12187-The Space of Man

8/8/2019 12187-The Space of Man

1/10

188 Deleuzend Spoce-5 . In Deleuze's rv n philosophl' , ve nriglrtsar' , pace oe s in d neu'determinattons,no t only in th e part iculal aesthetic nedia ha t he considers parnting, heatre,cinemaibu t alsoin the general onsideration f rnor, 'ementhat char;rcterisesiswork. vhereas representation hvals demands he return to a unlqueperspec-t ive,Deleuze rguis n Difference nd Repetit io, that movement, impliesa plu-rality of ..nt.rr, a superimposit ion f perspecrives, tangleof porntsof yierv,c1.1existencef rnomentswhich essentialh' istort reprcsentation'Deleuze997:.5 6.6. As Deleuzewrites, n a related ontext, 'The negatives the imageof difference,br.rt f latter-rednd inverted mage, ike the candle n the eyeof an ox - the el'e

of the dialectician re:rrl ingof a futi le combirt ' (Deleuze1997 51).7. Fa r frorn being another dintension f ertensit,v,hen, depth ndicates he inren-sive ield (plan) front u,hich extensit.vssues:'Depthas th e (ult imatern d origi-nal) heterogeneousinlension s th e matrix of all extensin', ncluding ts thirddrmension or-rsideredo be hornoger-reousvith th e gther tr,vo'(Deleuze1997r229\.8. The diverse r n.ranifolds producedbv difference, ,v he irreducible nequalin'and disparit ,v ha t haupts God's perfection ike a remainder.Thus, as Deleuzesays, t is nor c;od'sperfecrcalcularionswhich form the 'principle of suff icientreason' for the world but, rather, he imperfectionof those equations th eal' ,vavs resent, rlr '" '21'5nrecoverable ifference that makes he rvorld behindGod's back,as t u'ere.9. Whar is Deleuze trgu ingwith respect o space?n a sense. ant : rn t ic iprtesDeleuze's wn trauscendental mpiricissr n his elucidationof spacean d timewhen he considers ossible biections o his own erposit ion.Thoseu'ho:

regardspace nd time as relationsof appearances,longsicle r in succcssiotito one another - relatior-rsbstracted ro m experience, nd in this isolatiorrconfusedly epresented . . areobliged o den_vhat a priori mathematical oc -trineshavean y validit l ' in respect f real hings (for instance, tr sp:rce) r atleast o denv heir apodeict ic ertatntv.Insofaras Kant meansgeometrvb, v mathematicaldoctrines', nd t-tst lfar s heEuclideannorion of spaceancl he Nervtoniannotiorl of space-t ime n nhichKant bases o much of his erposit ion have been argelvdismantled, ve havenoreal roublewith this objection.What should nterest s.however, s rhe conclu-sion that Kant drar,vs bout this transcendental mpiricisn'r:

on this vieu', ndeecl, he a priori conceptsof space nd t inle are merelvcrea-tures of the imagination,u' 'hose ourcemust reallv be sought n erperience,th e magination rarningout of th e relations bstrirctedronr e-xperienceome-thing that does ndeedcontainu'hat is generirl n these elations.bu t r," 'hiclrcannot existu' ithout the restrict ions ha t nature ias attached o theln. (Kant1 9 6 5 : 8 1 )

Chopter11TheSpoce f Mon: On theSpecificityfAffecf n Deleuze nd Guottori

CloireColebrookTh e relationbenveenmathenratics nd nranmav thus be conceivedn a newwa\': he questions not that of quantifying r measuring umanproperties,bu t rather, n the onehand, hat of problematisingumanevents, nd,on theother, hat of dei'eloping svarious umaneventshe conditions -r fproblem.(Deleuze, he Logic of Sense\

The Sense f SpaceHow do hespatialmetaphorsdoptedyDeleuzendFoucrultn heirearl,vwork relate to a theory of actual space?When Foucault, in TheOrder of Things (1970), detailed a seriesof historical a priori, he se thimself the task of uncovering the 'table' across r,vhich he terms ofthought were distributed. He also referred to spacesof knowledge, an dconcluded with reflectionson the history of rhought as defined by various'foldings' producing an interiority an d exteriority.rOne of the many textsto rvhich Foucault's work was responding wa s Edmund Husserl's Crislsof ' tbe European Sciences 1970\ which, as Derrida noted, r"rnwittinglyexposed the rvay's n which a humanised and architectonic concepfionof space underpinned the transcendental project (Derrida 1989). Acommon, objectir.e,presentableand scientifically neaningfulworld wasth e implicit telos, not only of all acts of me:rning but also of the very ideaof meaningas such. n order for phenomenology o establ ish onscious-nessas the temporal synthesis hat constitutes a world, and that posirsthat rvorld as objectively present or others both now and in th e future.one must presuppose spaceof man: a world whose sense,ruth, orderan d geometrv must always be presentable even f no t present) for anysublect whatever. Any cultural, historical or ethnographical relativismrel iesupon a general or izon, common world or pre-cultura l we 'wi th inlvhich relativit)' takes place.


2/10

19 0 Deleuze nd SpocewhereasDerridaargueshat hisarchitectonicssumption f a humanspacen general nderpins hilosophy ssuch,whichnecessarilyresup_poses ha t al l sense.canultimaterybe brought to presence, oucault(1970) argues ha t this transcendentaloncern s historicallyspecific.Prior to modernity spacewas heterogeneous:elveswere fo.rstitutedmorally,definedaccording o their territory and it s norms (Foucault1970: 328); bu t it is with rhe rranscendental roject that any local

