Bodies-Language: Immanence in Gilles Deleuze's Foucault , in K. D. Martin and A.-C. Drews, eds., Inside. Outside. Other. The Body in the Work of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2016.

"Bodies-Language: Immanence in Gilles Deleuze's Foucault", in K. D. Martin and A.-C. Drews, eds., Inside. Outside. Other. The Body in the Work of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2016.
of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Published in K. D. Martin and A.-C. Drews, eds.,  Inside. Outside. Other. The  Body in the Work of Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault  , Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, !"# $f%rthc%&ing'. C%ntact: g.c%llett-(!)*   Bodies-Language: Immanence in Gilles Deleuze’s Foucault  uillau&e C%llett, niersit/ %f Kent Thought - Being 0t is alwa/s i&p%rtant t% re&e&ber that Deleu1e neer argued f%r the pri%rit/ %f the b%d/%er th%ught, 2ust as he neer pri%ritised being %er thin+ing. Deleu1e3s a%wed uni%cal%nt%l%g/ re4uires us t% ulti&atel/ neutralise the e4ui%cit/ %f being and thin+ing, but n%t b/subsu&ing the& under an %erarching c%ncepti%n %f the One  transcending the& b%th, whichwe find in Alain Badi%u3s 5e%-Plat%nic Deleu1e. "  0f uni%cit/ &eans an/thing in Deleu1e3s%nt%l%g/ it is first %f all as a uni%cit/ %f difference , a uni%cit/ %f n%thing else than the er/difference between being and thin+ing, a difference which $un-'  grounds  the& b%th b/ pri%ritising the difference between the& %er either being %r thin+ing when ta+en separatel/.  0f the/ can be said t% be %ne, it is %nl/ t% the e6tent that the/ are perpetuall/ bridging thisunc%llapsible distance between the& thr%ugh an 7instantane%us e6change8 (  %r a pr%cess %f 7weaing.8 9 "  Alain Badi%u,  Deleuze: The Claor of Being  , transl. b/ %uise Burchill $Minneap%lis: niersit/ %f Minnes%ta Press, ";;; <";;)='.   >hile Deleu1e spea+s in the ?!s %f uni!ocal "eing  , he &a+es it clear that we sh%uld n%t c%nflate it with%nt%l%g/ #ua  the stud/ %f being tout court  : 7Phil%s%ph/ &erges with %nt%l%g/, but %nt%l%g/ &erges with theuni%cit/ %f Being8 $illes Deleu1e, The $ogic of %ense  $%nd%n: C%ntinuu&, !!9 <";?;=', p. !#', which we&ust deduce is thus different in +ind fr%& %nt%l%g/, and indeed Deleu1e spea+s at ti&es %f the 7ni%cit/ %f sense8 $Deleu1e, %gic %f @ense, p. ?' rather than %f being. (  illes Deleu1e and li6 uattari, What is &hiloso'hy( , transl. b/ raha& Birchill und ugh T%&lins%n$%nd%n: Vers%, ";;9 <";;"=', p. (. 9  Deleu1e and uattari, Phil%s%ph/E, p. (F illes Deleu1e,  Foucault  , transl. b/ @eGn and $%nd%n:C%ntinuu&, !!? <";?=', p. ;. This is an e6plicit allusi%n t% the Plat%nic and 5e%-Plat%nic weaing %f theintelligible and the sensible, f%r instance as f%und in Pl%tinus. @ee als% illes Deleu1e  )*'ressionis in &hiloso'hy: %'inoza , transl. b/ Martin H%ughin $5ew I%r+: J%ne B%%+s, ";; <";?=', pp. ")9-?. "  As such, f%r Deleu1e being and thin+ing, the b%d/ and th%ught, are c%ntinu%usl/ engaged in arelati%n %f e#uality  and een re!ersi"ility , as he puts it in What is &hiloso'hy( , despite beingand continuing to "e  radicall/ heter%gene%us di&ensi%ns. 0n this te6t the 7plane %f i&&anence8 #    which is h%w Deleu1e will fra&e this difference t%wards the end %f his career   is presented as a tw%-sided 7reersible8 f%ld %f th%ught-nature, a plane that c%-articulates  +o,s  and  &hysis- the i&age %f th%ught and the &atter %r substance %f being. ?  