwith the s$baltern operators o* s$rveillance sstems!

$aerty misrepresents 7oucault 4 the aze isn)t

uni"irectional.Caluya, 18 (Gilbert! Postdoctoral 5esearch )ello", 3a"ke 5esearch nstitute in the 6niversity of $outh 7ustralia. 3The 'ost0panoptic IocietB 9eassessing Fo$ca$lt in I$rveillanceIt$dies!3 Social Identities 4Q!@ (Ieptember 4@& =848H: Q=40??! Web!HT

?espite Haggerty and Ericson*s allusion to Foucault*s theory of po)er, it is clear that theyhave misinterpreted it )hen they suggest that Foucault*s panopticon could %e read as ane+tension of 4r)ell*s 5ig 5rother . 2imilarly, 1athiesen ma(es the mista(e of fetishising the po)er of the ga&e and failing to see


10/64

ho) the ga&e is only a mechanism of po)er )ithin a certain concrete assem%lage. 5oth articles presume the ga&e to %eunidirectional , %oth ma(e the mista(e of presuming the ga&e to have an inherent po)er and,importantly, %oth reinstate a sovereign su%;ect %ehind po)er. This is o%vious from theirfetishisation of the )atcher as opposed to the )atched . Far from moving %eyond Foucault * theirconception of po)er is decidedly pre-Foucault@ in emphasising the po)er of vision in

Foucault, they miss Foucault*s vision of po)er . The 7uestion, it seems to me, is not )hether )e are a post-panopticalsociety, %ut )hether the microphysics of po)er * is no longer conceptually useful.


11/64

urveillant %ssem#lae turns

/urn 4 the surveillance system is itself rhizomatic, an" it

resists e&clusionary control 4 5uattari arees.

yon, 9 (,avid! ,irects the I$rveillance It$dies entre& is a 'ro*essor o*Iociolog& holds a D$een’s 9esearch hair and is cross0appointed as a 'ro*essor inthe Fac$lt o* Law at D$een1s )niversit in Ringston& ;ntario! TheorizingSurveillance: The Panopticon and beyond! $llompton& ,evon: Willan '$b!& =88Q!4?! 'rint!HT

5ut )hat if the surveillance system itself is less than it is perceived to %e hat if, despite the %est effortsof Homeland 2ecurity and its il(, those rhi&omatic net)or(s of pulsating data cannot finally %e controlledand directed This is the more emancipatory notion e+plored %y illiam 5ogard in his ?eleu&eanela%oration of lines of flight* . Post-panoptic surveillance is deterritoriali&ed as )ell as rhi&omic and assuch resists e+clusionary control strategies. In the panopticon, )hich is a machinic* assem%lage, material flo)s are ;oined andseparated. 5ut in enunciative assem%lages, )ords are attached to things %y relations of po)er. The soul-

training of the panopticon )ith its moulded su%;ects gives )ay to fle+i%ly modulated hy%rid su%;ects,suited to varying circumstances . 5ut lines of flight )ithin these latter systems include file-sharing, decryption, using pro+ies andsousveillance as )ell as conventional political anti-surveillance strategies. ?oes this mean, as Feli+ Buattari !'#$ provocatively puts it , that there may %e safety in the machine* 5ogard*s reply %rings Heidegger !'$ into the conversation %utconcludes )ith a carefully 7ualified yes .

/urn 4 the surveillant assem#lae is rhizomatic. It

"emocratizes surveillance #y allowin the aze to #e

#i"irectional an" it "eterritorializes systems of control.

yon, 9 (,avid! ,irects the I$rveillance It$dies entre& is a 'ro*essor o*Iociolog& holds a D$een’s 9esearch hair and is cross0appointed as a 'ro*essor in

the Fac$lt o* Law at D$een1s )niversit in Ringston& ;ntario! TheorizingSurveillance: The Panopticon and beyond! $llompton& ,evon: Willan '$b!& =88Q!48=0?! 'rint!HT

5y definition rhi&omes are nonlinear , non %inary, and non unitary structures !even the term structure* is potentiallymisleading$. Ho) accurate can this model %e for a control system that grounds itself in information science Information science is %ased on a tree model )hose content is articulated in normal !central tendency$ pro%a%ility functions, not on the model of arhi&ome. And tree models, as ?eleu&e and Buattari note, invaria%ly serve closed, hierarchical systems of decision and control J the state, the

police, the corporation, and so on !?eleu&e and Buattari 'K/ J$. 4n the other hand, if the emerging net)or( of glo%alsurveillance is an open system in )hich each information node can and must connect to every other , thenit ma(es sense to call this system a rhi&ome . Certainly, surveillance today is more decentrali&ed , lesssu%;ect to spatial and temporal constraints !location, time of day, etc.$, and less organi&ed than ever %efore %y the

dualisms of o%server and o%served, su%;ect and o%;ect, individual and mass. The system of control isdeterritoriali&ing , and the effects of this are to intensify %ut also, in a very real sense, to democrati&esurveillance . The very logic of information net)or(s that information must %e free to flo) %et)een any part of the system, for surveillance means more )ays to o%serve the o%servers , %ypass their fire)alls,access their data%ases and decode their communications. The 7uestion today is )hether centres of po)er J states orcorporations J can control the glo%al net)or(s their o)n information re7uirements push them to produce. Certainly, they can ma(e some (inds of information very difficult to access, and this is easier for them the more net)or(s are li(e trees !)here all %ranches emanate from a single trun(

or central stem$. 5ut if net)or(s are rhi&omes, information %ecomes ne+t to impossi%le to secure, and nofire)all, pass)ord or encryption technology )or(s for long. If net)or(s are rhi&omes, po)er %ased onsecurity or secrecy has good reason to %e concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontario


12/64

/urn 0 the surveillant assem#lae can #e li#eratory. It tears

"own hierarchies of privilee an" control, "estroys

panopticism, an" even strenthens resistance to itself.

yon, 9 (,avid! ,irects the I$rveillance It$dies entre& is a 'ro*essor o*Iociolog& holds a D$een’s 9esearch hair and is cross0appointed as a 'ro*essor inthe Fac$lt o* Law at D$een1s )niversit in Ringston& ;ntario! TheorizingSurveillance: The Panopticon and beyond! $llompton& ,evon: Willan '$b!& =88Q!448! 'rint!HT

Today, many of these connections of the modern prison have %een informated*, a technical transformation %egun in the earliest penitentiaries as o%servations )ere already converted into data*, and one that even then alreadyforeshado)ed the e+tension of panoptic systems to the regulation and control of all areas and levels of life!carceral society*, as Foucault descri%es it, is precisely this deterritoriali&ation of )ider society on the prison, and the prison*s deterritoriali&ationon )ider society, )ithin the sphere of everyday life, or )hat Hardt and Legri refer to as %iopolitical production* !Hardt and Legri "##/ +vi$$.

e are no) at a point )here this transformation, at least in terms of information flo)s , render s the distinction inside vs.outside the prison* almost useless. Although this development in one sense has made us all prisoners of

the surveillance assem%lage, it has also made a prisoner of the assem%lage itself %y threatening to ma(eits operations more transparent and its efforts to profit from information more difficult. It has to set upmachines to flee its o)n capture !encryption, pass)ord protection, fire)alls, simulation$, %ut those machines are difficultto secure in a net)or(ed society )here any information refuses to stay loc(ed up for long. As Foucault understood, thetechni7ues of verification developed in the prison are turned %ac( on the prison , )hich from the %eginning %ecomes the o%;ect of pu%lic scrutiny and investigation. hen these techni7ues are informated, and then %ecome )idely availa%le to the general population J facilitated %y the e+pansion of electronic net)or(s and gro)ing access to computers J the potential for totali&ing control gro)s, %ut so does the potential for resistance to that control. ?Mrrenmattimagined contemporary society as an electronic nightmare of surveillance, )here everyone o%serves the o%server of theo%server, everyone is )atched and recorded %y everyone else , and the entire system of verification isgiven up to a net)or( J a net)or(, ho)ever, that contains no more privileged points of access or escape,no more hierarchical control of o%servation, no more panoptic structuring of visi%ility !?Mrrenmatt 'KK$.

