Symposium On Deleuze and War

Trinity Debate 2009-2010 File Name
Tournament 1
The War-Machine and a people who revolt
!re"" #ambert
As Deleuze and Guattari argue in A Thousand Plateaus, the State has historically had only two
choices with regard to violence: (1) it can form a special part of its apparatus specifically made
to deploy violence against its own populations (ie, its police force, its prisons, its !udges, and its
"ureaucrats, who are responsi"le for "oth legalizing and #ma$ing a"stract% the various forms of
state violence)& or (') it can ac(uire an army
)he war*machine, therefore, is not intrinsic to the form of state power, which Deleuze and
Guattari define as essentially conservative: the function of state power is to conserve and to
protect, even to replenish, the organs of state power +y contrast, the nature of the violence
deployed "y the war*machine is not conservative, "ut essentially destructive: to van(uish,
destroy, there"y to ruin the organs of state power ,n the Republic, -lato distinguished the two
forms of violence "etween the terms of stsis (civil conflict or internal discord) and plemos
(pure war)& therefore, another way of defining the conservative function of state power is to say
that it is dialectical
1
)he violence inflicted "y the police, or the courts, even "y prisons, is made
to conserve a form of state power .or e/ample, crime is treated "y a form of violence that see$s
to either repress or to correct its inherent contradiction to the principles of law and order )he
activity of the criminal represents the e/pression of conflict that must "e dialectically remedied
in order to restore the principle of identity, and it is not "y chance that the form of violence or
repression is made to "e e(uivalent to that initial e/pression: the ro""er is stripped of all his
possessions and imprisoned, the murderer is e/ecuted Although crime certainly represents a
form of e/teriority, defined as a concrete instance of contradiction that appears against the
a"stract law, through the organs of state power (its police, courts, prisons, and its e/ecutioners)
the concrete and e/ternal e/istence of conflict is cancelled*out and the contradiction is
#peacefully% resolved in the identification of the criminal with the crime ,n this manner,
productive violence restores unity to the normally a"stract principle of law "y giving it a
concrete instance of identity in which it can "athe itself anew, or revitalize its organs #0rder is
"eautiful% (kalos) and "ecomes the primary virtue of the city, the first and most primitive of the
state forms
1hat a"out the violence of polems (war)2 -lato never admits its comparison with the notion of
conflict, which is why he outlawed the idea of civil war from the 3epu"lic 4e in fact compares
it to #self*laceration,% the willful destruction of one5s own organs 4ere, we find the second
determination of e/teriority& war represents a violence always directed outward, away from the
"ody proper ,t is aimed at the destruction of the organs of another "ody, alien or foreign -lato
employs the term #"ar"arian% (barbaros) to characterize this foreign "ody, in other occasions,
#the natural enemy% (ie, -ersian)
'
+ut to say that the nature of violence defining polems is
characterized "y its #e/teriority% with regard to the "ody proper, which metaphorically represents
the internal precincts of the city*state, also entails that its violence cannot "e internalized as a
conservative function of statepower )here is always something essentially lawless, random,
undisciplined, and most importantly, non*dialectical a"out war and especially those who #wage
war%& something that can even "e an anathema to the form of power favored "y the State #,n
every respect,% Deleuze and Guattari write, #the war machine is of another species, another
nature, another origin than the State apparatus%
6
,t is precisely this essentially lawless and un*
Tournament '
disciplinary character that "ecomes a $ey feature of Deleuze and Guattari5s concept of #the war
machine,% and it is the contradictory nature of the war machine that , will highlight in my
analysis of their #)reatise on 7omadology,% especially concerning their fre(uent references to
the contradictory, lawless, and even suicidal character of the warrior caste (eg, Achilles, 8leist5s
9ichael 8olhaas, or -enthesilea)
,n Deleuze and Guattari5s detailed account of the long history of the appropriation of the war
machine, which is always e/terior to the State .orm, we also find these somewhat e/traordinary
and very solitary figures that they seem to privilege 1hy2 )o "e e/ceptional or solitary means in
some way to "e found outside the circle of society, and often against it, "ut not in any way that
could "e compared to the criminal who merely represents the law5s own internal contradiction
(which can "e peacefully resolved) +y contrast, the warrior who $ills himself, destroying his
own organs, represents a $ind of violence that cannot ultimately internalized "y the State .orm,
despite its efforts to recoup this suicidal character of violence in the myths of martyrdom or
patriotic sacrifice 7evertheless, something always remains e/terior and e/cessive in these acts,
or in the e/ceptional individuals who "ecome capa"le of undergoing them, even to the point of
representing a form e/teriority that can assume what Deleuze elsewhere defines as a #terri"le
supersensi"le -rimary 7ature :;< which $nows no =aw%
>
)o "e solitary also represents another form of individuation that is not consistent with the forms
that can "e found within the State )his form of individuation, as Deleuze and Guattari e/plain,
need not "e numerically defined, "ut can also "e the individuality of a pac$, a "and, a minority,
and& finally, a people 1ith this last term, which Deleuze and Guattari always invo$e at the end
of a series that lists all manners of anomalous and nomadic states, do we conclude that #a
people% (demos) is also e/terior to the State*.orm, as if sharing the same nature and origin as the
war*machine2 ,n other words, li$e the solitary figure of the warrior, can a people also "e found to
e/hi"it the contradictory traits of lawlessness and even, occasionally, suicide2 )hat is, a people
can fashion itself into a war*machine precisely in order to e/pel or to ward off the State*.orm, as
Deleuze and Guattari claim (following the thought of sociologist -ierre ?lastres) 4owever, they
only end up alone, wandering on the outside, distri"uted across a vast open space that lies
"etween states (li$e a Steppe, or a desert), "ut gradually disappearing or vanishing from the face
of the earth@ie, a people who commits suicide (or is #suicided%) after a long struggle or
ordeal
A
)his is the $ind of 3omantic image of the people that has often "een ascri"ed to Deleuze
and Guattari5s use of the e/ample of nomadic peoples 0ne can find a similar version of this
image in contemporary cinema and historical docu*dramas, especially depicting a"original
peoples who first encounter the State*.orm, leading eventually to struggle, and then a $ind of
gradual suicide after a #long trail of tears,% as if ac$nowledging their own e/tinction as a people
and disappearing from the face of the earth 4owever, as Deleuze and Guattari write, with each
new e/termination and genocidal act the former war*machine never fails to create new
(uantities #)he e/termination of a minority engenders a minority of that minority%
B
,n other
words, there are always remnants of survivors and minorities that remain: a "and of na$ed
children disappear into the Andes never to "e seen again, the ghost of ?razy 4orse living in the
hearts and minds of his ancestors who dwell in the slums of 9inneapolis or on the reservation of
-ine 3idge 7evertheless, one can see that this $ind of epic representation of #a people who are
missing% clearly "elongs to the State*.orm, and the gradual (ie, historical) and, a"ove all,
voluntary suicide can "e understood as representing the peaceful solution of the dialectic 1e all
shed tears after witnessing such a sad and tragic story, "ut the State will (uic$ly wipe all our
Tournament 6
tears away@#,t5s no use crying a"out it, it was inevita"le, what5s done is done, and "esides, in
some sense they did it to themselvesC%
)his nostalgic and essentially 3omantic image of #a people who is missing% has, as its natural
dou"le, the 9essianic image of #a people still to come% )his latter image has a long history and
is usually ascri"ed to religions and to the story*telling function of su"!ugated and colonized
peoples, "ut it also has an a"stract representation in contemporary post*9ar/ist philosophy .or
e/ample, it is the image of a people@minus the tragic aspects of suicide and self*destruction@
portrayed in 4ardt and 7egri5s conception of #the 9ultitude5& one can never imagine #the
9ultitude% as having any relation to the war*machine, e/cept metaphorically, that is, since all the
contradictory and potentially violent traits have "een stripped away and essentially #humanized%
(ie, ?atholicized) 4ence, the figure of the militant that emerges in the final pages of Empire
"ears no resem"lance to real militants, or what they define as #the sad, ascetic agent of the )hird
,nternational whose soul was deeply permeated "y Soviet state reason,% "ut rather to the portrait
of St .rancis of Assisi
D
And yet, were not Deleuze and Guattari also tal$ing a"out real peoples,
and is there not something essentially ris$y and inherently contradictory in the concept of a
people& even though, it seems, many contemporary theorists want to ignore this contradictory
and often volatile aspect in their portrait of a people who are either found to "e missing, or still to
come2 Either we have the sad and tragic image of an oppressed or colonized people, or the
saintly and other*worldly image of a super*proletariat ,n other words, all the possi"ilities of real
violence are subtracted as the condition of "oth representations& either a people are purely
su"!ected to violence of the State form (ie, homo sacer), or they are composed of another nature
(ie, post*human) li$e creatures in a Science .iction
+y contrast, what , am suggesting is that the image of #a people% that we find in Deleuze and
Guattari5s writings "ears the same "i*polar characteristics that they also ascri"ed to the war*
machine 1e might propose this e(uivalence in the following manner: !ust as the State has no
war*machine of its own, since it is of #another species, another nature, another origin than the
State apparatus,% as Deleuze and Guattari state repeatedly in defining this relationship, we can
also say that the State has no people of its own@that is, it is an #empty form of appropriation%
F

1e can find the a"ove hypothesis confirmed when we realize that the State*.orm entertains a
relationship with the people that runs parallel to the predicament it faces with its own war*
machine, one of e/teriority and occasionally e/treme volatility .irst of all, the people are always
posited as "eing #outside% the State*.orm and, in some sense, precede its arrival and accompany
the stages of its development all the way to the future in which the people are yet to actually
arrive Second, !ust as in the case of the war*machine, the State does not create #a people,% "ut
rather attempts to internalize already e/isting peoples, even though this e/istence may "e purely
virtual and nomadically distri"uted across an open space or territory that precedes the arrival of
the State form ,t is the specific mythology created "y the State form that attempts to reverse this
precedence (of the people outside the state) "y ma$ing the people an #idea% that first occurs in
the mind of those su"!ects who are already found to "e internal to the State*.orm ()his is the
myth of the .ounding .athers, for e/ample, when they say #1e, the people ;%) )his may "e
one way of truly understanding the pro"lem of idealism: the failure of a people to truly arrive,
"ecause of the internalization of the people into the form of the State )his was e(ually the
pro"lem of fascism as it is of the idealism of the democratic state& conse(uently, it should not
come as a surprise that 4itler ordered the German people to !oin him in an act of suicide for their
failure in realizing the form of the 3eich +y contrast, in a democratic form, the state entertains a
fundamentally am"ivalent relationship with its own people, one that is often prone to "ecome
Tournament >
e/tremely volatile )here are too many resisting elements, too many num"ers& moreover, the
people are always failing the ideals of the State, always found to "e lac$ing, or e/hi"it a
tendency to go a little insane, to return to religion and to the family, and if pushed to the e/treme
limit, to "ecome terrorists or serial$illers
G
,n saying this, of course, , realize that this last association has "ecome e/tremely inconvenient
today in relation to the image of the suicide "om"er, the mem"er of an anomalous and nomadic
"and, who wal$s into a pu"lic s(uare to e/plode his own organs precisely in an effort, it seems,
to ward off the State form E(ually pro"lematic are the recent reports of Deleuze and Guattari5s
concept of the war*machine "eing employed "y the ,D. as a manual for counter*insurgency and
counter*terrorist strategy 0ne of the most perverse ironies is that in their #appropriation% of
Deleuze and Guattari5s theory ("ut also that of Guy De"ord), is the ,D.5s #complete
identification% with the principle of e/teriority that is actually ascri"ed to the nomadic war*
machine ,n this regard, perversion "ears the 4egelian meaning of #inversion% (verkerht),
descri"ed "y +rigadier*General Aviv 8o$havi, as an #inverse geometry,% or #the reorganization
of the ur"an synta/ "y means of a series of micro*tactical actions% )he inversion or reversal
represented in this tactic is that it is the ,D. that defines itself as a war*machine that is always
e/ternal to the -alestinian State Apparatus (+eirut), which is itself defined as a striated space of
alleyways, doorways, windows (the various traps created "y normal spatial thin$ing)
?onse(uently, from this #positive discovery% they develop three ma!or a/ioms of counter*
insurgency: doors are not for entering or leaving, windows are not for loo$ing through& instead,
move only through the walls -alestinian areas could indeed "e thought of as #striated% in the
sense that they are enclosed "y fences, walls, ditches, road "loc$s and so on5
1H
4owever, what is
revealing, al"eit pro"lematic, in the ,D.5s complete identification with the principle of
e/teriority that "elongs to the war machine is this: the overall o"!ective of the ,D. is not
consistent with the goals of State -ower traditionally defined as e/tending a line of domination
through the protection and replenishment of the organs of State power 3ather, the tactical
o"!ectives are purely aligned with the goals of the war*machine: to destroy the organs of State
-ower, to deny to the -alestinian State .orm its a"ility to replenish its own organs, to #create a
little smooth space% in the middle of +eirut, to #de*territorialize% =e"anon
)he (uestion of whether or not Deleuze and Guattari are #morally responsi"le% for this
appropriation of their theory does not interest me& this an/ious reflection of a =eftist pseudo*
intelligentsia today still represents an earlier $ind of DItente thin$ing, as if "elieving that the
strategic character that has defined most contemporary political theory since the 1GDH5s could
actually "ecome dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands ,nstead, the real (uestion lies in why
most commentators of their wor$ have already failed to ac$nowledge the "i*polar (or schizo, if
you li$e) characteristic of their concepts in the first place, including the concept of the war*
machine which they consistently argue could turn out for the "etter, or for the worse, depending
on which line or #plan(e)% the concept first tends toward: either toward destruction and
domination, or creation and the mo"ility of free elements .or e/ample, , will simply (uote the
ending of #)reatise on 7omadology@the 1ar 9achine,% where this #Either/r% and this "i*
polar tendency is stated with unmista$a"le clarity:
)he difference "etween the two poles is great, even, and especially, from the point of view of
death: the line of flight that creates, or turns into a line of destruction& the plane of consistency
that constitutes itself, even piece "y piece, or turns into a plan(e) of organization and domination
1e are constantly reminded that there is communication "etween these two lines of planes, that
Tournament A
each ta$es nourishment from the other, "orrows from the other: the worst of world war machines
reconstitutes a smooth space to surround and enclose the earth +ut the earth asserts its own
powers of deterritorialization, its lines of flight, and its smooth spaces that live and "laze a way
for a new earth )he (uestion is not one of (uantities "ut of the incommensura"le character of
(ualities that confront one another in the two $inds of war machine, according to the two poles
11
, will return to comment on the a"ove passage at the conclusion, "ut for now want to recall my
earlier (uestion: does this mean, then, that the people share the same species, nature, and origin
as the war*machine2 ,n response to this (uestion, and perhaps only as a slight digression, let5s
turn to the "rief, al"eit infamous, commentary "y .oucault on the ,ranian 3evolution that can "e
understood to raise a similar (uestion concerning the people and the war*machine
1'
,t is in this
te/t that .oucault first spea$s to the #enigma of revolts% that are #outside history% and also
within an official history that fails to grasp their real causality As he argues, over the last two*
hundred years a (uasi*scientific theory of #revolution% has "een created
; in a gigantic effort to domesticate revolts within a rational and controlla"le history: it gave
them a legitimacy, separated their good forms from their "ad, and defined the laws of their
unfolding& it set their prior conditions, o"!ectives, and defined the laws of their unfolding; a
marvelous and formida"le promise
16
+ut what happens, .oucault as$s, when a people actually revolt2 4ere we can see the same
dilemma announced a"ove under the concept of democracy: the failure of a people to actualize
the ideals already ascri"ed to them "y #4istory% ,n other words, they revolt in the !rong !ay,
often "y turning "ac$ to religion with its #promises of the afterlife, time5s renewal, anticipation
of the savior or the empire of the last days%
1>
(which also have their secularized versions in the
various scientific theories of revolutions) .oucault5s criticism is aimed at the traditional leftist
intelligentsia and its classical antipathy towards the people who do not resist power according to
their prescriptions ,s it any wonder that the traditional =eftist intelligentsia as a class share the
same fundamental antipathy towards the people as most "ureaucrats and !urists, which is why
most =eftist critics tend to err on the side of some alternative version of the State form2 An
intensely am"ivalent relationship, even perhaps a hatred of the people that actually e"ists@is
this not the historical legacy of the =eft2 9oreover, is this not also the reason for the constant
calls for the creation of #another people% which would replace the people that are always found
to "e missing (ie, lac$ing in their own constitution), and would this not also underlie the
privileging of minorities and su"*altern peoples in many contemporary philosophies following
the historical "etrayals committed "y the wor$ing classes and the neo*colonial "ourgeoisie on
several continents2 (, might even ascri"e this as one factor in the recent popularity of the
writings of +adiou among many political philosophers today, where we find an effort to "ypass
the (uestion of a people entirely in esta"lishing the rights of a philosopher*8ing in fidelity to an
ascetic concept of pure militancy) 0f course, Deleuze and Guattari share in .oucault5s criticism
of the =eft, particularly in their complete re!ection of the concept of ,deology, which they regard
as an #ali"i% that functions to preserve an idealistic image and essentially good nature of #a
people% prior to the trappings of power and desire 0n the other hand, invo$ing the statement "y
3eich, they constantly claim that the people weren5t #duped% or tric$ed into endorsing fascism or
racism, or in dedicating their own organs to the destructive war*machine& in point of fact, the
people can "e (uite insane, and to echo the statement made "y 4or$heimer, that may"e real
revolution is less than desira"le )herefore, we must "uild a more realistic and so"er assessment
of the concept of #a people% as a "asic element of political philosophy today
Tournament B
3eturning now to a second point of comparison "etween .oucault5s earlier remar$s and Deleuze
and Guattari5s o"servations on the war*machine& in addition to defining revolt "y a form of
e/teriority, .oucault also defines a people as #a singularity,% which might also resem"le Deleuze
and Guattari5s e/ceptional or monomaniacal individuality As .oucault writes, #-eople do revolt&
that is a fact )hat is how su"!ectivity (not that of great men, "ut that of anyone) is "rought into
history, "reathing life into it%
1A
)hus, #a singularity revolts% despite that we do not $now what
form real revolt will ta$e ,n Deleuze and Guattari5s writings, we are given several images of
#e/ceptional individuals% who revolt, most of which are drawn from literary personae 9ichael
8olhaas mounts his horse and sets off in a struggle he has already lost from the "eginning Aha"
revolts against the white whale )here are also other figures, more compara"le to #anyone,% such
as +artel"y, who might "e compared to the average run of the mill drug addict or creative writer
)hese two species or types, in fact, may represent the two e/treme poles of revolt in Deleuze and
Guattari5s writings@"etween the schizophrenic or drug addict, and the monumental portraits of
Aha" (or 9o"y*Dic$), 8leist5s -enthesilea, and 3ichard ,,, )a$en together, in fact, , would
argue that these figures represent #a people% in various states of revolt, or of #"ecoming*
revolutionary,% including the state of war when a people assumes the nature of a war*machine
?onse(uently, there is more than a little Sha$espearean resonance to Deleuze5s use of these
various figures, in particular, to portray the #world*historical% characteristics of the people they
are made to portray
.or e/ample, , have found no more truthful and realistic portrait of #the American people% than
the one offered "y Deleuze in his 1GFG appendi/ to 9elville5s #+artle"y, the Scri"ner,% which he
defines as a clinical diagnosis of a #sic$ America% 4ere we find two figures, each of which
represent the e/treme poles of "ecoming*a*people following the American revolution: the
monomaniacal figure of Aha" (or 9o"y Dic$, the great white wall of American ,mperialism) and
the anomalous figure of +artle"y, the minor functionary who #prefers not to;% perform his
assigned or allotted role in the division of la"or Are these not the two poles of the same
#American Dream%: freedom from the o"ligation to wor$ J either a"solute mastery of the
,ndividual, which usually ends in personal failure, destruction of the family, even suicide& or
universal homelessness, indifferent identity, "ecoming impersonal (ie, the giving up of the
attri"ute of personal identity altogether, "ecoming #a creative failure,% a pole which Deleuze also
assigns to the American writer)2 ?oncerning the first pole, why is it that Deleuze always
underlines the event of "etrayal, #the "rea$ing of a pact or "ond,% as if stepping over a certain
a"stract line, or going too far, as the most essential aspect of this figure2 ,n choosing to pursue
9o"y*Dic$, Aha" must "rea$ a pact and "etray the 1haler5s law, which says that the violence
unleashed in the hunting of whales must always "e rationalized "y its productive, economic
!ustification& a"ove all, it must never "ecome an #o"!ect% in itself, apart from this rationalized,
legal ground (,t is only in strict o"servance of this law, moreover, that God will #"less the
harvest%) 1hat, then, of the violence of Aha"2 ,s this not an image of revolt2 0f polems2 Does
Aha"5s vengeance not e/press the $ind of violence remar$ed "y Deleuze and Guattari where the
war*machine ta$es war as its direct o"!ect, and in doing so, introduces a form of e/teriority to
any law or economic !ustification, a form so e/treme in its own !ustification that it surpasses
mere contradiction and appears as insanity, or worse, the figure of an #innately deprived being%2
And yet, we must as$: was Aha" alone2 Did he not also share this -rimary 7ature with the
seamen who follow him to his death, who touch the "urning lance and ma$e a "lood*pact with
the demonic Aha"2 1ere the seamen simply duped2 0r rather, does this constitute one of the
poles of any #revolutionary "ecoming% (an o"servation that can "e applied to fascism and the
German people as well)2
Tournament D
And what of +artle"y, who represents other pole of the #American people%2 As +ran$a Arsic has
"rilliantly demonstrated, he represents the principle of drug addiction in as much as +artle"y is
addicted to Ginger
1B
,n other words, +artle"y creates an enigmatic and smooth space within the
mode of production itself: he shows up to wor$ everyday, even comes to live there in the
lawyer5s offices, "ut performs no useful function )he State learned long ago to tolerate certain
drugs li$e alcohol, since alcoholics can still perform a good day5s wor$ and then go home to fall
unconscious in an attempt to escape their alienation Alcoholics, in other words, really get into
their wor$ and only use their chosen drug as an economic form of compensation& thus,
alcoholism, li$e crime, is a dialectical addiction )here are some drugs, on the other hand, that
create a plane that is relative to the State*.orm and, at the same time, still constitute an image of
revolt& that is, certain drugs can allow one inha"it one5s assigned role in the mode of production,
and at the same time, always "e found to actually e/ist on #another plan(e) of "eing% Grass, for
instance, allows you to show up to wor$ and loo$ really "usy, all the while doing nothing 0f
course, there are still other drugs li$e heroin and crac$ that do not "elong to this economy at all,
"ut are often found in a space divorced from all production ,n some cases the State does not
even employ its police to as a force of repression against the e/pression of revolt e/pressed "y
these drugs& for e/ample, heroin addicts are left to wander the smooth space of ur"an centers and
to undergo a $ind of gradual suicide ?rac$ addicts are permitted to create territories in their own
neigh"orhoods !ust as long as the violence, that is always a component of this drug, is directed
against specific populations, even to the point of slavery
=i$e the monomaniacal character, the drug addict also "rea$s a pact with society, also in a
manner that is difficult to control and ris$s "ecoming contagious or revolutionary& this is the
pro"lem that +artle"y represents for the lawyer ?onse(uently, the drug addict represents a
Secondary 7ature, the nature of a refusal And yet, drug addict also represents a cherished
American ideal, the freedom from the o"ligation to wor$, a form of wor$ that e(uals
wor$lessness, the love of one5s !o" for its own sa$e precisely when one is doing nothing
+artle"y, with his inimical #, would prefer not to,% represents the only freedom imagina"le for a
slave 1hy does Deleuze assign this pole or revolt or "ecoming to the American writer2 As he
writes in the conclusion of #+artle"y& or, the .ormula,% #"ecause there are so few writers in
America, and "ecause the people are so indifferent, the writer is not in a position to succeed as a
recognized master%
1D
,n other words, writers are #recognized failures% in society, and in this
regard they very much occupy a similar plan(e) of revolt as drug addicts, and are often found to
"e drug addicts themselves, when they are not alcoholics (,t would "e interesting to perform a
survey of great American writers on the "asis of this distinction: dialectical vs schizoid)
7evertheless, it is precisely through their failure that writers continue to provide an image of
revolt, or a #creative line of flight&% so*called #creative writers% in the 7orth American
Kniversity today only represent the final incarnation of the #+artle"y formula,% since they are
actually rewarded, economically and otherwise, for their failure in performing a useful role in the
division of la"or ,n this sense, they may still constitute the other (schizoid) pole of the
#American dream%
3eturning to the pole represented "y the monomaniacal figure, , will now turn to a te/t where
Deleuze paints a similar portrait of the -alestinian people "y invo$ing the figure of Arafat, #li$e
something straight out of Sha$espeare%
1F
=i$e .oucault5s earlier statement on the ,ranian
revolution, this has in some ways "ecome a scandalous te/t dated from Septem"er 1GF6, written
in response to the 1GF' massacre of Sa"ra and Shatilla, and condemned "y many for its hints of
anti*Semitism
1G
,n his remar$s, Deleuze5s first o"servation concerns the failure to recognize the
Tournament F
-alestinians as a people li$e any other& rather, they are only recognized as #the Ara" populations
that occupy -alestine,% and #who have ended up there "y chance or "y accident,% as !ustification
for the plans for the #de*population% of the territory
'H
,n the conte/t of these events, and the
history that preceded them, Deleuze as$s: how do the -alestinians resist, "eing "oth outside
territory and without a State2 ,t is here that he evo$es the e/ceptional figure of Arafat as #the
grand historical character li$e something directly out of Sha$espeareC%
'1
)hus, Arafat represents
this solitary figure or e/ceptional individuality of #a people who revolt% (,t goes without saying
that this was not a convenient image for some, given that Arafat was also an organizer of world*
wide terrorism at this moment as well) 7evertheless, Deleuze5s allusion to Sha$espeare allows
us to interpret the figure of Arafat alongside the figures that also appear in the appendi/ on
9elville5s +artle"y written around the same period in the mid*1GFH5s ,n other words, li$e the
monomaniacal figure of Aha", the figure of Arafat should "e accurately conveyed so that it
retains its "i*polar and essentially am"iguous characteristics, which would "e consistent with the
war*machine he represents +y means of this allusion, Deleuze is not comparing Arafat to the
mythological and romanticized image of the magical sovereign& Arafat is not Arthur 3ather, his
figure would more resem"le that of 3ichard ,,,, who emerges from the same violence, murder,
and perversion that so often accompanies the production of good $ings, to create a "astard
lineage As Deleuze and Guattari write, #a distur"ing character li$e 3ichard ,,, slips in,
announcing from the outset his intention to reinvent a war machine and impose its line
(deformed, treacherous and traitorous, claiming a Lsecret close intent5 totally different from the
con(uest of State -ower ;),% which is to say, different from a line of State domination
''
,n
other words, if this was the Sha$espearean figure Deleuze had mind in reference to Arafat at
precisely this #world*historical moment,% it would certainly not "e an idealistic portrayal, "ut
could !ust as easily allude to the possi"ility that Arafat may "e leading the -alestinians into a
suicide pact, li$e Aha" leads the crew of -e(uot .or this reason, the same (uestion as$ed of
Aha" could also "e as$ed concerning Arafat: #what is he doing when he lets loose his harpoons
of fire and madness2%
'6
-erhaps, in reply to this (uestion, Deleuze writes in 1GFG: #$e is
breaking a pact %&' he is putting his cre! in mortal danger()
'>
,n concluding my meditation on the portraits of these e/ceptional figures that appear in
Deleuze5s later writings, which , have argued represent one of the poles in the #revolutionary
"ecoming% of a people, , will now return to the #)reatise on 7omadology% where this pole is
descri"ed in relation to a certain $ind of war*machine, specifically to the figure of 8leist5s
9ichael 8olhaas, who invents a war machine that sets itself against the State apparatus in #a
struggle that appears to "e lost from the start%
'A
)he e/ample is used throughout their analysis to
illustrate one of the two poles in which the war*machine tends when it ta$es war (polems) as a
direct o"!ect, rather than as what they call a #supplementary% or #synthetic% o"!ect 9oreover, it
is precisely the pro"lem introduced "y this first $ind of war machine that "rea$s with #the
imperial order of alliances and armies,% which often ris$s turning against itself according to the
first pole, that motivates their entire discussion of the war*machine )he (uestion they as$ in
response is not the same as the refrain of 9ar/ist criticism@#why do revolutions fail2%@"ut
rather, why are the war*machines created as a condition of any #revolutionary "ecoming% most
often tend toward the destructive pole, and at an e/treme point, toward #a line of destruction
prolonging to the limits of the universe%@ie, #)otal war%2
'B
1hy, they as$, does this particular
$ind of war*machine so often lead directly to suicide, and #to the dou"le suicide machine of a
solitary man and a solitary woman%2
'D
+y contrast, the other pole they define as creative, when
war is only the means for the creation of something else (eg #new nonorganic social relations%)
,t is according to the second pole that they e/plicitly lin$ the figures of popular revolt,
Tournament G
revolutionary war, minority warfare, guerilla warfare, which they claim are #in conformity !ith
the essence% of the war*machine 4owever, this would imply that the other pole, the one that
ta$es #total war% as its o"!ect, is per accidens (as the Schools would say) *ar, in other !ords, is
not an essential attribute of the !ar+machine, even though it may be the most common one
historically speaking, "ecause the war*machine has #displayed from the "eginning all the
am"iguity that caused it to enter into composition with the other pole :ie, destruction<, and
swing toward it from the start%
'F
,t is in this last statement, , "elieve, we discover the entire pro"lematic that motivates Deleuze
and Guattari5s analysis of the nomadic war*machine, which e/plains why they see$ to go "ac$ to
the "eginning, prior to the moment when one pole is chosen over another& that is, "efore the State
apparatus is erected and, in order to shield itself against the violence of the war*machine it has
appropriated as its own supplemental organ, must assign to the latter an o"!ect that is e/ternal to
its own organs 4owever, in what might appear as a "latantly contradictory assertion, even the
State form is finally discovered to have no #natural% affiliation with the idea of war As they
write, #States were not the first to ma$e war& war, of course, is not a phenomenon one finds in
the universality of 7ature, as nonspecific violence%
'G
,n other words, there is no such thing as
#an original ,tate of *ar in -ature) (ie, #unspecific violence%)& all violence is specific in that
it is invented to have an aim (technologically, ideologically, politically, economically, etc) )his
is the same principle e/pressed in the invention of weaponry, which underscores the emphasis
Deleuze and Guattari place on the assertion that the war*machine is #invented,% and not
something that e/ists "y 7ature As they write, #1e thought it possi"le to assign the invention of
the warmachine to the nomads )his was done only in the historical interest of demonstrating that
the war*machine as such was invented%
6H
.inally, after esta"lishing the specific origins of the
relationships "etween the nomadic war machines and the State*.orm, they as$ who, then, is
ultimately responsi"le for creating war in the first place, the State or the nomads2 Deleuze and
Guattari do not attempt to answer this (uestion, which in some ways can "e compared to what
.oucault called the #enigma of revolts% 4owever, they do at least offer a partial e/planation
when they say that this happens when one pole is mista$en for another: a line of destruction is
often confused for creation& death is sometimes seen as the only means of escape .eath is a
!all shoved too close to me, and so there is only nothingness beyond/
+ecause everything may seem a "it muddled at this point, let us go "ac$ over the ma!or
propositions so far:
1 1 -rovisionally spea$ing, according to Deleuze and Guattari the war*machine is
invented "y the nomads, not "y the State Strictly spea$ing, the State invents nothing& it
merely appropriates, "eing itself an #empty form of appropriation%
' ' +eing always e/ternal to the State*.orm, the war*machine in its essence has only one
goal, the destruction of the State*.orm& thus in appropriating the war*machine, the State
must always assign it another o"!ect: total war against an enemy (.er 0eind) #)he
(uestion is therefore less the realization of war than the appropriation of the war*
machine ,t is at the same time that the State apparatus appropriates the war machine,
su"ordinates it to its Lpolitical5 aims, and gives it war as its direct ob1ect%
61
6 6 )here are also other situations that Deleuze and Guattari allude to when they say that
under certain conditions, defined "y #infinitely lower (uantities,% the war*machine can
Tournament 1H
ma$e use of war in order to create something else (eg, #new nonorganic social
relations%)
> > 4owever, in "oth these situations, according to the two $inds of war machines
produced or created, it appears that one thing is a"solutely necessary: an o"!ect, whether
direct or merely #supplementary% )he pro"lem then "ecomes: what happens when this
o"!ect is not provided, or the State fails to resolve this o"!ect*relation correctly2 ,t is here
that we find the many e/amples of those e/ceptional situations where the war*machine
ta$es itself as an o"!ect, "ecoming a #dou"le suicide machine%
6'
And yet, , would say that the real problem lies elsewhere, and this is what causes Deleuze and
Guattari5s concept of the war machine to "ecome confused and ultimately fail to distinguish
"etween the two types of violence, e/pressed according to the two $inds of war machines a"ove,
since from the very "eginning they must admit that #violence is found everywhere, "ut only
under different regimes and economies%
66
,n other words, the real pro"lem, as stated a"ove, is
separating violence from violence in the first instance, that is, distinguishing destructive violence
from creative violence )his was the same pro"lem for -lato, as we saw earlier, and his solution
was only to distinguish the two poles of violence "y causing one to always "e directed outward,
away from the city, precisely toward the nomadic "ands and the #natural enemy% (ie, the
-ersian)& at the same time, to preserve creative violence and conflict as a form internal to the
social segments in the city and assign to this pole the production of friendship (ie, #political
economy%) *as this simply Plato2s error3 1as the "elief that he could separate and $eep
separate the two poles of violence, $eep them distinguished so that one pole would never "e
confused with another, and $eep the o"!ects distinct so that #the friend% would never "e mista$en
for #enemy% somewhat naMve2 (,s this not, as Derrida will later also say of Schmidt, #-lato5s
Dream%2)
6>
+ut, one must as$, is this not the error of all #political economies,% including that of
9ar/2 )he pretension to distinguish one $ind of violence from the other, "ut most of all, to ma$e
violence productive, to put it to !ork for a higher goal& to cause it to "ecome creative, !ust, even
#pure% and #reasona"le% (ie, rationalized under certain specific conditions, such as 1us belli)
$ere !e might ask, is this not 4adiou2s error today as !ell3 9oreover, is this not the same
species of error compounded "y all the political theories that have spread across the face of the
earth, particularly from the 1est, that have only served to create a world*wide order from the
initial chaos of violence that may actually "e, in the end, #a peace more terrifying than fascist
death%2
6A
, must also finally as$ whether or not Deleuze and Guattari5s theory of the war*machine merely
serves to recapitulate the same species of error After all, do they not also pretend to discern the
difference bet!een the t!o kinds of violence, described throughout, as the difference bet!een the
kind of violence affected by a !ar+machine and the kind of violence effected by the ,tate, or
bet!een a line of flight that creates 5even if it must sometimes pass through !ar6 or a line of
destruction and domination3 9y answer would "e #yes and no,% of course, "ecause it all
depends on how we ta$e the o"!ective of their theories concerning these two $inds of violence ,t
is for this reason, in my own reading of the 7omadology, , have spent so much time
underscoring all the contradictions and potential confusions, all the inconsistencies and
anomalous states, that already trou"le their theory& in particular, their own statements that
#everything is muddled from the start,% or that #the present situation is highly discouraging%
6B

