User:DionysosProteus/Sandbox2b
Quotations from Deleuze and Guattari
"What is 'underlying' linguistic utterance, perceptive semiotization, etc., is an abstract machine to which the coordinates of existence (space, time, substance of expression) do not apply. This object, at the heart of the object, is not situated in some kind of heaven of representations: it is both 'in the mind' and in things, but outside all coordinates. As a deterritorializing machine it cuts across the coordinates both of language and of existence. It is neither a mental object nor a material one." (Guattari 1984, 146)
"Encoding, over-coding, decoding, flows: these categories establish the theory of society, whereas the idea of the "Urstaat," warded off or triumphant, establishes the theory of history." Pierre Clastres. In "Deleuze and Guattari Fight Back" p.227.
"For us, the essential thing is the relation of desiring-machines and social machines, their different regimes, and their immanence with respect to one another. In other words, how is unconscious desire invested in a social, economic and political field? How does sexuality, or what Leclaire might call choice of sexual objects, merely express these investments, whereas in reality these investments are investments of flow? How do our love affairs derive from universal history and not mommy and daddy? A whole social field is invested through a man or a woman that we love, and this investment happens in a variety of ways. So, we try to show how the flows invest different social fields, what they are flowing on, and by what means they are invested: encoding, over-coding, decoding. [...] What we're trying to do is put libido in relation with an "outside." The flows of women among the primitives is in relation with flows of herd animals, flows of arrows. [...] What are the flows of a society? Which flows are capable of subverting that society? And where is desire's place in all this?" (Deleuze 1972, 229).
"Perhaps the most fundamental idea is that the unconscious "produces." What this means is that we must stop treating the unconscious, as everyone has done up to now, like some kind of theatre where a privileged drama is represented, the drama of Oedipus. We believe the unconscious is not a theatre, but a factory." (Deleuze 1972b, 232)
"Even with a child, desire is not Oedipal, it functions like a mechanism, produces little machines, establishing connections among things." (Deleuze 1972b, 233)
"Today's capitalist or technocrat does not desire in the same way a slave trader or a bureaucrat from the old Chinese empire would have. When people in a society desire repression, for others and for themselves; when there are people who like to harass others, and who have the opportunity to do so, the "right" to do so, this exhibits the problem of a deep connection between libidinal desire and the social field." (Deleuze "On Capitalism and Desire" p.263)
"Ideology has no importance here: what matters is not ideology and not even the "economic / ideological" distinction or opposition; what matters is the organization of power. Because the organization of power, i.e. the way in which desire is already in the economic, the way libido invests the economic, haunts the economic and fosters the political forms of repression." (263)
"What is liberated desire? A desire that escapes the impasse of individual private fantasy: it's not about adapting desire, socializing and disciplining it, but hooking it up in such a way that its process is uninterrupted in the social body, so its expression can be collective. The most important thing is not authoritarian unification, but a kind of infinite swarming: desires in the neighbourhood, the schools, factories, prisons, nursery schools, etc." (Guattari 267)
"Capitalism has always been, and still is a remarkable desiring-machine. Flows of money, flows of the means of production, flows of man power, flows of new markets: it's all desire in flux." (Deleuze, 267)
"The first capitalist are waiting there like birds of prey, waiting to swoop on the worker who has fallen through the cracks of the previous system. This is what is meant by primitive accumulation." (Deleuze, 268)
"Each system, moreover, has its own particular illness: the hysteria of so-called primitive societies, the paranoid-depressives of great Empires... The capitalist economy functions through decoding and deterritorialization: it has its extreme illnesses, that is, its schizophrenics who come uncoded and become deterritorialized to the extreme, but it also has its extreme consequences, its revolutionaries." (Guattari, 273)
"Desire or delirium (which are in a deep sense the same thing), desire-delirium is by its nature a libidinal investment of an entire historical milieu, or an entire social environment. What makes one delirious are classes, peoples, races, masses, mobs." (Deleuze, 275)
Schreber's delirium and Wolf-man's treatment as examples of crushing of social and historical to familial (application). (ref: Deleuze 275)
"tribes, empires, and war machines" (1980, 245)
"A desiring-machine is a non-organic system of the body" (Deleuze 1972, 219)
- Deleuze, Gilles. 1972. "Deleuze and Guattari Fight Back." In Desert Islands and Other Texts, 1953-1974. Ed. David Lapoujade. Trans. Michael Taormina. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ISBN 1584350180. 216-229.