Th%ught cann%t be i&&anent to  a full and self-c%&plete nature, f%r this w%uld be t% h/p%stasise nature as atranscendent Being which precedes and is capable %f e6isting independentl/ %f th%ught3sc%nstructie and pr%ductie f%rce. i+ewise, unless th%ught is freed fr%& the transcendentf%r&s %f the @ub2ect and the Lg%, and unless it is re-l%cated t% a c%&pletel/ i&pers%naltranscendental field ani&ated b/ n%n-hu&an f%rces and relati%ns %f f%rce, th%ught3sc%nstitutie p%wer %er the w%rld re&ains &erel/ phen%&enal rather than %nt%l%gical. ) %r Deleu1e, i&&anence is hence the pr%per %b2ect %f phil%s%ph/ since it distinguishes itself,%n the %ne hand, fr%& the Being %f %nt%- theology  and, %n the %ther hand, fr%& the Thin+ing%f anthro'ology . Phil%s%ph/ is neither anthr%p%l%g/ n%r the%l%g/F rather it is what we cancall the ontological   stud/ %f i&&anence #ua  e4ual articulati%n %r dis2unctie s/nthesis   %f  being-thin+ing. ;  This is wh/ i&&anence has %nl/ eer been i&&anent t% itself, i&&anence #  Deleu1e and uattari, Phil%s%ph/E, Ch. . ?  Deleu1e and uattari, Phil%s%ph/E, p. (. 0n chapter # %f this te6t, Deleu1e and uattari c%ntend that at theleel %f ateriality , and at the leel %f fi6ed iages  tied t% pr%p%siti%nal c%ncepts, thin+ing and being,respectiel/, subsist as distinct p%wers b/ being held in a relati%n %f dualis& $l%gicall/, that %f den%tati%n,c%nstituting what the/ na&e the 7plane %f reference8'F whereas when articulated i&&anentl/ $%n a phil%s%phical7plane %f i&&anence8', being 7 "ecoes 8 in-c%rp%real and thin+ing l%ses its i&age, &erging with $%r 7bec%&ing8' this in-c%rp%real th%ught-being it e6presses. )  As M%ntebell% puts it,  &hysis  f%r Deleu1e is insubstantial and it can %nl/ be th%ught, een th%ugh it is entirel/real rather than &erel/ ideal $Pierre M%ntebell%,  Deleuze. $a 'assion de la 'ens/e  $Paris: Vrin, !!', p. ('.   Deleu1e &%bilises his n%ti%n %f the dis2unctie s/nthesis in  Difference and 0e'etition  s% as t% c%nceptualise uni%cit/ with%ut identit/ and thus with%ut the pri&ac/ %f the ne. The &an/ $difference' is s/nthesised dis2unctiel/ thr%ugh a nu&ericall/ single repetiti%n, which is itself fractured int% its f%r&all/ distinct c%nstituent differences %r repetitie instances. This is applied &%re directl/ t% the 4uesti%n %f i&&anence in The $ogic of %ense , and fr%& this we arguabl/ derie the plane %f i&&anence as uni%cal articulati%n %f thin+ing and being with%ut a ne, n%r a Man/ $n%r a Tw%'. @ee . Deleu1e,  Difference and 0e'etition , transl. b/ P. Patt%n $%nd%n: C%ntinuu&, !! <";?=', esp. Ch. F and . Deleu1e, %gic, pp. (#-(). ;  J%urabichili has als% str%ngl/ %pp%sed an %nt%l%gical interpretati%n %f Deleu1e3s w%r+, c%nsidering hi&rather as a +ind %f %nt%l%gical l%gician. ranN%is J%urabichili,  Deleuze: 1ne 'hiloso'hie de l2/!/neent    as such. This all%ws us t% b/pass the need t% ascribe t% Deleu1e either the p%siti%n %f &aterialis& %r idealis&, since his pr%2ect is ai&ed precisel/ at %erc%&ing such a binar/%pp%siti%n. urther&%re, it re4uires us t% st%p describing Deleu1e as a realist ins%far as weunderstand the ter& as naiel/ p%inting t% a full, self-%rganising p%sitiit/ %f 5ature, the Oealas self-c%nsistent in and %f itself, a self-generating atterenergy , and s% %n. 0f there is an/italis& in Deleu1e3s w%r+, it is %nl/ ins%far as nature is c%nstructed b/ n%n-hu&an th%ught.0t is particularl/ i&p%rtant t% bear in &ind the ab%e in the c%nte6t %f a %lu&e %n Deleu1e,%ucault, and the b%d/. This is because 0 clai& that the b%d/  while n%t pri%r t% th%ught  isn%netheless itself the er/ site where being and thin+ing c%-articulate t% pr%duce a plane %f i&&anence. %r instance, in his chapter %n l%gic in What is &hiloso'hy(-  Deleu1e states thateer/ state %f affairs is c%nnected t% and separated fr%& its %wn li&it, as the referent %f a pr%p%siti%n, than+s t% 7a b%d/, a lied,8 which has the capacit/ t% bring the state %f affairs inc%ntact with its %wn irtual p%tential, na&el/ c%unter-actualised eents which p%pulate the plane %f i&&anence. "!  