In preparing my talk on Deleuze’s overturning of Platonism and his theory of simulacra for the RMMLA on Friday, I came across the following terrific interview with Deleuze on A Thousand Plateaus and assemblages:
If there is no single field to act as a foundation, what is the unity of A Thousand Plateaus?
I think it is the idea of an assemblage (which replaces the idea of desiring machines). There are various kinds of assemblages, and various component parts. On the one hand, we are trying to substitute the idea of assemblage for the idea of behavior: whence the importance of ethology, and the analysis of animal assemblages, e.g., territorial assemblages. The chapter on the Ritornello, for example, simultaneously examines animal assemblages and more properly musical assemblages: this is what we call a “plateau,” establishing a continuity between the ritornellos of birds and Schumann’s ritornellos. On the other hand, the analysis of assemblages, broken down into their component parts, opens up the way to a general logic: Guattari and I have only begun, and completing this logic will undoubtedly occupy us in the future. Guattari calls it “diagrammatism.” In assemblages you you find states of things, bodies, various combinations of bodies, hodgepodges; but you also find utterances, modes of expression, and whole regimes of signs. The relations between the two are pretty complex. For example, a society is defined not by productive forces and ideology, but by “hodgepodges” and “verdicts.” Hodgepodges are combinations of interpenetrating bodies. These combinations are well-known and accepted (incest, for example, is a forbidden combination). Verdicts are collective utterances, that is, instantaneous and incorporeal transformations which have currency in a society (for example, “from now on you are no longer a child”…).
These assemblages which you are describing, seems to me to have value judgments attached to them. Is this correct? Does A Thousand Plateaus have an ethical dimension?
Assemblages exist, but they indeed have component parts that serve as criteria and allow the various assemblages to be qualified. Just as in painting, assemblages are a bunch of lines. But there are all kinds of lines. Some lines are segments, or segmented; some lines get caught in a rut, or disappear into “black holes”; some are destructive, sketching death; and some lines are vital and creative. These creative and vital lines open up an assemblage, rather than close it down. The idea of an “abstract” line is particularly complex. A line may very well represent nothing at all, be purely geometrical, but it is not yet abstract as long as it traces an outline. An abstract line is a line with no outlines, a line that passes between things, a line in mutation. Pollock’s line has been called abstract. In this sense, an abstract line is not a geometrical line. It is very much alive, living and creative. Real abstraction is non-organic life. This idea of nonorganic life is everywhere in A Thousand Plateaus and this is precisely the life of the concept. An assemblage is carried along by its abstract lines, when it is able to have or trace abstract lines. You know, it’s curious, today we are witnessing the revenge of silicon. Biologists have often asked themselves why life was “channeled” through carbon rather than silicon. But the life of modern machines, a genuine non-organic life, totally distinct from the organic life of carbon, is channeled through silicon. This is the sense in which we speak of a silicon-assemblage. In the most diverse fields, one has to consider the component parts of assemblages, the nature of the lines, the mode of life, the mode of utterance…
In reading your work, one gets the feeling that those distinctions which are traditionally most important have disappeared: for instance, the distinction between nature and culture; or what about epistemological distinctions?
There are two ways to supress or attenuate the distinction between nature and culture. The first is to liken animal behavior to human behavior (Lorenz tried it, with disquieting political implications). But what we are saying is that the idea of assemblages can replace the idea of behavior, and thus with respect to the idea of assemblage, the nature-culture distinction no longer matters. In a certain way, behavior is still a countour. But an assemblage is first and foremost what keeps very heterogeneous elements together: e.g. a sound, a gesture, a position, etc., both natural and artificial elements. The problem is one of “consistency” or “coherence,” and it prior to the problem of behavior. How do things take on consistency? How do they cohere? Even among very different things, an intensive continuity can be found. We have borrowed the word “plateau” from Bateson precisely to designate these zones of intensive continuity. (Two Regimes of Madness, pgs. 176 – 179)
I take three key points from this interview:
1) Assemblages are composed of heterogeneous elements or objects that enter into relations with one another. These objects are not all of the same type. Thus you have physical objects, happenings, events, and so on, but you also have signs, utterances, and so on. While there are assemblages that are composed entirely of bodies, there are no assemblages composed entirely of signs and utterances.
2) I think the idea of different kinds of lines is particularly fruitful. This is especially the case of those lines that tend towards ruts, black holes, and death. Posts about minotaurs, trolls, and gray vampires are really posts about black holes. The black hole or, as Einstein called it “dark star”, is an entity whose gravitational force is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. Minotauring, trolling, and gray vampiring are forms of engagement that suck all discussion into their orbit, preventing it from moving on. As such, they tend to prevent the formation of assemblages. One aim in cultivating and evaluating assemblages lies in finding ways to escape ruts, black holes, and lines leading to death.
3) Deleuze’s claims about coherency and consistency are particularly important. Consistency and coherence are not qualities that precede assemblages, rather they are emergent properties that do or do not arise from assemblage. It is noteworthy that the term “consistency” is not being used in the logical sense, but in the sense of solutions and substances. Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of consistency is closer to the way we use it when talking about cement, referring to it as “soupy”, “dry”, “lumpy”, “coarse”, “consisting of stone and lime”, etc., than the logical sense of “lacking in contradictions”. An assemblage can be riddled with contradictions as in the case of the economic and ethnic divisions that divide the North and South side of Chicago, while still producing consistency and coherence. Consistency and coherence are thus not about being without logical contradiction, nor about harmony, but rather about how heterogeneous elements or objects hang together.