-erhaps , have placed too much emphasis on these contradictions and points of potential
confusion for some readers of their wor$2 And yet, how can anyone read the following statement
Tournament 11
that concludes their #)reatise on 7omadology% e/cept as e/pressing anything other than a
complete ac$nowledgement that their own theory has "ecome overly complicated and perhaps
fails to clarify things sufficiently enough: #)he (uestion is not one of (uantities "ut of the
incommensura"le character of the (uantities that confront one another in the two $inds of war
machine, according to the two poles%2
6D
,n response, , would as$, how can anyone discern the
#incommensura"le character of the 7uantities% if we have already "een reminded, !ust two
sentences earlier, #that there is communication "etween these two lines or planes, that each ta$es
nourishment from the other, "orrows from the other;%2
6F
,n other words, if "oth lines or planes
are mi/ed up and con*fused from the start, where does one "egin )0 A7A=NSE (analy8er), that
is, to methodically separate them into parts in order to study their inter*relations2
,n conclusion, , will ris$ providing my own perspective on this (uestion, which will ta$e the
form of a hypothesis concerning two areas of future research or lines of in(uiry According to the
earlier statement (uoted a"ove, there is one point of view where the difference "etween the two
poles is greatest: death ,n other words, it is "y inha"iting this perspective that one might
introduce a ma/imal difference in order to separate violence from violence, in order to cause
something to appear As Deleuze and Guattari speculate, this something 9 " would have to do
with what they call the #incommensura"le character of the (uantities that confront one another in
the two $inds of warmachines%
6G
,n order to occupy the perspective or #point of view% of death,
as if staring out from death5s own eyes, one line of research would "e to continue to analyze the
e/ceptional figures that Deleuze and Guattari themselves privilege 0n the one hand, there is
Aha", and death is e(ual to the vision of a white wall and the 7othingness "eyond )o this image
corresponds the specific death produced "y one $ind of war*machine: pure destruction,
e/termination, genocidal e/tinction #-othingness, -othingnessC%
>H
4istorically spea$ing, human
societies have created a dizzying num"er of manners of producing death ,t is in this area that our
species is e/ceptionally creative@much more so than prodigious 7ature herself 4ere, , recall a
line from ?amus who once said that if one has difficultly imagining the death caused "y a
plague, one only has to thin$ of an audience in a movie theater "eing piled up in the town s(uare
-o!adays, such 7uantities are not so difficult to imagineC 1ith the development of late*
?apitalist societies, we have created a $ind of death that is aimed at entire populations )his is
the death created "y the technological advancement of the war*machine of the first $ind: total
e/termination, a"solute e/tinction, the production of nearly infinite (uantities along a scale that
corresponds to final stage universal ?apitalism
A second line of research would see$ to study the seemingly more rare $ind of death that aims
for something positive (an o"!ect) "eyond the wall, thus ma$ing use of death as a pure transition
or #"ecoming% 1hat images are provided to allow us to occupy the point of view of this second
$ind of death2 )he guerilla fighter, the revolutionary, the minority, the faceless image of a
nomad, or a people who revolt2 ?learly, we lac$ a distinctive image for this second point of
view -erhaps this is "ecause the death produced "y the second $ind of war*machine, according
to the second pole (the creative one), is too populous and is animated "y a different character of
(uantity that directly confronts the death of the first $ind, according to the first pole f course,
it goes !ithout saying that small bands of minorities, and minorities of minorities, can band
together in fe!er 7uantities, necessarily so, and may also constitute ne! nonorganic social
relations +ut is our only hope to "ecome survivors and refugees of a #total war against an
unspecified enemy% produced "y a war machine that today covers the entire surface of the earth2
>1
()his may "e one possi"ility, "ut it is one that seems to correspond more to the thought of
Agam"en than to the #revolutionary% image of thought that is fre(uently ascri"ed to the writings
Tournament 1'
of Deleuze and Guattari) 4owever, already in the final pages of their 1GF> treatise, Deleuze and
Guattari forecast the development of world*wide total war against an #unspecified enemy% as the
final stage in the development of the war*machine appropriated "y glo"alized ?apitalist
societies, which they posit as the second, post*fascist figure of a war*machine that ta$es peace as
its direct o"!ect, #the peace of )error or Survival% )he most important thing to notice is the
e/treme nature of this alternative, which will also determine the future evolution of the State*
.orm according to the same form of the political that also seems beyond :deology ,n other
words, if 9ar/ had earlier on defined ,deology as the manner in which the pure #e/tortion% of
surplus value from la"or can "e e/pressed as the legal, rational, moral, and even political choice
that determines #the social contract,% then the most recent alternative upon which State power is
founded no longer re(uires any of the old trappings of conscious deception, and thus is the most
literal and rudimentary, even primitive, in esta"lishing its principle, which might "e "etter
compared with armed ro""ery -erhaps it is for this reason that Deleuze and Guattari admit, even
twenty years "efore GO11 and the #world*wide war on terror,% that #the present situation is highly
discouraging,% since the war*machine has grown li$e a creature in science fiction, #has ta$en
charge of the aim, world*wide order, and the States are now :even then< no more than o"!ects or
means adapted to that machine%
>'
3eturning to the two lines of research or in(uiry concerning the two $inds of death, it might at
first seem counterintuitive to privilege the point of view of death in Deleuze and Guattari5s
philosophy, even of a creative $ind, since this would "e a more appropriate image for the thought
of .oucault, who was overly invested in a certain a $ind of #9aster*Death% ,n other words, one
potential criticism of .oucault5s concept of resistance is a certain privilege he often accorded to
the perspective of the 9aster, the one who actually ris$s the real alternative "etween death or
silence& so, when it comes to the (uestion of power the only #ethical% alternative for .oucault, as
it was for 7ietzsche, is #who occupies the position of the master2% which is to say, #who can
resist2% 7evertheless, .oucault also sought to de*personify the image of mastery from its earlier
historical representations in order to invest the most ordinary and (uotidian manifestations of the
confrontation with power with a $ind of ethical*heroism and sense of tragedy that was formerly
reserved only for -rinces and 8ings& conse(uently, he made the position of the 9aster more
populous and even democratic (despite his own personal sno""ery and distaste for the
democratic form) As , have tried to convey, however, the image of the 9aster in Deleuze and
Guattari is most often reserved for those monomaniacal figures we have encountered in their
te/t, and so the (uestion of "ecoming a master does not seem to constitute an unam"iguous
alternative to the anonymous position of the slave
At this point, , am only speculating -erhaps the point of view of this second $ind of death,
according to the second pole, would "e a purely impersonal one 4ere, , am thin$ing of another
literary figure from Dic$ens who appears in Deleuze5s final meditation written shortly "efore his
own suicide, of a character who was not even li$ed that much as an individual, "ut whose
moment of approaching death occasioned in everyone who witnessed this moment something
resem"ling #a $ind of "eatitude%
>6
?ertainly, this image of what Deleuze calls #a life of pure
immanence,% something #with whom everyone sympathizes,% could represent the
incommensura"le character of a death that could directly confront the nearly infinite (uantities of
death produced "y the war machine )his is "ecause this $ind of death is neither produced nor
created "y man, even though its event can never "e e(uated with simple "iological death 4as it
not "een philosophy5s highest tas$, since the Gree$s, to "ecome e(ual to this event and thus to
provide an ade(uate concept that would also "e the "asis for new nonorganic social relations2
Tournament 16
1as this not the first o"!ect of philosophy, even prior to its appropriation "y a State*.orm, which
consigned this o"!ect under #a good life,% that is, the order of life that "elongs to the polis( This
image of a purely impersonal death, !hich !ould be e7ual to the image of an impersonal life,
could even become revolutionary or #political) under certain definite conditions, especially
!hen the real possibilities of either transformative politics or real revolution seem to be lacking,
as is the case today 1ould this image also correspond to a ?hristological point of view2
-erhaps, "ut this is only one of the historical images of the pure impersonal life& one does not
necessarily need to study the lives of mystics or the writings of St -aul to discover the source of
this point of view .or e/ample, could it not also "e said that E/istentialism was the last
philosophy in the 1est to provide us with an image of impersonal death as also a form of
singular resistance that is motivated "y a sense of the A"surd2 0ollo!ing this earlier e"ample,
perhaps, all the contemporary philosopher and theorist !ould have to do is open their eyes
again to see that even the most common and ordinary death already offers us the greatest
occasions for resistance to the kind of death 5the kind of life6 !e have created as a society( , will
conclude, therefore, "y offering this possi"ility as indicating one future direction for my own line
of philosophical in(uiry, and also my hope
Gregg =am"ert
Gregg =am"ert is the Dean5s -rofessor of the 4umanities and .ounding Director of the
4umanities ?entre, Syracuse Kniversity, 7ew Nor$ 4e has pu"lished e/tensively on the wor$s
of Gilles Deleuze P .eli/ Guattari, including *ho2s Afraid of .eleu8e and ;uattari3
(?ontinuum +oo$s, 'HHD), and The -on+Philosophy of ;illes .eleu8e (?ontinuum +oo$s,
'HH') Gregg may "e reached at glam"ertQsyredu
7otes
1 -lato, The Republic, >D1a& also see Rac(ues Derrida, The Politics of 0riendship, GHSG1
9oreover, stsis and polems name two $inds of disagreement (diaphor) predicated on $inship&
the diaphor "etween foreigners or foreign families is regarded as polems since it is a #pure
war,% that is, removed from any internal $inship or mi/ed "lood ties )his distinction is very
revealing with regard to the formation of genocidal racism that is "ased on esta"lishing a
relationship of a"solute war against an internal population, which is legally not recognized as a
form of stsis or political conflict .or further discussion of this distinction, see my article
#enemy (.er 0eind),% Angelaki (1':6), 11AS1'A
' -lato, Republic, >D6
6 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6A'
> Deleuze, Essays <ritical and <linical, DG
A )his recalls the phrase used "y +ataille See #Sacrificial 9utilation and the Severed Ear of
Tincent Tan Gogh,% =isions of E"cess> ,elected *ritings ?@ABC?@D@, trans Alan Stoe$l
(9inneapolis: Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 1GFA), B1SD'
B Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >D1
Tournament 1>
D 4ardt and 7egri, Empire, >16 Almost as pre*emptive response to this portrait that appears in
Empire, or perhaps already in reply to 7egri5s earlier writings from this period, Deleuze and
Guattari caution #we should not "e too hasty in spea$ing of a softening, a humanization;%
(Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >'An)
F Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6A', >1G
G ,n this regard, Don Delillo5s novel The -ames is essentially a meditation on pro"lem of the
molecular*"ecoming of a people, particularly with regard to the #e/ceptional individual% of the
serial $iller as a collective or group phenomenon that is more particular to democratic societies,
and in the case of the novel, to the Knited States See Don Delillo, The -ames (7ew Nor$:
Tintage +oo$, 1GFG)
1H 1hen Eyal 1eizman as$s 8o$havi if moving through walls was part of it, he e/plained that,
#,n 7a"lus the ,D. understood ur"an fighting as a spatial pro"lem :< )ravelling through walls
is a simple mechanical solution that connects theory and practice% Eyal 1eizman, #)he Art of
1ar: Deleuze and Guattari, De"ord, and the ,sraeli Defense .orce,% accessed August 1
st
, 'HHB
11 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >'6
1' , am referring, of course, to the statement #Kseless to 3evolt2% that appeared in Ee Fonde in
1GDG
16 .oucault, Po!er, >AH
1> :bid(
1A :bid(, >A'
1B See +ran$a Arsic, B(G Times 4artleby (-alo Alto: Stanford Kniversity -ress, 'HHD)
1D Deleuze, Essays <ritical and <linical, FG
1F Deleuze, .eu" rHgimes de fous, ''6
1G )his statement was omitted from the English translation of T!o Regimes of Fadness ('HHD),
as commented on in detail in a review "y ?harles Stivale See Stivale, .eleu8e ,tudies, v1, no 1
('HHD), F'SG'
'H Deleuze was also writing a year after the ,D.5s first ma!or campaign in +eirut to uproot the
-=0, and five years "efore the first ,ntifada (#revolt%)
'1 Deleuze, .eu" rHgimes de fous, ''6
'' Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6A>
'6 Deleuze, Essays <ritical and <linical, DG
Tournament 1A
'> :bid@my emphasis
'A Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6AA
'B :bid, >''
'D :bid(, 6AB
'F :bid(, >''
'G :bid, >'B ,n many regards, , find these (uestions to have a profound resonance with the
meditation at the heart of )errence 9allic$5s The Thin Red Eine (or the meditation on war in
nature), where the main protagonist as$s: #1ho first started this war in nature2% #1ho5s $illing
us2%
6H :bid(, >''
61 :bid, >'H@emphasis in original(
6' )here is perhaps no "etter illustration of this in cinema than Stanley 8u"ric$5s 0ull Fetal
Iacket, where the failure of the proper o"!ect relation is vividly demonstrated in the murder*
suicide of -yle and the Drill Sergeant
66 :bid(, >'A
6> Derrida, The Politics of 0riendship, FA
6A Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >''
6B :bid(
6D :bid(, >'6
6F :bid(
6G :bid(
>H Deleuze, Essays <ritical and <linical, DG
>1 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >'1S>''
>' :bid, >'1
>6 Deleuze, T!o Regimes of Fadness, 6FD
Deleuze, Gilles Essays <ritical and <linical( Daniel 1 Smith and 9ichael A Greco (trans) 9inneapolis:
Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 1GGD
Tournament 1B
@@@ .eu" rHgimes de fous> te"tes et entretiens ?@BGC?@@G David =apou!ade (ed) -aris: 9inuit, 'HH6 T!o
Regimes of Fadness Ames 4odges et al (trans) 7ew Nor$: Semiote/te, 'HHB
Deleuze, Gilles and .Ili/ Guattari A Thousand Plateaus +rian 9assumi (trans) 9inneapolis: Kniversity of
9innesota -ress, 1GFD
Derrida, Rac(ues Politics of 0riendship( George ?ollins (trans) =ondon: Terso, 1GGD
.oucault, 9ichel The Essential *orks of Fichel 0oucault ?@GJC?@KJ> =ol( D, Po!er Rames D .au"ion (ed) 7ew
Nor$: 11 7orton P ?o, 'HHH
4ardt, 9ichael and Antonio 7egri Empire( ?am"ridge: 4arvard Kniversity -ress, 'HHH
-lato Platonis Rempublicam 3 Slings (ed) 0/ford: 0/ford ?lassical )e/ts, 'HH6
1eizman, Eyal #)he Art of 1ar: Deleuze and Guattari, De"ord, and the ,sraeli Defense .orce% 0n*line accessed
August 1
st
, 'HHB
Tournament 1D
Deleu$e and War% &ntroduction
'rad (van) and #aura !uillaume
Gilles Deleuze5s wor$ displays an intimate relationship with the pro"lem of war +eginning for
instance with his highly original co*authored Treatise on -omadology, he "orrowed from an
array of sources including anthropology, military strategy, the human sciences, literature,
aesthetics, and history, not only to illustrate how the LState itself5 has always "een formed Lin
relation with an outside5, "ut to e/pose us to a whole plethora of competing dualisms which
when com"ined constituted the very of order of historical "attle: nomosOpolis, smoothOstriated,
deterritorialisationOre*territorialisation, lines of flightOlines of articulation, activeOreactive,
movementOstrata, rhizomeOa"orescent, minorOma!or, singularityOtotality,
heterogeneityOhomogeneity, molecularOmolar, so on ,mportantly, for Deleuze, when this
nomadology versus the State narrative was su"se(uently coupled with his and .eli/ Guattari5s
concept of the #war machine% it then at once "ecame possi"le to offer an alternative reading of
the history of state power which, e/posing the war li$e origin of all modern forms of civic
ordering, posed uncomforta"le (uestions for those grounded in the peaceful sermons of
conventional political orthodo/y .or the history of State politics "ecomes the continuation of
war "y other means )he history of state power is fractured and multiplied if we consider the
ways in which military force and warrior logic operates at the level of the unfolding of social
relations rather than simply from the perspective of sovereign statehood 0nce this perspective is
adopted then our entire understanding of social and spatial ordering, the role of science, the
deployment of technologies for rule, the formation of powerO$nowledge relations, the claims to
truth and !ustice, along with the function of aesthetics factors accordingly
Deleuze and Guattari5s concept of the war machine was wor$ed out in the conte/t of the glo"al
confrontation of the ?old 1ar, in which hair*trigger Lnuclear security5 produced La peace still
more terrifying than fascist death5, where"y the spectre of war seemed to determine the
conditions for international and domestic politics 3ather than "e su"!ect to control "y the state,
the war machine "egan to ta$e control of the state and directly invest a particular configuration
of glo"al (in*) security 4owever, the ?old 1ar genesis of the war machine concept does not
mean that it has nothing to offer a post*?old 1ar, post*Septem"er 11
th
Deleuze5s essay
L-ostscript on Societies of ?ontrol5 indicates the ways in which he saw the security environment
changing to one of modulated control and the management of flows and circulation, rather than
the strict policing of identities )he concept of the war machine itself seems to resonate with the
post*Septem"er 11
th
world in which the nature of threats unclear and Lun$nown un$nowns5
determine military planning ,ndeed, it is argua"le that Deleuze more than any other is the ideal
philosopher for helping us ma$e sense of today5s radically interconnected post*?lausewitzean
security terrain Something which has certainly not "een lost on some of the $ey centres for
strategic affairs, such as the 3A7D ?orporation and the ,sraeli Defence .orce, who have
operationalised Deleuzian principles to enhance military efficacy
1ith this in mind, it was our conviction that an edited volume which specifically dealt with
#Deleuze and 1ar% was long since overdue, not in order to definitively pronounce on the
relationship "etween Deleuze and 1ar, "ut precisely to gesture to the multiple lines of
Tournament 1F
engagement and intersection "etween Deleuze5s wor$ and contemporary pro"lems of war, peace,
security and resistance ,t is our hope that this volume serves to catalyse a consideration of
Deleuze in the conte/t of war, and to open up de"ates and lines of en(uiry that may enrich our
engagement with the often dispiriting pro"lems of militarism and security
+rad Evans and 9ichael 4ardt discuss the e/tent to which civil war is no longer understood
primarily through the prism of sovereignty )his is to say, with the primary mode of warfare no
longer ta$ing place "etween states, or for that matter within states for the ac(uisition of state
power (as in conventional civil war), then the once familiar location of Lwar5 in relation to
Lpeaceful politics5 now "ecomes intensely pro"lematic )o put it another way, in focusing
e/clusively on the relationship "etween sovereignty and war, we are in danger of "ecoming "lind
to the iterations of warOgovernance which generate the conditions of possi"ility for everyday
politics ,ndeed, as Evans and 4ardt suggest, while =i"eral forms of governance are increasingly
unhindered "y the muddying of the waters "etween Lwar5 and Lnot war5, =i"eralism itself as a
framewor$ for a politics concerned with emancipation and resistance might "e fatally imperilled
"y the generalised state of war 7ot only does this suggest the need for a rethin$ing of the
politics of the left, or of radical democracy, "ut also that this new politics should ta$e account of
the ways in which modern strategies of rule are dedicated to the differential production and
organisation of "odies in ways which determine the possi"ilities for resistance, and ma$e the
emergence of certain forms of life complicit in the martial logic of rule E/amples include the
potentially redeema"le "ody of the insurgent, the life*inimical "ody of the terrorist, and the
inviola"le and valua"le "ody of the KS soldier
1hat this means is that one can no longer assume that war is fought according to the structures
of friendOenemy, themOus ,nstead, it is that the production of these categories (and the multiple
su"*categories that populate them) which itself is internal to Lwar5 ,n turn, this necessitates a
change in the way in which we thin$ a"out war, which "ecomes less associated with transcendent
categories of power (goodOevil, friendOenemy) such as are associated with a moment of sovereign
decision, and more concerned with the immanent production of identities and lives: with what
we might call a political economy where"y the production of life is itself the production of war
Economy thus "ecomes as great a concern in the analysis of contemporary war as the
transcendent principles of law and sovereignty 4ence, whilst the Le/ceptional5 instances of
transcendent sovereign domination are easy to find in the recent past@as with, for e/ample,
Guantanamo +ay and A"u Ghrai"@these, Evans and 4ardt suggest, may not "e the essence of
the current paradigm of war ,ndeed, there is a potential danger for a politics of resistance or
criticism in focusing e/clusively on these dramatic e/amples of sovereign rule )his has the
potential to conceal the Lnormalised5 ways in which power operates, through the !uridical
policing of humanity, through the production and organisation of life, through the regulation of
flow and e/change in accordance with the predicates of the economising facets of glo"al =i"eral
rule ,t is to these that we must turn if we are to conceive a politics of resistance ade(uate to the
tas$ of confronting the multifaceted dimensions of war and the martial economy
=aura Guillaume "egins the interview with Rames Der Derian "y "roaching the militarization of
Deleuzian concepts 1hilst for many this tendency is pro"lematic, as Der Derian reminds us, the
militaristic appropriation of critical thought reveals a clear genealogy of (a")use 1hile Der
Derian invo$es the e/periences of Derrida, .oucault and Tirilio, one could have also added here
7ietzsche whose malicious appropriation "y the forces of fascism still leaves him somewhat
tarnished ,ndeed, he argues, given the evident conceptual richness of the authors in (uestion, is
Tournament 1G
there any wonder that the military would "e e(ually seduced2 4ence, that there remains a
possi"ility for concepts which have the aim of #li"eration and resistance% to "e turned into
concepts for #occupation and destruction% serves to "e a healthy reminder us all that our wor$s
may further rationalise the war machine Against this "ac$drop, Der Derian attends specifically
to the collapse of the meaningful distinctions which once mar$ed out ?lausewitzean war An
active agent in this has "een what he terms the 9,9E*7E) (military*industrial*media*
entertainment networ$) which actively producing the conditions for war, conditions the theatre
along comple/, adaptive and networ$ed lines ,mportantly, for Der Derian, since the onset of a
glo"al state of war inscri"es the war machine with a #virtuous% (uality (understood in terms of
technological and ethical supremacy), then to understand more fully the political implications it
is necessary to have a more sophisticated analytic of the composition of glo"al war machine #,t
is all too easy, he argues, #to dump this all on +ush5s doorstep% =i"erals too have a vested
interest in all this
Der Derian5s analytic of the 9,9E*7E) points to the o/ymoronic nature of virtuous war A war
that see$s to secure its peace through technological enforcement cannot achieve anything other
than the creation of new political pro"lems )he stage is thus set Lfor endless cycles of conflict in
which worst case scenarios produce the future they claim only to anticipate5 .ulfilling the
prophecies of ones own ma$ing, the war machine is therefore not only virtually endowed, "ut in
the process of going to war it actively produces the reality of the situation 1ith this preemptive
rationality in mind, Guillaume poses the use of +o""it5s strategic conflations "etween the human
and the natural in order to ma$e sense of this new virtual terrain Supporting the notion that pre*
emptive action #colonises the future,% Der Derian e/plains the a"surd (uality to all this in the
sense that our interventions even ta$e the #evils yet to "e "orn% to "e their o"!ect )his certainly
offers some lessons to us@ especially concerning what not to do -re*empting evil is not only
ludicrous& it has proven to "e disastrous -rovo$ing threats simply ups the ante 7evertheless,
there is some optimism to "e gleaned, for if this century can "e called Deleuzian then it will "e
realised in the active counter*production of heterogeneous media whose cultural outputs have the
potential to change attitudes far greater than any political program which claims to hold the $ey
to universal truth
Rulian 3eid5s paper addresses the function of the concept of war in Deleuze5s thought, starting
with a consideration of its role in transforming representative practice, as outlined in <inema ::
3eid is trou"led "y Deleuze5s assumption of distinctive pre*and post*war cinema (and
representative practice more "roadly), and his suggestion that the Second 1orld 1ar "rought
a"out a schism in the way that representation functions 1hereas pre*war cinema is concerned
with the representation of La people5, post*war cinema arises out of the recognition of the
impossi"ility of this tas$ ,ndeed, not only is the representation of the people now impossi"le, it
is undesira"le, as it reinforces a fascist fetishization of people as "eing of a given identity or
type -ost*war cinema focuses on gesturing to this very impossi"ility, where"y the people are
always missing or Lto come5 )he pro"lem here, according to Deleuze5s own discussion of war in
A Thousand Plateaus, is the supposition that war is something e/tra*cultural, e/tra*
representative, which can influence culture and representation from without 0n the contrary,
Deleuze is elsewhere at pains to insist that war is immanently cultural and aesthetic, and indeed,
that we can see certain modes of culture and aesthetics as themselves constituting Lwar5 on
esta"lished forms of cultural practice ,n other words, cinema itself might "e a war on
convention: in Deleuze and Guattari5s terms, a Lwar machine5
Tournament 'H
)his changes the sta$es of the analysis 3ather than seeing a linear progression from one form of
representation to another, what is called for is the understanding that culture and representation
are themselves always "eing ta$en up "y a war machine, oscillating "etween capture "y the state
and escape in a line of flight 1hile the former may faithfully reproduce images of the people
and the territory, the latter produces only the inescapa"le flight into incalcula"ility where the
people are always missing and the territory shattered 1ar is an amalgam of cultural and political
affects which may swing "etween two poles: o"edience to the state and the deterritorialisation of
all the state stands for 3eid suggests that Deleuze ma$es use of the figure of Lthe seer5 in modern
cinema, who is engaged in an encounter with the Lthe intolera"le5 and thus is always pointing to
that which is outside the frame and "eyond representation 4owever, 3eid argues that the seer
"ecomes enmeshed in clichI and is therefore "ound to a particular time*frame (1G>AS1GBF) in
terms of the distortion of cinematic claims to truth 9ore "roadly, sight itself "ecomes
thoroughly contaminated with military logic, as outlined "y -aul Tirilio, where"y perception,
capture and domination "ecome part of the same affective moment 3eid suggests that rather
than identify the ciphers of deterritorialisation in postmodern cinema, we would do "etter to
focus on the processes of state capture and escape, through which we can access the ongoing flu/
present in every relation to the state At these crossroads, where the macro*and micropolitical
encounter each other, the people are at sta$e
+rian 9assumi addresses the tendencies of contemporary war, which were intensified though not
caused "y Septem"er 11
th
'HH1 0n the one hand, the post*Septem"er 11
th
security response was
underta$en in the name of the spectre of the a"sent towers: one remem"ers what one does not
see 0n the other, military action "ecomes increasingly conceived under the "anner of Lpre*
emption5, where one acts to prevent something which has not occurred, which has not "een
e/perienced ,n this sense, a schism grows "etween (military) action and perception@ we can no
longer trust our senses .or 9assumi, this has revealing conse(uences for how we are to thin$
contemporary war in relation to the politics of everyday life 3ather than thin$ing in terms of
what we e/perience or perceive, 9assumi suggests that we ought to e/plore what ta$es place in
this space "efore perception, in which we are primed for attention, ready to perceive, on Lred
alert5 )his space "efore action, "efore decision, is increasingly the su"!ect of a military
Loccupation5 3ather than "eing a discreet activity which ta$es place in a defined location against
a pre*determined set of people, war "ecomes generalised, u"i(uitised, prior to politics
9assumi cites Ar(uilla and 3onfeldt, who define Lsoft power5 as Lepistemological warfare5,
"ecause it is concerned with what people $now, or what they thin$ they $now 9assumi suggests
that soft power is now u"i(uitous 7o longer merely the companion to e/ceptional Lhard power5
operations, Lepistemological warfare5 has "ecome the condition of Lnormal5 political life
4owever, this is not (uite right .or the current Leveryday war5 is concerned not so much with
what we kno! (or thin$ we $now) as what we are (or are "ecoming) )his is not so much
epistemological as ontological war, concerned with the ongoing emergence of su"!ects of certain
$inds primed to react and respond in certain ways to emergent dangers which are themselves in a
permanent condition of emergence )his future*facing war is always in the process of
conditioning corporeal emergence and determining future reactions =i$e capitalism itself, this
process is non*linear and seemingly compati"le with the =i"eral predicates of freedom and
individualism: predicates which are incapa"le of interrogating the pre*individual domain of
affect, and which are there"y entirely compati"le with this generalised state of war (as a mode of
governance) and una"le to provide the platform for an effective criti(ue (as a politics of
resistance) ?onse(uently, 9assumi says that L:i<t is not enough to stop one war or even many ,t
Tournament '1
is not enough to vote out one government "ent on war, nor many5 3ather the tas$ is to reclaim
the space of emergence@of the virtual@which is in danger of "eing given over to a military
logic of pre*emption
Rohn -rotevi is concerned with the production of certain L"odies politic5 which constitute aspects
of war )he term L"ody politic5 is intended to draw attention to the e/tent that military "odies
cannot "e understood e/clusively through the prism of either the somatic or the social 3ather,
they must "e understood as dynamic assem"lages& as -rotevi says, Lgeo*"io*techno*affective
assem"lages5, which e/ceed capture "y any one interpretative framewor$ )his suggests a
change in the way in which we deploy the concept of the "ody in ma$ing sense of affective
responses to war ,t is no longer sufficient to rely on "iological accounts of why "odies perform
in certain ways 3ather, -rotevi suggests, we should mo"ilise Deleuze and Guattari5s concept of
affect, which refers to the a"ility of "odies to form assem"lages with other "odies ,ndeed, this is
a pro"lematic formulation in the sense that the "ody cannot "e understood apart from this a"ility
,t is the formation of assem"lages, and the ongoing interaction that "odies have with other "odies
that ena"les us to define Lwhat a "ody is5 And this challenges the analytic approach to "odies at
war which would see$ to distinguish among history, "iology, culture, society and so on, when in
fact the connections that "odies ma$e e/ceed and undermine these distinctions
1hat is the $ey for -rotevi is the way in which we can thin$ of war in adaptive terms, or as a
selection pressure, without essentialising either what we mean "y Lwar5, or what we ta$e to "e
the responses and reactions of "odies )his involves rescuing from the idea of simple evolution a
notion of the L"ody politic5 as a dynamic active and evolving assem"lage Discussing the
phenomenon of Lrage5 across historical cultures, -rotevi wants to rescue some notion of Lhuman
nature5 from the notion that all emotions and affective manifestations are socially constructed or
conte/t specific 4owever, this does not mean that they are amena"le to facile capture or
representation through any single prism of analysis 3ather, considering "odily responses and
reactions from the perspective of affect demands attention to the cyclical, dynamic and reactive
character of all actionsOreactions ,t is the differential "io*cultural production of certain war*
"odies with which -rotevi is concerned, which means that it is not enough for us to say that war
is an eternal human e/perience "ecause of the highly varia"le ways in which Lwar5 is
e/perienced and conceived in different cultures 4e gives the e/ample of music, which may
create certain possi"ilities for group activity, and prime certain affective responses resulting in
varia"le iterations of Lwar5 ,n this sense, music is immediately physiological, social, cultural and
military, in an emergent assem"lage of "odies and populations
+rad Evans analyses the post*GO11 security landscape through the prism of .oucauldian
"iopolitics in order to outline the ways in which the referent o"!ect of security is changing, and to
catalyse an e/ploration of the conse(uences of this for political possi"ility and resistance 1e can
see security "ecoming decreasingly concerned with identity and increasingly focused on
circulation and emergence ,n this sense, it is no longer what things are that is the focus of the
martial sciences, "ut what they are becoming )his produces a re*evaluation of the very meaning
of Lsecurity5, and of its meaning for politics and the place of war in contemporary society
9oreover, it is productive of a change in the o"!ect of security, which is no longer a defined
group or state, "ut life itself& life understood as always "eing in the process of change and
emergence ,ndeed, it this ongoing process of "ecoming which defines Llife5 as such =ife is
"ecoming ,t therefore cannot "e secured through "eing fi/ed, rather, its "ecomings must "e
monitored and, if necessary, terminated "efore danger can "e said to have emerged
Tournament ''
As Evans indicates, this creates serious challenges for political thought .irstly, Lfreedom5
"ecomes internalised within the system of security and governance, so that we can no longer
thin$ of freedom from security, "ut of security as the production of freedom Secondly, the
conse(uences of Lfreedom5 "ecome radically unpredicta"le )he new sciences of comple/ity tell
us that we cannot contain this radical freedom within a certain political territory or ideology:
rather, the conse(uences of freedom are inherently unpredicta"le and unsta"le )his is nowhere
"etter illustrated than "y the events of GO11, when the potential of a Lcatastrophic individual5 to
"ring destruction and to transform perceptions of the security situation was "rought into
painfully sharp relief 1hat this means is that the event, in Deleuzian terms, "ecomes the o"!ect
of security, there"y creating a parado/ in which the moment of political possi"ility is also the
moment for the concentration of an arsenal of military*strategic forces which are actually
productive of the terrifying sorts of event which they would see$ to foreclose Evans suggests
that resources from Deleuze5s thought may allow us to thin$ through "inaries such as
presentOfuture, finiteOinfinite, $nownOun$nown, which litter the terrain of discourses of
securityOfreedom, through the concept of difference which may mo"ilise an openness to political
formation which ena"les us to thin$ a future "eyond security, danger and pre*emption
Guillaume Si"ertin*+lanc offers an analysis of Deleuze and Guattari5s theory of the war machine
which is concerned with the way it can produce a theory of war in which the repressive powers
of the state are not localised in the army, the police forces and so on, "ut comes to "e constituted
in certain ways through the dynamic interaction of forces which either affirm the state or flee
from it ,n this respect, a genealogy of war involves tracing the processes "y which the war
machine comes to "e captured "y the state, as well as "eing attentive to the lines of flight along
which the war machine escapes capture and comes to constitute a force of resistance to state
appropriation 3eading Deleuze and Guattari5s war machine together with ?lausewitzian
precepts concerning the status of war, what "ecomes apparent are the profound social and
economic ramifications of this reading of war .or ?lausewitz, war is the servant of state politics,
and can "e so precisely "ecause it is not itself political Similarly, for Deleuze and Guattari, the
war machine is always potentially setting up a line of flight from state politics, and is not itself
e/hausted or determined "y it +ut Si"ertin*+lanc argues that ?lausewitz places too much
emphasis on war as an institutionally governed historical reality, whereas Deleuze and Guattari
are concerned with the identification of the concept of the war machine deterritorialised from its
geo*political manifestations
)he process "y which the war machine is captured "y the state is not itself military, "ecause the
military is the outcome of this process 3ather, it is territorial and relates to the circulation of
men and things within the state ,n the current system, the state has lost control of the war
machine, and thus the war machine no longer has war as its o"!ect, as this would have to "e
given "y the state 3ather, it is through the political economy, and the interstices of society
themselves, that the war machine operates, manifesting itself as a glo"al security order rather
than an e/ceptional moment of war Although states of e/ception still present a challenge, the
war machine "ecomes associated with the very fa"ric of normality as such which, no longer
driven "y the state, "ecomes disaggregated from politics: a technocracy of order which presents
itself as "eing the very underlying conditions of life itself Si"ertin*+lanc suggests that one could
replace the political end given to the war machine with the economic end that it now has, in the
sense that the war machine is concerned with the immanent unfolding of the capitalist economy
itself .urther, he argues that the idea of a war machine dedicated to a Lglo"al peace5 should not
deceive us into e/pecting a degree of pacification or a decline in violence Uuite the contrary
Tournament '6
)he point is rather that the glo"al violence and insta"ility is itself internal to the world wide war
machine and does not constitute an interruption in its rule Si"ertin*+lanc leaves us with the
challenge of thin$ing a politics of resistance which can contend with the normalisation of war as
a "ac$ground condition for everyday life& a politics which, one cannot "e thin$, may itself derive
some sustenance from the resources of the war machine with which to construct its line of flight
Gregg =am"ert traces the e/teriority of the war machine to the state, and the relationship this
con!ures "etween the state and Lthe people5 4e suggests that the state is always in the process of
see$ing to capture the people, in ideology, in political philosophy or in a martial relation to those
who defy the state5s insistence on interiority and regularity 1hile the left might see$ to "uild its
legitimacy on the morality of the people, this is an appropriation which actually serves to
cauterise the revolutionary potential of the people in Deleuze and Guattari5s thin$ing )he
pro"lem is that Lthe people5 may all too readily collapse into a fascist assem"lage, the nomad
may appear most prominently in the guise of an am"ulant suicide "om"er, and, as Deleuze and
Guattari are themselves appropriated "y the ,D. for the contri"ution that they can ma$e into the
pacification of hostile striated space, it seems that there is no conceptual territory which is safe
from the grasping hands of the militarists, or from the threat of a fatal territorialisation on the
"lac$ hole of negation 4owever, the point is that the schizophrenic, "ipolar nature of concepts in
Deleuze and Guattari hauls us "ac$ from the "rin$ of despair, "ecause Lthe people5 may also
appear as a war machine with respect to the state, producing the emergence of new political
possi"ilities
=am"ert e/plores the figures used "y Deleuze and Guattari to dramatise the elusive and
contradictory nature of Lthe people5 .or e/ample, Aha" and +artle"y "oth, in their different
ways, defy the state and there"y somehow em"ody it )hey "etray it, and at the same time
e/press what is most essential a"out it ,n this sense, they produce the American dream through
their refusal to conform to it )hrough their failure in the eyes of the state, they produce a
creative line of flight from it 0nly "y failing can they produce )hese refusenik or defiant figures
who populate Deleuze and Guattari5s te/ts are actually the poles of the revolutionary "ecomings
of the people 7o one truly em"odies the American dream, there is no perfect citizen, and there
are no people ,t is only through the re!ection of, or escape from these in!unctions that a Lpeople
to come5 can "e summoned& a people who never arrives "ut stands for the permanent possi"ility
of difference within a political system =am"ert suggests that there are pro"lems with the
inelucta"le "ipolarity of Deleuze and Guattari5s war machine, however, not least that we are left
with the tas$ of distinguishing "etween Ldestructive violence and creative violence5 )his is not a
new pro"lem, for is not the tas$ of revolutionary violence the dedication of force to the
redemption of the world2 )he (uestion is whether Deleuze and Guattari offer us a novel way out
of this conundrum =am"ert suggests that we concentrate our research on the idea of death,
which may "e the genocidal nadir to which the modern military arsenal dedicates itself, or which
may "e a space of pure "ecoming, LA Eife2, which represents the pure form of political possi"ility
and therefore the counter to the "lac$ hole to which the war machine collapse
+rad Evans
+rad Evans is lecturer in the School of -olitics and ,nternational Studies at the Kniversity of
=eeds 4e has pu"lished numerous articles using the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari to critically
evaluate the =i"eral pro"lematic of security, the modern propensity for violence, along with the
suffocation of political difference 4e is currently wor$ing on two co*edited volumes: 0ascism in
Tournament '>
.eleu8e M ;uattari> ,ecuritisation, *ar M Aesthetics which due to "e completed in 'H11& and
Post+:ntervention ,ocieties for the Iournal of :ntervention and ,tate+4uilding which will "e
pu"lished in 'H1H 4e is also wor$ing on a monograph titled Terror M the .ivine Economy
which is due to "e completed in 'H11 +rad may "e reached at "evansQleedsacu$
=aura Guillaume
=aura Guillaume5s research is focused on understanding war using resources from Deleuze and
Guattari She has focused particularly on the relationship "etween war and the "ody, and is
interested in the ethics of war from a wide variety of analytical perspectives =aura has a -hD in
,nternational -olitics from A"erystwyth Kniversity She is the co*author (with ,an +uchannan) of
L)he Spectacle of 1ar: Security, =egitimacy and -rofit -ost GO115 in 3osi +raidotti, ?laire
?ole"roo$ and -atric$ 4anafin (eds) .eleu8e and Ea!N0orensic 0utures (-algrave 9acmillan
'HHG) and co*editor (with Roe 4ughes) of .eleu8e and the 4ody (forthcoming 'H1H with
Edin"urgh Kniversity -ress) =aura may "e reached at lauraguillaumeQgooglemailcom
Tournament 'A
'arbarian) to *ava"e)% #iberal War &n)ide and +ut
'rad (van) and Michael ,ardt
(van)% 0ne of the most important aspects of your wor$ has "een to argue why the original
sentiment which provo$ed Deleuze and Guattari5s -omadology narrative needed to "e
challenged 1ith the onset of a glo"al war machine which showed a"solutely no respect for state
"oundaries, matched "y the rise of many local fires of resistance which had no interest in
capturing state power, the sentiment that #4istory is always written from the victory of States%
could now "e "rought firmly into (uestion 0n a theoretical level alone, the need to "ring the
-omadology )reatise up to date was an important move 4owever, there was something clearly
more at sta$e for you than simply attempting to canonise Deleuze and Guattari 0ne gets the
impression from your wor$s that you were deeply trou"led "y what was ta$ing place with this
new found humanitarianism ,ndeed, as you suggest, if we accept that this changing political
terrain demanded a rewriting of war itself@away from geo*political territorial struggles which
once monopolised the strategic field, towards "io*political life struggles whose unrelenting wars
were now to "e consciously fought for the politics of all life itself, then it could "e argued that
the political sta$es could not "e higher .or not only does a "io*political ascendency force a re*
conceptualisation of the war effort@to include those forces which are less militaristic and more
developmental (one can see this "est reflected today in the now familiar security mantra #1ar "y
0ther 9eans%), "ut through this process a new paradigm appears which ma$es it possi"le to
envisage for the first time in human history a Glo"al State of 1ar or a ?ivil 1ar on a planetary
scale
1hilst it was rather easy to find support for this non*State paradigm during the 1GGH5s@
especially when the indigenous themselves started writing of the onset of a 0ourth *orld *ar
which was enveloping the planet and consuming every"ody within, some have argued that the
picture "ecame more clouded with the invasion of ,ra( which was simply geo*politics as usual
)he familiar language that has "een routinely deployed here would "e of KS E/ceptionalism 9y
concern is not really to attend to this revival of an out*dated theoretical persuasion , agree with
your sentiments in Fultitude that this account can "e convincingly challenged with relative ease
.oucault has done enough himself to show that =i"eral 1ar does not demand a strategic trade*off
"etween geo*political and "iopolitical aspirations )hey can "e mutually re*enforcing, even, or
perhaps more to the point, especially within a glo"al =i"eral ,maginary And what is more, we
should not lose sight of the fact that it was when ma!or com"at operations were effectively
declared over, that is when the "orderlands truly ignited 9y concerns today are more attuned to
the post*+ush era, which going "ac$ to the original 1ar on )error5s life*centric remit is once
again calling for the need to step up the humanitarian war effort in order to secure the glo"al
peace ,ndeed, perhaps more worrying still, given that the return of the 8antian inspired
humanitarian sensi"ility can now "e presented in an altogether more glo"ally enlightened
fashion, offering a mar$ed and much needed departure from the destructive "ut ultimately
powerless (in the positive sense of the word) self*serving neo*con, then it is possi"le to detect a
more intellectually vociferous shift ta$ing place which is rendering all forms of political
difference to "e truly dangerous on a planetary scale 1ith this in mind, , would li$e your
thoughts on the Glo"al State of 1ar today 1hat for instance do you feel have "een the most
Tournament 'B
important changes in the paradigm since you first proposed the idea2 And would you argue that
war is still the permanent social relation of glo"al rule2
,ardt% )he notion of a glo"al civil war starts from the (uestion of sovereignty )raditionally war
is conceived (in the field of international relations, for instance, or in international law) as armed
conflict "etween two sovereign powers whereas civil war designates conflict within a single
territory in which one or "oth of the parties is not sovereign 1ar designates, in other words, a
conflict in some sense e"ternal to the structures of sovereignty and civil war a conflict internal to
them ,t is clear that few if any of the instances of armed conflict around the world today fit the
classic model of war "etween sovereign states And perhaps even the great conflicts of the cold
war, from 8orea and Tietnam to countries throughout =atin America, already undermined the
distinction, draping the conflict "etween sovereign states in the guise of local civil wars )oni
7egri and , thus claimed that in our era there is no more war "ut only civil wars or, really, a
glo"al civil war ,t is pro"a"ly more precise to say instead that the distinction "etween war and
civil war has "een undermined, in the same way that one might say, in more metaphorical terms,
not that there is no more outside "ut rather that the division "etween inside and outside has "een
eroded
)his claim is also widely recognized, it seems to me, among military and security theorists )he
change from the framewor$ of war to that of civil war, for instance, corresponds closely to
thin$ing of armed conflicts as not military campaigns "ut police actions, and thus a shift from the
e/ternal to the internal use of force )he general rhetorical move from war to security mar$s in
more general terms a similar shift )he security mantra that you cite S #war "y other means% S
also indicates how the confusion "etween inside and outside implies the mi/ture of a series of
fields that are traditionally separate: war and politics, for e/ample, "ut also $illing and generating
forms of social life )his opens a complicated (uestion a"out the ways in which contemporary
military actions have "ecome "iopolitical and what that conception helps us understand a"out
them
3ather than pursuing that "iopolitical (uestion directly, though, , want first to understand "etter
how the shift in the relationship "etween war and sovereignty that )oni and , propose relates to
your notion of li"eral and humanitarian war ,n a war conventionally conceived, it is sufficient
for the two sovereign powers to !ustify their actions primarily on the "asis of national interest as
long as they remain within the confines of international law 1hereas those inside , in other
words, are at least in principle privilege to the li"eral framewor$ of rights and representation,
those outside are not 1hen the relationship of sovereignty shifts, however, and the distinction
"etween inside and outside erodes, then there are no such limits of the li"eral ideological and
political structures )his might "e a way of understanding why contemporary military actions
have to "e !ustified in terms of discourses of human rights and li"eral values And this might "e
related, in turn, to what many political theorists analyze as the decline of li"eral values in the KS
political sphere at the hands of neoli"eral and neoconservative logics
1
,n other words, perhaps
when the division declines "etween the inside and outside of sovereignty, on the one hand, the
li"eral logic must "e deployed (however inade(uately) to !ustify the use of violence over what
was the outside while, on the other, li"eral logics are increasingly diluted or suppressed in what
was the inside
(van)% 1hat , am proposing with the #=i"eral 1ar )hesis% "orrows from some pioneering
wor$s which have already started to cover the main theoretical ground
'
?entral to this approach
Tournament 'D
is an attempt to critically evaluate glo"al =i"eral governance (which includes "oth productive
and non*productive elements) "y (uestioning its will to rule =i"eral -eace is thus challenged,
not on the "asis of its a"stract claims to universality@!uridical or otherwise, "ut precisely
"ecause it5s glo"al imaginary shows a remar$a"le capacity to wage war@"y whatever means@
in order to govern all species life )his is not, then, to "e confused with some militaristic
appropriation of the democratic "ody politic@a situation in which =i"eral value systems have
"een completely undermined "y the onslaught of the military mind 9ore revealing, it e/poses
the intricate wor$ings of a =i"eral rationality whose ultimate pursuit is glo"al political
dominance )races of this account can no dou"t "e found in 9ichael ,gnatieff5s (completely
sympathetic) "oo$ Empire Eite, which notes how the gradual confluence "etween the
humanitarian and the military has resulted in the onset of an ostensi"ly humanitarian empire that
is less concerned with territory (although the State no dou"t still figures) than it is with
governing life itself for its own protection and "etterment =i"eralism as such is considered here
(O la 0oucault) to "e a technology of government or a means for strategising power which ta$ing
life to "e its o"!ect feels compelled to wager the destiny of humanity against its own political
strategy =i"eralism can therefore "e said to "etray a particularly novel strategic field in which
the writing of threat assumes "oth planetary (macro*specific) and human (micro*specific)
ascriptions Although it should "e noted that it is only through giving the utmost priority to life
itself@wor$ing to secure life from each and every threats posed to an otherwise progressive
e/istence, that its glo"al imaginary could ever hold sway 7o coincidence then that the dominant
strategic paradigm for =i"erals is Glo"al 4uman Security 1hat could therefore "e termed the
=i"eral pro"lematic of security of course registers as a =i"eral "io*politics of security, which in
the process of promoting certain forms of life e(ually demands a re*conceptualisation of war in
the sense that not every life lives up to productive e/pectations, let alone shows its compliance
,n a num"er of crucial ways, this approach offers "oth a theoretical and empirical challenge to
the familiar ,3 scripts which have tended to either valorise =i"eralism5s visionary potential or
simply castigate its misguided idealism -erhaps the most important of these is to insist upon a
rewriting of the history of =i"eralism from the perspective of war Admittedly, there is much
wor$ to "e done here 7ot least, there is a need to show with greater historical depth, critical
purpose, and intellectual rigour how =i"eral war ("oth e/ternally and internally) has
su"se(uently informed its !uridical commitments and not vice versa 4ere , am invaria"ly
provo$ing the well rehearsed #=aws of 1ar% sermon, which , "elieve more accurately should "e
rephrased to "e the #1ars of =aw% 7evertheless, despite this pressing need to rewrite the =i"eral
encounter in language whose familiarity would "e capa"le of penetrating the rather conservative
"ut e(ually esotericOspecialist field of ,nternational 3elations, sufficient contemporary grounds
already e/ist which ena"le us to provide a challenging account of glo"al civil war from the
perspective of =i"eral "io*political rule 9ichael Dillon and Rulian 3eid5s The Eiberal *ay of
*ar encapsulates these sentiments, with the following a"ridged passage worth (uoting:
A "io*political discourse of species e/istence is also a "io*political discourse of species
endangerment As a form of rule whose referent o"!ect is that of species e/istence, the li"eral
way of rule is simultaneously also a pro"lematisation of fear and danger involving threats to the
peace and prosperity of the species 4ence its allied need, in the pursuing the peace and
prosperity of the species, to ma$e war on whatever threatens it )hat is the reason why li"eral
peacema$ing is lethal ,ts violence a necessary corollary of the aporetic character of its mission
to foster the peace and prosperity of the species )here is, then, a martial face to li"eral peace
)he li"eral way of rule is contoured "y the li"eral way of war =i"eralism is therefore o"liged to
Tournament 'F
e/ercise a strategic calculus of necessary $illing, in the course of which calculus ought to "e a"le
to say how much $illing is enough:4owever< it has no "etter way of saying how much $illing
is enough, once it starts $illing to ma$e life live, than does the geopolitical strategic calculus of
necessary $illing5
6

)his "rings me to the pro"lem of the insideOoutside 0n the face of it, it is (uite suggestive to
account for this conflation "y ac$nowledging the onset of a glo"al political imaginary that no
longer permits any relationship with the outside 0ne could then support the types of hypothesis
you mention, which rather than affirming the "est of the enlightened =i"eral tradition actually
correlate the hollowing out of =i"eral values to the ina"ility to carve out any meaningful
distinctions "etween insideOoutside, peaceOwar, friendOenemy, goodOevil, truthOfalsehood and so
forth 4owever, whilst this approach would no dou"t either re*enforce the militaristic paradigm
or raise further critical dou"ts a"out the post*modernOpost*structural turn in political thought, it is
nevertheless misleading )he collapses of these meaningful distinctions are not inimical to
=i"eral rationality )o the contrary, the erosion of these great dialectical interplays now actually
provides =i"eralism with its very generative principles of formation , felt that you "egan to
e/plore this in Empire "y noting how .oucault5s "io*politics was inade(uate to our comple/,
adaptive and emergent times )o rectify this, Deleuze5s notion of <ontrol ,ocieties was
introduced which is more in line with contemporary systems of rule
9y interest in this however is what actually lies "ehind 7amely, the realisation that societies of
control are informed "y a fundamental change in the "io*political account of life, which although
giving more to life in terms of its potentiality, e(ually presents life in an altogether more
dangerous light )his reveals what , would term the =i"eral -arado/ of -otentiality@revealing
also contemporary =i"eralism5s irresolva"le "io*political aporia 0n the one hand, it is
recognised that the "ody which is li"erated from the former disciplinary regimes is a "ody whose
capacity to "e free is assumed to increase e/ponentially 1ith =i"eral freedom here not implying
that every situation always presents a certain degree of freedom, or for that matter that one can
simply #"e free%, "ut that freedom is something which needs to "e continually produced And yet
it is precisely "ecause a "ody is now endowed with adaptive and emergent (ualities@capa"le of
becoming other than what was once epistemologically certain, that a life sets off more alarms
After all, who $nows what a "ody is now capa"le of doing2 Deleuze5s reading of Spinoza thus
reads rather prophetic .or what a "ody is capa"le of "ecoming is the war cry heeded "y
contemporary security practitioners )his is reflected "y recent developments in the field of
counter*terrorism A mar$ed shift is now clearly ta$ing place in this field which is moving us
away from the traditional actions (punish after the event) or intentions (punish if intentions can
"e esta"lished) "ased approaches, tending instead towards a more pervasive capabilities
assessment (punish if one can esta"lish the capa"ility to stri$e)
,ardt% , find it interesting how the decline of the division "etween inside and outside does not
undermine li"eral rationality, as you say, from the perspectives or in the fields of ,nternational
3elations and Security Studies "ut does undermine the logic of a variety of li"eral and radical
democratic pro!ects in the field of -olitical )heory ,t seems to me that the collapse of a
meaningful distinction "etween inside and outside is inimical to li"eral democracy or radical
democracy for these authors .or the criti(ue andOor redemption of li"eral democracy in political
theorists such as 1illiam ?onnolly and 1endy +rown a discrete and "ounded space is re(uired
for the effectiveness of li"eral rights, formal e(uality, freedoms, and representation Ernesto
=aclau5s notion of the people, ?hantal 9ouffe5s concept of hegemony, and Etienne +ali"ar5s
Tournament 'G
idea of citizenship (even in a supranational conte/t such as Europe) all similarly re(uire a
delimited sovereign space and a specific population )he focus in all these cases, it seems to me,
is not on the outside or the conflict across the insideOoutside "order "ut rather on the
circumscri"ed nature of the inside )he people to whom these notions of li"eral or radical
democracy apply must "e determinate and limited )hat is not to say, , should repeat, that the
pro!ects of these political theorists re(uire the definition of an enemy or focus on mechanisms of
e/clusion, "ut rather that they rely on a definite conception of the #inside,% that is, a coherent
social "ody (such as a people) and a delimited sovereign space (whether national or not)
-erhaps this dis!unction regarding the status of li"eralism "etween ,nternational 3elations and
-olitical )heory is due, in part, to disciplinary differences that ma$e it difficult to communicate
"etween those fields -erhaps it is due also to the am"iguous topological metaphor of inside and
outside, which might "e doing too much wor$ here and thus leading to confusion ,n addition,
some difficulty certainly arises from the different meanings attri"uted to the term #li"eralism%
1e already have the pro"lem of a primarily economic conception of li"eralism (more prevalent
in Europe) that refers to the freedoms of trade and mar$ets and a primarily political conception
(more prevalent in 7orth America) that emphasizes rights, the rule of law, constitutional
freedom, and so forth ,n your wor$, however, as well as that of Dillon and 3eid, and perhaps
more generally in the field of ,nternational 3elations, there seems to me a somewhat distinct idea
of li"eralism, which is certainly "ased on !uridical notions of the international rule of law "ut
also highlights humanitarianism and the preservation of life as a grounding principle )his is
perhaps why the discourse of li"eralism in ,nternational 3elations moves so easily into (uestions
of "iopower S and also why the division "etween inside and outside is not necessary as a ground
here )racing the meaning of li"eralism across these disciplinary fields to separate the
terminological differences from the differences in argument can certainly help clarify the
(uestion
9ore interesting, though, is the possi"ility that the dis!unction ,5m highlighting is not merely
e/plained "y metaphorical am"iguities and terminological differences "ut really points to a
conceptual and political conflict, which is revealed "y loo$ing at the issue and phenomena from
different disciplinary perspectives ,n other words, perhaps if political theorists were to adopt the
disciplinary framewor$ of ,nternational 3elations scholars in this case they would "e forced to
(uestion their grounding in the notion of a coherent #inside,% that is, a determinate population
and a circumscri"ed space of sovereignty, for li"eral or radical democratic pro!ects ,n turn, such
an e/change might force ,nternational 3elations scholars to thin$ more critically a"out what $ind
of democratic pro!ects are possi"le in a conte/t in which the division "etween inside and outside
has declined
(van)% Agreed )here is a need for much greater cross fertilisation of ideas across the disciplines
not only to permit more sophisticated meaningful criti(ues of the modern condition, "ut also
more fruitfully to search for common political alternatives )o "egin this process (with the
intention of outliving) , would suggest that we need to more definitive a"out #1hat is
=i"eralism2% 1hilst it could "e argued that the #9any =i"eralisms% we can spea$ of shows the
richness of the tradition, it also proves to "e its mas$ of mastery in that one can always spea$ the
language of freedom and give !uridical pronouncements without ever ac$nowledging the =i"eral
recourse to war and violence )o my mind, the only way these various disciplines can "e "rought
together is to insist upon an inclusive understanding of =i"eralism which factors in "oth its
political and economic dimensions 4ow else could we assess whether the ideal matches reality2
Tournament 6H
7ow of course, this #political*economy% perspective will "e resisted "y in many (uarters,
especially since this approach implies a need to show how the tremendous political power and
moral suasion that =i"eralism wields on a planetary scale also rests upon the power of economy
1hat is more, if we ta$e a political economy perspective, then the argument could "e made that
since =i"eral rationality today is primarily driven "y "io*political imperatives, then not only does
this forces us to ac$nowledge that notions of sovereigntyOlaw are merely one generative principle
of =i"eral formation, "ut in the process we must also appreciate that the !uridicalOemancipation
story with its definitive sense of grounding assumes secondary importance "ehind the
"iopolitical tas$ of ma$ing life live in productively compliant ways
=oo$ing at this from a glo"al perspective, it could then "e argued that the -omos as <amp
hypothesis, with its impending #States of E/ception%, ma$e no conceptual sense when one
considers the collapse of those neat demarcations which once permitted the Schmittian decision
.oregrounding instead the internal pro"lem of emergence, with emergence here associated with
the propagation of all types of circulations, =i"eralism replaces the state of e/ception paradigm
with an internal state of unending emergency which is capa"le of reducing life #"are% within the
remit of law 7ot then the ?amp as 7omos, which even some =i"erals have "een glad to
announce, "ut a 7omos of ?irculation ,nvaria"ly, if we accept this new "io*political security
architecture, then it inevita"ly follows that the sovereignty over life "ecomes purely contingent
.or not only are territorial integrities irrelevant when the political destinies of life are at sta$e,
"ut given the highly comple/ and adaptive strategic situation, there can "e no universal value
systems or grand "lueprints to "e followed )his appears to "e especially acute in zones of
insta"ility when life is not only su"!ect to the forces of "io*political e/perimentation, "ut the
=i"eral commitment to democratic regimes and political rights "ecomes e(ually su"!ect to
contingent factors )here have for e/ample "een many occasions when the most sacred of rights
(that to life) has "e cast aside for the most speculative utilitarian calculations, whereas what once
past to "e the surest litmus test of one5s democratic credentials@election victories@have in
recent times had =i"erals scram"ling for new methods of de*legitimation 9y personal favourite
here is the story of the #democratic coup%
A logical corollary of this is the mi/ture of the strategic fields you mention ,t is no coincidence
today to find renewed priority "eing afforded to the insurgent )he 3A7D ?orporation for
instance have for some time now "een calling for a more comprehensive and nuanced strategic
paradigm that incorporates counter*insurgency into the wider remit of the Glo"al 1ar on )error ,
am reminded at this stage of a wonderful o"servation .oucault ma$es in a few incisive pages of
the ,ociety Fust 4e .efended lectures in which he identifies the three $ey figures which ma$e
up the modern condition: 4arbarians, ,avages and the <ivilised +ar"arians he argues are a
function of sovereign power E/isting "eyond the constitutional pale, although sometimes
penetrating with purely destructive intent, they represent those lives which show no respect for
the constitutional order, hence they have and should "e afforded no moral or political value
Savages on the other hand are a function of "io*political power 0pen to remedy and demanding
engagement, they represent those lives which are capa"le of "eing redeemed 7o great
conceptual leap of imagination is re(uired here to draw out meaningful connections "etween
"ar"ariansOterrorists and savagesOinsurgents ,ndeed, in the theatres of war today one can write of
that all too familiar historical tendency of waging war "y getting savages to fight "ar"arians in
order to prove their civilising credentials Even here however the lines in the sand have "een
"lurred )errorists for instance no longer occupy a place of e/teriority to the political realm, "ut
are fully included within the "io*political order 1hat is more, the a"ility to set out clear
Tournament 61
parameters "etween the terrorist and the insurgent has proved rather elusive )his is compounded
even further "y a realisation that terrorists are no longer simply intent upon wanton destruction,
"ut have showed a willingness to actually cross over to "ecome insurgents posing a much wider
social pro"lem )his approach is clearly evidenced in the recent Knited 8ingdom <ontest ::
7ational Security Strategy ('HHG) 1hat particularly stri$es a"out this document is the style in
which these threats are presented )errorists are now presented in a manner which is
"iopolitically fitting =i$e some cancerous cell, not only are they seen to "e capa"le of damaging
a vital organ within the "ody politic, "ut they now hold the potential to infect the wider "odily
terrain )he significance of this sovereignO"io*political merger can "e read in two ways .irst,
through this coming together it is possi"le to detect a certain reprioritisation of affairs in which
the once familiar pro"lem of the sovereign encounter can now "e dealt with "io*politically And
second, given that the "io*political is now tainted "y the spectre of terror, then the "iopolitical
"ecomes truly moralised in that the war to redeem savages is e(ually a war to e/pel evil
,ardt% , find intriguing and very productive your translation of "ar"arian to terrorist and savage
to insurgent, along with the correlate that from the standpoint of the sovereign the latter couple
has the potential to "e civilized or redeemed whereas the formal couple does not ,t stri$es me
that what is at play here, in part, is two relations to the "ody ,n the first years of the new
millennium, at the inception of the #war on terror,% , recognized in much of KS military
theorizing a fascinating dou"ling and inversion regarding the "ody of the terrorist and the "ody
of the KS soldier 0n the one side stood the horrifying, "ar"aric figure of the terrorist defined "y
not only its power to destroy others "ut also its acceptance of corporeal self*destruction,
characterized paradigmatically "y the a"solute negation of the "ody in the act of suicide
"om"ing 0n the other side stood the "ody of the KS soldier that, it was thought, could "e $ept at
a safe distance from all danger "y technological innovations and new military strategies
associated with the so*called 3evolution in 9ilitary Affairs (39A) -recise missiles, drone
airplanes, and other devices could aid a military strategy aimed at no soldiers lost, at least no KS
soldiers So, , was interested in the way that these two figures@the "ar"aric "ody guaranteed
destruction and the civilized "ody guaranteed preservation@arose at roughly the same time and
seemed to "e "ound together in dialectical negation
Nou are right that the insurgent "ody occupies an entirely different position ,t does not threaten
self*destruction or corporeal annihilation )he insurgent must "e transformed through the
mechanisms of "iopower !ust as the savage must "e redeemed and civilized ,t is interesting, in
fact, that at the same time that in the military and security discourses there has "een a shift from
the "ar"aric terrorist to the savage insurgent, as you say, there has "een a parallel move away
from the dreams of "odiless military actions and the strategic principles of the 39A
Antiinsurgency "iopower is aimed at the transforma"le "ody )his gives us another level, ,
suppose, to the relation "etween war, "iopower, and li"eralism that you were insisting on earlier
(van)% E/ploring the relations you identify "etween war, "io*power, and the transforma"le "ody
is one of the most important critical tas$s we face today Especially, since these relations force us
to directly confront the legitimacy of =i"eral interventionism 9ilitary interventions can of
course "e rather easily assigned imperial ascriptions )he scene however "ecomes more
complicated when we encounter humanitarian interventions which tend to "e presented in an
altogether more "enevolent light And yet, if history of civilising missions teaches us anything,
then surely 1ar is nevertheless ta$ing place@al"eit on different terms 1e can see this reflected
today in the way violence is understood +ar"arian violence is always su"!ect to the neat
Tournament 6'
themOus, outsideOinside, evilOgood, unreasona"leOreasona"le mar$s of a"solute differentiation
)heirs is a violence which "y its very nature is always un!ust Savage violence, in contrast, is
seen to "e an internal pro"lem that is su"!ect to a progressiveOregressive imaginary ,t is the
product of local conditions of underdevelopment 4ence, unli$e "ar"arian violence which offers
no possi"ility to remedy the cause (aside from outright elimination), savage violence is mar$ed
out "y modes of relative differentiation in which the source of the pro"lem can "e identified, and
with enough resource allocation the causes of conflict alleviated ?learly, each of these different
pro"lematisations has its own uni(ue relationship to power .or instance, given that
resistanceOinsurgent violence functions in these conditions to "e the surest indicator of a local
populations capacities for their own (un)ma$ing, then it necessarily follows that more =i"eral
engagement is re(uired 1hat is needed is the a"ility to turn regressive violent economies into
more productive and profita"le local conditions of possi"ility )hat people may "e resisting
=i"eral forms of "io*power, its 1ars "y 0ther 9eans (the #0ther% having a figurative as well as
strategic use), is never entertained
As you mentioned, there is something different ta$ing place here than with the 39A5s terms of
engagement Displacing the full ,pectrum spatial doctrine which sought to dominate land, sea,
air, space (hence re*enforcing clear sovereign themOus demarcations), primacy instead now tends
towards a life*centric full ,pectral doctrine which aims to capture the more comple/ terrain of
hearts, minds, "odies, and souls (the latter referring not only to what a "ody is, "ut what a "ody
is capa"le of "ecoming) ,nvaria"ly, in order for such a war to "e successful then it is necessary,
as ?ol 3upert Smith argues in his "oo$ The Ptility of 0orce, to wage Lwar among the people5
)he concept of zero casualties thus "ecomes a misnomer since warfare can no longer "e fought
at a distance, "ut relies upon the most intimate micro*specific $nowledge 1hat the anthro*
military esta"lishments now term #9apping the 4uman )errain% ,ronically, then, this more
humane =i"eral approach does not translate into a lessening of the war effort, to the contrary, in
order to secure the glo"al peace S there"y pacifying all non*=i"eral elements, war "ecomes a
normalised "io*political condition in which the attempted closure of geo*political space merely
proved to "e an initial e/periment in the attempts at setting out the all em"racing political terrain
,mportantly, within such terrains, not only does the insideOoutside lose its strategic primacy, "ut
the meaningful distinctions which once set out the citizen from the soldier e(ually enter into a
zone of indistinction Every"ody "ecomes part of the =i"eral 1ar effort , therefore agree with
the claims you made in Fultitude that L1ar has "ecome a regime of bio+po!er5 which is
intimately aligned with the tas$ of Lproducing and reproducing all aspects of social life5 ,ndeed,
with glo"al =i"eral rule shown to "e shaped "y a commitment to war (glo"ally and locally) then
it is in this sense that notions of unending or permanent war "ecome a very real condition
So as you suggest, the relations "etween war and the "ody provide us with another (perhaps the
most incisive) opportunity to challenge that formida"le school of =i"eral thought ,ndeed, once
we "egin to recognise that the ultimate o"!ect for =i"eral war is the productiveOtransforma"le
"ody, it then "ecomes possi"le to "egin (uestioning the transcendental or divine principle which
allows =i"eralism to draw out such an unreserved glo"al will to rule ?oming at this from a
theoretical angle, , want to turn to a crucial aspect of your wor$ in Empire which ta$es me to the
source of my concern with those ,nternational 3elations scholars and -olitical )heorists which
stay committed to the =i"eral tradition ,n this te/t, you single out "oth 8ant and 4egel for
particular critical attention 1hilst , share your anti*4egelian sentiments (especially regarding
the dialectical methods suffocation of political difference), it is the intellectual heritage set "y
8ant that really trou"les me Vygmunt +auman is correct to o"serve that L)hese days, it is a hard
Tournament 66
tas$ to find a learned study of our most recent history that would not (uote 8ant5s Kniversal
4istory as a supreme authority and source of inspiration for all de"ate of world citizenship5
>