/urn 4 the surveillant assem#lae has #rouht a#out a newform of resistance to control 4 #iopolitical pro"uction. /his has

"eterritorialize" social relations in a way that un"ermines

#ipolitical control.

yon, 9 (,avid! ,irects the I$rveillance It$dies entre& is a 'ro*essor o*Iociolog& holds a D$een’s 9esearch hair and is cross0appointed as a 'ro*essor inthe Fac$lt o* Law at D$een1s )niversit in Ringston& ;ntario! TheorizingSurveillance: The Panopticon and beyond! $llompton& ,evon: Willan '$b!& =88Q!44=07! 'rint!HT

The ne) common* , as Hardt and Legri descri%e it, refers to the hegemony of immaterial production* in the postmodernglo%al organi&ation of la%our !Hardt and Legri "##/ +v$. Information net)or(s increasingly order all sectors of production in the glo%al economy J manufacturing, agriculture and services. Hardt and Legri do not argue that productiontoday has someho) %ecome immaterial, or disappeared, %ut rather that immaterial forces structure and connect very different spheres of

production, that these forces have %ecome hegemonic in 7ualitative terms and have imposed a tendency on other forms of la%our and society

itself*, hence the term common* !Hardt and Legri "##/ '#$. 6ust as '0# years ago economic and social production )ereorgani&ed %y the industrial model*, and all forms of la%our had to industriali&e even though industry in itself accounted foronly a small proportion of glo%al output, today production is structured %y the information sector of the economy despite itssi&e relative to glo%al production as a )hole. Immaterial production is the production of ideas, (no)ledge,communication , affects and social relations , and today la%or and society have to informationali&e, %ecome intelligent, %ecome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontariohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston,_Ontario


13/64

communicative, %ecome affective* !Hardt and Legri "##/ '#$. ltimately, immaterial production is geared not ;ust to themanufacture of goods or services, %ut to the production and control of life itself. Hardt and Legri %orro) Foucault*s conceptof %iopo)er* to name the form of sovereignty that today rules over the ne) common !Foucault 'K@ Hardt and Legri "###/ 'KJ"0$.

5iopo)er is the negative form of the common . It refers to a production of life that simultaneously threatens the planet )ith destruction and death !)ar, ecological catastrophe, the annihilation of species$. Hardt and Legri often descri%e therule of %iopo)er as a state of glo%al civil )ar, governed %y e+ceptionalism and unilateralism in glo%al politics and economics,

highintensity police actions and preemptive stri(es, and of course net)or(ed surveillance . It is )hat irilio has called else)here a state ofpure )ar*, or )hat 5audrillard has referred to as virtual, simulated )ar !5audrillard '0a@ irilio '$. hatever its name, the dominantclimate of the ne) common is fear, ho)ever %roadly that term is defined, accompanied %y the need for safety and security !or the a%sence of ris($

!5ec( '", '$. In postmodernity, the need for security replaces defence as the moral ;ustification for glo%al policeDsurveillance interventions of all (inds, in military matters to %e sure, %ut also in economic, political and cultural affairs, in matters ofhealth, se+uality, education, entertainment, 0 and so on. ar* %ecomes the common frame)or( through )hich all pro%lems are recogni&ed andaddressed, %oth in the relation of states to other states, %ut of states to their o)n populations as )ell. In fact, )hen it comes to the multiplicity of

)ars in postmodernity, the old categories of international or intranational conflict no longer apply. The regime of %iopo)er, li(e themodern system of penality, has no )alls and is truly a glo%al form of sovereignty @ it dismantles the old oppositions

%et)een pu%lic and private spheres, erases the economic and political %oundaries %et)een states, and aims at thea%solute elimination of ris( in advance through the development of sophisticated communications and informationgathering and decoding technologies@ that is, through net)or(s of surveillance and control. ?idier 5igo discusses this atlength in this volume. The ne) common , ho)ever, organi&ed %y %iopo)er and su%;ect to the controls of net)or(edsurveillance, also has li%eratory and democratic potential s, )hich Hardt and Legri locate in )hat they call%iopolitical production* , the production of the multitude* !)hich for them has replaced industrial la%our as the postmodern forceof revolutionary change$ !Hardt and Legri "##$. 5iopolitical production is not %iopo)er , although it is not the opposite of %iopo)ereither. 5oth engage the production of life and social relations in their entirety, %ut in very different )ays. Hardt and Legri )rite, 5iopo)erstands a%ove society, transcendent, as a sovereign authority and imposes its order. 5iopolitical production , incontrast, is immanent to society and creates social relations and forms through colla%orative forms of la%or* !Hardt and

Legri "##/ J0$. 5iopo)er is the ne) form of empire , )hereas %iopolitical production is the ne) form of resistanceto empire . 5oth are effects of changes in the organi&ation of production %rought a%out %y the advent of postmodernsystems of control @ that is, %y transformations in the surveillance assem%lage and the e+pansion of informationnet)or(s. In arguments reminiscent of 1ar+ that the development of the means of glo%al communication creates the potential for therevolutionary organi&ation of la%our, they sho) ho) glo%al information systems have desta%ili&ed not only traditional forms of private propertyand have cut across class divisions, %ut also race, gender and other hierarchies, producing a common poverty* from )hich ne) forms of

democratic participation and social creativity can emerge. It is as if %iopo)er , the system of sovereign control supported %y

glo%al surveillance and the culture of )ar and fear, had produced the very communicative and geopoliticalconditions necessary for the development of a shared humanity . Hardt and Legri are 7uic( to point out, ho)ever, that the idea ofa ne) common* does not imply the sameness of its elements or some transcendent identity standing over society, %ut rather consists ofsingularities )hose differences constitute a heterogeneous multiplicity capa%le of spontaneous organi&ation and the po)er to deconstruct the

glo%al sovereign regime of %iopo)er !Hardt and Legri "##/ '"KJ$. Today, despite differences of class, race, gender , nation,occupation, language, religion, age, etc., ne) forms of resistance are arising grounded in the common su%;ection ofthe glo%al population to the imperatives of %iopo)er , and its common transformation of la%our into a glo%al net)or( of informated production. Ironically, the surveillance assem%lage has opened a ne) de territoriali&ed space ofcommunication that )ith time may undermine the regime of glo%al %iopo)er . 5iopo)er depends on the control ofinformation, %ut also on the rhi&omatic 7ualities of net)or(s to facilitate glo%al production and coordinate the glo%aldivision of la%our. These are contradictory ends, %ut %eyond that, they point to a ne) refuge from po)er in net)or(s that is a%sent in

panoptic systems. In the latter, one had to find a space )ithin a confined area )here one could hide in plain sight. In the former, one can hidein all the multiplicity of )ays information provides, and the possi%ilities of resistance are greatly e+panded .


14/64

Impact wor+


15/64

*iopti& turns*iopower in a ':(CR%/IC overnment is vital to rihts,

tolerance, an" inclusion;this ta+es out their all of their

impacts

'ic+inson 6 (%dward 9oss ,icinson& "ssociate 'ro*essor& #istor 'h!,!& )!!erele& =887 “iopolitics& Fascism& ,emocrac: Iome 9eSections on ;$r ,isco$rse"bo$t “Modernit&” entral %$ropean #istor& vol! ?E& no! 4& 476H

n the Weimar model& then& the rights o* the individ$al& g$aranteed *ormall b theconstit$tion and s$bstantivel b the wel*are sstem& were the central element o*the dominant program *or the management o* social problems! "lmost no one in this periodadvocated ePpanding social provision o$t o* the goodness o* their hearts! This was a strateg o* socialmanagement& o* social engineering! The mainstream o* social re*orm in German believed that g$aranteeingbasic social rightsU the s$bstantive or positive *reedom o* all citiJens U was the best wa to t$rn people into

power& prosperit& and pro2t! n that sense& the democratic wel*are state wasU and is Udemocratic not despite o* its p$rs$it o* biopower & b$t beca$se o* it! The contrast

with the


16/64

from the beginning, the welfare of the individual and of the entire population , theimprovement of their condition, the increase of their wealth, their longevity, health andeven happinessE4 happiness of “all and everyone” (omnes et sing$latimH: “The solep$rpose o* the police”& one o* the 2rst instit$tional loci o* the nascent biopower& “isto lead man to the $tmost happiness to be enKoed in this li*e”& wrote ,e Lamare in

Treat on the 'olice at the beginning o* the eighteenth cent$r!E= "ccording toFo$ca$lt& one sho$ld not& however& concentrate onl on the modern state in looing*or the origin o* biopower! ;ne sho$ld ePamine also the religio$s tradition o* theWest& especiall the >$deo0hristian idea o* a shepherd as a political leader o* hispeople!E?


