about deleuze stengers humour irony

7/28/2019 About Deleuze Stengers Humour Irony

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/about-deleuze-stengers-humour-irony 1/9

82 Maiam Fas

- (2002) Byond Convsaion: Risks of Pa in C. Kll and A. Danill ds) Pcess a1dDence: Btw Cosmological a1d ostsrucurlis osmodisms. Nw York Sat Univsiy of Nw Yok

Pss pp 23556. 2004) Consuivist Rading of Pocss and Raliy'. Pap psnd a Whihad

nvnion and Soial Pocss, Cn fo h Sudy of nvnion and Soial Pro<s Goldsmis

Collg, London Jun (2005) Dluz and Guaai's Las Enigmai Messag. Agak 10 2) 51-67Whieead AN 920) Co1p Nare, Camidg, Cambidg Univsiy Pss 938). Modes f Tbogb. Camidg Cambidg Univsiy Pss

. I 978) ces a1 d Reali Nw Yok, Fre Pss.. ( 985) Sc a1 be Modr1 ¥rld. ondon Fe Assoiaion Books.

Chapter 3

Irony and Humour, Toward a Deleuzian Science Studies

Ka Van

The mask, the costume the covered is everywhere the truth of the uncovered.he mask is the true subject of repetition

Because repetiton differs n knd from representation,the repeated cannot be represented;

rather it must always be signied,masked by what signies it

itself masking what it sign fies.Deleuze 2004a [1 968] 20)

Irony and Humour - an Introduction

In an ngmatic passage of The Ivention Moder Scece, Isabelle Stengers differentatesirony and humour as two d fferent modes of engagement, two political logics availableto students of the socialilites of science She denes humour as 'the capacity torecognze oneself as a product of the history whose constructon one s trying tofollow - and this in a sense in which humour is rst of all distingushed from irony

Stengers 2000: 66). he passage goes on to esh out the comparison between ronyand humour, which in turn is positoned as an nvitation for scence studes to orientto the poltics of scientic writng in a particular (humorous) way.

s Stve Woolgar has shown she writes 'the sociological readng of the scienceso the rlatvist type puts its specialists in the position of being "ironists. They are

thos who wl not lt themselves count, who will bring to lght the claims of thecienc. hy know they wll always encounter the same dfference in point of viewb�WC hmslves and scientists, which guarantes that they have conquered once and l, dH' ns for listnng to scientsts wthout letting themslves be impressed byJ' Sm thors cn advoct an ronic reading of their own texts because thela · <Jlly inic dyc iony) he £ct remains that the position njnipl 'Ui If•<I· y h h o rncndence stbl o dyn�mc), t

1< d and lOI' uvS pw t udg ha hs 0 J dif•r� fmth lg sudd (Srl):IM 200: M).

� I

!II



84 Katie Vann

In the text that Stengrs alludes to here (Woolgar 983) Steve Woolgar orients toan epistemological problematic of 980s constructivist ethnographic laboratorystudies of science as it actually happens Tarja Knuuttila has likened the problematicaddressed by Woolgar to arguments from selfrefutation in philosophy and

characterizes the particular irony' targeted by Woolgar as follos Woolgar criticizedthis urge of labortory studis to dscribe science as it happens of an instrumentalconception of e thnography whic applies relativist episteology only selectively - toother scientists accounts - whreas one's own accounts are prsented realistically'(Knuuttila 2002 mphasis added)

The connection that Steners makes to her point about irony, is Woolgar'srecognition that laboratory studies presuppose that they operate from the standpointof a more lucid and more universal power to judge hat assures [theirJ difference fromthose being studied' And when Stengers hearkens to Woolgar in the preceding passageshe seems to be warning those who study the sociality of scientific practices againstinstigating the situational irony that the whereas' inaugurates. t would be ironic topresuppose the construcedness of scientific knowledge and then to proceed with the

purported certainty of thnographic research to disclose it in the case of laboratoryscience; the implicit appeal to a privileged access to truth from the standpoint ofethnographic method betrays he supposition of the constructedness of scienticknowledge as such To claim a prvileged access to the processes that attend antifoundational scientic truths would inaugurate an rony when coupled with thefoundationalist premis that ustifies ethnographic privilege per se

Stengers goes on to foil the logic of irony for the purposes of advocating the logicof humour Humour by contrast' she continues, is an art of immanence. Thedifference between science and nonscience cannot be judged in the name of atranscendence in reation to which we would designate urselves as free and where onlythose who remain indifferent to it are free For our dependence on this transcendencein no way reduces our degrees of liberty our choice as to the way we will attend to theproblems created by the constitution of this difference The situation is the same asthat of politologists who know that their problem would have no meaning had not theGreks invented an "art of politics. They are themselves a product of this inventionwhich they thus cannot reduce to nothingness. But they remain free to put thisinvention in history n this sense irony and humour constitute two distinct politicaprojects two ways of discussing the sciences and of producing debate with scientissIrony opposes power to power. Humour produces (to the degree it itself manages obe produced) the pssibility of shared perplexity, which effectiely turns those it brinstogether into equals o these two projects, there correspond two distinct versions othe principle of symmetry an instrument of reduction or a vector of ncertainy(Stengers 2000 66-67