0ne could even go further to argue that if there is a modern #image of thought% (to invo$e
Deleuzian conceptual voca"ulary) then it is a 8antian image of thought, which as you have
indicated not only demands that one needs metaphysics in order to thin$, "ut given that the world
is reduced to ideal forms of representation then this e/orcises any possi"ility of immanent
political and ethical relations
Despite these pro"lems, 8ant5s notion of Perpetual Peace has nevertheless "ecome a sort of
manifesto for =i"eral internationalistsOcosmopolitan theorists which advocate a shift towards a
"oundedOinclusive humanity 1hilst this notion of a "ounded humanity is itself enough cause for
political concern@not least since certain politicians have now made it their tas$ to "egin
spea$ing on "ehalf of an endangered humanity, a formida"le power which serves to provide
humanity with an authentic voice, what worries me here is the strategy of deception that is ta$ing
place .or even though 8antian inspired =i"erals continue to draw recourse to transcendental
humanitarian notions of universality in order to !ustify their glo"al am"itions, a more critical eye
would note how humanity has always "een misplaced in this script 4umanity has never "een the
unifying transcendental principle for =i"eral theorists and practitioners since humanity is always
assumed to "e flawed 1hy else would you re(uire the continuous !uridical watch if not to $eep
an 0mni*present eye on the pious su"!ect2 ,ndeed, as 8ant himself taught, given that the
negative lacuna of !uridical power alone is insufficient to ensure that life does not side with the
unreasona"le, then something "eyond !uridical power is also re(uired
8ant ta$es up this challenge in his essay on -erpetual -eace ,n a part of the essay which
contemporary =i"erals tend to ignore, 8ant notes how the ending of conflict e(ually depends
upon setting in place the right economic system )hus, invo$ing what he termed #the spirit of
commerce% (a phrase which Agam"en recently notes has o"vious theological connotations), for
8ant the tas$ of settling conflict "y reaching the highest stage of political development also rests
upon the productive power of economy@something which clearly represents more than mere
economic transaction and e/change )hus, what 8ant implied with his positive cosmopolitan
ethic can "e said to appear today in its full theological and economising glory E/isting a"ove
and "eyond the law, the unifying driver for =i"eral practitioners is not the humanitarian
principle, "ut the pure regulatory principle governing this flawed humanity 1hat then
constitutes the divine principle for =i"eral practitioners is not the divine endowment of a
universal freedom of rights or individual reason, "ut the regulative and productive economy of
life itself 1hen )ony +lair therefore remar$ed, in a very 8antian way, that the 1ars of the '1
st

?entury are glo"al wars for the very politics of life itself, he was revealing more a"out the
contemporary nature of =i"eral power than is readily accepted .or today, not only is the nature
of threat "eing e/tended to give priority to the wider political pro"lem of glo"ally insurgent
populations, "ut since this is also matched "y a "roadening of the security agenda which is
increasingly drawing into the same strategic framewor$ non*political accidents, then the
productive economy of =i"eralism "egins to appear in all its divine earthly light
,ardt% ,t might "e interesting to set the li"eral paradigm you are challenging "ac$ in relation to
?arl Schmitt since, in a way, the movement we are tracing in the nature of warfare in the last few
years might "e understood in terms of a shift from Schmitt to 8ant or, really, from transcendent
forms of power and domination to transcendental ones .or Schmitt the political has the same
form as warfare since "oth are defined "y the friendOenemy distinction )hat is why, he insists,
Tournament 6>
there is no relation "etween the economic and the political: in the economic realm (or at least in
the capitalist mar$et) one has no enemies "ut only competitors Similarly for Schmitt the
sovereign decision stands outside the constitution and the legal realm ,n the li"eral paradigm
you articulate and identify with 8ant, however, these terms are all scram"led =i"eral war is no
longer separated from "ut rather identified with "oth economic life and the legal sphere )his is
where , find useful the 8antian distinction "etween the transcendent and the transcendental, used
a "it against the grain )he ground for politics and war is not located in the transcendent position
of the sovereign "ut rather in the transcendental position of capital and the law )hese are the
dominant forces today that primarily determine the conditions of possi"ility of social life And,
as you point out, this li"eral configuration of politics and war is perhaps !ust as theological as the
sovereign, transcendent one, focussing now on the constant action re(uired to limit the negative
effects of and govern a humanity characterized "y its imperfections )his theological*political
difference might even "e understood as separating Schmitt5s ?atholicism from 8ant
-rotestantism
Aside from the pleasures of mapping out such correspondences, what are the political and
theoretical conse(uences of this analysis of the li"eral war paradigm along with the claim that it
has "ecome dominant today2 0ne important conse(uence from my perspective is that it poses a
limit to the utility of understanding politics today in terms of sovereignty .or the last decade the
concept of sovereignty has played an important and e/panding role in political theory and
focussed attention on transcendent forms power that stand outside the social and legal
constitution, ruling over states of e/ception )he sovereignty paradigm has even led many
theorists to decry new forms of fascism )he George 1 +ush administration and its #war on
terror% certainly did provide numerous #e/ceptional% instances@ such as the functioning of
Guantanamo and A"u Ghrai" prisons, the officially sanctioned use of torture, the esta"lishment
of e/traordinary rendition programs, the widespread violation of international law, the passage of
the -atriot Act, and so forth@that were read, under the ru"ric of sovereignty, as essential to the
current political scene )he li"eral war paradigm suggests instead that, although such e/ceptional
acts of a sovereign power should "e challenged and defeated, they are not the essence of the
current political situation (And, in my view, this has not altered fundamentally with the change
of KS administrations "ut has only "ecome more o"vious in the wa$e of the failures of the +ush
regime) 0ne pro"lem for political theory is that focus on such dramatic instances has generally
diverted attention from the primary, transcendental pillars of domination and war today, law and
capital, which function through #normal% rather than e/ceptional means )he continuous !uridical
watch to police humanity and guard against the effects of its imperfections that you mention is
matched "y the naturalized social divisions and hierarchies constantly reproduced "y capital
And the argument goes one step further to claim that at times war is necessary to maintain this
li"eral order, "ut the form, rationale, and ideology of such war rests on the values of the
transcendental realms of economy and law
Another conse(uence of this shift from a sovereignty paradigm to a li"eral war paradigm has to
do with the nature of resistance and alternative that each implies 1hereas criti(ues of and
resistance to transcendent, sovereign forms of power do not generally nurture alternative powers,
criti(ues of and resistance to the li"eral paradigm do uncover powerful alternative su"!ectivities
)he criti(ue of capitalist political economy can reveal not only the e/ploitation "ut also the
power of social la"or ?apital, as 9ar/ and Engels say, creates its own gravediggers as well as
the su"!ectivities capa"le of creating an alternative social order )he criti(ue of the li"eral legal
order too can "ring forth powerful su"!ects of rights )he resistance to and criti(ue of
Tournament 6A
sovereignty, in contrast, offers nothing to affirm ,n Giorgio Agam"en5s "iopolitical framewor$,
for e/ample, what stands opposed to sovereign power is "are life And the numerous recent
analyses of various states of e/ception and new fascisms have generally merely com"ined moral
outrage with political resignation -erhaps e(ually important, then, to the a"ility of the li"eral
war paradigm to identify how power and domination primarily function today is the $ind of
su"!ectivity generated "y the criti(ue of and resistance to it 3ecognizing li"eral war as our
primary antagonist can "e an e/traordinarily generative position
+rad Evans
9ichael 4ardt
9ichael 4ardt is -rofessor of =iterature and ,talian at Du$e Kniversity 4e is the author of ;illes
.eleu8e> An Apprenticeship in Philosophy (Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 1GG6) 4e has co*
authored with Antonio 7egri: Eabor of .ionysus> A <riti7ue ,tate+0orm (Kniversity of
9innesota -ress, 1GG>)& Empire (4arvard Kniversity -ress, 'HHH)& Fultitude (-enguin -ress,
'HH>)& and, <ommon!ealth (4arvard Kniversity -ress, 'HHG) 9ichael is editor of The ,outh
Atlantic Quarterly 9ichael may "e reached at hardtQdu$eedu
Notes
1 See, for e/ample, 1endy +rown, #7eoli"eralism and the End of =i"eral Democracy,% in
Edge!ork, -rinceton: -rinceton Kniversity -ress, 'HHA, pp 6DSAG& and +rown, #American
7ightmare: 7eoli"eralism, 7eoconservativism, and De*Democratization,% Political Theory,
6>:B, Decem"er 'HHB, pp BGHSD1>
' See, for e/ample, 9ar$ Duffield, ;lobal ;overnance and the -e! *ars =ondon: Ved +oo$s,
'HH1& 9ar$ Duffield, .evelopment, ,ecurity and Pnending *ar> ;overning the *orld of
Peoples( ?am"ridge: -olity -ress, 'HHD& and 9 Dillon and R 3eid, The Eiberal *ay of *ar>
Rilling to Fake Eife Eive =ondon, 3outledge: 'HHG
6 Dillon and 3eid #=i"eral 1ay of 1ar% pp >', F1, FF
> Vygmunt +auman, ,ociety under ,iege ?am"ridge: -olity -ress, 'HH', p 1HD

Tournament 6B
-evolutioni$in" .irtual War% /n &nterview with 0ame) Der Derian
#aura !uillaume
Guillaume
Eyal 1eizman has shown how the ,sraeli Defence .orce (,D.) made use of Deleuzian concepts
such as smooth space and the nomad, and suggests that these were instrumental in the invasion
of 7a"lus in 'HH' 4e goes on to muse "lea$ly that L,f some writers are right in claiming that the
space for criticality has to some e/tent withered away in late twentieth*century capitalist culture,
it surely seems to have found a place to flourish in the military5 (1eizman 'HHD, 1FD) , wonder
if you could comment on this ?an the military "e Lcritical52 ?an we reclaim Deleuze from this
appropriation2 And what does this mean for our a"ility to counter the encroaching influence of
militarisation2
Der Derian
=et me first dispense with two underlying assumptions, that the cross*fertilization of the military
and human sciences is something new (c(f .oucault5s lectures at the ?ollege de .rance in the
1GDH5s)& or that critical theory is somehow more (or less) fungi"le than other academic theories
when it comes to military appropriation (c(f game theory in the conte/t of nuclear deterrence or
systems theory and Tietnam) )hat said, , thin$ the source of shoc$ in the critical camp@as well
a smattering of Schadenfreude in positivist circles@was how easily a theoretical attitude that
emerged, post*4olocaust, post*5BF, from a pra/is of li"eration and resistance could "e used for
coercive and often destructive purposes
0"viously, "oth the Lmilitary5 and the Lcritical5 are much more comple/ assem"lages than
suggested "y the phrasing of the (uestion +ut it is legitimate to as$ whether the critical is "eing
militarized or the military Lcriticalized5& or, to put it more provocatively, whether the military
might one day "e $nown, as .oucault said of the twentieth century, as Deleuzian2 )o gain some
sense of what that might mean, , thin$ it is worth going "ac$ to the conversation "etween
Deleuze and .oucault in 1GD' on intellectuals and power, (first pu"lished in E2Arc, translated and
edited "y Donald +ouchard, Eanguage, <ounter+Femory, Practice , +lac$well, 1GDD) .oucault5s
construction of theory as a practical and strategic response to local and regional forms of power
@as opposed to a universal or totalizing truthclaim@ elicited one of Deleuze5s more famous
dictum: L-recisely, a theory is e/actly li$e a "o/ of tools5 ('HDSF) =ess fre(uently cited are his
comments that precede and follow the (uote: L7o theory can develop without eventually
encountering a wall, and practice is necessary for piercing this wall5 ('HB)& L, leave it to you to
find your own instrument, which is necessarily an instrument for com"at5 ('HF) )his might
sound familiar, li$e something that might "e said "y those Deleuzians within the ,D., who
advocated Lsmooth5 as opposed to Lstriated5 strategies@ which was most visi"ly and
destructively manifested in Gaza and =e"anon as moving through "reached walls rather than
through e/posed alleyways
1ord games aside, it is hardly surprising that thin$ers li$e Deleuze and .oucault, who
appropriated ideas from strategic thin$ers li$e ?lausewitz, should in turn "e re*appropriated "y
contemporary military strategist And it is hardly limited to !ust these particular critics or to the
military per se Derrida was appropriated "y the selfrealization organization =andmar$ .orum,
Tournament 6D
one of the hydra*headed survivors of Erhard Seminar )raining (ES)) that argued life was "ut a
linguistic construct@self*help as re*signification, which often appeared in its training sessions as
a continuation of war "y other means
So, yes, .oucault, Tirilio, Deleuze, and other ?rits did attract a small "ut dedicated following
among strategic thin$ers and military elites, not only in the 1est "ut also in the East , remem"er
as$ing Tirilio a"out this at the Ars Electronica L,nfo1ar5 conference in 1GGF, admira"ly emceed
"y the ?rit of ?rits, 9anuel de =anda: Tirilo dismissed my (uestion with a Gallic shrug and a
terse response: no author cannot control how his te/t is used, and the war colleges would "e
"etter off reading the 0ld )estament ?oincidentally, some ?hinese scholars at the same
conference*including one who claimed to have actually invented the term Linfowar5 (?hinese:
"in"i 8han)@ presented critical theory as an appropriation of the great ?hinese military strategist
Sun )zuC
,n the interests of full disclosure , should add that a couple of years after the Ars Electronic
conference , was invited to participate in a conference on L9artial Ecologies5 in ,srael )he guest
list was all over the place on the political and epistemological spectrum, from Edward =uttwa$
on the 7eolithic 3ight to 9ary 8aldor on the enlightened =eft, Rames 3osenau in the positivist
mainstream to ?hris 4a"les Gray on the po*mo margins , was as$ed to "e on a panel L7ew
9artial Ecologies: Spatial -erceptions, Epistemological Dimensions, and 0perational
,mplications5 )he a"stract for the panel was high po*mo: L+y e/ploring issues such as systemic
effects, strategic velocities, and operational mo"ilities from various perspectives, this session
will attempt to design a conceptual architecture of future conflictual spheres5 9y fellow
panelists were 0fra Graicer, a very "right -hD student and former sniper trainer for the ,D.&
Sylvere =otringer, founder of Semiote/t(e) -ress and interlocutor of -aul Tirilio& -hilippe
+uamard, a specialist on economic intelligence and information warfare at the Ecole 7ational
d5Administration (E7A) +ut easily the most interesting participant was the chair of the panel
and organizer of the conference, Dr Shimon 7aveh, a "rigadier general in the reserves and
director of the ?ummings ?enter at )el Aviv Kniversity 7aveh had driven down to +en Gurion
airport to pic$ me up "ut , had wal$ed right "y him: , thin$ , actually might have avoided him
"ecause with his shaved head and cut*off sweatshirt he loo$ed li$e a !ac$ed*up version of
.oucault 0n the high*speed trip from the airport in his "eat*up, open*door !eep, he (uoted my
wor$ and pic$ed my "rains So it was with some alarm that , read years later that he had had
ta$en Deleuze5s philosophy of li"eration and resistance and turned into a tool of occupation and
destruction Again, there was some dispute a"out whether this was his original intent@ 7aveh
presented himself to me as a renegade within the ,D. and as a scholar see$ing to de*territorialize
,srael5s security policy@"ut those ideas were used in 'HH' during 0peration Defensive Shield in
the 1est +an$, with disastrous results
So, what to conclude from all this2 ,nformation might want to "e free, "ut $nowledge comes
with a price )hat price is not intrinsically set within the te/t: it is determined "y the goals for
which $nowledge is used ,n the tool"o/es of .oucault, Deleuze, Tirilio, et al, one might find a
couple of wrenches to throw into the cogs of the war machine +ut we also have to ac$nowledge
that others might find tools to improve, e/pand, as well as rationalize the war machine
Guillaume
Tournament 6F
,n your wor$ (for e/ample, Der Derian 'HH1) you consider the ways in which the military
industrial comple/ is sym"iotic with, or even at points indistinguisha"le from, the entertainment
industry, where"y images and rehearsals of war ta$e over from Lthe real thing5 Nour wor$
dramatises the KS Army5s love affair with high tech gadgetry )o what e/tent has technology
changed the way in which we are to thin$ a"out war2 ,s war always to some e/tent Lvirtual5, or
does this depend on a particular constellation of technological and historical conditions2
.ollowing on from this, you have referred in your wor$ to the idea of Lhygienic wars5, which are
precise, surgical and "loodless, at least for the prosecuting nation (usually the Knited States) ,
was wondering whether you could comment on the underlying ethico*political implications of
this concept, and the image of glo"al politics that it pro!ects .or e/ample, can we understand it
as a form of "io*politics where"y the wor$ of managing glo"al life is made as efficient and
painless as possi"le2 1hat $ind of politics does the concept of Lhygienic war5 diagnose2
Der Derian
1hat , call the military*industrial*media*entertainment networ$ (9,9E*7E)) produces many
virtual effects ,t can collapse distance, "etween here and there, near and far, and yes, even fact
and fiction 4eavily dependent upon e/pensive technologies, it can widen the distance "etween
those who have and those who have not And representing the most penetrating edge of
glo"alization, it can disappear the local and the particular , "elieve all of these effects were most
profoundly felt if not totally comprehended in the LG10)5 (LGlo"al 1ar on )error5, now $nown
as L0verseas ?ontingency 0perations5), especially in how it was prepared, e/ecuted,
represented, !ustified, and facilitated through the 9,9E*7E) , coined the term virtuous !ar to
convey this pro!ection of technological and ethical superiority, in which computer simulation,
media dissimulation, glo"al surveillance, and networ$ed violence com"ine to deter, discipline,
and if need "e, destroy any enemy Kp to and including the early stages of the ,ra( 1ar, virtuous
wars promoted a vision of "loodless, humanitarian, hygienic wars ,t is important to remem"er
how the road to ,ra( led through a series of armed humanitarian interventions from Grenada and
-anama, to Somalia and 4aiti, and to +osnia and 8osovo ,t is too easy to dump this all on
+ush5s doorstep, when in fact it preceded his -residency and, !udging from 0"ama5s ina"ility to
reign in the war in Afghanistan or seriously curtail defence spending, is li$ely to continue for
some time
, intended virtuous !ar to "e much more than an o/ymoron ,t is always dou"le*edged:
converting political issues into virtual imperatives that can "e technologically enforced, the
imposed solutions inevita"ly give rise to new political pro"lems 1e see these cycles renewed
with every -redator drone that ta$es out the wrong target, with every wrong door that gets
"ro$en down in pursuit of the L"ad guys5 1hen war "ecomes the first rather than the last means
to achieve security in the new glo"al disorder, what one technologically can do "egins to
dominates what one legally, ethically, and pragmatically should do Tirtuous war presents a
parado/: the more we resort to virtual means to resolve political pro"lems, the more we
undermine the very ground upon which our political virtues rest
So , developed the concept of virtuous !ars to capture the idea, really more of a conceit, that a
revolution in military technology will reha"ilitate the utility of state violence At the same time ,
was trying to understand the dar$er forces of virtualization (9,9E*7E)) that set the stage for
endless cycles of conflict in which worst*case scenarios produce the future they claim only to
Tournament 6G
anticipate, where the tail wags the dog As , discovered, GO11 was not so much the cause as the
occasion for a transformation that had its "eginnings much earlier in the art of warfare, the
politics of identity, and the information revolution 1e $now how terrorists used email, cell
phones, flight simulators, and the internet to amass the $nowledge and to coordinate the
machinery that $illed 6HHH people, spending less than a million dollars to produce "illions of
dollars worth of damage 1e $now how the KS military used glo"al surveillance, networ$ed
communication, smart weapons, ro"otic aircraft, realtime simulation, and rapid deployment of
special forces to conduct a virtuous war (ie, low*casualty, long*distance, good visuals) in
Afghanistan and then in the initial Lshoc$ and awe5 stage of the ,ra( war 1e $now too well how
a technologically*ena"led, mythologically*informed war of terror and counter*terror that
followed reduced politics to a spectator sport , thin$ we are ripe for an antipolitical politics, of
the sort that created the intellectual dispositif for the velvet, orange, green and other non*violent
revolutions that transformed Eastern and ?entral Europe, which might well do the same in ,ran
and elsewhere
Guillaume
,n reference to the .irst Gulf 1ar, +audrillard said that #1ar is stripped of its passions, its
phantasms ; war stripped "are "y its technicians ; and then reclothed "y them with all the
artifices of electronics, as though with a second s$in% (+audrillard 'HH>, B>) 4e suggested that
the Gulf 1ar was spectacular: a media event a"ove all, which too$ place virtually 4ow does this
relate to su"se(uent developments in terms of the Lwar on terror5 and so on, and to what e/tent
does this intersect with the idea of war as a Deleuzian Levent52
Der Derian
, thin$ +audrillard provides some useful insights on the Gulf 1ar "ut his hyper"ole and what
Tirilio referred to as his Lnegationism5 "ecomes an o"stacle to understanding the "roader as well
as more nuanced significance of how a local incident or even accident, say li$e terrorism or a
natural disaster, "ecomes a Lglo"al event5 , rely more on Tirilio and Deleuze to comprehend the
increasing virtualization of modern warfare and glo"al politics in general Deleuze has
ac$nowledged his de"t to Tirilio in this regard, and , can thin$ of no "etter tag*team to show us
how dependent the significance of the event is upon the interventions of the theorist, and how
there is an ethical as well as aesthetic imperative to e/tract or #deterritorialize% an event from
ideological positions set "y media and political #first*responders%@and all those others who
trade in powerful emotions li$e fear, danger, and an/iety to define the edges of Lnormalcy5 in the
glo"al order
,n many ways the glo"al financial meltdown is the final proof that the only Lreal5 empire left is
what Edmund +ur$e called the Lempire of circumstances5 0f course its effects are now much
worse and widespread than they were in the 1Fth century& than$s to the u"i(uity and
instantaneity of networ$ed media, local incidents and accidents more li$ely to have glo"al,
cascading effects which defy human management )o "e sure, the KS remains the dominant
military power, with no real or potential #peer competitors%& "ut the story waiting to "e told is
the advent of a new heteropolarity, "y which , mean the emergence of actors who are different in
power and $ind (state, corporate, group, individual) and connected nodally through networ$s
rather than hierarchically through states Sovereign states are still the most powerful actors, and
one does not have to "e, say, ?hinese or a Somali pirate, to recognize that a single state, the KS,
Tournament >H
is definitely more e(ual than the rest 4owever, from the power of the powerless that emerged
from the #velvet revolution% to the #glo"al war on terror,% new glo"alized identities and
symmetries of power are reinscri"ing the map of world politics 7ow we !ust have to "ecome
theoretically worthy of these events
Guillaume
-hilip +o""itt has suggested that it no longer really matters whether an incident arises from
terrorism, a hostile state, or a natural disaster 0ne conse(uence of this is that Lnew
vulnera"ilities have important implications not !ust for diplomacy, "ut also for precautionary
interventions and anticipatory preemptions5 (+o""itt 'HHF, 1') ,n other words, that the practice
of securitisation is itself in some senses virtual: a colonisation of the future (3asmussen 'HHB,
6F) 0ne can see this reflected in the 'HH' 7ational Security Strategy, which states that L:w<e
must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capa"ilities and o"!ectives of today5s
adversaries5 (7ational Security Strategy 'HH', 1A) )o what e/tent should this "e ta$en seriously
as a development in conceptions of war military force, and what are its implications2
Der Derian
)his (uestion contains multitudes "ut , would start "y commending +o""itt and others li$e him
in the historico*philosophical (as opposed to neorealist or neoli"eral) camp of international
politics for catching up to the analysis of sovereignty commenced "y Deleuze (along with
.oucault, Derrida, and Tirilio) in the 1GDHs )hese .rench thin$ers were prompted "y the crisis
of 5BF "ut also "y the ceding of sovereignty to a supra*national entity, the European Knion )his
loo$ed to "e the "eginning of the end of a longue durIe of sovereign state practices founded on a
monopolization and !ustification of $illing (!udicial, martial and e/ceptional) +ut "oth events
also provided an early warning of new late modern forms of authority "ased on a discipline and
control operating under the guise of greater efficiencies in the administration and protection of
life (welfare, warfare, and lawfare) Deleuze and others offered powerful criti(ues of these new
forms of societal power and anticipated the continuation of sovereignty "y other means ,t5s a
different story in academic circles in the Knited States ,t too$ the ?old 1ar to sha$e up scholars
and practitioners if not dislodge them from their "inary paradigms of realism and li"eralism
Even then, the response to the collapse of the Soviet Knion paid scant attention to the domestic
changes that "rought it a"out, li$e the fact that the nomenklatura had less and less of an
investment in the continuation of the Soviet regime )he KS reaction was remar$a"ly
narcissistic, "ound "y a triumphalism on the one side and a nostalgia for "ipolar sta"ility on the
other 7ew universal truths were pronounced, renounced, and forgotten: it was the end of history,
the coming of democratic peace, and the Lflattening5 of glo"al economies )hose schooled "y
.rench LBFers5 had a different perspective on world politics, viewing it not on some ine/ora"le
linear path "ut as series of glo"al events, disruptive singularities and rapid oscillations
Geopolitics still mattered, "ut was it increasingly challenged "y new convergences, of "iopolitics
(.oucault), chronopolitics (Tirilio), spectral politics (Derrida) and a deterritorialized nomadism
(Deleuze)
So yes, there were and continue to "e new vulnera"ilities and threats "ut GO11 and glo"al
terrorism superseded almost all of them Tarious disasters@natural and unnatural, glo"al and
local, internal and e/ternal@were clearly e/ceeding the state5s capacity to ma$e us fell safe +ut
in this was used as ammunition "y those who wished to reclaim and reassert the state5s monopoly
Tournament >1
on violence 0ne response, captured "y your (uote from +o""itt, was to securitize and militarize
comple/ transnational issues of reproductive rights, criminal activities, immigration flows, drug
traffic$ing, and environmental change )his securitization was and continues to "e done in the
sanitized language of the free mar$et, positive science or, in +o""itt5s case, of medical
pathology: , thin$ he refers to this development as the Lplague of terror5 +o""itt5s metaphor is
more credi"le than much of what passes as realism these days& "ut it doesn5t go far enough,
especially when the +ush*?heney cure proved to "e worse than the disease 7ot to "ela"or or
mi/ metaphors (too much), the auto*immune reaction of national security triggered more virulent
forms of ideological and cultural "low"ac$ )he new sovereign that emerges from the terror
plague proves to "e a coin with two faces: on the one side the figurehead of military super*
efficiency (one of the precursors of militarism)& and on the other the four horsemen of the
apocalypse (the worst*case scenarios that sanction +o""itt5s Lprecautionary interventions5) )o
his credit, +o""itt does recognize the dangers*unli$e others in the national security coterie, li$e
8issinger, who effusively "lur" his 'HHF "oo$@that counter*terror policies pose to civil
li"erties, "ut he doesn5t ta$e much account of the short and long*term political, economic, and
spiritual costs of constantly reconstituting state sovereignty over and against the dar$ side of
glo"alization
)hat said, it5s all too easy, again, to put the "lame solely on the +ush camp, when in fact they
were following a path nicely cleared "y ?linton and fellow*travelled "y academic practitioners
li$e Roe 7ye, 9ichael ,gnatieff and other humanitarian interventionists ,n their efforts to rema$e
the world as they would wish it to "e the neoconservatives might have inverted 1ilsonian
idealism& "ut they had considera"le help from neoli"erals )his harmonic convergence of do*
goodism too$ some heavy hits after a series of putative cures produced worst disasters, li$e the
invasion of ,ra( (GO11), evacuation of 7ew 0rleans (8atrina) and most recently, state
recapitalization of the mar$et after the 1all Street collapse (the Great 3ecession) Nou would
thin$ this trifecta of Lplanned disasters5 would have acted as a wa$e*up call +ut even 0"ama
continues to assert an e/ceptionalist "enevolence as well as competence on the part of the Knited
States, to right glo"al wrongs, to protect us from the comple/ities and contingencies of cascading
glo"al events And yes, the pre*emptive strategies that inform the 'HH' 7ational Security
Strategy do Lcolonize the future5& it reads li$e a glo"al L9inority 3eport5 (see -8 Dic$ via )om
?ruise) for preventive interventions against evils yet to "e "orn ,ts mythic intent is right there in
the opening lines: L0ur 7ation5s cause has always "een larger than our 7ation5s defence5 ,t
clearly intends to mo"ilize the moral clarity, nostalgic sentimentality, and uncontested dominance
reminiscent of the last of the great empires against the am"iguities, comple/ities, and messiness
of the current world disorder +ut pro"a"ly more effective is its domestic promulgation of a
glo"al fear, which helped produce@with considera"le media support@what , would call a
Lzom"ification of the present5 Ever since GO11 it is as if we are incapa"le or unwilling to awa$e
from this representation of reality , mean how else can we e/plain ?heney5s continued presence
in pu"lic discourse, in !ust in spite of the recent repudiation "y the electoral process, "ut also "y
having gotten it so wrong on 19D5s, the connection "etween ,ra( and al Uaeda, and the
efficacy of torture (not to mention multiple heart attac$s and shotgunning a friend) Given the
inade(uacy of any rational e/planation, , am convinced that ?heney, along with the adulterous
Gingrich and pill*popping =im"augh have "een re"orn "y the media too many times for there to
"e any other e/planation than that they too have !oined the undead
.acing this convergence of natural and unnatural disasters Sthe deadened world Las it really is5@
+o""itt (and even +ush in his second term) advocate a return to a $inder, gentler, livelier form of
Tournament >'
realism Given the alternative, perhaps this is not such a "ad thing, acting as a chec$ and "alance
to the most adventurist impulses on either wing of the two political parties +ut here again
Deleuze, .oucault et al offer edification that cannot "e found in +o""itt and the traditional
literature +ased on linear notions of causality, a correspondence theory of truth, and the
materiality of power, realism is simply not up to the tas$ of understanding or managing the
comple/ities of increasingly virtualized glo"al events 4ow can realism possi"ly account@let
alone prepare or provide remedies@for planned disasters, li$e the toppling of the 1orld )rade
?enter and attac$ on the -entagon "y a handful of 1ihadists armed with "o/*cutters and a few
months of flight*training2 A force*five hurricane that might well have "egun with the flapping of
a "utterfly5s wings2 A northeast electrical "lac$out that started with a falling tree lim" in 0hio2
0r a pandemic triggered "y the mutation of a swine flu virus2 Glo"al events that might "e
accidental rather than intentional2 An e/ternal attac$ from an internal auto*immune response2
)he natural as opposed to the planned disaster2 )he enemy within from the enemy without2
,n short, with the proliferation of glo"al events of comple/, non*linear origins and tightly*
coupled, (uantum effects, the parado/ical ideas of Deleuze, .oucault, and Tirilio have "egun to
ta$e on a pragmatic appeal 0"ama is might not "e reading them "ut, as , mentioned "efore,
others in his or"it are Security discourse is always one step "ehind the glo"al event, "ut their
ideas are moving from philosophical to practical circles, and from esoteric to more popular
vernaculars in film, culture and art& the (uestion remains as to what might "e the politico*ethico*
strategic impact
Guillaume
4ow do we to react to this Lcolonisation of the future5 in the conte/t of Deleuze5s insistence that
meaningful politics must entail an openness to the emergence of unsecured "ecomings, in other
words, to the un$nown (.or e/ample, Deleuze& 1GFG& '1B)2 1ill this always triumph in the face
of virtual security, or are security and future "ecomings "ecoming immanent to each other in a
way that seriously imperils the prospects for a revolutionary politics2
Der Derian
,n a world increasing "uffeted "y ris$, uncertainty and contingency, there are pro"a"ly many
ways to respond "ut , can thin$ of two, perhaps three ways we should not ta$e 1e have seen the
disastrous conse(uences of stri$ing pre*emptively, of !ustifying offensive actions under the
prete/t of eradicating evil A second response, ta$ing up the draw"ridge, returning to an
isolationist past in order to re"uild a .ortress America, is not really a via"le option Always
grounded more in myth than reality S the KS has "een an endo*and e/o*colonizing power from
the get*go@this is even less of an alternative as everything and everyone "ecomes entangled in
the spider*we" of glo"alization )he old configurations of world order "ased on state power@
whether uni*, "i*, or multi*polar@are not going to re*emerge any time soon, not matter how
much effort and wishful thin$ing goes into it 1e5re "ac$ to the heteropolar matri", with a wide
range of different actors, varying in identity, interests, and strength, producing profound glo"al
effects through interconnectivity 7etwor$ed information technology provides the means for
these new actors to traverse political, economic, religious, and cultural "oundaries, changing not
only how we interpret them and the events they produce, "ut also ma$ing it ever more difficult to
maintain the very distinction of intended from accidental events
Tournament >6
)his means that the world order, to the e/tent we can even call it such, is permanently becoming
different, and, pace .oucault, that this century, the twenty*first, might well "ecome $nown as
Deleuzian A premium will "e placed on how (uic$ly we will adapt to de*territorialized glo"al
events, networ$ed accidents, and the other in your face with every '>OD glo"al news cycle 0n
how easily we will feel at home rather than see$ refuge from the singularities of world politics
that appear as parado/es, synchronicities, feed"ac$, white noise, phase shifts, spatio*temporal
rifts, and, not least, dreams 0n how easily technologies, especially those in the service of war,
can actualize the worst as well as the "est possi"ility 0r how important, when o"servation (let
alone participation) can actualize an event, refle/ivity and responsi"ility "ecomes
)his all comes with a hard*earned caveat 1e need to recognize that such open*ended attitudes
often produce defensive actions in others and even inactivity in oneself& or as 1illiam ?onnolly
once told me, La little vertigo is a good thing "ut a lot can turn you into a zom"ie5 +ac$ to the
undeadC )he social sciences@more so than the latest theories in the physical sciences@are least
comforta"le with these free*floating ideas of spatio*temporal rifts where simulacra reverses
causality, "eing is simultaneously here and there, and identity is deterritorialised "y
interconnectivity ,t5s easy to theorize "ut how to live in this interzone, where critical ethical
interventions routinely precede the retrieval of facts (empirical or social) and technical media
constitute new virtual states of meaning and "eing2 0"viously, "oth war and peace still need
approaches that study what actually happened (realism) and what needs to "e changed (idealism)
+ut what Deleuze teaches us is how world politics is also in need of virtual approaches that
e/plore how reality is seen, framed, read, and generated in the conceptualisation and
actualisation of the glo"al event
, understand why this $ind of tal$ ma$es many traditional scholars of international politics
nervous , have witnessed firsthand the displacement of glo"al contingency as an unease or even
anger toward the messenger rather than the mess itself ,dentifying conditions of relativism and
nihilism is not the same as advocating them& "ut that does not stop critics of Deleuze et al from
disparaging them as Lcultural relativists5 or Lnihilists5 ,5ve ta$en a few lic$s li$e this, and not
matter how often you repudiate the shoddy thin$ing "ehind it, you $now there will always "e
more to come , have also witnessed how the narcissism of petty differences among social critics
can lead to radically impossi"le prescriptions )his ma$es me reluctant to offer any of my own as
universally applica"le across differing historical epochs and political circumstances
Guillaume
, suppose what , am as$ing is: what is the status of the idea of newness as applied to twenty first
century war and politics2 And, what are the tensions contained within the idea of "eing <ritical
itself, ta$ing into account everything Deleuze has to say a"out flight and "rea$through ,n
deploying Deleuze to diagnose and criti(ue contemporary machinations of power, are we
actually missing what is most potentially productive in his thin$ing2
Der Derian
, thin$ the answer lies less in Deleuze5s philosophy per se and more in what he@along with
+en!amin, 4eidegger, +arthes, Tirilio, +audrillard and others@chose to philosophize about> the
newest technologies of reproduction that were changing how we frame the world )hat means we
need to not !ust study and criti(ue "ut to create media as u"i(uitous, diffuse, and appealing as
Tournament >>
what the infosphere currently has on offer ?ontrary to what uber*pundit )homas .riedman said
recently@and perhaps prematurely@a"out the role of .ace"oo$, "logs, and )witter in the
fraudulent elections in ,ran, sometimes t!eet+t!eet can "eat bang+bang( 1e have seen how
glo"al media has "ecome essential for the glo"al circulation of power, the waging of war, and the
imagining of peace ,t is now an unparalleled force in the organisation, e/ecution, !ustification,
and representation of glo"al violence, as witnessed in the first Gulf 1ar, the 8osovo campaign,
GO11, the ,ra( 1ar, and what has followed Glo"al media continues, in spite of concentrated
efforts "y a variety of countries and technical fi/es, to evade national management and control
7etwor$ed terror, networ$*centric warfare, and networ$ attac$s will continue to have an intense
if intermittent transnational impact 1e need to respond with new strategies, concepts, and
policies +ut how2 .ighting fire with fire, media with media, and infowar with infopeace )hat
means dispensing with the conceit, stretching from Descartes through 9ar/ to ?homs$y, that
there e/ists a universal truth waiting to "e discovered once the veil of superstition, religion,
media, or false consciousness of one sort or another is lifted "y the right technology of
$nowledge ,t might once have "een true "ut in our current multicultural, multimedia,
heteropolar world& it is one more truth competing among a host of others )o counter the
u"i(uitous surveillance, information overload, and fundamentalist thin$ing that has transformed
glo"al media into weapons of mass distraction, deception, and destruction, we need to not !ust
consume "ut produce counter*media no!( ,t will not happen "y primetime "roadcast or even on
pu"lic television: whatever independence they once en!oyed has "een hi!ac$ed "y corporate
interests, partisan politics, and the need to meet the lowest common denominator of pu"lic
culture , thin$ it falls upon universities and non*governmental organizations, as the last (uasi*
independent institutions, to develop the content as well as techni(ues for counter*media
=aura Guillaume
=aura Guillaume5s research is focused on understanding war using resources from Deleuze and
Guattari She has focused particularly on the relationship "etween war and the "ody, and is
interested in the ethics of war from a wide variety of analytical perspectives =aura has a -hD in
,nternational -olitics from A"erystwyth Kniversity She is the co*author (with ,an +uchannan) of
L)he Spectacle of 1ar: Security, =egitimacy and -rofit -ost GO115 in 3osi +raidotti, ?laire
?ole"roo$ and -atric$ 4anafin (eds) .eleu8e and Ea!N0orensic 0utures (-algrave 9acmillan
'HHG) and co*editor (with Roe 4ughes) of .eleu8e and the 4ody (forthcoming 'H1H with
Edin"urgh Kniversity -ress) =aura may "e reached at lauraguillaumeQgooglemailcom
References
+audrillard, Rean The ;ulf *ar .id -ot Take Place -aul -atton (transOed) Sydney Australia: -ower -u"lications,
'HH>
+o""itt, -hilip Terror and <onsent> The *ars for the T!enty+0irst <entury =ondon: Allen =ane, 'HHF
Deleuze, Gilles <inema A> The Time :mage 4ugh )omlinson and 3o"ert Galeta (trans) =ondon: )he Athlone
-ress, 1GFG
Der Derian, Rames =irtuous *ar> Fapping the Filitary+:ndustrial+Fedia+Entertainment -et!ork, '
nd
edition
=ondon and 0/ford: 3outledge, 'HHG
.oucault, 9ichel Eanguage, <ounter+Femory, Practice Donald . +ouchard (ed) 0/ford: +lac$well 1GDD
3asmussen, 9i$$el Ted"y The Risk ,ociety at *ar> Terror, Technology and ,trategy in the T!enty+0irst <entury
?am"ridge: ?am"ridge Kniversity -ress, 'HHD
1eizman, Eyal $ollo! Eand> :srael2s Architecture of ccupation =ondonO7ew Nor$: Terso, 'HHD
)he 7ational Security Strategy of the Knited States of America 'HH' availa"le at
http:OOmerlnndueduOwhitepapersOKSnss'HH'pdf
Tournament >A
What did 1inema do in the War2 Deleu$e3
1

0ulian -eid
Gilles Deleuze5s two*volume study of cinema is underwritten "y a ma!or historical claim@that
of a fundamental "rea$ "etween two distinct eras of cinema@the classical and the modern
?lassical cinema, dating roughly until around the early 1G>Hs, favored a form of what he
descri"es as Ltrue narration5 developing Lorganically, according to legal connections in space and
chronological relations in time5
'
Such a cinema portrayed and cele"rated a world in which
actions generate situations which in turn generate new actions that lin$ up in a progressive and
emancipative series A world in which consciousness is gradually raised as things ma$e "etter
sense and !ustice is gradually done& in which the contingencies of life are su"!ect to order so that
a higher truth may "e secured, and in which peoples, "oth individually and collectively, "ecome
increasingly coherent ?haracters and societies encounter misfortunes "ut only in the form of
challenges which are overcome in their !ourney to a more complete state ,n this sense classical
cinema was said "y Deleuze to have rested on the myth of a Ltrue narration5 on which the ma!or
political pro!ects of its period also depended& the myth that the many different temporalities of
lives can "e synthesized in a time of Lthe people5 that erases their differences and conflicts either
in the form, as with the Soviet pro!ect, of the Luniversal proletariat,5 or as with the American
pro!ect, of the Luniversal migrant5 Soviet directors such as Eisenstein and Dovzhen$o, for
e/ample, attempted to portray the progressive and linear temporality of Lthe people5 struggling to
overcome historical trials and tri"ulations in the process of their "ecoming full su"!ects
6
)he
very purpose of film, for Eisenstein especially, was to inspire the action of the masses*as*people
"y increasing their sense of themselves as a collective su"!ect possessive of a Lrevolutionary
consciousness5
>
,n early 4ollywood film, li$ewise, directors such as D1 Griffith mythologized
the historical processes and events through which the diversity and conflicts of Lthe people5 were
overcome in restoration of their essential unity
A
During the mid*twentieth century, Deleuze argues, a cinematographic mutation too$ place
serving to undermine this "elief in the unanimity of Lthe people5 and its narrative time A new
form of Lfalse5 rather than Ltrue5 narration "ecame more influential and a properly Lmodern
cinema5 emerged ,n place of chronological time cinema "ecame characterized "y a Lchronic non*
chronological time5
B
1hereas true narration functioned to instill coherence to the world and the
characters that populate it, false narration functioned "y tearing it apart )he actions of the
characters depicted "ecome a"errant, dysfunctional, generating an aimless wandering and series
of chance, loose connections )he world depicted "ecame one where contingency reigns, where
the discernment of differences "etween what is true and false "ecomes difficult, and characters
are thrown haplessly from situation to situation, without possi"ility of redemption 3ather than
"eing a sorry story of disenchantment, however, Deleuze argued that the predominance of Lfalse
narration5 in postwar cinema testified to an improvement in its story*telling function .or what
cinema did was not to mourn the loss of, or attempt to restore, the possi"ility of true narration "ut
to re!ect it in a positive fashion in favor of the Lpower of the false5
D
)he truth is, Deleuze argues,
that in its actuality the world does not add up, and as su"!ects in the world we are necessarily
destined always to fail to achieve coherence, only ever constituting false unities forever prey to
the decomposing affects generated "y the world )o "elieve and practice otherwise is to resist the
Tournament >B
true falsity of the world ,n modern cinema, "y way of contrast, we are shown the truth that
indeed we never cohere, neither individually or collectively, that the political concept of Lthe
people5 is always "ound to fail, that Lthe people5 will always go A10= regardless of the attempts
of regimes to unify them
F
)he mediating factors which Deleuze argued e/plained the transition "etween these two eras
were plural "ut the one which he invo$ed repeatedly and insisted on a"ove all others was that of
the Second 1orld 1ar )he "rea$ "etween classical and modern cinema is entirely e(uivalent,
within his study, of a "rea$ "etween a Lprewar5 and a Lpostwar5 cinema At some points he
suggests that postwar cinema merely descri"es and o"serves mutations in the organization of
societies which followed after Lthe war,5 and which we could therefore presume to have only a
contingent relation with war
G
+ut at other points the stronger thesis is advanced that the
transition from a classical to a modern cinema was dependent on the war
1H
and even a Lresult of
the war5
11
,n other parts the concept of Lthe war5 is unpac$ed to accommodate the Lrise of 4itler5
and of LStalinism,5
1'
as well as more hazy phenomena such as the Lunsteadiness of the American
Dream5 and Lthe new consciousness of minorities5
16
3eading the "rief preface to the English
edition of the very first volume it is clear that Deleuze understood his entire study of cinema as
confronting the (uestion of how to e/plain the relationship "etween Lthe war5 and the transition
"etween the two eras of cinema
1>
1hat was is it, then, in cru/, that Deleuze thought connected Lthe war5 with the modernization of
cinema2 As he argued, prior to Lthe war,5 .ascist, Soviet and American cinema, as well as much
of the classical theory of early cinema had all assumed the possi"ility of raising the
consciousness of Lthe people5 through the cinematic medium& of revealing to the masses the
shared truths presumed to "e their essence, and which given faith and perseverance would serve
to convert them from disparate mass into a unified people, thus constituting them as collective
su"!ects
1A
.or these reasons cinema5s role was to serve in the process of typifying the people, of
guiding it in its historical process of sorting out its collective identity ?inema5s postwar shift
from Ltrue5 to Lfalse narration5 reflected, Deleuze argues, a fundamental collapse in faith in the
powers of typification on which the ma!or political ideologies had historically drawn and which
came to grief, (uite literally and on a massive scale, in the $illing factories and fields associated
with the Second 1orld 1ar )he 4olocaust, especially, he argues, had e/posed the violence
which a typified people, mystified to the point of assurance in its own coherence, could do to
whoever does not meet the criteria of its essential type ,t was as if amid the destructions of Lthe
war,5 and following the acute e/posure of the necessary lin$s "etween the myth of das =olk and
the e/terminatory violence of the 4olocaust, cinema could no longer "elieve in the myth of a
true narration through which the temporality of a people or its individual characters could "e
synchronized )hus was it, he argued, that auteurs wor$ing after Lthe war5 too$ a much more
!aded view of Lthe people5 and deployed cinema in antagonism with the state*apparatus and its
collective myths ?onse(uently it was only after Lthe war5 that a truly modern political cinema
emerged distinguished "y its perception of the reality that Lthe people5 as such can never e/ist@
there is no Lthe people,5 only Lalways several peoples, an infinity of peoples5 that cannot and
ought not to "e made one
1B
As Rac(ues 3anciWre has argued, this aspect of Deleuze5s theory of cinema is trou"ling 4ow are
we to understand the relationship "etween this rupture internal to the development of cinema and
the ruptures that affect history in general2
1D
Did Deleuze su"scri"e to a naMve modernism
where"y the destiny of the cinema, defined in terms of its capacity to appro/imate to the world,
Tournament >D
is conveniently fulfilled via the intervention of a grand historical event e/ternal to the world of
cinema itself@in this case Lthe war52
1F
Attempting to resolve the pro"lem of the teleological
aspects of Deleuze5s theory means, for 3anciWre, ta$ing seriously the claim that his study is not a
history at all "ut an e/ercise in ta/onomy wherein the aim is decidedly not to tell the story of
cinema, "ut to classify on an ontological "asis the different Limages,5 the Lmovement*image5 and
the Ltime*image,5 of which cinema was composed from the "eginning, and which it remains
inelucta"ly made up of 3ather than comprehending the relationship "etween classical and
modern cinema in a historical form of struggle we have to grasp the underlying differences
"etween them as purely ontological, and thus Lindifferent to the tri"ulations of the times and the
horrors of war5
1G
,n actuality there is no shift, 3anciWre maintains, from a classical to a modern
age of cinema in Deleuze5s study of cinema& the rupture he posits "etween a classical and a
modern cinema is dismissed as entirely Lfictive5
'H
1hat occurs, he argues, is an attempt of
particular filmma$ers to impose a particular regime of cinema "ased around fidelity to the time*
image "ut which is necessarily thwarted "y the reemergence of a movement*image every "it as
ontological to cinema as the time*image of which modern cinema is "eholden )hus Deleuze5s
theory, rather than serving to determine the moment of rupture "etween a classical and a modern
cinema and its two respective images, is "etter read as a theory of the insepara"ility of the
images which compose "oth simultaneously, and thus a re!ection of any $ind of modernism
through which the history of cinema might "e read as progressive or emancipative
3anciWre5s analysis is certainly a "old one, dealing with the (uestion of teleology in Deleuze5s
theory of cinema in a far more challenging fashion than other secondary literatures on the
su"!ect +ut does it succeed2 ,n my view it is not sufficient to pro"lematize Deleuze5s
understanding of the relationship "etween ontology and history to understand his theory of
relations "etween classical and modern cinema .or his theory of that latter relation depends not
!ust on an understanding of relations "etween cinema and history in general, "ut a very specific
understanding of the constitutive function of a particular $ind of historical event, Lthe war5 )hus,
, want to consider more carefully not !ust his understanding of history in general "ut his specific
claims concerning Lthe war5 itself )he vast ma!ority of studies of Deleuze5s theory of cinema, it
has to "e said, have simply "ought and reinscri"ed the argument he made as to the significance
not !ust of history per se "ut of Lthe war5 in determining the rupture "etween classical and
modern eras of cinema
'1
0ccasionally authors have sought to e/tend it
''
And others have rightly
(uestioned the Eurocentrism which emanates from the reification of an event conventionally
used to narrate a specifically European version of world history
'6
+ut none, not even 3anciWre,
have directly (uestioned the tena"ility of reifying war itself as an e/planation for historical
change within cinema, or (uestioned his understanding of Lthe war5 in its specificities, nor what ,
argue to "e its considera"le simplicity when compared with his own dou"ly ontological and
historical theory of war developed in other wor$
As a social scientist reading Deleuze one wants to as$ him for more evidence 1hy is war
assumed here to "e capa"le of the generative power he is attri"uting to it and according to what
mechanisms and with what (ualifications2 1ar does not simply impact on aesthetic and cultural
forms& it is itself a comple/ cultural phenomenon deeply sutured into modern western practices,
indeed into not only the political "ut the aesthetic imaginary of the modern 1est 1ar is the
e/tension of aesthetics "y other means 1e $now this, partly, "ecause Deleuze himself teaches us
it via the ela"oration of his own highly original theory of war developed in his coauthored wor$
with .eli/ Guattari
'>
)here, in the plateau titled L0n 7omadology,5 he demonstrated the
comple/ities of war5s interrelations and co*development with the economic, scientific, social,
Tournament >F
political, technological and aesthetic practices of western and non*western civilizations ?entral
to that e/position was the concept of Lthe war machine5 , have analyzed this concept in much
greater depth in other wor$,
'A
as have others
'B
,n essence Deleuze insisted upon an essential
distinction "etween what he argued to "e the forms that war assumes, on the one hand, under the
duress of a state apparatus and in conditions of historical state development, and on the other,
what he descri"ed as the Lwar machine5 invented "y nomadic peoples concerned with warding
off the formation of a state apparatus and its historical time 9ost importantly he argued that the
entire development of western civilization testifies to a dynamic interrelation "etween the
historical development of a state apparatus concerned, on the one hand, with the organization of
war for "attle via the e/termination of enemy forces, and on the other, a nomadic war machine
whose primary o"!ect is not "attle itself "ut the drawing of creative Llines of flight5 ,ndeed
aesthetic creation, if we are to "elieve Deleuze, is more fundamental to the Lwar machine5 than
Lwar5 itself
1ar machines may very well have to engage in "attle in order to maintain their capacities for
creative lines of flight "ut their creativity is what distinguishes them )hey would much rather "e
Lma$ing music5
'D
than engaging in "attle "ut if the resources they need for creation are
threatened they will fight As importantly the state itself needs to appropriate the war machine in
one way or other in order to organize its own forms of war )hus does the demand for the
organization of war "y the state institute the conditions for its own creative destruction@given
the fundamental antinomy of the war machine to the state )his means that in actuality wars
conducted "y states and the creative lines of flight pursued "y war machines are always
intimately "ound up with each other 1hile one can ta/onomize their differences the harder tas$
is to understand their interrelation )hus, Deleuze and Guattari were preoccupied with analyzing
the conditions upon which a war machine "ecomes appropriated "y the state, how that
appropriation ena"les the organization of states for war, how war machines function in
deterritorialisation of a state apparatus and in the process Lwage war against war,5 and so on
Knderlying their analysis is the insistence that Lthe war machine has very many meanings, and
this is precisely "ecause the war machine has an e/tremely varia"le relation to war itself5
'F
,n
doing so, Deleuze utterly disorientates conventional understandings of the spatiotemporal
locations and vectors of war to the e/tent that war is reconceived as much a concern of artistic
movements engaged in struggles against the state instead of "eing reduced to the e/tension of
state interests "y military means as argued for "y neo*?lausewitzians
'G
)he conventional idea of
war as an instrumental interaction "etween states limited in space and time is thoroughly
outmoded "y an account of war5s comple/ interlocution as social practice with each and every
other dimension of social life
)here is insufficient sense, to say the least then, thin$ing from the premises of Deleuze5s
nomadological account of war, in spea$ing as conventional historians are inclined to, of Lthis5 or
Lthat5 war )he ma!or premise of a Deleuzian approach to war is that it is sedimented throughout
social relations regardless of when wars are declared "y states and their historians to "egin or
end )here is no simple history of war to "e written for wars do not merely occur as such )here
are no sta"le "oundaries "etween war, politics and society to "e determined, "ut an emergent
process of the capture and deterritorialization of the war machine "y a state apparatus "ent on
destruction and yet out of which social and political mutations of a creative type can and do
occur 4istory may well depend on war "ut the power and importance of war to history e/tends
from its antinomy to historical time, and ultimately its varia"ility to itself
Tournament >G
?ontrast that view of war with the account offered "y Deleuze in his studies of cinema )here
would seem to "e nothing either ontological or processual to this account of Lthe war5 for here
war is conceptualized merely as a chronological event, empty of significance "ar for the massive
death and suffering it caused, occurring within discrete temporal parameters& the divide "etween
a distinct "efore and after in the history of an art form the creative potential of which would seem
to owe nothing as such to the matter of war itself Deleuze was a prolific and selfproclaimed
creator of concepts and the cinema "oo$s were themselves the sites for the invention of
numerous new concepts ,s it, then, unfair to chasten him for not theorizing the relationship
"etween war and cinema more rigorously2 , don5t thin$ so )here was clearly overlap in the
writing of these wor$s, given the pro/imity of their pu"lication, and the significant references to
films and film*ma$ers in A Thousand Plateaus 0ne only wishes that the cross*fertilization could
have wor$ed more forcefully in the other direction too ,ndeed it is compelling to thin$ how
potentially useful Deleuze and Guattari5s concept of Lthe war machine5 might have "een in
avoiding the seemingly teleological aspects of his account of the historical development of
cinema criti(ued, while still "eing a"le to posit something appro/imate to a political
historicization of this art form, or what might more accurately "e descri"ed in Deleuzian fashion
as a nomadologization of cinema
.or those who $now their Deleuze and Guattari the teleological aspects of his theory of cinema
are necessarily "affling )hroughout A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari develop the
concept of a nomadology in direct opposition to the concept of a history
6H
4istory, as far as
Deleuze and Guattari are concerned, is as 9ar$ +onta and Ron -rotevi pithily descri"e, Lthe time*
$eeping and self*fulfilling prophecy of States5
61
)hey are opposed to the progressivist narratives
according to which the destiny of any given regime of practices, including we must presume that
of cinema, is foretold
6'
4istory itself, they maintain, has never comprehended nomadism and
thus there is no history of the nomads or the war machine which they invented to "e narrated
66