17/64

ur e"ucation is #etter/heir claims that philosophical e"ucation is universally

#ene-cial are >awe". (a+e them -n" evi"ence speci-c to

'eleuzian e"ucation or ma+e them "efen" teachin (althus,

Nietzsche, an" other nihilistic philosophy to youn chil"ren.


18/64

5eneral 'n5 Case


19/64

No olvency


20/64

1nc?War (achine speci-c@ No solvency a"vocate0 No evi"ence that

says that a war machine woul" actually stop measures of

surveillance on social movements. Aour only way to solve is to

collapse the entire structure of the state

/he War (achine fails to ma+e chane0 micropolitics "oes not

ma+e macro chanes an" it 3ust ets place" #ac+ into the

capitalistic system.

'ean, odi ,ean& 'ro*essor o* 'olitical Icience at #obart and William ImithollegeO“ViJe against democrac&” Law& $lt$re and the #$manities& +ol$me =&


21/64

(ovements outsi"e of politics fail an" et place" in the

capitalistic system #y elties.

Bize+


22/64

monopol& we wo$ld have the abs$rd sit$ation in which a private individ$al wo$ld literall own the so*tware tePt$reo$r basic networ o* comm$nication!H 3ommons3 also incl$de the shared in*rastr$ct$re o* p$blic transport&electricit& post& etc!& and the commons o* ePternal nat$re threatened b poll$tion and ePploitation (*rom oil to*orests and nat$ral habitatH& as well as the commons o* internal nat$re (the biogenetic inheritance o* h$manitH!What all these str$ggles share is an awareness o* the destr$ctive potentialU$p to the sel*0annihilation o* h$manit

itsel*Ui* the capitalist logic o* enclosing these commons is allowed a *ree rein! t is thisre*erence to 3commons3Uthis s$bstance o* prod$ctivit that is neither private nor p$blicUthat K$sti2es the

res$scitation o* the notion o* omm$nism! ommons can th$s be lined to what #egel& in his 'henomenolog&deploed as die Iache& the shared social thing0ca$se& 3the wor o* all and everone&3 the s$bstance ept alive bincessant s$bKective prod$ctivit!@ [%nd 'age 77\

/he a)s re3ection of the state "ooms them to repro"uce the

hierarchal structures they critique. /heir author conclu"es

ne.

5uattari an" Rolni+ 9 (FeliP and I$el& schitJoanalsts and revol$tionaries&456Q& “Molec$lar 9evol$tion in raJil& p!4=804=4H

omment: t1s good that o$ mentioned those homoseP$als who wored within the sstem as lawers ands$cceeded in shaing it $p! #ere& everone loos down on the instit$tional part!_ G$attari: That1s sill!_ omment:

The thin that dealing with the instit$tional side is re*ormism& that it doesn1tchange anthing! "s *ar as the1re concerned& the instit$tions sho$ld be ignored beca$se onl one ind o*thing is worthwhile& anarchismUwhich -$estion deepl! thin it1s ver naive& as o$ o$rsel* sa& toignore the state on the basis that 3it1s $seless&3 or 3it oppresses $s&3 and there*oreto leave it aside and tr to do something totall *rom o$tside& as tho$gh it might bepossible *or $s to destro it lie that ! _ I$el 9olni: This malaise in relation to instit$tions is nothingnewO on the contrar& the *eeling is partic$larl strong in o$r generation which& since the45Q8s& has taen instit$tions as one o* its main targets! $t it1s tr$e that the malaise has beenespeciall prono$nced in raJil over the last *ew ears& and in m view this m$st have to do with an absol$telobKective (and obvio$sH *act& which is the hardness o* the dictatorship to which we were s$bKected *or so long! Therigidit o* that regime is embodied in all the co$ntr1s instit$tions& in one wa or anotherO in *act& that constit$ted an

important *actor *or the permanence o* the dictatorship in power over so man ears!_ $t thin that thisantiinstit$tional malaise& whatever its ca$se& doesn1t end there: the *eeling that theinstit$tions are contaminated territories& and the concl$sion that nothing sho$ld beinvested in them& is o*ten the ePpression o* a de*ensive role ! This ind o* sensationis& in m view& the Sip side o* the *ascination with the instit$tion that characteriJes the3b$rea$cratic libido!3 These two attit$des reall satis* the same need& which is to $se the prevailing *orms&the instit$ted& as the sole& ePcl$sive parameter in the organiJation o* onesel* and o* relations with the other& and

th$s avoid s$cc$mbing to the danger o* collapse that might be bro$ght abo$t b an ind o* change! Those aretwo stles o* smbiosis with the instit$tion: either 3gl$e3 adhesion andidenti2cation (those who adopt this stle base their identit on the 3instit$ted3H& or else rep$lsion andco$nteridenti2cation (those who adopt this stle base their identit on negation o* the3instit$ted&3 as i* there were something 3o$tside3 the instit$tions& a s$pposed3alternative3 space to this worldH!_ Ieen in this light& both 3alternativism 3 and

3b$rea$cratism3 restrict themselves to approaching the world *rom the viewpoint o*its *orms and representations & *rom a molar viewpointO the protect themselvesagainst accessing the molec$lar plane& where new sensations are being prod$cedand composed and $ltimatel *orce the creation o* new *orms o* realit&! The bothreSect a blocage o* instit$ting power& an impossibilit o* s$rrender to the processes o* sing$lariJation& a need *orconservation o* the prevailing *orms& a diXc$lt in gaining access to the molec$lar plane& where the new is

engendered! t1s more diXc$lt& to perceive this in the case o* 3alternativism&3 beca$se itinvolves the hall$cination o* a s$pposedl parallel world that _ emanates the ill$siono* $n*ettered a$tonom and *reedom o* creationO and K$st when we thin we1ve got awa *rom


23/64

3s-$areness3 we ris s$cc$mbing to it again& in a more disg$ised *orm! n this respect& agree with o$: theinstit$tions aren1t going to be changed b pretending that the don1t ePist!


24/64

$l =84@!HT

Central to =i>e(*s account of the modern state is the concept of Nan o%scene underside of the la)O, namely )idespread practices J petty ta+ evasion, speeding, )al(ing on the grass, etc J )hich , although strictly spea(ing illicit, are unofficially tolerated. This net)or( of practices is sustained than(s to )hat =i>e( calls an Nideological phantasyO that (eeps them an Nopen secretO J everyone (no)s a%outand participates in them in private, %ut no one mentions them, let alone pu%licly flaunts participating in them.2uch practices constitute points of failure of the la) in so far as they fall in an indeterminate &one in relation to legalcategories/ on the one hand, in so far as they are tolerated they are not straightfor)ardly illegal, %ut, on the

other hand, neither are they legal@ and as such, constitute a fundamental illegality at the heart of the legal system. =i>e(*s point isthat, rather than undermining the la), the o%scene underside of the la) sustains it J the la) istolerated %ecause of the little secret pleasures that people derive from its o%scene underside. In8acanian terms, )e may say that the o%scene underside of the la) is the set of necessary %ut repressed points of failure of the legal system J in short, it is the symptom of the legal system. In particular, in the conte+t of alegal state apparatus that is held in place %y a panoptic system of surveillance, the o%sceneunderside of the la) is a liminal &one of high an+iety that , li(e the Emperor*s %ody under hisne) clothes, is o%scenely visi%le to each of his su%;ect s in the privacy of their o)n visual field,yet must %e shrouded in a cloa( of invisi%ility in the pu%lic realm. This is the site of the ga&e. Ho) are )eto oppose such a system, )hich seemingly coe+ists )ith, indeed depends upon its o)n systematic transgression According to =i>e(,not %y acts of resistance, since the system is readily a%le to accommodate, indeed depends upon such acts. Instead, =i>e(suggests opposition through acts of overconformity , )hich, rather than protest ing let alone %rea(ing the la), insist upon it to the letter, even )hen ideological Ncommon senseO suggestsother)ise . In particular, this means a refusal to turn a N%lind eyeO from manifestations of la)*so%scene underside. As =i>e( puts it/ N2ometimes, at least J the truly su%versive thing is not to disregard thee+plicit letter of 8a) on %ehalf of the underlying fantasies, %ut to stick to this letter against the fantasy which sustains it .Is not an e+emplary case of such su%version-through-identification provided %y 6aroslav Hase(*s TheGood Soldier Schweik , the novel )hose hero )rea(s total havoc %y simply e+ecuting the orders of his superiors in an over&ealous and all-too-

literal )ay !=i>e( '/


25/64

/heir aErmation of lines of >iht an" "eterritorialization

ma+es concrete solvency impossi#le. *y constructin a state0

war machine "ualism, they "eter focus from the real, material

e&ploitation in the worl".

