discord, monstrosity and violence - hannah stark

8172019 Discord Monstrosity and Violence - Hannah Stark

httpslidepdfcomreaderfulldiscord-monstrosity-and-violence-hannah-stark 115



The present time in intellectual history is

one in which ldquoviolencerdquo along with an

associated set of theoretical concepts including

war vulnerability terror and security is

coming to the fore in our theoretical vocabulary

This paper offers a reading of Deleuzersquos work

which is attentive to the place of violence in

his metaphysics It examines what Elizabeth

Grosz describes as the ldquoineliminablerdquo (Time

55) nature of violence ndash that is violence at the

level of ontology Although Deleuze is com-

monly associated with a philosophical position

of af 1047297rmation I contend that his ontology of

difference and repetition is founded on an ori-

ginary space of differential relations in which

divergence gives rise to novelty While there is

a high degree of playfulness in this differential

ontology I am interested in the aspects of it

that privilege something darker Locating vio-lence dissonance and monstrosity at the very

foundation of Deleuzersquos ontology has conse-

quences for a Deleuzian ethics Although there

is undoubtedly signi1047297cant political value to a

worldview in which being is difference

Deleuzersquos world is not one in which convention-

al harmony can exist between differences This

paper examines the discord at the heart of

Deleuzersquos revision of Leibniz the monstrous

difference that is produced through differentialrelations and the violence inherent in thought

before turning to ethical questions

the ldquonew harmonyrdquo of discord

Deleuzersquos engagement with Leibniz is evident

throughout his work In Difference and Rep-

etition published twenty years before The

Fold Leibniz and the Baroque he 1047297nds in Leib-

nizrsquos work a principle of divergence that comes

to inform his own ontology Both Leibniz and

Hegel are important historical 1047297gures to Differ-

ence and Repetition because Deleuze polarizes

their notions of difference he positions

Hegelrsquos difference as in1047297nitely large and Leib-

nizrsquos as in1047297nitely small1 Deleuze is critical of

both of these models of difference In the case

of Leibniz he feels that due to its proximity to

the principle of identity his model of in1047297nitely

small differences sacri1047297ces the virtual to the

possible This reading of Leibniz is consistent

with Deleuzersquos general interest in his philosophy

in the 1960s also evident in The Logic of Sense

and Expressionism in Philosophy Spinoza

which ends with a chapter on the concept of

expression in both Spinozarsquos and Leibnizrsquos

work Deleuzersquos reading of Leibniz shifts in

211

A N G E L A K I journal of the theoretical humanitiesvolume 20 number 4 december 2015

ISSN 0969-725X printISSN 1469-2899 online15040211-13 copy 2015 Taylor amp Francishttpdxdoiorg1010800969725X20151096648

hannah stark

DISCORD

MONSTROSITY AND

VIOLENCE

deleuzersquo s differential

ontology and itsconsequences for ethics





because it is relatively ldquothe bestrdquo God

chooses between an in1047297nity of possible

worlds incompossible with each other and

chooses the best or the one that has the

most possible reality (Ibid)

We need to remember that the best possible

world the one that God chose is differentiated

because it exists and not because of another eva-

luative criterion For Leibniz therefore the best

and the existent are one and the same Accord-

ing to Aden Evens this means that ldquoGod and

the universe include only recognisable differ-

ence only solvable problems ndash such is the best

of all possible worldsrdquo (115)

In order to arrive at the ldquonew harmonyrdquo

which will accommodate discord Deleuze

departs from Leibniz In Difference and Rep-

etition he brings his own concept of difference

into relief through this divergence in what

will be the 1047297rst of a series of steps away from

the philosopher Because for Leibniz only com-

possibility exists in actuality his world is

necessarily harmonious Alternatively Deleuze

posits a fundamental coexistence of compossi-

bility and incompossibility This means that

divergence can be reclaimed as something that

gives rise to possibility (Difference 123) ldquoLeib-

nizrsquos only errorrdquo he writes

was to have linked difference to the negative

of limitation because he maintained the

dominance of the old principle because he

linked the series to a principle of

convergence without seeing that divergence

itself was an object of af 1047297rmation or that

the incompossibles belonged to the same

world and were af 1047297rmed as the greatestcrime and the greatest virtue of the one and

only world that of the eternal return

(Difference 51)

Incompossibles or alternative possible worlds

therefore merely diverge from each other

rather than being mutually exclusive Deleuze

is af 1047297rming that divergence within a sequence

can be reclaimed as part of the series itself

(56) What remains according to Evens is a

ldquodisagreement that cuts to the bottomless

bottom of ontology itself a difference that

cannot heal and does not want tordquo (115)

In The Logic of Sense Deleuze also

addresses Leibniz in such a way that it

reveals the temporal nature of the model of

difference that he is proposing Working

from the idea that compossible and incompos-

sible are notions that rely on convergence and

divergence rather than identity and contradic-

tion Leibniz is able to exclude divergent

worlds and prioritise convergence He is able

to do this largely because he is working

with a theological system in which there is a

God making choices For Deleuze writing

after the death of God this theological per-

spective is ldquono longer justi1047297edrdquo and as such

there is no longer a divine being choosing

between possible worlds (Logic 171 ndash 72) Inthis way Deleuze removes the centre or orga-

nizing principle and allows possible worlds to

proliferate He is aided in this by his concept

of the virtual which is the differential space

of diverging series in which incompossibles

can communicate (174) The resonance

between these incompossibles offers us a

version of communication that goes beyond

the human and demonstrates that the potential

for connection between things can occurbecause of difference rather than commonality

This does not mean that disjunction is trans-

formed into conjunction but that it designates

an opening to an ldquoin1047297nity of predicatesrdquo which

undermines the stability of identity (ibid)

Instead of Leibnizrsquos best possible world

chosen by God Deleuze offers a ldquochaosmosrdquo

in which in1047297nite series diverge and converge

(176) The most signi1047297cant difference

between the position of Leibniz and that of Deleuze on this matter is that for the latter

it is divergence that is af 1047297rmed For Deleuze

the actual world is one of many virtual ver-

sions that subsist within it This means that

a series should not be thought of as a linear

or chronological sequence but rather needs to

be envisaged in relation to the twin concepts

of time ndash Chronos (time as the mixture of

bodies and present states of affairs in which

past and future are both aspects of the

present) (162) and partly as Aiocircn (time as

the ldquoin1047297nite subdivisionrdquo of past and future)

