Lina Álvarez, Deleuze,
Guattari et Fanon : une « joyeuse retrouvaille» autour de la littérature
Nous voudrions rapprocher la conception de la
littérature de Deleuze et Guattari avec celle de Frantz Fanon. Malgré les
différences que l’on peut trouver entre ces auteurs, il nous semble que l’approche
fanonienne de la littérature et le concept guattaro-deleuzienne de littérature
mineure ont des résonances qui mettent en évidence le fait que l’usage mineur
de la langue travaille autant les minorités que les majorités. La littérature
mineure des auteurs français implique un matérialisme et une politique de la
langue car ils font de celle-ci un matériau politique travaillé de l’intérieur
par les conditions historiques dans lesquelles elle se déploie. Une telle
matérialité entraîne la langue dans des processus de codification et
domination, mais aussi de libération, qui exigent le repoussement des limites
et par-là la dissolution des dualismes, ainsi que la construction d’un peuple à
venir. De même, chez Fanon la langue et la littérature sont employés comme
instruments pour coloniser l’inconscient et assujettir les corps, de telle
sorte que la production d’une nouvelle littérature « n’est pas luxe mais
exigence de programme cohérent pour le colonisé ». Littérature de combat
(Fanon) et littérature mineure sont toutes les deux des moyens de faire la
lutte politique et, en même temps, sont liées aux conditions historiques de
leur temps. Aussi, toutes les deux cherchent à défaire les identités fermées
propres aux sociétés dualistes, en faveur de ce que Glissant a nommé «
identités rhizomatiques ». Quels sont les points de résonances et d’écart entre
ces deux conceptions de la littérature ? Voilà la question que nous aborderons
dans cette intervention.
Lina Álvarez a étudié la philosophie à l’Université
Javeriana (Colombia). Actuellement elle fait le master Philosophies allemande
et française dans l’espace européen (Europhilosophie) à l’Université Catholique
de Louvain (Belgique) en tant que boursière de l’Union Européenne. Son projet
de recherche porte sur la place de la littérature chez Frantz Fanon, Gilles
Deleuze et Félix Guattari et les rapports entre ces auteurs au prisme de la
question littéraire. Elle s’intéresse aux postcolonial studies, aux études
décoloniales, à la philosophie politique contemporaine et à la philosophie de
l’art. Son dernier article s’intitule Biopolítica, máquina antropológica e
Identidad: América como un espacio libre para la violencia (Biopolitique,
machine anthropologique et Identité : L’Amérique comme un espace libre pour la
violence).
linaalvarez@gmail.com
Emilia Angelova, Deleuze “after” Kristeva: Affective
Genesis and the Potential for Critique
François Zourabichvili claims that Deleuze is not
engaging in an ontology but in a transcendental
problematic of critique that shows how critical
thought is itself contingent upon affective evaluation of a “pure difference.”
To bring Kristeva and Deleuze closer together on the affective dimension, I
discuss Kristeva’s Tales of Love and Deleuze’s Logic of Sense and Two Regimes
of Madness, showing how Deleuze’s interest in “logic” does not aim at knowledge
about reality, but at contingency conditions. The becoming sensible of sense is
a regime that arises at the affective level, and in this “interaction regime,”
a kind of testing within the affective dimension displaces the categories. I
introduce here, as a kind of testing, Kristeva’s late discussion of the
“composition” of “ambiguity”: the form that the uncanny takes in the
confrontation with death (trauma). The confrontation between the finite
signifying subject and the fantasy of an “impossible end” enacts the dynamic of
both going through repression and defense. Herein lies the affinity between
these thinkers: the form that the uncanny takes in Kristeva might have to be
interpreted as a kind of interaction regime of the affective dimension, which,
as a “pure difference,” becomes a “thought of experience” in Deleuze. I show
how this may lead to a new and valuable critique of experience.