"Every machine is the negation, the destroyer by incorporation (almost to the point of excretion), of the machine it replaces. And it is potentially in a similar relationship to the machine that will take its place." (Guattari 1984, 112) [might want to biblio individual essay, published in 1971).
"In our view, there exists a desiring production prior to any actualization in the familial division of the sexes and individuals or in the social division of labour, and this production invests the diverse forms of the production of pleasure as well as the structures intended to repress them. Though it obeys different regimes, the desiring energy found in the revolutionary aspect of history--with the working class, the sciences and the arts--is the same as that found in the aspect of exploitation and how it relates to State power. Both aspects presuppose the unconscious participation of the oppressed."[1]
- Guattari, Félix. 1972. "Deleuze and Guattari Fight Back." In Gilles Deleuze, Desert Islands and Other Texts, 1953-1974. Ed. David Lapoujade. Trans. Michael Taormina. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ISBN 1584350180. 216-229.
"The capitalist is interested only in the different machines of production that he can connect to his machine of exploitation: your arms, if you are a janitor; your brains if you are an engineer; your looks, if you are a cover-girl. [...] An individual does not communicate with his fellow humans: a transhuman chain of organs is formed and enters into conjunction with semiotic chains and an intersection of material flows." (Guattari 1995, 231; 237)
"When a social formation exhausts itself and begins to leak on every side, all sorts of things come uncoded, all sorts of unpoliced flows begin circulating: for example, the migrations of peasants in feudal Europe are phenomena of "deterritorialization." (Deleuze "On Capitalism and Desire" 268)
"For example, the merchant bourgeoisie of the cities conjugated or capitalized a domain of knowledge, a technology, assemblages and circuits into whose dependency the nobility, Church, artisans, and even peasants would enter. It is precisely because the bourgeoisie was a cutting edge of deterritorialization, a veritable particle accelerator, that it also performed an overall reterritorialization." (1980, 243)
"We may summarily distinguish three kinds of signs: indexes (territorial signs), symbols (deterritorialized signs), and icons (signs of reterritorialization)." (1980, 72)
"reterritorialization is not an added territory, but takes place in a different space than that of territories, namely overcoded geometrical space" (1980, 245).
Order-word aka Foucault's "statement"
[edit]Remember to address translation issues, re: utterance, enunciation, etc.
"We must therefore distinguish between the individuated Oedipalist utterance, directed towards biunivocity, the complete object, representative application, and the quite different individuated schizo utterance whose force, whose deterritorializing charges, go out to the furthest corners of the universe." (Guattari 1984, 127)
See also Object relations theory | Objet petit a | Part-whole theory.
"When Jacques Lacan opens up the series of partial objects to the voice and the gaze, beyond the breast and the buttocks, he signals his refusal to close them off and reduce them to the body. The voice and the gaze escape the body, for example, as they and audiovisual machines become increasingly contiguous." (Guattari, 222)
"As object "a," the partial object is de-totalized and deterritorialized; it has permanently distanced itself from any individual corporeity; and it is now in a position to tip in the direction of real singularities and open up to the molecular machinisms of every kind that shape history." (Guattari, 222)
"It is by no means clear that desire has anything to do with objects. We're talking about machines, flows, levies, detachments, residues. We're doing a critique of the partial object." (Deleuze 223)
"In order to understand the affective charge of these microgestures [of mime], they can be seen as partial objects [...]: they can be taken out of the whole sequence, they belong to other gestural sequences, they have no meaning in themselves, but are always articulated with other microgestures through the formation of different sequences." (José Gil 1985, 110)
"You can make any list of part-objects you want: hand, breast, mouth, eyes . . . It's still Frankenstein. What we need to consider is not fundamentally organs without bodies, or the fragmented body; it is the body without organs, animated by various intensive movements that determine the nature and emplacement of the organs in question and make that body an organism, or even a system of strata of which the organism is only a part." (1980, 190)
"This is a very summary survey of the main directions an analysis must take: the uncharted continent of power formations, in other words the unconscious of the socius itself rather than the unconscious buried in the folds of the individual's brain, or expressed in stereotyped complexes. The analyst cannot be neutral towards those power formations." (Guattari 1984, 166)
"tragedy ascribes desire to the full body of the despot and to the corresponding imperial code. [...] [T]ragic representation does not express the despotic element properly speaking, but the conditions under which--in fifth-century Greece, for example--this element diminishes in favor of the new order of the city-state." (AO 1972, 331) Tragedy expresses city-state's organization that represses the fallen despot - Jean-Pierre Vernant
References
[edit]- ^ Guattari (1972, 218).