this made me respect my ancerstal nomadic arab culture which 8 previoulsy looked at in contempt as i saw them against civilization and the state all their history; even the romans were seeing arabs as a chaotic race as they never subjecated to kings or rulers before ,even to modern times the arab people tend to organize in such away that makes a state very weak and unable to deal with them
found your channel only today but i'm already setting time aside to have a sit down watch and read of some of the resources on your site. absolutely great stuff
Hello Dave, I really enjoy this series, but I have a question: at about 13:40 when you discuss Psychoanalysis and Transversality, do you recall in which essay or essays in particular Guattari's discussion of the French CP, Trotskyists, and Maoists occurs?
Yes that is indeed a danger. D&G have been very incautious in their stuff on how their work is only a 'onceptual toolbox' that anyone can use. Guattari in his interview with Stivale (I have notes on www.arasite.org/Guattiview.html) was susprised to hear that there could indeed be right-wing readings of their stuff. At a general level, this is Zizek's (www.arasite.org/zizek.html) critique. There is also such a right-wing reading, based on the argument that de-territorialisation is a constant possible threat to social order -- 'good' if you hope to attack capitalism, but also easily recuperated for fascist readings that stress the importance of 'territory' ( eg blood soil and community) in (post) modern societies (Unfortunately, I don't seem to be ableto find the example right now -- I might have another look)
Hello again. Thank you again for the work in simplifying Deleuze's work. The video's are actually very helpful to me. Nevertheless, I have a comment/question to make. The "Warmachine" which are being created and found in Nomad behaviour, re- and deterriorializing on smoothspace is a term, which as it being put is "justified" by the simple fact that the "movements made/or creations made are being often in contradiction to conceptual/striated AND gouvernemental, nation oriented space. NOw the point I wanna make, cause I have a bit of problems swallowing the meaning of the term "war machine" (very strong term, easily misunderstood) IS that the term gives credit to "the gouvernamental structure, striated space" AS A ZERO POINT, from where on we define things. Which in my opinion is wrong as we should consider defining things a realiity/natural point of view on (smooth space) reality is and what is natural (in the same manner that hierarchy is not a natural structure- maybe a reality in society but not a REALITY as such, rhizomatic structures are ..) So why is the behaviour machinery - scooping its potential out of creative movements on smooth (natural) space - NAMED somehow after/in function of conceptual, here nation-oriented manmade structure?? Does the real problem not actually lay - far from authority play - in the actual possibilities how the machinery act/interact on striated space and what the STRATEGIES and reasons for those strategies on both ends or (both ends which seem to come in conflict) --> there is certainly more to say then only quantitive aspects, which end is stronger and "who" wins.. nomad or gouvernement.. Shouldnt be the term oriented to that? Or did I simply got it all wrong?
Good points here Krescht Clement. For me, the problem is that D&G often address issues from two perspectives -- what you call 'reality in society' and 'REALITY as such'.That is because they want to develop politics as well as philosophy --and connect the two of course. I think it is the poliitcal interest that see war machines as active against capitalist structures. Capitalism is a well-established 'reality in society' that all revolutionary politics has to take seriously. I think there are political strategies in D&G, implied in the section on war machines but also spelled out in other sections -- best of all in Guattari's own work like Psychoanalysis and Transversality or in his book with Rolnik Molecular Revolution in Brazil. Liberating politics depends on us all clearly analysing the source of constraints in capitalism, which ties in the philosophy.The philosophy insists there is an unconstrained reality, so liberating politics is not just based on utopianism. We also need the philosophy to guard against any fascist tendencies in war machines that lose their way, get obsessed with strategy and forget their original liberating purposes. Once we grasp the specific constraints in capitalism, especially the constraints on thought and subjectivity, we can begin to explore the others (which include self-imposed ones, by the way). There is a bit of support for Italian Autonomist politics here at the end of Plateau 13. Anyhow, that's how I see it. Incidentally, some friendly critics like Negri, have suggested this constant oscillation between philosophy and politics means nothing ever actually gets done politically!