(77) ndash that Deleuze is working with in this

stark

213



text This double notion of time facilitates an

understanding that both series and event can

be non-linear

It is in The Fold that Deleuze takes his revi-

sion of Leibnizian harmony the furthest He

does this through radically altering Leibnizrsquos

monad Leibniz is working with a vision of a

world that Simon Duffy describes as ldquonothing

other than the pre-established harmony

amongst monadsrdquo (ldquoDeleuzerdquo 144) Because

his monads are closed and contain the whole

world obscurely it makes sense that when

they come to express distinctly a part of this

whole they mirror this pre-established

harmony Leibniz emphasizes the closure of

the monads by describing them as windowlessand preventing anything from passing in or

out of their structure His monad which both

expresses and is an expression of its world has

limited capacity for interaction with either the

world or with others For Deleuze this closure

enables the subject soul or monad to be for

the world rather than in it (Fold 26) Deleuze

writes

Closure is the condition of being for the

world The condition of closure holds forthe in1047297nite opening of the 1047297nite it ldquo1047297nitely

represents in1047297nityrdquo It gives the world the

possibility of beginning over and again in

each monad The world must be placed in

the subject in order that the subject can be

for the world This is the torsion that consti-

tutes the fold of the world and of the soul

And it is what gives to expression its funda-

mental character the soul is the expression

of the world (actuality) but because the

world is what the soul expresses (virtuality)(Ibid)

At the end of The Fold Deleuze will substan-

tially revise the closed structure of the monad

and the notion of harmony on which it is

based For Deleuze harmony needs to encom-

pass divergence and the monad needs to be

opened up ldquo[W]hen the monad is in tune with

divergent series that belong to incompossible

monadsrdquo he writes ldquothen the other condition

[closure] is what disappears it could be said

that the monad astraddle over several worlds

is kept half open as if by a pair of pliersrdquo

(137) The consequence of cleaving open the

monad is that it can no longer contain the

entire world as a de1047297nitive version of pre-estab-

lished harmony Instead this monad is open to a

ldquospiral of expansionrdquo (ibid) and no longer pro-

duces accords to express this harmony Deleu-

zian monads are rendered as interrelated and

inseparable brought together by the dissonance

they 1047297nd in the series each expresses Daniel

W Smith concludes that the difference

between Leibniz and Deleuze is that for

Deleuze the ldquoWorld is no longer a continuous

curve de1047297ned by its preestablished harmony

but [ hellip ] a chaotic universe in which divergent

series trace endlessly bifurcating paths giving

rise to violent discordsrdquo (ldquoGWF Leibnizrdquo 63emphasis in original) Counter to Leibnizian

harmony Deleuze offers a ldquonew harmonyrdquo of

open monads divergence and dissonance

While the ldquouniversal harmonyrdquo of Leibniz

emphasized the resolution of dissonance

through the consonance that results when

stable chords incline towards ldquoresolution or a

modulationrdquo (Fold 132) Deleuzersquos ldquonew

harmonyrdquo is capable of accommodating disso-

nance or ldquoinstable combinationsrdquo (131)2

Soalthough Deleuze does refer to a new

harmony it is one that is itself based on

discord Deleuzersquos ontology invites us to

rethink the notion of harmony so that it can

accommodate this dissonance In effect he is

enlarging the notion of harmony so that arrange-

ments of sounds extend beyond the diatonic

scale and new combinations become possible

ldquo[W]hat mattersrdquo Deleuze writes ldquois the diver-

gence of series the decentring of circles lsquo

mon-strosityrsquordquo (Difference 69)

monstrous difference

Deleuze is not interested in a tame or conven-

tional notion of difference Difference and Rep-

etition in its entirety is his attempt to

articulate the difference that exists prior to its

mediation through ldquoidentity opposition

analogy and resemblancerdquo (Difference 29)

The conventional notion of difference that sub-

sists in philosophy is a false notion of it which

ultimately masks ldquoa swarm of differences a

discord monstrosity and violence

214



pluralism of free wild or untamed differences a

properly differential and original space and

timerdquo (50) Deleuze develops Leibnizrsquos ldquomathe-

sis universalisrdquo (190) as an explanatory model

of the conditions for the process by which this

monstrous and untamed difference manifests

itself Both Hegel and Leibniz utilize mathemat-

ical ideas to explain their respective versions of

ontology However even though Deleuze uti-

lizes and challenges their mathematical

models he is not suggesting that the world is

mathematically de1047297nable or knowable3

The inclusive af 1047297rmation of incompossible

worlds and interpenetrating series shows that

difference makes communication possible

rather than acting as an inhibitor This isdemonstrated by the differential relation

because it is a model in which differences

relate to each other reminding us that engage-

ment occurs through difference rather than

similitude These relational differences need to

be understood Deleuze insists as ldquotypes of

events and problems in mathematicsrdquo (Fold

52) In bringing these terms together Deleuze

emphasizes the generative nature of the differ-

ential relation Examining Deleuzersquos interpret-ation of differential calculus is centrally

important to understanding his ontology of

difference and repetition because it exposes

the foundation of the disagreement between

his metaphysics and Hegelrsquos It is through this

divergence from Hegel that his own notion of

difference and the dialectic process on which

it rests can be illuminated4 Deleuze like

Hegel utilizes differential calculus to consider

ontological questions If we look at Deleuzersquoswork on this concept we can see that the basis

of Deleuzersquos divergence from Hegel is explained

mathematically Even though in using these

mathematical models they are dealing with

things that are miniscule in scale they have a

signi1047297cant impact on their alternative versions

of ontology

Deleuze utilizes Leibnizrsquos seventeenth-

century model of calculus which preserves

differentials5 Differentials are the progressively

shrinking units that exist between any two

whole numbers and as such they are miniscule

in scale According to Evens modern calculus

(until the 1960s) had considered these in1047297nitesi-

mals to be so ldquoarbitrarily smallrdquo that they were

not worth factoring in (108)6 Deleuze argues

that it is what is ldquoinessentialrdquo in scale between

things that is signi1047297cant because it refers not

to ldquothat which lacks importance but on the con-

trary to the most profound to the universal

matter or continuum from which the essences

are 1047297nally maderdquo (Difference 47) Because

these differences are tiny in and of themselves

we can only perceive them through a structure

of relation While the difference between two

units might be numerically equal to zero

Deleuze insists that ldquody over dx does not

cancel outrdquo (ldquoSpinozardquo n pag) The differential

relation reveals a value which Deleuze calls zand which is the determinable and 1047297nite quan-

