One gets a clue regarding the status of the capitalist subject in Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus (1987: 457-458) where the downside of capitalism is put in clearer perspective than in Anti-Oedipus (where capital is depicted as a gigantic “body-without-organs” to which “desiring-machines” attach themselves intermittently, at different points – something that lends itself to an interpretation of consumers drawing on the giant dynamo of capital in diverse acts of consumption).
In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari argue that, while the modern state has taken the subjection of people further than ever before by means of technological development, it is capitalism that has radicalised subjection, by taking it beyond the slavery and serfdom of previous ages to the subjection of the “naked” or (ironically) “free” worker of capitalism. They point out (p457) that “capitalists” and “proletarians” are both subjectified in terms of the flows of capital, that is, constituted by capital as subjects, but the former are “subjects of enunciation [that is, speaking subjects] that form the private subjectivity of capital”, and the latter “subjects of the statement [that is, ‘spoken subjects’, at the receiving end of capitalist discourse], subjected to the technical machines in which constant capital is effectuated”.
Subjectification and subjection are flipsides of the same process, but the workers and the consumers, as the ones being “spoken” in a capitalist universe, are infinitely worse off than the capitalists. This is especially apparent from Deleuze and Guattari’s analysis of the relation between consumers and the new informational or “cybernetic” machines, of which humans as consumers are said to be “constituent parts” (p458), instead of merely users. Here a new kind of enslavement, concomitant with subjection, enters the picture. While it may appear as if “consumers” such as television audiences are in the privileged position of “speaking subjects” of enunciation – after all, are the programmes not designed specially for them (that is, “by” their tastes)? – they are already, according to Deleuze and Guattari, beyond that, in the position of being “component pieces” of a production process of information-exchange. It seems that the field of “schizophrenic” capitalist production is not exempt from repression and subjection – on the contrary.
The subject of capitalism, according to my reading of Deleuze and Guattari, is therefore in an ambivalent position. Like all subjects for them, it is “peripheral” to what are the most fundamental “elements” of their ontology, namely, desiring-machines. It is as if the subject is the shadow of the flows of desire produced by the desiring-machines on the “recording surface” of the body without organs. As such, the “subject” is nothing as self-identical as the “ego”, and “identity” only enters the picture, in my reading, with the “body without organs” – the “undifferentiated object” that comes into view when desiring-production stops intermittently, before resuming again. The (seductive) illusion of Oedipal “identity” arises when one confuses the product of one’s desire with desire as a process. The subject, to the degree that it may be apprehended at all, floats like a shadow alongside of desiring-producing, desiring machines, such as ears, mouths, tongues, eyes, hands, arms, penises, vaginas, brain-function (that is, minds), and so on.
What is different about the subject of capitalism, then? To be sure, given the way that capitalist production, according to Deleuze and Guattari, exacerbates productive flows, this subject would remain in the position of being a kind of appendix to the processes involved, garnering pleasure with each act of consumption that simultaneously marks its intermittent, ephemeral genesis. That is the one, “schizophrenically” productive (and enjoyable) side of the capitalist subject, the other side corresponding with Deleuze and Guattari’s description of the repressive agencies that prevent capitalism from ever attaining the schizophrenic limit that it strives to actualise.
Here the subject is constantly subjectivised (that is, constituted) as subject of capitalism, either as “capitalist”, or as “worker/consumer”, the latter two positions also marking the site(s) of subjection. In sum, whether one is in the commanding position of the “capitalist” (who “speaks”), or in that of the worker/consumer – and capitalists are also intermittently consumers, such as when they watch television – the subject of capitalism shares in the ambivalence of capitalism itself, being productive and subjected (repressed) at the same time. Because it occupies this position, it lends itself, no less than other subjects, to the liberating effects of what Deleuze and Guattari call “schizoanalysis”, which works by the motto (firstly), to destroy all vestiges of (Oedipal) ego-repression through “deterritorialisation”, and (secondly), in the process, to free schizoid desiring-production optimally (Anti-Oedipus 1983: 310-382).
It is interesting to note that in Anti-Oedipus Deleuze and Guattari (1983: 366) attribute a revolutionary function to schizoanalysis, to wit, a “schizoid revolutionary pole”, which is distinct from its opposite pole of “libidinal investment”, namely “the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole”. In their discussion that follows, it is apparent that schizoanalysis leads, along this trajectory, to the overthrow of (a certain kind of) power, which would exhibit, in varying degrees, the structure of “fascism”. Their observation (p367) is telling, that the “fascisizing pole” of libidinal investment is “defined by subjugated groups”, while the “schizoid revolutionary pole” is marked “by subject groups”.
They grant that this distinction is still problematical (the schizoid investment could prove to be utopian, instead of being capable of “real[ly]” investing the “sociohistorical field”), but their intent should be clear: schizoanalysis is conceived of as overthrowing the social and psychic shackles that all kinds of “territorialisations” and “(re-)codings” of social life imposes on people, subjugating them to the weight of some or other “body without organs” or anaesthetising “identification”, from the tentacles of bureaucracy and overt political totalitarianism to an ostensibly “free market system” which ensnares and subjugates people no less through the mechanisms that are inseparable from it. One may understand Deleuze and Guattari as saying that the subject’s “freedom” comes at the price of intermittent, fleeting moments of “identification”, which are constantly subjected to new acts of schizoanalytic destruction of these would-be, potential “identities” – liberating the subject’s desire in the process. Needless to say, their stance on this has implications for revolutionary political praxis, too.