Stengrs gesture to the distnctin etwn ny nd wk point utwo different od il pri• O t w par of tOS w sudy Sci'li fC

pra i·s And n disrussi iy an hHlUI' in hs ma, h· tw e f'.�

Towrd a Dleuzn Science Studis 85

begun to be applied in an analytical or classicatory manner such a way as tocharacterize modes of social practice: irony and humour are distinctive ways in whichshe who studies scientic practices orients to the historicity of her own practices andtheir potenial contiguity with that of those she studies

While Stengrs' explici t citation of Woolgar does the important work of mappingher understanding of the distinction between irony and humour to the practices ofscience studies scholars it also has the limiting consequence of characterizing ironicpractices in the somewhat general way in which irony can be understood a dynamicin which an opposition emerges between what is said or claimed ad what isundertaken rony in that general sense is likened to practices of hypocrisy While thisvernacular lends preliminary sense and attraction to Stengers' call it is also limiting inthat it manifests an opacity around the historical specicity o f Stengers' own discoursewhich is much more technical.

Stengers suggests the rather negrained reading of humour as a mode of practicethat entails not so much the overcoming of irony through the creation of an adherencebetween what is claimed and what is undertaken as the realization that the practice of

those who undertake enquiry into the socialities of scientic practice is itself partof the history of the sciences a contiguity that cannot be reduced. n its humorousmode, science studies remains free to put this invention in history

Yet the difference between irony and humour remains enigmatic in this passage inso far as it leaves us wondering what to do with the uncomfortable recognition that anappeal to a more universal power to judge may be one of the constitutive dimensionsof the history of the sciences to which science studies itself belongs If humour is theputting of such an appeal in history as an aspect of the invention of science that oneshares with her interlocutors how does that differ from an ironic appeal a such?

Stengers writes of irony as an appeal to transcendence and of humour as an art ofimmanence And it is perhaps worth our appreciation that Stengers' uses of thesetropes of transcendence and immence at once spatial and cosmological echo apowerful Deleuzian trace that animates her work That trace takes her quite beyondgeneral uses of the terms irony and humour where they manifest a fruitful space inwhich Deleuze and science and technology studies intersect.

To be sure, by the time The Lgic Sense arrives (1969), Deleuze will have begun tow on the comparative figures of irony and humour in such a way as to take on theosition of humorist Resonant with Stengers' later invitation to engage the arts ofimnce he writs here is a difficult relation which rejects the fase Platoniclity of the essence and the example. This exercise which consists in substitutingesinaions , onstrations consumptions and pure destructions for signications'qu ircs an dd nspiration tat one know how to descend. What is rquired islm a ppos�d o h Soraic irony or to the technique of scent' (Dleuze

.oot�h %91 : 54).n h Lo, q( rmr a H f1vmtio �( Md Smr, bh Dckz n Scn•sv• \ad·� •ngt in tl' s� f m ; UZ, ny s aqs•d w

.,

'.1



88 Kati Vann

humour as markers of peculiar political theatres in their own right This descriptivorientation enables Deleuze to create a negrained schematic of the categories ofirony and humour which paves the way for a subtle transition to a normativeorientation in subsequent texts for example, as was intimated in the passage shown

above from Logi f Sns (2004b 1969)And what is important here in its relation to the eventual normative orientationthat Deleuz (and Stngers) seems to pursue is that in Coldness and Cruelty, bothsadistic irony and masochistic humour are characterizd as particulary modern politicaltheatres, which ar contrasted with the irony and humour proper to the politicaltheatres achieved in the dialogues of Plato, which Deleuze reads as proper to a premodern, lassical milieu. As we shall se below, this has the interesting effect ofconstructing a grid of possibilities not just two general political strategies namedirony and humour, but rather two political strategies that are proper to two distinctivepolitical milieux which are marked respectively by the classical and modern conceptionsof law. In effect, by d ifferentiating two conceptions of law, the otherwise dichotomousirony' versus humour is transformed into a fourfold schematic (classical irony

classical humour modern irony; modern humour)It is my interest in this chapter to open a conversation that considers whether and

in what ways such differencs will matter for how we understand, for example, Deleuze's

eventual referenc to humour as an alternative to Socatic irony or the technique of

ascnt, which we find in the Logic Sese (2004b [ 1969]), as noted above, as well a

Stenger's call to humour in Invmtio1z. ] believe that it is worthwhile in other words, to

visit Deleuzes descriptive treatment of Sade and Masoch because it entails attentionto details that are relevant to the genealogy of irony and humour as Deleuzian devicesthat could be invoked in subsequent treatments such as Stengers'

In the next section ] turn to Deleuze's comparative reading of Sade and Masoch i

Coldness and Cruelt' in n effort to specify irony and humour as he develops them

there. I then turn to a particular instance in Dferce and Repeiion (2004a [1968) a

subsequent workthat mediates the passagefrom Coldness and Cruelty' to The ogic S'

and in which Deleuz raises the distinction between irony ad humour My am here w

be to consider how Deleuze renders the distinction in this textual setting, and how th

rendering is contextualized by his concerns in the broader passage in which it occurs; I 1

light of these considerations, I ask radrs to return to the enigma of Stengers' call a

to think about its implications at the intersection of Deleuze and science studis