tity of the relation of dydx It can thus be

expressed as dydx = z (ibid) Signi1047297cantly if

difference always exists (even in1047297nitesimally)

between 1047297nite entities then substance is indi-

vidual and numerical series are in1047297nite In1047297ni-

tesimals can be thought of not as a way of

approaching a whole number but instead

Evens suggests as ldquoa movement of 0 away

from itself rdquo (111) The signi1047297cance of thisEvens continues is that while it is usual to

produce the differential from a line of

numbers Deleuze perceives the differential as

itself generative and ldquoplaces the differential at

the origin of numbers as the power of differ-

ence that deviates from itself to generate the

entire number line and eventually the points

that populate itrdquo (ibid)

Both Deleuze and Hegel then offer a system

in which difference emerges through a relationalstructure From this it might appear that their

understandings of the manifestation of differ-

ence are similar In Difference and Repetition

however Deleuze articulates a clear rejection of

the logic of the Hegelian dialectic He writes

ldquo[j]ust as we oppose difference in itself to nega-

tivity so we oppose dx to not-A the symbol of

difference [ hellip ] to that of contradictionrdquo

(Difference 170) Deleuze argues that Hegel

conceived of difference as in1047297nitely large by 1047297g-

uring it dialectically as contradiction which

positions it at its absolute maximum (44)

Quoting from Science of Logic on which his

stark

215



criticism of Hegel in Difference and Repetition

is principally based he writes ldquo[d]ifference as

such is already implicitly contradiction [ hellip ]

receiving in contradiction the negativity which

is the indwelling pulsation of self-movement

and spontaneous activityrdquo (Hegel GW 442

qtd in Deleuze Difference 44 emphasis

Deleuzersquos) Although both Deleuze and Hegel

extrapolate from calculus an explanation of

metaphysics the way that they understand

difference could not be more divergent

One of the ways in which the differences

between Hegel and Deleuze can be explained is

through the philosophers who in1047298uence their

work Somers-Hall has suggested that Hegel

turns to Newton and Deleuze to Leibniz The sig-ni1047297cance of this is that Leibniz was interested in

the in1047297nitely small diminishing quantities

which Newton thought too small to be signi1047297cant

Newtonrsquos calculusutilizes the mathematical1047297gure

of the ratio whose values become determinable

only if the differentials which he called ldquo1047298ux-

ionsrdquo do not integrate in1047297nitesimals but rather

vanish (Somers-Hall 570) This understanding of

in1047297nitesimals is evident in Hegelrsquos work because

he too expresses the differential relation as aratio This means that things acquire their

meaning in an oppositional structure of determi-

nate values Because their meaning is acquired

through this structural relation the terms of the

ratio are inseparable In this model Somers-Hall

writes ldquoboth the ratio itself as well as the terms

can only be understood as a totalityrdquo (563)

Deleuzersquos interpretation of calculus is quite

different from that of Hegel Deleuze rejects

Newton so important to Hegelrsquos understandingof the differential relation because he removes

in1047297nitesimals and therefore renders the differ-

ential as zero It is important to remember

that he also distinguishes his interpretation of

the differential from Leibniz Deleuze is critical

of what he describes as Leibnizrsquos ldquoabyssrdquo of in1047297-

nitely small differences (Difference 170)

Because dx is undetermined in relation to x

he argues the differential is premised on a

difference that cannot be quanti1047297ed or rep-

resented Again we see that through revising

Leibniz Deleuze arrives at his own philosophy

of difference It is similar with his rejection of

Hegel whom Deleuze departs from in refusing

to treat the differential as a ratio and instead

keeping them separate As a result ldquodx

appears as simultaneously undetermined deter-

minable and determinationrdquo (Deleuze Differ-

ence 171) because although each of the

differentials dx and dy is undetermined what

they generate through their relation is determi-

nate Instead of the Hegelian logic of opposition

negation and the in1047297nitely large extrapolation

of difference to contradiction Deleuze suggest

that difference manifests through a reciprocal

synthesis by which the differences internal to

each component are expressed This is essen-

tially the difference between their dialectics

Deleuze like Hegel also uses differential calcu-lus in the service of a dialectic but one that is

about the generation of difference through the

process of differentciation rather than being

premised on opposition This has ontological

consequences for Deleuze because the

ldquoexpressed worldrdquo he writes ldquois made of differ-

ential relations and of contiguous singularitiesrdquo

(Logic 110 ndash 11) The question of whether these

disparate interpretations of differential calculus

produce divergent mathematical models is lesssigni1047297cant for the purposes of this paper than

their relative ontological implications

Deleuzersquos ontology is differential because it is

productive of difference which manifests itself

through the relation of differences to one other

This occurs not through the harmonious relation

between consonant things but in a space-time of

continual dissonance and disharmony Wherever

Deleuze turns he 1047297nds difference Diversity

emerges from the matrix of difference whichrelates always and only to other forms of differ-

ence in the generation of the new which he

regards as another word for difference What

arises from this process is not a form of differ-

ence with which we are familiar but differences

that are unrecognizable This is a notion of differ-

ence that is beyond our existing systems of

meaning monstrous difference

the violence of thought The encounter with the continual proliferation

of these differences is important for the way in


216



which Deleuze theorizes his anti-humanist

model of thought and following from this phil-

osophy and creativity For Deleuze thought

emerges through encounters with difference It

is ontological in that it is productive of both

bodies and the world This means that thought

is not separated from being but instead it is a

form of participation in the unfolding of a

world of diversity through difference This is

why Grosz has suggested that Deleuze ldquois the

great theorist of difference of thought as differ-

encerdquo (Space 129) However thinking is not a

particularly safe activity the encounter with

difference that thought requires is violent

Throughout his work Deleuze works on a

concept of thought which is at odds with howit is conventionally conceived He renders