The tension at the heart of capitalism can be expressed in different terms, as Žižek does in Violence (2009: 67-68) where he points to one of the “dangers” inherent in this hegemonic economic system. On the one hand, as a global phenomenon, it encompasses the world, and yet, ” … it sustains a strictu sensu ‘worldless’ ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful cognitive mapping”. “Capitalism”, he goes on to say, “is the first socio-economic order which detotalises meaning: it is not global at the level of meaning (there is no global ‘capitalist worldview’ … capitalism can accommodate itself to all civilisations … ) … ” Its global aspect, which Žižek thinks of along the lines of what Lacan calls the (inaccessible) “real”, would correspond to the abstract level of Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of perpetual capitalist “flows”. On the other hand, what they conceive of as the repressive face of capitalism via impersonal bureaucracies and laws, is consonant with the “detotalisation” of meaning that is capitalism’s shadow
This is an excerpt from my paper, “The subject: Deleuze-Guattari and/or Lacan (in the time of capitalism)?” which is forthcoming in Janus Head (Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature, Continental Philosophy, Phenomenological Psychology and the Arts).
@CD:
Feel free to rectify Wikipedia’s erroneous take on your tribal chiefs. You’d notice that I’ve linked to my sources. Hint: It’s not Wikipedia with regards to Deleuze or Marx.
While you’re at it, you might want to think carefully about connecting signifiers and signified so tightly. The topic is not capitalism, although I’m very serious about that definition, as you did find factories, exploited workers, consumers and class warfare even in North Korea, the USSR, Cuba, China and Zimbabwe, even though they do not qualify as capitalist nations by my definition.I did not suggest there are no other factors, but the other factors are not necessary requirements for a capitalist society. Private ownership of property and labour are necessary requirements.
According to Marx, you are not exploited for your labour because you are in fact a capitalist when you are a landowner. You own capital. As for Marxism, Wikipedia tells me it’s poppycock. I’m interested in Marx, not in his church.
On the contrary, power relations means anything I want it to mean and whatever you think it means is incorrect. Handwave, scary quote, namesdrop. So there.
For those who are anti-capitalism and all its works and wish for something better, all these ways seem to me plausible enough ways of assaulting it. Even when some seem a little more debatable than usual there is no need to turn a hair.
Aragorn’s point in particular reminds me of the Irish lady who scoffed at the very suggestion that she believed the Little Folk existed, then added, ‘But they’re there just the same.’
Let me start by saying saying. I’m so glad we all thing differently.
Can you imagine – which could have been quite possible, if humans weren’t the top of the food chain, or dare I say, brain chain? Maybe we aren’t, and we don’t even know it?
I see Capitalism with a lot of red, more negative than positive, but as everyone keeps saying, until we can find something better wtf we going to do about?
@Garg
I am not saying that wikipedia is necessarily incorrect, but rather watered down, summarised – a preview if you will. In order to throw bold statements around you need to deal with primary texts, not tertiary (although many intellectuals and writers wouldn’t even call wikipedia tertiary).
I did not say your definition of capitalism was incorrect. I pointed out that discourses, such as capitalism or socialism, have real world effects, in spite of their idealistic definitions. Establishing the ‘correct’ definition is meaningless if you fail to take actual practices and relations into account.
One of the primary points raised by Marx is commodity fetishism – the idea that, in capitalist/consumerist societies, human relationships are replaced by economic relationships, thereby alienating us from our humanity. The fact that you CAN own land propagates commodity fetishism, hence, it contributes to alienation. Also, Marx’s main concern with the labourer is not whether he can or cannot own land, but rather the fact that his work/labour is reduced to a commodity (service) that can be bought and is, ultimately, subject to the market and, in turn, subject to exploitation. This, again, reduces human qualities to economic qualities, causing alienation, and is not abolished by the ownership of land.
Your ‘mature’ response to the conception of power-relations I suggested leaves me with one last thought: Every blog has its troll.
@CD:
I am familiar with many of the primary texts, albeit not with Deleuze and Guattari. Bold statements are not rectified with more bold statements like ‘Wikipedia not good source!’. It is. Google for the several studies that reveal Wikipedia is as good as standard reference works.
The difference between ideology and discourse is a duct-tape solution to lead critics of postmodernist and poststructuralist ideas on a wild goose chase. You are absolutely correct, though. My initial apprehension was likewise: Do Deleuze and Guattari take actual capitalist practices and relations into account? Or is it about ‘power relations’ and the ‘subject of capitalism’?
Commodity fetishism manifests mostly with un-economic activities like activism becoming a commodity. The fact that you CAN own land alone is not sufficient to promote commodity fetishism, though. The notion of private property and institutes that protect it are specifically to provide individual autonomy so that economic participation is strictly voluntary, to mutual benefit.