The Ethical Hollow of Modern Law

As gures of Deleuzin eny irony ad umu ar maifl�s<'d on•most i1

Coldnss nd Crue lt y' as ks f t 'SjCI w s·grapi logis ·atcd y n Msoch. Tla· wok jSl'(S Y o t· i t iff S. My fS lw�. I

l' �l' i s1wci<S tw poit ica gk • I n <'nh wd •r, i h D· .A ndi

Toward a Dluzan Scnce S<·s 89

of the approaches that Sade and Masoch use to create a distictive literary count�rprto what Deleuze calls the modern conception of the law' as described in Kant's Criiqu

f Pctical Reason (Kant 2004 1788) or Deleuze, Kant's tract marks a distinctivemilieu forth e works of Sade and Masoch as such, it provides a standpoint fom which

to ascertain the differences between the works of Sade and Masoch and the d ifferencesbetween thir works and those of Plato Deuze species the modern conception oflaw by contrasting it with what he calls the classical conception

he classical concept of the law' he writes, found its perfect expression in Platoand in that form gained universal acceptance throughout the Chrs tian wold Accordingto this conception, the law may be viewed either in the light of its undelying principlesor in the light of its consequences From the first point of vew, the law itself is not aprimary but only a secondary or delegated power dependent on a supreme principle,which is the Good . . . from the standpoint of its consequences obedience to the law is"best the best being in the image of the Good . . This conception which is seeminglyso conventional nevertheless conceals elements of irony and humour which madepolitical philosophy possible, for it allows the free play of thought at the upper and

lower limits of the scale of law. The death of Socrates is exemplary the laws placethir fate in the hads of the condemned ma, and ask that he should saction theirthority by submitting to them as a rational man. There is indeed a great deal of ironyn the operation that seeks to trace the laws back to an absolute Good as the necessarypnciple of their foundation. Equally, there is considerable humour in the attempt toduc the laws to a relative Best in order to persuade us that we should obey them. Thust appeas that the notion of law is not selfsufficient unless backed by force ideally itds to rest on a higher principle as well as on a consideration of its motensquences Irony and humour are the essential forms through which we apprehendIe law It is in this essential relation to the law that they acquire their function and theirsini cance. Irony is the process of thought whereby the law is made to depend on an n tely supeor Good, just as humour is the attempt to sanction the law by recourset n innitely more righteous best' (Deleuze 1 99 1 [! 967]: 8 1-82)

e can see lements of both Deleuze's (2004b 1969]) and Stengers (2000)ap pa ls to the distinction between irony and humour in this passage The spatialhors of ascent and descent are here and so is the centrality of the supremercile' that grounds law and to which ironic strategy entails an ascent Such a�jl nd grounding principle is unique to the classical conception of law asa\Cerzcd y Dluz in Coldness and Cruelty' With respect to the classical•p on, DuZl dntis the literary logics of irony and humour in the story of t·a f cra. An wht ses to be key here is that the classical conception;fs 10nt a bot t h u n lowr liis of the scale of law'. ThisX ! ISiV possJy S l'S (j·01 rd iC' o n Cnt· bth iny n

mo o t xis o gud ig ·i ip l o 1 h Good, o wh ich w s •o: t n w i 1 img rts th hgl · p i ip• of t (o whkh �I HIId nw n pmvi.� dH (Hdnio i vaidit y.



90 Kati Vnn

Although differntiatd in terms of the metaphors of ascent and descent, humouralso comes into being in ration to the same, grounding principle of the Good; thatis, even in the cas of humour, which entails descent to consequences, the Best soarrived at is itself in the imag of th underying principle of the Good upon which

the vaidity of law is securd; humour is a descent to th bst of the righteous, itself areection of th grounding principle of the Good Deeuz thus speaks of rny andhumour in the sam brath whn h charcterizs the scenographic logic of the deathof Socrats; th princip of the Good allows evn for the condemned man to sanctionthe authority of the law in light of the est that is estabished in it imag

With the distinctieness of this classical concption in pace, Deleuze goes on tospecify what he calls the ode conception of law, a conception that is bothpresupposed by an contained in he tets that bring forth the peculiar scenographicogics of sadistic irony and masochistic humour Both sadistic irony and masochistichumour will be differentiatd from the Socratic irony/humour that is proper to theclassical milieu.

Kant gave a rigorous formulation of a radicaly nw conception,' writes Deleuze

in which the law is no longer regarded as dependent on the Good, but on the contrarythe Good itself is made to dpend on the law. This means that the law no longer hasits foundation in som hgher principle from whch it would derive its authority, butthat it is selfgrounded and valid solely by virtue of its own form For the first time wecan now speak of HE AW, regarded as an absolute, without further specication orreference to an object Wheras the classical conception only dealt wit the lawaccording to the various spheres of the Good or the various circumstances attendingthe Best, Kant can speak of the moral law, and of its application to what otherwiseremans totally undetermind. The moral law is the representation of a pure form andis independnt of content or object, spheres of activity or circumstances

