Abstracts S 1

Tomek Sikora, Queer politics as a non-representational politics of a people (never) to come

The paper proposes an understanding of queer politics that draws from Deleuzian theorizations of art and aesthetics rather than from the liberal-legalistic vocabulary of recognition, representation and rights. Just as an avant-garde artist, by creating modes of signification and relationality that do not fall into a pre-existing framework of legibility, addresses a (virtual) audience that is yet to come (and thus faces a high risk of failure, as the audience may never come to materialize, after all), so – arguably – queer activism (and queer theory) performs a politics that is “not the terrain of the representation of a people […] but of their creation,” to use Nicholas Thoburn’s characterization of the Deleuzo-Guattarian concept of “minor politics,” i.e. a politics where “the people are missing.” To put my argument rather formulaically, just as art never ceases to create (ontologically) “queer objects” (with a broad definition of object), so queer politics never ceases to create queer “social objects,” i.e. queer practices, subjectivities and socialities beyond the current liberal-humanist epistemological normativities. Queer does not and cannot stand for an entity, a “whole“ (such as the figure of a homosexual or a sexual minority); instead, it is tendency and event, it resides between the virtual and its actualizations. Closely related to desire, it defies organic units or taxa and cuts transversally across any received order of things.

Tomasz Sikora teaches literature, literary theory and cultural studies at the English Department of the Pedagogical University of Cracow. In the years 2000-2006 he co-organized a series of conferences that introduced queer theory into the Polish academic landscape. Three volumes of essays collected some of the work inspired by the conferences, including A Queer Mixture (2002) and Out Here: Local and International Perspectives in Queer Studies (2006). He co-founded and continues to co-edit the online peer-reviewed journal of queer studies InterAlia (published in English and Polish), which has run eight issues so far. Sikora has also published Virtually Wild: Wilderness, Technology and the Ecology of Mediation (2003) and Bodies Out of Rule: Transversal Readings in Canadian Literature and Film (2014). His main areas of research and publication include critical and queer theory, interdisciplinary American and Canadian studies, biopolitics, Deleuze and Guattari.


Gülben Salman, Queer and Rhizome: A Prolific Encounter

This presentation aims to make a comparison between Judith Butler’s queer theory and a possible “queer” theory which can be derived from Deleuze & Guattari’s Rhizomatic Model. Butler thinks that formed and normative subjects can grow different according to the rules of the already structured heterosexist game. However if we think from Deleuze and Guattari’s point of view, Butler’s line of reasoning is one that can lead to a sort of “normalization,” because forming a theory this way necessarily leads to a relation between the queer and the normal at the end of the day. Because the subject is still understood in the heterosexist matrix , this can create and hinder subjective possibilities, and thus the critique of this heterosexist matrix necessarily ends up being in the same frame. This leads queer theory to become a critique of the heterosexist structure, which is coherent with queer theory’s own structure. So queer can again be understood as a way to differentiate subjects from “the others” in the system. I will argue in favor of a sort of queer theory that structures identity in accordance with a rhizomatic model. This rhizomatic, queer theoretical de-centralization of identities differs from the Foucault-Butler line of queer theory.

Gülben Salman is a Phd candidate in Political Sciences and Gender Studies (Ankara University). She received her BA degree in Philosophy from Middle East Technical University, and MA degree in Political Philosophy from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), with the thesis entitled “Political Philosophy and Kant’s Aesthetics: An Attempt to Read History in Kant, Arendt and Lyotard”. She published articles on Lyotard, Kant and Deleuze in journals in Turkey and delivered several talks at international conferences. Her main research interests are Contemporary Political Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, Radical Democracy and Queer Theory.


Marco Salucci, Deleuze : comment la vie est une conséquence de ce qu’elle crée

Notre propos sera de montrer que si Deleuze est vitaliste, comme il le déclare, ce n’est pas sans apporter une nouveauté fondamentale à la notion de vie. En limitant notre analyse à ses analyses de Spinoza et de Sacher-Masoch, nous tenterons de voir de quelle façon, pour Deleuze, le désir et l’écriture reproduisent le mouvement de la vie.D’un côté le désir « coule et coupe », il semble être discontinu. De l’autre son écriture répond à une logique agrammatique et schizophrénique, elle aussi produit de la discontinuité. Mais alors l’écriture reproduit le désir, ce qui signifie que ces deux discontinuités se retrouvent à l’intérieur d’une même continuité.La vie, pour Deleuze, suit cette dynamique : elle est une discontinuité en continuité, elle est un processus vers une indifférenciation, une contraction (désir-écriture) qui se dilate vers le un-toutes choses (En Panta) du monde.