More subtly: If you want to hold me to Deleuze/Guatarri’s notion of power relations, or to Marx’s notion of capitalism, you are claiming that some interpretations of a discourse are more suitable than others. Your standard appears to be are actual practices and relations taken into account? This is excellent, but it’s not in tune with postmodernism or poststructuralism.
The point I was making about commodity fetishism is that exploitation, for Marx, is not under-paying the labourer, or preventing the labourer from owning capital, but the fact that the labourer’s work and time (creativity and life) have been reduced to commodities with monetary value (e.g. being X for X amount of time). Marx places great emphasis on the creativity inherent to a person’s work or labour, and abhors the idea that this creative ability is merely used for profit making purposes under capitalism.
Saying that “The notion of private property and institutes that protect it are specifically to provide individual autonomy so that economic participation is strictly voluntary, to mutual benefit” again borders on naivety. It’s sound in theory, but one glance at society immediately turns it on its head. In a society in which the economic sphere has become the dominant sphere a person really has no choice but to enter into economic relations – basic needs are a reality. And ‘mutual benefit’ is also strictly theoretical, since the given value of anything, including services and labour are determined by the market. Capitalism, like socialism, sounds cozy in theory, but in reality, someone always ends up cleaning the toilets.
I am not promoting Marx’s theory, although I do respect and enjoy his work. I’m also not knowledgeable enough in Deluze’s work to defend his theories…
Continued…
But I can tell you that taking relations and practices into account is a core element of post-structuralism. Take Foucault as an example, who, in my eyes at least, is arguably the most prominent and influential post-structuralist around. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault traces the history of punishment, taking the practices, social-, economic- and political relations into account, thereby illustrating both the reasons and consequences of the changes in punishment since the 18th Century. True to post-structuralism, he shows that punishment assumes different meanings in different contexts, and that it serves different economies of power: torture was used by the monarch to instil fear and control the public. However, in our society, where the public has become the focal point under ‘democracy’ (and is also much larger in scale) people are controlled through discipline, which is disseminated through the various institutions of society through various disciplinary techniques, such as the regimentation of time and space. Importantly, Foucault strives not to be prescriptive in his writing, but rather descriptive, never adopting specific positions, but simply providing a complex history of a specific concept. What he does show is that a concept is always contextual, hence practices and relations are essentials to understanding ANYTHING from a post-structural perspective.
@CD:
Yes, commodity fetishism was part of the failed ideological indoctrination I experienced as an undergraduate. Coincidentally, Marx’s fetish for an objective theory of value is one of the most glaring flaws of his conjecture. This due to its reliance on the law of value. Commodity fetishism is a fairytale to explain why people would buy things they cannot use or create things that have no obvious value to anyone in order to keep the scientism of his ideology alive. Do you have any idea how much creativity it takes to build a machine that replaces manual labour? Wage labour is a Luddite luxury, not a necessity.
The fact that private property affords me the ability to grow my own food and provide my own basic services is not naive. It is done.
Let’s look at society: how many prices are really determined by the market? Wage labour prices are fixed by labour unions and their employers. Services suffer the same fate by oversight bodies. There are in fact very few goods and services that have their prices determined by the market.
You are not defending Deleuze’s work when you take a Foucaultian detour. If he prescribes descriptive narratives, can we assume the initial point that Deleuze et al offered a descriptive narrative of capitalism? Is anti-capitalism descriptive or prescriptive?
While agreeing myself with what Garg Unzola has to say on scientism in his last comment, it is sometimes a wonder to me that we retain the patience to argue many of these points. They are like the propositions in a medieval disputation, incapable of proof or disproof. There is no way to demonstrate that a factor like commodity fetishism exists and is at play, much less that it is in some way illegitimate or immoral, other than to assert it.
To say that Foucault, or any other writer for that matter, was merely descriptive is contradictory because he cannot on his own terms be so. Objectivity is impossible in a post-structuralist world.
@Paul Whelan:
You hit the nail on the head. If there is no objectivity in the post-structuralist world, there is not sufficient reason to prefer one discourse over another. If one discourse ought to be preferred over another, it implies a meta narrative or some external (though not necessarily objective) standard by which discourses are determined as more suitable and less suitable.
As CD claims, poststructuralism relies on relating a discourse to context. It tries to be both descriptive and historical. This implies a teleological narrative that relies on descriptive accuracy and historical accuracy. It’s paradoxical. I’m not sure if Ronald Barthes would be happy with this arrangement, but by the same token, it means that having read Deleuze and Guatarri, understanding them or even dealing with the ideas they presented is not necessary to criticise or reject them (!).
@Garg Unzola – You may find interest in an article I recently wrote on Marx on this theme, which Bert has already read and commented on: http://paulwhelanwriting.blogspot.com/2012/08/dont-believe-everything-nzimande-and.html
No doubt many leave these discussions wondering, ‘Well, ok, but where does all this leave us?’
It leaves all of us, I fear, on our own.