Post on 24-Oct-2014
Embed Size (px)
1 DELEUZE IEDITED BY At-rnnr\r HAKr(
Th is is t he f ir s t d i c ti o n a ry d e d i c a te d to th e ' w ork of Gi l l es D el euze. It provides an in-depth and lucid introduction to one of the most influential figuresin coniinentalphilosophy. The dictionary defines and contextualises more than 150 ter-rnsthat relate to Deleuzel philosophy including concepts such as 'becoming','body without 'decerritorializatiqn','differenre','repetition','rhizome''schizoanalysis'. organs', and The clear explanations also-address the main intellectualinfluences Deleuze on as well as tl're influence Deleuze has had on suDiects such as feminism, cinema, postcolonial theory, geographyand cultural studies.Those unfamiliar with Deleuze will find the dictionary a user-friendly tool equippingthem with definitions and interpretations both as a study and/or a teaching aid. The entries are written by some of the rnost prominent Deleuze scholars inciudingRosi Braidotti,Claire Colebrook,Tom Conley,EugeneHollarrdand Paul Patton.Thesecontributors bring their expert knowledgeand critical opinion to bear on the entries and provide an enrichingtheoretical context for anyone interestedin Deleuze. Adrian Parr is Professor of contemporary art and designat the Savannah College of Art and Design. She is the editor, with lan Buchanan,of Deleuze ond the ry Contemporo World, f orthcom i ng from Edinburgh U n iversity Press.
IS BN 0-7 186-1899-6 S
Th e D e l e u ze Dicti onarvEditedby Adrian Parr
@ in this edition, Edinburgh University Press,2005 @ in the individual contributions is retained by the authors Edinburgh University PressLtd 22 George Squarg Edinburgh Typeset in Ehrhardt by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Longsight, Manchester,and printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wilts A CIP record for this book is availablefrom the British Library ISBN 0 7486 18988 (hardback) ISBN 0 7486 18996 (paperback) The right of the contributors to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and PatentsAct 1988.
Acknowledgements Introduction Claire Colebrooh Entries A-Z Bibliography Notes on Contributors
A ckn o w l e d g e ments
Intr oduc ti on
First I would like to thank all rhe authorswho contributedto this proiect. Without you this dictionary would never have come into existence. Everyonewho hasentriesincludedhereand my editor,JackieJones, have beentremendouslycooperative and helpful in more waysthan one.I would like also to thank Keith Ansell-Pearson, Ronald Bogue, Paul Patton and Williamsfor their comments and suggesgions, of which havecerall James tainly strengthened theoreticalrigour of this dictionary; any shortthe comingsareentirelymy own. I am very gratefulto MonashUniversityand Savannah Collegeof Art and Design for their continuingsupport.Lastly, the strongintellectand generosity Ian Buchanan of and Claire Colebrook havebeena wonderfulsource inspirationfor me and I would iust like to of extend my warmestthanksto you both; this project would neverhaveseen the light of day without your continuingencouragement support. and Adrian Parr
Claire Colebrook Why a Deleuzedictionary?It might seema particularly craven,disreprojectto form a Deleuzedictionary. spectful,literal-mindedand reactive Not only did Deleuze strategicallychangehis lexicon to avoid the notion that his texts consistedof terms that might simply name extra-textual or truths, he alsorejectedthe idea that art, science philosophycould be understoodwithout a senseof their quite specificcreativeproblem. A philosopher's concepts produce connections and styles of thinking. existingset Concepts intensive: are they do not gathertogetheran already of things (extension);they allow for movementsand connection.(The conceptof 'structure' in the twentieth century, for example,could not be of isolatedfrom the problem of explaining the categories thinking and the is the effect of a conceptual imageof an impersonalsocialsubjectwho system;similarly, the concept of the 'cogito' relatesthe mind to a movemeasurable matter,and to a ment of doubt, to a world of mathematically a thought and the body.)To translate term or to define distinctionbetween of corpus involvesan understanding a more any point in a philosopher's generalorientation, problem or milieu. This does not mean that one explainingDeleuze's reduces philosophyto its context- say, a 'nomadism' or On to a asa reactionagainst rigid structuralism linguistics. the contrary, philosophy as the creation of a plane,or as a way of creating understanda someorientation by establishingpoints and relations,meansthat any philosophyis more than its manifestterms, more than its context. In addition to the producedtexts and terms, and in addition to the explicit historical presuppositions, thereis an unthoughtor outside- the problem,desireor life of a philosophy.For Deleuze,then, reading a philosopherrequires going beyond his or her produced lexicon to the deeper logic of producitself This sense of tion from which the relationsor sense the text emerge. all the canneverbe said;in repeating recreating milieu of a philosopher or another said. Even so, it is this strivwe can do is produce another sense, Sq ing for sense that is the creativedrive of readinga philosopher. when philosl)eleuzereadsBergsonhe allowseachterm and moveof Bergson's ophy to revolvearound a problem: the problem of intuition, of how the habituated humanobserver can think from beyondits own constituted, rrndall ttxl humanworld,