)hey insist on the a"solute anteriority of the war machine to history in the conte/t of an e(ually
important insistence on the cross*cutting im"rication of the war machine within the history of
states 1ar machines are inconceiva"le other than in their antagonistic relations with the
historical time of states 1hat would it mean, then, instead of historicizing cinema, to provide a
nomadology of it and consider its function in con!unction with the struggles "etween war
machines and states2
Such would have to involve more than !ust focusing on an ethnographic cinema whose o"!ects of
representation are actual nomads and then calling that genre of cinema a LDeleuzian war
machine5 in the manner argued for simplistically "y Dudley Andrew
6>
?ontrary to Andrew5s
understanding, we cannot "elieve, and indeed Deleuze certainly did not "elieve, that actual
nomads Lhold the secret5 to the war machine
6A
3ather it would have to mean analyzing the ways
in which a given state apparatus captures and overcodes cinema and how, correlatedly, cinema
enacts its own methods of deterritorialization, giving "irth to creative lines of flight that distur"
that code ,t would have to mean thin$ing how, if at all, cinema produces and participates in the
deviations from history through which war machines effect creative lines of flight )he tas$ here
would not "e to dictate the historical periods of succession where"y a cinema of the state type
was displaced "y that of a nomadic type as might otherwise seem suggested "y Deleuze5s
differentiation "etween classical and modern cinema ,t would "e to locate the spaces in which,
and follow the lines of flight on which, a cinema of the state is su"!ect to the deterritorializing
maneuver of a cinema of the nomadic type +ut it would also mean e/amining how, when
cinema succeeds in discovering a line of flight, it attracts a state apparatus which invaria"ly
Tournament AH
succeeds in capturing and recoding it Doing so we could escape the assumption that Deleuze5s
own analysis tends to furnish& that prewar cinema simply served the collective myths of a state
apparatus while a postwar cinema sought to de"un$ it& the historicist myth of a cinema which has
sought and succeeded in improving itself to the point where postwar cinema "ecomes the
culminating point in its evolution +ut, e(ually important, we could avoid 3anciWre5s "lunt
dismissal of the historical dimensions of Deleuze5s analysis of cinema
)he agenda , am proposing here is certainly similar to that developed recently "y authors
concerned with providing a Lschizoanalysis5 of cinema
6B
As David 9artin*Rones argues, it is the
Lstruggle,5 Linterconnectedness5 or Linterplay5 "etween these two types of cinema that one is led
to foreground in thin$ing a"out cinema schizoanalytically
6D
)his latter concept derives, of
course, also from Deleuze5s wor$s with Guattari, and most directly from the first volume of
?apitalism and Schizophrenia, Anti+edipus
6F
,t is unclear if schizoanalysis and nomadology are
the same or different disciplines for Deleuze and Guattari
6G
+ut the former is certainly more
predicated on the pro"lematic of relations "etween desire and politics as opposed to the
pro"lematic of relations "etween war and politics, and thus is less suited to my aims here ,t is
clear, though, that once preceding either from nomadological or schizoanalytical grounds one has
to presume that the clumsy category of classical cinema itself contains all manner of
deterritorializing movements and that modern cinema has already "een su"!ect to the
reterritorializations of the state
?ould we settle, then, for an alternative distinction "etween a nomad and a state cinema in place
of a classical and a modern cinema2 Deleuze himself found it relatively Leasy5 to characterize a
form of what he and Guattari called Lnomad thought5 that re!ects Lthe classical image of thought5
"eholden "y the state and Ldoes things differently5
>H
So perhaps there is a case to "e made for the
e/istence of a nomad cinema@one which does not "elong to an ethnographically defina"le
group of nomads, nor which is locata"le within any given chronological era or particular state or
territory "ut which functions to empower a virtual constituency for whom the state apparatus is
anathema and for whom war ta$es an altogether different form to that practiced "y states2 0ne of
the ma!or and most risi"le claims that Deleuze and Guattari made for Lnomad thought5 was that it
allies itself not with nomads as such "ut with La singular race5
>1
L1e immediately see the
dangers, the profound am"iguities accompanying in this enterprise, as if each effort and each
creation faced a possi"le infamy .or what can "e done to prevent the theme of a race from
turning into a racism, a dominant and all*encompassing fascism25 they as$ed in (ualification
>'

)he pro"lem was resolva"le, they argued ultimately though, "ecause this singular race to which
they allied their account of nomad thought is said to Le/ist only at the level of an oppressed race,
and in the name of the oppression it suffers: there is no race "ut inferior5
>6
.or Deleuze and
Guattari5s purposes the virtue of this singular and oppressed race was that it endeavored Lto place
thought in an immediate relation with the outside, with the forces of the outside, in short to ma$e
thought a war machine5
>>
,s there, then, an e(uivalent race which a nomad cinema could "e
construed in alliance with2 And how, if so, would such a race escape the pro"lem of its "ecoming
infamous as Deleuze feared2
,ntriguingly the cinema "oo$s do, in themselves, help answer the first of these (uestions .or
they cele"rate the Lnew race of characters5
>A
to which modern cinema is supposedly "eholden
)hese are characters, Deleuze argues, who e/ist not so much in a condition of oppression, "ut are
a"le to see or perceive the otherwise o"scured layers of oppression on which regimes of power
relations rely for their reproduction 9odern cinema, Deleuze claims, is fundamentally La cinema
Tournament A1
of the seer and no longer the agent5
>B
,t is concerned with characters who in losing the power of
action have gained a more worldly power of (in)sight ?haracters for whom the disciplinary
organization of the senses necessary for effective action has not simply "ro$en down "ut "een
displaced "y an intense power to see the hitherto unseen 9odern cinema shows us seers and in
doing so, Deleuze argues, underlines the political potential entailed in our own L"ecoming
visionary or seer5
>D
,t encourages in us the power to see the world in ways denied to us while we
remain in the sensori*motorized relation with the world cele"rated in so*called classical cinema
)he films of Alfred 4itchcoc$, for e/ample, are richly populated "y characters that have
developed a profound power to see Lsomething intolera"le and un"eara"le,5
>F
usually precipitated
"y a physical accident or trauma Activity and narrative continues in these films "ut in ways
irredeema"ly inflected "y the vision of the characters depicted Deleuze cites =+ Refferies, the
hero of Rear *indo! who "y virtue of a car accident is reduced to the Lpure optical situation5 of
gazing from his apartment window into the homes of his neigh"ors on account of which he
perceives the evidence of a murder committed "y a traveling salesman
>G
0r another good
e/ample, al"eit one which Deleuze passes over, is that of Kncle ?harlie in 4itchcoc$5s earlier
,hado! of a .oubt whose childhood accident con!ures in him the power to see the invisi"le layer
of social and economic corruption underpinning American society, and on account of which he is
provo$ed to commit a series of murders targeting the o"scenely rich A later case is 9artin
Scorsese5s 1GDHs classic Ta"i .river, in which )ravis +ic$le returns from the trauma of the war
in Tietnam a"le to see the intolera"le character of social relations that permeate everyday life in
the city of 7ew Nor$ Each of these films, and if we follow Deleuze, the Lsoul5 of modern cinema
considered as a whole, depicts the moment at which the actiona"ility of a character is dispensed
with in favor of their new capacity to see the intolera"le
AH
Endowing this Lnew race5 with the capacity to Lsee the intolera"le5 is tantamount, , argue
however, to typologizing it )his is not a race which can "e said to e/ist merely at the level of
oppression, "ut one to which he attri"utes a specific and em"odied capa"ility, that of sight, which
can then as easily "e deployed to distinguish its mem"ers from those of other less capa"le races
,t ris$s "ecoming a highly elitist distinction recollective of another of 4itchcoc$5s films, that of
Rope( )he main characters in Rope are two wealthy socialites, whom privately decide that they
"elong to a minor and yet superior race capa"le of seeing what others cannot see, and then
proceed to murder an associate on account of his ina"ility to see what they can see )he film
itself has "een interpreted as a classic criti(ue of the ideological conditions for the emergence of
fascism ,ndeed if we thin$ a"out many of the other seers constitutive of this Lnew race,5 they
often tend to "etray deeply racist, /enopho"ic, and misogynistic tendencies )hin$ for e/ample
of Kncle ?harlie5s diatri"e against women in ,hado! of a .oubt )he depiction of )ravis +ic$le
in Ta"i .river was notoriously toned down in post*production at the "ehest of director 9artin
Scorsese and script writer -aul Schrader on account of their fear that his /enopho"ic monologues
(and acts) would generate race riots when shown on American screens
A1
Disappointingly, Deleuze5s study of this heroic Lnew race of characters5 refuses all opportunities
to account for their infamy of which cinema itself attests they are capa"le )he Lseers5 of modern
cinema such as +ic$le were, for Deleuze, political characters of a profoundly progressive type on
account of the ways they contrasted with the characters cele"rated in classical cinema ?lassical
cinema5s attachment to the ideal of the people as a collective su"!ect was underwritten "y a faith
in the power of human agency& of "elief in the human capacity to act in the world in order to
improve its condition +ut it was precisely the underwriting of that naMve model of action that
rendered cinema culpa"le, Deleuze argued, for the development of Lthe war5 )he political
Tournament A'
sensi"ilities of postwar societies are, Deleuze argued, (uite different, and the predominance of
the character of the seer in postwar cinema testifies to the emergence of a new and progressive
politics, one given a powerful inflection "y the events of 9ay 1GBF As Deleuze and Guattari
argued in a "rief essay, that Lpure event5 arose from La visionary phenomenon, as if a society
suddenly perceived what was intolera"le in itself and also saw the possi"ility of change5
A'

Kltimately they recognized that the event of 5BF was a failure, e/plica"le they argued on account
of Lthe ina"ility of .rench society to assimilate it and form Lcollective agencies of enunciation
that matched the new su"!ectivity5 of the seer which the event appeared to call for
A6

?onse(uently, they argued, post*1GBF societies are awash with seers frustrated "y the failures of
society to heed their call 0ne could entertain the "elief that this is e/actly what distinguishes the
seers of pre and post*1GBF eras& the relative optimism of an =+ Refferies contrasted with the
poverty of e/istence confronted "y a )ravis +ic$le ,ndeed Deleuze and Guattari were adamant
that the failure of 1GBF was directly testified to in cinema of the post*1GBF era )he film of
.rancis .ord ?oppola was especially significant they argued, particularly the character of 3usty
Rames in Rumble 0ish& a character who sees "ut remains Lstrangely indifferent5 to what he sees,
Ldetermined to mind his own "usiness as much as he can5 and whom for this very reason is in
Lthe right frame of mind5
A>
0f course anyone possessing a vague familiarity with traditions of classical or modern tragedy
$nows that the $inds of characters that Deleuze heralded as Lnew5 and e/pressive of a "rea$ in
"oth cinematic and political imaginaries were anything "ut )he Gree$ tragedians and poets
cele"rated the power of the seer while, in a similar fashion to modern cinema, deploying him or
her to warn against the dangers of sensori*motorized action )hin$ of the role of the seer )iresias
who in order to guide 4omer5s 0dysseus home has to intervene and rearrange his senses so that
he does not fall victim to the same fate as his unseeing crew
AA
0r thin$ of the same character
who, when deployed "y Sophocles, resists his conscription to the city of )he"es on account of
the unseen corruption of its $ing 0edipus
AB
7or is the dramaturgy of the disruption of the
sensori*motor system distinct to cinema ,t is the condition of Sha$espeare5s 4amlet who faced
with the rotten state of Denmar$ discovers that Ltime is out of !oint5 )hus it5s difficult to accept
either the naMvetI of his thesis concerning the Lnewness5 of this race of characters in cinema, nor
the emancipative investments he ma$es in them, at face value ,ndeed it would "e a"surd to
accept the $ind of claims that Deleuze ma$es for the significance of the character of the seer in
modern cinema& its heralding of a new $ind of politics )he pro"lem here lies not !ust with one or
another character, "ut with a much "roader descent of the motif of the seer into the realm of not
!ust cinematic "ut cultural clichI Rames 9c.arlane, for one, has descri"ed the mode of seeing
distinctive of Lmodern culture5 in its entirety as L)iresian5
AD
)hus its deployment in film and
other art forms might well "e said to redeploy the very $ind of clichId motif which a wor$ of
aesthetic production would have to engage in avoiding in order to maintain any claim to
creativity
,f we are to ma$e any sense of the politics of the emergence of the character of the seer in
modern cinema , argue that we have to divest it of the emancipatory significance that Deleuze
invests it with and e/amine it nomadologically 3ather than signifying the culminating point in
the political evolution of cinema, the emergence of this new character suggested the occurrence
of a $ind of )iresian moment in its organization where"y it disoriented itself in order to
deterritorialize itself under highly specific historical and political conditions pertinent mainly to
Europe and the Knited States during the 1G>AS1GBF era +ut such a deterritorialization has to "e
studied in the conditions of its failure and reterritorialization "y the state post*1GBF 3ather than
Tournament A6
investing in the modernity of cinema as many readings of Deleuze5s theory of cinema are still
inclined to, we could "etter start "y presupposing the e/istence not simply of a modern "ut a
postmodern cinema in which the reterritorialization of the seer "y the state is the very pro"lem at
sta$e )his would "e to "roach the pro"lem of the seer and its relation to cinema in a way
compara"le to Deleuze5s approach to the pro"lem of the war machine in relation to the state in
n -omadology wherein one starts from the premise of the aterritorialization of the war machine
and with the (uestion of on what conditions a deterritorialization might "e said to come a"out
,n conclusion, , can s$etch only very "riefly where such an approach might ta$e us 1e would
have to start, at least, "y recognizing that the human capacity for perception at the cost of action
which Deleuze mythologized in cele"ration of the character of the seer is increasingly
fundamental to the account of political su"!ectivity on which contemporary regimes of power
mythologize their legitimacy and security
AF
-aul Tirilio5s account of the function of cinema in
producing a Llogistics of perception5 that is mo"ilized "y war is, surprisingly enough, only noted
in passing "y Deleuze, and confined mainly to a descriptive footnote
AG
0f course, the political
import of seeing and perceiving deviantly is only made more acute in an age of Lthe automated
interpretation of reality5
BH
+ut the pro"lem is that it is not !ust sight and perception per se that are
su"!ect to the state5s territorializing function, "ut the desire to territorialize the seer himself and
herself which is increasingly intrinsic to the strategic imaginaries fuelling, for e/ample, the 1ar
on )error 0ne can see this e/emplified cinematically in =ee )amahori5s recent film, -e"t, where
the main character ?ris, a drifter of the +ic$le type, and li$e +ic$le, a tortured soul with a gift for
prophesy, "ecomes unwillingly captured and recruited into the counter*terrorist strategy of the
Knited States ?ompara"le also with +ic$le is the e/tent to which ?ris5s story is narrated around
his o"session with an apparently uno"taina"le woman And similar to Ta"i .river, the early parts
of the film focus on the loitering practices through which he stal$s his love interest 4owever,
whereas in Ta"i .river the seeing capacities of +ic$le function as an o"stacle to the
consummation of a relation and the e/acer"ation of his deterritorialization from the state, in -e"t
the relation is fulfilled "ut then distur"ed "y the .+,, whom in discovery of his power to see into
the future, forci"ly recruit him to help prevent a ma!or terrorist attac$
3ather than mythologizing the seer5s deterritorialization from the state apparatus and the
potential of a politics to emerge from it, a postmodern cinema, such as is evidenced in -e"t,
centers on the pro"lem of his territorialization& indeed the capture "y the state of his seeing
function )his transition from a modern to a postmodern cinema also entails a shift in the very
mode of seeing claimed "y the seer ,n modern cinema the characteristic mode of seeing was
)iresian )hat is to say it invo$ed characters that saw with a deviating insight ,n postmodern
cinema "y way of contrast the dominant mode of seeing is more 3oman than Gree$, closer in
style to that practiced "y the heroes of Tirgil rather than 4omer& Aeneas rather than 0dysseus
)hese are seers distinguished not "y the capacity to read the signs of the present differently and
thus alter a sensori*motorized action, "ut characters who are forced to foretell the future "y way
of their capacity to see into the future, and thus engender a "etter coordinated movement of
society in antagonism with its deterritorializing forces
1hat all of this ought to tell us is that there is no "asis anymore on which to invest in a cinema
of the senses in the manner that defines the horizons of Deleuze5s account of cinematic
modernity 7or simply on La suspension of the usual relations among the senses5 that
characterized his account of time*image cinema, nor the appeals to cultures, outside of the 1est,
in which we can indeed find alternative cinemas that ma$e appeals to the Lpro/imal senses5 as
Tournament A>
contrasted with the power of vision reified "y Deleuze in all of his Eurocentricity
B1
)hat cinema,
of the senses, is now dead 0f all the figures to testify to this death the most powerful has "een
Rean*=uc Godard
B'
+ut for Godard, in contrast with so many others, the Ldus$5 of cinema is,
while a coming to pass and moment of irretrieva"le loss, also a time of hope ,sn5t it, he as$s, at
dus$ Lwhen the most "eautiful wal$s are ta$en2 ,n the evening, when the night falls and there is
hope for tomorrow2 =overs rarely ever wal$ around hand in hand at seven o5cloc$ in the
morning ; for me, dus$ is a time of hope rather than of despair5
B6
Godard5s late wor$s,
particularly Eloge de E2Amour and -otre Fusi7ue are populated "y characters for whom the
possi"ility of sense has "een entirely "ro$en, who are seen and sensed, "ut who see and sense
nothing, and thus his film functions to fend off the clichI of the seer and its virtuoso capacity to
either Lsee the invisi"le5 a la Deleuze or to Lsee the future5 as cele"rated in the postmodern
cinema of 4ollywood
.or Godard the renewal of cinema depends not on its capacities to sense or see anew "ut to think
anew 4is wor$s are concerned centrally with the (uestion of how cinema might thin$ after the
colonization of the senses on which the modernity of cinema has come to pass@its LAmerican
occupation5 as he calls it
B>
.or Godard that renewal depends, fundamentally, on the possi"ility of
cinema "eing a"le to conceive, and em"ellish in thought, the memory especially, of the power of
love which has historically made the disinterment of the war machine from the state possi"le
)his is not the cinema of the Llove to come5 cherished "y Deleuzians such as -atricia
9ac?ormac$ which comes into "eing on account of the ever increasing e/pansion of the
sensorium to ena"le the sense of hitherto e/cluded elements, and on account of which, Lother
elements sense us5
BA
7or is it the cinema of love evo$ed "y AndrI +azin5s earlier humanist
accounts of ,talian neorealism, influential as they were for Deleuze5s own theorization of
cinematic modernity and its relation to Lthe war5
BB
Godard5s is a cinema which testifies only to
the possi"ility of love Lprior to it5s actualization,5
BD
incommensura"le with the world of the
sensorium, yet out of which the long history of counter*state struggles has "een possi"le@not
least in Eloge de E2Amour, the wars of the 3esistance to fascism in 'Hth century Europe ,t is a
cinema "ased on the elegant "ut profound assertion that in a world in which sense e/perience has
"ecome so de"ased, that love remains, nevertheless, possi"le, and that no deterritorialization of
the war machine from a glo"al state apparatus is conceiva"le without it )here within Godard5s
late wor$s may lie a more rewarding way for thin$ing the im"rication of cinema with war and
the war machine in contemporary conditions
Rulian 3eid
Rulian 3eid is -rofessor of ,nternational 3elations at the Kniversity of =apland, .inland 4e
taught previously at 8ing5s ?ollege =ondon, Susse/ Kniversity, and the School of 0riental and
African Studies (S0AS) 4e is the author of The Eiberal *ay of *ar, with 9ichael Dillon,
(3outledge, 'HHG) and The 4iopolitics of the *ar on Terror (9anchester Kniversity -ress, 'HHB)
4e is currently co*editing a volume with +rad Evans called 0ascism in .eleu8e M ;uattari>
,ecuritisation, *ar M Aesthetics (3outledge, forthcoming) Rulian may "e reached at
!ulianreidQulaplandfi
Notes
1 9y than$s to Roel Duncan, =aura Run$a, San$aran 8rishna, and Remima 3epo for such
helpful comments and conversations on this essay while it was in progress
Tournament AA
' Gilles Deleuze, ?inema ': )he )ime*,mage (=ondon: Athlone -ress, 1GFG), p 166
6 :bid, p '1B
> 3onald +ogue, Deleuze on ?inema (7ew Nor$ and =ondon: 3outledge, 'HH6), p 1BG
A Gilles Deleuze, ?inema 1: )he 9ovement*,mage (=ondon and 7ew Nor$: ?ontinuum, 'HHA),
pp 6HS'& David 9artin*Rones, LSchizoanalysis, Spectacle and the Spaghetti 1estern5 in ,an
+uchanan and -atricia 9ac?ormac$ (eds), Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of ?inema (=ondon
and 7ew Nor$: ?ontinuum, 'HHF), pp 1'ASD
B Deleuze, ?inema ', p 1'G
D :bid, pp 1'BSAA
F :bid, pp '1AS'>
G :bid, p 1G, p 'D'& Deleuze, ?inema 1, p /i
1H Deleuze, ?inema 1, p '1H
11 Deleuze, ?inema ', p 16B
1' :bid, p '1B
16 Deleuze, ?inema 1, p '1H
1> :bid, p /ii
1A Deleuze, ?inema ', p '1B
1B :bid, p ''H
1D Rac(ues 3anciWre, L.rom 0ne ,mage to Another2 Deleuze and the Ages of ?inema5 in .ilm
.a"les (0/ford and 7ew Nor$: +erg, 'HHB), p 1HF
1F :bid, p 11H
1G :bid, p 11>
'H :bid, p 11G
'1 .or a sample see +ogue, Deleuze on ?inema& -eter ?anning, L)he ,magination of
,mmanence: An Ethics of ?inema5 in Gregory .la/man (ed), )he +rain is the Screen (=ondon
and 9inneapolis: Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 'HHH)& )om ?onley, L)he .ilm Event: .rom
,nterval to ,nterstice5 in .la/man (ed), )he +rain is the Screen& Gregory .la/man, L,ntroduction5
in .la/man (ed), )he +rain is the Screen& Gregory .la/man, L?inema Near Vero5 in .la/man
Tournament AB
(ed), )he +rain is the Screen& Angelo 3estivo, L,nto the +reach: +etween )he 9ovement ,mage
and )he )ime ,mage5 in .la/man (ed), )he +rain is the Screen
'' .or e/ample, Dudley Andrew, L)he 3oots of the 7omadic: Gilles Deleuze and the ?inema
of 1est Africa5 in .la/man (ed), )he +rain is the Screen
'6 9artin*Rones, LSchizoanalysis, Spectacle and the Spaghetti 1estern5& =aura 9ar$s, )he S$in
of the .ilm: ,ntercultural ?inema, Em"odiment, and the Senses (Durham and =ondon: Du$e
Kniversity -ress, 'HHH)
'> Gilles Deleuze and .eli/ Guattari, A )housand -lateaus: ?apitalism P Schizophrenia
(=ondon: Athlone, 1GGG)
'A Rulian 3eid, )he +iopolitics of the 1ar on )error: =ife Struggles, =i"eral 9odernity and the
Defence of =ogistical Societies (9anchester and 7ew Nor$: 9anchester Kniversity -ress, 'HHB)&
L3e*appropriating ?lausewitz: )he 7eglected Dimensions of ?ounter*Strategic )hought5 in
+eate Rahn (ed), ?lassical )heory and ,nternational 3elations: ?ritical ,nvestigations
(?am"ridge: Kniversity of ?am"ridge -ress, 'HHB)& LDeleuze5s 1ar 9achine: 7omadism
Against the State,5 9illennium: Rournal of ,nternational Studies (vol6', no1, 'HH6), pp AD*FA
'B Eugene 4olland, LSchizoanalysis, 7omadology, .ascism5 in ,an +uchanan and 7icholas
)hor"urn (eds), Deleuze and -olitics (Edin"urgh: Edin"urgh Kniversity -ress, 'HHF)& -aul
-atton, Deleuze P the -olitical (=ondon and 7ew Nor$& 3outledge, 'HHH)& 9anuel De =anda,
1ar in the Age of ,ntelligent 9achines (7ew Nor$: Vone +oo$s, 1GG')
'D Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, p 6BB
'F :bid, p >''
'G 3eid, L3e*appropriating ?lausewitz5
6H Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, pp '6S>
61 9ar$ +onta and Rohn -rotevi, Deleuze and Geophilosophy: A Guide and Glossary
(Edin"urgh: Edin"urgh Kniversity -ress, 'HH>), pGA
6' Gilles Deleuze and .eli/ Guattari, 1hat is -hilosophy2 (=ondon and 7ew Nor$: Terso,
1GG>), pp GASB
66 Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, p '>
6> Andrew, L)he 3oots of the 7omadic5
6A Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, p >''
6B ,an +uchanan, L,ntroduction5 in ,an +uchanan and -atricia 9ac?ormac$ (eds), Deleuze and
the Schizoanalysis of ?inema (=ondon and 7ew Nor$: ?ontinuum, 'HHF)
Tournament AD
6D 9artin*Rones, LSchizoanalysis, Spectacle and the Spaghetti 1estern,5 p DB
6F Gilles Deleuze and .eli/ Guattari, Anti*0edipus: ?apitalism and Schizophrenia (=ondon:
Athlone, 'HHH)
6G Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, p >6
>H :bid, p6DG
>1 Deleuze and Guattari, A )housand -lateaus, p 6DG
>' Eoc cit
>6 Eoc cit
>> :bid, pp 6DBSDD
>A Deleuze, ?inema ', p /i
>B :bid, p 1'B
>D :bid, p '1
>F :bid, p 1F
>G Deleuze, ?inema 1, p 'HG
AH Deleuze, ?inema '
A1 -aul Schrader, Schrader on Schrader (=ondon: .a"er and .a"er, 'HH>), p 11D
A' Gilles Deleuze and .eli/ Guattari, L9ay BF Did 7ot )a$e -lace5 in ?hris 8raus and SylvWre
=otringer (eds), 4atred of ?apitalism (7ew Nor$: Semiote/t, 'HH1), p 'HG
A6 :bid, p'1H
A> Eoc cit
AA Reffrey +arnouw, 0dysseus, 4ero of -ractical ,ntelligence: Deli"eration and Signs in
4omer5s 0dyssey (9aryland: Kniversity -ress of America, 'HH>), p 11
AB .rancis Gooding, . L+lac$ =ight,5 ?ritical Uuarterly (>': ', 'HH6), pp >S1>
AD Rames 9c.arlane, L)he 9ind of 9odernism5 in 9alcolm +rad"ury and Rames 9c.arlane
(eds), 9odernism, 1FGHS1G6H (4armondsworth: -enguin, 1GDF)& 9i$hail ,ampols$i, )he
9emory of )iresias: ,nterte/tuality and .ilm (+er$eley: Kniversity of ?alifornia -ress, 1GGF)
AF 3eid, +iopolitics of the 1ar on )error, ch '
Tournament AF
AG Deleuze, ?inema ', p 6HG
BH -aul Tirilio, 1ar and ?inema: )he =ogistics of -erception (=ondon: .a"er and .a"er, 1GFF),
p 6
B1 9ar$s, )he S$in of the .ilm, pp 1G>S'>'
B' ?hristopher -avse$, L1hat has ?ome to -ass for ?inema in =ate Godard,5 Discourse ('F, 1,
'HHB), pp 1BBSGA
B6 Rean*=uc Godard, Rean*=uc Godard: ,nterviews (ed David Sterritt) (Rac$son: Kniversity
-ress of 9ississippi, 1GGF), pp 1'FS6G
B> -avse$, L1hat has ?ome to -ass for ?inema in =ate Godard,5 p 1FH
BA -atricia 9ac?ormac$, LAn Ethics of Spectatorship: =ove, Death and ?inema5 in +uchanan
and 9ac?ormac$, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of ?inema, p 16B
BB See especially AndrI +azin, LDe Sica: 9etteur en ScWne5 in +azin, 1hat is ?inema2
(+er$eley: Kniversity of ?alifornia -ress, 'HHA), pp B1SDF
BD -avse$, L1hat has ?ome to -ass for ?inema in =ate Godard,5 p 1D6
Tournament AG
4erception /ttac5% 'rie6 on War Time
'rian Ma))umi
Syncopating -olitics
1e remem"er what we do not see
)his is how Governor George -ata$i of 7ew Nor$, pious "efore unseen towers, inaugurated the
'HH> 3epu"lican -arty ?onvention that was to carry George 1 +ush to a second term in office,
riding the surf of GO11 and the #war on terror% one last time "efore the swell su"sided
1
Standing
in the e"" years later far from Ground Vero, a reminder may "e in order that the swell was more
li$e a tidal wave ,t "urst levees, eroded em"an$ments and laid down sediment, leaving the
political landforms over which it swept reshaped )he Governor5s dictum might capture
something more of the altered landscape than it might first appear from its proffering as a
rhetorical flourish ,t locates the flourishing of the political "etween memory and perception
)his would "e familiar ground, were the relation "etween the two presented as one of continuity:
we remem"er now what once we saw (the towers)& or, now we see what we shall henceforth
remem"er (the towers5 reduction to ruins) -ata$i, however, telescopes the moments of memory
and perception into a single present tense 9emory and perception share the moment, entering
into immediate pro/imity, while remaining strangers )heir dis!ointed immediacy syncopates the
instant from within 1e do not see now what we can never have seen, even as we watched: the
enormity of the event )he present tense where memory and perception come dis!unctively
together is the time of the event that is li$e a lost "etween of the towers and their ruins, an
interval in which life was suspended for an instaneous duration that was more li$e a stilled
eternity than a passing present, comprehending reflection gone A10= ,n this time of the event,
perception and memory fall out of step together, !ointly retaining the syncopated power to affect
)he off*"eat time of the event disallows any one*to*one correlation "etween perception and
memory )his ma$es the ground fall out from under the notion of representation, as applied to
politics ,t also ma$es time a directly political issue: the present5s relation to the past S or for that
matter, to itself S is politically operationalized
8ier$egaard distinguished two regimes of memory #1hat is recollected has "een, is repeated
"ac$ward, whereas repetition is recollected forward%
'
1hereas memory as normally understood
is a recollection of what has "een, repetition is a recollection of what has not yet come@a
memory of the future )his is not so hard to grasp if we thin$ of repetition as self*contracting, on
the model of ha"it 1e say we have a ha"it, "ut we all $now that it is really the ha"it that has us
,t is an automatism that has ta$en hold and inha"its us ,t is of its nature as an automatism to pass
under the radar of awareness 1e are only ever aware of a ha"itual action having occurred 1hat
we consciously perceive are its ne/t effects 0therwise we would catch it in the act and decide to
e/ecute the action or not, in which case it will not have acted as a ha"it A ha"it is self*deciding
,t is a self*effecting force from the past that acts in a present which appears only in a ne/t*effect
)he present of the force5s actual operation is elided )his is a $ind of syncopation of time itself,
where the s$ipped "eat is the operative present, the present of the operation )his active present
is e/pressed only in the ne/tness that comes of it ,t actively disappears into its forward
Tournament BH
e/pression 1e normally thin$ of ha"it as "are repetition and of repetition as "arren "y nature ,n
8ier$egaard, as in 7ietzsche and Deleuze, repetition is a positive force carrying the past forward
into a ne/t e/pression ,t is a positively organizing, even creative, force of time )his implies that
it may "e captured and put to use )he elision of the operative moment may "e operationalized
)he KS military $nows this, !udging "y the currents in war theory on which it has nourished
itself since the fall of the Soviet Knion and the sustained priorities of its research wing, the
Defense Advanced 3esearch -ro!ects Agency (DA3-A) ,n its future repetition of war, the
military has "een an off*step or two ahead of Governor -ata$i =i$e him, it $nows that we
ha"itually remem"er what we do not see ,t also $nows that this is a political*time issue critical
to the #war on terror% so loudly trumpeted "y the +ush administration, and with which the
policies of the 0"ama administration have (uietly remained in continuity despite its a"negation
of the phrase +ut it goes further, to the philosophical realization that there is a positive power to
repetition which means that it is not "arren and that even so humdrum a species of it as ha"it
parta$es of the creative force of time
1e need only thin$ of attention Attention is the "ase*state ha"it of perception Every awareness
"egins in a shift 1e thin$ of ourselves as directing the shifts in our attention +ut if you pay
attention to paying attention, you (uic$ly sense that rather than you directing your attention, your
attention is directing you ,t pulls you into your coming perception, which dawns on you as
attention5s ne/t*effect Attention is the perceptual automatism that consists in tagging a change in
the perceptual field as new and potentially important and "uilding awareness on that change, for
the very good reason that it may signal a necessity of a response or an opportunity for action )he
ne/t perception into which you are pulled is already a convocation to action*reaction According
to contemporary perception studies, in a confirmation of attention5s ha"itual nature, this happens
in the elided present of repetition
6
)he possi"ility, evo$ed "y -ata$i5s statement, of operationalizing the elided present of attention
at political ground zero must "e understood against the "ac$drop of the realignment of military
doctrine over the last twenty years on #full*spectrum% force
>
)his is the e/tension of military
affairs to #grey areas involving non*traditional 0perations 0ther )han 1ar (00)1),% in the
words of Kllman and 1ade, the authors of ,hock and A!e, one of the classic statements of the
doctrine
A
)his e/pansion of the compass of military operation "eyond the classical "attlefield to
areas formerly considered the e/clusive purview of civil institutions is a response to the "lurring
of "oundaries characterizing contemporary war, in which the archetype of the enemy is no longer
the uniformed soldier "ut the #terrorist% )he assumed organization of the adversary, as another
contemporary classic drives home (Ar(uilla and 3onfeldt5s -et!orks and -et!ars
B
), is then no
longer the identifia"le regular army and its centralized State scaffolding "ut the diffuseness of
the networ$
)he networ$ is recessive ,t melts into the population ,t is pervasive, #un"ounded and
e/panding%
D
,t insinuates itself across the technological and communicational nerve paths of
society )he attac$s it ena"les irrupt without warning )hey rise up from within an un"ounded
field, rather than stri$ing out in a determina"le direction from a locata"le "ase 7etwar5s
infiltrating reach is potentially coe/tensive with social and cultural space )his irrevoca"ly "lurs
the "oundaries "etween the civil and military spheres 0ther "oundaries "lur as a conse(uence,
for e/ample that "etween offense and defense
F
Tournament B1
1hen the civil is no longer clearly demarcated from the military, nor offense from defense, it
"ecomes impossi"le to say where the e/ercise of force "egins and ends 9ilitary affairs "leed
across the spectrum )hey span a continuum stretched "etween two poles or e/tremes At one
end lies the traditional application of #force on force%
G
)his is the pole of traditional engagement
on the model of the "attle, siege, or occupation At the other pole lies what some call #soft
power%
1H
As a first appro/imation, soft power can "e understood as the military use of
information and disinformation, and of #psy ops% or what used to "e called psychological
warfare Ar(uilla and 3onfeldt characterize soft power as #epistemological% warfare "ecause its
"usiness is what people $now or thin$ they $now
0f course, epistemological warfare is nothing new +ut the paradigm has significantly shifted
)raditionally, what is now called soft power was a helper to hard power ,t was secondary to
force*on*force, whose effectiveness it was meant to "oost ,t was an additive, li$e leavening
7ow on the other hand, according Ar(uilla and 3onfeldt, all conflict is by nature
epistemological Soft power, rather than an additive or "ooster, is a "ase*line state )his is a
necessary conse(uence of the full*spectrum situation 1ar is no longer punctual, li$e a "attle ,t5s
on low "oil all the time ,t is no longer localized, li$e an occupation )he heat is everywhere )he
definition of action underpinning the force*on*force of hard power is fundamentally that of
friction: matter on matter, metal on metal, pro!ectile against shielding, metal in flesh, flesh
splayed, splashed on hard surfaces .orce of attac$ against opposing force of resistance )he
overall aim of force*against*force is attrition
11
,t meets the enemy head*on and wears down his
capa"ilities across an e/tensive series of frictional engagements ,ts aims and means are painfully
tangi"le
,n the current field of conflict, this $ind of punctual engagement has lost its centrality ,t has "een
replaced "y waiting +eing in the thic$ of war has "een watered down and drawn out into an
endless waiting, "oth sides poised for action )he "ase*line state is now this always*on of low*
"oil poising for action 0ne is always in the thin of it 1hen a stri$e of force*against*force
comes, it stands out against the "ac$ground continuity of this thin condition, which -aul Tirilio
presciently called the #non"attle% years "efore it "ecame the o"sessive concern of leaders "oth
military and civilian
1'
1hen it comes, the irruption of action is an e"ullition, a momentary
"oiling*over in this lowintensity "roth of the always*on conflict of the non"attle
Soft power is how you act militarily in waiting, when you are not yet tangi"ly acting ,t is a way
of preventing the wait itself from "eing an attrition, or even a way of turning it to advantage ,n
the condition of non"attle, when you have nothing on which to act tangi"ly, there is still one
thing you can do: act on that condition Act to change the conditions in which you wait After all,
it from these same conditions that any action to come will have emerged
+y acting on the wait*time conditions in the intervals "etween "oilings*over, you may well "e
a"le to reduce the potential of an eventual attac$, moderate its powers of attrition if it comes, or
even "etter induce it to ta$e tangi"le shape when and where you are ready for it )hat way you
have a chance of disa"ling it "efore it reaches its full magnitude, or even in the case where it
"ursts forth at full strength, you can "e reasona"ly confident that you will "e a"le to respond to it
with rapid and overwhelming counter*force
)hus you ta$e as your military field of operation the environmental conditions in which "oth
com"atants and the noncom"atant population lives: what Kllman and 1ade call the #total
Tournament B'
situation% )he only way to act on the total situation is to act on the conditions of emergence of
the "attle, prior to its occurrence )hese conditions concern threats which in the parlance of the
doctrine of preemption, which has come to define the present era of conflict as integrally as
deterrence did the ?old 1ar, are #not yet fully formed%
16
1hat is not yet fully formed is still in
potential ,t may already "e on the horizon, "rewing li$e a recipe for disaster, or ominously
looming li$e an unclear, almost*present threat ,t carries an irreduci"le degree of indeterminacy
)hat measure of indeterminacy ma$es it as intangi"le as it is ominous ,t5s a tall order: you must
act #totally% on the intangi"les of the situation )he ultimate "oundary "lurred is that: "etween
the tangi"le and the intangi"le, the corporeal and the incorporeal +ecause to act on the former
you have to act on the latter
)here are two ways to act totally and intangi"ly on a situation )he first is "y transposing your
action from the spatial a/is of the "attle, siege or occupation to come, onto a time a/is Nou
operate in and on the interval in which what is not yet fully formed is already impercepti"ly
"rewing Nou can act on that almost+present in order to influence the active form of its ne/t*
awaited emergence -reemption is proaction: action on the conditions of action, prior to its
actually ta$ing shape )he second way to act totally and intangi"ly on a situation is to act on
perception ,t is perception which prepares a "ody for action and reaction +y modulating
perception, you can already modulate su"se(uent action*reaction )his in fact ma$es perception
a royal road to the almost*present )he two ways of acting intangi"ly with a view to the total
situation are convergent
,t was perception5s powers of proaction that motivated Ar(uilla and 3onfeldt5s characterization
of contemporary war as epistemological +ut it is a mista$e to ta$e too cognitive an approach
)he move into perception is accompanied in the contemporary theatre of war with a correlative
move toward the #capa"ilities*centered% approach much touted "y Donald 3umsfeld and his
fellow neo*cons
1>
,n this approach, you move into perception in order to operate not at the level
at which actions are decided, "ut at the level at which the very capacity for action is forming
0perating on the level at which decisions have been made focuses on the properly cognitive
aspect of $nowledge: its informational contents, their availa"ility, relia"ility and manipula"ility,
their actual usa"ility 0perating on the level at which the capacity for action is in the making is a
very different proposition ,t focuses on a pre*decision process occurring in an interval of
emergence antecedent to "oth informed $nowing and deli"erative action )his is a point "efore
$now*a"ility and action*a"ility have differentiated from one another At that point, a modulation
of perception is directly and immediately a change in the parameters of what a "ody can do, "oth
in terms of how it can act and what it will $now )his antecedent level of capacitation or
potentialization is protoepistemological@ and already ontological, in that it concerns changes in
the "ody5s degree and mode of ena"lement in and toward its total situation or life environment
Any application of force at this level is an ontopo!er: a power through which "eing "ecomes An
ontopower is not a force against life, as any force*against*force must inevita"ly "e at its point of
application ,t is a positive force ,t is positively productive of the particular form a life will ta$e
ne/t ,t conditions life5s ne/tness ,t is a force of life
The Force to Own Time
Kllman and 1ade are unam"iguous a"out the fact that operating on this level is indeed an
e/ercise of force, even though its o"!ect is intangi"le ,t is not a lesser force, even though it is
e/erted in the thinness of non"attle ,t is, they say, #more than an application of force%
1A
@a
Tournament B6
surplus of force ,t e/ceeds the parameters of tangi"le applications of "attle*force and of the
$nown contents of life upon which those applications "ear and to which they add a hard
permutation through their action of attrition )he productive force of the non"attle returns to the
level of conditioning at which the parameters for attritional force are set )here is always a
follow*up action*reaction to an e/ercise of force against force )here is a second*ne/t enveloped
in the ne/t, and a third in that 1hat is conditioned is a forward series of potential repetitions
)here is a power of potential continuation, a power of a continuum, wrapped up in each e/ercise
of force*against*force )he power of the continuum is an e"cess over any ne/t, immanent in each
one 7on*"attle force or the force*to*own*time ta$es this e/cess as its field )his is what ma$es it
a surplus of force@or a surplus+value of force )he relation of non*"attle force to the force*
against*force is analogous to the relation discovered "y 9ar/ "etween money as a means of
payment and money as capital
?apital is the driving force of the series of payment e/changes: money in the ma$ing& money
"eyond money At each payment, a punctual return is made to capital -rofit is fed "ac$ into
investment, replenishing the forwarddriving force of capital 9oney loops from its punctual
e/ercise as means of payment into a feeding of the conditions of its own continuing )his e/cess
of forward*driving force over any given payment*engagement is surplus*value, as distinguished
from profit Surplus*value is not the amount fed "ac$ )hat is profit Surplus*value is different
from profit ,t is not (uantitative ,t is processual ,t is the processual (uality from which
(uantities of money are generated in forward*driving fashion ,t is the ever*ne/tness of
proliferating (uantities of economic value Surplus*value is realized punctually in the e/plicit act
of e/change, in such a way as to cyclically e/ceed any such e/change Talue "eyond value,
immeasura"ly on the ma$e
1B
7ations ma$e war the same way they ma$e wealth
1D
=i$e capital, non"attle force is at the same time forward*driving and cyclic At each frictional
engagement, it feeds "ac$ into itself toward the conditioning of what will come ne/t ,t is the
ever*ne/tness of actual military value as realized punctually in e/plicit acts of war 0orce beyond
force, intangi"ly on the ma$e )he force*"eyond*force is the processual (uality of conflict from
which tangi"le military outcomes are generated
Klmann and 1ade do not hesitate to lin$ the force*"eyond*force, as processual (uality of war, to
time
1F
)his is not, they say, a force to overcome resistance 3ather, it is the force #to own
time%
1G
3ecent military thin$ing has revolved around the concept of rapid dominance #L3apid5
means the a"ility to move (uic$ly "efore an adversary can react%
'H
)he force+to+o!n+time
operates in an interval smaller than the smallest perceiva"le #)he target is perception,% always
and at every "and along the full spectrum
'1
Even in the thic$ of things, when conflict "oils over
and force*against*force is to "e engaged, the force*to*own time must still operate ,t must
s(ueeze into an interval smaller than the smallest perceiva"le "etween actions, so as to condition
the enemy5s reaction )his is the #shoc$% of shoc$ and awe )he e/ercise of force*against*force
is (ualitatively different from the force*to*own*time, "ut if its e/ercise is separated from the
force*to*own*time it rapidly loses its effectiveness )he force*to*own*time is infra*level force ,t
is infra*active "ecause it occurs in a smaller than smallest interval "etween actions ,t is infra*
perceptual "ecause this same interval is also smaller than the smallest perceiva"le And it is
infra*temporal "ecause, "eing impercepti"le, the interval of its e/ercise is an off*"eat of time, a
Tournament B>
missed step in the cadence of actions and reactions, an elided present "etween one moment and
the ne/t
,n the thin of things, at the non*"attle end of the spectrum, the force*to*own*time still operates to
infra*condition action "y #controlling the enemy5s perception% in the interests of total*situation
control
''
,n the a"sence of dramatic action spi$ing punctually from the "ase*line of the non*
"attle, the conditioning of the environment "y the force*to*own*time appears continuous +ut this
is only so "ecause we are not paying attention to paying attention )he off*"eat is still there )he
"ase*line ha"it of perception has not ceased contracting itself in us ,t still inha"its us )he pull of
attention has not ceased to ta$e hold of us ,t still directs us to a ne/t perception, and through it to
ne/t action*reaction )he "aseline of war has accordioned into the "aseline of perception At the
infra*level where the two "ase*lines converge, war at the macro scale of the "attle, siege, and
occupation falls into a"solute processual pro/imity with war at the micro scale of everyday
civilian life
The Life Bare Active
)he infra*interval is where perception itself is in a"solute processual pro/imity with the "ody
)he automatism that attention possesses "y virtue of its sharing a nature with ha"it means that its
operation re!oins the refle/ wor$ings of "ody matter ,t is our "odies which contract ha"its,
which are ac(uired refle/es )he operation of attention occurs at a point of indistinction "etween
emergent perceptual e/perience and the autonomic mechanisms of the "rain and nervous system
)o a certain degree you can "ypass the shielding or immunizing effects of pre*operative cultural
conditioning as well as of personal histories, dispositions, and allegiances, "y plugging into the
nervous system and approaching attention from that autonomic angle ,t is possi"le to find
tangi"le handles to leverage the intangi"le dimensions of the life of the "ody ,t is possi"le,
within limits, to machine e/perience
)he limits are due to the fact that the system of perception, li$e capital, essentially involves
feed"ac$ and is thus, li$e an economy, nonlinear +y definition, in a nonlinear system you cannot
guarantee a one*to*one correspondence "etween a given punctual input and an outcome Nou do
not cause an effect Nou effect a modulation Nou can create resonance and interference effects at
the emergent level )he smaller*than*smallest interval of the force*to*own*time vi"rates with
infra*level agitation )he innervated "ody poises, in vital commotion ,t reacts: ha"its are primed
,t proacts: its reacting is already a tensing and a tending to the future )he "ody is attending in
the instant to the immediacy of life5s unfolding Everything hangs in the "alance E/cept, far
from e(uili"rium, the "alance is off Everything hangs in the off*"alance of the instant )he
nature and duration of the agitation formatively filling the instant inflects what follows
)he o"!ect of full*spectrum power5s force*to*own*time is not #"are life% ,t is not human life re*
animalized, stripped of its human content, its vitality reduced to the physical minimum, in
a"solute pro/imity with death ,t is bare activity )his is human life in the instant5s off*"eat ,n
that instant, a life is barely there, recoiled, "odily consumed in its infra*relation to itself ,t is a
life without determinate content ,n that impercepti"le instant, what its content will "e ne/t is in
the ma$ing A life is formatively "arely there, tensely poised for what comes ne/t ,n that
measureless instant, a life is intensely "arely there, re*gathering in an immediacy of its
capa"ilities )his is not vitality reduced to the minimum, this is life primed )his is also war )he
life primed may indeed "e in pro/imity to death Net the "ody is already arcing toward a ne/t
Tournament BA
vital e/ercise of its capacity to act 7ot re*animalization: reanimation: a sto$ing for the ne/t step
)his is a far cry from a life reduced to "rute matter ,t is the em"odied event of a life re*gathering
in recoil )his is life self*enfolding in affective vitality
)he o"!ect of full*spectrum power is the affective "ody re*gathering in its capacities across a
stepped interval of change 1hich is to say that full*spectrum power does not actually have an
o"!ect 3ather than having an o"!ect, it finds a fulcrum@if a fulcrum can "e said to leverage
time ,t leverages the future, in the "are activity of action dawning
Shoc$, in the ne/t instant, spills over into action ,nfra*agitation amplifies, issuing in a macro*
move )he actual resulting action does not e/haust the commotion of "are activity preceding it
)hat infra*activity coincides with a recapacitation of the "ody poising it for any num"er of
potential outcomes, only one of which eventuates )he unacted remainder of capacitation
constitutes a "ac$ground modulation of the operational parameters of the field of potential
action ,t is "y virtue of this reconditioning of the pragmatic field that the outcome is always in
some degree nonlinear )he conditioning interval of shoc$ does not simply issue an ensuing
action ,t sets that ne/t actual action against an une/hausted "ac$ground of potential actions,
many of which are in actuality mutually e/clusive )he outcome overall is a changed relation
"etween the action that has actually resulted and the newly modulated e/periential field from
which it emerged ,t is #ecological%
'6
)he field of potential action vi"rates with the resonances
and interferences of poisings unperformed, unsatisfied in action )his ecological remainder of
actiona"ility accompanies the ensuing action, retensing it even as it happens
)his poses a pro"lem@and an opportunity@for the military e/ercise of force*"eyond*force As a
force*to*own*time, its avocation is to leverage futurity "y altering action5s conditions of
emergence )he fact that the outcome of shoc$ it administers toward this end is comple/@a
dynamic relation "etween a punctual action and its continuously modulated "ac$ground
conditioning@means that the future it inflects retains a significant degree of uncertainty .orce*
"eyond*force must concern itself with managing uncertainty, not only that associated with
pree/isting field conditions into which it intervenes, "ut with its own future success Strategies
must "e put in place to manage the arc of the action line to prevent it from drifting too far a field
or reaching a sudden turning point where it "ifurcates une/pectedly A $ind of shoc$ therapy
"ecomes necessary 9ilitary strategy crucially assumes the tas$ of shoc$ management as a
central feature of its ontopowerful conduct of proto*epistemological warfare
'>
Battle for the Edge
8ey military te/ts of the early 'HHHs call for a far*reaching reorganization of the military around
augmented networ$ intelligence revolving around the infra*instant
'A
)he te/ts pay lip*service to
an easily digesti"le image of this strategic agenda, articulated in terms of enhancing the
military5s a"ility to fight across the spectrum and prevail "y enriching its a"ility to gather and
effectively process high*(uality information +ut under pressure from the infrainstant, they in
fact push further ,t does not ta$e much scratching under the #info*structure% surface to see that
that the operative logic represents a radical departure from the conventional model of optimizing
intelligence "y enhancing the (uantity and (uality of information ,f information is understood as
conveying factually precise and semantically*rich content, information is not what is
fundamentally at sta$e
Tournament BB
)he larger goal of improved networ$ing is not to augment human intelligence "y "etter
informing it ,t is to integrally transform the machinery of war@and the place of the human actor
in relation to it ,t is create a military machinery capa"le of dipping into the infra*conscious
action potentials of "are activity in order to e/tract from it a surplus*value of force e/pressing
itself emergently as a self*deciding military !ill performing itself in real*time, distri"uted across
a self*adapting networ$ of functions fused into operational solidarity through comple/ relations
of mutual feed"ac$ )he networ$ing is for distri"uting not so much information, as this self*
deciding of action potential )he comple/ity is not so much cognized without, in the military
system5s environment, as it is enacted within, full*spectrum, immanently constitutive of the
system itself )he reorganization of the military that the strategists advocate is not !ust aimed at
transforming it, "ut at ma$ing it self*transforming Self*constituting and self*transforming:
integrally, infra*lly ontopowerful
1hat is at sta$e for networ$ centric warfare, in the words of one strategist, is the #topology of
po!er(%
'B
#+attle space,% conventionally centered and hierarchically organized, must disseminate
into a radical topology of the #edge% )his transposes it onto another dimension, for the edge is
not simply located in space 9ore shoc$ingly, it is the edge of time (the !ust*in*time of infra real*
time) ,t is where intelligence gets integrally distri"uted, for cognition to go infra*lly "are*active
1hat is produced is not $nowledge "ut, directly and self*augmentingly, power, ontopower, the
playing*out of the force*to*own time, as a militarized force*of*life 1here once was the pea$ of
human cognition@the #e/traordinary mental power,% in ?lausewitz5s words, of the steely*willed
general@is now the everywhere cutting edge of a self*enacting will*to*power, one with the
machinery of war, on a full*spectrum continuum with the #non*"attle% field of peace
'D
1hat is at
sta$e is the place of human perception, cognition, and intention in the evolving and e/panding
onto*topology of war*power
1hat forms does or will this onto*topology of power ta$e on the #civil% end of the continuum of
power, now full*spectrumed into a zone of indistinction with war2 +y what self*emergent
networ$ may the intangi"le dimensions of the life of "ody "e machined on the #human terrain%
of everyday life2 1hat mechanisms infra*modulate the everyday at the proto*epistemological
level of life primed, for its affective vitality2 ?an human*centered cognition and its action
potential "e "rought "ac$ from the edge2 ,s it enough to reclaim a decisive power for it2 0r must
decision "e alter*machined, in an onto*"attle for the edge2 1here could or should the ne/t "eat
fall2 )hese are pressing (uestions not only for cultural theory and philosophy "ut for the
syncopated future of politics
'F
+rian 9assumi
+rian 9assumi specializes in the philosophy of e/perience, art and media theory, and political
philosophy 4e is the author of Parables for the =irtual> Fovement, Affect, ,ensation (Du$e
Kniversity -ress, 'HH'), A Pser2s ;uide to <apitalism and ,chi8ophrenia> .eviations from
.eleu8e and ;uattari (9,) -ress, 1GG'), and 0irst and East Emperors> The Absolute ,tate and
the 4ody of the .espot (with 8enneth Dean& Autonomedia, 1GG6) 4e is editor of The Politics of
Everyday 0ear (Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 1GG6) and A ,hock to Thought> E"pression after
.eleu8e and ;uattari (3outledge, 'HH') 4is translations from the .rench include Gilles Deleuze
and .Ili/ Guattari5s A Thousand Plateaus 1ith Erin 9anning of the Sense=a", ?oncordia
Kniversity, he co*organizes a series of events and activities under the title #)echnologies of
=ived A"straction% dedicated to the collective e/ploration of new ways of "ringing philosophical
Tournament BD
and artistic practices into colla"orative interaction Also with Erin 9anning, +rian edits an 9,)
-ress "oo$ series under the same title +rian5s 1e" site is www"rianmassumicom
Notes
1 #?heney Arrives in 7N via Ellis ,sland,% Associated -ress, August 'G, 'HH>
http:OOwwwmsn"cmsncomOidOAFAGFGBO (accessed August 'G, 'HH>)
' Soren 8ier$egaard, 0ear and Trembling, and Repetition, trans 4oward T 4ong and Edna 4
4ong (-rinceton: -rinceton Kniversity -ress, 1GF6), 161
6 )he gap "etween consciously registered shifts in attention is called #attentional blink% in the
e/perimental psychology literature ,t refers to a fraction*of*a*second "lan$ing out of conscious
awareness that occurs "etween successive changes in the perceptual field )he gap in awareness
corresponds to a latency period in perceptual processing during which the coming perception is
undergoing #potentiation% )he gap in awareness during the potentiation of emerging perception
was first "rought to general attention "y +en!amin =i"et, in a series of now famous e/periments
in the 1GDHs )he term attentional "lin$ was introduced in 1GG' Since that time, attentional "lin$
and associated issues in nonconscious perception have "een the o"!ect of a steadily e/panding
and diversifying field of specialization with e/perimental psychology .or the original research
introducing the term attentional "lin$, see RE 3aymond, 8= Shapiro, and 89 Arnell,
#)emporary Suppression of Tisual -rocessing in an 3ST- )as$: An Attentional +lin$2,% Iournal
of E"perimental Psychology> $uman Perception and Performance, 1F (1GG'): F>GSFBH doi:
1H1H6DOHHGB*1A'61F6F>G .or a regularly update summary of the research, see = 8imron,
8= Shapiro, et al, #Attentional +lin$,% ,cholarpedia, >B ('HHG): 66'H
http:OOwwwscholarpediaorgOarticleOSpecial:Search2
fromJside"arPsearchJattentionalX"lin$PgoJ)itle
9uch of the research energy has "een dedicated to studying the nonconscious perceptual
processes occurring in the attentional gap in awareness during which a ne/t conscious perception
is pre*forming in potential ,t has "een found, for e/ample, that conscious shifts in attention are
pre*rehearsed on the nonconscious level in the form of emergent patterns forming amid the
largely random autonomic micro eye movements (or saccades) which coincide with the "lin$ in
attention )endential saccadic movements toward the focus of coming attention are detecta"le:
A ma!or area of research has "een the phenomenon of #priming% (mentioned "elow in this te/t)
)his refers to the capacity of micro*events occurring in the attentional gap to modulate the
coming perception )he modalities of priming are num"erless All involve what ** were they not
occurring nonconsciously ** would "e considered #higher% cognitive functions (face, o"!ect and
word recognition, situational understanding of images which pass "y too fast to enter conscious
awareness, generalizations concerning for e/ample cultural difference, gender, and race, and
even decisional cost*"enefit analysis) 1hat distinguishes priming from the outmoded concept of
su"liminal influence is that priming does not imply a straightforward stimulus*response
operating "y linear causality, a$in to a refle/ -riming conditions emergent awareness (creatively
modulates its formation) rather that causing a response (reproducing a pree/isting model) ,t
implies comple/ thought*li$e processes occurring as a nonconscious dimension of emergent
perception, too rapidly for thought actually to have "een performed )he implications of priming
for the philosophy of perception, consciousness and decision have "arely "egun to plum"ed
A7 1hitehead5s concept of #nonsensuous perception% and ?S -eirce5s concepts of
Tournament BF
#perceptual !udgment% and #a"duction% are far "etter starting points for this tas$ than either the
archaic "ehaviorist model informing theories of su"liminal influence or the neuronal
reductionism informing much of today5s e/perimental psychology )he philosophy and politics
of priming are a ma!or concern of a longer wor$ in progress of the same title of this essay
)he DA3-A program concerned with attention and related perceptual issues is the Augmented
?ognition -rogram )he program5s purpose is to develop weara"le technology ena"ling real*time
"rain and physiological monitoring of states of awareness, lapses in attention, and the
nonconsconscious perceptual processes occurring in the gaps )he monitoring technology is
designed to "e networ$a"le in such a way as to ena"le tactical coordination aimed at diagnosing
and overcoming limitations in "attlefield performance related to deficits in attention, reaction
time, and memory*formation capacity, either inherent in the human perceptual apparatus or
induced "y fear, stress, fatigue, and the #fog of war% )he program also has a positive aim: it is
proposed that the technology "e used in training to help soldiers develop perceptual techni(ues to
increase their #cognitive load% capacities "eyond average parameters )hese techni(ues include
ways of increasing vigilance "y distri"uting attentiveness or diffusing it across the perceptual
field (what has elsewhere "een called #continuous partial attention), as well as of intensifying
focused attention (#multitas$ing%) )he strategy of increasing vigilance "y diffusing attention is
particularly relevant here, in that it amounts to an operationalization of what is discussed "elow
in terms of the #in*"racing% of #"are activity% understood as incipient action*a"ility .or an
overview of the #Aug?og% program co*authored "y a longtime director of the pro!ect
(Schmorrow), see 9ar$ St Rohn, David A 8o"us, Reffrey G 9orrison, and Dylan Schmorrow,
#0verview of the DA3-A Augmented ?ognition )echnical ,ntegration E/periment,%
,nternational Rournal of 4umanS?omputer ,nteraction,% 1D' ('HH>): 161S1>G .or a popular
account of attentional "lin$ in the conte/t of DA3-A, see Alison 9otlu$, #4ow many things can
you do at once2,% -e! ,cientist 'AGF (April D, 'HHD): 'FS61 )he military theory te/ts cited
"elow share a central interest in operationalizing the #"lin$% in perception and cognition through
techni(ues of attention and priming integrated systemically into informational networ$s
> .or an analysis of the processual tendencies continuing across the +ush and 0"ama
administrations as they relate to the concept of full*spectrum war and strategies of preemption,
see +rian 9assumi, #7ational Enterprise Emergency: Steps )oward an Ecology of -owers,%
Theory, <ulture M ,ociety 'BB ('HHG): 1A6S1FA .or a long ("ut "y no means complete)
inventory of particular military and security policy decisions made "y the early 0"ama
administration which aligned it with +ush*era policies, see footnote 1G
A 4arlan 8 Kllman and Rames - 1ade, ,hock and A!e> Achieving Rapid .ominance
(1ashington, D? : 7ational Defense Kniversity -ress,1GGB), 1F (page num"ers refer to online
edition at http:OOwwwdodccrporgOfilesOKllmanYShoc$pdf)
B Rohn Ar(uila and David 3onfeldt, -et!orks and -et!ars > The 0uture of Terror, <rime, and
Filitancy (Santa 9onica : 3A7D, 'HH1)
D Ar(uilla P 3onfeldt #7etwor$s and 7etwars% 1H
F Ar(uilla P 3onfeldt #7etwor$s and 7etwars% 16
G Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% //iii, '1S''
Tournament BG
1H Ar(uilla P 3onfeldt #7etwor$s and 7etwars% '
11 Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% //iii, //viii
1' 0n the concept of the non*"attle, see -aul Tirilio, E2insHcuritH du territoire (-aris: Stoc$,
1GDA)
16 0n the centrality of preemption and its difference from deterrence, see +rian 9assumi,
#-otential -olitics and the -rimacy of -reemption,% Theory M Event 1H:' ('HHD)
http:OOmuse!hueduO!ournalsOtheoryYandYeventOtocOinde/html
1> Donald 3umsfeld, #)ransforming the 9ilitary,% 0oreign Affairs, F1:6 (9aySRune 'HH'): 'HS
6'
1A Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% //vii
1B 0n the immeasura"ility of surplus*value, see Antonio 7egri, #)wenty )heses on 9ar/,% in
Far"ism 4eyond Far"ism, ed Saree 9a$disi, ?esare ?asarino and 3e"ecca E 8arl
(=ondonO7ew Nor$: 3outledge, 1GGB), 1A1S1A>
1D )his is a (uote from a foundational te/t in the development of full*spectrum military
doctrine, articulated as a shift from hardware*"ased #platform*centric warfare% to capa"ilities*
"ased #networ$*centric warfare% ?e"rows$i, Tice Admiral Arthur, and Rohn Garst$a, #7etwor$*
?entric 1arfare S ,ts 0rigin and .uture,% Proceedings of the Pnited ,tates -aval :nstitute, 1'>1
(Ranuary 1GGF): 'FS6A Availa"le online at the site of the KS Department of Defense 0ffice of
.orce )ransformation (which was headed "y ?e"rows$i)
http:OOwwwoftosdmilOinitiativesOncwOpresentationsOncwcfm
1F ?e"rows$i and Garst$y also ma$e the lin$: #)he organizing principle of networ$*centric
warfare has its antecedent in the dynamics of growth and competition that have emerged in the
modern economy )he new dynamics of competition are "ased on increasing returns on
investment, competition within and "etween ecosystems, and competition based on time% (op
cit, emphasis added) ,n many passages, the authors draw an e(uation "etween #competitor% and
#enemy%
1G Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% //vii, A6
'H Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% //v
'1 Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% 'F
'' Kllman P 1ade #Shoc$ and Awe% G, A>
'6 ?e"rows$i and Garst$a spea$ of an integrated #warfighting ecosytem,% op cit Klmann and
1ade spea$ of the need to #control the environment% rather than win punctual engagements, op
cit, ,ntroduction
Tournament DH
'> ,t is here that the homology "etween war and economics signaled in the "rief discussion of
surplus*value a"ove "ecomes dramatic See 7aomi 8lein, The ,hock .octrine> The Rise of
.isaster <apitalism (7ew Nor$: -icador, 'HHF)
'A )he $ey te/ts in which the concern with the infra*instant are most palpa"le are -et!ork
<entric *arfare > .eveloping and Eeveraging :nformation ,uperiority, David S Al"erts, Rohn R
Garst$a, .rederic$ - Stein (1ashington, D? : Department of Defense ?>,S3 ?ooperative
3esearch -rogram, 1GGG& '
nd
revised edition 'HHH),
http:OOwwwdodccrporgOhtml>OresearchYncwhtml& Po!er to the Edge> <ommand and <ontrol in
the :nformation Age, David S Al"erts P 3ichard E 4ayes(1ashington, D? : Department of
Defense ?ommand and ?ontrol 3esearch -rogram, 'HH6& 6rd printing 'HHA),
wwwdodccrporgOfilesOAl"ertsY-owerpdf An e/tended analysis of these te/ts will "e included
in the study of which the present essay is a part)he concept of networ$ centric warfare "ecame
official KS military doctrine on the "asis of a 'HH1 report to ?ongress and was integrated into the
official Army .ield 9anual that same year
'B Al"erts, Garst$a, Stein, Po!er to the Edge, 1BA, 'H6
'D .or an analysis of full*spectrum power as a self*driving dynamism or #operative logic%
powered "y the parado/ical time*structure of preemption and having its own processual
autonomy, see 9assumi #-otential -olitics and the -rimacy of -reemption,% op( cit
'F .or some preliminary considerations on civil sphere affective modulation of political
potential, see 9assumi, #.ear (the Spectrum Said),% Positions> East Asia <ultures <riti7ue,
special issue, #Against -reemptive 1ar,% 1161 (Spring 'HHA): 61S>F& and on the potential of
politically reinha"iting the interval of "are activity, +rian 9assumi, #0f 9icroperception and
9icropolitics,% :nfle"ions> A Iournal for Research+<reation, no 6 ('HHG),
http:OOwwwsensela"caOinfle/ionsOvolumeY6OnodeYi6O-D.O9assumiZ'H0f
Z'H9icropoliticspdf
Tournament D1
-hythm and 1adence2 Fren$y and March%
Mu)ic and the !eo-'io-Techno-/66ective /))embla"e) o6 /ncient
War6are
0ohn 4rotevi
,n one of many such passages in A Thousand Plateaus (hereafter #A)-%) Deleuze and Guattari
descri"e the assem"lage as the im"rication of the social and the somatic, this time using an
e/ample from ancient Gree$ warfare:
Assem"lages :agencements< are passional, they are compositions of desire Desire has nothing to
do with a natural or spontaneous determination& there is no desire "ut assem"ling, assem"led,
desire :il n2y a de dHsir 7u2agencant, agencH, machinH< )he rationality, the efficiency, of an
assem"lage does not e/ist without the passions the assem"lage "rings into play, without the
desires that constitute it as much as it constitutes them Detienne has shown that the Gree$
phalan/ was insepara"le from a whole reversal of values, and from a passional mutation that
drastically changed the relations "etween desire and the war machine ,t is a case of a man
dismounting from the horse, and of the man*animal relation "eing replaced "y a relation "etween
men in an infantry assem"lage that paves the way for the advent of the peasant*soldier, the
citizen*soldier: the entire Eros of war changes, a group homose/ual Eros tends to replace the
zoose/ual Eros of the horseman ; -assions are effectuations of desire that differ according to
the assem"lage ; Affect is the active discharge of emotion, the counterattac$ :la riposte<,
whereas feeling :le sentiment< is an always displaced, retarded, resisting emotion
1
1e are going to use this passage as a !umping*off point to e/amine some of the geo*"io*techno*
affective assem"lages at wor$ in ancient Gree$ and 7ear Eastern warfare 1e will loo$ at the
phalan/, "ut for greater contrast, we will not focus on the #zoose/ual% horsemen, "ut on the
"erser$er #runners% and their putative involvement in the 1'HH +?E collapse of the +ronze Age
$ingdoms, of which 9ycenae and )roy are the most famous e/amples )o descri"e these
im"rications of the social and the somatic, , will use the term #"ody politic%
'
, have e/plored
some dimensions of affect in contemporary military training&
6
here , am e/tending the analysis to
ancient warfare
)he article will have two parts ,n -art 1, we5re going to e/plore the ontology, "iology, and
history of affect ,n each case we will put Deleuze and Guattari5s wor$ into the conte/t of current
research, primarily cognitive science, "iology, anthropology, military history, and "io*cultural
musicology E/ploring the ontology of affect will ena"le us to e/plain the e/teriority of affect
versus the interiority of emotion or #feeling% E/ploring the "iology of affect will ta$e us to the
"iophilosophical school $nown as Developmental Systems )heory (DS)) as it intersects new
research in neuroscience .rom this perspective, affective "odies are e/perientially constructed,
and that e/perience is open to the social& it5s a matter of variations on an inherited "iological
capacity for plasticity ,n e/ploring the history of affect we will discuss cultural evolution and the
anthropology of war ,n -art ', we are going to concentrate on the use of music in ancient
Tournament D'
warfare, and the difference "etween the types of music used to trigger the "erser$er rage versus
that used to entrain the phalan/
Part 1: The Ontology Biology and !istory of Affect
ntology of Affect@.or Deleuze and Guattari (hereafter #DG%) #affect% comprises the active
capacities of a "ody to act and the passive capacities of a "ody to "e affected or to "e acted upon
,n other words, affect is what a "ody can do and what it can undergo )he use of this term derives
from Deleuze5s reading of Spinoza, in which Deleuze carefully distinguishes #affect% (affectus),
as the e/perience of an increase or decrease in the "ody5s power to act, from #affection%
(affectio), as the composition or mi/ture of "odies, or more precisely the change produced in the
affected "ody "y the action of the affecting "ody in an encounter Affectus or what we could call
#e/periential affect% is not representational, Deleuze remar$s, #since it is e/perienced in a living
duration that involves the difference "etween two states% As such an e/perience of difference,
affectus is #purely transitive%
>
,n the main discussion of affect in A)-,
A
DG do not maintain the
Spinozist term #affection,% "ut they do distinguish the relations of the e/tensive parts of a "ody
(including the #modification% of those relations resulting from an encounter), which they call
#longitude,% from the intensities or "odily states that augment or diminish the "ody5s #power to
act :puissance d2agir<,% which they call #latitude% ,n other words, the #latitude% of a "ody
comprises the affects or the capacities to act and to "e acted upon of which a "ody is capa"le at
any one time in an assem"lage 1hat are these #acts% of which a "ody is capa"le2 Ksing one of
the $ey terms of A)-, DG define affects as #"ecomings% or capacities to produce emergent
effects in entering assem"lages
B
)hese emergent effects will either mesh productively with the
affects of the "ody, or clash with them 9eshing emergent effects will augment the power of that
"ody to form other connections within or across assem"lages, resulting in !oyous affects, while
clashing emergent effects will diminish the power to act of the "ody, producing sad affects
.or DG, $nowledge of the affects of a "ody is all*important: #1e $now nothing a"out a "ody
until we $now what it can do :ce 7u2il peut<, in other words, what its affects are%
D
Affect is part
of DG5s dynamic interactional ontology, so that defining "odies in terms of affects or power to
act and to undergo is different from reading them in terms of properties of su"stantive "odies "y
which they are arranged in species and genera At this point in their te/t, DG illustrate the way
affect is part of the process of assem"ling "y reference to the relation "etween =ittle 4ans and
the horse in .reud5s eponymous case study 1hile we will not do a thematic study of the horse in
A)-, we should recall the prevalence of horses (alongside wolves and rats) in the discussions of
affect in A)-: "esides the =ittle 4ans case, we also find the "ecoming*horse of the masochist
"eing su"mitted to dressage,
F
and of course the repeated analyses of man*horse assem"lages in
the 7omadology chapter (the stirrup, the chariot, etc) 1e will return to the (uestion of horse*
man assem"lages in ancient warfare, in particular to a recent thesis where"y the defeat of the
light chariot forces "y "erser$er #runners% is the crucial factor in the defeat of +ronze Age
$ingdoms that mar$ the 1'HH +?E collapse, leading to the eventual emergence of the
polisOphalan/ assem"lage
G
=et us stay with the horse to illustrate affect as the capacity to "ecome, to undergo the stresses
inherent in forming a particular assem"lage, "y noting that in a grouping "ased on affect, a
racehorse (carries a rider in a race& ie, enters the racing assem"lage) has more in common with a
motorcycle than with a plow horse (pulls a tool that gouges the earth& ie, enters the agricultural
assem"lage), which has more in common with a tractor
1H
)his is not to say that what is usually
Tournament D6
named a #plow horse% or #tractor% cannot "e made to race, !ust as #race horses% and
#motorcycles% can "e made to pull plows )hese affects as changes in the triggers and patterns of
their "ehavior would, however, constitute another "ecoming or line of flight counter their usual,
statistically normal (#molar%) usages& it would constitute their enlistment in assem"lages that tap
different #machinic phyla% ("io*techno*social fields for the construction of assem"lages
11
) and
#diagrams% (the patterns that direct the construction of assem"lages
1'
) than the ones into which
they are usually recruited 1hether or not the "odies involved could withstand the stresses they
undergo is a matter of (one would hope careful) e/perimentation Such e/perimentation
esta"lishing the affects of assem"lages, the potentials for emergent functionality, is the very
process of transcendental empiricism
)o recap, then, DG follow Spinoza, defining affect as a "ody5s a"ility to act and to "e acted
upon, what it can do and what it can undergo DG operationalize the notion of affect as the
a"ility of "odies to form #assem"lages% with other "odies, that is, to form emergent functional
structures that conserve the heterogeneity of their components .or DG, then, #affect% is
physiological, psychological, and machinic: it im"ricates the social and the somatic in forming a
#"ody politic% which feels its power or potential to act increasing or decreasing as it encounters
other "odies politic and forms assem"lages with them (or indeed fails to do so) ,n this notion of
assem"lage as emergent functional structure, that is, a dispersed system that ena"les focused
"ehavior at the system level as it constrains component action, we find parallels with novel
positions in contemporary cognitive science (the #em"odied% or #e/tended% mind schools),
which maintain that cognition operates in loops among "rain, "ody, and environment
16
,n noting
this parallel, we should note that DG emphasizes the affective dimension of assem"lages, while
the em"odied*em"edded school focuses on cognition 1hile we follow DG5s lead and focus on
the affective, we should remem"er that "oth affect and cognition are aspects of a single process,
affective cognition, as the directed action of a living "eing in its world
1>
,n discussing affect, we should note that DG place feeling as the su"!ective appropriation of
affect An e/ample would "e the way pleasure is for them the su"!ective appropriation of de*
su"!ectizing !oyous affect: #pleasure is an affection of a person or a su"!ect& it is the only way for
persons to Lfind themselves5 in the process of desire that e/ceeds them& pleasures, even the most
artificial, are reterritorializations%
1A
,n the same way, our lead passage implies that #feeling%
(sentiment) is the su"!ect5s appropriation of physiological*emotional changes of the "ody, the
recognition that #this is me feeling this way% DG5s point a"out affect5s e/tension "eyond
su"!ective feeling dovetails with the analysis we will develop of e/treme cases of rage and panic
as triggering an evacuation of the su"!ect as automatic responses ta$e over& as we will put it,
drastic episodes of rage and fear are de*su"!ectivizing )he agent of an action underta$en in a
rage or panic state can "e said to "e the em"odied #affect program%
1B
acting independently of the
su"!ect 4ere we see affect freed from su"!ective feeling )here can "e no complaints a"out
eliminating the #first person% perspective in studying these episodes, "ecause there is no #first
person% operative in these cases Agency and su"!ectivity are split& affect e/tends "eyond feeling&
the "ody does something, is the agent for an action, in the a"sence of a su"!ect
1D
=et me give a "rief e/ample of research in social psychology that recognizes the ontology of
affect in "odies politic, "odies that are socially constructed in #dialogue% with our shared genetic
heritage 7is"ett and ?ohen go "elow the conscious su"!ect to e/amine physiological response,
demonstrating that white males of the southern Knited States have mar$edly greater outputs of
cortisol and testosterone in response to insults than a control group of northern white males
1F