Docteur en philosophie esthétique (Université Paris8 et Université d’Urbino) avec une thèse intitulée Gilles Deleuze. Une indéfinition esthétique, Marco Salucci enseigne actuellement la philosophie dans le secondaire et anime des séminaires à l’Université d’Urbino.Après plusieurs articles consacrés aux relations entre Deleuze et l’art, il travaille actuellement sur la notion de vie dans l’interface entre homme et environnement numérique. marcosalucci@gmail.com

Mathews Lock Santos, Becoming-narrative: the Mass Protests in Brazil as Irruption of a political Event.

In an interview with Negri in the beginning of the 90’s, Deleuze affirmed that we were passing from a disciplinary society to a society of control of information. Almost 15 years later, after experiencing the expansion of digital technologies across most of the globe, we can certainly state that Deleuze’s analysis was very accurate in describing our contemporary society. He, nevertheless, also argued that one of the main forms of resistance would be to ‘hijack the speech’, which means not only to recover the right to speak for ourselves and to compose our own narrative against the imposition of pre-established discourses and control of communication, but also to break this very control over the flux of communication. In this sense, this paper will address the question of how can speech be hijacked in our contemporary society departing from Deleuze’s conception of event, but also from the notions of rhizome and the intertwining of forms of content and expression co-authored with Guattari. To do so, I am going to look at the mass protests that happened in Brazil during 2013 as a mass political phenomenon that had the subversive potential to hijack speech, forming a poly-vocal and alternative political narrative that both escaped the forms of classification imposed by the traditional political perspectives, and defied the Brazilian political system.

Matheus Lock Santos has a Master degree in Communication and Information from UFRGS, Brazil; Undergraduate degree in Social Communication from PUCRS, Brazil. My research lies in the intersection between new mass movement, digital technologies, democracy and public opinion. Currently, I’m investigating the emergence of new forms of mass demonstration and the construction of an alternative political narrative by such movements and its impact on public opinion as a discursive sphere. I’ve published mainly about political debates on Internet in Brazilian journals, and my latest book, Comunicações Transversais. O Preconceito Digital E Os Efeitos Na Opinião Pública, is about public opinion and digital technologies.


Anne Sauvagnargues, The Smooth and the Striated. Becomology and Ecolgy in Deleuze and Guattari's Art Theory.

Despite binary readings of Deleuze and Guattari's, the couple "smooth" versus "striated" cannot be taken as a molar opposition, leading to an ontological difference between smooth virtuality and striated actualization. A closer understanding of image, as individuation-image, along with Guattari's conception of ritornello a a collective and political mode of subjectivation leeds us to a new insight of Deleuze and Guattari metaphysics. Therefore I would suggest to conceive their propositions as a new "becomology", leading to an ecological conception of art.


Ioanna Savvidou, O Poiitis os Allos

Στο έργο της Μαρίνας Τσβετάγιεβα, η μορφή του ποιητή εμφανίζεται ως ο απόλυτος άλλος. Ο άλλος της κοινωνίας. Τρία στοιχεία κατασκευάζουν αυτή την ετερότητά του : η φυλή (νέγρος), η θρησκεία (εβραίος,) και το φύλο (γυναίκα). Αυτή η πολύμορφη περσόνα του ποιητή εμφανίζεται από τη στιγμή που η Μαρίνα, παιδί ακόμη, συλλαμβάνει και αντιλαμβάνεται την έννοια του ποιητή. Στο αυτοβιογραφικό της έργο, τη στιγμή που το παιδί αναγνωρίζει τον ποιητή στο πρόσωπο του Αλεξάντρ Πούσκιν, διαπιστώνει ότι είναι νέγρος. Αυτή η αποκάλυψη διαμορφώνει την αντίληψή της : ο ποιητής ειναι ενας μαύρος σε μια λευκή κοινωνία: ο άλλος της κοινωνίας αυτής.Αυτή η εικόνα της ετερότητας εμπλουτιζεται με τη μορφή του εβραίου. Ετσι γράφει τον εύγλωτο στίχο «Σ’αυτόν τον υπερ-χριστιανικό κόσμο, ο ποιητής είναι οβριός», επιλέγοντας τον υβριστικό όρο «ζιντ» αντί του απλού «γιεβρέι», αποτυπώνοντας το βλέμμα της κοινωνίας πάνω του. Τρίτο στοιχείο η φυλετική διάσταση. Ο ποιητής γεννά. Στην αυτοβιογραφία της, η μικρή Μαρίνα καταγράφει με δέος τη γέννησή της ως ποιήτριας ακριβώς από την πληγωμένη κοιλιά του ποιητή, υπερβαίνοντας το βιολογικό και την εικόνα του δημιουργού. Η Τσβετάγιεβα προχωρά με σύνθετο και οξυμορικό τρόπο : ανατρέπει την εικόνα της ετερότητας ενώ ταυτόχρονα την ενστερνίζεται, σε απο-δόμησης της ετερότητας μέσα από μια διαδικασία ταύτισης. Η ετερότητα του ποιητή παρουσιάζεται παράλληλα με την ετερότητας ως αλλοτρίωση των γυναικών. Προσπαθώντας να υπερβεί αυτή τη διπλή αλλοτρίωση, το διπλό αδιέξοδο, η Τσβετάγιεβα δημιουργεί ένα έργο αδύνατον να καταταγει σε ένα λογοτεχνικό ρεύμα. Αποτελεί ενός είδους εξ-αίρεση.