Hello Dr Harris, I was thinking about the concept which Deleuze describes as “Warmachines”. I already asked you about it and also look on other comments about the concept. As you have been available Dr Harris, I wrtite you one more time. So the concept of warmachines, knowing the context - creating social and political awareness, with a different focus as for other writers of the post structuralist movement, Foucault, Bourdieu, Derrida. Deleuze describes how Nomads use non striated space, or smooth space and create war machines in order to satisfy their needs as there is constant changement of situation . In contrast to that, people living in a society, where the government embodies rules and regulations for the “well being” of “everyone”. The war machines are in contrast to the rigidity the fix and conceptual framework of the structured governmental organs. So every strategy (or war machine) of a so called Nomad is a potential danger to the structure. We spoke about the justification or the choice of the term “War machine” last time. As I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that in real life of today, things are not quite like that. In fact everyone embodies from time to time whether the nomadic idea, whether the fixed, civilized, conceptualized idea - depending of the interest to the situation. So one might very strictly need to embody the institution (job) with all its lines and structure, in order to preserve security and job - and the same person might in a different situation want to construct/use a line of flight and deterritorialize in order to satisfy their inner struggle or need for freedom and individualization. Where it gets particularly interesting is when people meet. Let’s take the example of people from different horizons (different value system, different methods to find solutions to a problem) , meeting of course in different kind of situations,. I can think of a variety of flagrant examples where this can happen : immigration situations for example. Now the adapting situation that a has to adept the b has no real truth warranty, that human model b is better then a, beside the material situation of the better off ones and of course the well functioning of the community where one wants to immigrate too. It is though in my opinion important to stress out that there is no RIGHT, just 2 different views. The point is where I want to come to is that on the REAL individual plan which anyone needs to assume, specially people like social workers for example. The strategy of “meeting the other” has no blacknwhite aspect to it, where we would just call the other”potential danger” or +”warmachine” but the is other strategies necessary, one might need to be empty for example. Not to want to prove the other in a territorial way the accumulation of his territory or knowledge in the first place, be authentic, respectful, (whatever all this includes) encountering people from corrupted places certainly need m other strategies to come to a goal for the “good” then just the formal spiritual ones. You need to know their strategies in order to defuse them and go to a common goal. The point I wanna make is,that to me it had been important to see the difference between the idea of nomadic and civilized people, smooth an dstriated space. But I think that the situation of now needs more variation and attention to the actual colliding of differences. (and that none really embodies neither fully nomadic , neither civilized, as nomads certainly also have patterns of behavior and things they rely on, maybe rulers of a certain clan, etc.) What do you think Prof Harris?
Very good points here again Krescht Clement. Lke all of D&G's concepts, I think the terms here reflect an underlying philosophical and politial project. The philosophical project is very general,showing how a virtual reality/abstract multiplicity produces specific actual formations, in this case both smooth and striated space, both war machine and state apparatus. Science studies specifics but philosophy wants to connect specifics back to the virtual. The project tries to address specifically philosophical problems like how to explain heterogeneity or discuss possibility. Guattari especially sees political implications too for people who think that existing actual forms,like states, are the only possible ones, and creative political as well as artistic thought might reawaken the possibilities of the war machine. The political hope is that we might all be able to do this, since everyone can indeed embody nomadic ideas as you say, and also territorialize in order to gain some specific advantage. The cultural politics of May1968 and of Italian Autonomism seem the best examples. But what if we are less interested in the philosophical dimensions and content to use more specific concepts without rediscovering the virtual all the time? I myself think that sociological concepts are really useful at least in encouraging critical thought in the first place, and those cases you suggest would be good examples. Sociology has long tried to grasp the issue of 'the other' and how to understand them without dominating or oppresing them. Modern ethnography probably grew as a reaction to early colonial domination of other societies. Modernist industrialising societies and the movements of population also led to concepts in all the 'Founding Fathers' of Sociology -- alienation for Marx, 'moral denisty' and 'anomie' for Durkheim, 'the stranger' for Simmel and so on. So the point really is whether anything might be gained by pohilosophising subsequently about these more specific concepts, to see if they can be grouped under more general ones like 'the nomad'. D&G are really disappointing here because they just offer a spray of illustrative examples across a range of fields -- smooth space is ilustrated by felting, the sea and naval warfare, the habits of fish, music, the Vietnam War and so on, none of them pursued systematically. I can see how the examples might argue for the general philosophical power of their work but I would like to have seen it demonstrated with or tested against these sociological terms. Maybe that is a project for you? I have written a modest piece myself on these issues in education: 'Applying Theory to Practice: Putting Deleuze to Work', in International Journal of Sociology of Education 2013 2(2): 140--64. hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/rise/article/view/489
Thx for much for your link, i will it read conscientiously. And yes I am working on a project but i am there yet. I am still busy reading where D&G got their ideas from. I will let you know. Thank you again for your comments.