But there is yet a further di mension . . . which is correlated with andcmplementary to th rst The law can no longer be groundd on the superiorprincipe of the Good, but neither can it be sanctioned any more by recourse to thidea of the Best as rpresenting the good will of the righteous Cearly THE LAW, asdefined by its pure form, without substance or obect or any determination whatsoevris such that no one knows nor can know what it is. It operates without making itsl known It dnes a realm of transgression where one is already guilty and where onoversteps the bounds without knowing hat they are, as in the case of Odipus Evguilt and punishment do not te us what the aw is but eave it in a stat oindeterminacy equaled only by the etreme specificity of the punishmnt' Deu�991 [I967: 82-83)

Deleuze differentiates betwen classical law and modern aw; nd h w pursuthis difference as a standpoint from which to scerin h uqu qua it s o lw

poitical theatres brought to life through Stk nd :1sochs txts. Ad th •y toundrstanding h modrniy o ak a Masoh ·om th is st andpoin t s t app•the wys in wh ich. t lwr stoS dfnty t' tparts o n odd that i hap

Toward a Dluzian Scnc Stes 9 1

by the groundessness of modern LAW, counterparts capable of contag thatworld's vioenc and excesses. Each writer takes up a relation with the absence of anyprinciple of the Good upon which the authority of law could be grounded I wil calthis groundlessness the ethica holow f orn aw, which wi ll have set parameters by which

Deleuze differentiates the scenography of Socrates death, on the one hand, from thescnographies of Sade and Masoch, on the other.he cassical irony and humour of Plato that had for so long dominated all

thinking on the subject of the aw' writes Deuze, are thus turned upside down Theupper and lower imi of the law, that is to say the superior principle of the Good andthe sanction of the righteous in ligh t of the Best are reduced to nothingness. Al thatremains is the indeterminate character of the aw on the one hand and the specificityof the punishment on the other. Irony and humour immediately take on a different,modern aspect They still represent a way of conceiving the law but the law is now seenin terms of the indeterminacy of its content and of the guilt of the person whosubmits to it Deleuze I9 9 [1 967 85).

Deeuze alludes to a kind of predicament of the subect in its relation to the ethical

hollow of modern law and he will work through its implications for how the logics ofspecically modern irony and humour manifest themselves And what he reasons is thatSade and Masoch put into motion scenographic logics that orient differenty to thepredicament of a necessary but ineterminate guit wrought by the ethical hollow ofmodern law. The delicacy of thinking here is vintage Deeuze, because with it he wigo on to stablish a conceptual passageway, from the distinctiveness of ascent anddescent that are proper to the modern milieu, to the specicity of the administrationof pain in Sad and Masoch's respective scenographies: W now note a new attemptto transcend the law, this time no longer in the direction of the Good as a superiorrinciple and ground of the aw, but in the direction of its opposite, the Idea of Evilthe supreme principe of wickedness, which subverts th law and turns Platonismupside down Deleuze 199I 1967] 87).

Counterintuitively, Deleuze characterizes Sade as ironic in virtue of his ascent toa transcendent principle - Evil and what is so strange about this ascent is that it iscually not available as such, given the specicity of the modern conception Withouta principle of the Good, a principle of Evil is cleary a ruse Yet Sade creates a scene inhich a principe of Evil can ourish, and as they engage it Sades characters inhabit as that actuaizes both the ream of a grounding principle which is actuay absentas such in the modern conception) and the guit that is proper to law's ethical hollowhy tr' the absnt) realm of Patonic principes upside down' by ascending to an(a) Evi that i th (implied) opposite of the Platonic Good as an absent)unding princip law

d Sad·lrm'� as o n absent princip of Evil no ss? Thy manifs

vi n · arbtrry d·ty d. cvy, bth h top nd oom o saistclay rnw to \y 1 pnrpl• o Evil t·ogh as o ind ff�'Ni t osc'ty" Thadmn� iu p wud�H in w� �s not s an is o psl, bt



.92 Kat Vann

as a med ium of a transgressive play that could ground the necessary but indeterminateguilt of the subject of laws ethcal hollow: I am alws already guil for LW has nogrounding principle l shal/ ringforth and revel in an Evil, imilar indeterminate, whih an ground it.The adminstraton of pan s thus a theatrcal medum for an Evl that could ground

or justify the guilt that is proper to the ethcal hollow of modern law. t is from thisstandpoint that t h administaton of pain realizes the peculiar ironc logics of Sadesscenes as a thatr o ascent grasped as a response to the predcament of the subjecti its rlation to the ethical hollow and selfgroundng of modern law he ironyconsists in the palpable gesture to an Evil that is itself ungrounded arbitrary, hollow.And n this ronical gesture, evl speaks back as the cttious grounding prncple of theethical hollow of moder law

he admnistration of pain will be manifested n Masochs scenographies as wellbut through a completely different logic For Masoch, writes Deleuze attacks the lawon another ank What we call humour in contradst inction to the upward movementof irony toward a transcendent higher principle [whether of Good or of Evil] is adownward movement from the law to its onsequences he law s no longer

subverted by the upward movement of rony to a prnciple that overrides it but by thedownward movement o humour which seeks to reduce the law to its furthestconsequences' (Deleuze 99 I 967J: 87-89).