Emilia Angelova is Associate Professor of Philosophy
at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Her research is in 19th and 20th
Century Continental Philosophy, and Kant. Recent work has been directed to
study of themes raised by Kant and transformed by Heidegger, e.g., selfhood,
temporality, freedom and the imagination. She has published mainly on Heidegger
and Kant; other articles are on Hegel, Deleuze, and Nancy. She is completing a
book manuscript on Heidegger’s reading of Kant from Kant and the Problem of
Metaphysics; and is the editor of an anthology (with University of Toronto
Press) Hegel, Freedom, and History.
eangelova@sympatico.ca
Daniella Angueli, Gilles Deleuze: Η γοητεία της
τρέλλας, η διαφορά που καταρρίπτει την επανάληψη
Ο Deleuze ανέπτυξε την άποψή του για την τρέλα μέσα σε
ένα πεδίο θετικότητας, σε αντίθεση με την ψυχιατρική αντίληψη που περιέγραφε
μια αρνητική διαδικασία (αποσύνδεση, απώλεια της πραγματικότητας, απομόνωση
προς τα μέσα).
-Εξώθησε τις γεωγραφίες της τρέλας (παίρνοντας ως
άξονες την σχιζοφρένεια και την παράνοια) στα όρια του κοινωνικού, εκεί όπου
εδράζουν, κατά την γνώμη του, οι παραγωγικές της δυνάμεις. Έτσι ο παρανοϊκός
είναι ο καλλιτέχνης της ενότητας των μορίων, των φαινομένων πλήθους, της
αγέλης, και των κοινωνικών μαζών, ενώ σχιζοφρενής επιλέγει την μοριακότητα,
βυθίζεται μέσα στις μοναδικότητες, στην μικροφυσική τους, που είναι ανυπότακτη
στις στατιστικές, και στην προοπτική των μεγάλων ομάδων -είναι ο καταστροφέας
του καπιταλισμού. Ο παρανοϊκός εργάζεται για να αποκαταστήσει τους κώδικες, να
αποκαταστήσει τα εδάφη, ο σχιζοφρενής ασχολείται με το να αποκωδικοποιείται ο
ίδιος, θολώνει τους κώδικες, συνεπαίρνεται σε μια διαδικασία
απο-εδαφικοποίησης.
- Το ασυνείδητο ασκεί πολιτική: Κάθε παραλήρημα έχει
ένα περιεχόμενο ιστορικο, παγκόσμιο, πολιτικό, φυλετικό. Είναι δουλειά της
ενόρμησης να επενδύσει το κοινωνικό πεδίο και από εκεί και μετά να παραληρεί
την ιστορία, να ψευδαισθησιά τους πολιτισμούς, τις Ηπείρους και τις φυλές. Το
ασυνείδητο κάνει πολιτική.
-Η “τρέλλα” ως ρυθμισμένη κατ’αρχήν να αντηχεί τις
κοινωνικές “κανονικότητες”, θα μπορούσε ίσως να ιδωθεί εν τέλει και ως
αντίσταση του αρχέγονου ψυχικού κόσμου σε μια επανάληψη επιβεβλημένη από το
κοινωνικό συστοιχείωμα, αντίσταση στις “αποφάνσεις” (discours) που κυριαρχούν
στο περιβάλλον και στις “κανονικότητες” που απορρέουν από αυτές.
- Η αποκαλούμενη “ψυχική διαταραχή” συνθέτει
συμπτώματα που “προσφέρουν” τρόπον τινά στον κοινωνικό ιστό τα σημεία εκείνα
(Deleuze, 1964, Proust et les signes) που θα μπορούσαν -μέσα από την αρνητική
τους σημαινότητα- να γίνουν εναρκτήριοι ρυθμοί εξόδου από την επανάληψη. Η
ατομική “τρέλα” θα μπορούσε έτσι να διαβαστεί και ως αίτημα μεταβολής των
δεδομένων που την γέννησαν. Είναι η υπερ-απεικόνιση που μας προσφέρουν οι
ψυχωτικοί της εποχής μας, οι συνέπειες της αποκαλούμενης “ψυχικής διαταραχής”
που φωνασκούν μια διαμαρτυρία για όλα εκείνα που οι “κανονικοί” έχουν αποδεχθεί
σιωπηρά.