$allwar", 9 ('eter! "*ter woring in the French department at Ring1s ollegeLondon (45550=887H& he Koined the entre *or 9esearch in Modern %$ropean'hilosoph in =88@& when it was based at MiddleseP )niversit& and he moved toRingston with other members o* the 9M%' in =848! #ut of This $orld: %eleuze andthe Philosophy of Creation! London: +erso& =88Q! 4Q40Q=! 'rint!HT


26/64

/he War (achine fails #ecause it oers no cohesion. Nee" to

-n" social chane to solve.

$allwar" 89 (=88QO 'eter #allward& 'ro*essor o* Modern %$ropean 'hilosoph atRingston )niversit London& specialiJes in ,ele$Je& Fo$ca$lt& Iartre& adio$&9anciereO #ut of this $orld: %eleuze and the Philosophy of Creation& +erso London&

pg! 4Q=04Q7AA "GH,ele$Je writes a philosoph o* (virt$alH diNerence witho$t (act$alH others! #e int$its a p$rel internal or sel*0diNering diNerence& a diNerence that ePcl$des an constit$tive mediation between the diNered! I$ch a philosoph

precl$des a distinctivel relational conception o* politics as a matter o* co$rse! The politics o* the *$t$reare liel to depend less on virt$al mobilit tan on more resilient *orms o* cohesion& on moreresistant *orms o* de*ence! 9ather than align o$rselves with the nomadic warmachine& o$r 2rst tas sho$ld be to develop appropriate was o* responding to thenewl aggressive techni-$es o* invasion& penetration and occ$pation which serve to policethe embattled margins o* empire! n a perverse twist o* *ate& it ma be that toda& in places lie 'alestine& #aiti& andra-& the agents o* imperialism have more to learn *rom ,ele$Jian rhiJomatics than do their opponents! "s we haverepeatedl seen& the second corollar o* ,ele$Je’s dis-$ali2cation o* act$alit concerns the paralsis o* the s$bKector actor! Iince what powers ,ele$Je’s cosmolog is the immediate diNerentiation o* creation thro$gh the in2nite

proli*eration o* virt$al creatings& the creat$res that act$aliJe these creatings are con2ned to a derivative i* notlimiting role! " creat$re’s own interests& actions or decisions are o* minimal or preliminar signi2cance at best: therenewal o* creation alwas re-$ires the paralsis and dissol$tion o* the creat$re per se! The notion o* a constrained

or sit$ated *reedom& the notion that a s$bKect’s own decisions might gen$ineconse-$ences the whole notion& in short& o* strategy is thoro$ghl *oreign to ,ele$Je’sconception o* tho$ght! ,ele$Je obliges $s& in other words& to mae an absol$te distinction between what as$bKect does or decides and what is done or decided thro$gh the s$bKect! rendering this distinction absol$te he

abandons the categor o* the s$bKect altogether! #e abandons the decisive s$bKect in *avo$r o*o$r more immediate s$bKection to the imperatives o* creative li*e or tho$ght!,eprived o* an strategic apparat$s& ,ele$Je’s philosoph th$s combines the sel*0gro$nding s$Xcienc o* p$re *orce or in2nite per*ection with o$r smmetrical limitation to p$recontemplation or in0action! ;n the one hand& ,ele$Je alwas maintains that ‘there are never an criteria otherthan the tenor o* ePistence& the intensi2cation o* li*e’! "bsol$te li*e or creation tolerates no norm ePternal to itsel*!

The creative movement that orients $s o$t o* the world does not depend on a transcendent val$e beond the world!"*ter IpinoJa& a*ter


27/64

/he War (achine causes sinularity0 ta+es movements out of

politics which is +ey to solve.

omers0$all 8F (=88EO #enr Iomers0#all& 'ro*essor o* 'hilosoph at 9oal#ollowa at )niverst o* LondonO “The 'olitics o* reation&”http:AAwww=!warwic!ac!$A*acAsocAphilosophApeopleA*ormerresearchst$dentsAhenr

0somers0hallAthepoliticso*creation0henrsomers0hall!pd*AA "GH'eter #allward’s st$d o* ,ele$Je aims “to go right to the heart o* [his\ philosoph”= thro$gh the charting o* one“broadl consistent co$rse”& that o* the implications o* ,ele$Je’s pres$mption that eing is creativit! n chartings$ch a co$rse& #allward is able indeed to provide what is a thoro$gh and consistent interpretation o* the wor o*,ele$Je& showing admirable *amiliarit with both bibliographical and thematic aspects o* the ,ele$Jian sstem! nasserting that there is an essentiall stable proKect thro$gho$t ,ele$Je’s philosophical development& #allwarddraws on the *$ll reso$rces o* ,ele$Je’s writing across (almostH all maKor domains& and there is certainl some tr$thto his claim that the g$iding theme o* ,ele$Je’s philosoph is creativit! * philosoph is to be seen as the creationo* concepts& s$rel o$r primar tas is to $nravel the concept o* creation! n per*orming this tas o* identi*ing bothconcept$al slippages and contin$ities between the vario$s terms and periods o* ,ele$Je’s writings& #allward isindeed able to present the wor o* ,ele$Je as providing a coherent interpretation o* eing! n doing so& 'eter#allward reKects an ePplanation o* ,ele$Je’s sstem based on the parallels with modern scienti2c models& insteadrightl resit$ating ,ele$Je within the tradition o* philosoph! F$ndamental to this is the recognition o* theimportance o* ergson as a e prec$rsor& which means that #allward does not *all into the trap o* interpreting

,ele$Je as a thiner o* the m$ltiple thro$gh a *alse reading o* ,ele$Jian diNerence as diversit! n his interpretationo* ,ele$Je& however& #allward displas a degree o* hostilit to what he taes to be both the aims and theconse-$ences o* ,ele$Je’s ontolog! n his *oc$s on creation& which ‘precedes’ the individ$al itsel* as diNerentiated&#allward will arg$e& ,ele$Je is onl able to *$l2l his magical *orm$la& “'L)9"LIM C M;


28/64

called *or! nstead o* this& on #allward’s reading& ,ele$Je is arg$ing that one sho$ld move to p$re contemplationo* the world! “The real preocc$pation o* [#allward’s\ boo concerns the val$e o* this advice!”44

7ail to ma+e actual chane0 their authors +eep the "ialoue

oin only to ma+e sure chane "oes not occur.Bize+ 8


29/64

War (achine Impact /urn


30/64

1ncWar (achine causes total e&tinction.

am#ert 18 (Gregg Lambert& 'ro*essor o* #$manities and Fo$nding ,irector o*the #$manities entre at Irac$se )niversitO “The War Machine and ‘a people who

revolt&’” Theor %vent 4?!?&http:AAm$se!Kh$!ed$AKo$rnalsAtheorandeventAv84?A4?!?!lambert!htmlAA "GH

n concl$sion& will ris providing m own perspective on this -$estion& which will tae the *orm o* a hpothesis concerning twoareas o* *$t$re research or lines o* in-$ir! "ccording to the earlier statement -$oted above& there is one point o* view where thediNerence between the two poles is greatest: death! n other words& it is b inhabiting this perspective that one might introd$ce amaPimal diNerence in order to separate violence *rom violence& in order to ca$se something to appear! "s ,ele$Je and G$attarispec$late& this something C P wo$ld have to do with what the call the “incommens$rable character o* the -$antities that con*rontone another in the two inds o* warmachines!” ?5 n order to occ$p the perspective or “point o* view” o* death& as i* staring o$t*rom death’s own ees& one line o* research wo$ld be to contin$e to analJe the ePceptional 2g$res that ,ele$Je and G$attari

themselves privilege! ;n the one hand& there is "hab& and death is e-$al to the vision o* a white wall andthe