October 8, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Consistency and coherence are thus not about being without logical contradiction, nor about harmony, but rather about how heterogeneous elements or objects hang together.
Dr Sinthome it’s ALSO about harmony, it’s about harmony and about the heterogeneous elements hanging together. ‘soon as we perceive it as harmony there must be a reason why we have that inclination, despite knowing that it’s not entirely real.
October 8, 2009 at 10:06 pm
First, I got to ask, Minotaur? Gray Vampire? Trolls? in the sense of fantasy creatures in general? Maybe you could provide a link? Google is not helping me get you here.
I like this post, can see how this idea of assemblage might be a way to get better vocab than Latour’s “network” … and can I just say it, his diagrams just suck. Well, his diagrams are gestures at how you’d begin to appreciate the complexity of connections of extremely various kinds, whereas D&G diagrams resemble Foucault’s insistence that diagrams actual exist and matter, the main example of this is the panopticon, which is a diagram more than an actual prison. (The one built on the land was a labyrinth, creepy, failed, etc.)
Consistency doesn’t really make sense to me as a description of heterogeneous assemblages, because the point of the assemblage is to make a minimally normalized open-ended account of how things relate…but consistency in the sense of “soupy” applies to liquids, solids, solutions, and mixtures that are basically supple and liquid to the hand (or spoon etc). They slip through their fingers and are soft, that’s what consistency indicates.
For me, this is the dead end of writing about networks and for open-ended discussions of networks is that words fail at a certain point, and any concept that is a concept will tend to be reductive and normalizing, present paradigmatic types of connections, eg “hanging together” “connections” “relations”. None of these are a very good description of how the mouse sits on the desk, ambient light comes from a tree in the afternoon both by reflection and from the glowing leaves that are filled with sunlight and cannot contain it.
Yearning for a better language that can allow for relations other than those we’ve come to know so well is a worthwhile part of getting over structuralism, and I’m not saying it’s a waste of time. Just hard.
October 9, 2009 at 2:32 am
it seems almost necessary to think that consistency and coherency, as properties, are not ‘about being without logical contradiction, nor about harmony,’ while working under the specific definition of an object; but, it is the emergence which is particularly difficult to conceptualize, especially apart from an extreme incremental holism – which, beside the notion of an incremental process of cumulative and/or reductive relational action, actually does not offend too much.
graphis toi eukarpos!
October 9, 2009 at 2:39 am
oh, excuse; i actually had a question: is consistency and coherency regarded as being that, consistent and coherent, for another object?
October 9, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Once again, you have me reading your thoughts altogether outside their intended context.
For me, no higher praise.
See my post on Creative Misreadings: aesthetics and philosophy… or, aesthetics subverting philosophy… (to its advantage?)
October 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm
To the voice of reason: do we not find harmony in the atonal, because, encountering its absence, we re-create what it means out of our need for harmony? Thus… expanding the range and ways we define what is harmonious?
October 13, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Caution! The French for “Assemblage [En]” exists and is “Assemblage [Fr]”. The word in the original D&G is “Agencement [Fr]”. This has often been translated as “Assemblage [En]”: that’s fine but (1) it loses completely the “agency” root (2) it emphasizes too much the idea of “putting together”.
May 7, 2010 at 5:49 am
[…] is central is the encounter and interaction between these two becomings, which together form a new assemblage, a wasp-orchid machine. The fable is devoid of intentions and interests: the wasps and orchids are […]
May 27, 2010 at 5:55 pm
[…] is central is the encounter and interaction between these two becomings, which together form a new assemblage, a wasp-orchid machine. The fable is devoid of intentions and interests: the wasps and orchids are […]
August 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Nice textual find. Deleuze’s discussion of the motivation/ purpose behind ATP in Negotiations helped me get a better grasp of the work and, subsequently, assemblages.
gz
October 14, 2011 at 7:41 am
[…] expounded on the need to think about assemblages. An information system is simply an assemblage of multiple, partial […]
April 12, 2012 at 4:58 am
[…] studies is, as Jasbir Puar asserts, an assemblage. And while Deleuze’s original conception of that term holds a sense of overall effectivity, I like the shambolic connotations of the English translation. […]
November 18, 2012 at 11:49 pm
[…] concept of assemblage is expressed by Gilles Deleuze; but it is obscure. Here is a valuable blog post by Levi Bryant in LarvalSubjects that extracts several of Deleuze’s statements about […]
November 20, 2012 at 5:55 am
Reblogged this on post human design and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
December 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm
[…] le philosophe Levi Bryant, « Les agencements sont composés d’éléments ou d’objets hétérogènes qui […]
January 6, 2014 at 3:47 pm
[…] software for offices to collaborate online via sharing desktops (h/t Dad) 3. And a more traditional interview with Deleuze on abstract art: “ But an assemblage is first and foremost what keeps […]