Some notes about the Foucaultian course by Deleuze and our research' topic

After a little break due to a big load of work at the queue (three papers, a project for a grant by the Spanish Government, the final course' evaluation of our PhD students...) we come back to our blog. Today, we only want to point out some ideas about our big and successful seminary on this year: the course taught by Deleuze about the Foucault' work. We also want to remember we have pending the last session about this course the 15th june (the third book about this course is called "La Subjetivación").

In this vein, we want to purpose a brief panorama about this course linking it to our current research:

a) There is a new subjectivation in the "bios era", that is, in the contemporary West societies where biotechnology and bio-medicine are conquering each square of our current life? How is the fold of the outside-line in this time?

b) As Deleuze says, subjectivation needs, firstly, the forms of knowledge and the forces relations. Can we "break" (in the Deleuzian vocabulary) sentences and images in order to extract statements and visibilities? What is that "illuminated" and "said" in our current time under the light and the statable of the bios?

c) We affirm that images has a forgotten role in the contemporary social research, but we foster the role of images in (for instance) ebola epidemics or protocols from other outbreaks. Is it possible that images have taken a new primacy over statements in this time? (next post will be about the role of images in the contemporary psychology, one of the last papers we have been working these days).

d) Are we in a new diagram beyond the third "super-man" diagram? and in this case, what are the features of this fourth diagram?

e) How are the "conquests" from knowledge and power over the subjectivation to shape this last one? Or, in the Felix Guattari comments' sense: If we can allocate an identity to this subjectivation, what it has been the role of power and knowledge?

f) From the Felix Guattari's observation form the Foucault work: how is the new field of perception in the bios era? 

g) Finally, what are the differences between "desire" and subjectivation? we think this difference is important in order to clearify the work by Deleuze from the work by Foucault.

We will try to answer this questions this summer with a new theoretical paper where we want to gather our the ideas emerged in our seminaries. We will keep informing about it soon.

Photo Credit: Flickr, User Jef Safi

A last reconfiguration of our seminaries

After the sudden publication of the third book about the Focaultian course by Deleuze (Ed. Cactus, Buenos Aires), we have decided to reschedule our calendar for the end of this course. In this sense, the readings have been set in this way:

June, 1th: Gabriel Tarde, Social laws and beliefs, desires, societies. 

June, 15th: Gilles Deleuze, The Subjectivation.

For this reasons, we have delay the second Cinema seminary by Deleuze till the next course (most probably, in October). In this vein, we can complete the seminary about the Foucault's course with this little book about the subjectivation. If you want to come to our seminaries, write an e-mail to: portraitsbioscontemporary@gmail.com. Attendance is free and it is located at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, department of Social Psychology. 

In a few moments, you will see in our website the updated information (http://pobics.wix.com/pobics)

Photo Credit: By ourselves, front of "La Sujetivación", by Gilles Deleuze.

End of our seminary about Deleuze

As we have notifying along last weeks, yesterday we have finished our seminary about the Deleuzian reading of Foucault. Although we finished the second book last week, we wanted to comment some complementary texts in an additional session in order to clarify some concepts and to purpose another readings alternative to Deleuze. 

In this vein, we have read a little text by Agamben: "What is a dispositif?" and a brief chapter of the Foucault's book by Deleuze (not the 85-86's course, but the book) where Deleuze talks about the Desire (the third pending book) in a few pages. The index for this session was this:

• How can we operationalize the diagram idea?
• Fold-overfold relationship: subject and "oversubject"?

The first questions is about how we can "work" with the diagram, that is, if the diagram is an abstract thing and we cannot "touch" it by itself because it is always melted with the knowledge forms, how can we "resolve" the distance between knowledge and power?

For this question, we have decided to read the Agamben's text:

Agamben, dispositif (or device):  capturing apparatus of living beings. The device according to Agamben is not located at the formal level or stratum, but he moves between the diagram (power) and the stratum (knowledge). In Deleuze, the gap between strategy (power) and stratum is infinite; in Agamben is not infinite and the "jump" is made possible by the device.