I NTRO DUCTI O N
IN TR OD U C TION
It would seem,then, that offering definitions of terms in the form of a dictionary- as though a word could be detached from its philosophicallife andproblem- would not only be at oddswith the creativerole of philosophy; it would alsosustainan illusion that the philosophicaltext is nothing more thanits 'said'andthat becoming-Deleuzian wouldbe nothingmorethanthe adoption a certainvocabulary. we,in systematising of Do Deleuze's thought, reduce eventand untimelyprovocation onemore doxa? an to If Deleuze's writings aredifficult and resistant this cannotbe dismissed asstylistically unfortunate, asthough he really oughtto havejust sat down and told us in so many words what 'difference in itself' or 'immanence' really meant.Why the difficulty of style and vocabularyif there is more to Deleuzethan a way of speaking? preliminary answerlies in the nexusof A conceptsof 'life', 'immanence'and 'desire'. The one distinction that Deleuzeinsistsupon, both when he speaks his own voicein Dffirence in Repetitioz and when he creates sense the history of philosophy, and, his of is the 'imageof thought'. Philosophy beginsfrom an imageof what it is to think, whetherthat be the graspof ideal forms, the orderly receptionof senseimpressions,or the social construction of the world through language.The concepts of a philosophy both build, and build upon, that image. But if the history of philosophy is a gallery of such images of thought - from the conversing Socratesand mathematicalPlatq to the doubting Descartes and logical Russell- some philosophers have done , more than stroll through this galleryto add their own image.Somehave, in 'schizo' fashion, refused to add one more proper relation between thinker and truth, and havepulled thinking apart. One no longer makes one more step within thought - tidying up a definition, or correctinga seemingcontradiction.Only when this happensdoesphilosophyrealiseits power or potential. Philosophyis neither correct nor incorrect in relation to what currently countsas thinking; it creates new modesor stylesof thinking. But if all philosophyis creation,rather than endorsement, an imageof thought, of havetried to givea sense conceptto this creationof somephilosophers or thinking: not one more imageof thought but 'thought without an image'. Deleuze's celebratedphilosophersof univocity confront the genesis, rupture or violenceof thinking: not man who thinks, but a life or unthought within which thinking might happen.When Spinozaimaginesone expressive substance, when Nietzsche imagines one will or desire, and when Bergsoncreates the conceptof life, they go someway to towardsreally asking aboutthe emergence thinking.This is no longerthe emergence of of thc thinker,or one who thinks, but the emergence somethinglike a of minintrrl rclation, cvcntor pcrocption thinking, of fronrwhich'thinkcrs' arc thcn cll'cctctl.'l'his nlcruls thrrtthc rcrrlhistoryof'plrikrsophy rcquircs
producesingularpoints,or the orienunderstanding way philosophers the tations within which subjects,objects,perceiversand imagesare ordered. Any assemblage such as a philosophicalvocabulary(or an artistic style, or a set of scientific functions) facesin two directions. It both givessome sort of order or consistency a life which bearsa much greatercomplexto ity and dynamism,but it alsoenables from that order - the creationof further and more elaborate orderings. philosophical A vocabulary such as givessense orientationto our world, but it alsoallowsus to Deleuze's or producefurther differences and further worlds. On the one hand, then, a Deleuzianconcept such as the 'plane of immanence'or 'life' or 'desire' cstablishes possiblerelation betweenthinker and what is to be thought, a giving us somesort of logic or order. On the other hand, by coupling this conceptwith other concepts, such as taffectt'concept'and tfunctiont,or and 'planeof transcendence' 'imageof thought',we canthink not just about life or the planeof immanence alsoof how the brain imagines, but relates pictures, to, styles, represents ordersthat plane.This is the problemof and how life differsfrom itself,in itself.The role of a dictionaryis only one side of a philos