from 16:30min on you tell us that other aspects, which would be more political, could be found in "Dialogues", previous to Mille Plateaus, could you give us a precise reference of these writings pls.
Hi Kretsch Clement (sorry -- forgotten how to type umlauts). I think the last chapter of Dialogues II is what you want, especially pp140 f. It is the last chapter, and one that has been added to Dialogues I. Page numbers refer to my edition -- 2002 New York: Columbia University. Good luck with it
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D1 | Fall | ต่อเนื่อง ในสัปดาห์สอง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ElcO9uC_Dbk/mqdefault.jpg)
always excited to see a new video of yours prof dave, thank you for all of these!!
Thanks for the encouragement Richard Wilkins. Best of luck with you projects
Thanks for the encouragement Richard Wilkins
this made me respect my ancerstal nomadic arab culture which 8 previoulsy looked at in contempt as i saw them against civilization and the state all their history; even the romans were seeing arabs as a chaotic race as they never subjecated to kings or rulers before ,even to modern times the arab people tend to organize in such away that makes a state very weak and unable to deal with them
Thanks for this son GOKU. D&G do a lot for nomad culture.
Thank you again Dave, for your brilliant contribution!
Many thanks Johannes Jensen
found your channel only today but i'm already setting time aside to have a sit down watch and read of some of the resources on your site. absolutely great stuff
Thanks ziggybobo.All the best with it.Dave
Love these videos! I’m actually struggling with Lefebvre’s production of space right now and quite unexpectedly they’ve helped with that somehow
Thanks Aaron Gallant. You often get these liitle bits of serendipity. Best of luck with it
thank you for this series! it has been super helpful!
Thanks for that Rachel Cho
Thank you for these videos, they're really helpful :-)
Glad you find them helpful, Catherine Mcmillan. All the best with your projects
@@DaveHarrisreDeleuze Thank you and the same to you 🙂
@@catherinemcmillan6111 I don't want to risk circularity -- but thanks and all the best
It would be pretty cool if you did a set of series on other seemingly impenetrable post-modern authors.
I have thought of several possibilities -- like Lacan,whnich would bevery ambitious. I'll rest up a bit first
thank you!💙
You are very welcome. Best wishes
Hello Dave, I really enjoy this series, but I have a question: at about 13:40 when you discuss Psychoanalysis and Transversality, do you recall in which essay or essays in particular Guattari's discussion of the French CP, Trotskyists, and Maoists occurs?
The discussion is spread throughout the book really -- try searching my notes on the book on www.arasite.org/Guatttransv.html?
This is going to be a great conceptual model for promoting right wing populism against the liberal capitalist state.
Yes that is indeed a danger. D&G have been very incautious in their stuff on how their work is only a 'onceptual toolbox' that anyone can use. Guattari in his interview with Stivale (I have notes on www.arasite.org/Guattiview.html) was susprised to hear that there could indeed be right-wing readings of their stuff. At a general level, this is Zizek's (www.arasite.org/zizek.html) critique. There is also such a right-wing reading, based on the argument that de-territorialisation is a constant possible threat to social order -- 'good' if you hope to attack capitalism, but also easily recuperated for fascist readings that stress the importance of 'territory' ( eg blood soil and community) in (post) modern societies (Unfortunately, I don't seem to be ableto find the example right now -- I might have another look)
I just found the artice on Deleuze and hte new right: www.4pt.su/en/content/deleuze-guattari-new-right
Do you think you can do a analysis on Dark Deleuze?
