fun with Oedipus

The definition of a machine has changed, or at least been altered, by D&G by the end of the anti-oedipus. "A machine may be defined as a system of interruptions or breaks". (36) The machine becomes slightly more clarified through this description; it is no longer "everything" but something. It reverts back to the idea of production and through production the creation of something that will again produce, hence a flow which can be interrupted. I still don't see this explaining anything about the world as we know it, but at least they clarified their own creation.

plateaus = awesome

I have been thinking a lot about the idea of plateaus (From "Introduction: Rhizome"), and specifically about how we can grasp them in our minds that so very much latch onto structure (like you, Bumpkins, I feel need structure in my life in most things, and am quite lost without it, so the idea of plateaus is both tantalizing and infuriating at the same time). The way D&G write is in plateaus, as they claim, "each plateau can be read starting anywhere and can be related to any other plateau." (22) What a brilliant, non-linear way to write . . .

Thesis Rhizome

Forgive me if this is offensively self-indulgent, but earlier this semester I fashioned a "thesis rhizome" to map out the conceptual network of my thesis work, and I wanted to share it with you all:

Rhizomatic versus arborescent: let's fight media consolidation

Hooray for the rhizome! While I cannot exactly claim I understood Deleuze and Guattari's (D&G) referent in "Introduction: Rhizome" (was it language, was it The Book, was it grasses and plants??) I did thoroughly enjoy the idea of the rhizome. I read it as a very empowering, grassroots idea for how to begin to tackle the problems we are so entrenched in today, and specifically the very relevant issues of media consolidation currently being discussed by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

machines, production, and schizos o my

Well that was a very interesting last hour and 1/2. I think I experienced everything there ever is to experience in a reading for an upper level college course. In Capitalism and Schizophrenia, I got my fair of shits and fucks. An explanation of machines ("Everything is a machine")(2) and a little more than I ever wanted to know about a certain judge...

innate vs. constructed

I was left with a nagging question in the wake of today's class. Where does Foucault (and where should we) draw the line between the innate aspects of sexuality and constructed ones?

will to knowledge, norming, domination


I was very intrigued by Foucault's "perpetual spirals of power and pleasure" (45). I read this section as an explanation of how in gaining a dominant control over the sexuality of individuals and populations, power repurposes basically erotic pleasures and uses them for its own means of control. I was unsure whether to read this as intentional or a side effect, maybe the only way to make these methods of power sustainable: by tying them back into basic human pleasures.

implications of Foucault's sense of 'power' ?

I am very interested in the way that, aside from its relationship to sexuality, Foucault crafts his nuanced definition of power. At times, it seems he almost airs on the edge of depoliticizing the presence of power by making claims that about its omnipresence and everywhereness. However, what is most powerful about this conception, is that he artfully manages to posit this evasive power within a political framework of dominance and oppression. Foucault is most clear on the many faces of power in his section on 'Metho' (p.

i confess

In the West, "the obligation to confess is now relayed through so many different points, is so deeply ingrained in us, that we no longer perceive it as the effect of a power that constrains us; on the contrary, it seems to us that truth, lodged in our most secret nature, demands only to surface" (60).

"With these confessed truths, we are a long way from the learned initiations into pleasure, with their technique and their mystery" (62).

Foucault on Science

"the mere fact that one claimed to be speaking about [sex] from the rarefied and neutral viewpoint of a science is in itself significant. This was in fact a science made up of evasions since, given its inability or refusal to speak of sex itself, it concerned itself primarily with aberrations, perversions, exceptional oddities, pathological abatements, and morbid aggravations" (53)

Syndicate content