31/64

sands& *or ePample& diNers -$alitativel *rom the striated 2elds o* the sedentar state dwellers! et this contrast o*smooth and striated spaces& tho$gh initiall *ramed in geographic terms& ,ele$Je and G$attari ePtend in a n$mber;* was& to incl$de diNerent arti*acts (*elt vs *abricH& diNerent inds o* time ($np$lsed rhthm vs p$lsed meterH&diNerent *orms o* tho$ght (nomad science vs roal science& *ractal geometr vs %$clidean geometrH& diNerent

approaches to the arts (%gptian& Gothic or Jantine art vs Greco09oman artH and so on! )ltimatel& the 3warmachine3 is simpl a term *or the metamorphic *orce o* deterritorialiJation & and3smooth space3 the name ;* the bod witho$t organs& ;r plane o* consistenc&created and permeated b that metamorphic *orce! "s ,ele$Je ePplains in an interview on "

Tho$sand 'latea$s: We de2ne the 3war machine3 as a linear assemblage which constr$cts itsel* on lines o* Sight! nthis sense& the war machine does not at all have war as its obKectO it has as its obKect a ver special space& smoothspace& which it composes& occ$pies and propagates! &+omc$iLm is precisel this combination 3war machine0smooth space!3 We tr to show how and in what case the war machine taes war *or its obKect (when theapparat$ses ;* the Itate appropriate the war machine which does not initiall belong to themH! " war machinetends to be revol$tionar& or artistic& m$ch more so than militar! '' I;UI 4A??4 The war machine does not havewar as its obKect& et still it is called the war machine& and tho$gh its *$nction is primaril revol$tionar or artistic&

its name is inseparable *rom a militar domain! What , ele$Je and G $attari rein*orce thro$gh thisterm is the problematic relation between deterritorialiJing metamorphosis andviolence & which& as we have seen& the also *rame in terms o* the bod witho$torgans and its dangero$s do$bles& the s$icidal and cancero$s bodies witho$torgans! The dangers o* constr$cting a bod witho$t organs are dangers o* violence& riss that a creative&metamorphic war machine will t$rn into a veritable machine o* war& a negative *orce bent solel on destr$ction! t isstriing how *re-$entl images ;* war& especiall ;* an apocalptic sort& appear in the lrics o* death and blacmetal (and occasionall doom as wellH! ;*ten the persona in death and blac metal songs adopts the pose o* awarrior and espo$ses an ethos o* $nrestrained destr$ction! The warriors imagined in these songs& however& are notrepresentatives ;* an organiJed militar regime b$t embodiments ;* an anarchic *orce ;* chaos! The inhabit aspace o$tside the reg$lar order o* an state apparat$s and serve as mthic 2g$res o* a dimension o* $nrestrained

social $pheaval! What this rec$rring imager ;* warriors& battle2elds and "rmageddons$ggests & 2nall& is that the m$sic o* death& doom and blac metal is a war machineever becoming machine ;* war& a machine ;* war perpet$all t$rning bac into awar machine& a m$sic *oc$sed on the perilo$s relation between ecstaticdeterritorialiJation and s$icidal or *ascistic annihilation!


32/64


33/64

co$rage s$stains also Mao1s (inH*amo$s stance towards a new atomic world war: We stand 2rml *or peace andagainst war! $t i* the imperialists insist on $nleashing another war& we sho$ld not be a*raid o* it! ;$r attit$de onthis -$estion is the same as o$r attit$de towards an dist$rbance: 2rst& we are against itO second& we are not a*raido* it! The First World War was *ollowed b the birth o* the Ioviet )nion with a pop$lation o* =88 million! The IecondWorld War was *ollowed b the emergence o* the socialist camp with a combined pop$lation o* 588 million! * theimperialists insist on la$nching a third world war& it is certain that several h$ndred million more will t$rn tosocialism& and then there will not be m$ch room le*t on earth *or the imperialists!

War (achine creates violence.'eleuze an" 5uattari 1JF (Gilles ,ele$Je and FeliP G$attariO ( ThousandPlateus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia& http:AAproKectlamar!comAmediaA"0Tho$sand0'latea$s!pd*AA"GH

We now come to three s$ccessive problems! First& is the battle the 3obKect3 o* warB $t also& is war the 3obKect3 o*the war machineB "nd 2nall& to what ePtent is the war machine the 3obKect3 o* the Itate appara0 t$sB Theambig$it o* the 2rst two problems is certainl d$e to the term 3obKect&3 b$t implies their dependenc on the third!We m$st nevertheless approach these problems grad$all& even i* we are red$ced to m$ltipling ePamples! The 2rst-$estion& that o* the battle& re-$ires an immediate dis0 tinction to be made between two cases: when a battle isso$ght& and when it is essentiall avoided b the war machine! These two cases in no wa coin0 cide with theoNensive and the de*ensive! $t war in the strict sense (according to a conception o* it that c$lminated in FochHdoes seem to have the battle as its obKect& whereas g$errilla war*are ePplicitl aims *or the nonbattle! #owever& the

development o* war into the war o* movement& and into total war& also places the notion o* the battle in -$estion&as m$ch *rom the oNensive as the de*ensive points o* view: the concept o* the nonbattle seems capable o*ePpressing the speed o* a Sash attac& and the co$nterspeed o* an immediate response!487 onversel& thedevelopment o* g$erilla war*are implies a moment when& and *orms $nder which& a bat0 tle m$st be eNectivelso$ght& in connection with ePterior and interior 3s$pport points!3 "nd it is tr$e that g$errilla war*are and war properare constantl borrowing each other1s methods and that the borrowings r$n e-$all in both directions (*or ePample&stress has o*ten been laid on the inspirations land0based g$errilla war*are received *rom maritime warH! "ll we cansa is that the battle and the nonbattle are the do$ble obKect o* war& according to a criterion that does not coincidewith the oNensive and the de*ensive& or even with war proper and g$errilla war*are! That is wh we p$sh the-$estion *$rther bac& asing i* war itsel* is the obKect o* the war machine! t is not at all obvio$s! To the ePtent that

war (with or witho$t the battleH aims *or the annihilation or capit$lation o* enem *orces& the war machinedoes not necessaril have war as its obKect (*or ePample& the raid can be seen asanother obKect& rather than as a partic0 $lar *orm o* warH! $t more generall& we have seen that the warmachine was the invention o* the nomad& beca$se it is in its essence the constit$tive element o* smooth space& theocc$pation o* this space& displacement within this space& and the corresponding composition o* people: this is itssole and veritable positive obKect (nomosH! Mae the desert& the steppe& growO do not depop$late it& -$ite the

contrar! * war necessaril res$lts& it is beca$se the war machine collides with Itatesand cities& as *orces (o* stri0ationH opposing its positive obKect: *rom then on& the war machine has asits enem the Itate& the cit& the state and $rban phenomenon& and adopts as its obKective theirannihilation! t is at this point that the war machine becomes war: annihilate the *orces o* the Itate&destro the Itate0*orm! The "ttila& or Genghis Rhan& advent$re clearl ill$strates this progression *rom the positive

obKect to the negative obKect! Ipeaing lie "ristotle& we wo$ld sa that war is neither the conditionnor the obKect o* the war machine& b$t necessaril accompanies or completes it Ospeaing lie ,errida& we wo$ld sa that war is the 3s$pplement3 o* the war machine! t ma evenhappen that this s$pplementarit is comprehended thro$gh a progressive& anPiet0ridden revelation! I$ch& *orePample& was the adven0 t$re o* Moses: leaving the %gptian Itate behind& la$nching into the desert& he begins b*orming a war machine& on the inspiration o* the old past o* the nomadic #ebrews and on the advice o* his *ather0in0

law& who came *rom the nomads! This is the machine o* the >$st& alread a war machine& b$t one that does not ethave war as its obKect! Moses realiJes& little b lit0 tle& in stages& that war is the necessar s$pplemento* that machine& beca$se it enco$nters or m$st cross cities and Itates& beca$se it m$st send ahead spies(armed observationH& then perhaps tae things to ePtremes (war o* annihilationH! Then the >ewish people ePperiencedo$bt& and *ear that the are not strong eno$ghO b$t Moses also do$bts& he shrins be*ore the revela0 tion o* this

s$pplement! "nd it will be >osh$a& not Moses& who is charged with waging war! Finall& speaing lie Rant& wewo$ld sa that the relation between war and the war machine is necessar b$t3snthetic3 (ahweh is necessar *or the snthesisH! The -$estion o* war& in t$rn& is p$shed *$rther bac and iss$bordinated to the relations between the war machine and the Itate apparat$s! tates were not the


34/64

-rst to ma+e war: war& o* co$rse& is not a phenomenon one 2nds in the $niversalit o*


35/64

Israeli 'efense 7orces /urn


36/64

1nc/he I'7)s use of the war machine causes massive structural

violence an" oppression.