thought as an involuntary action which is

immanent to the world In doing so he takes

thought out of the subject and enables it to go

beyond the human Charles Stivale suggests

that the (Proustian) notion of creation generated

through confrontation with the unknown is one

of Deleuzersquos ldquomost cherished topicsrdquo (19) For

Deleuze thought is ontological because it is

involved in bringing things into being ldquoTothink is to create ndash rdquo he writes ldquothere is no

other creationrdquo (Difference 147)7 This notion

of thought is evident in Deleuzersquos collaborative

work with Guattari We can see this in their cri-

tique of psychoanalysis in Anti-Oedipus their

use of the rhizome in A Thousand Plateaus

and their proposal of a plane of immanence of

thought in What is Philosophy In Difference

and Repetition Deleuze professes that

thought has come to be conceptualized in sucha way that it actually hinders thinking This is

because we are working with a model of

thought that is impoverished a ldquodogmatic

orthodox or moral imagerdquo (Difference 131)

which can only diminish philosophy What has

happened here according to Arnaud Villani is

that we have ldquoconfuse[d] thought with the

decorum of thoughtrdquo (231) In order to think

Deleuze suggests we need to destroy this

Image of thought and erect a new one He

writes ldquothought is covered over by an lsquoimagersquo

made up of postulates which distort both its

operation and its genesis [and] culminate in

the position of an identical thinking subject

which functions as the principle of identity for

concepts in generalrdquo (265) In Difference and

Repetition Deleuze endeavours to eliminate

the eight presuppositions on which thought is

founded8 In critiquing the Image of thought

Deleuze proposes his own open model of

thought without postulates which he calls

ldquothought without imagerdquo (276) This is

thought necessarily beyond either the classi1047297-

cation of epistemology or of recognition ldquoFor

the new ndash in other words difference ndash rdquo

Deleuze writes ldquocalls forth forces in thought

which are not the forces of recognition today

or tomorrow but the powers of a completely

other model from an unrecognized and unrec-ognizable terra incognitardquo (136)

Deleuze locates violence at the root of philos-

ophy While etymologically philo-sophia means

the love of wisdom Deleuze sees all philosophy

(and in fact all thought) as dependent on what

Kant called the ldquodark precursorrdquo9 This is an

originary and generative violence that underlies

all thought and which brings incompossibles

into communication10 Deleuze also calls it the

ldquodisparaterdquo (Difference 120 emphasis in orig-inal) ldquoThoughtrdquo he writes ldquois primarily tres-

pass and violence the enemy and nothing

presupposes philosophy everything begins

with misosophyrdquo (139) Deleuze insists that

ldquothe dark precursor is not a friendrdquo (145)

This needs to be contextualized with Deleuzersquos

notion that difference manifests itself out of

an undifferentiated and chaotic ground This

notion of difference resonates with Deleuzersquos

larger interest in cruelty (which can be seen par-ticularly in his work on Sacher-Masoch in Cold-

ness and Cruelty) What both the manifestation

of substance and the generation of thought have

in common is that they are founded on the con-

vergence of things which are fundamentally dis-

sonant and which gives rise to continual

divergence11

For Deleuze thought arises when dissonant

things come into communication and generate

ldquoproblemsrdquo (Difference 140) The dogmatic

Image of thought not only determines the

pathway along which thinking moves from

problem to solution but also presupposes that

stark

217



problems are ldquoready-maderdquo before the thinker

encounters them and that they will disappear

with the realization of a solution (158)

Deleuze insists that thought moves not from

problem to solution as it is conventionally

1047297gured but from problem to Idea Both this

relation and also the relation of perplication

between Ideas are of reciprocal determination

(173) This is because Deleuze considers an

Idea to be a set of differential relations and

singularities (turning points in a system)

which compose a multiplicity The Idea is thus

ldquoa system of multiple non-localisable connec-

tions between differential elements which is

incarnated in real relations and actual termsrdquo

(183) Problems are then ldquothe differentialelements in thought the genetic elements in

the truerdquo (162) They do not generate

resemblance but instead they facilitate the

proliferation of difference and through the

virtualactual complex the becoming of the

world

Because thought is self-generating it does not

assume the primacy of the subject to whom a

problem might be posed This is because

ldquo[p]roblems do not exist only in our heads butoccur here and there in the production of an

actual historical worldrdquo (Difference 190) Pro-

blems are present in all interactions and there-

fore posing problems is not a uniquely human

rational or even sentient behaviour12 Deleuzersquos

dialectic is modelled on the generative power of

problems and questions It is important to note

that Deleuze does not reject the dialectic as

such but only Hegelrsquos dialectic which he

describes as a ldquo

perversionrdquo

of it (164) Deleuzersquosown dialectic is not premised on negation but

arises instead from the 1047298ux of problems and

the consequent unfolding of the new which it

drives It is connected to ldquothe art of multiplici-

tiesrdquo because it is ldquothe art of grasping the Ideas

and the problems they incarnate in things and

of grasping things as incarnations as cases of

solutions for the problems of Ideasrdquo (182)

From the synthesis of differential calculus

and Ideas-as-problems the generation of differ-

ence as Deleuze theorizes it becomes apparent

This also makes the necessity of the virtual

clear Deleuze regards the Ideas as both

problematic and problematizing and because

of this he understands them as the differentials

of thought (Difference 169)13 While for Kant

problems are solved by means of legitimate

use of the faculties as dictated by common

sense for Deleuze this is inadequate because it

imprisons problems within the limiting struc-

ture of the possible and the real (161) Rather

than the ldquoidentity convergence and collabor-

ationrdquo that accompany common sense Deleuze

proposes a ldquodiscordant harmonyrdquo amongst the

faculties (193) Moving from faculty to faculty

without the coherence of common sense Ideas

are ldquomultiplicities with differential glimmersrdquo

(194) Using a Nietzschean analogy Deleuze

writes of the Idea as

a question of a throw of the dice of the whole

sky as open space and of throwing as the only

rule The singular points are on the die the

questions are the dice themselves the

imperative is to throw Ideas are the proble-

matic combinations which result from

throws (198)

