Deleuze and Philosophical Practice - Deleuze Studies 2013.7.2
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Deleuze and Philosophical Practice - Deleuze Studies 2013.7.2
Help Shibboleth My Account Log Out
Home Books Journals Search Information Zone Welcome, Stephen Chuang.
Journals > Deleuze Studies > All Issues > May 2013
Deleuze Studies Search Advanced Search
Latest Issue: 8.1
About this JournalDeleuze Studies does not limititself to any one field: it isneither a philosophy journal,nor a literature journal, nor acultural studies journal, but allthree and more.
Published: QuarterlyISSN: 1750-2241E-ISSN: 1755-1684
Advertising Reprints Recommend
Related Book Series
Most Downloaded Articles
Deleuze and Guattari and theFuture of Politics: Science Fiction,Protocols and the People to ComeRonald Bogue
Autism: Schizo of PostmodernCapitalHans A. Skott-Myhre and ChristinaTaylor
Ontology of the Diagram andBiopolitics of Philosophy. AResearch Programme onTransdisciplinarityric Alliez
May 2013Issue: Volume 7, Number 2< Previous Next > Download to Citation MgrTrack CitationsEmailAdd to FavouritesView Abstracts
Deleuze and Philosophical PracticeTable of Contents
Access Page Title
v Editors Acknowledgements
Citation - PDF plus (18K)
157 Editorial Introduction: For a Transdisciplinary Practice of Thought
Guillaume Collett, Masayoshi Kosugi and Chryssa Sdrolia
Citation - PDF plus (73K)
169 Deleuze Challenges Kolmogorov on a Calculus of Problems
Abstract - PDF plus (140K)
194 Deleuze's Third Synthesis of Time
Abstract - PDF plus (127K)
217 Ontology of the Diagram and Biopolitics of Philosophy. A Research Programme on
Abstract - PDF plus (93K)
231 Who Are Our Nomads Today?: Deleuze's Political Ontology and the Revolutionary
Abstract - PDF plus (103K)
250 What Is Called Thinking?: When Deleuze Walks Along Heideggerian Paths
Abstract - PDF plus (132K)
275 Jason Wallin (2010) A Deleuzian Approach to Curriculum: Essays on a Pedagogical Life,
London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Citation - PDF plus (60K)
283 Steven Shaviro (2009) Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Carolyn L. Kane
Citation - PDF plus (57K)
290 Ian Buchanan and Patricia MacCormack (eds) (2008) Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of
Cinema, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Citation - PDF plus (54K)
Notes on Contributors
298Citation - PDF plus (44K)
Deleuze and Philosophical Practice - Deleuze Studies - Edinburgh Uni... http://www.euppublishing.com/toc/dls/7/2
1 1 2014/1/28 05:40
Editors AcknowledgementsWe would very much like to thank the following people who acted asreferees: Simon Duffy, Gavin Rae, Nathan Widder, Claudia Mongini,Brian W. Smith, Iain MacKenzie, Emma Ingala, Dorothea Olkowski,Edward Willatt, Caroline Williams and Gerald Cipriani.
Special thanks to Marjorie Gracieuse, Jean-Claude Dumoncel, DavidSavat, Ian Buchanan and Les Back.
Deleuze Studies 7.2 (2013): vDOI: 10.3366/dls.2013.0099 Edinburgh University Presswww.euppublishing.com/dls
Editorial Introduction: For aTransdisciplinary Practice of Thought
Guillaume Collett University of KentMasayoshi Kosugi and Chryssa Sdrolia Goldsmiths,University of London
All the articles presented in this issue have their origin in the conferenceDeleuze, Philosophy, Transdisciplinarity, which took place in Londonin February 2012 and which the present editors organised. The keyquestion that the conference sought to address and around which thepresent issue revolves is the following: How are we to understandphilosophys relation to the various thought processes and practices ofother disciplines in the work of Gilles Deleuze? The necessity of askingthis question is to be found in a difficulty we perceive to exist in thetendency for an interdisciplinary mode of knowledge production. As thedesire to bring together a multitude of different research fields grows,particularly in the humanities, it has also become harder to compare andconjoin them without a certain perplexity arising as to how the differentprotocols and traditions of thought are to intersect.