A descent through the consequences of the ethcal hollow of modern law wll look· very different from the standpont of the administration of pain Like Sade, Masochalso orients to the realm of indeterminate guilt that is proper to the predicament ofthe subjects relation to the ethic al hollow of modern law But instead of ascendng toa theatrically manifst Evil that could ground that guilt hs characters manifest andrevel in a punihmet that such guilt would demand Abstaining from an appeal or ascentto principles (whether f the Good or of Evil), his characters instead actualize ascenography of prsupposed guilt and assocated punishment, which are the necessarycorrlate or consequence of the thical hollow he assertve bottom Masochs heropursues the consent of another subject who will in turn become the agent of her own ·punshment and humiliation

And what a reader will notice in the stories of Masoch is a subject garnering hrown punishment for evidently absnt crimes he adminstration of pain s a theatricalmedium for the punishment of an indeterminate but necessary, guilt Having painicted on ones self is an act of punishment proper to the guilt secured by theindete rmnacy of self-grounding law: I am always already guil I shall seek to be pushed it (hough we do not know what it is). It s from this standpoint suggests Dluze that hadministration of pain in the stories of Masoch is humorous a descnt to ti

consequences of the subject's rlation to the ethical hollo of mod la.For Deleuze, then Sad and Masoch ar not jus th atho o parta r soriS

but names gven to th movmnt of par la soa aons hat a cona•d nthe scenes tha th•i ·�ts cra. i sadsc iny ad :sohisi hH' Wt' should·ad wo dstinct s·nogphc os, • i h � ow n pOJWI tp n t tm, i1

Toward a Dluzian Scnce Sd<·s 93

whch relations between subjects are congured the incton of pain n each is in anmportant sense a medium for the realization of relational movements that emergbetween the respectve heroes

he specfcally masochstc bottom actvely seeks out a potental but at rst

unwilling top educates and persuades her to enter nto a contract and engages her in asocial relation of the bottoms own design From ths standpoint the masochistcbottom is in control' of the process of securing her punishment not because sheexplots the eisting desires of the top to inict pan, but rather in so far as she is theactive agent who sets into motion the contractual relaton that could secure thesubmission of the top to her position as its administrator A sadistic bottom ncontrast, enacts no such agency or desgn. Rather she is the instrument of a willingother for whom the inction of pain manifests as a ste of obscenity; the sadsticbottom isnt quite into it' like or for the same reasons as, the masochistic bottom

Whereas the masochistic par enter nto a kind of suspenseful scrpt to which bothsubjects have, albeit begrudgingly given ther mutual consent, the sadstic pair enterrather directly into a process of clincal exeution of just about all that emerges a a

(de )neg( r )aton o f propriety Put bluntly sadstic activty i s e ngaged n a spi rt ofobscenty through bodily acts undertaken with such precison that the possbilties forplay are enumerated n exact proportion to those n relation to whch they could bedefned a� a transgresson. Sadistc eroticism is characteristically devoid of the kind ofromance that emerges i n the masochstic bottom who feels love in the coldness of hertop. Crystallizing the d ifference as Deleuze pu t t a genui ne sadist could never toleratea masochistic victim (Deleuze 99 [ 967] 40)

Theatrical Philosophy?

In light of Dleuze's treatment of the dstinction between the classcal and modernconceptions of law we actually have something like a fourfold typo logy of th e rony humour distinction On the one hand, we have Socratic irony and humour as ascent anddescent conjoined through the upper and lower limits of the scale of law, which sgroundd by a transcendent prnciple of the Good apropos the classical conception.On t he other hand we have a split that i s predcated upon the absence of a groundingprincipl of the Good and the indeterminacy of the gult that is the correlate of thethical hollow of modern law Sadean irony responds through an ascent to an absentrnciple of Evl whch it mnifests theatrically and which could properly grounddrn ndtrmnt gui t Masochistic humour responds through a descent througha pihme hat is Cssary nd follows from the ethical hollow a punishmnttha s an ist 1tTkay a t•njoyn n spit of h asenc of ny appen cn

oln•ss ad Cty' , t dnnn b·wttn t h assica ad drnonpons att•r t D l'l.', in hat w la r conpo as p pakuttk ptk thl\) whir atin t tl thk hoo is oh l t .



94 Katie V1nn

Plao's sory of he deah of Socraes can presuppose a principle of he Good whichgrounds boh ascen and descen; bu neiher Sade nor Masoch can presuppose such aprincple Indeed for Deleuze he exercise in which hey are engaged is very preciselyo respond o he prdicamen of ha absence In his sense for example Sade's heroes

mus enac a realm of grounding principles hrough heir deeds. Tha he principle hahey enac is Evil is from he sandpoin of he difference beween he classical andmodern concepion perhaps less crucial han ha he princple mus be enacedposed hearcally as such Smlary Masoch's heroes mus enac a guil andpunishmen which is a descen hrough he consequences of he ehical hollow ofmodern law The hearical naure of his guil and punishmen consiss sgncanlyin ha hey are manifes in he face of no apparen crime

Resonan wih Sengers' evenual uses of he caegories of irony and humour inIvetio, Dleuze's subsequen references o he lierary disncion sugges ha hecaegories may undeo a recrafing owas he possibili y of serving i n urn as moregeneral philosophical caegories ha can be usd o characerize phenomena beyondhose of he lerary x