Tournament D>
)hey go a"ove the individual su"!ect to e/amine social policy forms, showing that southern
states have looser gun control laws, more lenient laws regarding the use of violence in defense of
self and property, and more lenient practices regarding use of violence for social control
(domestic violence, corporal punishment in schools, and capital punishment) )hey also offer in
passing some speculation as to the role played "y slavery in the South in the constructing these
"odies politic in which social institutions and somatic affect are intertwined and mutually
reinforcing in diachronically developing and intensifying mutual reinforcement 7o one should
thin$ that these Southern males have a significantly different genetic ma$eup from other groups
(or "etter, that any genetic variation is larger within the group than is present "etween this group
and others)& the difference in reaction comes from the differences in "odies politic formed "y
different su"!ectification practices, that is, the differences in the way social practices have
installed triggers and thresholds that activate the anger patterns we all share due to our common
genetic heritage
)hus, as we have seen, affect is inherently political: "odies are part of an eco*social matri/ of
other "odies, affecting them and "eing affected "y them As we will now see, important schools
of "iological thought accord with this notion of affect as "io*cultural
4iology of Affect@=et5s first consider the neuroscience of affect 1e5ll focus on rage, as the
triggering of this desu"!ectizing affect was the target of constructions in the geo*"io*techno*
affective assem"lages of ancient warfare 3age is a "asic emotion, which is not to "e confused
with aggression, though it sometimes is at the root of aggressive "ehavior A leading
neuroscientist investigating rage is Raa$ -an$sepp, whose Affective -euroscience
1G
is a standard
te/t"oo$ in the field 4e argues that aggression is wider than anger, distinguishing at least two
forms of #aggressive circuits% in mammalian "rains: predation and rage
'H
-redation is "ased in
what -an$sepp calls the #see$ing% system, which is activated "y physiological im"alances, those
that can "e e/perienced as hunger, thirst, or se/ual need ,n predatory hunting, "ased in see$ing,
the su"!ect is still operative& there is an e/perience to hunting, we can e/perience #what it is li$e%
to hunt 7ow we must "e careful a"out too strictly distinguishing predation and rage in the act of
$illing ?oncrete episodes are most often "lends of anger and predation& as one e/pert puts it:
#3eal*life encounters tend to yield eclectic admi/tures, composites of goal and rage, purpose and
hate, reason and feeling, rationality and irrationality ,nstrumental and hostile violence are not
only kinds of violence, "ut also violence (ualities or components(%
'1
Although in many cases we find composites of "rute rage and purposeful predation, we can
isolate, at least theoretically, the pure state or #"lind rage% in which the su"!ect drops out 1e
ta$e the Ti$ing #"erser$er rage% as a prototype, a particularly intense e/pression of the
underlying neurological rage circuits that evacuates su"!ectivity and results in a sort of $illing
frenzy without conscious control )he notion of a "lind, de*su"!ectified, rage is confirmed "y
-an$sepp5s analysis of the #hierarchical% architecture of the neural circuits involved: #the core of
the 3AGE system runs from the medial amygdaloid areas downward, largely via the stria
terminalis to the medial hypothalamus, and from there to specific locations with the -AG
:peria(ueductal gray< of the mid"rain )his system is organized hierarchically, meaning that
aggression evo$ed from the amygdala is critically dependent on the lower regions, while
aggression from lower sites does not depend critically on the integrity of the higher areas%
''
1e
must admit that there are huge issues here with the relation of -an$sepp5s anatomical focus on
specific circuits and neurodynamical approaches which stress that the activity of multiple "rain
regions are involved in the activation of any one "rain function& this anatomy versus dynamics
Tournament DA
relation must itself "e seen in the historical conte/t of the perennial localist versus glo"alist
de"ate 1e are in no position to intervene in these most comple/ issues, "ut we should note that
-an$sepp5s notion of hierarchical circuits does allow for the possi"ility that #higher areas
provide su"tle refinements to the orchestration that is ela"orated in the -AG of the
mesencephalon :mid"rain< .or instance, various irritating perceptions pro"a"ly get transmitted
into the system via thalamic and cortical inputs to the medial amygdala%
'6
1hile these #irritating
perceptions% may simply sto$e the system to ever*greater heights of rage, we do need to allow
that in some cases conscious control can reassert itself 7onetheless, -an$sepp5s "asic approach,
as well as the volumes of warrior testimony a"out the "erser$er rage, licenses our description of
the #pure% "erser$er rage as #"lind% and de*su"!ectified
7ow it is not that the Ti$ing culture somehow simply presented a stage for the playing out of
these neurological circuits )o provo$e the "erser$er rage, the Ti$ings, through a variety of
training practices em"edded in their customs, distri"uted traits for triggering the "erser$er
process throughout their population -resuma"ly, they underwent an evolutionary process in
which success in raiding underta$en in the "erser$er frenzy provided a selection pressure for
isolating and improving these practices (1e will return to the (uestion of cultural evolution
"elow& for the moment, please note that , am not implying that genes were the target of that
selection pressure) ,n other words, the Ti$ings e/plored the "io*social machinic phylum for rage
triggering in their military assem"lages 1hile one researcher cites possi"le mushroom ingestion
as a contri"uting factor,
'>
we will later focus on the role of dance and song in triggering the
"erser$er state ,n his important 1GGA wor$, Reeping Together in Time> .ance and .rill in
$uman $istory, the noted history 1illiam 9c7eill notes that #war dances% produced a
#heightened e/citement% that contri"uted to the #rec$less attac$s% of the #Ti$ing "erser$ers%
'A
)here is no denying that the social meaning of "lind rages differs across cultures@how they are
interpreted "y others and "y self after wa$ing up@as do their triggers and thresholds
'B
+ut ,
thin$ it is important to rescue a minimal notion of human nature from e/treme social
constructivism and hold that the rage pattern is the same in some important sense across cultures,
given variation in genetic inheritances, environmental input, and developmental plasticity Even
with all that variation, there is remar$a"le similarity in what a full rage loo$s li$e, though how
much it ta$es to get there, and what the intermediate anger episodes loo$ li$e (#emotion
scripts%
'D
) can differ widely Even Rames Averill, a leading social constructivist when it comes to
emotion, relates #running amo$% in Southeast Asian societies to Ti$ing "erser$er rages Averill
writes: #Aggressive frenzies are, of course, found in many different cultures (eg, the berserk
reaction attri"uted to old 7orse warriors), "ut amo$ is pro"a"ly the most studied of these
syndromes%
'F
,t is the very commonality of #aggressive frenzies% that we are after in our notion
of #rage pattern%
, propose that in e/treme cases of rage a modular agent replaces the su"!ect with what is called
an #affect program,% that is, an emotional response that is #comple/, coordinated, and automated
; unfold:ing< in this coordinated fashion without the need for conscious direction%
'G
Affect
programs (panic is another e/ample) are more than refle/es, "ut they are triggered well "efore
any cortical processing can ta$e place (though later cortical appraisals can dampen or accelerate
the affect program) Griffiths ma$es the case that affect programs should "e seen in light of
.odor5s notion of modularity, which calls for a module to "e #mandatory ; opa(ue :we are
aware of outputs "ut not the processes producing them< ; and informationally encapsulated :the
information in a module cannot access that in other modules<%
6H
-erhaps second only to the
Tournament DB
(uestion of adaptationism for the amount of controversy it has evo$ed, the use of the concept of
modularity in evolutionary psychology is "itterly contested , feel relatively safe proposing a
rage module or rage agent, since its adaptive value is widely attested to "y its presence in other
mammals, and since -an$sepp is a"le to cites studies of direct electrical stimulation of the "rain
(ES+) and neurochemical manipulation as identifying homologous rage circuits in humans and
other mammalian species
61
-an$sepp proposes as adaptive reasons for rage agents their utility in
predator*prey relations, further sharpening the difference "etween rage and predator aggression
1hile a hunting attac$ is "y definition an instance of predatory aggression, rage reactions are a
prey phenomenon, a vigorous reaction when pinned down "y a predator ,nitially a refle/,
-an$sepp claims, it developed into a full*fledged neural phenomenon with its own circuits
6'
)he
evolutionary inheritance of rage patterns is confirmed "y the well*attested fact that infants can
"ecome enraged "y having their arms pinned to their sides
7ow that we have seen now neuroscientists discuss rage, and "roached the issues of the unit of
selection in cultural evolution and those of modularity and adaptationism in evolutionary
psychology, we have to insist right now that we cannot thin$ "odies politic as mere inputOoutput
machines passively patterned "y their environment (that way lies a discredited social
constructivism) or passively programmed "y their genes (an e(ually discredited genetic
determinism) 1e thus turn to an important school of thought in contemporary critical "iology,
#developmental systems theory% (DS)), which is ta$en from the writings of 3ichard =ewontin,
66

Susan 0yama,
6>
-aul Griffiths and 3ussell Gray,
6A
and others
6B
1ith the help of this new critical
"iology we can see the "ody politic as neither a simple "lan$ slate nor a determined mechanism,
"ut as "iologically open to the su"!ectification practices it undergoes in its cultural em"edding,
practices that wor$ with the "road contours provided "y the genetic contri"ution to development
to install culturally variant triggers and thresholds to the "asic patterns that are our common
heritage Griffiths uses the e/ample of fear to ma$e this point, "ut the same holds for the "asic
emotion of rage we discussed a"ove #)he empirical evidence suggests that in humans the actual
fear response@the output side of fear@is an outcome of very coarse*grained selection, since it
responds to danger of all $inds )he emotional appraisal mechanism for fear@the input side@
seems to have "een shaped "y a com"ination of very fine*grained selection, since it is primed to
respond to crude sna$e*li$e gestalts, and selection for developmental plasticity, since very few
stimuli elicit fear without relevant e/perience%
6D
DS) is a primarily a reaction to genetic determinism or reductionism Genetic determinism is an
ontological thesis proposing that genes are the sole source of order of (that is, that genes
determine) physiological and developmental processes, "eginning with protein synthesis and
e/tending upward to organic, systemic, and organismic processes 7o one has ever upheld such
an a"solute position if "y that one means epigenetic conditions have no influence whatsoever,
that developmental and physiological processes are determined the way a stone is determined to
fall "y gravity )he real target of criti(ue "y DS) thin$ers is the idea that there are two classes of
developmental resources, genetic and epigenetic, and that genes provide the information or "lue*
print or plan or program, such that the epigenetic resources are the materials or "ac$ground upon
which andOor in which genes act
6F
)he real (uestion of so*called genetic determinism, then, is
the locus of control rather than a"solute determination
Genetic reductionism is an epistemological issue ,t5s my impression that many practicing
"iologists thin$ of reductionism as as$ing the (uestion: can the portion of physiology and
development due to genetic control "e considered separately from the portion due to epigenetic
Tournament DD
influences2
6G
)he DS) response to this (uestion is $nown as the #parity thesis,% which rests upon
the idea that there is a distri"uted system with "oth genetic and epigenetic factors (eg, at least
cell conditions and relative cell position) that controls gene e/pression and protein synthesis ,t5s
a mista$e however to attri"ute portions of control to components of that system, such that one
could isolate the portion of genetic control )hat would "e analogous to saying that prisoners are
partially under the control of the guards, when it would "e "etter to say they are under the control
of the prison system in which guards play a role (alongside architectural, technological, and
administrative components) ,n the view of Griffiths and Gray, the undenia"le empirical
differences in the roles played "y D7A and "y non*D7A factors does not support the
metaphysical decision to create two classes of developmental resources, nor the additional move
to posit genes as the locus of control and epigenetic factors as "ac$ground, as matter to "e
molded "y the #information% supposedly carried in genes
>H
A second $ey notion for DS) thin$ers is #niche*construction% 3ather than seeing evolution as
the adaptation of organisms to independently changing environments (the organism thus "eing
reactive), DS) follows 3ichard =ewontin and others in focusing on the way organisms actively
shape the environment they live in and in which their offspring will live
>1
)hey thus play a role
in selecting which environmental factors are most important for them and their offspring )hus
evolution should "e seen not simply as the change in gene fre(uency (a mere #"oo$$eeping%
perspective) "ut as the change in organism*environment systems, that is, the organism in its
constructed niche
>'
Allied with niche*construction, a third $ey notion of DS) is that the #life
cycle% should "e considered the unit of development and evolution .or DS) adherents, the
developmental system considered in an evolutionary perspective is the widest possi"le e/tension
of developmental resources that are relia"ly present (or "etter, re*created) across generations
)he #life cycle% considered in an evolutionary perspective is the series of events caused "y this
developmental matri/ that recurs in each generation )he evolutionary perspective on the
developmental system and life cycle is thus different from the individual perspective, where
events need not recur: a singular event might play a crucial role in the development of any one
individual, "ut unless it relia"ly recurs, it will not have a role in evolution& DS) thus avoids the
specter of =amarc$ism ,n their evolutionary thin$ing, DS) thin$ers e/tend the notion of
epigenetic inheritance from the intra*nuclear factors of chromatin mar$ings to the cytoplasmic
environment of the egg (an e/tension many mainstream "iologists have come to accept) and
"eyond to intra*organismic and even (most controversially) to e/tra*somatic factors, that is, to
the relevant, constructed, features of the physical and social environments (for e/ample, normal
:ie, species*typical< "rain development in humans needs language e/posure in critical sensitive
windows)
>6
Such a ma/imal e/tension of the developmental system raises the methodological hac$les of
many "iologists, as it seems suspiciously holistic )hese methodological reflections remain
among the most controversial in contemporary philosophy of science ,t would ta$e us too far
afield to e/plore fully all the implications of these de"ates, "ut we can see them as well in the
"ac$ground of the notions of developmental plasticity and environmental co*constitution found
in 1est*E"erhard
>>
)hat the development of organisms is #plastic% and #co*constituted% with its
environment means that it is not the simple wor$ing out of a genetic program 3ather,
development involves a range of response capacities depending on the developing system5s
e/posure to different environmental factors, !ust as those responses feed "ac$ to change the
environment in niche*construction )hus the notion of developmental plasticity displaces gene*
centric notions of programmed development !ust as organism*environment co*constitution
Tournament DF
displaces notions of gene*centric natural selection in favor of a notion of multiple levels of
selection
1e cannot enter the details of the controversy surrounding the notion of multiple levels of
selection here, "ut we can at least s$etch the main issues surrounding the notion of group
selection, which plays a $ey role in any notion of "iocultural evolution
>A
,n considering the
notion of group selection we find two main issues: emergence and altruism ,f groups can have
functional organization in the same way individuals do, that is, if groups can "e emergent
individuals, then groups can also "e vehicles for selection .or e/ample, groups that cooperate
"etter may have outreproduced those which did not )he crucial (uestion is the replicator, the
ultimate target of the selection pressures: again, for our purposes, the unit of selection is not the
gene or the meme (a discrete unit of cultural #information%), "ut the set of practices for forming
"odies politic 1ith the co*operation necessary for group selection, we must discuss the notion of
#altruism% or more precisely, the seeming parado/ of #fitness*sacrificing "ehavior% ,t would
seem that natural selection would weed out dispositions leading to "ehaviors that sacrifice
individual fitness (defined as always as the fre(uency of reproduction) )he famous answer that
seemed to put paid to the notion of group selection came in the concept of #$in selection% )he
idea here is that if you sacrifice yourself for a $in, at least part of your genotype, the #altruistic%
part that determines or at least influences self*sacrifice and that is :pro"a"ly< shared with that
$in, is passed on +ut again, all the preceding discussion operates at the genetic level 1e will
claim that the ultimate target of selection pressure in group selection is the set of social practices
relia"ly producing a certain trait "y wor$ing with our genetic heritage )his need not have any
implications for genetic fitnesssacrificing in group selection, if we restrict ourselves to "odies
politic and the social practices for promoting "ehavior leading to increased group fitness ,n
other words, we are concerned with the varia"le cultural setting of triggers and thresholds for
minimally genetically guided "asic patterns
)he important thing for our purposes here is the emphasis DS) places on the life cycle,
developmental plasticity and environmental co*constitution ,n following these thin$ers, we can
replace the controversial term #innate% with (the admittedly e(ually controversial) #relia"ly
produced given certain environmental factors% ,n so doing, we have room to analyze differential
patterns in societies that "ring forth important differences from common endowments ,n other
words, we don5t genetically inherit a su"!ect, "ut we do inherit the potential to develop a su"!ect
when it is called forth "y cultural practices ,t is precisely the various types of su"!ect called forth
(the distri"ution of cognitive and affective patterns, thresholds, and triggers in a given
population) that is to "e analyzed in the study of the history of affect
$istory of Affect@1e have seen how DS) ena"les us to e/plore the "io*cultural dimension of
"odies politic "y thematizing e/trasomatic inheritance as whatever is relia"ly reproduced in the
ne/t life cycle )hus with humans we5re into realm of "io*cultural evolution, with all its
comple/ity and de"ates
>B
1e have to remem"er that the unit of selection here is not purely and
simply genetic (indeed, for the most part genes are unaffected "y cultural evolution, the classical
instances of lactose tolerance and sic$le*cell anemia notwithstanding), "ut should "e seen as sets
of cultural practices, thought in terms of their a"ility to produce affective cognitive structures
(tendencies to react to categories of events) "y tin$ering with "roadly genetically guided neuro*
endocrine developmental processes
>D
Tournament DG
3egarding historically formed and culturally varia"le affective cognition, , wor$ with Damasio5s
framewor$ for the most part
>F
+rain and "ody communicate neurologically and chemically in
forming #somatic mar$ers,% which correlate or tag changes in the characteristic profile of "ody
changes with the encounters, that is, changes in the characteristic profile of "ody*world
interactions, which provo$e them Somatic mar$ers are formed via a comple/ process involving
"rain*"ody*environment interaction, in which the "rain receives signals from the "ody, from
"rain maps of "ody sectors, and from its own internal self*monitoring sectors )hus, the "rain
synthesizes how the world is changing (sensory input, which is only a modulation on ongoing
processes), how the "ody is "eing affected "y the world5s changing (proprioception or #somatic
mapping,% again, a modulation of ongoing processes), and how the "rain5s endogenous dynamics
are changing (modulation of ongoing internal neurological traffic or #metarepresentations%) )his
synthesis sets up the capacity to e/perience a feeling of how the "ody would "e affected were it
to perform a certain action and hence "e affected in turn "y the world (off*line imaging, that is,
modulation of the ongoing stream of #somatic mar$ers%) , cannot detail the argument here, "ut a
neurodynamical reading of Damasio5s framewor$ is "roadly consonant with the Deleuzian
emphasis on differential relations, that is, the lin$age of rates of change of neural firing patterns,
and on their integration at certain critical thresholds, resulting in #resonant cell assem"lies%
>G
or
their e(uivalent
AH
)he $ey is that the history of "odily e/perience is what sets up a somatic
mar$er profile& in other words, the affective cognition profile of "odies politic is em"odied and
historical
A1
1ith this "ac$ground, we see the limitations of much of the controversy around #cultural
evolution% are due to the assumption that #information transfer% is the target for investigation
A'