Weizman ohn Forester& and otherarchitects! We are reading Gregor atesonO we are reading liNord GeertJ!


37/64

machine” and the “state apparat$s”! n the ,F we now o*ten $se the term “to smooth o$t space” when we want to re*er tooperation in a space as i* it had no borders! [^\ 'alestinian areas co$ld indeed be tho$ght o* as “striated” in the sense that the are

enclosed b *ences& walls& ditches& roads blocs and so on!’[@\ When ased him i* moving thro$gh wallswas part o* it& he ePplained that& ‘n


38/64


39/64

Noma"oloy /urn


40/64

1ncNoma"oloy turn0 Noma"s are futile0 aErmin the Noma" an"

war machine creates an inherent "ialectic that creates no

chane.

(ann J= (455@O 'a$l Mann& 'ro*essor o* %nglish at 'omona ollegeO “It$pid)ndergro$nds&” http:AApmc!iath!virginia!ed$AtePt0onlAiss$e!@5@Amann!@5@AA"GH

ntellect$al economics g$arantees that even the most power*$l and challenging wor cannot protect itsel* *rom the

order o* *ashion! ecoming0*ashion& becoming0commodit& becoming0r$in! I$ch instant& indeedretroactive r$ins& are the virt$al landscape o* the st$pid $ndergro$nd! The ePits andlines o* Sight p$rs$ed b ,ele$Je and G$attari are being sh$t down and rero$ted bthe ver people who wo$ld tae them most serio$sl! now& an given wor *rom thest$pid $ndergro$nd1s critical apparat$s is liable to be triced o$t with smoothspaces& war0machines& n 0 4s& planes o* consistenc& platea$s and deterritorialiJations&strewn abo$t lie tattoos on the st$pid bod witho$t organs ! The nomad is alreads$cc$mbing to the ro$ssea$ism and orientalism that were alwas invested in his

2g$reO whatever ,ele$Je and G$attari intended *or him& he is red$ced to being a romantic o$tlaw&to a position opposite the Itate& in the sort o* dialectical operation ,ele$Je most despised! "nd therhiJome is becoming K$st another st$pid s$bterranean 2g$re! t is perhaps tr$e that ,ele$Jeand G$attari did not ade-$atel protect their tho$ght *rom this dialectical recon2g$ration (one is reminded o*reton1s indictment against 9imba$d *or not having prevented& in advance& la$del1s rec$peration o* him as aproper atholicH& b$t no vigilance wo$ld have s$Xced in an case! The wor o* ,ele$Je and G$attari is evidence

that& in real time& virt$al models and maps close oN the ver ePits the indicate! Theproblem is in part that rhiJomes& lines o* Sight& smooth spaces& w;s& etc!& are at one and thesame time theoretical0political devices o* the highest critical order and merel*antasmatic& delirio$s& narcissistic models *or writing& and th$s perhaps an instance o* the all0too0proper bl$rring o* the distinction between criticism and *antas! n ,ele$Je0spea& the st$pid$ndergro$nd wo$ld be mapped not as a margin s$rro$nding a 2Ped point& not as a 2Ped site determinedstrictl b its relation or opposition to some more or less hegemonic *ormation& b$t as an intensive& n0dimensional intersection o* rhiJomatic platea$s!


41/64

render them more pointless! The st$pid optimism o* ever wor that taes $p these2g$res is& b itsel*& the means o* that *$tilit and that immanent obsolescence! ;ne m$st p$rs$e it still!

%Ermin noma"ism "isrear"s the potential consequences of

their ethics. 7ailin to calculate in the conte&t of political

stratey ma+es oppression inevita#le an" turns solvencyNeih 18 (Ieptember =& =848O Icott


42/64

in+s to o case


43/64

*au"rillar" ?or acan if you)re into

that stu@*au"rillar" ta@ /he a operates un"er a fatal

misun"erstan"in of how the surveillance state has risen topower. /he i"ea of micro0fascisms can)t #e applie" to

surveillance, an" the surveillant assem#lae "oesn)t e&ist. We

are surveille" #ecause in the "iital era we have #ecome

o#sesse" with manipulatin our own imaes, an" the

surveillance state is merely an e&pression of this unconscious

"esire.

acan ta@ /he a operates un"er a fatal misun"erstan"in of

how the surveillance state has risen to power. /he i"ea of

micro0fascisms can)t #e applie" to surveillance, an" thesurveillant assem#lae "oesn)t e&ist. We have to face the fact

that we are surveille" #ecause we have a "eep0seate" "esire

within the *i ther to #e surveille".

mec+er, 12 (Fran! "merican philosopher and social theorist! #e st$died%nglish& 'hilosoph& and 'scholog at )niversit o* +ermont& and is c$rrentlst$ding philosoph at ,$-$esne )niversit! "n emerging voice in the canon o*social theor& contemporar philosoph& and .i/eian dialectics& his topics o*interest incl$de: le*t politics& philosoph& Fre$do0Lacanian pschoanalsis& radicalenvironmentalism& worers1 rights and movements& lit0theor& 2lm& and m$sic!34567!8: The 9ise o* the ig ;ther as ig rother!3 Truthout ! $ne =84?!Web! 45 >$l =84@! http:AAwebcache!google$sercontent!comAsearchB-Ccache:-w?4icvngD>:www!tr$th0o$t!orgAspeao$tAitemA4E4440456780the0rise0o*0the0big0other0as0big0brothercdC4hlCenctCclnglC$sHT

In order to grasp )hat Im getting at here, its important to familiari&e oneself for the time %eing )ith t)o theoreticalterms/ the 3%ig 4ther3 and 3ga&e.3 The latter often lends itself to a multitude of theoretical interpretations, each one replete )ithits o)n definition and conceptuali&ation of functioning. To preempt against too much confusion, ho)ever, )ell focus on the ga&e as discussed

hereunder. To start, the t)entieth century psychoanalyst 5adass, 6ac7ues 8acan, gave an account of the ga&e )ith the follo)ingstory he %orro)ed from 2artre/ The ga&e that I encounter 9...: is not a seen ga&e 9not a set of eyes that I seeloo(ing at me: %ut a ga&e imagined %y me in the field of the 4ther 9...: the sound of rustling leaves heard )hileout hunting 9...: a footstep heard in a corridor 9The ga&e e+ists: not at the level of 9a particular: other )hose ga&e surprises the su%;ect loo(ingthrough the (eyhole. It is that the other surprises him, the su%;ect, as an entirely hidden ga&e. 9e(, calls the 3impossi%le ga&e3/ that uncanny perspective %y means of )hich)e are already present at the scene of our o)n a%sence. hat this means is that, any good olfantasy functions properly only %y 3removing3 ourselves from the fantasy )e are having. Ta(e as ane+ample ?isneys all-E, the story of a convivial little ro%ot that loo(s li(e an anthropomorphi&ed 1ars rover, that 3falls in love3 )ith Eva, aro%ot that %asically loo(s li(e an egg. Essentially, this is a fantasy of a post-human earth - though of course dreamed up %y someone !human$ and,definitely )atched %y a )hole %unch of !human$ people. Hence the perspective in )hich 3I am present at the very scene of my o)n a%sence3 - thehuman vie)er reduced to the 3impossi%le3 ga&e - as if Im not a part of the very 3reality3 Im o%serving. This is, in a nutshell, the definition of

ga&e. The %ig 4ther, on the other hand, is a %it more involved. Its definition is inherently nuanced. To start off, )hat )ell call the 2ym%olic

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qw3k1icvngQJ:www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17111-19840-the-rise-of-the-big-other-as-big-brother+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


44/64

%ig 4ther is something that is shared %y everyone . It is none other than that )hich em%odies thevery ideological essence of the socio-sym%olic order of our lives @ rules and eti7uette - especially ;uridical 8a) itself - customs and %eliefs, everything you should or should not do, )hat youaspire to)ard, and )ho or )hat you aspire to %e, all of this and more, individually or incom%ination, constitutes the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther. The su%;ects %ig 4ther !hereafter, the