For example in early pages of Derence ad Repetitio (2004a [ I968) Deleuzewres If repeiion is possible i is as much opposed o moral law as i is o naural 1,

law. There are wo known ways o overurn moral law. One is by ascending owards heprinciples: challenging he law as secondary derived borrowed or "generaldenouncing i as involving a second-hand prnciple which diverts an original force ousurps an orginal power The oher way by conras is o overurn he law bydescending owards he consequences o which one submis wih a oo-perfecaenion o deail. By adping he law a falsely submissiv soul manages o evade and o ase pleasures was supposed o forbid. We can se e his i n demonsraion byabsurdy and working o rule bu also n some forms of masochisic behaviour whichmock by submission. The rs way of overurning he law is ironic where irony appearsas an ar of principl es of ascen owards he principles and of overurning principlesThe second is humour whih is an ar of consequences and descens of suspensionsand falls' (Dleuze 2004a I968J 56)

In hi s passage Deleuze coninues o differeniae irony and humour as an asceno princples on he one hand and as a descen hrough consequences, on he oher as he had done in Coldness and Cruely and as he would coninue o do in The Log Sese. He also exends he caegory of humour in such a way as o characeriz an

empirical phenomenon he work-o-rule srike Bu if we read his passage hrouhhe concepual achievemens of Coldness and Cruely' hre appears o be a possibl

reduction of the fourfold possblity to two' and a possible, associated slppge withn

he comparison across he classical and modern conceions of lw 1s ilieu ha h'frame for he pracces of roy and humour Th slippage acos hL� wo lux is

buressed by h acce of highlghing only h dsinco et WL''n asc•n ;lddescen which undrss h d•·s tLL'11 tlw rlasLal and mod' • of aw ad how hy sa• and gi nning t w prt "� o iony an htmu·.

Towar a Dduza Sc<· Sudi<'� 95

In he passage above suble cues are given which sugges ha differen ccpsar a work in he comparison. Irony enails an ascen owards a grounding prnciplwhch exposes he l aw as secondhand and as a diverson of an original force The effcof he ascen o such a prnciple is o expose he derivaive naure of law. This suggess

a framing by he classical concepion: here s a ranscenden principle of he Good owhch one migh appeal hrough ascen so as o overurn he legimacy of an exsngmoral law

Humour in conras is descrbed as a descen hrough consequences and enail s headopon of he law. Here here is n o allusion o a relaion beween he subjec and aranscenden principle in is relaion o law, bu raher o a relaion ha s reduced ohe subjec and law alone Also signican here is ha he relaion beween he subjecand law is realized hrough he pracices of wha Deleuze calls afalse submissve soulThis suggess a modern concepion: raher h he law and a realm of principles inwhich migh be grounded we have a law alone o which he subjec preends osubmi. And Deleuze makes he poin ha she subms falsely suggesng ha hedifference beween false and rue submission maers

The falsely submissive soul engaged i descen is gven lerary exure moreoverby reference o he vernacular masochis behav iour' No symmercal lierary exure byreferenc o sadisic behaviour is len o he ironis. And if we recall ha in Coldnessnd Cruely' sadism and masochism are reserved o refer o he scenographic logicsproper o he ehical hollow of modern law hen he possibiliy arses ha Deleuze isimplicily conrasing Socrac irony (classical concepion) and Masochisc humour(modern concepon) in he passage above. Which s fine of course hough i doessugges ha he specciy of sadisic or hearical irony (as conrased boh o Socraicirony and o masochisc humour) s somehow being subeced o a knd of erasure.

If we read a bi furher moreover i becomes possible ha such an erasure isburessed by Deleuzes exended reading of boh rony and humour under he sign ofpeiion. He immediaely connues Mus we undersand ha repeion appears noh his suspense and his ascen as hough exsence recommenced and "reieraedislf once i s no longer consrained by laws? Repeiion belongs o humour and irony;i by naure ransgression or excepion always revealing a sngulariy opposed o herculrs subsumed under laws a universal opposed o he generaliies whch gve rseto ws' (Dleuz 2004a I9 68]: 6)

n he passags ha follow Deleuze develops and conexualzes he priordiscus of irony and humour hrough an exended commenary on he philosophca l.tgs of Nezsche and Kerkgaard as phlosophers of repeon who brnghlosh a nw ms of xpession' (Deleuze 2004a I968: 9) And wha we wan no · lr is h Lach o h dos philosophy as a kind of hearical exercse as sgrahy. Tis S(at LS wth h aciC'S h Dluze rler rcognid L

wksof

ad ad Mnsodt. I l su,nol

Dclcuze, then� diffcS tIKirkq\nnr and Nirt:�dw, ja'iy erms o t l ats o t lw 1 lw'O�

( i•k•)nn·'s lob nud Abmhn, N •Lsda·s Zm·;l h I'). 1\u m' ntly wh t y



96 Kat Vann

share is a reation to Kant and more precisey a reation to Kant that is in oppositionto the phiosophica strategies of Hege in his reation to Kant Their opposition toHege in his reation to Kant is achieved through the quaity of inventing an incredibeequivaent of thatre within phiosophy, thereby founding simutaneousy this theatre

of the future and a new phiosophy' (Deeuze 2004a [I 968J: 9).Whereas Hege remains in the reected eement of representation within simpe

generaity . represents concepts instead of dramatizing ideas, Nietzsche andKierkegaard set in movement theatres of repetition: When Kierkegaard expains that

the knight of faith so resembes a bourgeoisie in his Sunday best as to be capabe of

being mistaken for oe, this phiosophica instruction must be taken as the remark ofa director showing how the knight of faith shoud be plye! Deeuze 2004a I968]

I O); When Nietzsche says that the Overman resembes Borgia rather than Parsifa or

when he suggests that the Overman bongs at once to both the Jesuit Oer and thePrussian officer corps, we can understand these texts ony by tak ing them for what they

ar the remarks of a director indicating how the Overman shoud be "payed

(Deeuze 2004a [I9 68J I I)

The crucia distinction between the Hegeian response to Kant and those ofNietzsche and Kirkegaard then wi be the preponderance of the phiosophy ofrepresentation in the former, and the preponderance of a theatrica phiosophy in theatter. Put bunty, Hege responds ike a Patonist to Kant And in a radicatransformation, phiosophers of repetition work through a theatrica space by whichDeeuze meant the emptinss of that space and the manner in which it is ed and

dtermined by the signs and masks through which the actor pays a roe which pay

other roes' (Deuze 2004a [I 968 I I ) Signicanty, bot Nietzsche and

Kierkegaard ar capabe of constructing theatres through whic even te roe of the

Patonist can itsef be payed by other roeshis positioning of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard as phiosophers of repetition in

opposition to Heges Patonic representationaist frame strikes me as reminiscent of

Deeuze's differentiation of Sade and Maoch's theatres from those of Pato inCodness and Cruety', in the very precise sense that there he reads them as a contasto Socrates' death from the standpoint of the specicity of the cassica conception ofaw. n Deeuzes hands, Pato does not need th theatrica reaization of a principe o

which Socrates might scend, for exampe because the cassica conception itse

impies that the principe to which he ascends (and from which he descends, for thtmatter is the principe of the Good, which motivates Socrates death as such n horSocrates' death itsef occurs within and is motivated by a word in which w isconceived representationay, as reection, and which is as such indistinguishabe froand therefore without need for any scenographic counterpart ade and Mah, ncontrast work precisey in reation to the absnce of such a gronding prncp hey

workin reation to a miieu for which there is no such Patonc cnn

f we set these two texts nxt to ech t hr - 'Cde and ·y ( \\ 1

and {ere nd Reptitio1 (2()04: l" f 96H I) n Wl' nd t h a son n· nd 1

Toward a Dluzi Si · S i•; 1'/

ugmentation. The resonance is that each book marks repetition as a theatrc pu icra as a response to Kant and pits tha t response against its Patonic representaton aternative The augmentation is that , in Drene nd Repetition rather than accentuangthe distintion between classica aw as set out in the works of Pato and modern ws set out in Sade and Masoch there is an ampication of a distinction between the(Patonic representation phiosophica strategy of Hege in his response to Kant'smora aw and the theatrica phiosophica strategies of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard intheir responses t o Hege's strategy. Deeuze differentiates Nietzsche and Kierkegaardstheatrica strategies from the phiosophica frame of representation, which is traced toPato and found at work in Heges critique of Kant A though the gures of Sade andMasoch do not manifest expicity in these passages of Dre nd Repetitio, we nd atreament of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard that resonates with t he treatments of Sade andMasoch that are offered in Codness and Cruety'

Thinking of the two together, then, it is possibe hat Deeuze wi have created twosets of oppositions sadistic irony and masochistic humour opposing Socraticirony/humour; Nietzscan and Kierkegaardian theatrica phiosophy opposing

Hegeian phiosophica representationaism. And our question must be whether sadisticrony and masochistic humour are subsequenty merged under the sign of the theatricaphiosophy as a strategy that arises in opposition to phiosophica representationaismas such Our question must aso be whether such theatrica phiosophy subsequentymanifests as the site and medium of Deeuzian humour', as contrasted to i rony, whichby now works as a bunt code for Patonism, or the cassica concepion of aw.

Returning to Deeuz's subsequent characterization of humour in Logic (2004b 1969]), the suggestion now seems pausibe He writes, This exercise, which consistsin substituting designations, monstrations, consumptions and pure destructions forignications, requires an odd inspiration - that one know how to descend What isequired is humour, as opposed to the Socratic irony or to the technique of ascent(Deeuz 2004b I969 I 54). Might not Stengers' subsequent differentiation of irony

nd humour further such a cassicatory practice?Such a reading is at east worth specuation and debate that through the passages

of irony and humour from Codness and Cruet to The Logi Sense Deeuze becomes advocate of humour who has situated imsef within a more overarchinghiosophica frame of repetition - under the sin of which both mode iro and modern

' our are frmed s umorous segies� Are we ths offered in hs ater advocation ofuou the possibiity of sadistic irony and maochistic humour as strategies poperto a phiosophy of repetition each of which differs from the Patonic poiticoosophic fram, now ead excusivey under he sign of irony, in terms of which1 h scn ad • of tc irony and huour had been specied If so, even a lnn�kn, t a princip tt grounds one's pow to judg o ong 1 hy an• 1