This generatie functi%n %f the b%d/, its r%le as the site %f the f%ld %f th%ught-being, is een &%re e6plicit in The $ogic of %ense-  where Deleu1e g%es t% greatlengths t% describe precisel/ h%w the b%d/ can carr/ %ut such a tas+ $na&el/ pr%duce  sense ',using a ps/ch%anal/tic and 4uasi-structuralist fra&ew%r+. "" 0n what f%ll%ws, 0 will sh%w that this h%lds true f%r Deleu1e3s ";? b%%+  Foucault  , a te6twhich f%r&s a late tril%g/ with The Fold  34  and What is &hiloso'hy( , all three %f which buildin their %wn wa/s %n Deleu1e3s The $ogic of %ense  fr%& ";?;. >hile 0 will als% be referring $Paris: Presses niersitaires de rance, ";;9'F ranN%is J%urabichili,  $e !oca"ulaire de Deleuze  $Paris:Lllipses, !!('. "!  Deleu1e and uattari, Phil%s%ph/E, p. "#?. ""  Drawing %n the w%r+ %f the p%st-acanian @erge eclaire, Deleu1e argues in this ";?; te6t that the unc%nsci%us b%d/ articulates with the c%nsci%us &ind acc%rding t% structuralist principles r%ughl/ anal%g%us t% the signifier3s relati%n t% the signified. Being the site %f n%nsensical /et pr%t%-linguisticall/-structured sense-i&pressi%ns %r b%dil/ affecti%ns, the b%d/ is thereb/ in a priileged p%siti%n t% articulate between c%rp%real acti%ns and passi%ns, %n the %ne hand, and %n the %ther linguisticall/ e6pressed inc%rp%real 7sense-eents8 $Deleu1e3s re-w%r+ing %f the @aussurian 7sign8 as unit/ %f signifier and signified'. "  illes Deleu1e, The Fold. $ei"niz and the Baro#ue , transl. b/ T%& C%nle/ $%nd%n: C%ntinuu&, ";;( <";='. (  t% %ucault3s %wn te6ts, and alth%ugh &%st %f Deleu1e3s interpretie clai&s are t% s%&ee6tent te6tuall/ supp%rted, 0 will &ainl/ be f%cusing in this chapter %n h%w Deleu1eintegrates %ucault3s w%r+ int% his %wn %nt%l%gical pr%2ect. C%&&enting %n the alidit/ %f such an integrati%n lies %utside the sc%pe %f &/ anal/sis, th%ugh a curs%r/ glance at%ucault3s w%r+ &a+es it clear that he w%uld hae re2ected &%st %f Deleu1e3s %ert%nt%l%gisati%n %f his %wn &%re subtl/ nuanced and c%ncealed %nt%l%gical clai&s. aing said that, 0 will be particularl/ f%cusing in the f%ll%wing %n the interesting parallels%ne finds during the ";?!s between Deleu1e3s %nt%l%gical pr%2ect  as ulti&atel/ %rientedt%wards a thin+ing %f i&&anence , and %ucault3s %wn thin+ing thr%ugh %f the 4uesti%n %f n%nrelati%nalit/, particularl/ as it c%ncerns the articulati%n %f the sa/able and the isible, lesots et les choses . 0 will als% draw attenti%n t% the wa/ in which b%th thin+ers atte&pt t% usef%rce %r p%wer t% understand h%w n%nrelati%nalit/ cures int% itself t% e6press a relati%n %f adeeper s%rt, which has in b%th cases an inti&ate tie t% the b%d/ as the seat %f this curing-in%f n%nrelati%nalit/.The intellectual c%nte6t %f the ";?!s is indeed highl/ instructie when assessing the r%%ts %f  b%th Deleu1e3s and %ucault3s w%r+. During &uch %f the late ";?!s, Deleu1e3s pr%2ect %f atte&pting t% reach a p%int be/%nd the dualis& %f thin+ing and being with%ut res%rting t% atranscendent %r substantialist c%ncepti%n %f the ne, is c%uched in ter&s %f the 7dis2uncties/nthesis8 %r n%n- relation "(   %f b%dies and language, w%rds and things. 