I finally got a chance to read chapters 15 and 14 in A Thousand Plateaus and have some
thoughts, which still need more fleshing out.
I do not agree, or possibly understand, the claim that
“Articulation, which is constitutive of a stratum, is always a double
articulation (double pincer). What is articulated is a content and an
expression. Whereas form and substance are not really distinct, content and
expression are” (502). But I imagine
content and expression are interlocked in their existence, similar to form and
substance. I’m curious if earlier chapters
will elaborate on this claim, because for now I’m unsure how D&G arrived at
this content and expression distinction.
Any circulating text/object/artifact deploys an expression because of difference
(and not to mention meaning-making by culture).
And whenever a text is articulated,
expression inherently accompanies the articulation. To articulate means to speak, to write, to
express (which all produce and carry contextual meanings). I cannot think of a
moment where articulation has no meaning, no expression.
Obviously, D&G’s articulation of stratums are
allegorical for a capitalist society. As
capitalism functions in a state of chaos, it simultaneously sustains a
stratified order. With intention to consume
completely the limited resources, stratification is stretched, eventually
causing the system to implode. Such a
collapse renders ― typically a reactionary or conservative ― nostalgia for and reinforcement
of distinct social, political and economic structures (often how fascism
emerges). One line that I liked was when
D&G remarked that “it [destratification] will sometimes end in chaos, the
void and destruction, and sometimes lock us back into the strata, which become
more rigid still, losing their degrees of diversity, differentiation, and
mobility” (504).
Much of these last two chapters reminded
me of post-colonial theory, specifically what Bill Ashcroft argues in his book Post-Colonial Transformation. In fact,
Ashcroft applies D&G’s rhizome metaphor for his larger argument that
colonized subjects can exercise agency within power structures. Ashcroft argues against Louis Althusser’s
claim that “all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete
subjects” and posits that ideology is more elusive and that “interpolation” filters
in and through culture. He remarks that “interpolation
is the access such ‘interpellated’ subjects have to a counter discursive agency”
(47). Thus, within the rhizome power structure, colonized subjects can “interpolate”
empire by appropriating dominant imperial discourses and representations. In
doing so, he posits that colonized subjects transform these discourses of
representations, histories, spaces, places, et al. Such a movement, and consequently
transformation, emulates what sounds like D&G suggest: “The line no longer forms a contour, and instead passes between things, between points.
It belongs to a smooth space” (505). In
other words (as I read it), the marginalized/colonized/oppressed subject
navigates spaces in order to expose and subvert Western/dominant imperial
discourses and binaries.
Also, Ashcroft’s interpolation connects to, or seems
similar to, deterritorialization. I was a little confused though in
regard to what the four forms of D (deterritorialization) are. Following the claim that four forms exist, D&G
summarize what I consider is the first form: Abstract Machines. I found this section interesting, and thus
I’d like to reflect briefly on some of the ideas.
1. Abstract Machines
(Diagram and Phylum)- “constitute becomings.”
“They know nothing of forms or substances.” Although D&G explicitly say that this
form of deterritorialization is not a Platonic idealism ― or a form situated
within a dualistic world ― I still find their explanation of Abstract Machines as
intangible because why and how could this form be separate from forms and
substances? Does their “unformed
matters and nonformal functions”
(511) allow them to resist the imperial/dominant dualistic paradigm? This may be so, because D&G also regard
Abstract Machines as the agents that unveil the
distinction between content and expression, as well as unifies the two. Again, I’m having difficulty seeing the
distinction with content and expression, and this distinction sounds an awful
like the objective/subjective dichotomy.
Such a distinct could lead to a classic Marxist materialism: the science
of history. Yet, what I believe D&G
also suggest is that Abstract Machines emulate, or maybe deploy, a potentiality
(which also makes me think about Alain Badiou’s Event). As Abstract Machines navigate the between spaces ― the lines of flight in
which they can escape hegemony ― they eradicate the binaries and become/open up
third spaces.
And what happened to
the three other forms? I have no clue, but some possibilities: (1) I
interpreted the forms wrong ― Abstract Machines are deterritorialization, and
we find the four forms within Abstract Machines (even though Abstract Machines
“know nothing of forms”) or (2) the other forms are irrelevant for D&G’s
larger argument.