The world manifests itself through the process

of differentciation which is a way to describethe relationship between the virtual and the

actual Within this structure differentiation is

the reciprocally determining differential

relations of Ideas singularities and the pro-

blems posed which differentiate each other Dif-

ferenciation is the divergent movement by

which the virtual Idea becomes actual Collec-

tively they engender a response through the dif-

ferenciation of actual things14 In the Deleuzian

logic of differentciation difference exists inthose reciprocal relations that constitute it

Differences generated in the differential relation

are determined by the relation itself and not by

external factors

The virtual is further evidence of Deleuzersquos

divergence from Leibniz who he feels almost

reaches the ldquoDionysianrdquo aspect of difference

but does not succeed because he hesitates

between the possible and the virtual (Differ-

ence 214) By actualizing his Ideas as ldquoa rea-

lized possiblerdquo (213) Deleuze feels that

Leibniz subordinates them to identity

Although Deleuzersquos interpretation of the


218



relation of ideas might appear to be Leibnizian

(because he insists on the coexistence of perpli-

cated ideas that are differentially lit) Deleuze

actually contends ldquoall Ideas coexist but they

do so at points on the edges and under glim-

merings which never have the uniformity of

natural lightrdquo (186 ndash 87) In this way Deleuze

opposes his Ideas to the common and good

sense of Cartesian reason For Leibniz the

world that God chooses is the world with the

maximum of continuity whereas for Deleuze

ldquothe best of all actual worlds is the one with

the greatest virtualityrdquo (Robinson 155 empha-

sis in original) According to Deleuze Leibniz

does not encounter the virtual in which dis-

junctive synthesis occurs in what Robinsondescribes as ldquoa bringing together or synthesis

of all the incompossibles as a compatible reso-

nating seriesrdquo (152)

The Deleuzian virtual is the space of the

violent discords of differential relations This

space is what enables the individuation of

1047297nite things From Simondonrsquos notion of indivi-

duation Deleuze borrows a way of theorizing

the communication of the disparate and conse-

quent emergence of the actual ldquoIn all theserespectsrdquo Deleuze writes ldquowe believe that indi-

viduation is essentially intensive and that the

pre-individual 1047297eld is a virtual ndash ideal 1047297eld

made up of differential relationsrdquo (Difference

246) Alberto Toscano 1047297nds commonality

between Deleuzersquos reading of Leibniz and his

notion of the communication of disparates

Toscano will present this synthesis of Simondon

and Leibniz as a politics It enables he writes

not only ldquo

communication between initiallyincompossible seriesrdquo but also ldquothe invention

of a common that is not given in advance and

which emerges on an ontological background

of inequalityrdquo (393)

In The Universal (in the Realm of the Sen-

sible) Dorothea Olkowski utilizes Italo Calvi-

norsquos Invisible Cities a work of 1047297ction that

imagines many different cities in order to

explore the implication of theorizing a world

based on an inherent disharmony She alle-

gorizes the reverse of this situation referring

to one of Calvinorsquos cities which is built on

perfect calculations The builders of this city

had assumed that their perfect calculations

would lead to harmony ldquoBut this assumes

many thingsrdquo Olkowski writes

It assumes that the state of affairs external to

the calculations to which the calculationsrefer is coherent it assumes that re1047298ection

is real that naturersquos reason is amenable to

human calculation It assumes that the calcu-

lations of the astronomers are not other than

those of the gods that the monstrous off-

spring of the city are not themselves the

inevitable progeny of harmony reason and

justice (18)

Contrary to this imagined city of perfect calcu-

lations Deleuzersquos world with its dark precur-sor is one founded on the ldquoinexact and

unjustrdquo (20) calculations that contain in1047297nite

disparity This means that it is not a world in

which traditional harmony or coherence is poss-

ible Because Deleuzersquos world emerges out of

the chaotic indetermination (the violence and

cruelty that subsists in its structures) it can

only manifest in unpredictable ways ldquoIt is

therefore truerdquo Deleuze writes ldquothat God

makes the world by calculating but his calcu-

lations never work out exactly [ juste] and this

inexactitude or injustice in the result this irre-

ducible inequality forms the condition of the

worldrdquo (Difference 222) To accept the dark pre-

cursor is to acknowledge that thought emerges

out of an originary violence ldquoWhat ifrdquo Olk-

owski asks ldquoevery phenomenon refers not to

an ordered set of calculations whose outcomes

are knowable in advance but to an in1047297nite dis-

parity the suf 1047297cient reason of all phenomenardquo

(20 ndash 21 emphasis in original)15

violence and ethics

The centrality of ontology to Deleuzersquos work

cannot be underestimated My concern is with

what ethics might be in relation to this ontology

Unlike Levinas for whom ethics is 1047297rst philos-

ophy a Deleuzian ethics must follow from

ontology Grosz who is interested in the

ethical capacity of ontology itself describes

ethics as a ldquodebtrdquo to ontology (ldquoInterviewrdquo

n pag) which not only gives ontology

primacy but also suggests that ethics can be

stark

219



conceived as a way of negotiating being What is

particularly interesting about considering a

Deleuzian ethics is that while he could be

described as the great thinker of difference

(a philosophical idea which must be central to

ethical concerns) he cannot be positioned as a

philosopher who has had much to say

directly about ethics However following

Ronald Boguersquos insistence that ldquothere is a

sense in which the ethical permeates all

[Deleuzersquos] workrdquo (Deleuzersquo s 3) we can con-

sider what Deleuzersquos ontology offers to ethical

thought This is particularly relevant at a time

in which ethical concerns are at the forefront

of academic discourse in the humanities

evinced in Deleuze studies by recent work onDeleuze and ethics16

If ethics is to follow from ontology then I am

interested in the consequences for ethics of the

ldquoin1047297nite disparityrdquo and the emphasis on

discord monstrosity and violence in Deleuzersquos

work If being is based on originary violence

and the world is a place in which disharmony

becomes the ldquonew harmonyrdquo what speculative

ethics might be brought forth Extrapolating

ethics from Deleuzersquos ontology means that thiscannot be an ethics of harmony or equality