I'm processing it. I really like the pessimism
Hello again. Thank you again for the work in simplifying Deleuze's work. The video's are actually very helpful to me. Nevertheless, I have a comment/question to make. The "Warmachine" which are being created and found in Nomad behaviour, re- and deterriorializing on smoothspace is a term, which as it being put is "justified" by the simple fact that the "movements made/or creations made are being often in contradiction to conceptual/striated AND gouvernemental, nation oriented space. NOw the point I wanna make, cause I have a bit of problems swallowing the meaning of the term "war machine" (very strong term, easily misunderstood) IS that the term gives credit to "the gouvernamental structure, striated space" AS A ZERO POINT, from where on we define things. Which in my opinion is wrong as we should consider defining things a realiity/natural point of view on (smooth space) reality is and what is natural (in the same manner that hierarchy is not a natural structure- maybe a reality in society but not a REALITY as such, rhizomatic structures are ..) So why is the behaviour machinery - scooping its potential out of creative movements on smooth (natural) space - NAMED somehow after/in function of conceptual, here nation-oriented manmade structure?? Does the real problem not actually lay - far from authority play - in the actual possibilities how the machinery act/interact on striated space and what the STRATEGIES and reasons for those strategies on both ends or (both ends which seem to come in conflict) --> there is certainly more to say then only quantitive aspects, which end is stronger and "who" wins.. nomad or gouvernement.. Shouldnt be the term oriented to that? Or did I simply got it all wrong?
Good points here Krescht Clement. For me, the problem is that D&G often address issues from two perspectives -- what you call 'reality in society' and 'REALITY as such'.That is because they want to develop politics as well as philosophy --and connect the two of course. I think it is the poliitcal interest that see war machines as active against capitalist structures. Capitalism is a well-established 'reality in society' that all revolutionary politics has to take seriously. I think there are political strategies in D&G, implied in the section on war machines but also spelled out in other sections -- best of all in Guattari's own work like Psychoanalysis and Transversality or in his book with Rolnik Molecular Revolution in Brazil. Liberating politics depends on us all clearly analysing the source of constraints in capitalism, which ties in the philosophy.The philosophy insists there is an unconstrained reality, so liberating politics is not just based on utopianism. We also need the philosophy to guard against any fascist tendencies in war machines that lose their way, get obsessed with strategy and forget their original liberating purposes. Once we grasp the specific constraints in capitalism, especially the constraints on thought and subjectivity, we can begin to explore the others (which include self-imposed ones, by the way). There is a bit of support for Italian Autonomist politics here at the end of Plateau 13. Anyhow, that's how I see it. Incidentally, some friendly critics like Negri, have suggested this constant oscillation between philosophy and politics means nothing ever actually gets done politically!
I'm not sure how some sentences came to be crossed out -- I didn't do it
Hello Dr Harris,
I was thinking about the concept which Deleuze describes as “Warmachines”.
I already asked you about it and also look on other comments about the concept. As you have been available Dr Harris, I wrtite you one more time.
So the concept of warmachines, knowing the context - creating social and political awareness, with a different focus as for other writers of the post structuralist movement, Foucault, Bourdieu, Derrida. Deleuze describes how Nomads use non striated space, or smooth space and create war machines in order to satisfy their needs as there is constant changement of situation .
In contrast to that, people living in a society, where the government embodies rules and regulations for the “well being” of “everyone”. The war machines are in contrast to the rigidity the fix and conceptual framework of the structured governmental organs. So every strategy (or war machine) of a so called Nomad is a potential danger to the structure. We spoke about the justification or the choice of the term “War machine” last time.
As I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that in real life of today, things are not quite like that. In fact everyone embodies from time to time whether the nomadic idea, whether the fixed, civilized, conceptualized idea - depending of the interest to the situation. So one might very strictly need to embody the institution (job) with all its lines and structure, in order to preserve security and job - and the same person might in a different situation want to construct/use a line of flight and deterritorialize in order to satisfy their inner struggle or need for freedom and individualization.
Where it gets particularly interesting is when people meet. Let’s take the example of people from different horizons (different value system, different methods to find solutions to a problem) , meeting of course in different kind of situations,. I can think of a variety of flagrant examples where this can happen : immigration situations for example.