Our turn to Deleuze is precisely motivated by his distinctive takeon the problem, which we will here articulate as transdisciplinarity.1
We take our cue from the blurb of the French edition of What IsPhilosophy?, which reads: Philosophy is not interdisciplinary.2 Thismight be taken to harbour a tension. After all, it is known thatDeleuze had long insisted on the essential relation between philosophyand other disciplines. His work has been explicitly and on numerousoccasions praised for having advocated the necessity of breaking throughtraditional disciplinary boundaries and can be rightly described as oneof the boldest instances of Continental philosophy. As Isabelle Stengersnotes, Deleuzes thought has been associated with the affirmation
Deleuze Studies 7.2 (2013): 157168DOI: 10.3366/dls.2013.0100 Edinburgh University Presswww.euppublishing.com/dls
158 Guillaume Collett, Masayoshi Kosugi and Chryssa Sdrolia
of productive connections, the creation of deterritorialising processesescaping fixed identities, transgressing the power of exclusive disjunctionthat is the either/or alternatives, such as, for instance, doing eitherscience or philosophy (Stengers 2005: 151). The same can be saidof Deleuzes engagement with other traditions. Besides the sciences,from Difference and Repetition ( 1994) to A Thousand Plateaus( 1988) and Cinema 1 and 2 ( 1986;  1989),philosophy is actively shown to thrive on a multitude of connectionswith the arts, technology and the social sciences. Indeed, we may identifya strong centrifugal movement in his writings intensified in some waysafter his collaboration with Flix Guattari by which philosophy isaudaciously extended towards other disciplines. Expressed and practisedas a logic of the and, this transversal way of thinking emerges asa choice, as a particular ethic of doing philosophy, and its stakesare laid out clearly: contrary to an image of thought as disinterestedcontemplation that would close up on itself to induce a return topre-established canons, for Deleuze philosophy must open itself up toother practices of knowledge production. Such an opening is not onlypossible but also necessary if philosophy is to be divested of a false anddetrimental aura of contemplative universality and mastery over othermodes of thought.
Yet at the same time that this opening is affirmed and consciouslypractised against the pitfalls of mere contemplation, in his latework with Guattari, Deleuzes philosophy appears to be definedby a centripetal and self-restricting movement, which delimits andbreaks connections. Compared with the profusion of adventurous linksanimating previous works, What is Philosophy? might be taken topromote a surprisingly conservative picture, with philosophy trying toestablish itself and its own methods in contradistinction to what it isnot. In the book, philosophy, science and art are indeed consideredapart from one another, each shown to create through its own mode,to have its own outside (non-philosophy, non-science, non-art) andto correspond to different disciplinary planes of immanence, referenceand composition, respectively. The three planes, along with theirelements, are irreducible (Deleuze and Guattari  1994: 216).Philosophy produces concepts; science produces functions; art producesaffects and percepts. And if they can be said to interfere (Deleuzeand Guattari  1994: 21618) with each other, this interferenceproceeds through their individual means: out of a function or an affectand percept, philosophy can make a concept; out of an affect and perceptor a concept, science can make a function; out of a concept or a function,
Editorial Introduction 159
art can make an affect and percept. The point is repeated in the Americanpreface to Difference and Repetition written in 1994, only three yearsafter the publication of What Is Philosophy?:
A philosophical concept can never be confused with a scientific functionor an artistic construction, but finds itself in affinity with these in this orthat domain of science or style of art. The scientific or artistic content of aphilosophy may be very elementary, since it is not obliged to advance artor science, but it can advance itself only by forming properly philosophicalconcepts from a given function or construction. (Deleuze  1994: xvi)
As Deleuze himself asserts in this particular instance, when he straysinto mathematical and biological territory to make concepts out of thefunctions of differentiation and differenciation, the movement thatenables him to connect with those practices abides by certain disciplinaryprotocols, restrictions and rules. The differences between disciplines arenot to be ignored.
Is there a contradiction between the two movements? Are wepresented, as Alain Badiou indicates, with an imperative to choose,as it were, between two Deleuzes, one radical, the other temperate(Badiou  2000: 9)? More specifically to our problematic, arewe faced with the impossibility of the cross-fertilisation of disciplinesand with the surreptitious re-establishment of boundaries?