This locates ethics in what could be profoundly

troubling territory Does this mean that a

Deleuzian ethics necessarily af 1047297rms the inequal-

ities and oppression of individuals and groups

and offers a way to justify this as natural and

inevitable Does it suggest that con1047298ict and

war are the inevitable consequence of a deeper

disharmony If Deleuze is proposing a world

in which violence is necessary for the pro-duction of new affects and sensations new

ways of thinking what does this mean for our

relation to others including nonhuman others

I do not have suf 1047297cient answers to these ques-

tions However in trying to draw an ethics from

Deleuzersquos work what is useful and signi1047297cant is

the priority that he affords to an in1047297nite differ-

ence that is always and necessarily beyond what

we can know The inequality that underpins

Deleuzersquos work is not then the inequality that

creates divisions in groups of individuals and

by which structures of oppression emerge

because it is a notion of limitless difference I

contend that a Deleuzian ethics is evident

through how this difference is encountered and

facilitated In The Logic of Sense Deleuze

writes ldquo[e]ither ethics makes no sense at all or

this is what it means and has nothing else to

say not to be unworthy of what happens to usrdquo

(149) Deleuze makes this statement in the

context of a discussion of the event To be

worthy of (or to will) the event is to become ade-

quate to it In the Spinozan sense ldquoadequaterdquo

implies equality and as such Deleuze thinks

that we should live in a way that is equal to the

violent unfolding of the world as incessant differ-

ence and change The inequality in Deleuzersquos

ontology the disparity which exists at its very

core and which gives rise to continual divergenceis precisely what engenders the production of the

new This is what produces new connections new

relations new bodies and new worlds It is what

produces new thought and new ways of living

Deleuzersquos notion of difference means that his

work cannot be co-opted for identity politics

and it needs to be located outside discussions of

the subject it is an ethics that requires us to go

beyond the human

What is most exciting about the violence inDeleuzersquos work is that it invites us to consider

violence outside of human mastery This is a

timely offering as understandings of human

existence and human histories currently domi-

nate the way in which violence is theorized This

is evident in the outpouring of work on humans

as perpetrators of violence against each other

against animals against the environment

While it is of course vital for humans to

account for these acts of violence this anthropo-morphism obscures the kinds of violence that

humans neither engender nor control In

Deleuzersquos work violence is evacuated from indi-

vidual pathology and rendered as force This

means that violence can be disarticulated not

only from the human agency but also from sen-

tience Violence for Deleuze is evident in disso-

nant ldquoharmoniesrdquo and can be seen when things

that are different are brought into productive

relations It is integral to thinking which for

Deleuze is enlarged so that it becomes a more-

than-human prerogative and has a world-

making capacity His concept of violence


220



therefore acknowledges its productive (as well

as its destructive) capacity

Deleuzersquos nonhuman violence invites us to be

attentive to the possibility of a nonhuman

ethics Ethical theory has historically been con-

cerned with human responsibility for our

relation to each other our treatment of nonhu-

man others and the way in which we make

use of the earthrsquos resources The current shift

away from the privileged territory of the

human to a consideration of new materialities

and the possibility that the nonhuman too has

agency (itself part of a long-standing critique

of liberal humanism) opens fertile spaces for

new ways of conceiving of ethics In proposing

an ethics drawn from an ontology that is pro-foundly anti-humanist and that values forces

which undermine the possibility of a stable

and coherent subject it may seem that human

liberty would not be possible In a sense this is

true but only if liberty is correlated with our

conventional and limited notion of human

agency However I suggest that ethics enables

the very possibility of freedom speci1047297cally the

freedom to exist in difference and to allow

others to do the same If a Deleuzian ethics isthe facilitation of difference both in ourselves

and in others then this enables not only our

own freedom to diverge from how we were but

also suggests a notion of liberty that extends

beyond the human to the world This is the

freedom to live beyond the recognized and the

recognizable To experiment with new manifes-

tations of difference in new combinations and

alignments Enacting a Deleuzian ethics

involves opening ourselves to the processes bywhich we are made and unmade through the

relation to difference It involves our both

encountering and also facilitating difference It

is for this reason that the ethical imperative in

Deleuzersquos work cannot be based on structures

of commonality a common humanity a

shared situation or a mutual interest Instead

ethical conduct is founded on the fact that

others are fundamentally different to me A

Deleuzian ethics requires that we open ourselves

to discord monstrosity and violence and the

forms of newness that these forces make mani-

fest What might it mean for ethics to think

about violence at an ontological level and to

consider forces that we are not

the masters of What new

forms of ethics and politics

what new ways of living in the

world does this invite us to

consider

disclosure statement

No potential con1047298ict of interest was reported by

the author

notes

I am grateful to Jessica Murrell for her carefulreading of this manuscript and also to Ken

Ruthven and Mandy Treagus for reading sections

of this article in another form I would also like

to thank the participants of the 2011 Australian

Society for Continental Philosophy conference

for their comments on this paper particularly

James Williams who asked me about liberty

1 Deleuzersquos analysis of Hegel in the first chapter of

Difference and Repetition can be seen as therealization

of his work on the history of philosophy which sys-

tematically demonstrates that there is another phil-

osophy of difference whose legacy operates

counter to the Hegelian dialectic Deleuze argues

that Hegel conceived of difference as infinitely large

by figuring it dialectically as contradiction which

posits it at its absolute maximum (Difference 44)

2 This does not mean that dissonance is not

present in Leibniz but instead to acknowledge

that there is a particular way that harmony

achieves resolution in his work For further discus-

sion of this point see Mogens Laerke3 In one of his lectures on Leibniz Deleuze points

out that reality is not engendered by differential

calculus For although ldquoLeibniz relies enormously

on differential calculusrdquo he treats it as ldquoonly a sym-

bolic systemrdquo and ldquoa way of treating realityrdquo

(ldquoLeibniz 22041980rdquo n pag)