Κλινική Ψυχολόγος
Διδάκτωρ Ψυχολογίας (Rennes 2)
Ερευνήτρια Σύγχρονης Γαλλικής Φιλοσοφίας (Paris 8)
daniela.angueli@gmail.com
Ian Angus, Thinking the Multiple in/as/or Canada:
Itinerary of a Question
I have followed a trajectory of thought opened up by
Canadian debates concerning multiculturalism that has not remained confined to
it. This trajectory has not been indebted to Deleuze’s philosophy in its
articulation, though now, through a dialogue with Deleuze, I want to address
several issues that it leaves outstanding. As I have discovered it, thought
about the multicultural in Canada is a space for inquiry traversed by two
vectors that pull in different directions, toward two different but internally
related questions: First, what is a the particularity of the particular? The
transversal relation between particulars becomes in political terms a form of
Proudhon’s anarchistic federalism, or a treaty. If the vector between
particularities leads toward a transversal federalism, the vector rejecting
subsumption of particulars under a given universal calls out for a new
conception of universalization based on exactly such transversality. So, the
second question: what is a universalization that stems from the transversal
relation between particularities? The condition for this to be a productive
decentred space for questioning is that thought can abandon, or evade, the
systematic centring that representational reason requires—in Eurocentrism or
any other kind of centrism. Two ideas in Deleuze’s philosophy—contraction and
intensity—will be used to elucidate such a non-centric totality
Ian Angus is currently a Professor of Humanities at
Simon Fraser University. His intellectual formation began with the 20th century
European philosophies of phenomenology and the Frankfurt school of critical
theory. A significant turn in Angus’ work occurred when he began a critical
engagement with the history of English Canadian social and political thought,
which resulted in A Border Within: National Identity, Cultural Plurality and
Wilderness (1997) which was widely reviewed in both the academic and popular
press and Identity and Justice (2008). Three books—(Dis)figurations:
Discourse/Critique/Ethics (2000), Primal Scenes of Communication:
Communication, Consumerism, Social Movements (2000), and Emergent Publics: An
Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (2001)—have argued distinctive
positions with regard to contemporary political philosophy and communication.
His most recent book Love the Questions: University Education and Enlightenment
came out from Arbeiter Ring Press in Winnipeg in November 2009.
iangus@sfu.ca
Manola Antonioli, What’s ecosophy ?
In the book The Three Ecologies, published in 1989,
Guattari introduced the term « ecosophy », inspired by Steps to an Ecology of
Mind by Gregory Bateson (1972). More recently, Stéphane Nadaud edited all texts
on ecosophy written by Guattari between 1985 and 1992, including rare and
previously published works, in the book Qu’est-ce que l’écosophie ? (Paris,
Lignes, 2013). In his introduction, Nadaud reminds us that the project of an «
ecology » was « built » by Guattari through a sort of bricolage based on his
readings, encounters and militant activities in various fields. Ecosophy cannot
be reduced to mere ecology, in a traditional sense : eco-sophy is closer to
philo-sophy than to eco-logy. According to Guattari, we should be concerned
with at least three dimensions of the oïkos (mental, social and environmental),
but, through reading Qu’est-ce que l’écosophie ? we can discover that he also
tried to call into question our economical, techological, media-centred,
urbanised environments. My paper will focus on all the dimensions of the
ecosophical project and their contemporary implications.
Antonioli.manola@wanadoo.fr
Zafer Aracagoek, Cudipidite. Becoming radically Stupid
In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze does not allow
the animal the right of being "bêtise" for the latter belongs only to
those who have implicit and explicit forms whereas the animals have only
explicit forms. It is the acquision of both which endows man with a capacity of
individuation, and hence if man ends up with stupidity it is due to his failure
to create new forms. For Derrida, on the other hand, such a move points to the
maintenance of stupidity as a transcendental. In this article, without disturbing
Deleuze's contention but at the same time by reversing it via a Derridean
critique, I discuss whether it is possible to give back the animal its right of
being stupid by means of a moment of dividuation, that is, a radical
formlessness: a phase of becoming-radically-stupid so as to deny any sense of
perceptibility via a discourse of not élan vital but an instinct d’abandon. As
a critique of the politics in contrast to the political, I argue all of this
within the framework of Kafka's "A Report to an Academy" if only be
able to foreground a concept of "cutupidité" with respect to Istanbul
Gezi Park uprisings that have shaken and keeps on shaking Turkey since from
June 2013.