+ut the notions of #meme% and #information transfer% founders on DS)5s criti(ue S it5s not a
formed unit of information that we5re after, "ut a process of guiding the production of
dispositions to form somatic mar$ers in particularly culturally informed ways 1e have to thin$
of ourselves as "io*cultural, with minimal genetically guided psychological modularity (relia"ly
reproduced across cultures) and with a great deal of plasticity allowing for "io*cultural variance
in forming our intuitions
A6
,n other words, we have to study political physiology, defined as the
study of the production of the variance in affective cognitive triggers and thresholds in "odies
politic, "ased on some minimally shared "asic patterns
All this means that we can5t assume an a"stract affective cognitive su"!ect "ut have to investigate
the history of affect +ut, the o"!ection might go, don5t we there"y ris$ leaving philosophy and
entering historical anthropology2 Answer: we only #leave% philosophy to enter history if we5ve
surreptitiously defined philosophy ahead of time as ahistorical 1ell, then, don5t we leave
philosophy and enter psychology2 Answer: only if we5ve defined philosophy as concerned solely
with universal structures of affective cognition +ut that5s the nu" of the argument: the
a"straction needed to reach the universally #human% (as opposed to the historically variant) is at
heart anti"iological 0ur "iology ma$es humans essentially open to our cultural imprinting& our
nature is to "e so open to our nurture that it "ecomes second nature +ut !ust saying that is
typological thin$ing, concerned with #the% (universal) human realm& we need to "ring concrete
"iological thought into philosophy ,t5s the variations in and across populations which are real&
the type is an a"straction
4aving said all that, we must "e clear that we are targeting variation in the su"!ectification
practices producing varia"le triggers and thresholds of shared "asic patterns 7ow almost all of
us relia"ly develop a set of "asic emotions (rage, sadness, !oy, fear, distaste) we share with a
Tournament FH
good num"er of reasona"ly comple/ mammals 9any of us also have ro"ust and relia"le
prosocial emotions (fairness, gratitude, punishment@shame and guilt are controversial cases) we
share with primates, given certain "asic and very wide*spread socializing inputs
A>
Although
some cultural practices can try to e/pand the reach of prosocial emotions to all humans or even
all sentient creatures (with all sorts of stops in "etween), in many sets of cultural practices, these
prosocial emotions are partial and local (4ume5s starting point in tal$ing a"out the #moral
sentiments%) 1hy is the partiality of prosocial emotions a #default setting% for sets of "io*
cultural practices2 0ne hypothesis is that war has "een a selection pressure in "iocultural
evolution, operating at the level of group selection and producing very strong in*group versus
out*group distinctions and very strong rewardsOpunishments for in*group conformity
AA
)here are difficult issues here concerning group selection and the unit of selection, "ut even if we
can avoid the genetic level and focus on group selection for sets of social practices producing
prosocial "ehaviors, we must still ta$e into account a "itter controversy in anthropology a"out
the alleged universality of warfare in human evolution and history
AB
)here are three elements to
consider here: the "iological, the archaeological, and the ethnographic 3egarding the "iological,
an important first step is to distinguish human war from chimpanzee male coalition and
aggressive hierarchy, in short, the #$iller ape% hypothesis
AD
Several researchers point out that we
are !ust as genetically related to "ono"os, who are "ehaviorally very different from
chimpanzees
AF
-roponents of universal war often point to the archaeological record
AG
?ritics
reply that claims of war*damaged s$ulls are more plausi"ly accounted for "y animal attac$s
BH

.inally, we must couple the archaeological record with the current ethnographic record +ut to do
that we must distinguish simple hunter*gatherer (forager) "ands from more comple/
huntergatherer tri"es (with chiefs) )he former have murder and revenge $illing andOor group
#e/ecutions% (sometimes "y $in of the $iller@weeding out the mad dogs), "ut not feuding or the
#logic of social su"stituta"ility% which ena"les warfare
B1
1e also have to loo$ to current tri"al
warfare in the conte/t of 1estern contact and territorial constriction andOor rivalry over trading
rights
B'
)he (uestion would "e how much war was needed to form an effective selection pressure for
strong in*group identification and hence partiality of pro*social emotions2 3icherson and +oyd
argue that "etween group imitations can also "e a factor in spreading cultural variants
B6
)hey
cite the e/ample of early ?hristianity, where the selection pressure for su"!ectification practices
of #"rotherhood% and hence care for the poor and sic$ was the high rate of epidemics in the
3oman Empire So war need not "e the only selection pressure, nor does group destruction and
assimilation of losers have to "e the only means of transmitting cultural variants 1e will assume
in the following section that we haven5t had time for selection pressures on genes with regard to
warfare
B>
+ut we have had time for selection pressures on "io*cultural su"!ectification practices
relative to warfare, that is, for e/ample, how to entrain a marching phalan/ versus how to trigger
"erser$er rage
,f war was a selection pressure on group su"!ectification practices for forming different "odies
politic, we have to consider the history of warfare 1ith comple/ tri"al warfare, you get loose
groups of warriors with charismatic leaders
BA
Tirtually all the males of the tri"e ta$e part in this
type of warfare& in other words, there is no professional warrior classOcaste, e/cept in certain rare
cases )he argument of .ry5s 4eyond *ar is that the ?hagnonO?lastres school, which focuses on
the Nanomami as prototypical #primitive% warriors, pic$ed comple/ horticultural huntergatherers
and missed the even more "asic simple foragers, who represented the vast ma!ority of human
Tournament F1
history +ut that5s o$ay, "ecause we5re not tal$ing a"out genes, "ut a"out "io*cultural evolution,
a"out group selection of affective practices So we don5t have to claim warfare is in our genes&
we need only investigate the geo*"io*affective group su"!ectification practices, once warfare is
widespread And , accept that this spread is post*agriculture, even for comple/ tri"al #primitive%
societies, who have always had States on their horizon
BB
)his tri"al egalitarianism changes with agriculture and class society 1e need not enter DG5s
#anti*evolution% argument and the notion of the Krstaat, though we can note some fascinating
new research which "roadly supports their claim, derived from Rane Raco"s, of the ur"an origins
of agriculture
BD
?onsider thus the situation in 4omer: we see vast differences "etween the
affective structures of the warriors ("ravery), the peasants (docility) who support them, the
artisans who supply the arms (diligence), and the "ards who sing their praises and who thus
reinforce the affective structures of the warriors: the feeling that your name will live on if you
perform "ravely is very important )hus here the selection pressure is for sets of "io*cultural
practices producing specialized affective structures relative to position in society, that is, relative
to their contri"ution to the effectiveness of wars fought "y that society 0nce again, our concern
is with the "io*cultural production of "odies politic, which tries to relia"ly produce "io*affective
states )he triumph of hoplite warfare mar$s a shift in "io*cultural production ?ompare
Aristotle5s golden mean of courage with what the 4omeric warriors meant "y courage .or
Aristotle, courage means staying in the phalan/ with your mates: charging ahead rashly is as
much a fault as cowardly retreat
BF
+ut for the 4omeric heroes, charging ahead rashly is all there
is
Part ": #$sic and Ancient %arfare
1e have now set up our research (uestion .or a final preparation for our study of the role of
music in the affective assem"lages that trigger "erser$er rage or that entrain the phalan/, let us
consider recent research which has proposed studying music in the conte/t of "io*cultural
evolution )he leading researcher of the ?am"ridge School of thought in this area, ,an ?ross,
argues that music is ancient and universal for humans& so ancient that here we can consider a
significant genetic component Against two recent claims, ?ross holds that Steven -in$er is
wrong a"out music "eing only a spandrel and Geoffrey 9iller is wrong a"out it "eing due to
se/ual selection, "ecause they "oth thin$ of music as contemporary 1estern music e/perience, as
#patterned sound employed primarily for hedonic ends, whose production constitutes a
specialised, commodified and technologised activity%
BG
Another mem"er of the ?am"ridge
school of thought on music and "io*cultural evolution, Rohn +ispham, puts the contrary position
as clearly as possi"le: #music is a culturally constructed phenomenon "uilt upon universal
"iologically determined foundations%
DH
7ow we must "e clear that studying music in an evolutionary framewor$ does not yield a simple
adaptive story 3ather, it seems that various #proto*musical% capacities evolved separately and
later were stitched together to yield human musical capacities +ispham proposes that musical
rhythmic "ehavior #"e viewed as a constellation of concurrently operating, hierarchically
organized, su"s$ills including general timing a"ilities, smooth and "allistic movement (periodic
and nonperiodic), the perception of pulse, a coupling of action and perception, and error
correction mechanisms&% all of these #su"s$ills share overlapping internal oscillatory
mechanisms%
D1
)hese various capacities should "e seen as #grounded in, and as having
e/aptively evolved from, fundamental $inesthetic a"ilities and modes of perceiving temporally
Tournament F'
organized events% ,n sum, +ispham is against a straight line evolutionary story: #comple/
"ehaviors such as music evolved in a mosaic fashion, with individual components emerging or
evolving independently or for independent reasons at times, andOor reforming with other
components at other times% )his doesn5t mean that any one mechanism wasn5t selected for, !ust
not the full com"ination as such, until much later, after independent evolution of the components
)he evolutionary pressures that have shaped the fundamentally rhythmic and social aspects of
our "eing lead ?ross to claim that #infants appear to "e primed for music&% in support of this, he
cites important studies on rhythmic mother*infant interactions which are crucial for #primary
intersu"!ectivity,% #emotional regulation% and #emotional "onding%
D'
,n the same vein, +ispham
classifies Dissanaya$e as loo$ing for #the adaptive strength of rhythm and entrainment in the
course of human evolution with reference to mother*infant interaction%
D6
)hese early "uilding "loc$s of musicality must come together to form our uni(uely human
rhythmic capacities ,an ?ross, for his part, insists that the cultural evolution of music cannot "e
a"out #memes% which are discrete and consist in #information transfer% )he idea has to "e that
music is involved in the development of "odies politic .or our purposes, music is a powerful
way of searching the machinic phylum for "io*social assem"lage formation to draw out practices
forming "odies politic that can "e contri"ute to group functionality )he $ey here is to
#interpersonal musical entrainment% as the uni(uely human musical capacity 1hat distinguishes
human music from "ird song is that our music is dialogue, group activity, involving changes in
response to changes "y others )hus a $ey capacity for investigation is entrainment, or group
movement with the same pulse, which plays a ma!or role in +ispham5s analysis& entrainment is
"ased on #internal oscillatory mechanisms :which< are attuned to e/ternal cues allowing us to
"uild e/pectations for the timing of future events ; and to interact efficiently with the
environment%
D>
Since there are internal oscillatory mechanisms in a variety of domains of
human "ehavior and cognition, this suggests that #entrainment in music constitutes an
evolutionary e/aptation of more generally functional mechanisms for future*directed attending to
temporally structured events% +ispham pushes the analysis as far as to entertain the notion that
#interpersonal entrainment is the $ey rhythmic feature in :all< human interactions,% "oth musical
and non*musical Such interpersonal entrainment ranges from #loose, su"conscious use of pulse
as a framewor$ for interpersonalOturn*ta$ing interactions in, for e/ample, mother*infant or
linguistic interactions% to #a strict adherence to pulse (groove) in group "ehavior and
synchronicity of output where participants are aware of the pulse framewor$ and desire to
maintain a degree of temporal sta"ility and groupcoordination (eg, music and dance)%
4owever, +ispham claims that it5s pro"a"ly the case that the former precedes the latter
ontogentically and perhaps phylogenetically and is less comple/ in psychological and
physiological So in his search for what is uni(ue a"out human musical rhythm, +ispham pulls
"ac$ from the "road framewor$ to focus on musical pulse and period correction as the $eys here&
we will deal only with the first of these
3egarding musical pulse, we have to remem"er that for almost all of human history, music has
had to have "een dancea"le, which sets up its capacity for group "onding
DA
4ow does
dancea"ility come a"out2 +ispham points first to #internal periodic oscillatory mechanisms
overlapping with motor*coordination% )he $ey for us is his conclusion that this provides #a
mechanism to affect and regulate levels of physiological arousal% ,n other words, music allows
groups to get on the same emotional wavelength: #93+ is primarily rooted in providing a
temporal framewor$, collective emotionality, a feeling of shared e/perience, and cohesiveness to
group activities and ritualistic ceremonies&% indeed, #musical pulse is functional in regulating
Tournament F6
emotions and motivational states "y means of affecting states of action*readiness%
DB
,t5s
important to stress that in an evolutionary perspective music is regulatory rather than merely
e/pressive: music is #functional in regulating emotions and in communicating strategies for the
regulation of emotion rather than as raw emotional e/pression per se(% 9ost importantly for our
purposes, +ispham notes that such functional affective regulation "y means of group music
includes #military arousal%
DD
1ith this "ac$ground, let us now narrow the focus to music and ancient warfare .irst we can
distance ourselves from the approach ta$en "y 4agen and +ryant,
DF
whose investigation of music
as a #coalition signaling system% focuses on a genetic level of selection )hey "elieve themselves
licensed to do so "ecause they assume the ancient universality of warfare, "ut we have seen
a"ove how this is "ased on highly (uestiona"le assumptions 1e will instead focus on much
more recent events, in particular on the differences "etween the "io*social assem"lages of the
"erser$er rage triggered "y the war dance, and the entrainment of the phalan/ "y cadence
marching )o set the stage, let us reconstruct the commonly accepted chronology of military
assem"lages in the ancient 7ear East )he separation of military and priestly power, according to
1illiam 9c7eill, had #distinct historical origin in ancient Sumer, when, in the language of their
epic of creation, L$ingship came down from the gods5 to challenge priestly management of
society around 6HHH +? )he rise of $ingship in 9esopotamia, as it happens, was also connected
with the earliest $nown manifestation of the tamer version of war dances@close*order drill%
DG

3eading the epic of Gilgamesh as recording the esta"lishment of $ingship from pressures of
"ar"arian raiding and fighting "etween ad!acent cities over water rights, 9c7eill sees evidence
of close*order infantry spearmen at '>AH +?E 7ow 9c7eill holds that Sumerian military*
political independence from priestly*religious authority was #e/ceptional% and due to "io*social
entrainment: #, suggest that the psychological impact of drill may well have "een critical in
$eeping the military*political structure of ancient Sumer independent of, and sometimes at odds
with, priestlyreligious authority%
FH
)he $ey change is the replacement of early infantry "y light chariots as mo"ile archery
platforms, the dominant form of military assem"lage in the +ronze Age $ingdoms
F1
After the
1'HH +?E collapse (on which we will focus shortly), around FDA +?E we see archers directly on
horse"ac$, as riders, whose #a"ility to concentrate superior force at any given spot, almost at
will%
F'
is sure to remind all readers of DG of nomad tactics, the a"ility to hold an open field, to
move with #intensive speed% and so on
F6
)hese G
th
century riders are the #zoose/ual% horsemen
noted "y DG, whose relation to the succeeding form of the phalan/ with the rise of the polis in
the F
th
and D
th
centuries +?E is e/ceedingly comple/ and "eyond the scope of this article to
e/plore fully
F>
7ow, whatever the precise details of the emergence of the phalan/, it is clear that marching
played a ma!or role in the purest e/pression of the phalan/, the Spartans
FA
7ow there are a
num"er of preliminary issues to "e discussed here, none of which we can treat in depth, "ut
which we can at least note .irst of all, the Spartans were the only polis to devote much time to
training for warfare, a point of pride for the Athenians
FB
Second, , find myself compelled once
again, at the ris$ of fatiguing my readers, to insist that the unit of analysis for us in discussing
phalan/ warfare must "e the set of "io*social practices for directing the development of the
affective structures of "odies politic, not the all*too*cognitivist notion of #"undles of information
or instructions% allowing for the #e/osomatic% transmittal of #sets of norms, values and
"eliefs%
FD
1ith all that in mind, a commonly cited passage from -lutarch confirms the internal
Tournament F>
emotional "onding and the intimidating effect on their opponents that Spartan musical march into
"attle had: #And when at last they were drawn up in "attle array and the enemy was at hand, the
$ing ; ordered the pipers to pipe the strains of the hymn to ?astor& then he himself led off in a
marching paean, and it was a sight e(ually grand and terrifying when they marched in step with
the rhythm of the flute, without any gap in their line of "attle, and with no confusion in their
souls, "ut calmly and cheerfully moving with the strains of their hymn into the deadly fight
7either fear nor e/cessive fury is li$ely to possess men so disposed, "ut rather a firm purpose
full of hope and courage, "elieving as they do that 4eaven is their ally%
FF
+efore we "egin our final section on the role of "erser$ers in the 1'HH +?E collapse, we should
remar$ upon a reading, focusing upon corporeal entrainment, of the huge role played in Athenian
thought "y the difference "etween the phalan/ at 9arathon and the rowers of Salamis According
to 9c7eill, #the Athenian fleet developed muscular "onding among a larger proportion of the
total population ; ancient trireme crews pulled their oars in unison "y conforming to the "eat of
a mallet on a special sounding "oard& and this may have strengthened their visceral response to
$eeping together in time ; the upwelling of common feeling among the Athenians concentrated
among citizens too poor to e(uip themselves for the phalan/%
FG
1e find here a possi"le "io*
social e/planation for what is usually e/plained as class "ias in -lato5s privileging of 9arathon
over Salamis
GH
9c7eill ties muscular "onding to #ideals of freedom and e(uality under the law
; limited to the militarily active segment of the population ; -ractices that had emerged (at
least in part) from $eeping together achieved lasting influence when translated into words and
transmitted to later generations in literary dress%
G1
=et us now return to the affective assem"lages at wor$ in the 1'HH +?E collapse, to the
discussion of which all the preceding has prepared us 1hile DG follow Detienne in discussing
the distinction of the Dar$ Age riders and the ?lassical Age phalan/, there is an earlier
confrontation of military assem"lages that sets the stage for that transformation 0ur ma!or
source here will "e Drews
G'
Drews proposes a #military e/planation% for the 1'HH +?E collapse
4e first eliminates the standard e/planations: earth(ua$es, migrations, ironwor$ing, systems
collapse, and raiders Systems collapse might "e a condition of wea$ness of $ingdoms, "ut
cannot e/plain the physical destruction of so many palaces right around 1'HH +?E, since it is a
#process and structure% e/planation that cannot deal with the #event% of the destruction
G6
1hile
systems collapse is often then coupled with the earth(ua$e or migration hypothesis to e/plain the
#incidental% event of palace destruction, Drews insists the collapse cannot "e seen as simply
#internal development@the conse(uence of deterioration in internal systems%& you need to loo$
to the agency of the attac$ers and the military wea$ness to which they were responding
G>
0n the
other hand, for Drews the #raiders% hypothesis is correct, "ut incomplete
GA
)he $ey (uestion is
why were they only successful at 1'HH, when "efore they were only a nuisance2
GB
Drews5s
innovation comes from e/amining the ma$eup of Ancient 7ear Eastern imperial armies 4ere we
find that light chariots were the main weapon system, as mo"ile archery platforms As successful
as the light chariots were, they "ecame vulnera"le to #a new $ind of infantry%
GD
)hese new foot
soldiers #used weapons and guerrilla tactics that were characteristic of "ar"arian hill people "ut
had never "een tried en masse in the plains and against the centers of the =ate +ronze Age
$ingdoms%
1e need to recognize that Drews admits the speculative character of his wor$ on the level of
history, since we are going to add further, "iocultural and neurological, speculation on top of
that -lunging ahead, in any event, the Drews thesis is that "ar"arian troops #awo$e to a truth
Tournament FA
that had "een with them for some time: the chariot*"ased forces on which the Great 8ingdoms
relied could "e overwhelmed "y swarming infantries ; #
GF
)hese phrases will draw the notice of
every reader of A)-: #swarming% is the $ey term in the nomad creation of smooth space, or
"etter the smoothing force of the nomad war machine, which can pop up anywhere in the field in
the manner of a #vorte/%
GG
=et us continue: not only is the light chariot an assem"lage in the
Deleuzoguattarian sense, "ringing together horses, chariot, driver, archer, and "ow into an
emergent functional structure, "ut we also see Drews supporting DG5s thesis of the precedence of
the #social machine% over technology 0nly with changes in the social structure could the
assem"lage "e fully integrated: #the chariot "ecame militarily significant when it was com"ined
with another intricate artifact, the composite "ow, which also had "een $nown for a long time "ut
had until then "een a lu/ury reserved for $ings or the very rich%
1HH
)he (uestion of 4omer5s mista$es in portraying the use of chariots as #"attle ta/is% is fairly well*
$nown and is deftly handled "y Drews: #, would suggest, then, that 4omer was "asically
ignorant of chariot warfare "ecause the heroic tradition originated in a society of infantrymen, in
which the chariot was indeed nothing more than a prestige vehicle%
1H1
So much is familiar, "ut
here5s the twist that esta"lishes Drews5s importance for our interests: #4omer5s Achaeans were
; responsi"le for putting an end to chariot warfare and to the domination of the horse*tamers
:cf( 4ector5s so"ri(uet< )hey were, that is to say, infantrymen of the new type@fleet of foot,
s$illed with the !avelin or throwing spear, and also carrying long swords@who spelled the doom
of the great chariot forces of the =ate +ronze Age%
1H'
Drews insists that "efore the 1'HH +?E
?atastrophe the foot soldiers supported the chariots, performing the hand*to*hand com"at in
plains "attles and doing the fighting in the hills, where chariots couldn5t go
1H6
1e see here the
outlines of the geographical dimension of the ancient warfare multiplicity, which Drews
confirms in his analysis of the fighting styles of the s$irmisher*runners, who were "ar"arian
recruits from those very hill regions: #9o"ility rather than solidarity was essential%
1H>
,n another
aspect that will delight readers of A)-, "ut which we cannot pursue, Drews indicates the
"ecoming*animal of the prototypical runner, who was #ferocious in his horned or feathered
helmet% A final geo*"io*social element deserves recognition, that is, the differentials in physical
conditioning "etween the "ar"arian hill runners and the plains*dwelling peasant: #service as
s$irmishers was undou"tedly hazardous and demanding and must have re(uired a great deal
more stamina, s$ill, rec$lessness, and perhaps ferocity than could "e found in the typical resident
of Kgarit, 9essenia, or 9emphis%
1HA
)he $ey (uestion for us must "e: what are the affects of Achilles the fleet footed2 1e all $now
the answer: speed and rage at close range As much as anyone in our culture, Achilles is the
prototype of the "erser$er rage
1HB
Drews is clear that the runnerOraiders fought in the style that
DG associates with the steppe nomads: #1ith a long sword as his primary weapon for hand*to*
hand warfare, the raider re(uired an Lopen5 space, in which his agility and fleetness could "e
e/ploited%
1HD
7ow of course we $now that 4omer paints 4ector as having same affect, "ut
according to Drews5s novel interpretation, )roy itself is a horse (chariot) city that is sac$ed "y
the raiders Drews5 point is that in 4omer5s portrayal Achilles and the Gree$s fight as did the
"ar"arian hill people who had "een incorporated into the comple/ armies of the +ronze Age
$ingdoms, "ut then discovered they could defeat chariots 1hatever the worth of these
speculations as literary criticism, the important point for us is the affect of the runners from the
hills who made up the s$irmishers of the imperial armies 4ere we turn to a fascinating article "y
9ichael Speidel, who ma$es the argument that the hill people were ,ndo*European, fighting in
"erser$er style
1HF
Despite his wonderful descriptions of the "erser$ers, Speidel unfortunately
Tournament FB
tal$s a"out the #"erser$ mind% where we must insist that #"ody politic% is a much "etter term
Speidel does, however, use a great, if slightly pleonastic, term for their tactics, one that is again
sure to draw the attention of readers of A)-: the "erser$ers fought as in a #swirling
whirlwind%
1HG
)o focus on our concern on the construction of "odies politic: what were the techni(ues to "ring
out the "erser$er rage2 9usic is primary among them Speidel tells us that #to do deeds of
"erser$ daring, one had to "e raging mad ; Shouting and singing were ways to raise such rage%
Early Gree$ and 3oman warriors screeched li$e floc$s of raucous "irds@a mar$ of manhood ,n
an important point to which we will return, Speidel notes the cross*cultural effectiveness of the
war song in provo$ing the "erser$er rage: #with a song of thunder and wind, the young 9arut
warriors of the 3ig Teda awa$ened ,ndra5s prowess 4us$y )hracian, ?eltic and Germanic war
songs, li$e crashing waves, heartened warriors%
11H
1e should also connect Speidel5s ne/t point
with the research on musical pulse and the insistence on dance we found in the ?am"ridge
School researchers, ?ross and +ispham Speidel writes: #Dance em"oldened even more 7ot
only )u$ulti*7inurta5s "erser$s danced on the "attlefield: Tedic ,ndians did the same ; Dances,
though done "y all the early warriors, mattered particularly to "erser$s as they fanned their fury%
Speidel cites only #adrenaline levels%
111
as the physiological component of the "erser$er rage, "ut
we can do "etter with our understanding of -an$sepp and "io*cultural triggering
,5m going to speculate that these dances and songs were rhythmic in DG5s sense, rather than
cadences li$e phalan/ marches
11'
7ow, given the comple/ity of the conceptual networ$ DG use
to discuss living systems in A)-, we can only s$etch some of the relations among the $ey terms:
milieus and codes, strata and territories 1e "egin with #milieu,% which is a vi"ratory, rhythmic,
and coded material field for "odies (strata) and territories (assem"lages) 4eterogeneous milieus
are #drawn% "y rhythms from chaos, while territories form "etween ever*shifting milieus 7ow
milieus are coded@the #code% is the repetition of elements such that milieus are a #"loc$ of
space*time constituted "y the periodic repetition of the component%@ "ut the rhythm is always
shifting in #transcoding% )hus #rhythm% is the difference "etween one code and another: #there
is rhythm whenever there is a transcoded passage from one milieu to another, a communication
of milieus, coordination "etween heterogeneous space*times% DG5s rhythm is differential:
#rhythm is critical& it ties together critical moments%
116
#?ritical% here means a threshold in a
differential relation, a singularity in the lin$ed rates of change of a living system in its ecological
niche
So we can speculate that through a co*evolutionary process with success in warfare as a selection
pressure, the "ar"arian hill peoples (and others who searched the same #machinic phylum%)
e/perimented with war dances and songs to hit upon critical points in setting up "rain fre(uency
patterns that triggered evolutionarily em"edded rage circuits or #affect programs% as Griffiths
calls them -an$sepp gives us a clue as to why dance and song were the elements of
e/perimentation: #:?ertain "rain< areas presuma"ly code the affective content of certain
irritations, including vocalizations, and may give specific sounds direct access to 3AGE
circuitry%
11>
Along with the angry tone of the war cry (and here elements of auto*affection must
"e ta$en into account@you can participate in an escalating affective episode "y your own
efforts, as we all $now, !ust as you can calm yourself down with some deep "reaths), the
e/ertions of the dance help sensitize the system, that is, lower the threshold for the triggering of
the rage episode: #increased activity in "arorecptors of the carotid arteries monitors levels of
"lood pressure and can facilitate the sensitivity of 3AGE circuitry%
11A
1e can only speculate as
Tournament FD
to the neurodynamics of the internal dynamics and intermodal processing of the auditory and
propioceptive sensations of the danceOsong, "ut we can see here an intermeshing of differential
multiplicities& that is, in DG5s terms, rhythm as #critical% )he e/pression of our potential for
"erser$er rages depends upon the correct com"ination of many different layers of events, which
the cultural evolutionary process of ad!usting the war danceOsong to the triggering of such rages
set a"out e/ploring Speidel seems to sense there must have "een a "iological component of the
im"rication of social and somatic in the "io*social*affective assem"lage, writing that similarities
in "erser$er style, if not due to contact, #must "e due to human traits common to the structure
and functioning of all warrior societies%
11B
1e cannot draw too sharp a distinction "etween "erser$er rage and phalan/ fighting Speidel
contrasts the #mindlessness% of "erser$ers and #disciplined fighting% of Gree$s and 3omans +ut
the phalan/ doesn5t !ust march After the clash, we find the chaotic melee, where some form of
rage was certainly called upon 0ne account understatedly (uestions whether the soldiers in the
melee were #rational% and speculates that here the soldiers were on #automatic pilot%
11D
1e will
read this #automatic pilot% as a de*su"ectivizing rage state 0n the other hand, however chaotic
the melee, it was still a clash of phalan/es and thus re(uired "oth discipline and rage 1e are in
no position to do more than speculate as to the means "y which such "alance was achieved, "ut
we are almost irresisti"ly tempted to use the well*worn Apollo and Dionysus trope a"out the
Gree$ phalan/ warrior, who #was thus as$ed to accomplish two difficult and almost mutually
e/clusive tas$s: to unleash a wild fury in the initial crash, and then to maintain complete mastery
of this savagery, to guide each step into the enemy columns with complete discipline%
11F
Afterword
1e have "een una"le to do much more than to prepare the ground for further research +ut we
can at least see the potential for integrating current research in a wide range of scientific fields
with DG5s notion of the machinic phylum that "io*cultural evolution searches through in setting
up affective assem"lages
Rohn -rotevi
Rohn -rotevi is -rofessor of .rench Studies at =ouisiana State Kniversity in +aton 3ouge,
=ouisiana 4is latest "oo$ is Political Affect> <onnecting the ,ocial and the ,omatic (9innesota,
'HHG) Rohn5s we"site is http:OOwwwprotevicomO!ohn and he may "e reached at proteviQlsuedu
Notes
1 G Deleuze and . Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus> <apitalism and ,chi8ophrenia, translated
"y +rian 9assumi (9inneapolis: Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 1GFD), 6GGS>HH
' R -rotevi, Political Physics> .eleu8e, .errida, and the 4ody Politic (=ondon: Athlone -ress,
'HH1) and R -rotevi, Political Affect> <onnecting the ,ocial and the ,omatic (9inneapolis:
Kniversity of 9innesota -ress, 'HHG)
6 R -rotevi, #Affect, Agency, and 3esponsi"ility: )he Act of 8illing in the Age of ?y"orgs,%
Phenomenology and the <ognitive ,ciences D6 ('HHF): >HAS16
Tournament FF
> G Deleuze, ,pino8a> Practical Philosophy, translated "y 3o"ert 4urley (San .rancisco: ?ity
=ights, 1GFF), >G
A Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 'ABSD
B R -rotevi, #Deleuze, Guattari, and Emergence,% Paragraph> A Iournal of Fodern <ritical
Theory 'G' ('HHB): 1GS6G
D Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 'AD
F Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1AA
G 3 Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age> <hanges in *arfare and the <atastrophe ca( ?ASS 4(<(
(-rinceton: -rinceton Kniversity -ress, 'HH6)
1H ,t would "e very interesting one day to put DG5s notion of affective categorization in
connection with Eleanor 3osch5s prototype theory +oth challenge the Aristotelian notion of
categories "ased on a set of necessary and sufficient conditions defining an essence 1hat we
would need to do is to define a Deleuzoguattarian pedagogy that ena"les us to see the world in
terms of affects, that is, to see the world as a theater for transcendental empiricism: what can
"odies do2 1e have to e/perimentC See E 3osch, #-rinciples of ?ategorisation,% in E 3osch
and + =loyd :eds<, <ognition and <ategorisation (4ill 7R: =awrence Erl"aum, 1GDF)
11 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, >HBS>11
1' Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1>1
16 A ?lar$, -atural+4orn <yborgs> Finds, Technologies, and the 0uture of $uman
:ntelligence (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity -ress, 'HH6)& E )hompson, Find in Eife> 4iology,
Phenomenology, and the ,ciences of Find (?am"ridge 9A: 4arvard Kniversity -ress: 'HHD)
1> -rotevi, Political Affect
1A Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1AB
1B - Griffiths, *hat Emotions Really Are> The Problem of Psychological <ategories (?hicago:
Kniversity of ?hicago -ress, 1GGD)
1D -rotevi, #Affect, Agency, and 3esponsi"ility%
1F 3 E 7is"ett and D ?ohen, <ulture of $onor> The Psychology of =iolence in the ,outh
(+oulder ?0: 1estview -ress, 1GGB)
1G R -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity -ress, 1GGF)
'H -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1FDS1FF
Tournament FG
'1 4 )och, =iolent Fen> An :n7uiry :nto the Psychology of =iolence (1ashington D?:
American -sychological Association, 1GG'), 1S' (italics in original)
'' -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1GB
'6 -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1GBS1GD
'> 4 .a"ing, #0n Going +erser$: A 7eurochemical ,n(uiry,% American Iournal of Psychiatry
116 (7ovem"er 1GAB): >HGS>1A
'A 1 9c7eill, Reeping Together in Time> .ance and .rill in $uman $istory (?am"ridge
9A: 4arvard Kniversity -ress, 1GGA) 1H'& See also 9 Speidel, #+erser$s: A 4istory of ,ndo*
European L9ad 1arriors,5% Iournal of *orld $istory 16'('HH'): 'A6SGH
'B 3 9allon and S Stich, #)he 0dd ?ouple: )he compati"ility of social construction and
evolutionary psychology,% Philosophy of ,cience BD (9arch 'HHH): 166S1A>
'D + -ar$inson, A .ischer and A 9anstead, Emotions in ,ocial Relations> <ultural, ;roup
and :nterpersonal Processes (7ew Nor$: -sychology -ress, 'HHA)
'F R 3 Averill, Anger and Aggression> An Essay on Emotion (7ew Nor$: Springer, 1GF'), AG
(italics in original)
'G Griffiths, *hat Emotions Really Are, DD
6H Griffiths, *hat Emotions Really Are, G6 (my comments in "rac$ets)
61 4omologies are organs in different species united "y common descent Analogies are organs
in different species united "y similar function -an$sepp Affective -euroscience,1D has a "rief
discussion
6' -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1FG, 1GH
66 3 =ewontin, The Triple $eli"> ;ene, rganism, and Environment (?am"ridge 9A:
4arvard Kniversity -ress, 'HH')
6> S 0yama, The ntogeny of :nformation> .evelopmental ,ystems and Evolution (Durham:
Du$e Kniversity -ress, 'HHH)
6A - Griffiths and 3 Gray, #3eplicator ,, S Rudgement Day,% 4iology and Philosophy 1'
(1GGD): >D1S>G'& - Griffiths and 3 Gray, #Darwinism and Developmental Systems,% in S
0yama, - Griffiths and 3 Gray :eds<, <ycles of <ontingency> .evelopmental ,ystems and
Evolution (?am"ridge 9A: 9,) -ress, 'HH1): 1GAS'1F& - Griffiths and 3 Gray, #)he
Developmental Systems -erspective: 0rganism*environment systems as units of development
and evolution,% in 9 -igliucci and 8 -reston :eds<, Phenotypic :ntegration> ,tudying the
Ecology and Evolution of <omple" Phenotypes (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity -ress, 'HH>):
>HGS>6H& - Griffiths and 3 Gray, #)hree ways to misunderstand developmental systems
theory,% 4iology and Philosophy 'H ('HHA): >1DS>'A
Tournament GH
6B 0yama, Griffiths and Gray, <ycles of <ontingency
6D - Griffiths, #Evo*devo meets the mind: )oward a developmental evolutionary psychology,%
in 3 +randon and 3 Sansom :eds<, :ntegrating Evolution and .evelopment> 0rom Theory to
Practice (?am"ridge 9A: 9,) -ress, 'HHD), 'H>
6F 0yama, The ntogeny of :nformation
6G -ersonal communication from Rohn ? =ar$in, =ouisiana State Kniversity
>H Griffiths and Gray #Darwinism and Developmental Systems% and #)he Developmental
Systems -erspective%
>1 =ewontin, The Triple $eli"& 8 7 =aland, . R 0dling*Smee, and 9 1 .eldman, #7iche
?onstruction, Ecological ,nheritance, and ?ycles of ?ontingency in Evolution,% in 0yama,
Griffiths, and Gray :eds<, ?ycles of <ontingency: 11DS1'B
>' Griffiths and Gray #)hree 1ays to 9isunderstand,% >1DS>'A
>6 Griffiths and Gray #3eplicator%& #Darwinism and Developmental Systems%& #)he
Developmental Systems -erspective%& E Ra"lon$a and 9 R =am", Evolution in 0our
.imensions> ;enetic, Epigenetic, 4ehavioral, and ,ymbolic =ariation in the $istory of Eife
(?am"ridge 9A: 9,) -ress, 'HHA)
>> 9 R 1est*E"erhard, .evelopmental Plasticity and Evolution (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity
-ress, 'HH6)
>A E So"er and D S 1ilson, Pnto thers> The Evolution and Psychology of Pnselfish
4ehavior (?am"ridge 9A: 4arvard Kniversity -ress, 1GGF)& 8 Sterelyny and - Griffiths, ,e"
and .eath> An :ntroduction to the Philosophy of 4iology (?hicago: Kniversity of ?hicago -ress,
1GGG)& Ra"lon$a and =am", Evolution in 0our .imensions& 3 Royce, The Evolution of Forality
(?am"ridge 9A: 9,) -ress, 'HHB)
>B ?ultural evolution is tied in with de"ates surrounding socio"iology and evolutionary
psychology An informative e/change is the following: R .racchia and 3, =ewontin, #Does
?ulture Evolve2% $istory and Theory 6F> (1GGG): A'SDF& 1 G 3unciman, #?ulture Does
Evolve,% $istory and Theory >>1 ('HHA): 1S16& R .racchia and 3 =ewontin, #)he -rice of
9etaphor,% $istory and Theory >>1 ('HHA): 1>S'G& 1 G 3unciman, #3e!oinder to .racchia
and =ewontin,% $istory and Theory >>1 ('HHA): 6HS>1 See also 3 =ewontin, #)he 1ars 0ver
Evolution,% -e! Tork Revie! of 4ooks ('H 0cto"er 'HHA)
>D .or "ac$ground on the interplay of genes and e/perience in neural development see +
1e/ler, 4rain and <ulture> -eurobiology, :deology and ,ocial <hange (?am"ridge 9A: 9,)
-ress, 'HHB)& D 9areschal, 9 Rohnson, S Sirois, 9 )homas and G 1estermann,
-euroconstructivism> $o! the 4rain <onstructs <ognition =ol( ? (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity
-ress, 'HHD)
Tournament G1
>F A Damasio, .escartes2 Error (7ew Nor$: Avon, 1GG>)& A Damasio, The 0eeling of *hat
$appens (7ew Nor$: 4arcourt, 1GGG)& A Damasio, Eooking for ,pino8a (7ew Nor$: 4arcourt,
'HH6)
>G . R Tarela, #3esonant ?ell Assem"lies: A new approach to cognitive functions and neuronal
synchrony,% 4iological Research 'F (1GGA): F1SGA
AH R S 8elso, .ynamic Patterns> The ,elf+rgani8ation of 4rain and 4ehavior (?am"ridge
9A: 9,) -ress, 1GGA)& G Edelman and G )ononi, A Pniverse of <onsciousness> $o! Fatter
4ecomes :magination (7ew Nor$: +asic +oo$s, 'HHH)
A1 Damasio5s somatic mar$er theory, and more generally his somatic theory of emotion, are not
without critics, who re!ect the somatic theory as "ased in what they see as an outmoded Rames*
=ange tradition Even among those sympathetic to the somatic theory, controversies remain
concerning the precise role of cortical versus mid"rain and "rainstem structures in generating
"asic emotions Some of the de"ates within the field are accessi"ly summarized in D 1att,
#Emotion and ?onsciousness: -art ,,: A 3eview of Antonio Damascus The 0eeling of *hat
$appens,% Iournal of <onsciousness ,tudies D6 ('HHH): D'SF>
A' 1 G 3unciman, #?ulture Does Evolve%
A6 R 4aidt, #)he emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral
!udgment,% Psychological Revie! 1HF ('HH1): F1>SF6>& 1e/ler, 4rain and <ulture(
A> . De1aal, Primates and Philosophers> $o! Forality Evolved (-rinceton: -rinceton
Kniversity -ress, 'HHB)& Royce, The Evolution of Forality(
AA See for e/ample S +owles and 4 Gintis, #)he 0rigins of 4uman ?ooperation,% in -eter
4ammerstein :ed<, The ;enetic and <ultural rigins of <ooperation (?am"ridge 9A: 9,)
-ress, 'HH6)
AB .or a "rief review of the literature from the anti*universalist position, see = Sponsel,
#3esponse to 0tter"ein,% American Anthropologist 1H'>('HHH): F6DS>1& for a "oo$*length
statement of the universalist position, see 8 0tter"ein, $o! *ar 4egan (?ollege Station: )e/as
AP9 -ress, 'HH>)
AD D -eterson and 3 1rangham, .emonic Fales> Apes and the rigins of $uman =iolence
(7ew Nor$: 4oughton 9ifflin, 1GGD)
AF De1aal, Primates and Philosophers, D6& D .ry, 4eyond *ar> The $uman Potential for
Peace (7ew Nor$: 0/ford Kniversity -ress, 'HHD) See also + .erguson, #)en -oints on 1ar,%
(,ocial Analysis A'' ('HHF): 6'S>G
AG = 8eeley, *ar 4efore <ivili8ation> The Fyth of the Peaceful ,avage (7ew Nor$: 0/ford
Kniversity -ress, 1GGD)
BH .ry, 4eyond *ar, >6
Tournament G'
B1 3 8elly, *arless ,ocieties and the rigin of *ar (Ann Ar"or: Kniversity of 9ichigan -ress,
'HHH)
B' Sponsel, #3esponse to 0tter"ein%& + .erguson, Tanomami *arfare> A Political $istory
(Santa .e: School for American 3esearch -ress, 1GGA)
B6 - 3icherson and 3 +oyd, -ot by ;enes Alone> $o! <ulture Transformed $uman
Evolution (?hicago: Kniversity of ?hicago -ress, 'HHA), 'HGS'1H
B> D Dawson, #Evolutionary )heory and Group Selection: )he Uuestion of 1arfare,% $istory
and Theory 6F> (>) (1GGG): DGS1HH
BA - ?lastres, ,ociety Against the ,tate> Essays in Political Anthropology, translated "y 3o"ert
4urley in colla"oration with A"e Stein (7ew Nor$: Vone +oo$s, 1GFG)
BB +oth immanently as that which is warded off, and e/ternally, as that which is fought against&
again, see .erguson, Tanomami *arfare for a political history
BD R Raco"s, The Economy of <ities (7ew Nor$: Tintage +oo$s, 1GDH) See also, 9 +alter,
#1hy Settle Down2 )he 9ystery of ?ommunities,% ,cience 'F'A6G6 (1GGF): 1>>'S>A and the
nuanced multiple*origins account in 4 -ringle, #)he Slow +irth of Agriculture,% ,cience
'F'A6G6 (1GGF): 1>>BSAH
BF -icomachean Ethics 6D111Aa6H& "'AS6H
BG , ?ross, #9usic and "iocultural evolution,% in 9 ?layton, ) 4er"ert, and 3 9iddleton
:eds<, The <ultural ,tudy of Fusic> A <ritical :ntroduction (=ondon: 3outledge, 'HH6): 1GS6H
DH R +ispham, #+ridging the Gaps S 9usic as +iocultural -henomenon,% E,EF <ounterpoint
1 ('HH>)
D1 R +ispham, #3hythm in 9usic: 1hat is it2 1ho has it2 And why2,% Fusic Perception '>'
('HHB): 1'AS16>
D' ? )revarthen, #9usicality and the intrinsic motive pulse: Evidence from human
psycho"iology and infant communication,% Fusicae ,cientiae (special issue: 1GGG): 1AAS'1A E
Dissanaya$e, #Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother*infant interactions,% in 7 1allin,
+ 9er$er, and S +rown :eds<, The rigins of Fusic (?am"ridge 9A: 9,) -ress, 'HHH): 6FGS
>HD
D6 +ispham, #3hythm in 9usic,% 1'A
D> +ispham, #3hythm in 9usic,% 1'F
DA Dissanaya$e, #Antecedents of the temporal arts%& 1 9c7eill, Reeping Together in Time>
.ance and .rill in $uman $istory (?am"ridge 9A: 4arvard Kniversity -ress, 1GGA)
DB +ispham, #3hythm in 9usic,% 161
Tournament G6
DD +ispham, #3hythm in 9usic,% 16H
DF E 4agen and G +ryant, #9usic and dance as a coalition signaling system,% $uman -ature
1>1('HH6): '1SA1
DG 9c7eil, Reeping Together in Time, 1HA
FH 9c7eil, Reeping Together in Time, 1HD
F1 9c7eil, Reeping Together in Time, 1HFS1HG& Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age
F' 9c7eil, Reeping Together in Time, 1HG
F6 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6F1
F> 9 Detienne, #=a -halange: pro"lWmes et controverses,% in Rean*-ierre Ternant :ed<,
ProblUmes de la guerre en ;rUce ancienne (-aris: Ecole des hautes Itudes en science sociale,
1GBF): 1ADSFF
FA R . =azen"y, The ,partan Army (?hicago: +olchazy*?arducci -u"lishers, 1GFA)
FB 1 8 -ritchett, The ;reek ,tate at *ar( Part :: (+er$eley: Kniversity of ?alifornia -ress,
1GD>), '1>
FD 1 G 3unciman, #Gree$ 4oplites, 1arrior ?ulture, and ,ndirect +ias,% Iournal of the Royal
Anthropological :nstitute > (1GGF), D6>
FF -lutarch, Eycurgus, '1S''
FG 9c7eill, Reeping Together in Time, 11D
GH Ea!s >DHDa
G1 9c7eill, Reeping Together in Time, 11F
G' Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age
G6 Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, FF
G> Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, FG
GA Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, G1
GB Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, G6
GD Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, GD
GF Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 1H>
Tournament G>
GG Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 6F1
1HH Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 1HA, 1HB
1H1 Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 11D
1H' Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 11F
1H6 Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 1>1, 1>', 1>D
1H> Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 1A'
1HA Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, 1AD Rared Diamond discusses water*"orne parasites
wea$ening the peasant population in irrigation regimes An undere/plored area of geo*hydro*"io*
politics See R Diamond, The Third <himpan8ee> The Evolution and the future of the $uman
Animal (7ew Nor$, 4arper ?ollins, 1GG')
1HB 1 4arris, Restraining Rage> The :deology of Anger <ontrol in <lassical Anti7uity
(?am"ridge 9A: 4arvard Kniversity -ress: 'HH1)& R Shay, Achilles in =ietnam (7ew Nor$:
Scri"ner, 1GGA)
1HD Drews, The End of the 4ron8e Age, '1H
1HF Speidel, #+erser$s,% 'AF
1HG Speidel, #+erser$s,% 'AG
11H Speidel, #+erser$s,% 'D6, 'D>
111 Speidel, #+erser$s,% 'DB
11' Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 616& See also 3 +ogue, .eleu8e on Fusic,
Painting and the Arts (7ew Nor$: 3outledge, 'HH6)& - )urets$y, #3hythm, Assem"lage, and
Event,% in ,an +uchanan and 9arcel Swo"oda :eds<, .eleu8e and Fusic (Edin"urgh: Edin"urgh
Kniversity -ress, 'HH>)& E Grosz, <haos, Territory,Art> .eleu8e and the 0raming of the Earth
(7ew Nor$: ?olum"ia Kniversity -ress, 'HHF)
116 Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 616
11> -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1GD
11A -an$sepp, Affective -euroscience, 1GF
11B Speidel, #+erser$s,% 'FB
11D T D 4anson, The *estern *ay of *ar (+er$eley: Kniversity of ?alifornia -ress, 1GFG),
1AG
Tournament GA
11F 4anson, *estern *ay of *ar, 1BG
Tournament GB
Terror in all (ventuality
'rad (van)
.ollowing the events of Septem"er 11
th
'HH1 the #uncertain% has "ecome all the more certain in
meaning )he two most notorious #flights% in history have contri"uted to a glo"al (in)security
situation in which we have all in one way or another "ecome connected through an assured
vulnera"ility to the catastrophic #event*to*come% )his dangerous certainty unfortunately seems
to "e the only truism of the '1
st
?entury 7aturally, facing these conditions the strategic
landscape has "een radically transformed 1ith security "roadened in scope and deepened in
meaning, governmental reason has "een forced to confront each and every potential threat posed
to our settled political e/istence 4owever, whilst these efforts could "e seen to "e indicative of a
new glo"al humanism, one which is properly concerned with protecting life from all manner of
violent and traumatic encounters, they do not necessarily guarantee any prospect of success )o
the contrary, the advances made in comple/ity thin$ing have taught us a rather distur"ing lesson:
despite our most strident attempts, radically interconnected and dynamic systems cannot "e
calculated with a"solute precision 1ith another attac$ "y all accounts #inevita"le%, at "est, it is
hoped that our efforts will disrupt capacities for destruction, improve our early warning systems,
or ma$e our logistical arrangements more responsive when dealing with the aftermath of some
future attac$ )o "e e/pected, in this climate the Glo"al 1ar on )error has moved well "eyond
"ringing the perpetrators of GO11 to !ustice )as$ed with protecting the future productive vitality
of all species e/istence@not to mention the critical infrastructure which sustains that e/istence,
it has "ecome a generic term for a planetary security effort which is increasingly ta$ing all life to
be its ob1ect
9ichel .oucault5s revival is fully revealing of this new security terrain
1
.oucault was the first to
point out that the modern tas$ of ma$ing secure implied more than securing territories During
his seminal lectures ,ociety Fust 4e .efendedV ,ecurity, Territory, PopulationV and The 4irth of
4io+Politics given at the ?ollege de .rance (1GDASDG) he e/plained how the emergence of a #life
centric% security paradigm first appeared in the 1F
th
?entury
'
.or .oucault, what mar$ed out this
new security arrangement from the previous sovereign model of a"andonment was that its
productive remit demanded modes of #incorporation% And it was through the need to meet these
productive demands that the original conception of man (homo) would "e gradually transformed
=ife would for the first time "ecome a #species*life% whose very #species*e/istence% was
understood to "e productive and yet precarious 1hat .oucault therefore "rought to our attention
were the onset of new "io(logical) forms of power, which operating at the level of life itself
sought to shape the conduct of #populations% in calcula"le and profita"le ways: L0ne of the great
innovations in the techni(ues of power in the eighteenth century was the emergence of
#population% as an economic and political pro"lem: population as wealth, population as
manpower or la"our capacity, population "alanced "etween its own growth and the resources it
commanded5
6
)he theoretical significance of this economising perspective should not "e lost in
us 1riting counter to the familiar !uridical script, what .oucault effectively argued was that the
=i"eral art of governance does not, as 8antian revisionists would argue, appear "y claiming to
promote and protect certain universal or inaliena"le rights ,t arrives "y ma$ing life itself the
Tournament GD
o"!ect for political strategy =i"eral rationality in other words only "ecomes meaningful when it
first "egan posing the L(uestion of constituting something li$e a milieu of life, e/istence5
>
.oucault thus "egan to pinpoint the emergence of a new set of discourses and practices which
recognised that life needed constant supervision for its own productive and hence social
"etterment ,nvo$ing notions of progress and development, this modern conception of security@
the =i"eral "io*politics of security, "egins "y operating entirely in the strategic field of
possi"ility 1or$ing alongside the traditional sovereign pro"lem of maintaining territorial
integrities, it did not repress, "ut functioned "y #letting things happen%
A
Accordingly, given that
this new governmental reason did not revolve around natural notions of right, "ut was founded
instead upon the need to create ever wider circuits of production, then it was possi"le to identify
distinct modus operandi .irst, since the primary "io*political tas$ was to "e a"le to #regulate%
life so that managea"le levels of production could "e esta"lished, then its technologies would "e
applied at the #aggregate level% 4uman progress was after all a collective composite Second,
given that "io*political interventions appear at the Llevel of generality5 then its power would "e
#aleatory% in the sense that it is essentially concerned with the Laleatory :random< events that
occur within a population that e/ist over time5
B
,ntervening at the general level, "io*political
security mechanisms are installed around Lrandom elements inherent to a population of living
"eings so as to optimise a state of life5
D
And third, given that the "io*political was firmly related
to e/igencies of life, then notions of threat to that e/istence "ecame integral to its formative
principles: Lwe see the emergence of a completely different pro"lem that is no longer of fi/ing
and demarcating the territory, "ut of allowing circulations to ta$e place, of controlling them,
sifting the good and the "ad, ensuring that things are always in movement, constantly moving
around, continually going from one point to another, "ut in such a way that the inherent dangers
of this circulation are cancelled out5
F
4ence, reversing ?lausewitz famous dictum, war is no
longer some e/ceptional condition, politics "ecomes the continuation of war "y other means
1hilst .oucault5s conception of the "io*political has started to "rea$ into the field of
,nternational 3elations, its meaning and relevance has "een greatly disputed ,f we leave aside
the well rehearsed claims that the only way to avoid empirical a"straction is to somehow relegate
life to some secondary consideration for political analysis, then it could "e suggested that these
differences are to "e welcomed or at least e/pected After all, since the "io*political deals with
very (uestion of species e/istence, namely what it means to "e a living species with all the
ontological and epistemological pro"lems this account of life necessarily engenders, then to raise
the (uestion of the "io*political is e(ually raise the most challenging and difficult of (uestions:
*hat is a Eife3 1hilst there is evidently not the space here to give sufficient attention to each of
these approaches, for our purposes there are two particular engagements which provide us with
meaningful insight Giorgio Agam"en has argua"ly offered the most influential of these
approaches Agam"en, rather provocatively, has sought to draw our attentions to the modern
relations which e/ist "etween #giving forms to life% with the conditions of life in #the camp%
Agam"en asserts that since the most Lessential characteristic5 of modern "io*politics is to
constantly Lredefine the threshold in life that distinguishes and separates what is inside from what
is outside,5 then we should give utmost attention to those sites that Leliminate radically the people
which are e/cluded5
G
)hus, according to Agam"en, it is the camp which is the defining
paradigm of the modern insomuch as it is a Lspace in which power confronts nothing other than
pure "iological life without any mediation5
1H
Tournament GF
Despite the value of Agam"en5s wor$, concerns have "een e/pressed with his commitment to the
spatial figuration of the camp 9ichael Dillon for instance notes that Las a dispositif de securitH
"io*politics not only functions through mechanisms that elevate contingency into a dominant
field of formation for western societies as a whole, it similarly also opens up an entirely different
spatial configuration of security ,f distri"ution is the spatial figuration that characterizes
traditional geopolitical rationalities and technologies of security, circulation is the spatial
configuration that characterizes the "io*politics of security5
11
9ar$ Duffield5s wor$ follows in a
similar vein "y "io*politically interrogating the practice of human security in the "orderland
areas of the world
1'
7oting in particular how development is a form of "io*power, he shows
how the attempts to ameliorate the causes of conflict (underdevelopment) are enacted through
policies which are geared towards creating productive systems of self*reliance 1hat is
interesting a"out Duffield5s wor$ is that whilst he specifically identifies the #containment%
(encampment) of re"ellious or even waste populations, "y situating these populations within a
more e/pansive =i"eral framewor$ he can stay committed to the nomos as circulation
hypothesis +orders in this regard, as Vygmunt +auman, would suggest ta$e on the features of
asymmetric membranes( -orous enough to accommodate the transitory movements of certain
forms, they are nevertheless resilient enough to deflect others
16
)hrough their asymmetric
nature, "orders are capa"le of effectively encouraging compliant types of circulation, and can
manage, to the point of elimination if necessary, the entrance capacities of others
9y intention here is not to challenge or show preference for either of these approaches )hat the
current Glo"al 1ar on )error see$s to control circulations, whilst at the same time wor$s to
contain and pacify dangerous life is well documented 1here my concern does however lie is
with the more individual and future orientated affects of security technologies in the metropolitan
districts of the world )o my mind there is something more at sta$e than simply securitising and
regulating populations "y intervening at the level of generality )o "e more specific, if we turn
our attentions to the war at home@the securitisation of already e/isting =i"eral life, then it is
possi"le to illustrate how the "io*political concern with those aleatory events is "eing radically
transformed in "oth space and time ,t is "eing radically transformed in space in the sense that
security technologies are no longer wor$ing at the macro*specific level of the population, "ut
now mirroring the asymmetric nature of threat demand more micro*specific attention And it is
"eing radically transformed in time in the sense that security technologies no longer see$ to
prevent or deter some impending disaster which in $nowa"le in nature, "ut such technologies are
"eing increasingly tas$ed to secure that which is un$nowa"le and yet to emerge (the virtual)
Evidently, if these spatial and temporal changes could "e su"stantiated then they certainly should
not escape our attentions 1hat they would suggest is that the contentious and politically
de"ilitating logic of pre*emption is not simply "eing applied to the re"ellious and violent
"orderland populations of the world, "ut is actually "ecoming a glo"ally e/tending operative
logic that is "eing predicated upon commanding all individual creative performances in order to
prevent any future challenge to =i"eral rationality
.acing this prospect, this paper is compelled to raise the following two politically sensitive and
yet urgent (uestions: 1hat happens to security practices when they ta$e individual species life to
"e its o"!ect2 And then, what happens to these practices when it is no longer simply life5s present
capacities which are deemed to "e threatening, "ut life5s future or virtual potentiality2 0n a final
introductory note, "efore "eginning this interrogation, it should "e added that this paper does not
see$ to "ring .oucault5s conception of the "io*political into (uestion )o the contrary, if there is
enduring strength to .oucault5s genealogical method then it was precisely "ecause he never tried
Tournament GG
to offer a general theory of power which re(uired displacing one grand theory with another )his
was evidenced in his treatment of Sovereign power .oucault did not "elieve that this form of
power needed displacement once the "io*political started to enter our critical imagination
,ndeed, "y showing how power wor$s in many different ways, .oucault not only illustrated how
these powers can actually reinforce one another, "ut he ac$nowledged that they can appear
across space and time without political em"lem Appreciating this, this paper is ultimately
concerned with the possi"ility of identifying new and emerging forms of power, which do not
see$ to displace "io*power, "ut provide new rationalities for the conduct of war as we enter into
the dangerous uncertainty that is the '1
st
?entury
The Parado& of 'ndivid$al Potentiality
1hen one says "io*politics, one also says security, "ut also in the process of letting live, when
one says security one is also saying power@or to "e more specific, when one refers to the "io*
politics of security one is effectively pointing towards an entire political*economy of affect
-opulation interventions are after all conducted in order to affect life so that it will "ehave and
perform in a compliant and yet productive fashion ,t necessarily follows that if it was possi"le to
identify a change in this political*economy of affect then this would indicate either a change in,
or even perhaps a departure from, the "io*political )his change was anticipated "y Gilles
Deleuze ,n his landmar$ essay Post,cript on a <ontrol ,ociety he noted how the former
disciplinary regimes were now "eing replaced "y new models for power which were defined
more "y their inter*connectedness, fluidity, speed of flows, and regulation of movements across
$ey thresholds (chec$points) 1hereas life in a disciplinary society was governed through modes
of confinement, in which one assumed fi/ed, regimented and mechanised stations for life
(schools, factories, prisons, and so on), with control societies life "ecomes adaptive and
encouraged to traverse fi/ed demarcations ,f disciplinary societies would therefore "e made up
of individuals who constituted a mass, societies of control produce dividuals which constitute
data banks( 1ithin such a system the a"ility to confine and discipline life for productive ends,
educational purposes, or even reha"ilitation "ecomes of secondary importance 1hat truly
matters is a self*regulating #affective modulation of life% which operates "y giving incentives
(ie, access to mar$ets) ,mportantly, in this new political economy of affect Lthe numerical
language of control is made of codes that mar$ access to information, or re!ect it5 =ife in other
words is no longer neatly defined or identified "y its signature, "ut now consists of comple/
codes which can "e translated into pass!ords capa"le of indicating whether the life under
consideration is compliant (or not as the case may "e)
)o understand why this account of life is relevant to the contemporary security terrain it is
important to appreciate how Deleuze5s notion of a control society has "een effectively
underwritten "y the comple/ity sciences Steven 4aw$ing argues that Lcomple/ity will "e the
science of the '1
st
?entury5
1>
?utting across all the life sciences, Lcomple/ity mirrors the world it
would capture5
1A
,t denotes a shift away from simple and predicta"le linear models, and "y
appreciating that all systems are more unsta"le, unpredicta"le, non*linear, and dynamic, it
recognises that nothing can "e reduced with a"solute certainty
1B
?omple/ systems are therefore
seen to "e more than the sum of their parts
1D
As 3o"ert =ewin e/plains, Lthe new science of
comple/ity com"ines "oth: internal and e/ternal elements apply, and increased comple/ity is to
"e e/pected as a fundamental property of comple/ dynamical systems ; Such systems may,
through selection, "ring themselves to the edge of chaos, a constant process of coevolution, a
constant adaptation5
1F
)hus, displacing 7ewtonian thin$ing, the comple/ity sciences have
Tournament 1HH
engendered an altogether more powerful "odily trope, through which the very account of life
itself has "een radically transformed in terms of its potentiality and problematic At the most
"asic level, comple/ systems@hence comple/ life forms@appear less rigid and hierarchical, and
more adaptive and networ$ed: LSeemingly out of nowhere, in the span of a few years, networ$
theory has "ecome one of the most visi"le pieces of the "ody of $nowledge that can "e applied to
the description, analysis, and understanding of comple/ systems 7ew applications are developed
at an ever increasing rate and the promise for the future growth is high 7etwor$ theory is now
an essential ingredient in the study of comple/ systems5
1G
9anuel ?astells suggested that the onset of these new ontological and epistemological
configurations created an entirely new social morphology@the -et!ork ,ociety, in which
everything changes
'H
9ichael 4ardt and Antonio 7egri have "een in some agreement: L)oday,
"y contrast, we see networ$s everywhere we loo$@military organisations, social movements,
"usiness formations, migration patterns, communication systems, physiological structures,
linguistic relations, neural transmitters, and even personal relationships ,t is not that networ$s
were not around "efore or that the structure of the "rain has changed ,t is that networ$ has
"ecome a common form that tends to define our ways of understanding the world and acting in
it5
'1
?omple/ity is not therefore a useful metaphor for e/plaining the operations of comple/
interactions ,t provides us with a new science of life =ife resem"les its own comple/,
networ$ed, and coded system +y*passing physicality, it is given its own distinct molecular code
that inscri"es into its "ody a networ$ed design
''
=ife is (uite literally #full of information% 0ne
only has to loo$ at the advances made in regards to human D7A to recognise these features
,ndeed, comple/ forms of information se(uencing patterns are not only mo"ilising the life
sciences along new "iological paths, "ut in the process, they are interfacing life into new
comple/ digital arrangements which are manipulative "y design
'6
?ode "rea$ing in the '1
st