4 Smith points out that although the mathematics

of calculus provides Deleuze with a model for the

concept of difference to which he appeals in Differ-

ence and Repetition Deleuzersquo

s imperative is todevelop a philosophical model rather than either

a ldquometaphysics of calculusrdquo or a ldquophilosophy of

mathematicsrdquo (ldquoConditionrdquo 9)

stark

221



5 It should be noted of course that Leibniz Hegel

and Deleuze were all working on differential calcu-

lus at different moments in its historical develop-

ment For a discussion of how their philosophical

systems were affected by this history see Duffy

Logic and ldquoMathematicsrdquo and Somers-Hall

6 According to Duffy Deleuze developed an

alternative history of mathematics as well as of phil-

osophy which creates a continuity between infini-

tesimal calculus and modern differential calculus

(ldquoSchizo-Mathrdquo 199) Duffyrsquos argument rests on

the place of the infinitesimal in the historical devel-

opment of calculus The infinitesimal had been

present in seventeenth-century theories of calculus

such as Leibnizrsquos but had subsequently been deva-

lued Duffy locates this matter historically in the

work of Karl Weierstrass who in the late nine-

teenth century removed every reference to infini-

tesimals from his work on calculus This became

the dominant model of calculus until the 1960s

when Abraham Robinson reintroduced infinitesi-

mals (ldquoSchizo-Mathrdquo 203) Duffy suggests that this

renewed interest in infinitesimals prompted

Deleuze to develop his Leibniz-inspired alternative

history of mathematics (ldquoSchizo-Mathrdquo 212)

7 Although Deleuze makes this statement in

relation to Antonin Artaud the echo of MarcelProust is also evident In Remembrance of Things

Past Proust writes in relation to thought (and in

particular memory)

What an abyss of uncertainty whenever the

mind feels overtaken by itself when it the

seeker is at the same time the dark region

through which it must go seeking and where

all its equipment will avail it nothing To

seek More than that to create It is face to

face with something which does not yet

exist which it alone can make actual whichit alone can bring into the light of day (62)

8 The complete list can be found in Difference and

Repetition (167)

9 Deleuze insists that although the dark precursor

has an identity it is ldquoindeterminaterdquo (Difference

119) and cannot be ldquopresupposedrdquo (120) He also

describes it as ldquoinvisible and imperceptiblerdquo (119)

These factors make it very difficult to define

10 In The Logic of Sense the concept that iscommensurate with the dark precursor is the

ldquoquasi-causerdquo which is the convergence point for

a divergent series In the translation of Deleuzersquos

presentation of his thesis to the Reunion of the

French Society of Philosophy in 1967 (which was

published in English as ldquoThe Method of Dramatiza-

tionrdquo) the dark precursor is rendered as the

ldquoobscure precursor rdquo (Deleuze Desert 97 emphasis

in original)

11 In The Logic of Sense Deleuze refers to disjunc-

tive synthesis to evoke the communication of

differences (174)

12 We can take Manuel DeLanda rsquos example of the

change to the sedimentation of rock which mani-

fests from an external influence as an illustration

of how the posing of problems works in nature In

this figuration the external change is the

ldquoproblemrdquo and the result is the way that the rock

ldquoresponds

rdquo Deleuze also describes an organism as

ldquonothing if not the solution to a problem as are

each of its differenc iated organs such as the eye

which solves the light lsquoproblemrsquordquo (Difference 211)

13 Evens refers to Deleuzersquos differential as ldquoa pro-

blematic power the power to problematizerdquo (108)

For Deleuze the problematic isldquothe ensemble of the

problem and its conditionsrdquo (Difference 177)

14 It is important to note that although an Idea can

be different iated it can never be differenc iated

(Deleuze Difference 187)

15 Here Olkowski refers directly to Deleuzersquos

statement that ldquo[d]isparity ndash in other words differ-

ence or intensity(difference of intensity) ndash isthesuf-

ficient reason of all phenomena rdquo (Difference 222)

16 For a very recent example see Jun and Smith

bibliography

Bogue Ronald Deleuzersquo s Way Essays in Transverse

Ethics and Aesthetics Aldershot and BurlingtonVT Ashgate 2007 Print

Calvino Italo Invisible Cities San Diego New York

and London Harcourt 1978 Print

DeLanda Manuel ldquoImmanence and Transcendence

in the Genesis of Formrdquo A Deleuzian Century Ed

Ian Buchanan London and Durham NC Duke

UP 1999 119 ndash 34 Print

Deleuze Gilles Desert Islands and Other Texts

1953 ndash 1974 Trans Mike Taormina Cambridge

MA and London MIT P 2004 Print

Deleuze Gilles Difference and Repetition Trans

Paul Patton New York Columbia UP 1994 Print


222



Deleuze Gilles The Fold Leibniz and the Baroque

Trans Tom Conley Minneapolis U of Minnesota

P 1993 Print

Deleuze Gilles ldquoLeibniz 22041980rdquo Les Cours de

Gilles Deleuze Trans Charles Stivale Web 26 Oct

2009 lthttpwwwwebdeleuzecomphptextephp

cle=53ampgroUniversityPresse=Leibnizamplangue=2gt





Deleuze Gilles The Logic of Sense Trans Mark

Lester with Charles Stivale New York Columbia

UP 1990 Print

Deleuze Gilles Masochism Coldness and Cruelty Trans Jean McNeil New York Zone 1991 Print