Now the adapting situation that a has to adept the b has no real truth warranty, that human model b is better then a, beside the material situation of the better off ones and of course the well functioning of the community where one wants to immigrate too. It is though in my opinion important to stress out that there is no RIGHT, just 2 different views. The point is where I want to come to is that on the REAL individual plan which anyone needs to assume, specially people like social workers for example. The strategy of “meeting the other” has no blacknwhite aspect to it, where we would just call the other”potential danger” or +”warmachine” but the is other strategies necessary, one might need to be empty for example. Not to want to prove the other in a territorial way the accumulation of his territory or knowledge in the first place, be authentic, respectful, (whatever all this includes) encountering people from corrupted places certainly need m other strategies to come to a goal for the “good” then just the formal spiritual ones. You need to know their strategies in order to defuse them and go to a common goal.
The point I wanna make is,that to me it had been important to see the difference between the idea of nomadic and civilized people, smooth an dstriated space. But I think that the situation of now needs more variation and attention to the actual colliding of differences. (and that none really embodies neither fully nomadic , neither civilized, as nomads certainly also have patterns of behavior and things they rely on, maybe rulers of a certain clan, etc.)
What do you think Prof Harris?
Very good points here again Krescht Clement. Lke all of D&G's concepts, I think the terms here reflect an underlying philosophical and politial project. The philosophical project is very general,showing how a virtual reality/abstract multiplicity produces specific actual formations, in this case both smooth and striated space, both war machine and state apparatus. Science studies specifics but philosophy wants to connect specifics back to the virtual. The project tries to address specifically philosophical problems like how to explain heterogeneity or discuss possibility. Guattari especially sees political implications too for people who think that existing actual forms,like states, are the only possible ones, and creative political as well as artistic thought might reawaken the possibilities of the war machine. The political hope is that we might all be able to do this, since everyone can indeed embody nomadic ideas as you say, and also territorialize in order to gain some specific advantage. The cultural politics of May1968 and of Italian Autonomism seem the best examples.
But what if we are less interested in the philosophical dimensions and content to use more specific concepts without rediscovering the virtual all the time? I myself think that sociological concepts are really useful at least in encouraging critical thought in the first place, and those cases you suggest would be good examples. Sociology has long tried to grasp the issue of 'the other' and how to understand them without dominating or oppresing them. Modern ethnography probably grew as a reaction to early colonial domination of other societies. Modernist industrialising societies and the movements of population also led to concepts in all the 'Founding Fathers' of Sociology -- alienation for Marx, 'moral denisty' and 'anomie' for Durkheim, 'the stranger' for Simmel and so on.
So the point really is whether anything might be gained by pohilosophising subsequently about these more specific concepts, to see if they can be grouped under more general ones like 'the nomad'. D&G are really disappointing here because they just offer a spray of illustrative examples across a range of fields -- smooth space is ilustrated by felting, the sea and naval warfare, the habits of fish, music, the Vietnam War and so on, none of them pursued systematically. I can see how the examples might argue for the general philosophical power of their work but I would like to have seen it demonstrated with or tested against these sociological terms.
Maybe that is a project for you? I have written a modest piece myself on these issues in education:
'Applying Theory to Practice: Putting Deleuze to Work', in International Journal of Sociology of Education 2013 2(2): 140--64. hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/rise/article/view/489
Thx for much for your link, i will it read conscientiously. And yes I am working on a project but i am there yet. I am still busy reading where D&G got their ideas from. I will let you know. Thank you again for your comments.
thank you sir
You are welcome arun singh. Sorry for the late reply
from 16:30min on you tell us that other aspects, which would be more political, could be found in "Dialogues", previous to Mille Plateaus, could you give us a precise reference of these writings pls.
Hi Kretsch Clement (sorry -- forgotten how to type umlauts). I think the last chapter of Dialogues II is what you want, especially pp140 f. It is the last chapter, and one that has been added to Dialogues I. Page numbers refer to my edition -- 2002 New York: Columbia University. Good luck with it
Thx you for the quick answer.