?entury is "ecoming incessantly "iological
'>
=ife in code therefore means that populations, as
with all connecta"le informational data*sets, are now considered to "e data"an$s of networ$ed
information
'A
)hey constitute digital samples which are constantly hy"ridizing@"odies of
information continuously in*formation
'B
1ith coded life systems understood to "e constantly prone to adaptation, it is recognised that
comple/ systems are contingent upon the novelty of their emergent properties )his Lnotion of
emergence,5 as =ewin e/plains, Lis not only the Lprincipal message of the science of comple/ity5
"ut forces La reassessment of the way comple/ity arises(5
'D
L=ife at all levels5 is not simply
reduci"le to Lone damn things after another,5 "ut "ecoming part of many comple/ interactions is
ine/ora"ly driven toward Lever greater comple/ity5
'F
)hus challenging the simplistic and
misguided 7ewtonian notion that systems tend to phase*shift towards ever greater homogeneity,
the comple/ity sciences offered a convincing re!ection of the pursuits or #dreams of a final
theory%
'G
)he significance of this was not lost on Stuart 8auffman 4e "elieved that not only
does comple/ity e/pose the failures of the 7ewtonian model, which tended to simply rely upon
Lreduced descriptions5 that were incapa"le of capturing Lall the features of the phenomenon,5
6H

"ut in the process they have effectively rendered pro"lematic the entire causeOeffect "asis of this
methodology ,n its place, a new vision of the world has "een offered that no longer see$s to
uncover foundational linear causes, "ut foregrounds instead the problem of emergence )hat is to
say, "y accepting uncertainty, the comple/ity sciences have instigated a process which now
appreciates that things can "e #out of place%@capa"le of L"ecoming other than what they
were5
61
Tournament 1H1
7evertheless, whilst the principle message of comple/ity sciences has "een one of emergence it
would "e wrong to suggest an a"andonment of calculative or computational thin$ing )o the
contrary, the life sciences have "een fully re!uvenated "y the prospect of formulating ever more
comple/ algorithms to overcome the pro"lems emergence pose ie to model and mediate the
affects of those radically undecidable singularities !hose emergent nature tends to originate at
the most micro+specific level(
6'
Kltimately, therefore, what this comple/ and emergent account of
life has effectively pronounced is the onset of an entirely new epistemological and ontological
tension@what could "e termed a Eiberal parado" of potentiality 0n the one hand, emergent life
is understood to "ring wonderful "enefits As .rederic Ton 4aye$ foretold, life which has
escaped from fi/ed sites of allegiance represents life that has "een economically and hence
politically li"erated
66
,ndeed, removed from the shac$les of the former disciplinary regimes, not
only is an individual5s a"ility to enhance their own capacities for power, $nowledge, and the
freedom of opportunity assumed to increase e/ponentially, "ut so too are its possi"ilities to
occasion profit )he ris$ ta$ers are after all the money ma$ers And yet, as we have discovered,
since these emergent freedoms are am"ivalent, in other words given that one cannot $now at the
moment of arising the nature of that which is to*come, then emergent life presents a clear
epistemological crises in the sense that ontologically emergent features cannot "e reduced to
$nowa"le intrinsic causal capacities 0ntological emergence cannot "e neatly contained within
systems of prediction since it is "y definition that which is truly uncertain in a world of radical
interconnectivity:
A property of an o"!ect or system is epistemologically emergent if the property is reduci"le to or
determined "y the intrinsic properties of the ultimate constituents of the o"!ect or system, while
at the same time it is very difficult for us to e/plain, predict, or derive the property on the "asis
of the ultimate constituents Epistemologically emergent properties are novel only at the level of
description; 0ntologically emergent features are neither reduci"le to nor determined "y more
"asic features 0ntologically emergent features are features of systems or wholes that possess
causal capacities not reduci"le to any of the intrinsic causal capacities of the parts nor to any of
the (reduci"le) relations "etween the parts 0ntological emergence entails the failure of the part*
whole reductionism in "oth its e/plicit and mereological supervenience forms
6>
4ow then can systems of species calculation ma$e use of the comple/ity sciences if their
principle ontological message is one of incalcula"le uncertainty2 )he answer is actually (uite
simple 0ntological emergence can only "e tamed "y retaining the ontological presupposition of
causal and holistic universality )hat is to say, in order to live with emergence& ie, to maintain
order within dynamic and comple/ systems, the system itself must "e the natural ontological
starting point for any analysis, with emergent properties stemming from Lthe lower*level
phenomena from which they emerge5
6A
0nce again an all too familiar ontological retreat has
"een sounded E/posed to the natural inevita"ility of totalities over the singular, emergent forms
are to "e already pre*!udged against universally acclaimed and naturally assumed architectonic
laws Rohn Krry5s wor$ is instructive: L,t is not that the sum is thought to "e greater than the size
of its parts as in some formulations ,t is rather the systems effects are different from its parts5
6B

)hus what is different is internalised within a connecta"le whole, which is ontologically
positioned prior to emergence itself And as such, whilst these approaches accept that not
everything is reduci"le, let alone e(uipped with any sem"lance of certainty, they still ta$e a
holistic view of comple/ systems ?omputation focuses upon the Lpro"a"ilistic relationships or
patterns5 that are Lnot independent "ut are determined "y the dynamics of the system as a
whole5
6D
)hese approaches can therefore "e said to "e nomologically reduci"le, in that they see$
Tournament 1H'
to instil some predicta"ility into dynamic systems, with the possi"ility of mediating the
disruptive effects inherent to glo"al populations of living things
6F
4ere, then, the message for security practitioners is simple 1ithin comple/ and interconnected
systems not only do all "odies matter, they matter most or pose the greatest concerns when such
"odies are radically undecidable(
6G
)o put it another way, once it is recognised that ontological
emergence cannot "e reduced to whole*part relationality& ie, it is beyond epistemic calculations,
then the real "asis for all potential emergencies can "e given real scientific validation E"ceeding
the secure limits of modern systems of power and $nowledge, ontological emergence "ecomes
the "asis for all emergencies since it directly challenges the entire ontological and
epistemological foundations of "io*political security practices, whose forms of species
calculation necessarily depend upon some prior $nowledge in order to formulate responsive
interventions Evidently, the events of Septem"er 11
th
'HH1 have given these concerns genuine
political impetus 1hat GO11 illustrated (perhaps a"ove all else) was that the a"ility to violently
alter the conditions on earth no longer re(uired the mass mo"ilisation of "odies for catastrophic
ends ,t was now the catastrophic individual who held the potential to "ecome the author of their
own micro+pocalyptic tale )he Knited States Government5s 'HH' Ioint :n7uiry into :ntelligence
<ommunity Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of ,eptember ??, ASS? officially
endorsed these assumptions
>H
?onfronting the o"vious (uestion #1hy2% the report provides a
"ac$ground narrative of the nineteen terrorists individuals in order to Lfind out everything we
could a"out the hi!ac$ers and how they succeeded5
>1
,n terms of writing threat a remar$a"le
departure was therefore "eing offered in the sense that an image of glo"al security crisis was now
"eing created "y drawing upon the actions of a few namea"le and radicalised individual "odies
,ndeed, following the report5s recommendations, it is argued that our security efforts must
actually "e stepped "ecause the nature of threat has now "ecome all the more marginal ,t is their
singular nature of threat which ma$es it all the more unpredicta"le and difficult to detect
)he +ritish Governments official report into the su"se(uent =ondon attac$s followed the same
script once again rendering glo"ally dangerous marginal or singular life
>'
)he report "egins "y
setting out the localised scene of the event: LD Ruly "egan unsettled, with heavy showers in
places )he early morning rush in =ondon started as normal(5
>6
,t then proceeds from this
everyday condition of normality to provide a chronological account of the events as they
unfolded, along with an account of the immediate aftermath 4owever, whilst the document
gives a thorough account of #what% happened, outlining in remar$a"le detail the action+of+the+
event in terms of #where and when,% there is a nota"ly a"sence of all power*relations )he
reports primary concern is with recording operations and tracing the unregulated movements
which are seen to e/ist within the otherwise normal space of =i"eral flows )hus, when trying to
account for the (uestion: #1hy did they do it2% the report is simply compelled to investigate the
men5s #"ac$grounds% in order to try and identify the moment that #radicalisation% or
#indoctrination% occurred )his is referred in the appendi/ to "e the #)imeline of the .our
,ndividuals% -articular emphasis is given to their place of "irth, family life, economic status,
local deprivations, past "ehaviour patterns, and social life Significantly, the report not only
attempts to paint a picture of four radicalised terrorists which finally "ecame #out*of*place% (and
which could hold the $ey for future singular displacements) within +ritish Society, "ut even
amongst their own ,slamic communities:
As for the process of radicalisation, there are a num"er of factors which have, in the past,
contri"uted Attendance at a mos(ue lin$ed to e/tremists may "e a factor )his will normally
Tournament 1H6
have nothing to do with the official mos(ue hierarchy, "ut rather e/tremists identifying potential
candidates for radicalisation on the margins 4owever, evidence suggests that e/tremists are
increasingly moving away from mos(ues to conduct their activities in private homes or other
premises to avoid detection
Such reversions to a linear causeOeffect methodology for analysing what are readily assumed to
"e comple/ marginal phenomena invaria"ly prove rather meaningless in terms of esta"lishing
concrete findings As the report readily admits: L1hat we $now of previous e/tremists in the K8
shows that there is not a consistent profile to help identify who may "e vulnera"le to
radicalisation ; Some have "een well*educated, some less so Some genuinely poor, some less
so Some apparently well integrated in the K8, others not 9ost single, "ut some family men
with children Some previously law*a"iding, others with a history of petty crime ,n a few cases
there is evidence of a"use or other trauma in early life, "ut in others their up"ringing has "een
sta"le and loving5
>>
)hese findings are not however accidental 1hilst it would "e correct to
point out that 7ewtonian causeOeffect methodologies are invaria"ly limited when assessing what
are readily understood to "e comple/ phenomena, this approach is nevertheless a"solutely
essential if power relations are to "e removed from the analytical area )o put it another way, if
one followed the lessons of comple/ity thin$ing& ie, interrogating the emergence of comple/
phenomena through an analysis of their movements, inter*connections, relations, speeds,
frictions, and affects, then the analytical en(uiry would need to recognise the power dynamics
which give rise to these singularities A pro"lem is therefore presented inasmuch as this approach
would re(uire investigating our complicities ?onse(uently, in its place, what is presented is a
simple reaffirmation of a pre*determined theorem which sidestepping the pro"lem of power
merely e/poses the glo"ally emergent pro"lems of radically undecida"le and highly contingent
forms of "ad circulation 4ence, the only truth which can "e esta"lished with any certainty is that
the investigation will "e Lvery much a live one5 with the prospect of Lfurther information5 certain
to Lemerge5
>A
(ec$ring Life into the F$t$re
)he spatial changes identified a"ove only tell part of the story 1hen the practice of security
aims to secure us all from each and every form of contingent e/cess@those micro*specific
#aleatory events% which are now assumed to place our individual destinies into (uestion, then for
all our sa$es the principle o"!ective shifts to ensure no su"!ect is e/posed to the alea of a pure
outside )here cannot "e any room for the alterior since the un$nowa"le is precisely that which is
dangerous in a world of radically interconnected circulation Security technologies as such can
"e content to deal with the present, for the pro"lem of emergence demands a new temporal
transfiguration
>B
)o e/plain this it is necessary to engage with Deleuze5s concept of the #virtual%
Deleuze argued that the virtual was not a"stracted from the real, "ut indicated the infinite
possi"ilities for new emergent forms of actualisations: LA life contains only virtuals ,t is
composed of virtualities, events, singularities 1hat , am calling virtual is not something that
lac$s reality 3ather, the virtual "ecomes engaged in a process of actualisation as it follows the
plane which gives it its proper reality5
>D
As such, the virtual is always onto*virtual in the sense
that it refers to modes of reality or differential forms of emergence which through the process of
actualisation "ecome fully implicated in the on*going emergence of new states of affairs
3elating this "ac$ to our previous findings, it could therefore "e argued that since the virtual
possesses the onto*political capacity to directly challenge all forms of rationality, then in it is
Tournament 1H>
precisely the virtual con!ecture of emergent life which now appears to "e the pro"lem to "e
solved:
0ne of the single most important outcomes of these developments is that in the digital age of
virtual security, haunted now "y the virtual danger of Lterror5, nothing and nowhere is
strategically marginal Everything and everywhere "ecomes potentially critical )he 1ar on
)error @ or simply Lthe terror5 as some strategist referred to it*e/emplifies the point )he field of
possi"ility for politically and epistemically authorising what is significantly dangerous where,
when, and how has thus "een transformed ,t now traverses the potential for everything and
anything to "ecome dangerous, as nothing in the digital age consists of fi/ed properties @
"enign or malign @ independent of the informational systems in which they are produced and
reproduced, or in which, autopoetically, they reproduce themselves 4ence the hyper"olicisation
of security Security has also gone virtual through the ways in which the virtual is "eing widely
scripted in terms of an infinity of dangerous "eing
>F
)oday5s #terror% is fully em"lematic of this shift to towards the virtual dimension ,t is not
without coincidence to find that terror is now largely indefina"le@what Donald 3umsfeld once
famously referred to "e the #un$nown un$nowns% 1hether it is GO11, 6O11, DOD, or '1OD, terror
appears li$e an endless se(uence of unfolding events )here is no clear definition that can "e
offered other than the ne/t event which threatens to disrupt our way of life )he implications are
two*fold: .irst, given what is dangerous is more than !ust the unseen, then this aleatory reading
includes that which is yet to "e formed As George +ush has duly noted, L)he 1ar on )error is a
1ar into the 0uture(5
>G
)his future orientation is highly significant ,t forces upon us a
formalistic notion of terror which offers no consistency other than simply serving to give
retrospective content to the dangerous and disruptive nature of the emergent form
AH
Emptied of
content, we simply "ecome reliant upon our own a"stracted "asis of authenticity in order to give
some form of meaning to what is otherwise an a"stract "ut no less real enemy which is
un$nowa"le "y nature And second, since everything is upon this glo"al "attle field is now
connecta"le then there are no elements outside of the strategic play Everything now matters, for
every composite has the potential to "e truly disastrous hence truly terrifying:
1hen it comes to epidemics of disease, financial crises, political revolutions, social movements,
and dangerous ideas, we are all connected "y short chains of influence ,t doesn5t matter if you
$now a"out them, and it doesn5t matter if you care, they will have their effect anyway )o
misunderstand this is to misunderstand the first great lesson of the connected age: we may all
have our own "urdens, "ut li$e it or not, we must "ear each other5s "urdens as well
A1
-hilip +o""itt has pic$ed up on these sentiments proclaiming that terror must "e approached li$e
all disasters which are seen to come without any warning 1ithout meaningful assessment into
our complicities, what is re(uired is an a"ility to trace and predict the movements of all potential
catastrophes so that we can hopefully pre*empt their flows, whilst inserting these accidents
within our calcula"le ris$ "ased models for assessment, mitigation, and future amelioration:
)he terror that threatens states of consent is not e/ogenous ,t hardly matters whether the forces
of destruction arise from militant ,slam, 7orth 8orean communism, or ?ari""ean hurricanes
3ather the sort of terror that threatens states arises not simply from ephemeral international
politics "ut is endemic to the uni(ue vulnera"ilities of glo"alised, networ$ mar$et states
A'
Tournament 1HA
-aul Tirilio argues that this tendency to place all potentially disastrous events into one analytical
framewor$ courts the :ntegral Accident: Lthe glo"al accident that integrates, one "y one, the
whole set of minor incidents along the way that once characterised societal life5
A6
+rian Ren$ins,
a senior adviser at the 3A7D ?orporation, has "een advocating this !oined*up or integrated
approach for some considera"le time: Lit is time for us to ta$e a deli"erately unconventional,
"road, and inclusive approach5
A>
)he 0ifth Annual Report to the President and the <ongress
(#.ifth 3eport%) which was presented on Decem"er 'HH6 "ro$e new ground in this respect
)hrough the reports recommendations the advisory panel called for a #7ew 7ormalcy% to terror
with the future potential for ris$ no longer "eing seen in terms of the e/ceptional "ut the normal
As 9ichael 1ermuth e/plains, L,t was the panel mem"ers firm intention to articulate a vision of
the future that su"!ects terror to a logical place in the array of threats from other sources that the
American people face everyday@from natural disease and other illness to crime and traffic and
other accidents to mention a few5
AA
0n a strategic level, this all em"racing logic is re*enforced "y the now familiar simulations of
e/pected future catastrophic events )raining governmental agencies to respond to all forms of
potential catastrophe has "ecome an essential activity of government Such events are not
however without their real affects 7ot only do they play upon the hyper*paranoiac senses,
reaffirming a concept of terror which infects the un$nown fa"ric of the everyday, "ut they also
reinforce the notion that ultimately no political interrogation or engagement is demanded Simply
concerned with modelling corporeal and incorporeal movements, what these performances
e/plicitly demand is a depoliticised calculation of the depoliticised affects 1hat is more,
through their multi*agency approach, one encounters the onset of a logistical convergence
through which every small disruption@man made or natural@is "ecoming part of a comple/
and interconnected system of potentially cataclysmic affects =ittle wonder when catastrophe
first stri$es uncertainty surrounds the nature of the terror Even if we encounter what eventually
turns out to "e an unfortunate accident, the supplementary (ualification #terrorism can "e ruled
out% needs to "e given 1hilst the strategic sta$es of this convergence are worrying enough, this
is not without profound philosophical significance Accelerating the convergent process wherein
all that threatens the authentic su"stance of life can now find some form of connection, not only
have we "egun putting aside the $ey philosophical distinctions which separating natural disasters
from political catastrophes gave secular modernity its earthly reasoning,
AB
"ut following this
merger a situation is "eing created in which all randomness is no! potentially evil and all
intentionality potentially disastrous
)error (li$e fear) is that name which we give to all incalcula"le and uncertain performances
AD
,t
encompasses each and every possi"le violent encounter (actual or potential) which could threaten
our settled political way of life +roadly sweeping across space and time, the war on terror thus
"ecomes a permanent condition in the sense that war has "een declared against each and every
emergent condition which is un$nowa"le and unpreventa"le "y nature +eing directly associated
with all disastrous possi"ilities that could disrupt the normal state of affairs, terror appears in the
very possi"ility of any unanticipated rupture@ those surprising "ut accidental occurrences which
remind us of the impossi"ility of a fully secure e/istence: L?atastrophe ris$ ; denies us the
lu/ury of preparation 1hen and if it happens, it will "e "y surprise, a"ruptly, and on a scale that
overwhelms all efforts at damage control 1hat we are dealing with here is not so much the
singular accident, as the accident amplified across a whole event*field, a phase transition that
may emerge without warning, instantaneously and irreversi"ly transforming the conditions of life
on earth5
AF
,n this climate the State of Emergency is altogether more real and altogether more
Tournament 1HB
permanent, for it is not grounded in the a"sence of law, "ut it is now aligned to the uncertain
emergence of the contingent event 7o longer founded in the sovereign act of !uridical
a"andonment, the "asis of emergency is ontologically re*scripted against the inclusive
emergence of adaptive life and the dangerous uncertainties this account of life necessarily "rings
AG
=i"eralism has thus "ecome virtually assured, for not only are the contours of war now
creating new and profita"le emergent conditions of possi"ility, "ut through casting it legitimacy
upon the mastering the treacherous shores of !hat+is+to+come, its operative logic has now
necessarily "ecome pre+emptive
The Logic of Pre)em*tion
+rian 9assumi understands "etter than most the changing nature of power in the contemporary
world )oday, he argues, pre*emption has displaced prevention to "ecome the Loperative logic of
power5 which defines our political age ,mportantly, as 9assumi e/plains, Lpre*emption is not
prevention Although the goal of "oth is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ
epistemologically and ontologically5
BH
1ith prevention it is necessary to have Lan a"ility to
assess threats empirically and identify their causes5 ?ausation thus places epistemological
demands upon security practitioners in the sense the a"ility to esta"lish precise empirical
relations "etween causes and effects lends itself to the formalisation of preventative strategies
-revention as such Loperates in an o"!ectively $nowa"le world in which uncertainty is a function
of a lac$ of information, and in which events run a predicta"le, linear course from cause to
effect5 -re*emption, in contrast, Loperates in the present on a future threat5 4ence, unli$e
preventative strategies which depend upon the a"ility to verify threat "efore it is written, the pre*
emptive epistemology is Luna"ashedly one of uncertainty(2 1hilst prevention therefore has Lno
ontology of its own "ecause it assumes that what it must deal with has an o"!ectively given
e/istence prior to its own intervention5 with pre*emption there is an Lontological premise5 that
what is dangerous is precisely that which has yet to "e formed, what has Lnot yet even emerged(2
)he nature and logic of power is accordingly transformed
.irst, given that pre*emption wor$s from this ontological premise that the nature of threat cannot
"e specified, then its "attles are directly fought upon the ontological terrain )o suggest that the
1ar on )error is now a 1ar for the fundamental ,deas of =ife is well esta"lished )he KS
Department for 4omeland Defence for instance has noted that Lthe 1ar on )error is a different
$ind of war .rom the "eginning, it has "een "oth a "attle of arms and a "attle of ideas 7ot only
do we fight our terrorist enemies on the "attlefield, we promote freedom and human dignity as
alternatives to the terrorists5 perverse vision of oppression and totalitarian rule5
B1
L,deas5
therefore are seen to Ltransform the em"ittered and disillusioned either into murderers willing to
$ill innocents or into free peoples living harmoniously in a diverse society5 ,t would therefore "e
misguided to suggest that the shift towards hearts and minds is simply the outcome of the failures
of militarism Knderwritten "y the changes in the life sciences, this =i"eral war for the politics of
life has "een maturing for some considera"le time )hat is to say, the ontological war confronted
today, "est reflected in the war for hearts and minds, signals a pre*emptive turn in security
practices, which ta$ing life to "e its o"!ect has long since appreciated that an essential front in
the war effort is the positive dis(ualification of certain forms of emergent life As such, with the
ideological "attles already assumed to have "een victorious, what is re(uired are the unmediated
transmission of ideas@esta"lishing the right connections, opening up new fields of entry, so that
it "ecomes possi"le to directly manipulate life purely at the level of its affective relations
Tournament 1HD
Second, since pre*emptive power stri$es against that which cannot "e epistemologically
grounded in verifia"le fact, then it instils a new faith "ased politics which draws e/clusively
upon certain authentic notions of life ,t operates "y having a certain #sense of the situation% or a
feeling that something is untoward ,n other words, the perception of threat is not "ased upon
verifia"le truth, "ut relies unashamedly upon received wisdom -re*emptive acts cannot therefore
"e anything other than promissory )a$ing the un$nown to "e its point of departure, the pre*
emptive stri$e not only derives its legitimacy from claims to "e a"le to shape the un$nowa"le,
"ut its operative fa"ric relies upon matters of pure faith -re*emptive politics thus ta$es the
conse(uential ethics which guided the humanitarian interventions of the late 1GGH5s to their
logical e/treme 1hilst these missions had already esta"lished that the distinction "etween
#doing something or doing nothing% demanded a certain faith in mission, this tendency to solely
rely upon ones senses ta$es demands complete faith in the righteousness of the tas$ )o put it
another way, since pre*emptive war is ultimately an attempt to wager that which is radically un*
decida"le against that which is radically un*certain, then the only way such actions can "e
legitimated is to suggest that to deny support for the war effort is effectively tantamount to losing
faith in humanity
)hird, since pre*emptive power ta$es that which is yet to emerge to "e its o"!ect, then such
power actually "ecomes fully complicit in manufacturing its own destiny )he only way to deal
with a virtual threat is to actually provo$e it into action )he e/ercise of pre*emptive power is
therefore incitatory in that it Lcontri"utes to the actual emergence of the threat5
B'
)he logic
which underwrites this is rather simple 1ith it understood that the most effective way to
confront the pro"lem of emergence is to deal with it on your terms, then the L"est option is to
help make it proliferate more(5 ,ndeed, perhaps the only feasi"le way one can fight an
unspecified threat is to Lactively contri"ute to producing it5 4ence, upon this terrain the strategy
no longer depends upon the a"ility to esta"lish causalOpreventative conditions ,nstead, one can
now profit from a new virtual economy of affect, whose strategic remit has unashamedly turned
towards generating the conditions that will up the ante A new logic of supplement thus appears
wherein the virtualisation of terror demands permanent security situation, in which the self*
propelling tendencies to provo$e the virtual cause will, through revealing its most catastrophic
potential, set out the new conditions of the real Governmental reason as such is now fully reliant
upon the virtual& for it is precisely the virtual, re*scripted as a terrifying onto*political con!ecture,
which serves to consolidate the glo"al =i"eral imaginary, legitimately "ringing all emergent life
into the calcula"le remit of its political strategies
.inally, since =i"eral forms of governance have "een forced to adapt to these new virtual
contours, then it is possi"le to detect a strategic shift away from trying to esta"lish preventative
casual factors, tending instead towards an event+based rationality -hilosophically this shift is all
too e/pected Deleuze understood "etter than most that the "est way to name #the 0utside% or
that which is alterior to the normal state of affairs is "y drawing recourse to #the Event%
Descri"ing something which e/ists "eyond the epistemological pale, the event is understood to
"e the virtual con!ecture of what is to come: Lthe part that eludes its own actualisation in
everything that happens5
B6
Events are therefore the proper location for the emerging conditions
of the real )hey depict a situation which e/ceeds its actuality: La virtual that is real without
"eing actual, ideal without "eing a"stract5 Events thus denote a threshold or point at which the
emergent "egins to impact upon the normal state of affairs, radically altering the ontological
"asis of life itself 0r to put it another way, it is only through the actualisation of an event that
new situations "egin to emerge which are capa"le of radically changing the (uestionsOconditions
Tournament 1HF
of life on earth )hus understood, it is no coincidence to find security practitioners "ecoming
increasingly concerned with event "ased thin$ing .or it is only "y mastering events, controlling
the conditions of their emergence, that the parado/ical charges emergent life poses can "e saved
from, whilst secured against, its own radically undecida"le potency
Terror of the Event
Given that today5s terror is intimately aligned with those aleatory phenomena comple/ and
adaptive systems necessarily "ring, and that the very tas$ of ma$ing life live securely insists
upon the (im)possi"ility of securing the potentially limitless or at least un$nowa"le ways in
which such terror may "e announced, then a new micro*specific security con!ecture has appeared
whose concern with the virtual necessarily places terror into the heart of all possi"le
eventualities 8nowing that we don5t $now thus reveals the =i"eral aporia@a condition in which
promise for li"eration "ecomes the generative principle of its very formation, since what could
actually emerge holds the potential to "e truly terrifying at its point of emergence )hus, within
this new composite of danger, in which everything holds the potential to "e truly catastrophic,
what is now rendered terrifying is anything which could unsettle the normal =i"eral flows of life
Each and every a"rupt rupture@regardless of how insignificant they may eventually prove to "e
@is at the moment of its arising cause for genuine concern As such, it doesn5t really matter
whether one is confronting a terrorist attac$, a natural disaster, or an unfortunate accident
3easona"le strategic commonality can "e esta"lished insomuch they are all presented to "e
security concerns which stri$e out at random, drawing no distinctions "etween the guilty or the
innocent, let alone those lives more worthy of living As the +ritish Governments revived
7ational Security Strategy ('HHF) e/plains:
; the overall o"!ective of this 7ational Security Strategy is to anticipate and address a diverse
range of threats and ris$s to our security, in order to protect the Knited 8ingdom and its interests,
ena"ling its people to go a"out their daily lives freely and with confidence, in a more secure,
sta"le, !ust, and prosperous world :)hreats and ris$s< are real, and also more diverse, comple/,
and interdependent than in the past )he policy responses outlined, therefore, not only
individually vital to our future security and prosperity, "ut also wide*ranging, comple/, and,
crucially, interdependent )hey reflect an integrated approach to developing policy and "uilding
capa"ility, intended to deliver results against a num"er of lin$ed o"!ectives
B>
?ounter*)error as such has "een strategically transformed 1hereas traditionally, the strategic
de"ates concerning terror have largely valued either an #actions% (ie, committing a terrorist act)
or #intentions% (ie, intending to commit such an act) "ased approach,
BA
foregrounding the
pro"lem of emergence re(uires a radically new strategic orientation whose overreach now gives
priority to capabilities: L?apa"ilities*"ased planning is planning, under uncertainty, to provide
capa"ilities suita"le for a wide range of modern*day challenges and circumstances, while
wor$ing within an economic framewor$ ; ?apa"ilities*"ased planning has the virtue of
encouraging prudent worrying a"out potential needs that go well "eyond currently o"vious
threats At the same time, it imposes the re(uirement for responsi"ility and choice5
BB
,nvaria"ly,
this model wor$s in a multi*dimensional fashion As +rian Rac$son e/plains, given that
Luncertainty presents a particular pro"lem5 then Lplanning techni(ues :must< attempt to deal with
uncertainty "y designing of portfolios of capa"ilities and testing how the performance of
different policy choices might "e affected "y $ey uncertainties5
BD
4ence, refining the more
traditional concerns with mitigation and resilience, a new approach@#conse(uence
Tournament 1HG
prevention%@is to "e offered whose new strategic calculus can "e assessed in terms of
#preventative performance% 8ey to this strategy is the merger of two approaches .irst, Lgiven
there will li$ely always "e some uncertainty a"out future terrorist threats, policies that are either
less sensitive@or are insensitive@to limits in $nowledge would "e desira"le5
BF
And second,
given that it is precisely this uncertainty@or lac$ of clarity a"out intentions which trou"les
security practitioners, then a pro*active response is necessary: Lthis can "e done "y constructing
alternative futures or using scenario analysis to test how portfolios will perform under different
sets of assumptions Across the range of different factors cited a"ove, preventive portfolios that
performed well across a range of possi"le futures would "e !udged less sensitive to threat
uncertainty@and therefore more attractive given an un$nowa"le future5
BG
?learly this strategic re*thin$ does not entertain paranoiac entropy 1ith governmental reason
now see$ing to actively produce (hence profit from) the future, then a new =i"eral age has "een
inaugurated in which the advent of radical emergence not only places terror into the heart of all
eventualities, "ut each impels life to live in a time when the very process of living demands that
we e/ist in the spotlight of dangerous uncertainty )his is something a$in to a 8af$aes(ue
4urro! for the comple/ity generation )he permanence of terror thus serves to continually re*
invest itself Giving sanction to the most terrifying forms of peace, which although always
deferred, nevertheless continuously self*valorises the commitment to peace "y rendering
dangerous the very account of life it otherwise holds so dearly )hus, upon this post*
?lausewitzean security terrain, it is not merely the friend and the enemy who have "lurred
"eyond meaningful distinction 7either is it that the rewriting of threat has e(ually "lended the
organic and inorganic, along with the animate and inanimate 1hat truly defines terror in today5s
world is how the infinite now connects to the finitude of e/istence
DH
Ever since 8ant, the modern
condition has attempted to give more to the finitude of e/istence "y incorporating life within the
structures of the great infinity of ideas ,ndeed, as Uuentin 9eillassou/ e/plains, it was precisely
through inaugurating the (in)finite condition, which was no longer shaped "y the God*1orld
relationship, "ut the infinite possi"ility of finite "eings in this !orld, that the #necessity of
contingency% "egins to ta$e shape
D1
)hat today5s security*spea$ tal$s in such a 8antian inspired
language to position contingency at the forefront of security de"ates is therefore not incidental
)he language of civil contingencies is the necessary product of a situation in which the finite
issues concerning the life and death of the species is now fully informed "y the infinite "ecoming
of emergent life:
7ot all emergence is good ; good emergence has to "e distinguished from "ad, desired
emergence from unwanted emergence ,n the process, war "ecomes less a periodic phenomena
than the very optimisation of the state of living re(uired "y an emergency of emergence S such
an emergency determined "y the character of life itself rather than the presence, for e/ample, of
deadly geo*strategic or even ideological rivals Emergence is simply a permanent emergence;
9onstrosity :thus< arises as much from within as from without ?atastrophe finds a new location
,t continues of course to "e associated with forces of nature;+ut it also finds a new site here in
the very "io*informatic order as such: the "ody threatens catastrophe
D'
1ith this in mind, Deleuze5s insistence Lwhen Spinoza says we do not $now even what a "ody
can do, this is practically a war cry5 now reads rather prophetic
D6
1hat a "ody might "e capa"le
of doing is now the !ar cry which is ta$en "y =i"eral security practitioners to inaugurate a
permanent condition of war, which in the process of promoting the infinite wonder of =i"eral
e/istence effectively underwrites this li"erated wonder with the most pervasive of suspicions
Tournament 11H
8nowing that we don5t $now is therefore not only a condition of possi"ility 8nowing that we
don5t $now e(ually e/poses us all on a daily "asis to the simple finitude of our e/istence ,n light
of this, more than ever there is a need to have a more rigorous understanding of different
political*philosophies of the event ,ndeed, for those us who are concerned with the impact this
incessant securitisation is having on the political, further suspicions need to "e aroused "y those
hyper*structural philosophers, not least Alain +adiou and 9eillassou/, whose claims to "e a"le
to li"erate the political su"!ect "y prioritising the infinite over the finite not only continue to
rewrite a foundational (al"eit e/ponentially more comple/) script, "ut inevita"ly still play "y the
rules of the politically de"ilitating security game 4ow do we therefore get "eyond this impasse2
1e owe it to Rac(ues Derrida for drawing our attentions to the possi"ility of an alternative ,n a
lecture Derrida gave once gave on 4usserl, which showed evident dissatisfaction with the
infiniteOfinite paradigm,
D>
he went on to e/plain how genuine #difference% su"verts this
metaphysical affliction )his point was pic$ed up in a later lecture where this notion of difference
is used to draw out his 7ietzschean sympathies in order to challenge the suspension of life:
)urned towards the lost or impossi"le presence of the a"sent origin, this structuralist thematic of
"ro$en immediacy is therefore the saddened, negative, nostalgic, guilty, 3ousseuistic side of the
thin$ing of play whose other side would "e the 7ietzschean affirmation, that is the !oyous
affirmation of the play of the world and of the innocence of "ecoming, the affirmation of a world
of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin which is offered to an active
interpretation )his affirmation then determines the non+centre other!ise than as loss of centre
And it plays without security
DA
1ith the "attle lines drawn around the infinite "ecoming of finite life a final return to Deleuze is
now necessary Derrida was correct to note that Deleuze5s commitment to difference made him
Lthe philosopher of the event5
DB
4is entire critical corpus was driven towards e/posing the
poverty of representational epistemology in the conte/t of differential emergence .or Deleuze,
events are not "rought a"out through some movement of negation, "ut are synonymous with
those creative and active movements which are irreduci"le to familiar co*ordinates of
representation ,t is the Lsimultaneity of a "ecoming whose characteristic is to elude the
present5
DD
)he event as such never reaches an endpoint@neither is it committed to resolve itself
"y desiring its own completion, "ut it is always at a point of intermezzo ,t is Lalways and at the
same time something which has !ust happened and something a"out to happen& never something
happening5
DF
1hat is more, the event is always undergoing a process of becoming different
whilst folding "ac$ in and upon itself in a perpendicular fashion, creating new forms of
selfreorganisation: L+odies (and souls) are forces As such they are not only defined "y their
chance encounters and collisions )hey are defined "y the relationships "etween the infinite
num"er of parts that compose each "ody and that already characterise it as a #multitude%
DG
De*
territorialising and re*territorialising, the singular flows and creative intensities which ma$e up
an event are always open to further traversals that create new e/istence Deleuze5s event thus
consists of the dual processes of decomposition and composition )here is an original line of
flight, "ut such flight only "ecomes meaningful when it re*connects, esta"lishing new encounters
which actualise the event through the very processes of change, difference and transformation
FH

