|
|
От
|
Пуденко Сергей
|
|
|
К
|
Кактус
|
|
|
Дата
|
14.12.2007 13:51:42
|
|
|
Рубрики
|
Прочее;
|
|
Продолжение истории "Work in progress by the author".
"Work in progress by the author".
http://www.ruc.dk/demnetgov_en/eu_frameprogramme/conference_nov_2006/papers_conference/joris_van_wezemael/
в ссылках есть эта самая новая книжка ДиЛанды
Manuel DeLanda (2006a) recently proposed a Deleuzian social ontology on the
basis of assemblage theory, which provides – I suggest – a valuable basis to
conceptualise governance networks, allowing for the heterogeneity of their ‘parts’. Its
principal aim is to move beyond the reductionism of the macro to the micro (as in
micro-sociology, e.g. social constructuivism) or vice versa (as in classical
Durkheimian or Parsonian sociology), and also beyond the meso-reductionism of the
practice-turn solution (e.g. ‘structuration’ or ‘habitus’ theory).
Whereas assemblage theory offers an ontological strategy to address
heterogeneous networks, the differentiation between minor and major politics by
Deleuze and Guattari (1987) addresses the critical question of creation and
composition. This ultimately defines the ‘complex art of steering multiple agencies
which are both operationally autonomous from one another and structurally coupled
through various forms of reciprocal interdependence’ (Jessop 1999). Since such
heterogeneous networks ‘become’ with the progress of the governance process, they
are only known ex post (after the event) through the attempts to govern them. The
fetishisation of an already present-identity is the ‘enemy’ of democratic network
governance as it limits the process of creativity to a question of ‘either/or’ and thus
homogenises difference which lies beyond these identities. The minor politics of deindividuation
fuels the construction of an intensive milieu that is never autonomous to
itself, but always composed of different variables in ever new configurations,
constantly changing the assemblage of governance and remaining open for
contestation. This minor composition creates collectivities which emerge not through
unity, but through reconfiguring differences.
In the first part of this paper I introduce a flat ontology on the basis of
assemblage theory. In the second part I draw on post-liberal theories of democracy
and introduce the concepts of major and minor governance. I would like to
concentrate on the theoretical argument in this working paper. Therefore the findings
of an empirical piece of research in which the theoretical framework I suggest here
has been both developed and applied will be but briefly summarised in the end in
order to underline the practicability of the ideas in this article. Thus the result of the
paper is a framework from which a research agenda could be developed.
примеч и сноски
Термин интенсивность
1 Heterogeneities are not equalised in far-from-equilibrium conditions.
2 The Humean principal of association accounts from this basic sense of experience up to the
highest level of social life. This forms the foundation for Hume’s rejection of a contract model of society
in favour of convention alone – a point which may well be relevant when theorising democratic network
governance on the basis of assemblage theory.
3 E.g. an organisation, which might be seen as micro in relation to a larger entity such as city.
4 Deleuze uses the term of the machine because – unlike organisms or mechanisms – a
machine has no organising centre: it is nothing more than the connections and productions it makes
(Colebrook, 2002, 56) and therefore it is a non-essentialist concept. Different assemblages produce
different machines. Therefore the change of relations of exteriority in assemblages (strata of the actual)
produces a different process of deterritorialisation, thus another abstract machine. The virtual and the
actual are both real. Moving from the virtual to the actual is referred to as actualisation, and the opposite
move – which is very important in Deleuze’s philosophy, is referred to as counter-actualisation. The
effect of counter-actualisation is to restore the connection of actual and virtual.
5 In Deleuzes ontology attractors are real even before the actualisation. However, since there
are usually many attractors, an actualisation is at the same time driven by deterministic processes
(attractors) and genuine creations. The multiple attractors together form a “circular causality in which the
effects react back on their causes” DeLanda, M. (no year) Deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the
world. Available at: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/pages/becoming.htm (Accessed: 28.9).. Thus
the determinism of the attractors is not global and unique, but local and multiple.
DeLanda, M. (2006a) 'Deleuzian Social Ontology and Assemblage Theory', in
Fugslang, M. and Meier Sorensen, B.(Eds) Deleuze Connections.
Edinghburgh University Press: Edinghburgh, pp. 250-266.
DeLanda, M. (2006b) Virtual Environmants and the Emergence of Synthetic Reason.
Available at: http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/delanda.htm (Accessed:
DeLanda, M. (no year) Deleuze and the open-ended becoming of the world.
эта старая, в альманахе