appearancef man s seen san empirical ealisatitnof a general uman-ity.An entirelynew spatialmetaphorics xplainshe e"istence f actualspaces:herecan only be this ocalisedworld herebecause umanrty sjust ha t ranscendental ovementha t will unfold tself hrough ime nal l theseconcreredimensions.No*, in hi s later work on iou.uult,Deleuze uggestsha t we canmovebeyondFoucault,shartingof thosehumanor acrualspaceshat unfold from a transcendentalr-inciple fspacen general the phenomenologicaldea of .o.rr.io.rrn.ssas thegenesis f space towardsa 'superfold'.The argument oessomethingl ike this (Deleuze 988:131).,First,here s the er aof th e unfold:an vactualappearancef life is seen o be a finiteexpression f an infinity.Human beings re fragments f the cosmos.6ectnd,n the nineteenthcentury,with the emphasis n 'man', we encounter he fold: .man, isfinite,bu t hi s subjectiono the world is precisely ha t produces is his-torical, inguistic nd politicaldevelopment. sense fii-., space,an -guageand life in general s brought nto beingonly becaus. .rit. -u 'can urn backandcome o recognisehe ways n whichhe s enfolded ylife;he s ha tborderwhere ocaldetermination nderstandstselfas oc_alised.n these irst wo.eras f knowledgehe verystyleof ou r thoughtis orientedby spatial elarions,he way in which *e i-"gi.r. what it isto think. The very idea that thought altershistorically,ha t it has anorientation r spatialmaginaryswhat opens p the superford,.By con-frontingal l thoseevents rom which thought.-.rg"r, fy thinkinghowtherecan be perceptions f spaces,. rolong., pi.rupposean infinityto be represented;or a finitebeingwho constituteshis,humanworld(as n phenomenology)ut an unlimitedfinity'.Each ocated bserversthe openingof a fold, a worrd fordedaround its contemplations ndrhythms.Thereareas manyspaces r foldsas herearestyles f percep_tion' If a fold is the way perceptionscurvearound' or are orientedaccordingo an actingbodS hen the houghtof these urves roduceslife ha tcan hink not just ts own humanworld - thespace f -ar, - brrtthe sense f space ssuch.'s7hatunitedHusserl n the'origin

of Geometry', nd DerridawithFoucault n their criticismof phenlmenologywas the problemof the

On theSpecificity f Affecr I 9lemergence?{ ranc..Phenomenologyad argued har all perceptron ndcommunicablemeaningpresupposed horizon,a world of possibilitieswhichwould thenbegiven epeatableorm and deality n thestructuresof sense' he laws of geometrymay, herefore, av e een inscribedbyEuclidbut their sense ranscendsny specific ubject nd concerns nysubjectwhatever. ense mergesrom a local time and spacebu t thenallows or the thoughtand beingof what is true fo , ,p"c. and time ingeneral. or Derrida_thisorizonof 'any subjectwhatever' resupposesa normative mage f humanity, subject rientedowards he disclosureof an objective nd scientificallymanipulabre orld. Fo r Foucault, hi shorizon ails o confront he outside', theuntboughteventsha t orientthe horizonsof sense r milieuswithin which -. Lou. and think. Theproblemof sense'hen, s the problemof theway n whichortrot spaces- the milieu in which we orienrourselves nd live - are doubledby aspace f senser 'distance'or distribution rom which we can think orlive oczilisi:d-tim.,nd spaces.t would be fa r too simple, hen, o saythat phenomenology^useshe conceptof ,horizon'metaphorically, r

that theterrirory'

is figural n A Tbousand lateaus(19gi). Rather, hevery differencebetween-literaland figural - the very possibilityofthought emergesrom botb the movements f bodies id the rmagesthosebodies roduceof eachother.As early as L9G9, n The Logic of Sense,Deleuze ontrasred wogenesesf sense:he irst s Husserlian nd s static.Senses released yan event ha t passesrom a 'noematicattribute' seeing omething ssomething bu t thenreleaseshe perceivedor al l time;"one eesn thehereandnow (theactual)a potentiarha t couldbeperceivedor al l time(theeternaland pure singularity, ingularbecause ot entwinedwith arvorldof relations). he noematicattributeof senses the event, or wesee ot us twhat actually s,bu t also heseen s t mightbe emembered,imagined, recalled, repeated,hallucinated.Any perceivedrednessbecomes 't o red'. It is in this senseha t the ,uifr.. of senses onlyquasi-causal',sterile nd ncorporeal;t is the mageof bodies roducedfrom an encounter, ut is alsono longerbound rpi"irr, u"ai.r'""a -ir,-tures.senses theevent ha t emergesrom an encounter, sense f red,a potentialor power to red . .' .Deleuze'staticgenesiss herefore loseto phenomenologyn arguing ha t the condition fo r any perceived ractualworld is a virtual distance. ut whereasHusserlsaw sense s apredicate judging he world to be hus Deleuze ees ense s heverb,releasingrom thisworld of effectedelations this erritory,assemblageor mixture- the potential or other elations, ther*orlds. In additionto the surfaceof production,or the space hat is produced rom the


3/10

19 2 Deleuze nd Spoceencounters f singularpowers, here s also he metaphy5i6slurface.which s rhe mage f rhose owers or as he rar eactual i icd ur as heyrnightbe . wecouldsay, or exanrple,ha t eve' theminimal awsof geog-raphy form a metaphysical urface,extracting rom relertions ertarnpowers o relate.Bu t oncewe thougbt this genesis f a metaphysicalsurface,hi s doublingof the a*ual world with it s sense,henwe wouldbe obliged to consider he potential of other worlds or a counrer-actualisation.The second enesiss dynamic: ow is t that this expressingr sense-consti turing erceprion merges?ow is he eye apable f survel-ingworld, no t us tas ts own bu t as t would be,or couldbe, or anysubjectwhatever,or all time?Here,Deleuze raws upon a psychoanalysisfpartial objects;bodiesbeginas flows of forcesand desire,mouth andbreast,mouthand inger, xcremenr nd anus.This sa schrzoid ositionof forces, nd s madeup of partsand fragments. ut in the subsequentdepressiveosition he surfaces overtaken y a height, he heightof rhegoodobject ha rpresentshe orceswith an rnage f wholeness nd nte-gration,a properpoint from which the surtaces surveyed.f rhere s a

surface f senseha t we candescribe tatically as he difference erweenactual mages nd the imageas t would be or othersbeyond hi s herean d now), this is only possible ecause f th e dynamic elations fbodies.The mouth becomes n organof speaking, roducinga subjectwhoseworld is now no longer ha t which it seesor itself,but is thatworld as t is surveyed.f we havea horizo', l ived world, contextoractualspace,his is because n eventhas occurredn the peculiarmir-turesof humanbodies. he Bodywithor-rt rgans s irst Lrsrha t depthproducedby the orces hat take n and spit out partialobjects; ut withthe elevation f the goodobject' he bodywithoutorgans ecomes ,fulldepth'.If we nrove orward o thepoliticisation f thisgenesisn Anti-oedipuswe aregivena furtherdistinction:egitimotely,he Body vithoutorgansis eff'ectedrcjm he productionof forces. So , o draw upona ,fieldmeta-physic'thatgoesbackat leastas ar as Spinoza:if e s ?orce,he play of