Imaginary %ig 4ther $, ho)ever, is a sort of private investment in the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther , a personalallegiance to the ruling ideology )hich sustains the narratives , %eliefs , and lived fantasies of thevery culture in )hich the su%;ect is immersed . Each Imaginary %ig 4ther is distinct in its o)nuni7ue )ay/ my Imaginary %ig 4ther may %e, say, a patriotic %ricolage !not really, %ut you get the point$ - a composite of things li(e, e.g.,ncle 2am, the American soldier trope, 3Bod3 and Tim Te%o). And your Imaginary %ig 4ther may em%ody, say, ;ust Emily Post, or may%e some

vague ideological pac(age of some other normative principles. In any case, the Imaginary %ig 4ther , the su%;ects %ig 4ther as such,designates a private virtuali&ation of the socio-sym%olic field in )hich he or she is inscri%ed.hether it e+ists in ones private notion of Bod, or ones notion of government, or family, or 3)hats cool,3 or a com%ination of these things or

)hatever, the Imaginary %ig 4ther refers directly to that distinctly personali&ed social standard %y)hich each of us respectively measures ourselves - "DDe(, the ga&e of the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther is my o)n vie) of myself,)hich I see through eyes that are not authentically my o)n . Here, one should not fail to notice the2ym%olic %ig 4thers stri(ing resem%lance to 5enthams 3Panopticon,3 that omnipresent, omniscient 3Bods-eye-vie)3 intended to )atch over us )herever )e go. The li(eness is unmista(a%le, simply %ecause 5enthams little )et dream em%odies the %ig

4ther as such. The essential point to ta(e a)ay from this is that ones sense of !political$ 3self3 is inevita%ly %ound up)ith the locali&ation of the panoptic ga&e - that centrali&ed point of omnipresent, omniscientsurveillance. herever )e go, our image of self, as seen %y the ga&e of the %ig 4ther, al)aysfunctions for another. And further, in these times, do )e not receive constant arousal, en;oyment, from the

act of )atching our o)n image of self, controlling our o)n image of self, trac(ing our o)nimage of self Though its not/ as if )e )ere the Panopticon itself, %ut rather/ %ecause )e are the Panopticon itself . e %ring the Panopticon, the ga&e of the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther as such, )ith us )herever )e go. 2ocialnet)or(ing sites such as Face%oo(, T)itter, Instagram, etc., instantiate this. 5ut )hat, precisely, does this even mean ell, this is )here thingsget %oth revelatory and a %it complicated. The trou%le )ith all this is that, to return to Cop;ecs analysis, the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther is 3a point of

convergence of the general )ill-of-the-people.3 hat this means - and %ear )ith me here, %ecause this may turnconfusing - is that the 2ym%olic %ig 4ther, as such, signifies the very mode of appearance in)hich )e appear to ourselves, for ourselves, as )e desire to appear as such. 2o it )ould follo) that, if )eappear to ourselves, for ourselves, as images to %e controlled , manipulated, trac(ed, )atched,


45/64

and so on, as )e certainly do in today s digital medium of social net)or(ing - )hich, %y the )ay,)e collectively, )illfully and, pleasura%ly participate in - then this &eitgeist of the modernma;ority )ill inevita%ly converge at a centrali&ed point/ )hich is to say, the %ig 4ther, %oth its2ym%olic and Imaginary incarnations, )ill appear in the guise of 35ig 5rother.3 At the individuallevel, each of us em%odies 35ig 5rother 3/ )e are intrigued )ith the act of )atching, trac(ing,

manipulating, images of ourselves. At the 2ym%olic level, the truth of this en;oyment e+pressesitself today in all of its unsettling perversity/ PGI21.


46/64

Cap


47/64

1nc1. Capitalism fee"s on war machines0 Capitalism has #ecome

'eleuzian #y anticipatin an" cooptin lines of >iht. *e

relyin on a vanuar" minority to oppose capitalism, 'eleuze

inore" that its nature is to fee" o resistance.Kan"en#erhe, (Frederic! 9esearch pro*essor in sociolog at the nstit$te o*Iocial and 'olitical It$dies (%I'& *ormerl nown as )'%9>H& part o* the Itate)niversit o* 9io de >aneiro in raJil! 3,ele$Jian apitalism!3 Philosophy ) SocialCriticism ?7!6 (=886H: 6EE058?! Web! == >$l =84@!fhttps:AAwww!academia!ed$A6@5E?4A,ele$Jiancapitalism!HT

The machinic phylum that animates capitalism and Qo)s through its uniRed %ody )ithout organs is money . 1oney is al)aysin Qu+ and never rests. It is, as 2immel says in his Philosophy of 1oney, the o%;ectivation of economic circulation in a sym%ol )ithout su%stance that represents all possi%legoods and that, %y su%stituting itself for them, speeds up the circulation of goods. Flo)ing through the su%systems of society, invading them from underneath, vivifying them from )ithin,money is the %loodthat Qo)s through the veins of capitalism and uniRes the su%systems into the single mar(et of the integrated )orld system of the )orld economy!5raudel*s Sconomie-monde

$. 1ar+ famouslyli(ened capitalto a vampire.Capital is dead la%our )hich, li(e a vampire, only %ecomes alive %y suc(ing out living la%our , and

the more it suc(s, the more it is lively*!1ar+, 'K/ "$. 1ar+ had o%viously understood the internal connec-tion %et)een la%our and capital )hen he predicted itsenlarged repro-duction on a glo%al scale, %ut R+ed as he )as on the category of )or(, he could not foresee that production )ould %ecome post-industrial andthat capitalcould e+ist and reproduce itself )ithout la%our !anden-%erghe, "##"$. 5ut capitalism is inventive and productive, and to capi-tali&e, it progressively leaves the factory and invades, li(e a

parasite, allspheres of life and the life-)orld itself. At the end, it ends up, as )e shall see, producing and consuming life itself.The %asic principle of rhi&omatic sociologyis that society is al)ays en fuite , al)ays lea(ing and Qeeing, and may %e understood in terms of the manner in )hich it deals)ith its lignes de fuite , or lines of Qight . There is al)ays something that Qees and escapes the system, something that isnot controlla%le , or at least not yet controlled. ith their machinic analysis of %ecoming, ? eleu&e and B uattari )ant to encourage lea(agesand cause a run off J faire fuire J as )hen you drill a hole in the pipeor open up the a%scess* !Buattari, '/ '"#@ ?eleu&e and Buattari,'K#/ "@ ?eleu&e, '#/


48/64

=! /he impact is e&tinction 4 neoli#eral social oranizationensures e&tinction from resource wars, climate chane, an"

structural violence 4 only acceleratin #eyon" capitalism can

resolve its impacts

Williams L rnice+ 12

("leP& 'h, st$dent at the )niversit o* %ast London& presentl at wor on a thesisentitled 1#egemon and omplePit1&


49/64


50/64

logics” (#ardt


51/64

Can)t solve'L5 can)t escape capitalism

Zizek, 4 !2lavo;. Professor of 2ociology at the Institute for 2ociology, 8;u%l;ana niversity, "##,intervie)ed %y Blyn ?aly, 2enior 8ecturer in Politics in the Faculty of Arts and 2ocial 2ciences at

niversity College, Lorthampton, Conversations ith Ui&e(, p. '0'-0"$ould this %e a (ind of t)isted version of ?eleu&e and Buattari It*s virtually the opposite of ?eleu&e andBuattari, %ecause they have this idea of capitalist schi&ophrenia, the %ad paranoia, )hich then e+plodesinto a good revolutionary schi&ophrenia. 5ut I thin( that ?eleu&e and Buattari are dangerously close tosome (ind of pseudo anti-psychiatry cele%ration of madness. I thin( that madness is something horri%le V people suffer V and I*ve al)ays found it false to try and identify some li%erating dimension inmadness. In any case, the limit that the social psychologists are referring to is of a far morestraightfor)ard (ind. For e+ample, according to some American estimates at least # per cent of today*sacademics and professors are on either Pro&ac or some other form of psychotropic drug. It is no longerthe e+ception. It is literally that in order to function )e already need psycho-pharmacy. 2o that is thelimit/ )e )ill simply start getting cra&y. 5ut I don*t %uy this notion of an e+ternal limit. I thin( that

capitalism has this incredi%le capacity of turning catastrophe into a ne) form of access. Capitalism canturn every e+ternal limit to its development into a challenge for ne) capitalist investment. For e+ample,let us assume that there )ill %e some %ig ecological catastrophe. I thin( that capitalism can simply turnecology itself into a ne) field of mar(et competition , li(e, you (no), )ho )ill produce the %etter product, )hich )ill %e ecologically %etter .