Ioanna Savvidou est Docteure es Lettres et Etudes Féminines (Université Paris VIII, 1999), Professeure agrégée de Lettres Classiques (Paris, 2003), DEA de Lettres modernes et Maîtrise de Littérature russe.

Enseignante à l’Education Nationale.

Participation à des nombreux colloques et conférences sur la littérature, les études féminines et les études de genre. Publication d’une thèse (Sur les traces de la Différence : limites et frontières dans le Poème de la Montagne et le Poème de la Fin de Marina Tsvétaïeva) et de nombreux articles et de résultats de recherche sur la littérature française et russe (poésie, théâtre, autobiographie), sur le genre et la pédagogie. Traductions du russe, de l’anglais et du français. Maîtrise du grec, du français, de l’anglais, du russe et de l’italien. Participation active aux mouvements féministes en Grèce et en France depuis 1978 (groupes autonomes de femmes, Groupe de recherche d’Etudes Féminines de l’Université Aristote de Thessaloniki, Séminaire d’Hélène Cixous).

Principaux centres d’intérêt : Pratique pédagogique et genre dans l’enseignement de la littérature à l’école : pratiques de sensibilisation des élèves à la question de l’égalité filles et garçons et prise de conscience de la différence sexuelle.


Valentin Schaepelynck and Emmanuel Valat, Actualité politique de Deleuze et Guattari

On se souvient de la célèbre formule de Foucault : « Un jour peut-être le siècle sera deleuzien ». Aussi voudrions-nous poser la question suivante : notre siècle est-il devenu deleuzien, deleuzo-guattarien ? D’un côté les concepts mis en place par Deleuze et Guattari ont tellement bien réussi qu’ils apparaissent même être partis prenants désormais de la construction de nos sociétés modernes et de leurs systèmes de pouvoir et de domination. La pensée de Deleuze et Guattari aurait ainsi été digérée et intégrée au « nouvel esprit du capitalisme », dont la capacité à s’approprier une pensée critique tout en faisant taire sa puissance subversive n’est plus à prouver... D’un autre côté, persiste bien sûr un usage et une réappropriation critiques de la pensée de Deleuze et Guattari, aussi bien sous forme d’un héritage théorique critique, que sous celle de pratiques instituantes à l’oeuvre dans les mouvements sociaux et politiques. Ce destin équivoque des concepts deleuzo-guattariens, comme leurs enjeux politiques actuels seront ainsi au cœur de nos analyses. Valentin Schaepelynck, philosophe de formation, enseignant-chercheur en sciences de l'éducation à l'Université Paris 8. Ses travaux portent sur les différentes formes d'analyse institutionnelle. Travaille au sein du comité de rédaction de la revue Chimères.


Miriam von Schantz, Repetition as the Maker of Difference, Genre-Theory Revisited.

In this paper I propose to rethink the conditions for analyzing cinematic spectatorship of the documentary/mockumentary beyond the representationalist notion of genre (Neale, 1990; Nichols, 2001; Roscoe and Hight, 2001). The crux of the problem is, I argue, the understanding of cinematic spectatorship of the real as a meeting of, on the one side the Subject, and on the other the object. This model of representation, as detailed by Deleuze in Difference and Repetition (1968), produce the problem as one of analogy, sameness, opposition and similarity, thus methodologically approachable only through translations and interpretations. Genre-theory as construed on this model consequently produces the spectator-subject as an identifier of the real and the false (as irreconcilable categories). Here I propose a methodological rethinking of spectatorship, namely as an affective and entangled spectating event (Massumi 2002; Barad 2007; Deleuze 1990 [1969]). This, I argue produce a moving-image-body. Actualized as a singular assemblage where every new relation and intensity produced through the event-body changes the same, the concept of the moving-image-body enables a micropolitical “molecular analysis that allows us to move from forms of power to investments of desire” (Guattari, 2009, 284). Thus every moving-image-body can be mapped following the productive force of repetition, that is, through actualizations of virtuals in exploration of the production of new images of thought, realities and subjectivations.