forces, nd the interplayof these orcesproducezones r sitesof qual-ities, 'tensities. r is no t that here sa spacehat s henqualified;aiher.forcesproduceqr-ralitiesnd qualicies rodr.rceieldsor spaces,blocsofbecoming'). he Bodyu,irhoutOrgans s produced alongside;the con_nections f desiringlows.Thezones dd up ro a series f spaces; ut hiswhole snevergiven, or there s ahvayshe potential or furtherconnec-tio' and prodr-rction. egitirnately,he Body wirhout organs is thiseffected epth. llegitimately, owever, ne cancome o believehat the

On theSpecificity f Affect .|93Body withor.rtOrganswas the original subiector ground, rom whichfir-riteerritoriesor zoneswere formed. In psychoanalyticerms, thedesires f bodies reatepartial obiectsor attachments, hich are thensrructured y Oedipus:he breasts he breast f the mother, he penis sthe phallusof the father,and al l this s necessaryecausef we are notsubmitted o structurewe will fail back nto the abyssof pre-Oedipalir-rdifference.he Bodywithout Organs s rssumedo be hat groundorlifeagainstwhichhuman structure efinestself.Politically,his error sthat of presupposingh:rt from all the territoriesand regimes f signsrvhichdo effect a possibility or thinking territoriality as such,or anrrbsolute eterritorialisation,e magine hat here s n existence n ulti-mare erritory,a unir-v vithin which and from which local spaces rel ived.Absolute erritorialisations, hen, hepotentialof sense,he potentialof the brain to think the genesis f spatiality rom within a local space;no t just this image as it is here or me, folded around my body, butirnaging ssuch.Humanity s not, as n phenomenology,he initepointin the rvorld from which the world is unfolded.Bu t human ife, in theform of the thinkingbrain s the sitewhere he potential or space theintuition of inhuman oldingsof space can be actualised ndcounter-actual ised.or Deieuze.hen, he humanor thepotential f the brain sahvaysmore hana constitutedmagewithin sense;t i s also hat imagethat allowsus o think the potentialof imagingas such Deleuze 995:42).Justas Foucault's enealogy f man was accompanied y an affir-rnationof the selfas hat rvhichcan urn back upon tself,problematiseitself and therebyopen new ways of thought, so Deleuzewill affirmFoucault'ssuperman'"vhono longer urns backupon himselfbut opensou t to forces ha t will 'free life' from'witbin hintself' Deleuze 988:132).-Indeed,sDeleuze otes n hiswork on Foucault,tobink equiresmovingbeyond ormations f knowledge nd dispersedisibilitieso the'non-place'from which whatwe see' nd what we say'emergeDeleuze1988:38).'This outside'is not spatiallyseparatedrom the world welive; ratheq the 'outside'is nothing more than the relationsof forcesthroughwhich ve ive,see, nd say Deleuze 988:84).There s space,th e experiencef space, nl y because f a non-spatialoutside'that snothingmore hana playof forces Deleuze 988:B5).The Ethics of SpaceThere s a perceptior-rvecouldhave n readingDeleuze nd Guatari thatthe molecularsgood,while he molar s bad, hat affect s iberating nd


4/10

19 4 Deleuze nd Spocemobilising while meaning or conceptuality is rigidifying. Such a moral-ising reading would be enabled by placing Deleuze and Guattari in th etradition of post-1968 difference hinkers who resist he lure of identiryand who, supposedly,grant an essential adicalism to the non-semanricpe r se. On such an understanding, conceptuality, deality an d form areways of retarding an d normalising the flow an d force of life, while th erandom, singular or unthought release ife into it s open and infinitepotentiality. The relation between time and space would, accordir-rgly',also be historicisedan d politicised. Philosophy has privileged a uniformspace of points, a space that may be measured or striated preciselybecause ny point in space s equivalenr o and interchangeablewith an yother. Thesepoints are achievedeither by the division of uniform matter,or by th e loc:rtion of bodies across the plane of matter. Time is thenregardedas he measureof movement or points within this uniform field.'Westernmetaphysics ha s always privileged a 6xed world of forms, aspatial unity and a pre-given order over the processes nd events ha tproduce that order. When we read Deleuze and Guattari's seemingcele-bration of smooth over striated space Deleuzean d Guattari 1987 353\,of multiple plateaus rather than a line of history (Deleuzeand Guattari1987: 393), of artisans rather than architects (Deleuze and Guattari1987 402), and of nomadology rather than sedentar,v henomenology(Deleuzean d Guattar i 1987:380), th is would seem o ,ugg.r, that wemove from a dualism that privileges a founding term - spatial coordi-nates,measuring ime, order - to an affirmation of the singularities ro mwhich all dualisms and orders emerge.As in Derridean deconsrrucrion,we would recogniseany moral or binary opposition as effected rom adifferential field not governed by rrny dominant term. In terms of spacethis would seem o suggesr ha t space, ar from beinga field within whichpoints ar e mapped, is better conceivedas a plane of singular affectsan devents hat is , in'Western thought, reactively coded as one general erri-tory.