z.aracagok@gmail.com
Michael Ardoline, Infinite Speeds and Practical
Reason: A Mechanics of Concept Creation
The use of the phrase “infinite speeds” in Deleuze and
Guattari’s What is Philosophy is an unsettling choice of words to the reader
with a background in contemporary physics. While Special Relativity denies the
possibility of speeds faster than that of the speed of light, there is a
history of complex problems involving the use of unbounded velocities,
specifically the problem of indeterminacy in classical mechanics. In order to
understand what Deleuze and Guattari mean by infinite speeds, then we must
understand the consequences of infinite speeds in these physical frameworks.
This is not to claim that Deleuze and Guattari are promoting a physical theory,
but to use the understanding of these frameworks in order to make sense of the
phrase of infinite speeds. I propose to do this by equivocating our
understanding of physical space with space as a form of transcendental
aesthetic. This is not an ontological claim, but a methodological one. This
allows for the understanding of two parallel series that can exemplified by the
figure of Wronski. The first series is that of an intervention of indeterminacy
within the deterministic framework of classical mechanics allowed by those very
same deterministic laws themselves; the second of practical reason (in the
Kantian sense) to produce indeterminacy in a determinate subject.
Michael J. Ardoline is currently a Masters student at
Kingston University and Paris 8 through the Center for Research in Modern
European Philosophy. He holds a masters in philosophy from West Chester
University and a bachelors of science in physics from Lebanon Valley College.
His current research focuses on situating Deleuze's transcendental empiricism
historically, as well as squaring it with recent philosophy of science and
mathematics. His other research interests include Kant, Nietzsche, 20th century
French philosophy, 20th century analytic philosophy, hermeneutics, and
contemporary metaphysics.
Ardoline@lvc.edu
Branka Arsic, The Glory of the Lilies: Deleuze on
Contemplation
From his earliest to his later writings Deleuze is
obsessed with a relation between thought and Earth, sensation and matter. In
“Desert Islands” he talks about men and women who would be the “consciousness
of Earth and Ocean, an enormous hurricane.” In What is Philosophy?, he
discusses flowers and rocks that contemplate themselves. Taking those arguments
into account my talk will explore Deleuze’s philosophy of relation between
thought and the earthly (elemental, vegetal and animal) as most succinctly
formulated in Difference and Repetition. In that book Deleuze proposes that
each individual identity, from singular grains of wheat and branches of lilies
to particular animals and humans, is generated by a coincidence of contraction and
contemplation, contraction being what manufactures sensation by gathering
elemental matter, contemplation being what in contemplating sensation contracts
elements into unity. In investigating what such a coincidence means and how it
is possible, I will seek to elucidate Deleuze’s somewhat enigmatic claim that
“by its existence alone, the lily of the field sings the glory…of the elements
that it contemplates in contracting.” In other words I will try to explain what
it means for lilies to contemplate, and how, in Deleuze’s formulation, “all is
contemplation.”
Branka Arsić is Professor of English and Comparative
Literature at Columbia University in New York. She is the author of Bird
Relics, Grief and Vitalism in Thoreau (forthcoming with Harvard UP), On Leaving,
A Reading in Emerson (Harvard UP, 2010) and Passive Constitutions or 71/2 Times
Bartleby (Stanford UP, 2007). She is the editor of American Impersonal
(Blumberry, 2014) and co-editor (with Cary Wolfe) of The Other Emerson
(Minnesota UP, 2010).