Deleuze Gilles ldquoSpinoza 17021981rdquo Les Cours

de Gilles Deleuze Trans Timothy S Murphy

Web 26 Oct 2009 lthttpwwwwebdeleuze

comphptextephpcle=38ampgroUniversityPresse=

Spinozaamplangue=2gt

Duffy Simon ldquoDeleuze Leibniz and Projective

Geometry in the Foldrdquo Angelaki Journal of the

Theoretical Humanities 152 (2010) 129 ndash 47 Print

Duffy Simon The Logic of Expression Quality

Quantity and Intensity in Spinoza Hegel and

Deleuze Aldershot and Burlington VT Ashgate

2006 Print

Duffy Simon ldquoThe Mathematics of Deleuzersquos

Differential Logic and Metaphysicsrdquo Virtual

Mathematics The Logic of Difference Ed Simon

Duffy Manchester Clinamen 2006 118 ndash 44 Print

Duffy Simon ldquoSchizo-Math The Logic of

Differentciation and the Philosophy of

Differencerdquo Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical

Humanities 93 (2004) 199 ndash 215 Print

Evens Aden ldquoMath Anxietyrdquo Angelaki Journal of the


Grosz Elizabeth Space Time and Perversion The

Politics of Bodies Crows Nest Allen 1995 Print

Grosz Elizabeth Time Travels Feminism Nature

Power Crows Nest Allen 2005 Print

Grosz Elizabeth Robert Ausch Randal Doane and

Laura Perez ldquoInterview with Elizabeth Groszrdquo

Found Object 9 (2000) n pag Print

Hegel GW Science of Logic New York

Prometheus 1989 Print

Jones Graham and Jon Roffe eds Deleuzersquo s

Philosophical Lineage Edinburgh Edinburgh UP

2009 Print

Jun Nathan and Daniel W Smith Deleuze and

Ethics Edinburgh Edinburgh UP 2011 Print

Laerke Mogens ldquoFour Things Deleuze Learned

from Leibnizrdquo Deleuze and the Fold A Critical

Reader Ed Sjoerd van Tuinen and Niamh

McDonnell Basingstoke and New York Palgrave

2010 25 ndash 45 Print

Olkowski Dorothea The Universal (in the Realm of

the Sensible) Edinburgh Edinburgh UP 2007 Print

Proust Marcel Remembrance of Things Past Ware

Wordsworth 2006 Print

Robinson Keith ldquoEvent of Difference The Fold in

between Deleuzersquos Reading of Leibnizrdquo Epocheacute 81

(2003) 141 ndash 64 Print

Smith Daniel W ldquoThe Condition of the Newrdquo

Deleuze Studies 11 (2007) 1 ndash 21 Print

Smith Daniel W ldquoGWF Leibnizrdquo Jones and Roffe

44 ndash 66 Print

Somers-Hall Henry ldquoHegel and Deleuze on the

Metaphysical Interpretation of the Calculusrdquo

Continental Philosophy Review 424 (2010) 555 ndash 72

Print

Stivale Charles Gilles Deleuzersquo s ABCs The Folds of

Friendship Baltimore Johns Hopkins UP 2008

Print

Toscano Alberto ldquoGilbert Simondonrdquo Jones and

Roffe 380 ndash 98 Print

Villani Arnaud ldquoWhy Am I Deleuzianrdquo Deleuzeand Philosophy Ed Constantin Boundas

Edinburgh Edinburgh UP 2006 227 ndash 46 Print

Williams James Gilles Deleuzersquo s Difference and

Repetition Edinburgh Edinburgh UP 2003 Print

Hannah Stark

University of Tasmania

Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001

AustraliaE-mail hannahstarkutaseduau

stark





The present time in intellectual history is

one in which ldquoviolencerdquo along with an

associated set of theoretical concepts including

war vulnerability terror and security is

coming to the fore in our theoretical vocabulary

This paper offers a reading of Deleuzersquos work

which is attentive to the place of violence in

his metaphysics It examines what Elizabeth

Grosz describes as the ldquoineliminablerdquo (Time

55) nature of violence ndash that is violence at the

level of ontology Although Deleuze is com-

monly associated with a philosophical position

of af 1047297rmation I contend that his ontology of

difference and repetition is founded on an ori-

ginary space of differential relations in which

divergence gives rise to novelty While there is

a high degree of playfulness in this differential

ontology I am interested in the aspects of it

that privilege something darker Locating vio-lence dissonance and monstrosity at the very

foundation of Deleuzersquos ontology has conse-

quences for a Deleuzian ethics Although there

is undoubtedly signi1047297cant political value to a

worldview in which being is difference

Deleuzersquos world is not one in which convention-

al harmony can exist between differences This

paper examines the discord at the heart of

Deleuzersquos revision of Leibniz the monstrous

difference that is produced through differentialrelations and the violence inherent in thought

before turning to ethical questions

the ldquonew harmonyrdquo of discord

Deleuzersquos engagement with Leibniz is evident

throughout his work In Difference and Rep-

etition published twenty years before The

Fold Leibniz and the Baroque he 1047297nds in Leib-

nizrsquos work a principle of divergence that comes

to inform his own ontology Both Leibniz and

Hegel are important historical 1047297gures to Differ-

ence and Repetition because Deleuze polarizes

their notions of difference he positions

Hegelrsquos difference as in1047297nitely large and Leib-

nizrsquos as in1047297nitely small1 Deleuze is critical of

both of these models of difference In the case

of Leibniz he feels that due to its proximity to

the principle of identity his model of in1047297nitely

small differences sacri1047297ces the virtual to the

possible This reading of Leibniz is consistent

with Deleuzersquos general interest in his philosophy

in the 1960s also evident in The Logic of Sense

and Expressionism in Philosophy Spinoza

which ends with a chapter on the concept of

expression in both Spinozarsquos and Leibnizrsquos

work Deleuzersquos reading of Leibniz shifts in

211

A N G E L A K I journal of the theoretical humanitiesvolume 20 number 4 december 2015

ISSN 0969-725X printISSN 1469-2899 online15040211-13 copy 2015 Taylor amp Francishttpdxdoiorg1010800969725X20151096648

hannah stark

DISCORD

MONSTROSITY AND

VIOLENCE

deleuzersquo s differential

ontology and itsconsequences for ethics










































(Difference 51)
























































stark

213





be non-linear




















writes







































































214










































of ontology





















































stark

215





























































































216
























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark












































(Difference 51)
























































stark

213





be non-linear




















writes







































































214










































of ontology





















































stark

215





























































































216
























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark







be non-linear




















writes







































































214










































of ontology





















































stark

215





























































































216
























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark












































of ontology





















































stark

215





























































































216
























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark































































































216
























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark


























































































divergence11







stark

217























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark

























world














perversionrdquo




































throws (198)














external factors











218




































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark






































not only ldquo

























justice (18)























violence and ethics











stark

219








































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark










































































beyond the human
























220























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark

























































consider



the author

notes


































stark

221































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark

































particular memory)










Repetition (167)














in original)



differences (174)







ldquoresponds

















bibliography















222





P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark







P 1993 Print











UP 1990 Print













2006 Print






















2009 Print


















44 ndash 66 Print




Print



Print







Hannah Stark


Private Bag 41

Hobart TAS 7001


stark



discord, monstrosity and violence - hannah stark

Documents