However, the emphasis n post-Deleuzian theory on affecr, singular-ities and nomadology misses the affirmative understanding of sense,mind an d philosophy that sits alongside Deleuze's critical project.r"Throughor.rt is work Deleuze s at pains to point out that he is not advo-cating a 're[Llrn'to primitivism, and this has beenacceptedwell enough.',Flowever, he celebration of the minor term in Deleuze and Guattari'snon-dualist binaries does seem o suggesta preference or the affective,singular, haptic and embodied over sense,conceptuality an d idealitv.Alongside th e critique of the normalisarion of space n th e 69r.rre f aunified humanity, there is another problem in the post-1968 affirmation

On th eSpecificity f Affect 195of difference: he problem or positive possibility of the whole, the powerof a singular thought to imagine space n general. Certainly, post-struc-turalism concerned tself with the disruptive qLrestion f genesis:ho w isan y field, system of differencesor plane of knowable terms generated,an d ho w does one term explain, and thereby occlude, he genesisof anysrructure?But there s also an affirmation of the structural possibility ofthis genesis:how does any field or set of relations produce a point orimage of that which exceeds he set?For Deleuze and Guattari, it is timeto approach th e problem of genesisatrd structure differently (Deleuzean d Guattari 1987:242): a strtlcture s a set of external relations, he wa yin which life is viewed or generated rom some point. A structure is on eside of a stratification; the other side s that wbicb is structured, but thisdeterminable content is not undifferentiated or formless. And so forDeleuzeand Guattari we need o move beyond structureson on e side andstructured on the other to the abstract machine from which both areunfolded. This would mean taking account of the processof differentia-tion - the dynamic unfolding of difference- that subtendsdifferencia-rion, or the actual an d realiseddistinctions between erms (Deleuze1994:206-7).It should be possible o think immanent tendencies, he wa y inwhich different expressions of life unfold different spaces, elations,6elds or trajectories, th e immanent power of corporeality in all matter'(Deieuze nd (iuattar i 1987:4L1).

Genesis nd StructureStructuralismresentedtself sa breakwith he'Westernpoch f meta-phvsics hat had grounded beings and identities upon some prior planefrom which they emerge; differenceswere no longer differenceswithinspace.Rather than accepting hat differenceswere grounded on a priororder and distributed across a field, structuralism described th e emer-genceof any field from the differentiation of points or terms. The idea ofdifference wirhout positive terms allows us to imagine a differentiatingfield that producespoints only in relation to each other an d that have nointrinsic orientation.JSpacewould, then, be the effect of a synthesis,ofpoints, not a container or ground. Space s th e effect of relations.vfhiswould apply both ro ,p"..in a meiaftroiicalienie, such as the space orfield of a grammar or social structure, and literal space.Geometry is nota pre-givenand ideal order of a space hat bears ts ow n lawsl rather, ourspace s constituted hrough the sensewe make of it, the mapping of ou rfield of orientation. Structure therefore privileges external relations ormovements over points. There is nothing in an y point or being itself (n o


5/10

19 6 Deleuze nd Spoceintrinsic elati.n) that would determinehow it behaves r consrir.lresitself n relation o otherpoints.^However,s ongas structures seenntermsof a differentiating ystem f purerelationst fails o account orthe genesis r internal differenceof those elations...whileDeleuze lso nsists n theexrernaliry f relations thar orhingfully determines ow any potentialwill be actualised he refuses oreduce elationso a single rructure.Rather, if e s a planeof potential_itiesor tendenciesha t may be actualisedn certain elationsbut thatcouldalsoproduceother elations, rher vorlds.we canmake his con-creteby way of a very crudeexample.The power to be perceived slocated n geometrical pace to be actualisedn a system f relationsbetween oints is certainlyonewav in whicha body or marrermightbe actualised. o,a line that makesup a grid on a plan or diagram s aline by virtueof this realised etof relations.Bu r sucha linemight alsobe drawn on a canvas, verlaidwith other inesor se tbeside locksofcolour,no longerbei.g a line b' t becoming ther han tself a shadingor border.Thismeans ha t there s a potential or sensewithin.say. in -ear i t y )har annor eexhaus tedy anysingreelat ion.n conr ras iw i th

the idea hat space r the world is constructedrom sense sociall."' 'rculturallyconstituted spariality pens ense,or any ocationbears hepotential o openup new planes, er vorientarions.'Ratherha ' seeingspace seffectedrom sense, s ealisedrom a system f orientationorintending,Deleuze ees patialiry san opening f'sense,s he potentialto create ew problems.Deleuzes criticalof the subject f philosophyfor whom spaces a form imposed . theworld, bu r he s arso esisrantto reducing pace o actuallyconstituted patialplanes. ha t 'eeds tobe thought s not this or that plane,nor this or thar realised ystem frelations, ut he potential o produce lanes.he pla'om,ron,, ard ou ,capacity o think or encouncerha t potential.A singularitys the porential o pio.luce elarions, ut these elationscannotbed.eterminedrom the singularity lone, or it is alwayspossiblerhatnewencounters il l openup newrelations. onsequently;here anbe no point from which spaces redrawn,because" oolr,,only takesonits determination it h the unfoldingof a certai.rp".. (anunfolding ha tcouldalways e edrawn).A singularitys,however, tendency r poren-tial and or this reason space r field s alwaysmore han ti relations;there_arelwayssingularitiesr potential ha t couldopen urtherspacesor allow fo r the thoughtof any spacewhatever, paceas such,or thesense f space. n What is Pbilosopbyi Deleuzeand Guattari argue orthe prirnacyof architecturen relation o the artsand his s becausertworks with the planeof composition, ll thoseaffects nd perceotsha t

On the Specificityof Affect 197fil l ou t any space.The plirne of composition in ar t is more than a spatialrletaphor, fo r an,v vork of ar t is a strugglewith those perceptions,affectsen d sensed ncounters hirt are lived'.' .Artdoes not express he 'lived' bu treleases rom the lived the impersonal power frorn which any orientedrn d located if e emerges.Th e plane of cornposition comprises he poten-ti,lls of sensibility that an artist must somehow locate in a material (i nthis time an d in this space), vhile producing a monurtent, such that thissensation s t would be fe lt comes o stand alone, or al l t ime.\{'e might contrast his productive, composing and architectonicmodelof ar t - ar t as the creation of relations hat allow fo r th e preservationofsensationwitirout reference o a 'lived' body - rvith ar eceived under-stanclingof deconstruction. For Derrida deconstruction is no t itself an-rerhod o much as an inhabitation and solicitation of all those exts thatpreserlt heir strucrures, ifferences, orders or relations, vhile repressingthat rvhich generates tructure. There will always be, within any field orsp;lce, closed set of terms dnd an unthinkable supplementary erm thatl.,orders r closes he set.'trfwe imagine how this might provoke th e prac-tice of spatial arts, such as architecture, hen we can follow Mark Wigleybv suggesting hat anv experiencedor actual spacemust repress, orget ordisirvorv hat spatialising racing which marks out the border betweeninsideand outside, vhich generates he field but cannot be ocated withinth e field [Wigley 1993 191). More concretelyone could strive,as BernardTschumi has done, to bring this thought of quasi-transcendental iffer-ence nto practicei'Le Parc de la Villette (1987) aims to decentrespacebypr:oducing a distribution of poincs withor,rt hierarchy. According t oTschumi, th e various points that create he grid s.ystem f th e park pre-cltrde he thought of a centre or realised ntention. \X/ithout hierarchy orce tr e the various points will then enter nt o a series f multiple relations,such ha t the characterof the spaceproduced s not determined or organ-isedbeforehand.Fr-rrther,y overlay'ing ther distributions such as r seriesof surfaces nd then a series f lines,no systemof distributions s elevatedabove an y other; unity i s avoided. The points therefore work against adominating ratio that would present spaceas an expressionof design -certainl,v ot an expressionof a subject. i the points were in some wayspure form or pure difference, hi s would be a se tof relationswithout pos-itive terms, withouc overarching orm, allowing orher systems f relations- including acrionsan d th e participation of other designers to producenerv relations. Most significantly,Tschumi insists hat the, 'project aimsto unsettle both memory an d contexr,' and is therefore exemplary of aresistance o the idealisation of space, he use or experienceof space nterms of an ideal sense hat rvould precede ts punctual event:


6/10

198 Deleuze nd SpoceNot a plenitude,bu t instead empry' form; /e scdses ont uide La Vill ette,then aimsat an architectureha t nTeansothing,an architecture f the sig-nifier rather ha n th e signified one thar is pure rraceor th e play of lan-guage . . a dispersed nd differentiated eality hat marks an end to theutopia of unity. (Tschumi 1987: viii)In contrast to this pure distribution and relation of points - 'differ-

entiated reality' * Deleuze puts forward the idea of external relationsthat cannot be confused with th e singular powers from which thoserelations are effected. Relations ar e no t the effect of a processof diffe-rentiation or distribution. Rather, th e power to differ expresses tselfdifferently in each of it s produced relations, with each effected point orterm bearing a power to exceed tself, an d to establish a new relationthat would then create a new space. Put more concretely, we mightimagine a certain power to differ - light - producing a spectrum ofcolours, such that these differencesare effectsof this intensiry of differ-ence;bu t we then might imagine colours entering into relation with th eeye, thereby producing a visibility that can create new rerms and newrelations. Any spaceor plane, then, is th e unfolding of marter, with rela-tions being effected by specificexpressions,which are events of specificpowers to relate:

[Tlhere is an extraordinarily ine topology thar relies not on poinrs orobjects ut ratheron haecceities,n sets f relations winds,undulations fsnow or sand, he songof th esandor t he creaking f th e ce, he actilequal-itiesof both). t is a tactilespace, r rather haptic',a sonorousmuch morethan a visual space.Th e variability, he polyvocalityof directions, s anessentialeatureof smooth spaces f the rhizome ype, and its alrers heircartography. Deleuzeand Guattari 1987: 382)This is what Deleuze draws from Spinoza: f life is desire or striving,

an d ha s no static being outside his striving, then encounrersor relationsneed to be referred back to desiresor intrinsic powers to differ.lTherear e no t points or positive terms thar are differentiated or distributed in auniform space;no r is there spatiality or punctualisation as such whichca n only be thought after the event. Rather, eachrelation is expressive fa power that bears a potential to enter nto further relations, such that a6eld is not a distribution of points so much as the striving of powers tobecome an d that become as this or that qualitl, depending upon, bu tnever exhausted by, their encounters.

Even so , while this yields an affirmation of the affective or materialover th e formal, th e production of space ather than its orienting sense,there s also an affirmation in Deleuze'swork of the thought, philosophy

On the Specificity f Affect 199an d sense f affect. ndeed,Deleuze's istorical work with Guattari offersa genealogy of globalism: ho w certain affects such as th e white face,viewing, subjectiveeyes,an d labouring and subiectedbody constitute he'man' of modernit ,v nd s ingle err i tory of capita l ism'There is nothingradical pe r se about affect, bu t th e thought of affect - th e power of phi-losophy or tm e thinking to passbeyond affectsan d images o the thoughtof differential imaging, the thought of life in its power to differ - is desire,dn d is alwal's an d necessarily adical.2Th e power of art is ethical: thepower no t just to present hi s or that affect, but to bnng us to an expe-rience of 'affectuality' - or of tbe fact that there is affect. Ar t is not ajudgement on life but an affirmation of life.

Space n GeneralDelerrze'soncepts f themolecular, ffect, aecceity ndmultiplicity, arfrom striving o think a spatiality hat iesoutside he6eld t determines,allorv he houghtof a self-distributinglane,a spaceha t unfolds tself,and hat doesnot requireandexpela supplementary bsent nd spatial-ising orce.Deleuze'sifferences not radicallyanteriorand unthinkilble;it is he mmanent ulsationof life hatexpressestself nfinitelyand hatcan be affirmed n the hought of lfe.The deaof space s he effectof a radicallyabsentorceof spatialisa-tion that liesoutsidehe ield t spaces evenwhile thisoutside anonlybe houghtasoutside nce ermsarespatialised is tselfapeculiar vent,affectandmultiplicity.Whv is t that odaywe see urselves ssubjectedto the signifier, s nhabitinga law or system f relations mposedby anOtherwho doesnot exist?There s, f you ike,a space f white Oedipalman,a spacehat hasexpressedtself n a puregeometry, geometry ri -entedby the sense f a space hat would be the aw for any body what-ever,a space hat is nothing more than a capacity fo r axiomaticrepetition. n responseo this space f man and pure geometryDeleuzesuggestsha t fa r from returning o a primitivegeometry, nd fa r fromaddingone more dimension o the plane hat might allow us to thinkspacen general,veought o multiply the dimensions f spacen orderto maximise ts power.From that criticalendeavour e can hen go onto ask,asDeleuze nd Guattarido ,what a plane s,such hat t can hinkit s orvn folds and dimensions. hilosophy reates he planeof thoughtwhich, n its Deleuzianorm, striveso think theemergencef al l planes,and his s rvhyA TbousandPlateaus an describeife throughplanes fscience, eometry, eology, iterature,politics, metallurgy, istory andlinguistics: ll the ways n which ife foldsupon tself n order o imagine


7/10

2O O Deleuze nd Soocea'd give form to itself, all the differenr matters of form. all the wzlys nwhich matrer manners or articulates tself.