Ba240@columbia.edu
Ridvan Askin, “PLURALISM = MONISM”: Deleuze and
Guattari’s “Magic Formula” and the Disfiguration of Narrative
This paper proposes a narrativity constituted by
pre-individual forces, affects, and percepts, what Deleuze and Guattari call
“beings of sensation.” Reading Michael Ondaatje’s The Collected Works of Billy
the Kid (1970) in this context will show how Ondaatje’s narrative engages in
shattering its representational coherence—the process of disfiguration— in
order to unearth its constitutive sensations. It is precisely this work of
disfiguration that is apt to make tangible the otherwise intangible execution of
Deleuze and Guattari’s “magic formula,” the very different/ciation of
difference, the incessant circulation and expression of forces and sensations.
In The Collected Works of Billy the Kid, disfiguration is most prominently on
display in a series of becomings the protagonist undergoes culminating in his
metaleptic account of his own death where his brain (and thus his mind) breaks
apart and thus literally kills off representation. It is in staging such acute
moments of representational crisis that the narrative reaches the impersonal
and nonhuman beyond of personal and human experience. The narrative’s
showcasing of this simultaneous composition and dissolution, its con- and
disfiguration, the topological folding of the configured actual narrative and
its disfigured virtual constitution, the folding between the particular
narrative at hand and its underlying universal conditioning affords an
experience of the otherwise unexperienceable, that is, Deleuze and Guattari’s
PLURALISM = MONISM in actu.
Ridvan Askin studied at the Universities of Vienna,
Freiburg, and Essex and holds an MA in Philosophy, English, and Portuguese from
the University of Freiburg. He was employed as Teaching and Research Assistant
and MA Coordinator at Freiburg’s North American Studies Section, transferring
to Basel in 2009. In 2011, he spent six months as Research Scholar at
Pennsylvania State University. He completed his PhD in early 2014 on
"Narrative and Becoming: Differential Narratology," which elaborates
a transcendental empiricist concept of narrative arguing for an understanding
of narrative as fundamentally nonhuman (instead of human), unconscious (instead
of correlated to consciousness), and expressive (instead of representational).
He is co-editor of a special issue on “Aesthetics in the 21st Century”
Speculations: A Journal of Speculative Realism. His main research interests are
aesthetics, American Transcendentalism, contemporary North American fiction,
Gilles Deleuze, literary theory, narrative theory, the relation of philosophy
and literature, and speculative realism.
ridvan.askin@unibas.ch
Eirini Avramopoulou, Crisis as a concept, as a scream
Following Cathy Caruth’s analysis on trauma but also
departing from it, in this paper I ask: How can we understand new states of
trauma and experiences of suffering that the ‘crisis’ discourse created? Or
else, what does it mean to ‘be’ or ‘become’ subjected to the concept of crisis?
Deleuze reminds us that “Concepts really are so living that they are not
unrelated to something that would, however, appear the furthest from the
concept, notably the scream” (Deleuze, Seminar on Leibniz). But how to follow a
concept outside the monopoly of meaning attributed to it and hence against its
implied logocentrism? How to listen to a scream crying out the repetition of a
trauma without being subjectified to the neoliberal language of pain
production? Taking the concept, indeed the scream, of crisis as a “thought
flow” which according to Deleuze “traverses the world and that even encompasses
silence” (Deleuze, Seminar on Leibniz), in this paper I will follow the
intertwined histories of spaces and people amidst the current affective
atmosphere of severe economic precariousness in Greece. Scrutinising crisis as
a temporal, spatial and acoustic flow reverberating a constantly changing urban
environment, and the desire to create sustainable and alternative livelihoods,
my aim is to be attentive to different sensibilities not yet screamed in the
concept ‘crisis’, nevertheless echoing an existence “hanging on a push of the
lungs,” as poetically phrased by Cavarero (2005:169).
Eirini Avramopoulou is a post-doctoral research fellow
at the Sociology Department of the University of Cambridge working on a new
ethnographic research on the ‘human and social costs of economic crisis in
Greece’. Eirini received a PhD in Social Anthropology from the University of
Cambridge and her work has been published in edited volumes and journals,
including The Greek Review of Social Research, Cultural Anthropology/Hot Spots,
Critical Interdisciplinarity (Kritiki Diepistimonikotita), and Thesis. At the
moment she is completing her first monograph on affect, performativity, and
gender-queer activism in Istanbul, Turkey.
avrarini@gmail.com