Miriam von Schantz is a cinema scholar, currently employed as a PhD candidate at Örebro university, Sweden. In her dissertation she proposes new materialist methodologies for the analysis of cinematic and media spectating. She teaches documentary theory and media history and has published on film literacy as well as film tutorials for schoolteachers.


Alexandros Schismenos 

We rarely find both the names of Henri Bergson (1859-1941) and Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997) in the same sentence. We know that there is no genealogical relation between their philosophies, although both Bergson and Castoriadis produced theories of an open ontology based on the notions of temporality, becoming and heterogeinety. They both proposed the ontology of creativity and Time as Towards-Being, against the contemplative ontology of Essence and Timeless Being. They both refer to the ontological heterogeinety and the interweaving of distinct ontological regions, which Bergson calls ‘interpenetration’, in the way of the mixture, while Castoriadis considers it a ‘layering’, in the way of the magma. They both deal with the notion of representation and the problems of epistemology.

They have different starting posts, since Bergson, who poses the question of Time in an epistemological rather than a sociological frame, begins by criticizing Kant and proceeds to reject 19th century scientific positivism, whereas Castoriadis proceeds from his initial criticism of Marx, to the refutation of the traditional ensemblistic- identitarian philosophy.

However, the studies of Gilles Deleuze brought forth the bergsonian, vitalistic notion of Time, once again, allowing a critical juxtaposition of the aforementioned philosophers. We will attempt to use the deleuzian interpretation of bergsonism for investigate the similarities and differences between the two theories of Time.

Alexandros Schismenos was born in Athens in the January of 1978 and grew up in Agrinio. He graduated from the Philosophical School of the University of Ioannina, Department of History and Archaeology, majoring in Archaeology.

He wrote his M.A. dissertation in Political Philosophy on the subject ‘Psyche and autonomy in the philosophy of Cornelius Castoriadis’, as a participant of the interdepartmental Programme for Post-Graduate Studies in Philosophy by the Universities of Ioannina and Crete, which he completed with excellent grade. He is a Ph.D student of the Philosophy of Science in the University of Ioannina, working on his thesis, regarding the notion of Time in the ontology of Castoriadis. He was granted a scholarship by the joint IKY-ETE programme for Ph.D. studies.

Published treatises: ‘The human tempest: Psyche and autonomy in the philosophy of Cornelius Castoriadis (Athens, 2012)

‘After Castoriadis: Routes for autonomy in the 21st century’ (Athens, 2014)


Alan D. Schrift, Pluralism = Monism: What Deleuze learns from Nietzsche and Spinoza

In this paper, I examine Deleuze’s readings and appropriations of Spinoza and Nietzsche, suggesting that the rhizomatic connections that result in a Spinoza-Nietzsche assemblage anticipate and lead to what Deleuze and Guattari call their “magic formula . . . PLURALISM = MONISM.” I explore this formula in terms of their discussion of desiring production in Anti-Oedipus, and conclude with suggestions as to the political possibilities this formula opens.

Alan Schrift is F. Wendell Miller Professor of Philosophy at Grinnell College (USA). In addition to over eighty published articles or book chapters on Nietzsche and French and German twentieth century philosophy, he is the author of Twentieth-Century French Philosophy: Key Themes and Thinkers (2006), Nietzsche’s French Legacy: A Genealogy of Poststructuralism (1995), and Nietzsche and the Question of Interpretation: Between Hermeneutics and Deconstruction (1990). He has also edited sixteen books, including the eight-volume History of Continental Philosophy (2010), Modernity and the Problem of Evil (2005), Why Nietzsche Still? Reflections on Drama, Culture, and Politics (2000), The Logic of the Gift (1997), and The Hermeneutic Tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur (1990). He continues as General Editor of The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, the Stanford University Press translation of Nietzsche’s Kritische Studienausgabe, edited by Colli and Montinari, and is currently completing an edition of selected writings of Jean Wahl.