Lars has written a fantastic analysis of Deleuze’s analysis of Foucault. This sheds a good deal of light on Deleuze’s understanding of language and his engagement with Hjelmslev.
Deleuze is insistent in his book on Foucault: despite appearances, despite the fact his recently deceased friend placed emphasis on discourse, he was a thinker of what Deleuze calls visibilities (and we should not be too quick to look for a definition of this word).
The elegant, but complex argument of Deleuze’s Foucault shows us how saying and seeing, ‘discursive practices and forms of self’evidence’ are divided – how the articulable and the visible, the forms of expression and the forms of content never quite coincide even as they combine to make possible particular behaviours, mentalities or sets of ideas that belong to particular historical formations (strata).
And not only that. Deleuze wants, too, to show how Foucault thinks their interrelationship as it draws upon a ‘non-relating relation’ such as Blanchot formulated it (albeit in a different context), which will require a unique ontology made up of folds and foldings, of the single plane of the outside that lends itself to particular interiorisations, but periodically shakes them out like a tablecloth, only to allow new crumplings, mutations by way of which new behaviours, mentalities and sets of ideas are distributed.
You can read the rest here.
August 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Thanks. Deleuze begins the chapter on which I comment with an interesting aside on Hjelmslev:
Stata are historical formations, positivities or empiricities. As ‘sedimentary beds’ they are made from things and words, from seeing and speaking, from the visible and the sayable, from bands of visibility and fields of readibility, from contents and expressions. We borrow these last terms from Hjelmslev, and apply them to Foucault in a completely different way, since content is not to be confused here with a signified, not expression with a signifier.
August 29, 2007 at 8:04 pm
As far as I can tell, it was Guattari that brought the Hjelmslev into the mix. It seems to me that Hjelmslevian “ontology” (for lack of a better word) developed in “The Geology of Morals” in A Thousand Plateaus becomes a constant touchstone for everything Deleuze does in what follows.
September 1, 2007 at 2:54 am
Off subject, but brief:
I owe thanks to Larval Subjects and Spurious for many items on this list, (my Fall-Winter projected reading list) and for an introduction to Zizek in particular. These two sites have been a revelation to me. We are not truly old until that moment when we are no longer capable of astonishment.
These sites have made me immeasurably younger.
Thank you.