The diagram would be identical to what Agamben calls "creatures that enter into relationships". This makes more sense than a plane forces that affect on the outside (the Deleuzian's argument). The diagram is Nietzschean according to Deleuze, but Nietsche has not a microphysical model (Deleuze) but a biological (Agamben).

The device is that network linking institutions, regulations, institutions, laws, scientific statements, etc ... and that the stratum is mixed with strategy.

In Deleuze, living beings are singularities (with the "curve" that match the points drawn, concrete bodies, discrete bodies).

Vitalism is placed in the center of our thinking to life (the bios or the living), and it is not a detachment of life from God, or Science, etc.

We have two great classes, living beings or substances and devices. And, between the two, as a third , we have the subjects. We call subject to the result of the relationship or, as it were, the "melee "between living and appliances.

The idea of ​​device is similar to the capturing apparatus of Deleuze: something that introduces cuts in a magma or situation without form, and then enter a formation. The novelty of Agamben is that there is a relationship: the sovereign depends on homo sacer and viceversa; zoe and bios are a bidiorectionaly relationship between them, there is movement within its continuous, but both pure, do not exist.

For Agamben the device is an apparatus of capture. If you do not "jump" to the device, you stay forever trapped in the intermediate levels proposed by Deleuze (between the forces of power and the stratum). If you do not jump, you'll never reach the end. And this is what makes Agamben, to jump.

About the second question, the "overfold" (a fold within a fold) could mean the proliferation of subjectivities by capitalism. Thus, at the time of the superman-form what we would find is a overfold who identifies with a larger number of subjects (understood as captured by the device). Then, at the time of the man-form, the fold means that there are not many subjectivations.

In the superman-form there is no longer subject, no fold: however, there is connection to the outside of the outside, with the open (Agamben); and the load (the superman loaded with silicon, modern literature and labor).

Photo Credit: Flickr, user Chris Tarnawski

Summary of our 3rd POBICS seminary: First part of "El Poder" by Deleuze

The seminary is being finished, and today we have held the 3rd meeting, the first one talking about the second book about the Foucault's course by Gilles Deleuze. 

The key points of this season was these:

• Difference between stratum / strategy

• Postulates of power

• Diagram's notion

• What does actualize mean ? The dualism of joining / Ddfferentiation

• Difference between the outside / external

Before show our comments, I want to highlight that the seminary has been change in dates, so the next session (wednesday, 18th) we will read the rest of the book (chapters VI-XI) in order to finish it; and the next week (wednesday, 25th) , we want to read one Agamben's text and one text by De Certeau to complement the Deleuzian's book.

Once the changes are explained, you can check our comments:

The micro has to do with power and the macro with knowledge; areality of  forces  and a form's reality; and this is the cause they have different nature. Deleuze in this case, reverses the relationship of how we understand the power and knowledge (or lay people), because we usually understand power as macro and knowing as a micro (the close to our daily practices).

Postulate of legality (the sixth one):when we talk about law, basically we are talking about jurisprudence as practice over practices: practices are sustained over other ones. Where the law fails, the procedure is the juxtaposition of practices that come to fill that gap. There is no law, but distribution of laws, and so the border legal/ illegal is unclear due to these multiple laws. And so illegalities spread: what is illegal is distributed within the law, and that is the purpose of the law, not eliminate illegal, but distribute it within.

• Resistance is another diagram point and it it as forces: resistance comes from outside, and can not be integrated by the knowledge because if not it would be power, and thus it wouldn't be resistance. To solve the problem of resistance, we must resort to De Certeau when he talks about strategy and tactics. Deleuze will take the subject in his third book (The Wish). Resistance is at the microphysics of power in Deleuze.

• For Deleuze, the subject is a set of vectors or intensities that are packaged at a specific time. How you get that package, when it is formed? Foucault  proposes that the relationship between knowledge-power-subject is a relationship of immanence: knowledge and power are not on different planes, and subject is immanent to these two. We can not talk about a subject without talking about power or knowledge ... each plane appeals to the other two, but they are not the same, they are separated.