52/64

Coloniality'eleuze)s theory e&clu"es consi"eration of in"ienous

societies 4 root cause of classism

piva+ = (Gaatri haravort Ipiva is an ndian literar theorist& philosopher and )niversit 'ro*essor at ol$mbia )niversit& where she is a *o$nding member o* the school1s nstit$te *or omparative Literat$re and Iociet! “an the s$balternspeaB”456@! From ar


53/64

7emGather than seeing philosophy as a 7uestion of conditions, ?eleu&e and Buattari*s hat is Philosophysuggests that )e thin( any such posited conditions as illusions of transcendence !'/ $. To see all transcendentconditions as illusions generated from )ithin immanence involves recognising that these illusions !such as the su%;ect, Bod or 5eing$ are effected

according to a good image of thought. The idea of a grounding transcendence ensures in advance )hat thought )ill

%e. The positing of a general transcendent condition ena%les thought to continue as self-recognition. In aradical empiricism, ho)ever, immanence is no longer immanent to something else !?eleu&e and Buattari '/ $. Immanence is onlyconceiva%le as immanence to some transcendence if there is a pre-esta%lished plane/ a general field already understood or deter- mined in acertain )ay. The realisation that there is this plane is the first challenge of ?eleu&e*s empiricism. The second challenge that )e might avoidaltogether this transcendent 2omething W +* and thin( THE plane of immanence !and there%y thought )ithout an image*$ is the less immediatelyrealisa%le tas( !?eleu&e and Buattari '/ 0$. In Empiricism and 2u%;ectivity !''a$ ?eleu&e sets the pro%lem of immanence in relation toXant*s philosophy of representation. Transcendence, ?eleu&e argues, is an empirical fact. 4nly transcendental philosophy ta(es this fact and

places it )ithin the domain of representation such that the given %ecomes a 2omething W +* !an effect of the su%;ect$. The given, here, is seen todepend on the su%;ect*s synthesis !?eleu&e ''a/ '''$. An empiricist philosophy, on the other hand, loo(s at )hat )e are doing* to esta%lishrelations )ithin the given !'


54/64

Rhizomes Counter0a"vocacy/he central characteristic of the mo"ern state is an o#scene

un"ersi"e of the law.O /his un"ersi"e is constitute" #yrelatively insini-cant, wi"esprea" practices li+e spee"in an"

wal+in on rass. /he state is only a#le to function premise"

on these activities #ein unoEcially permitte". o, contrary to

what the a says, acts of resistance "on)t en" up achievin

any solvency. Instea", we propose the counter0a"vocacy of

overconformin to the law. nly this can "estroy the

i"eoloical phantasy #ehin" law an" "ismantle the mo"ern

panoptic surveillance state.

Drips, 18 (#enr! 'ro*essor o* $lt$ral It$dies& "ndrew W! Mellon "ll0laremonthair o* #$manities at G)! 3The 'olitics o* the GaJe Fo$ca$lt& Lacan and .i/e!3Culture nbound: !ournal of Current Cultural "esearch C =!4 (=848H: 54048=! Web!=8 >$l =84@!HT

Central to =i>e(*s account of the modern state is the concept of Nan o%scene underside of the la)O, namely )idespread practices J petty ta+ evasion, speeding, )al(ing on the grass, etc J )hich , although strictly spea(ing illicit, are unofficially tolerated. This net)or( of practices is sustained than(s to )hat =i>e( calls an Nideological phantasyO that (eeps them an Nopen secretO J everyone (no)s a%outand participates in them in private, %ut no one mentions them, let alone pu%licly flaunts participating in them.2uch practices constitute points of failure of the la) in so far as they fall in an indeterminate &one in relation to legalcategories/ on the one hand, in so far as they are tolerated they are not straightfor)ardly illegal, %ut, on theother hand, neither are they legal@ and as such, constitute a fundamental illegality at the heart of the legal system. =i>e(*s point isthat, rather than undermining the la), the o%scene underside of the la) sustains it J the la) istolerated %ecause of the little secret pleasures that people derive from its o%scene underside. In8acanian terms, )e may say that the o%scene underside of the la) is the set of necessary %ut repressed points of failure of the legal system J in short, it is the symptom of the legal system. In particular, in the conte+t of alegal state apparatus that is held in place %y a panoptic system of surveillance, the o%sceneunderside of the la) is a liminal &one of high an+iety that , li(e the Emperor*s %ody under hisne) clothes, is o%scenely visi%le to each of his su%;ect s in the privacy of their o)n visual field,yet must %e shrouded in a cloa( of invisi%ility in the pu%lic realm. This is the site of the ga&e. Ho) are )eto oppose such a system, )hich seemingly coe+ists )ith, indeed depends upon its o)n systematic transgression According to =i>e(,

not %y acts of resistance, since the system is readily a%le to accommodate, indeed depends upon such acts. Instead, =i>e(suggests opposition through acts of overconformity , )hich, rather than protest ing let alone %rea(ing the la), insist upon it to the letter, even )hen ideological Ncommon senseO suggestsother)ise . In particular, this means a refusal to turn a N%lind eyeO from manifestations of la)*so%scene underside. As =i>e( puts it/ N2ometimes, at least J the truly su%versive thing is not to disregard thee+plicit letter of 8a) on %ehalf of the underlying fantasies, %ut to stick to this letter against the fantasy which sustains it .Is not an e+emplary case of such su%version-through-identification provided %y 6aroslav Hase(*s TheGood Soldier Schweik , the novel )hose hero )rea(s total havoc %y simply e+ecuting the orders of his superiors in an over&ealous and all-too-


55/64

literal )ay !=i>e( '/


56/64

War (achine Counter %"vocacy


57/64

1nc/he Gnite" tates 7e"eral 5overnment shoul" completely

outlaw any "omestic surveillance con"ucte" on social an"or

political movements an" the pre"ictive policin policy.

1. Aour Roy"en 1= car" says that the structural violence

cause" in the status quo comes from the 7*I)s surveillance of

movements with the tinray, 'irt#o& technoloy, an" Point

/errorist 7orces.


58/64

invasive cellphone s$rveillance device that mimics cellphone towers and sends o$t signals to tric cellphones in thearea into transmitting their locations and identi*ing in*ormation! When $sed to trac a s$spect’s cellphone& thealso gather in*ormation abo$t the phones o* co$ntless bstanders who happen to be nearb! The same is tr$e o*domestic drones& which are in increasing $se b )!I! law en*orcement to cond$ct ro$tine aerial s$rveillance! Whiledrones are c$rrentl $narmed& drone man$*act$rers are considering arming these remote0controlled aircra*t withweapons lie r$bber b$llets& tasers& and tear gas! The will $se *$sion centers! ;riginall designed to increaseinteragenc collaboration *or the p$rposes o* co$nterterrorism& these have instead become the local arm o* theintelligence comm$nit! "ccording to %lectronic Frontier Fo$ndation& there are c$rrentl sevent0eight on record!

The are the clearingho$se *or increasingl $sed “s$spicio$s activit reports”Udescribed as “oXcial doc$mentationo* observed behavior reasonabl indicative o* pre0operational planning related to terrorism or other criminalactivit!” These reports and other collected data are o*ten stored in massive databases lie e0+eri* and 'rism! "sanbod who’s ever dealt with gang databases nows& it’s almost impossible to get oN a *ederal or state database&

even when the data collected is incorrect or no longer tr$e! 'redictive policing doesn’t K$st lead toracial and religio$s pro2lingUit relies on it ! >$st as stop and *ris legitimiJed an initial& $nwarrantedcontact between police and people o* color& almost 58 percent o* whom t$rn o$t to be innocent o*an crime& s$spicio$s activities reporting and the dragnet approach o* *$sion centers target comm$nities o*color! ;ne review o* s$ch reports collected in Los "ngeles shows approPimatel E@ percent were o* peopleo* color! This is the *$t$re o* policing in "merica& and it sho$ld terri* o$ as m$ch asit terri2es me! )n*ort$natel& it probabl doesn’t& beca$se m li*e is at *ar greater ris than the lives o* white"mericans& especi

Documents

Deleuze - Ddi 2015 Sws