0n this sense, anddespite its being re-fashi%ned b/ hi& in his w%r+s fr%& this peri%d, we &ust actuall/ priilege rench ";?!s structuralis& when ealuating Deleu1e3s earl/ phil%s%ph/, and een "(  %r Deleu1e $c%&&enting %n %ucault', a n%n-relati%n is still a relati%n, een %ne %f a 7deeper8 s%rt $Deleu1e,%ucault, p. #('. ere Deleu1e refers t% %ucault3s This is +ot a &i'e(- transl. b/ H. ar+ness $Ber+ele/:niersit/ %f Calif%rnia Press',    p. (?, in which the latter sh%ws that 7the little thin band, c%l%urless and neutral8,which separates the figure %f the pipe fr%& the state&ent, f%r&s what %ucault  alluding t% Blanch%t $Deleu1etells us %n this page'  calls a 7n%n-relati%n8. 0t is a n%n-relati%n t% the e6tent that the state&ent $7This is n%t a pipe8', the drawing, and the c%nnectie %r designatie 7this8, all dierge fr%& the c%&&%n f%r& %f the pipe$the/ 7cann%t find a place t% &eet8 as %ucault puts it, p. (?'. 9  his &%re enduring understanding %f i&&anence. 0n particular, structuralis&3s intensificati%n%f the tensi%n between th%ught and e6perience pr%ided a wa/ %ut %f the then d%&inant phen%&en%l%gical traditi%n. Deleu1e3s criti4ue %f phen%&en%l%g/ re&ains fairl/ c%nsistent fr%& The $ogic of %ense  t% his  Foucault   and What is &hiloso'hy( F in all %f these te6ts, phen%&en%l%g/ is c%nsidered t% fail because its tw% central figures, Ld&und usserl and Martin eidegger, b%th end up falling bac+ %n %ne side %f the being-thin+ing dualis& we hae been discussing. usserl3s phen%&en%l%g/ sets itself the tas+ %f anal/sing the phen%&en%n, and thus re&ains at theleel %f thin+ing, albeit %ne it p%werfull/ re-w%r+s as c%nstitutie %f the phen%&enal w%rld,inheriting Kant3s legac/. "9  C%nersel/, f%r Deleu1e, eidegger re&ains at the leel %f Being,and at the leel %f Being3s p%wer %er thin+ing, despite hi&self rew%r+ing the  sense  %f Beingas s%&ething which %nl/ reeals itself in th%ught and thr%ugh the act %f 4uesti%ning. "#  @inceBeing is a%wedl/ distinct fr%& its w%rldl/, %ntic &anifestati%ns, it re&ains ulti&atel/transcendent in relati%n t% thin+ing, as an irrec%erable Origin . "?  Despite b%th failing t% reach the Deleu1ian c%ncepti%n %f i&&anence, th%ugh in dia&etricall/%pp%sed wa/s, usserl and eidegger are still n%netheless significant influences %n Deleu1e.usserl3s e&phasis %n the articulati%n %f thin+ing and phen%&enal "eing  , and eidegger3sn%el atte&pts t% c%nsider the relati%n %f %nt%l%gical  Being   and thin+ing, prefigure Deleu1e3s%wn atte&pts t% thin+ thr%ugh the being-thin+ing relati%n %utside the f%r&s %f Man and %d.usserl highlights th%ught3s c%nstitutie p%wer, th%ugh this is %nl/ a p%wer %er the  'henoenon  and n%t the nouenon , t% the e6tent that usserl3s phen%&en%l%gical reducti%n "9  %r a g%%d starting p%int, see  Ideas: General Introduction to &ure &henoenology- transl. b/ B. ibs%n $%nd%n: O%utledge, !" <";"(='. "#  %r references t% the  sense  %f Being, see f%r instance Martin eidegger,  Being and Tie , transl. b/ H.Mac4uarrie and L. O%bins%n $%nd%n: >ile/-Blac+well, ";) <";)='. "?  >e can sa/ that in eidegger, Being and thin+ing c%-articulate b/ &eans %f a transcendental Being itself  transcendent   t% thin+ing. %r a c%ndensed criti4ue %f eidegger3s c%ncepti%n %f the f%ld $%nt%l%gicaldifference', see . Deleu1e, Difference, pp. ))-);F see als% Deleu1e, %gic %f @ense, pp. (-9, f%r a criti4ue %f the n%ti%n that sense deries fr%& a l%st $and transcendent' 7 Origin 8, which M%ntebell% argues is an allusi%n t%eidegger $see M%ntebell%, Deleu1e, pp. 9;-#!'. #
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!