Non o ha ay ol h e ght" lw :1 �

u· of mmn ptujWI' l o,

Il



98 Kaie Va

Conclusion

n this chapter I have visited eleuzes characterization of sadistic irony andmasochistic humour in Coldnss and Cruety (19 91 [1 967 ) as markers of distinctly

modern poitical scnographies. I have also onsidered that distinctness in light of hissubsequent discussion of Nitzsche and Kierkegaard in Dferene and Repetition (2004a[ 1968]) as thatrica philosophrs of repetition who put metaphysics into motion Mysuggstion has ben that the Deuze who advocates humour as a political strategy inThe Logic Sense (2004b [ 969]) the Deleuze whose echo we hear in Stengers invitationto huour, has situated himsef in the phiosophica frame of repetition under thesign of which both sadistic iny and asohistic humour are possible strategies.

But is there a merging of sadistic irony and masochistic humour under the sign oftheatrica phiosophy as specicay Deleuzian hmou? I remain open to what thatmight mean for Dluzs sbsequent works and for Stengers Deleuzian call thatstudents of the socialties of science engage in humour rather than irony But if historymatters then it is worth our consideration that Deleuze's attention to the specificities

of the classica and modern conceptins does some work for him in Coldness andCruety. That diffrence suggests that the metaphyical commitments of a mili eu haveconsequences for the ways in which its participants enact te practices of irony andhumou ascent and descent that occur in reation to them rony is achieved inparticular ways when undertaken in a milieu in which a metaphysical commitment tothe principled groundedness of law obtains; irony is achived in different ways whenundertaken in a milieu in which such a metaphysia commitment does not obtai.

But perhaps the difference between the two concptions of law and their respectivemetaphysics begins to break down no longer matters s there any meaningfudifference between appealing to a transcendent pincipe and theatrically enacting suchan appea? Is it perhaps the mark of a particuar milieu when the difference betweenthese cannot itsef be established? Is this our milieu?

Notes

I hak Siss Fike Caspr Br Js Kil Rdj Gof Bowkr ad a aoymos reviwr fa·ispirg feedback o arlier drafs Wrg was sppord by a geros gra from he NeherladOrgaizaio for Scic Rsarch, Shifs i Govrc Programme Awa 45004135

I. s worh mioig here ha olgars pc works srcy wh iroy ad o h dsnconbwee iroy ad hmor.

2. Th book was orgiy pblishd Frh dr the itle L Froid et· k C' ><i d h-Maso, Edios d Mi Pars I 967 I hav be wokig wh he Englh t ;msla io (O,•tz 19 ).

3 This ve of sadomasochismLT

mais<l

ronpt-ion f any I'�H·tiin dmahit and hi1commeaors oday we gh o in lw dC Ka-\hin� w dit ral rtMIithrough wi1· pmcin•s,

Toward a Dlezia Sci Sudes 99

4. Sorcs for Dleuz hr were commaris o Sad ad Masoch ha had b coribd by GorgesBaaill ad Mauic Blao. Cig Blacho, Dlez wris i spie of he simlary odscrpios seems £ir o gra h pariy of masochsm o Sachr-Masoc ad ha of sadsm oSad. Plasre hum liao vr dracs from h masry of Sad's hros; dbasem xals hmmoios sch as shm remors or h dsir for pishme ar qi kow o hem (D lz

199 1967]: 39).5 My sragy hr rs o h idea ha i s mor fril o drsad how Dlz ss chicalrms paricular xal coxs rahr ha ryig o ascrai iher wha hos rms ms reallyma for hm or whehr hs ss of h erms are cosis across xs.

6. Tha hy are obsc s obviosly arbrary sic hr s o acal Good ha provides h picplo h basis of which rasgrssio is esablishd.

7. Tha is Dlze allds o a disicio bwe roy ad hmor wiho spcifyig hm whrspc o h disicio bwee h classical ad moder cocpios of law.

8. The rajcory of h exdd radig is cally idcad i he opig sec of he pasag, asqoed above.

Bibilography

Dleze G. (1991 [967. Moism: Cd1es and rely and Vnu in Furs Nw York Zo Books.-. (2004a) [ 968]. Dere d Repetitio. Lodo Coim. (2004b) [I 969] Te Logi See Lodo Coim.Ka. I. (2004 I 788]). Te Critiq f Prtica Reo. Available a p/ /www.gbeorg/x/5683Kla T (2002). Sigg for Rxiviy Cosruciois Rhorics ad Is Reexive Crii< i Scce

ad Tchology Sdies [52 paragraphs]. om Qalaiv Resarch. [Ol Joral] 3 (3).Avalable a hp://www.qaliavresearc./fqs/fqsg.hm

Sgrs I. (2000). Te n\'io Md Sie Mieapolis Uvrsiy of Msoa Prss.Woolgar S. ( 983). Iroy h Socal Sudy of Sciece, i K. KorrCeia ad M Mlkay ( ds) Sciece

O•srvd. Lodo Sag Pblicaios pp. 23966

Il

about deleuze stengers humour irony

Documents