Univocity and Equivocity'Both Foucault's Th e order of Things and Deleuze an d Guattari's Anti-oedipus historicise he emergenceof man, pointing out that man is no rjust on e being n th e world among others, even f th e human knower ha salways been somehow privileged. NIan is defined hrough whar Deleuzerefers to as an equivocal ontology, or what Foucirult describesas an'ontology withour metaphysics' (Foticault 1970: 340). Thar is , rhere is'o longer a world of inherent or incrinsic differences which hr-rmanknowledge ma y either come to knorv and map (a s n th e classicaieral, orwhich ca n be recognisedand reflected n th e self's elation to a cosmos.Fo r Foucault, prior to rnodernity,spilce s the surfaceupon which knowl-edge and difference ar e placed, an d time allows rhose dispersedspaces,rlot to be constituted an d synthesised, ut to be recognised. n modernity,however, his world of disperseddifferences s norv rorn aparr by a pointof opacity and radical difference.Being does not bear it s own trurh ormetaphysics; here is a point outside being - life - that is other than th eworld but which gi'es th e world it s truth, order or differentiation(Foucault 1970 265). Difference an d unfolding are located rvirhin man.To go back to Husserl'sargumenr for transcendenralconsciousness: eca n no longer naively us e he truths of geometry as though they simplyrepresented he truth of space.we have to recognise he temporal con-stitution of these ruths by consciousness. onsciousness us t is a capalc-it y fo r spatialisation through time that ca n be recognisedas having noproper space,an d that must ar once be located in ir specificculture an depoch, bu t also differentiated in its potential from an y concrere ocale.Here, th e difference, spacean d surface of the world are unfolded fromon e point within th e world - life - a point that ca n never have ts spacewithin the horizon it unfolds:

It is alwayszrgainst backgror.rndf the alreadr'-begr-rnhat man is zrbleoreflect n what n.ray erve or hirn :r sorigin. Fo r nl:1n,hen, origin is by norneans he beginning a sort of darvn of historv from rvhich his ulrerioracquisitionswould haveaccumulated. rigin, for man, is much more th ewa v in which ma n n general, ny man,articulates imselfupon he alreac-lr.-hegun f labour. i fe and anguagelr rrrrsr esoughr or in rhat o ld wherema n n aii simplicityapplies is abour o a world th:rtha sbeenu,orked orthousands f years, ives n the reshness f hi s unique, ecentand precari-ou s existence li fe that has ts roots in the first orsanic formations.an d

On the Specificity f Affect 201composes nt o sentenceswhich have never before been spoken (even houghgeneration after generation has repeated hem) rvords that are older than allmemory . . . Fa r from leading back, or even merely pointing, towards a peak- r,r'hether ea l or virtual - of identity' , ar from i nclicating he moment of theSame at rvhich th e dispersion of the Other has not yet come into pla,v, heorigir.r:rl n man is that w'hich art iculates him fronr the olltser Lrponsome-thrng other than h imsel f . . . (Foucaul t 1970: -331)It i s in equivocal onto log ies, accord ing to Deleuze, that man as a s ig-

nifving animal is th e point frorn which system, difference an d structurerrregiven. Ma n everywhere s sut'riectedo the same formal strr.rcture fdifferences, au.',erchange and signification - rvith the world an d realbeing nothing more than the plane upon lvhich system takes hold. Inrnodernity, on e moves from expression to signification: from a worldu,heredifferencesar e real an d distinct an d give birth to signs, o a worldrvhere each event has its ground an d origin in one organising system.From real and distinct differenceson e moves o formal difference,and torr n de a of humanicy ha t is nothing more than a formal function."Man isno t a being rvithin the world so much as a c:rpacity o signify, exchangean d communicate.

It is not surprising hat Deleuze, ike Foucault, makesmuch of th e pre-Kantian experienceof multiple folds and spaces..In is book on Leibnizrrnd he fold Deleuze draws attention to the ways in which the Baroqueplavs upon the intrinsic differencesof possible perceptions.Each pointin the world is a monad, a perception that unfolds the world from itselfu.ithout th e requirement of a sharedand anticipated space hat is synthe-sised nt o th e future. To sa y ha t 'monads have no windows' is to say hatrr vorld is perceivedand unfolded without the assumption or presuppo-s i t ionof perception n general.One has not ),et roubled oneself r g ivenrnan th e responsibility for the genesisof space rom his own time; oneha s not yet seeneach perceiver as the effect or sign of a perception ingeneral.Perception s not the condition, genesisor origin of the spatialirnd temporal rvorld; there are spatialities and remporalities of eachrronad. At on e end, God is the full and clear perception of all sptrce;atth e other, are the singular perceptionsof infinity, each monad's percep-tuaI grasp of the infinite that transcends t. By contrast, modern 'man'stands, not for on e perceiver among others, bu t for a purely formalpower to perceive that also bears the imperative ro perceive as anysubject whatever. The deterritorialisation that frees the perception ofspace from its own locale is reterritorialised onto consciousness ngeneral, he subject for whom space s everywhere subjecr ro the sameformal an d geometric ogic. Ntan speaksas one who is already subjected


8/10

2O2 Deleuzeond Spoceto a systemhat gives im being, ndwho must n essencelready e iedto any otherpossible peaker:

Theclassicalmage f thought, nd hestriating f mental pacet effects,aspireso universality.t in effect perates it h wo universals,'thewholeas he inalground f being r all-encompassingorizon, nd heSubjectstheprinciplehat converts eing nto being-for-us.Deleuzend Guattari7987:379)From univocity,wherespace nd perception re spread cross timeand surfacehat transcendshe human knower,equivocity stablishessingleand formalisable onditionof spatiality the ogicof the subject- which is both inescapable nd unmasterable. oth Foucault andDeleuze ote hat this historical hift doesno r just havepolitical mpli-cations but needs o be seenas rhe very negarionof the political.Although they both have a common target- the equivocalontologywherebyconsciousnesss the substancerom which the world's spacesareconstituted Foucaultand Deleuze iffer as o rhepossibility f therepoliticisation f space.Husserl adalready rgued hat he ormalising r idealising owerof

geometry llowsone o repeat he truths of space o infinity.Oneestab-lishesa sciencehrough an orientationor problemwhich goesbeyondthe given o its future and repeatable otential.Sense,or both Husserland Deleuze,s this radical ncorporeal ower to release hat rsessen-tial in an event rom its material ocale.The constitution f formal geo-metrical paceherefore mergesrom a certain ense)trivingor project.For Husserl his s he sense f onehumanity, ccupying single erritoryand historyof truth and knowledge.WhereasFoucaultand Derridaarecriticalof this oneconsciousife, hi spresupposedwe ' or groundof con-sciousness, eleuzeaffirms the power of thought and philosophy ointuit l ife as he sourceof difference,olds, elations nd spaces. ense,philosophy intuition, thinking and conceptsall name the power rounleash ther erritories y magining he givenasan expression f a if ethat exceeds ny of its fixed erms,and magining he potential ha t canbe unfolded rom thar expressiveower.'Man', or the modernsubject f psychoanalysisr linguistics, losesdown thinking f he s seen s hepoint from whichdifferencesnd rela-tions unfold. Accordingly, pace, eenas the field occupied,measuredand constituted y this man of consciousness,s a fieldof interiority aspace ithin whichwe think, a space educibleo perceprionsf this spe-cific organism.Sucha space peratesrom a combinationof sense ndaffect.Thereare the affectsof Westernman, the images hat organisea

On th eSpecificity f Affect 2O3olateauor constitute he social unit: th e white face of th e viewing subject,th e bla.k holes of eyes expressing an interior, a body dominated byspeechan d identified through it s familial position as either mother orfather (Deleuzeand Guattari 1983: 96-7). That is, the investing percep-tion of a certain body part - th e apprehensionof th e power of th e faceas organising centre unfolds a sense f space,a way of orienting a fieldcrucial to th e territory of man: 'The faciality function showed us the formLrnderwhich ma n constitutes th e majoritS or rather the standard uponu,hich th e maiority is based:white, male' adult, "rational", etc., n short,th e averageEuropean, the subjectof enunciation' (Deleuzean d Guattari1987:292).

From the specificaffect of speakingman as subiect and centre,Deleuzean d Guattari then describe he expansion or extrapolation of this affectto form a senseof spacean d time in general. The central point enablesequivocity, where on e privileged term is the organising ground of theother; ma n becomes he substanceupon which other terms dependan dhe also enablesa single emporal plane:

Following he aw of arborescence,t is this centralPoint hat movesacrossal l of space r the entire screen, nd at every urn nourishes certaindis-tinctive opposition,dependingon which faciality trait is retained:male-(female), dult-(child),white-(black, ellow,or red); ational-(animal). hecentralpoint, or third eye, hus has he property of organizingbinary dis-tributions within the dualism machines, nd of reproducing tself in theprincipal er m of the opposition; he entireoppositionat the same ime res-onates n th e centralpoint. The constitutionof a 'maiority' as redundancy.Ma n constitutes imselfas a giganticmemory' hrough the position of thecentralpoint . . . (Deleuze nd Guattari 1,987:292-3)

An d all this is achievedat the expenseof the line: movement' desiresan dtrajectories are subordinated to the terms or points they produce. Theeffectsof relations and desires points - are taken as original, and in theconstitution of an ongin Memory supplants memories:

Vhat constitutes rborescences the submission f the ine o the point. Ofcourse. he child, th e woman, the black have memories; ut the Memorythat collects hose memories s still a virile maioritarian agency reatingthem as childhoodmemories', sconjugal,or colonialmemories. Deleuzean d Guattar i1987:293\Deleuze'sprolect is the expansion of sensebeyond it s localisation in

man, the expansion of the potential of geometry beyond it s purposive orarchitectonic sense. he transcendentalproiect, the striving to think th esense f space,ha s yet to be carried ou t beyond its dependenceon man.


9/10

2O4 Deleuzeond SooceThe space f humanityhas beenconstituted rom the perception f anuprightmanof reasonwho regards ll orhers spotentially r ideally ustlike himself.A radical triving owardssense ust be ranscendentalndempirical: ranscendentaln its refusalof any mageof thoughtor con-sciousness,nd empirical n its observation f the differentperceptionsopened rom differentaffectiveencounters. enses the porential oimagineotherperceptions f the nfinite,and thestriving o think spacepositively; ot the link between wo points,but the power of life in it sstriving o create rajectorieshat openseries r plateaus.Onemight hink here, ositivell ', f sacredand.Claims or the sacred-ness f land by indigenous eoples re no t justexamples r instances fthevariousways n which we ' (humanity) rantspace ignificance.orthe key differences that space ere s not 'significant'- not seenas amarker,symbol or imageof culturalmemory.WhereasWestern nder-standings f monumentusespace o mark an event,and do so n orderto call future humanity o recognise nd retain ts past,sacred and isboth infinire--demanding ecognition rom others and nherenti,v ffec-tive.The nfinite t opens s deemed o be real,and not simplya relativeculturalconstruction; ut at the same irne his nfinitecannotbe knorvnor appropriated y just any other. ndigenous ustralianclaims o thesacrednessf land ocatememoryor spirit n the and tself,u'hich s nota signifier f the past,so much as he affirmationof the ways n whichbodies nd andarecreatedhrough heiraffective onnections. peopleis a peoplebecause f this and,and his andbears ts affect, esonanceand spirit because f the dreamingof tbis people.At the same ime, naccordwith thepositive ealityof sense,he dreaming, piritor genius fspaceranscendsresentndividuals nd opens p nto the uture, equir-ing further creationand demonstration. here s not 4 time or 4 space,which s perceived ere n onesense,here n another. hereare distinctmodesof sense, ifferentways n which perceprionsmagine, ntuit andconstitu.te n infinite.ConclusionDeleuze's roject is both critical and affirmative.Like FoucaultandDerrida he is criticalof the assumed entreof a constituting onscious-ness r single ody rom rvhich elations merge.EutDeleuze lsowantsto argue hat the transcendentalroject the striving o think space rlife n general needs o be carriedbevond ts human erritory.The subject s universal umanitywho operates n rhesingle patialand emporalplaneof capitalismepresents distinctpassagerom affect

