Deleuze and Guattari on an Airplane

The conclusions drawn in Marc Dyal’s essay on Deleuze, Guattari, and the New Right settle nicely into the neural crevices of any man who rejects the totalitarianism inherent in the ideology of imagined global collectives and who instead believes in the primacy of the individual, the family, and the organic community. The rejection of the former and the elevation of the latter, according to Dyal, depends on a reversal of the notion of difference—difference becomes not a chasm to be negotiated or tactically bridged but rather the very (non)ground from which the individual, the family, or the organic community fights against forced collectivization:

Far from vulgar liberal politics of difference, which defends the right of the minority to be included in the majority by continually reconfiguring the standards of majority inclusion, Deleuze and Guattari propose the process of becoming-minor, wherein individuals and groups actively diverge from the majority. In other words, becoming-minor involves the same active transvaluation of the bourgeois form of life that has prompted the creation of the revolutionary Right.

I can see how this move would appeal to identities as diverse as European ethno-nationalists and Black Panthers. It is a similar philosophy to the one held by men such as Booker T. Washington, who, contra DuBois, thought it unwise to vivisect blacks onto white society through legal coercion and pressure politics. The better policy, Washington thought, was to keep the black community separate, so as to build a stronger black community on its own terms, on the fringes of white society, through industrial education and wealth accumulation. This strategy would create an educated, financially empowered black minority whose integration with the majority would not be coerced but would occur organically, slowly, as blacks demonstrated within their own communities that they were as responsible and reliable as whites. In short, the difference between black and white should be maintained, Washington contended, so as to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that black success could be achieved without white blessing and white charity. Then, and only then, might black and white meet on equal terms.

Similarly, though in a very different context, all Mencian forms of political philosophy operate upon the assumption that stark lines of difference are necessary between one social order and the next so that humanity can learn which ones fail and why, and which ones succeed and why. Social order as experimentation and refinement—but no experiment works without carefully differentiated groups. Coerced homogeneity is anathema to diversity of social orders and therefore to social experimentation and refinement.


Difference, then, is important . . . . but it becomes a problematic concept if we follow it to its philosophical core. Here is Dyal’s definition:

Difference is the ontological reality of the world – a great mass of individual specimens that resist all forms of representation and universalization – as it is sensually experienced. Deleuze insists that there is no ground, subject, or being that experiences; there is only experience that flows and becomes in each passing instant.[17] There is no actual world that is then represented in virtual images by the privileged mind of man.

This is debatable, to put it mildly. Difference may be the ontological reality of the world . . . but it does not follow that the world cannot be adequately modeled and represented in human terms. Regardless of what Dyal says, the world does not resist representation. The images, the models that we build are of course always tentative, open to modification, but they nevertheless can model correctly (even if we are only partially aware of why they seem to be correct). For example, Lagrangian points were “represented” two centuries before man took to the skies, much less the heavens, and yet Lagrange was obviously “representing the world” in the right direction because today his model has been successfully used to plan spaceflights.

It takes a hardcore science-skeptic (on the level of Flat Earthers) to claim that mankind can never model the universe with an acceptable degree of precision. Mankind has done so, and continues to do so. The point is proven every time an airplane lifts off from a runway.

I am well aware, however, that philosophers such as Deleuze and Guattari typically have in mind social desiderata when claiming that no ground exists upon which an objective model of the world might be constructed. But even here, in the context of the social, it can be claimed that the world is not such a “mass of individual specimens” that it “resists all forms of representation and universalization.”

If we first agree—as I think we must—that acceptably accurate representations of the material world are possible, and second, if we agree that the social realm—mankind itself—is to some extent influenced by or comprised of material, then surely we must agree that the ontology of the social realm can be accurately modeled, represented, concatenated through images constructed in human terms. Isn’t this idea central to reactionary thought? Humans may be a great mass of individual specimens, but certain things about it can be represented, even universalized, through the sciences of genetics, evolutionary biology, medicine, even linguistics. Humans may be a great mass of individual specimens, but the mass as a whole is always under material pressures that are, to some extent, knowable.

In short, Dyal’s rejecting the idea that humanity can be represented or universalized entails the rejection of any science of humanity. It puts him in the same camp as the leftist creationists . . . which shouldn’t be surprising, since Deleuze and Guattari are leftists.

Rejecting any and all attempts to model humanity frees oneself from the implications of those models and leaves one free to define (and re-define) humanity according to non-rational impulses: “there is only experience that flows and becomes in each passing instant.” If that is the case, then we are free from the influence of ancestry and evolution. As Dyal puts it:

Looking ahead, it is important to know that in this conception of experience, individual humans cannot be made knowable genealogically as general or common manifestations of an Idea, but instead by understanding the processes of individuation determined by actual and specific differences, multitudinous influences, and chance interactions.

Ironically, the elevation of difference makes any science of human difference all but impossible, as Dyal himself notes.

So, the question is, can one claim the philosophical notion of difference without accepting its core rejection of human representation? Or must neoreactionaries deny difference a foundational role in why we think social difference is important to maintain? Should our recognition of difference flow from empirical “models” of ontological reality, trusting these models despite their incomplete, tentative nature?

8 responses

  1. Pingback: Deleuze and Guattari on an Airplane | Neoreactive

  2. Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.

    April 22, 2015 at 5:36 pm

  3. This may well be a bit above my pay-grade, but I’ll take a stab. To me, the question is not whether or under what conditions a model, or models in general, are valid. Some are; some aren’t; and we have ways of knowing the difference. If models make good predictions, doh!, they’re good models. That’s what makes them good models, and making good predictions is why they were made. If they make bad predictions, we throw them out. If no one seems to be throwing them out, then we jump out of the scientific realm altogether and say, “Follow the money!”

    The question seems to be: Do we let models inform us of the basic nature, essence, of man or a subpopulation—historical kind—of them? And I think not. It seems exactly the wrong way around to me.

    The essence of mankind (or an historical human kind) is not a scientific question, but a metaphysical or axiomatic one, informed of course by our intuition and experience. I suppose one can “do legitimate science” irrespective of where one comes down on the metaphysical question, but it seems to me that it was the understanding of essences that started the revolution to explore the world through increasingly refined scientific techniques in the first place. In short: essences exist, therefore we ought to be able to make sense of things. And lo, we can and do.

    If “science” purports to tell me however “There are no essences.” Then it is science that has made the category error (and also pretty much chopped off the limb it was sitting on). If your metaphysics purport to tell you the result of a future experiment, then it has stepped over it’s categorical boundaries too.

    April 22, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    • You’ve moved out of the realm of academic philosophy and social science into the realm of religion and foundationalism. The notion that mankind or anything else has an “essence” does not hold any currency anywhere in academia. I may or may not agree with this position, but it’s the position one has to take for granted.

      Maybe think about it this way: The move from Platonic philosophy (your preferred mode) to empiricism is the move from dialectic (where mankind is ultimately defined according to essence) to observation (where mankind is defined according to things about it that can be measured, replicated, and predicted). This is an oversimplification, obviously, but I think it gets at the great change that has occurred in Western thought over the last several centuries.

      D&G (and Dyal) want to exterminate definition altogether, whether it proceeds from dialectic and essences or from empirical observation, leaving us with only subjective experience that defies definition. So, on one hand, it obliterates the sort of scientific reductionism that you find problematic, but it also obliterates the earlier forms of Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy that you find more appealing.

      April 30, 2015 at 5:18 pm

  4. see this image from /pol/

    also this video

    April 24, 2015 at 5:36 am

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/04/24) | The Reactivity Place

  6. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#59)

  7. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/04/29 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s