• The Roll Dice: there is not evolutionary processes, because this involves a process of development (a directional and progessive History). But this is not in that vein, it appears suddenly with not previous process.

• A device is the specific stratified formations given by Foucault. They are actualizations in the diagram. The device is one of the ends of a continuum, from the other side, the other end would be the most abstract and general diagram:

•  Agamben gives another interpretation, saying the devide is in the midst of the strategy and the stratum. Is a connection between the stratum and the diagram

• The device can freeze or crystallize certain power relations on the diagram. The device is freezing the diagram.

That's all, we recommend to read the book in order to obtain a complete vision of this issues and thus, understand our comments. We also want to hear you and maintain the questions. What do you think about the relationship between knowledge and power? What is your diagram's conception? 

Photo Credit: By ourself in the seminary. 

Summary of our second seminary about "El Poder": 05-03

Yesterday, we finished the first Deleuze's book about Foucault, "El Saber", retaking the discussion carried out the last week abot statements, knowledge and the relationship (or no-relation) between the visible and the statable. 

In this session, we wanted to answer three main questions:

1. The relationship between the statable and the visible

2. How could be possible a relationship in the non-relationship between the statable and the visible?

3. How is the movement from knowledge to power?

So these points were the central topic of our seminary. First of all, we concluded that the relationship between the statable and the visible is base on the mutual capture. There is no knowledge without mutual capture between the visible and enunciable: no knowledge is possible without a mutual interlacement between them.

It is not translatable (in Actor-Network Theory terms), the catch is only possible (it only can be explained) jumping to another dimension, power. Jumping to the other axis, we move to the second book (we will talk about it next week). So, summing up, dualism on Foucault and Deleuze: we start from two forms, then we jump to another dimension that brings up a multiplicity (centers of power).

In this vein, we have to highlight that power is not a form, is an informal dimension: power has not form. 

Another interesting questiong that emerged in the seminary, was about an example given by Foucault when he talked about the Magritte's picture of a pipe with the sentence: "this is not a pipe". Thus, Deleuze shows us the relation between the statable and the visible with this picture in this sense:

"This is not a pipe: you can not put the sign "this is a pipe" under the picture of a pipe, because the pipe drawn is a picture, not a real pipe. Therefore, the only sentence that is possible is "this is not a pipe", which would be the statement, and acts as mediator (Actor-Network Theory again). The transfer traslate us, a move from one medium to another (from reality to the drawing). If we put the phrase "this is a pipe", we would be breaking the principle that a statement has no external reference, only refers to itself."

(This paragaph is our, reading Deleuze, but not him directly).

It is quite difficult to understand when we are referring to a sentence or a statement. A sentence is the "mark" of the statable, the place where we look for a statement, but never it is a statement itself. We have to break sentences in order to find statements.

We can deduce then, that statements are only necessary when there is a change of medium (heterogeneous system), if not, the statement is not necessary (eg. ZERT is not a statement within the typewriter because it is their original place, but what is when we write on paper it becomes a statement). Perhaps is more easy to understand whith the yoga's examples given in the last seminary.

Finally, answering the question about how we move from knowledge to power, we had more problems because we have not yet read the second book, but, as Deleuze does, we "spread" some topics in order to delimit the topic:

1. Power is to be able to do (the ability to): can to do, can to speak ... no power in a negative sense or oppressive power.

2. Power relations establish a dispersion of singularities; if we change the dispersion of singularities, then changes the relationship of singularities.

3. Knowledge is a form; power is a force. There is a relationship between them although different dimensions.

4. Power is not up nor down of knowledge, but is immanent to know.

5. The power is not derived from an institution, but the institutions are integrating a force field that is power. Like the statement prevails on light,  power prevails over knowledge.

That is all, we hope you have undestood our discussion, and we want to hear your opinions about the relationship between power and knowledge; the visible and the statable.

Photo Credit: Flickr, Steven Zucker (Ceci n'est pas a pipe, by Magritte)