On th eSpecificity f Affect 2O5to formal function. The white man of reason ha s no race' no body, nobeliefs;he s nothing more than a power to relate o and recogniseothers.C:rpitalism s cynical and axiomatic; no body, image or desiregoverns tsdomain. N{an is th e communicating, rationalising and labouring poten-tial in us all. There is an abstraction from all tribalism and affective ela-ti


10/10

206 Deleuze nd SpoceDeleuze,G. (1993), Th e Fold: Leibniz an d the Baroque, rans.T. Conley,London:Athlone Press.Deleuze,G. (1994), Difference and Repetition, trans. p. patton, New york: colurnbiaUniversity Press.Deleuze, G. (1995), Negotiat ions: 1972-1990, trans. M. Joughin, Ne w york:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Deleuze,G. and Guatt irri, F. (1983),Anti-oedipus: caprtalismand schizophrenia,trans.R. Hurley, M. seemand H. R. Lane,Minneapolis:university of MinnesotaPress.Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987\, A Thousand pldteaus: Ca\italism andschizophrenia,rans.B. Massumi,Minneapolis:Universit l of Minnisota press.Deleuze.G. and Guattari,F. (1994), What s Philosophy?, rans.H. Tomlinsonan dG. Burchil l,London: Verso.Derrida, J. $974), Ol ' Grammatologr,, trans. G. C. Spivak, Balt imore: JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.Derrida,J. (1981),Dissemination,rans.B. Johnson,Chicago:Universit l 'of ChicagoPress.Derrida,J. [982), Margins of Philosophy, rans.A. Bass,Sussex: arvesterpress.Derrida,J. (1989),EdnrundHusserl 'sOrigin of Geometry: , \n ntroduction, vans.J. P. Leavey r, Lincoln: Universityof NebraskaPress.Foucault,M. (19701.TheOrder of Things,London: TavisrockPress.Foucault,M. (2001), Space,Knowledgean d Power, ' n J. D. Faubion (ed.),power:EssentialWorks oi Frtucault1954-1984, rans.R. Hurley et. al.,Harmondsrvorrh:Penguin,pp.449-64.Husserl, E. (1970), Tbe crisis of the European sciences and TranscendentalPbenomenology, rans.D. Carr, Evanston:NorthwesternUniversitvpress.Heidegger,M. (1967), What is a Thing?, rrans. W. B. Barron Jr and V. Deutsch,Lanharn: University Pressof America.Tschumi, B. (1987), cinigramme Folie: Le Parc de la \tillette, Princeron: princeronArchitectural Press.Wigley,M. (1993),Tb e Architectureof Deconstruction,Carnbridge:MI T press.Notes

1 . Accordingll i there is a quanrirari 'e dist inction among beings har allo*'s fo rintrinsicdifference. ll these umericallydifferent nsrances f white are st i l l o/whiteness, polr'er to differ that is essential nd can be seenas eally distinct onlvbecauset expressestself over and over again. spaceas extensionallows fo i'extrinsicindividuation'or rhe differenceofihts frin that; but intensive pace sintensives us t he power of essential if ferenceso expresshemselves,o t.p"atthemselvgsn all their difference nd therebyestablish ne expressive lane:'

only a quanrirarivedist inction of beings s consistenrwirh rh e oualitatrveident i ty f rhc absolure. nd rh isquantrrar ive isr i r rct ions no mereappear-ance, but an i nternal difference, a difference of intensiry. So that each hnitebeing must be said to express he absolute, according, hat rs, o the degreeofit s power. ndividuation is , in Spinoza,neither qualitat ivenor extrinsic,bu rquantitat ivean d intrinsic, ntensive. Deleuze 992: 1971ln Anti-oedipas (1983),Deleuze nd G'attari argue ha t desire s alwavs evo-Iu t ionary. es i re s nor rhedesire or rh isor thar lsr oh iect . r rh isor rh. r ruo-posedly atural need.Desire s he power for l i fe o act, whereaction,movementand strivingare not determined n advanceby an y proper end or intrinsic ela-t ion (Deleuze nd Guatari 1983 377).

2.

Chopter 2TheDesertslond

TomConleyOn e of Gilles Deleuze'searliestpiecesof writing could be imagined as amanuscript that its author, a shipwrecked sailor having washed up on adeserted sland, wrote and il lustrated with a nrap on a piece of paper,scrolled ightly into a coil, an d then pushed down th e neck of a bottle hecorked an d tossed nto the ocean. But unlike the marooned soul on thebeach iving in th e hope that a crew aboard a passingship might find thebottle bobbing in the waves, ea d the words and look at the ma p in orderto change the course of their voyage, retrieve the forlorn author andbring him back to the haven of a mainland, the isolatedman encrypts his.,vordsin a glasscontainer an d sends hem seaward. He throws th e bottleinto the sea o l et it follow a course and reach a destination of its own.'The Desert Island' (i n French as 'Causeset raisons des le s d6sertes'Iliterally, Causesan d Reasonsof Desert Islands'] no w in English trans-lat ion as "The Desert s land") was penned n the 1950s. Purportedlyn,ritten for a special ssue of l,louueau Fdmina on the theme of desertislands, he manuscript copy of 'The Desert Island' never reached th eaddresswhich, it was supposed,was written on its containing envelope.Vhen David Lapoujade and his team of editors retrieved he pagesan dused them to inaugurate an assemblageof th e philosopher's essaysn.ritten in France and elsewherebetween 1953 an d 1974,Delettzehadbeendead for sevenyears. The ms . in a bottle was recovered,and a textthat until the turn of the twenty-first century had been private finallybecamepublic. Th e piece has since become an event and, as an event)amarvellous reflection on the vitality and force of the spaces Deleuzernvents n all of his philosophical and critical writings.

Th e unpublished essayon desert slands has appeared almost literallyou t of the blue. The decision to ti tle the collection of thir ty-nine essaysL'Ile ddserte et autres textes: Textes et entretiens 1953-1974 [The DesertIsland an d Other Writings: Texts an d Discussions1,953-19741attests o

12187-The Space of Man

Documents