4ence, counter to +adiou5s !ourney into the void, for Deleuze there is no event without
"ecoming, !ust as there is no "ecoming without re*connection
4ow then are we to conceive of a politics which is ade(uate to the event2 )here are certain
ad!ustments which immediately spring to mind .irst, there is a need to insist that ethics should
Tournament 111
no longer "e committed to negotiate and regulate conditions of uncertainty, "ut the very
generative process of "ecoming different should itself "e seen to "e the very advent of the
ethical ,n this way, our ethical orientations would no longer see$ to !udge whether the means
!ustify the ends, "ut the means would "e assessed as if they were the ends in an ethical
movement that is forever orientated towards the possi"ility of political change Second, there is a
need to guard against those recent seductions which see$ to give more to life "y drawing upon
the infinite in thought )hese attempts to e/tract the human out of nature, not only effectively
serve to suspend life within a system whose claims for li"eration are always deferred, "ut they
serve to continuously re*inscri"e metaphysical imperatives "y actually pro"lematising the very
(ualities it claims to promote )hird, there is a need to "ring the political "ac$ into the conceptual
terrain
-olitical distain thus "ecomes our weapon of choice whenever we confront the very real forms of
)error that appear in the form of a calculated se(uence that is committed to the a"solution of its
own power of un(ualified truth And finally, there is a need to outlive the incessant modern
compulsion to securing the su"!ect, which has now "een ta$en to such e/tremity that any
relationship with the alterior is "ecoming increasingly impossi"le As Deleuze would argue, if we
can tal$ of a genuinely free political spirit then it is surely defined "y the spirit of difference, not
"y the calculated performances which serve to mortify life "y stripping it of any creative and
eventful e/perience
+rad Evans
Notes
1 See in particular 9 Dillon and A 7eal :eds< 0oucault on Politics, ,ecurity and *ar
(=ondon, -algrave: 'HHG) and S 9orton and S +ygrave :eds< 0oucault in an Age of Terror
(=ondon, -algrave: 'HHF)
' 9 .oucault, ,ociety Fust be .efended> Eectures at the <ollege de 0rance ?@BGC?@BW (7ew
Nor$, -icador: 'HH6)& 9 .oucault, ,ecurity, Territory and Population> Eectures at the <ollege
de 0rance ?@BBC?@BK (7ew Nor$, 9acmillan: 'HHD)& and 9 .oucault, The 4irth of 4io+Politics
Eectures at the <ollege de 0rance ?@BKC?@B@ (7ew Nor$, 9acmillan: 'HHF)
6 9 .oucault, $istory of ,e"uality> =ol(?( An :ntroduction (7ew Nor$, Tintage and 3andom
4ouse: 1GF1) 'A
> .oucault #Security, )erritory and -opulation,% 6H
Tournament 11'
A .oucault #Security, )erritory and -opulation,% >A
B .oucault #Society 9ust "e Defended,% '>B
D .oucault #Society 9ust "e Defended,% '>B
F .oucault #Security, )erritory and -opulation,% BA
G G Agam"en, $omo ,acer> ,overeign Po!er and 4are Eife (Stanford, Stanford Kniversity
-ress& 1GGA) 1D1
1H Agam"en #4omo Sacer,% 1DG
11 9 Dillon, ;overning Terror> The ,tate of Emergency of 4io+Political Emergence
(,nternational -olitical Sociology: 'HHD)11
1' See 9 Duffield, .evelopment, ,ecurity and Pnending *ar> ;overning the *orld of
Peoples (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 'HHD)
16 V +auman, *asted Eives> Fodernity and its utcasts (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 'HH>) BF
1> 9ercury 7ews (Ranuary '6: 'HHH)
1A R S Dryze$, <omple"ity and Rationality in Public Eife (-olitical Studies, ///v: 1GFD) >'A
1B , -rigogine The End of <ertainty (7ew Nor$, )he .ree -ress: 1GGD)
1D 4 A Simon, The ,ciences of the Artificial (?am"ridge, 9,) -ress: 1GF1) 1GA
1F 3 =ewin, <omple"ity> Eife at the Edge of <haos (-hoeni/, =ondon: 'HH1) 1>G
1G = Amaral and R 0ttino, <omple" -et!orks> Augmenting the frame!ork for the study of
comple" systems ()he European -hysical Rournal, SpringOSummer: 'HH>) 1
'H See 9 ?astells, The Rise of the -et!orked ,ociety> The :nformation Age> Economy, ,ociety
and <ulture, =ol( : (0/ford: +lac$well -u"lishers =td: 1GGB)& and 9 ?astells, The :nternet
;ala"y> Reflections on the :nternet, 4usiness and ,ociety (0/ford: 0/ford Kniversity -ress:
'HH1)
'1 9 4ardt, and A 7egri, Fultitude> *ar and .emocracy in the Age of Empire (=ondon,
4amish 4amilton: 'HHA) 1>'
'' See in particular = 8ay, *ho *rote the 4ook of Eife3 A $istory of the ;enetic <ode
(Stanford, Stanford Kniversity -ress: 'HHH)
'6 )he 4uman Genome -ro!ect refer to this as "eing L"io*infomatics5 which refers to La term
coined for the new field that merges "iology, computer science and information technology to
manage and analyse the data, with the ultimate goal of understanding and modelling living
Tournament 116
systems5 4uman Genome -ro!ect, ;enomics and its :mpact on ,ociety (KS Dept of Energy
0ffice of Science: 'HHB) >
'> A 9ichelson and 9 +ulyc$, 4iological <ode 4reaking in the A?
st
<entury (9olecular
Systems +iology: 'HHB)
'A As Deleuze e/plains, Lmasses "ecome samples, data, mar$ets, or banks5 G Deleuze,
-egotiations> ?@BAC?@@S (7ew Nor$, ?olum"ia Kniversity -ress: 1GGH) 1FH
'B 4 3heingold, The =irtual <ommunity (3eading, 9A: Addison 1esley, 1GG6) and - =evy,
<ollective :ntelligence> Fankind2s emerging !orld in cyberspace (7ew Nor$: -lenum -ress,
1GGD)
'D =ewin #?omple/ity,% 1G1
'F =ewin #?omple/ity,% 1G1, 1G'
'G S 1ein"erg, .reams of a 0inal Theory> The ,cientists ,earch for the Pltimate Ea!s of
-ature (7ew Nor$, -antheon: 1GG')
6H S 8auffman, At $ome in the Pniverse> The ,earch for the Ea!s of ,elf+rganisation and
<omple"ity (0/ford, 0/ford Kniversity -ress: 1GGA) 1F
61 Dillon #Governing )error,% 1>
6' See in particular R 4 4olland, Emergence> 0rom <haos to rder (0/ford, 0/ford
Kniversity -ress: 'HHH) and R Krry, ;lobal <omple"ity (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 'HH6)
66 . T 4aye$, :ndividualism and Economic rder (?hicago, Kniversity of ?hicago -ress:
1GFH)
6> 9 Sil"erstein and R 9cGeever, The ,earch for ntological Emergence ()he -hilosophical
Uuarterly Tol >G (1GA): 1GGG) 1FB
6A ? el 4ani and A -ereria, $igher+Eevel .escriptions> *hy ,hould *e Preserve Them3 ,n -
Anderson, ? Emmeche, 7 .innemann and - ?hristiansen, .o!n!ard <ausation> Finds,
4odies and Fatter (Aarhus, Aarhus Kniversity -ress: 'HHH) 166
6B Krry #Glo"al ?omple/ity,% DB
6D Krry #Glo"al ?omple/ity,% DD
6F , am "orrowing my terms here from Rean*.ran[ois =yotard and his notion of a nomological
scientific rationality that see$s to promote predicta"ility within dynamic systems See R .
=yotard, The :nhuman (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 1GG1)
6G 9 Dillon, =irtual ,ecurity> A Eife ,cience of 5.is6rder (9illennium Rournal of
,nternational Studies, Tol 6': 'HH6) A6A
Tournament 11>
>H A version of this report is availa"le online at:
http:OOwwwglo"alsecurityorgOintellOli"raryOcongressO'HH6YrptOintell*G11*report*HD'>H6pdf
>1 KS Government, #Roint ,n(uiry into ,ntelligence ?ommunity Activities "efore and after the
)errorist Attac$s of Septem"er 11% 1'F
>' 4 9 Government, Report of the fficial Account of the 4ombings in Eondon on B Iuly
ASSG (7orwich, 49S0: 'HHB)
>6 4 9 Government #3eport of the 0fficial Account of the +om"ings in =ondon,% '
>> 4 9 Government #3eport of the 0fficial Account of the +om"ings in =ondon,% 61
>A 4 9 Government #3eport of the 0fficial Account of the +om"ings in =ondon,% 1
>B + 9assumi, 0ear> The ,pectrum ,aid (-ositions, Tol 16 (1): 'HHA) 6A
>D G Deleuze, T!o Regimes of Fadness> Te"ts and :ntervie!s ?@BGC?@@G (7ew Nor$,
Semiote/t(e): 'HHB) 6FF
>F Dillon #Tirtual Security,% A>1
>G G 1 +ush, <ampaign ,peech (++? 7ews, August ': 'HH>)
AH A +adiou, :nfinite Thought (=ondon, ?ontinuum: 'HHB)1HG
A1 D 1atts, ,i" .egrees> The ,ciences of a <onnected Age (7ew Nor$, 7orton, 'HH')
A' - +o""it, Terror and <onsent> The *ars for the A?
st
<entury (7ew Nor$, -enguin: 'HHF)
A6 - Tirilio, The riginal Accident (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 'HHD) >G
A> + Ren$ins, Redefining the Enemy> The *orld $as <hanged, 4ut ur Findset $as -ot
(Santa 9onica ?A, 3A7D: 'HH>)
AA 9 1ermuth, :mproving Terrorism *arnings C The $omeland ,ecurity ,ystem2 ()estimony
presented to the 4ouse ?ommittee on Government 3eform, Su"committee on 7ational Security,
Emerging )hreats and ,nternational 3elations, 9arch 1B: 'HH>)
AB )his precise point is made "y Susan 7eiman, Evil in Fodern Thought> An Alternative
$istory of Philosophy (-rinceton Kniversity -ress: 'HH')
AD V +auman, Ei7uid 0ear (?am"ridge, -olity -ress: 'HHB) '
AF 9 ?ooper, Pre+empting Emergence> The 4iological Turn in the *ar on Terror ()heory
?ulture Society Tol '6: 'HHB) 11G,
AG Dillon #Governing )error%
Tournament 11A
BH + 9assumi, Potential Politics and the Primacy of Pre+emption ()heory and Event Tol 1H
('): 'HHD)
B1 KS Dept 4omeland Defence, -ational ,trategy for <ombating Terrorism (Department of
Defence, Septem"er: 'HHB) 1
B' 9assumi #-otential -olitics%
B6 G Deleuze, and . Guattari, *hat is Philosophy3 (=ondon, Terso: 1GG>) 1AB
B> ?a"inet 0ffice, -ational ,ecurity ,trategy of the Pnited Ringdom> ,ecurity in an
:nterdependent *orld ()S0, 7orwich, 'HHF) AD
BA See + 4offman, :nside Terrorism (7ew Nor$, ?olum"ia Kniversity -ress: 'HHB)
BB - Davies, Analytical Architecture for <apabilities+4ased Planning, Fission ,ystems
Analysis and Transformation (Santa 9onica ?A, 3A7D ?orporation: 'HHF) 1, '
BD + Rac$son, Farrying Prevention and Resiliency> 4alancing Approaches to an Pncertain
Terrorist Threat (Santa 9onica ?A, 3A7D ?orporation: 'HHF) '
BF Rac$son #9arrying -revention and 3esiliency,% 1H
BG Rac$son #9arrying -revention and 3esiliency,% 1B
DH ,t is important to note that the infinite here does not refer to the potentially limitless, neither
does it value the alterior, "ut is a totalising, a"solute and internalising composite
D1 U 9eillassou/, After 0initude> An Essay on the -ecessity of <ontingency (?ontinuum,
=ondon: 'HHF)
D' 9 Dillon and R 3eid, The Eiberal *ay of *ar> Rilling to Fake Eife Eive (=ondon,
3outledge: 'HHG) 1HF
D6 G Deleuze, E"pressionism in Philosophy> ,pino8a (7ew Nor$, Vone +oo$s: 1GGH) 'AA
D> As Derrida noted: L)he ,dea of truth, that is the ,dea of philosophy or of science, is an
infinite ,dea, an ,dea in the 8antian sense Every totality, every finite structure is inade(uate to it
7ow the ,dea or the pro!ect which animates and unifies every determined historical structure,
every *eltanschauung, is finite: on the "asis of the structural description of a vision of the world
one can account for everything e/cept the infinite opening to truth, that is, philosophy 9ore*
over, it is always something li$e an opening which will frustrate the structuralist pro!ect 1hat ,
can never understand, in a structure, is that "y means of which it is not closed5 R Derrida,
#Genesis and Structure and -henomenology% in R Derrida, *riting and .ifference (?hicago,
Kniversity of ?hicago: 1GDF) 1BH, 1B1
DA Derrida, ,tructure, ,ign and Play in #1riting and Difference,% 'G'
Tournament 11B
DB )his was most generously stated in Derrida5s reaction to the news of Deleuze5s death which
was pu"lished on D
th
7ovem"er 1GGA in the -arisian 7ewspaper Eiberation and tilted L,5ll have
to 1ander Alone5 Adding, LDeleuze the thin$er is, a"ove all, the thin$er of the event and always
of this event here (cet evenement+ci) 4e remained the thin$er of the event from "eginning to
end5
DD G Deleuze, Eogic of ,ense (=ondon, ?ontinuum: 'HH>) '
DF Deleuze #=ogic of Sense,% D6
DG G Deleuze, T!o Regimes of Fadness> Te"ts and :ntervie!s ?@BGC?@@G (7ew Nor$,
Semiote/t(e): 'HHB) 1G'
FH Deleuze #=ogic of Sense,% 1D'
Tournament 11D
The War Machine2 the Formula and the ,ypothe)i)%
Deleu$e and !uattari a) -eader) o6 1lau)ewit$
!uillaume *ibertin-'lanc
)ranslated "y Daniel 3ichter
1+ From the 'nstr$mental ,once*tion of %ar to the !y*othesis of the
%ar #achine
1e would li$e to attempt here the pro"lematization that Deleuze and Guattari propose regarding
the relationship "etween war and the State in light of the concept of the !ar machine formulated
in 1GFH in the twelfth chapter of A Thousand Plateaus: #1''D: )reatise on 7omadology: )he 1ar
9achine% .rom a simply nominal point of view, this concept designates a relationship of
e"teriority in relation to the ,tate organisation of a given society in social formations that can "e
(uite diverse in structure and o"!ective ("and, secret society, religious "rotherhood, professional
association, commercial organisation, etc) as in the components they arrange (technical,
scientific, artistic, linguistic, ecological, economic, religious, etc) A given group forms a war
machine not when it ta$es war as its goal, "ut when it "ecomes heterogeneous to the state
apparatuses, to their procedures of administration and of control over the social field, as well as
to their particular modes of territorialization, in other words, to the reciprocal determination of
the State5s power and of the specific spatiotemporal formations in which it actualises itself ,t is
through this "ipolarity of the State apparatus and the power formations e/terior to the State*form
that, from 1GD6 onwards, Deleuze had introduced the e/pression !ar machine in order to put
into words a #direct political pro"lem%: the pro"lem, for groups engaged in the revolutionary
struggle, of a mode of composition which does not model itself upon the form of a party or of a
State, which does not model itself on the organisation of #"ourgeois apparatuses of State,% in
short, which does not reproduce, within the militant groups, the type of power structure that they
claim to wish to a"olish
1
)he interest of the twelfth #Plateau% resides in the fact that it passes through the watchword to
the philosophical concept through a theoretical ela"oration that intends to revitalize the 9ar/ist
understanding of State power and its repressive apparatuses 9ore precisely, it involves the
production of a theory of war that does not presuppose a #localisation% of the repressive State
power in institutional "odies such as the police or the army, "ut that is capa"le of ta$ing into
account the constitution of this power through the conflicting interactions "etween the State and
the social forces that escape it or which tend to turn against it )he concept of the war machine is
thus inscri"ed within the framewor$ of a comple/ "ipolar theoretical program )here is the
program of a genealogy of !ar that is at the same time a genesis of military power within the
repressive apparatuses of the State@and more precisely, since it is a matter of the State
incorporating a power that one presupposes as heterogeneous or e/terior to its apparatuses, a
heterogenesis of the ,tate po!er +ut on the other hand, we find the program of an analysis of
the dynamics of struggles that, under varia"le organisational forms and historical circumstances,
reconstruct war machines turned against the State, against its apparatuses, and against its very
Tournament 11F
form ,t is suita"le in this regard to emphasize that this concept is a"ove all presented "y Deleuze
and Guattari as a hypothesis, a wor$ing hypothesis in view of a comple/ genealogical and
analytic program
'
,n order to clarify the conceptual implications of this hypothesis and program, we would li$e to
e/amine the manner in which they relate to the writings of the great theoretician of war, ?arl von
?lausewitz )he te/tual location of this theoretical reference immediately suggests its
importance: s$etched in the first #-roposition% of the Treatise on -omadology, it is pic$ed up
again and developed in the ninth and last #-roposition,% where it organises another approach to
the "ody of pro"lems implicated "y the theory of the war machine in a systematic e/position
which #recapitulates the hypothesis in its entirety% +efore e/amining these te/ts in themselves,
we will note that this reference envelopes a parado/ upon first reading, at least if one relies upon
what appears to constitute the core of ?lausewitz5s polemical thought (in any case, that to which
his controversial posthumous reputation was attached, as much in the affirmative claim of his
legacy as in more critically detached analyses): the thesis of a political determination of wars
E/pressed in the well*$nown formula, #1ar is not merely a political act, "ut also a real political
instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same "y other means%
6
,
this argument affirms an instrumental conception of war, and more profoundly, it "ases war upon
the premise of a strictly state determination of the political itself Net Deleuze and Guattari5s
hypothesis of the war machine is "ased on anthropological and historical considerations that
prove to differ with such a simplified ?lausewitzian thesis Against the supposition which would
have war "e #in essence% an affaire of the State, a mode of interaction "etween States, and thus
an (al"eit e/treme) modality of the political, Deleuze and Guattari see$ to depart rather from the
recognition that all States in history have not had military apparatuses, and that the power of war
itself can and could realize itself in material and institutional devices outside of the State (for
e/ample in primitive societies or nomadic tri"es) As an initial hypothesis, we must then
conceive a relation of e/teriority "etween the State and a power of war, the latter consisting
solely in an ideal and transhistorical continuum of power (#machine% or phylum) that can realize
itself in infinitely varied socio*technical environments, "ut without necessarily ta$ing war as its
o"!ect, nor as goal the su"mission or destruction of an enemy
>
)his same hypothesis, however, far from distancing us from the -russian theoretician, seems to
"ring us closer to him, "y inviting us to ree/amine the conte/t and presuppositions of the
?lausewitzian argument regarding the political determination of wars As Deleuze and Guattari
recall, this thesis is not independent ,t is found within a #theoretical and practical, historic and
transhistorical aggregate whose parts are interconnected,% and which is not unrelated to the ideal
determination of the war machine "y a pure continuum or a power flu/:
(1) )here is a pure concept of war as a"solute, unconditioned war, an ,dea not given in
e/perience ("ring down or Lupset5 the enemy, who is assumed to have no other determination,
with no political, economic, or social considerations entering in) (') 1hat is given are real wars
as su"mitted to State aims& States are "etter or worse Lconductors5 in relation to a"solute war, and
in any case condition its realization in e/perience (6) 3eal wars swing "etween two poles, "oth
su"!ect to State politics: the war of annihilation, which can escalate to total war (depending on
the o"!ectives of the annihilation) and tends to approach the unconditioned concept via an ascent
to e/tremes& and limited war, which is no Lless5 a war, "ut one that effects a descent toward
limiting conditions, and can de*escalate to mere Larmed o"servation5
A
Tournament 11G
,n inscri"ing into such a theoretical mechanism his theory of the political determination of war,
?lausewitz draws out its conditions of validity, and thus its limits, which are simultaneously of a
historical, theoretical, and even speculative order .irst, it is $nown that the ?lausewitzian
concept of #a"solute war% is constructed from the historical singularity of the 7apoleonic 1ars
and from the twofold upheaval that followed, in the political e(uili"rium of the European
"alance of power, and even in the art of ma$ing war (radical offensive war, systematic utilization
of the maneuver, mo"ilization of the entire nation, or at least of an enlarged fraction of #the
people% in the war effort) +ut if this historical singularity must orient the construction of the
pure concept of war, of which it reveals, in asymptotically approaching it in a new way, the
essential content, this is "ecause it appears at the end of a historical series that passes from the
#)artar hordes,% through the 3oman 3epu"lic and then Empire, through the vassal systems of the
feudal monarchy, through #the great merchant cities and small repu"lics% of the 3enaissance, to
the great State monarchies of the ?lassical European Age
B
,t is not that wars too$ a more and
more a"solute form: ?lausewitz emphasizes on the contrary the strictly limited character, until
the .rench 3evolution, of the political goals of war, and thus of its o"!ectives and its military
means )he essential part of this historical series is rather the transformative curve of the
political itself, and in particular, of the development of the #state cohesion,% through
consolidation of territorial sovereignties, through the development of pu"lic fiscal concerns
permitting the transformation of personal allegiances into material ta/ation and the insertion of
the State5s military power into the institution of a permanent army, and finally through state
monopolization, not only of #legitimate physical violence,% "ut of the political relationships
"etween groupings of power in European space:
,nside :this space<, almost all the States had "ecome a"solute royalties, and the rights of states
:,tXnde< and their privileges had gradually disappeared& political power was thereafter a unified
institution, capa"le of representing the State for foreign powers )he evolution of things had
created an efficient instrument and an independent power capa"le of impressing upon war a
direction conforming to its nature
D
)hus if wars are always politically determined, or in other words are not #ever an independent
reality "ut in all cases conceiva"le as a political instrument,% as the ?lausewitzian formula
announces, this proposition does not "ecome historically and in practice true until the moment
where the political determination is itself over*determined "y the State*form +ut far from
deducing that State politics is an intrinsic determination of war itself, that is to say an internal
given to a"solute war as ade(uate content to the pure concept of war, ?lausewitz draws the
inverse conclusion@which reinforces the historical limit of validity of the .ormula with a
properly speculative limit dealing with the relation "etween the #essential% and the #real,%
"etween the #pure concept% and historical effectiveness ,n fact, if real wars are always
politically determined, this is not "ecause war is intrinsically or essentially political, "ut on the
contrary "ecause it is notC ,f it "elongs to political power to provide the reason for wars@in the
dou"le sense of the term, in that it is at the same time their final cause, and the principle that
proportions to this end their se(uence of events, their o"!ectives, and their tactical and strategic
means
F
@it is precisely "ecause war in its pure concept has no other o"!ect than its pure
autonomous movement, and no other proportion than a disproportioned race toward the e/treme
where, at the limit, the political would dissolve itself (the end of history2) ,n other words,
effective war is the continuation of politics, and one of the forms of realization of political
relations, precisely "ecause its effectiveness does not coincide with its concept or essence ,t is
#the state of society in its interior and e/terior relations :;< which engenders, conditions,
Tournament 1'H
circumscri"es and tempers war: "ut all these aspects remain foreign to the essence of war, and
are only e/trinsic varia"les thereof%
G
@which condenses the stri$ing e/pression: #1ar is
sometimes more, sometimes less than itself%
1H
?loser to 8ant than to 4egel, politics finds its
proper place in this irreduci"le distance "etween the concept and history, which is for ?lausewitz
a distance "etween the a"solute form of war and the various ways in which States determine, and
simultaneously condition and limit, the empirical realizations of this form
.or Deleuze and Guattari, this ?lausewitzian mechanism provides a valid point of departure on
the condition of "eing ad!usted according to the hypothesis of the heteronomy "etween the power
of the #war machine% and State power )his ad!ustment ta$es on the appearance of a
radicalization of the distance enveloped in the .ormula ,n relation to this theoretical mechanism,
what e/actly does this displacement have to do with2 )hey find a hint in ?lausewitz himself:
1henever the irruption of war power is confused with the line of State domination, everything
gets muddled& the war machine can then "e understood only through the categories of the
negative, since nothing is left that remains outside the State +ut, returned to its milieu of
e/teriority, the war machine is seen to "e of another species, of another nature, of another origin
:than State< :;< The ,tate has no !ar machine of its o!nV it can only appropriate one in the
form of a military institution, one that will continually cause it pro"lems )his e/plains the
mistrust States have toward their military institutions, in that the military institution inherits an
e/trinsic war machine 8arl von ?lausewitz has a general sense :un pressentiment< of this
situation when he treats the flow of a"solute war as an ,dea that States partially appropriate
according to their political needs, and in relation to which they are more or less good
Lconductors5
11
Already in +oo$ , of n *ar, and then again in +oo$ T,,,, ?lausewitz senses the tension that is
introduced into the theoretical conception of war "y his distinction "etween real empirical wars
and the pure concept of war as the #inherent tendency of the war machine,% the #natural tendency
for which States are only more or less conductors or offer more or less resistance or friction%
1'

1ithout ceasing to "e a State affair, a"solute war compels one to thin$, as ade(uate content to
the pure concept as limit*concept, an ideational flu/ of power that States only seem to "e a"le to
partially appropriate according to their political determinations, and that must "e conceived as
e"terior in theory to this political sphere of the State and of relations "etween States 1hat serves
as an indication for Deleuze and Guattari is their recognition that this ideational determination is
not sensed "y ?lausewitz any more than in a #presentiment,% that is to say that it is, for a
theoretician of war as political instrument, inevita"ly maintained in the implicit, and that it can
only reveal the flaws or the #hHsitations% of his te/t which ma$es of a"solute war at times the
political e/acer"ation of the process of war, and at other times the #inherent tendency% of a war
machine which a"stracts itself from every political relation
16
)his indication, these vacillations
or these flaws of the ?lausewitzian te/t, are symptoms, that is to say signs which mar$ in the
theory what this very theory cannot manage to thin$ 1hat is it then that prevents it from
"ringing to the e/plicit thematization this e/teriority of the war machine to the State, this
e/teriority (which the .ormula covers up and disguises rather than e/presses) of the a"solute
form of the power of war vis*\*vis the State*form2 #)he pro"lem is that the e/teriority of the war
machine in relation to the State apparatus is everywhere apparent "ut remains difficult to
conceptualize ,t is not enough to affirm that the war machine is e/ternal to the apparatus ,t is
necessary to reach the point of conceiving the war machine as itself a pure form of e/teriority,
Tournament 1'1
whereas the State apparatus constitutes the form of interiority we ha"itually ta$e as a model, or
according to which we are in the ha"it of thin$ing%
1>
1hat remains unsatisfying in ?lausewitz for Deleuze and Guattari is not the distance that he
places "etween a pure concept of the power of war (as an a"solute or an unconditioned ,dea) and
real conditioned wars through their insertion in historical and institutional, as well as social and
moral milieus where they find ipso facto a political signification (ie, their insertion in the
ensem"le of conditions that cause, in effective history, wars to have al!ays already a political
signification) ,t is on the contrary that this distance is not envisaged in its full radicality, "ecause
it remains for ?lausewitz a distance interior to the State*form ,n .ifference and Repetition,
Deleuze defined his program of #transcendental empiricism% "y reproaching 8ant for having
conserved too many empirical presuppositions in his criticism, and at the same time, for having
!ust as much compromised the e/ploration of the #true structures of the transcendental% which
distorted the critical thrust of the empiricism itself
1A
,n a similar sense, ?lausewitz finds himself
reproached in A Thousand Plateaus for having put too much of the political in the pure concept,
or inversely, for having not put enough heteronomy of the power of war in the State@
heteronomy of which the recurrent conflicts, in the history of modern States, "etween civil and
military authorities and the constant mistrust of the former vis*\*vis the latter, are the
institutional symptoms, !ust as ?lausewitz5s hesitation had previously formed the theoretical
symptom ,n sum, ?lausewitz presupposes already #too much State% in the pure concept of the
power of war itself )hus, when he determines the fundamental o"!ective of the military action as
the #destruction of the enemy% (ie, in the #overcoming of his a"ility to resist%) and considers
this o"!ective as the intrinsic property of the pure concept,
1B
and when, correlatively, he inserts in
the pure concept a dynamic of ascent to the e/tremes of antagonistic forces, it is clear that the
supposedly #intrinsic% goal presupposes already a political determination of the enemy, and that
the ascent to e/tremes presupposes a 7ualitative homogeneity of the forces in presence of which
the tactical paradigm remains the "attle "etween State armies, and so presupposes a symmetry in
the forms of power in conflict (to the small 7ualitative difference) (as one sees it a contrario in
the short*circuiting of the ascent to e/tremes in asymmetrical guerrilla wars)
Such a difficulty to really thin$ the formal heterogeneity of the war machine in relation to the
State*form, or more precisely, to conceive #the war machine as itself a pure form of e/teriority,%
e/poses us to the ris$ of a theoretical dou"le "loc$age: .irst, a disfiguration of the content of the
pure concept@a power of war incarnated in a #machine% as an ,dea unconditioned "y State
political coordinates@ "ut also, on the other hand, an illusion in the theory of the State*form
itself which compromises the historical analysis of its transformations )he speculative pro"lem
and the analytic*concrete pro"lem are here intimately related (as usual in the wor$ of Deleuze)
,n missing the pure concept or the war machine as unconditioned ,dea,
1D
we ris$ first to
mista$enly o"scure the effective operations "y which the States succeed in incorporating this war
machine (and to transform it while incorporating it)& and, second, simultaneously, to misread the
limits of this incorporation, the mutations that it imposes on the State*form itself, the
contradictions and the antagonisms that the heteronomy of the war machine introduces into the
apparatuses and structures of the State power 1e ris$, in sum, to miss the fundamental pro"lem
of a genealogy of military power in the material history of societies 1e must then see at present
how the critical recapture of the ?lausewitzian mechanism "y Deleuze and Guattari leads them
to systematically develop #the entirety of the hypothesis,% in order to remove these two
"loc$ages and to specify the groundwor$ of their genealogical program
Tournament 1''
"+ (ystematic E&*osition of the !y*othesis
,f the critical resumption of the ?lausewitzian mechanism allows a systematic e/position of the
hypothesis of the war machine, this is true "ecause it allows us to identify its pro"lematic core
#)he distinction "etween a"solute war as ,dea and real wars seems to us to "e of great
importance, "ut only if a different criterion than that of ?lausewitz is applied )he pure ,dea is
not that of the a"stract elimination of the adversary "ut that of a war machine that does not have
!ar as its ob1ect(%
1F
Deleuze and Guattari5s move consists in uncoupling two things that
remained indistinct for ?lausewitz: the a"solute concept of the power of war, which is to say this
power in so far as an unconditioned ,dea, and the concept of a"solute war Such a decoupling
implies, more fundamentally, a reconsideration of the conceptual form in which ?lausewitz
envisages the war machine, and which governs his instrumental conception of war: the form of a
practical syllogism: #the political intention is the desired end, war is the means, and the means
cannot "e conceived without the end%
1G
)he overall e/position of the hypothesis of the war
machine follows from it, and is deployed in a twofold pro"lematic series )he first series
e/plains in what sense the war machine, as a ,dea not given to e/perience (although
em"lematically realized, as we shall see, in the anthropological and historic conditions of the
nomadism of the Steppes), does not satisfy a priori this syllogistic form of State wars )he
movement of this first series is to esta"lish that the war machine cannot "e determined as the
State instrument of war, that it cannot then either "e determined "y the goal #to overthrow or
defeat the enemy,% that it does not enter #"y its nature% in the practical syllogism of ends and
means e/pressing the political signification of war at the core of the State*form ,t is thus an
analytic and critical series: it aims at separating the war machine from war itself )hus its main
pro"lem "ecomes: 4ow to re*determine the positive o"!ect of the war machine, in other words,
the intrinsic content of the ,dea, if this o"!ect is parado/ically not war itself2 +ut this first
pro"lematic series leads to a second, this time synthetic and historic )his series confronts the
pro"lem of $nowing how the war machine "ecomes an instrument of State power, "y which
means States appropriate it and integrate it into the political syllogism of means (ie, military),
of the o"!ect (of war), and of the ends (wills or political goals) accorded to the interstate
relations, and at the price of what tensions or what contradictions in the historical developments
of the State*form
Pro-lematic (eries '
Analytic*critical Series (conceptual distinction "etween war machine and State apparatus)
Pro-lem 1: 's -attle the necessary .o-/ect0 1o-/ective form2 of war3
Thesis ?@the principle of non*"attle, such as it is illustrated nota"ly in irregular and guerrilla
wars, and such as it can also enter into State strategies, suggests otherwise ?lausewitz
emphasizes, after all, how the modern e/ploitation of the war of movement, as well as new
strategic uses of the defensive in wars of resistance, had come to complicate the forms and
strategic issues of "attle 4owever, he maintained its privileged position #)he center of gravity
of the whole conflict or of the campaign,% the "attle is the only means of war that one can
immediately deduce from its concept: #)he primordial o"!ective of military action :"eing< to
overcome the enemy and thus to destroy his armed forces :;<, the "attle is the only means
disposed of "y military activity to achieve it%
'H
)he first pro"lem raised "y Deleuze and
Tournament 1'6
Guattari5s hypothesis thus places the analysis on concrete, polemological ground, that of the
tactic and of the strategy, and the ma!or concern of the corresponding thesis is to call upon a re*
evaluation of forms of confrontation that are not su"ordinated to this model of military
engagement =et us note in any case that this first thesis@#the "attle and the non*"attle are the
dou"le o"!ect of war,% without e/clusivity of the one nor of the other
'1
@does not resolve the
corresponding pro"lem ,t emphasizes rather that this pro"lem remains irresolva"le as long as not
only the political ends of war "ut the modes of investment of space*time "y the war machine,
that is to say its strategic modes of territorialization (e/istence or non*e/istence of one or many
fronts, varia"le relations of the fronts and turning movements, of the manoeuvre and of the
concentration of forces, of the strategic length of time and of the tactical (uic$ness of
engagements, etc), are not ta$en into account
Pro-lem ": 's war the o-/ect 1o-/ective2 of the war machine3
Thesis A@the war machine does not have as its suita"le or direct o"!ective war itself, "ut the
composition of a #smooth space,% as a mode of collective organization of life )he formal
heterogeneity of the war machine in relation to the State*form has for intrinsic content, not
military confrontation, "ut the heterogeneity of modes of inscription or investment of space and
time "y the two formations of power .or if there are States without armies, and even
confrontations without the o"!ective of forcing an opposing political will to su"mit (of the pillage
or #razzia% type, for e/ample), it is difficult to conceive, on the other hand, a State, however
#transcendent% or inade(uately socialized it may "e, that does not implicate a minimum of
development of territory, in the form of investments as much material (infrastructures) as
sym"olic and imaginary 1hat is usually called the #territorial principle% of State domination is
as much the result as it is the presupposition of this inscription (which is (uite varia"le,
depending on the historical formations) "y which the State compensates for the specific
deterritorialization of its apparatuses in relation to immanent social practices #)he State does not
dissociate itself from a process of capture of flows of all $inds, populations, commodities or
commerce, money or capital, etc )here is still a need for fi/ed paths in well*defined directions,
which restrict speed, regulate circulation, relativize movement, and measure in detail the relative
movements of su"!ects and o"!ects% (striated space)
''
)he #e/teriority% of the war machine is
not then an e/teriority #in% space (geographical distance), "ut an e/teriority of space to itself (to
"e #from the outside%, wherever one is), which prevents its complete interiorization into the
State*form )his is why the conceptual difference "etween the State apparatus and the war
machine, that is to say the heterogeneity "etween the State*form and the machine*form of war,
finds its immediate e/pression, for Deleuze and Guattari, in the modes of territorialization which
dominate respectively in state formations and in nomad formations
)his formal heterogeneity of social nomadic assem"lages has often "een remar$ed upon,
especially regarding their lac$ of State and centralized administration, towns and territorial
infrastructures, writing machine and fiscal machine, as well as sedentary economy and stoc$s
(According to this point of view, it is improper to spea$ of #nomadic empires%) 9ore generally,
historians note that nomadic "ar"arians, whether coming from the oriental Steppes or from
northern Europe, have "een rather mediocre founders of empire
'6
)his is not however due to a
lac$ or incapacity, according to Deleuze and Guattari, "ut to the fact that they valorise a positive
territorial principle that wards off these elements and actively renders them impossi"le .or the
nomadic vectors of a social formation are not simply defined "y movement in general, nor "y
their itinerancy in particular (sedentary peoples may "e characterized "y "oth), "ut "y the type of
Tournament 1'>
space on which each formation territorializes itself, that is to say its manner of "eing toward
space or of #holding% its space A nomadic space is a space that is #smoothened% "y that which
happens on it (modes of distri"ution of men and things, movements and events) #)o smoothen%
space does not mean to homogenize it, "ut to put into variation the sta"le landmar$s that would
permit the imposition of modes of occupation of space upon invaria"les ,n the socio*ecological
conditions of the Steppes or the desert, for e/ample, #the orientations have no consistency, "ut
change according to vegetations, occupations and temporary precipitations% )hus the directions
vary with the spatial fi/ed points which themselves vary according to adopted tra!ectories, in
such a way that space tends to merge with movements that are deployed 7omadic
territorialization "y smoothening is a mo"ilisation of space rather than a movement in a
supposedly immo"ile space ,t is the rendering varia"le of a non*appropriated space, rather than
the occupation of an o"!ectified space as property
'>
)he State, on the contrary, needs such
invaria"le fi/ed points (striations) in order to immo"ilize space, in order to identify and control
human "eings and things according to their positions and their movements in this space, "ut also
to delimit it, segment it, and render it appropria"le either directly (when the State itself
determines the rules of residence) or indirectly (when it fi/es the !uridical rules of its private
appropriation) All of these operations are not only challenged "y nomadic modes of
territorialization, "ut indeed are incompati"le with them =et us recall however that the
anthropological concepts which Deleuze and Guattari deploy to display this distinction "etween
the two territorial principles (striationOsmoothening) have principally heuristic value .or the
e/position of the hypothesis of the war machine, the essential point is a"ove all to distinguish
clearly the comple/ status of nomadism, as a socio*historical type and as a conceptual figure
.rom the point of view of universal history, the nomads invent the war machine as such, as a
form of e/teriority from state formations .rom the point of view of concrete analysis of social
formations, nomadic social assem"lages effectuate the war machine, as a process of autonomous
power determined "y the production and occupation of smooth spaces which escape State
apparatuses and which turn against them .rom the point of view of conceptual constructivism,
the historical and ethnological concepts of nomadism permit the determination of content which
is ade(uate to the ,dea of the war machine, that is to say the description of territorial assem"lages
according to their social and economic, ecological and technical, semiological and aesthetic
coordinates, which is what forms the positive content of the Treatise on -omadology 0ur o"!ect
here is not to reassess this content for itself 1e will simply note that anthropological studies of
nomadic peoples offer a "ody of concrete singularities from which the concept of the war
machine may "e constructed )his concept itself permits us in turn to consider the nomadic
values of very diverse phenomena which situate themselves far from historical or ethnological
studies #,n conformity with the essence, the nomads do not hold the secret: an Lideological5,
scientific, or artistic movement can "e a potential war machine, to the precise e/tent to which it
draws :;< a smooth space of displacement ,t is not the nomad who defines this constellation of
characteristics& it is this constellation that defines the nomad, and at the same time the essence of
the war machine%
'A
0ne (uestion "ecomes all the more necessary 1hy should we conserve the name #war
machine%2 1e conserve the name "ecause if the constitution of smooth space is truly the
intrinsic o"!ect of such a machine, if the occupation and reproduction of such a space truly form
the specific process in which this machine is actualized, it is no less true that ()hesis '') it
cannot "e posed as such without meeting that which it escapes, without, outside of itself, running
up against that which it e/cludes inside of itself: #,f war necessarily results, it is "ecause the war
Tournament 1'A
machine collides with States and cities, as forces (of striation) opposing its positive o"!ect: from
then on, the war machine has as its enemy the State, the city, the state and ur"an phenomenon,
and adopts as its o"!ective their annihilation%
'B
.ollowing the 8antian distinction ta$en up "y
Deleuze, war does not follow analytically from the war machine, whose only intrinsic property is
the social assem"lages of smooth space, however diverse they may "e 4owever, these very
assem"lages ensure that war must necessarily follow from the nomadic machine, according to a
synthetic connection ()he pro"lem then "ecomes: what is it that controls and operates this
synthesis, and from then on imposes this necessity2) Again, we must recall this immediate
conse(uence for the genealogy of the power of war According to this hypothesis, it is no longer
enough to say that war is not at first a State instrument "ut the indirect conse(uence of the formal
heterogeneity of a war machine e/terior to the State*form 1e must add that war itself does not at
first have as its aim the su"!ugation of an opposing State, the "ending of an opposing State5s will
in order to impose another upon it, "ut the destruction of the State*form as such 1e are not
dealing with the ascent to e/tremes of armed State forces to a"solute war, as in ?lausewitz, "ut
with the a"solute destruction of the State as such
Pro-lem 4: 's the war machine the o-/ect 1means2 of the (tate
a**arat$s3 1Or in what manner is it s$ch32
Thesis D@the war machine is not in itself the o"!ect of the State apparatus, "ut it becomes such
when the State appropriates it as a su"ordinated instrument to its own ends, and this historical
process of appropriation is reflected in the two preceding pro"lems: it is when the State
appropriates the war machine as a means, that the war machine itself ta$es war as a direct
ob1ective, and that war in turn ta$es as its privileged ob1ective form "attle ,t is thus the
privileged form of the polHmos, and the nature of the #synthesis% which change As long as the
war machine is not appropriated "y the State, its relation to war is synthetically necessary, "ut the
synthesis itself returns to an e"terior encounter "etween the State*form and a war machine 1e
can say, in the terms of =ouis Althusser, that this meeting #over*determines% the synthesis,
esta"lishes the contingency of its necessity, and ensures that the war machine maintains
autonomy in its own process ,t is precisely this autonomy that is e/pressed in the tactical and
strategic forms of asymmetrical conflict, at least as long as they escape the dialectic of political
wills and the ?lausewitzian law of ascent to e/tremes
'D
As he relates Genghis 8han5s invasions
during the first three decades of the thirteenth century, the sinologist 3enI Grousset shows that
the nomads did not aim at con(uering the State, to seize a power they would not $now what to do
with@which is, for that matter, the source of disconcerting situations: #)he war of Genghis
8han against the 8in, "eginning in 1'11, after "rief truces, went on until his death (1''D), only
to "e ended "y his successor (1'6>) )he 9ongols, with their mo"ile cavalry, e/celled at
ravaging the countryside and open towns :;<, they made war in ?hina as they did in the
Steppes, "y successive razzias, after which they would retire with their spoils, leaving "ehind
them the 8in to reoccupy the towns, reconstruct the ruins, repair the "reaches, re"uild the
fortifications, which meant that in the course of this war, the 9ongol generals were o"liged to re*
con(uer two or three times the same places%
'F
,n different and later conditions, )E =awrence
would write similarly in an admira"le passage: #)he Semites5 idea of nationality was the
independence of clans and villages, and their ideal of national union was episodic com"ined
resistance to an intruder ?onstructive policies, an organized state, an e/tended empire, were not
so much "eyond their sight as hateful in it )hey were fighting to get rid of Empire, not to win
it%
'G
)his is then what changes, as soon as the war machine is appropriated "y the State:
su"ordinated to the politics of States and to their ends, it #changes in nature and function, since it
Tournament 1'B
is afterward directed against the nomad and all State destroyers, or else e/presses relations
"etween States, to the e/tent that a State underta$es e/clusively to destroy another State or
impose its aims upon it%
6H
,f it then enters into a relation that is synthetically necessary to war,
this is not "ecause of an e/terior encounter, "ut "ecause henceforth the State masters the power
of synthesis, transforms the o"!ective form of war into a confrontation "etween State armies
("attle), and even "ecomes capa"le of locally integrating irregular elements of guerrilla or
asymmetrical wars
)he #power of synthesis% refers to the conditions and means of this appropriation of the war
machine "y the State (conditions and means which are contained in the last instance "y the
notion of #capture%) 1e discern here the ma!or conceptual displacement in relation to the
?lausewitzian mechanism, and the genealogical program opened "y the hypothesis of the war
machine )he pro"lem is not primarily that of the #reali8ation% of the pure concept of war, of the
realization of a"solute war in more or less limiting conditions of States according to their
political, social, economic and technical, moral and !uridical parameters )he pro"lem is at first
that of appropriation of the war machine "y the State ,t is the conditions, the forms and the
historically varia"le means of this appropriation that can realize modes of realization of war,
which depend on it )his leads to the second pro"lematic series, which deals directly with the
genealogical process of appropriation 1e would li$e to emphasize that the e/pression of this
process engages the core of the Guattaro*Deleuzian theory of the State*form: the redefinition of
#State apparatuses% as #apparatuses of capture%
Pro-lematic (eries ''
Synthetic*dynamic series (the process of appropriation of war machines "y States)
Pro-lem 5: %hat are the conditions of *ossi-ility of s$ch an
a**ro*riation3
Thesis JNthe principle condition of this state appropriation is found in the ambiguity internal to
the war machine itself, as an o"!ective #hesitation% of the ,dea, according to )heses ' and '' #,t
is precisely "ecause war is only the supplementary or synthetic o"!ect of the nomad war machine
that it e/periences the hesitation that proves fatal to it, and that the State apparatus for its part is
a"le to lay hold of war and thus turn the war machine "ac$ against the nomads :;< )he
integration of the nomads into the con(uered empires was one of the most powerful factors of
appropriation of the war machine "y the State apparatus: the inevita"le danger to which the
nomads succum"ed%
61
,f the State first meets war not in waging it, "ut in suffering it, we must
also say that #the State learns fastC%
6'
4ere we touch on one of the most important reasons for
which, according to the plane of cultural anthropology, Deleuze considers nomads of the Steppes
as the em"lematic realisation of the war machine as such )he dating of the Treatise on
-omadology "y the death of Genghis 8han is in this regard significant ,t not only refers to the
e/teriority of Genghis 8han5s war machine which will succeed within a few decades in
su"ordinating the ?hinese imperial centres ,t also implies the am"iguity which traverses the war
machine (and which traverses it, emphasize our authors, #from the very "eginning, from the first
act of war against the State%), since the great nomad warriors which follow, such as 8u"lai, and
especially )imur, will appear in their turn as new founders of Empire, turning the war machine
against the nomads of the Steppes themselves
66
)he year 1''D resonates as the date of this
Tournament 1'D
historic turning point, which returns "ac$ to this #hesitation% in the ,dea, this fluctuatio animi of
the ,dea, which the State, without hesitating, will ta$e advantage of
Pro-lem 6: %hat are the concrete forms of this a**ro*riation3
Thesis G@Deleuze and Guattari distinguish two principle forms of incorporation of the power of
war as instrument of the State (#with all possi"le mi/tures "etween them%) 0n the one hand,
there can "e an #encastment% of social groups which remain e/ogenous to the political
sovereignty, and which thus conserve a heterogeneity and a relative autonomy@which produces
the perpetually am"iguous status of the social personage of the warrior whose ancient roots are
attested to "y ,ndo*European mythology, "ut which also concerns the different historical forms
of mercenaries, militias, condottiere, special corps, etc
6>
0n the other hand, they descri"e an
#appropriation proper% which constitutes the power of war as a pu"lic function incorporated into
the institutional structure of the State apparatus according to the rules of the sovereignty itself,
which thus tends to withdraw from it as much autonomy as possi"le
Pro-lem 7: %hat are the effective means of this a**ro*riation3
Thesis W@these means cannot "e primarily military "ecause the military institution results from
the appropriation )hey consist in #the fundamental aspects of the State apparatus,% among which
we will note that Deleuze and Guattari do not count the military apparatus, or the !uridical
apparatus ,f the genealogy of the state power of war is not itself warli$e, it does not either pass
directly through the transformations of law, "ut "y the three aspects of the State*form determined
as #process of capture%: the management of territory and the control of norms of residency and of
the circulation of men and of things& the organisation of wor$ and the control of norms of
e/ploitation of surplus la"or& the ta/ system and control of the issuing of money 4istory attests
from late Anti(uity on to the cofunctioning of this triple monopoly in the enterprise of
territorialization of warriors and incorporation of their forces into the State*form ,nstitutions
such as the hatru in Achaemenid +a"ylonia
6A
, the ?leruchy in =agid Egypte,
6B
and the kleros in
fifth*century Greece
6D
are aimed at "inding down the mercenary warriors "y ceding land in
compensation for military "enefits, "ut according to conditions such as that this territorialization
profits especially from the development of the pu"lic ta/ system and from the state capture of the
monetary economy 0n the one hand, the "enefits system compensates the services of warriors
through the granting of lands, which was a common mode of retri"ution of functionaries through
concession of tenures which e/ist for thousands of years in 9esopotamia and in the 7ear*East
(#alimentary fields% of the Sumerians, the ilku of the +a"ylonian, etc) +ut on the other hand,
the residential esta"lishment of the warrior is complemented "y a financial dependence )hus,
the kleros remain !uridically the property of the $ing (there "eing an a"sence of private
appropriation of land in #despotic% formations), of which soldier*colonist only receives the
usufruct, and which o"liges him to pay a ta/ to the monarch
,n a similar way, in the hatru system, a ta/ owed in money automatically implicates, in an epoch
where metallic money is principally reserved to the monarch for foreign e/changes, an
inde"tedness of the feudal warrior, who must then turn to the FurasY "an$ers, themselves
supplied "y the imperial issuing of money
6F
)hus, at the same time as it constitutes a powerful
means of a"sor"ing the imperial surplus, the territorialization of warriors directly participates in
the rise of a pu"lic ta/ system and to the monetization of the economy, and precisely "ecause this
monetization directly depends upon the ta/ itself as a state apparatus of capture
6G
A comparative
Tournament 1'F
approach recognizes this system of #fifes without seigneury%, according to the formula of the
historian Guillaume ?ardascia, in certain Germanic societies of the Early 9iddle Ages, among
the Arimani =om"ards for e/ample, where the esta"lishment of liberi homines on royal lands
implicates military service duties and economic ta/es ,n other different historical conditions,
when "urgeoning nation*states confront each other over the dismem"ering of the feudal system
and the dynamism of free towns to esta"lish a territorial unification of their dominion, the
solution invented "y the .rench monarchy permits the territorialization of the ancient warrior
aristocracy "y directly utilising a series of economic and financial factors: the ruin of the feudal
no"ility crippled with de"ts at the end of the wars of 3eligion and deprived of their lands "y
creditors, the state promotion of a "ourgeoisie on the rise, the correlative development of the
monetary economy and of pu"lic financing, which ma$e possi"le a financial su"!ection of the
armed no"ility "y the sovereign, and the su"stitutive putting in place of a soon enlarged
conscription of all the social strata of the population
>H
)he lin$ "etween development of the
pu"lic ta/ system and the constitution of military institutions attests to the iteration, in the
creative evolution of states, of the convergent action of capture of territories, of wor$s and of
capital
1hen Deleuze and Guattari ela"orate their theory of the apparatuses of State as #apparatuses of
capture,% they mean to construct a non*!uridical concept of the monopoly of State
>1
9ore
precisely, it has to do with thematizing an original operation of monopolisation "y which is
realized an auto+constitution of the power of State in the interior of social and economic
structures on which this power simultaneously e/ercises its domination )his reopens, in a post*
9ar/ist perspective, a materialist elucidation of the transformations of State through the conflicts
and adversarial forces which it incorporates within itself throughout its history 1e will simply
recall here that the esta"lishment of this concept of State capture proceeds from a rereading of
the 9ar/ian analysis of #the primitive accumulation of capital,% and more precisely from a
grounding of the transformations of the nature of repressive State violence, of its role and of its
relationship to the mutations of the !uridical apparatus, through the historical process of
decomposition of pre*capitalist modes of production, and the progressive esta"lishment of the
relation of production of capital
>'
,n primitive accumulation, the #li"eration% of the two "asic
factors of an economic structure dominated "y the law of value and accumulation (the formation
of money*capital as power of independent investment, and the e/propriation of a #na$ed% la"or
force) does not realize itself without a massive intervention of the State power, in the varia"le
mi/tures of legal violence and of "rute repression (e/propriation of the pettypeasantry, anti*
vaga"ond legislations and repressions, laws of reduction of salary, etc) +ut the crystallisation of
new relations of production where these two factors come together leads not to a disappearance
of State violence, "ut to a dou"le transformation of its economy
.irst, there is a transformation by incorporation of the "rute violence in the social relations of
production and in the relations of rights which guarantee them under the authority of a State@a
violence which "ecomes structural, materialised in the #normal% order of social relations, also
hardly conscious of a natural state of things, and which does not manifest itself any more in its
"rutal form than in an e/ceptional fashion (e/actly when these social relations are threatened)
Second, we find a transformation by displacement of this violence in the repressive apparatus of
this new #State of law% (Rechtsstaat, rule of law) at the core of which it no longer manifests
itself as direct violence "ut as a force of law reacting to all direct violences, as a State police or a
#lawful violence% e/ercised against the violence of outlaws .rom one phase to the other, from
the primitive accumulation of capital (under the pre*capitalist modes of production) to
Tournament 1'G
accumulation proper (in the newly constituted economic structure), from the violent law of the
pre*capitalist State to the #legitimate violence% of the capitalist State of law, what happens
e/actly2 )here is monopolisation of the force of physical repression "y the rule of law, "ut not in
the sense where this repressive force would "e e/ercised on a pre*e/isting field of application
)he monopolisation of repressive force in a system of legality is in a relation of reciprocal
presupposition with a system of social relations which a para*legal violence permitted to
constitute )he concept of capture designates precisely the functioning of the entirety, circular or
organic, of such a genealogical violence which permits the development of the conditions of
capital5s domination of relations of production (this violence may contri"ute to the relations of
production precisely insofar as it is not restricted by a ,tate of la!), "ut which then enters these
relations at the same time as they form a system, permits the formation of a system of legality
that are ade(uate to them, and finally ceases to itself appear as repressive: #As a general rule,
there is primitive accumulation whenever an apparatus of capture is mounted, with that very
particular $ind of violence that creates or contri"utes to the creation of that which it is directed
against, and thus presupposes itself%
>6
)his analysis is initially engaged in a critical dismantling of the classical anthropological
pro"lem of the origin of the State, and in Deleuze and Guattari5s attempt to renew the concept of
the State*form "y confronting it with the #Asiatic mode of production% of the 9ar/ists (?hapter
,,, in Anti+edipus had constructed the foundation of this attempt with its notion of the
#Prstaat%)
>>
4owever it is clear that it also ta$es a singular effect in light of the hypothesis of
the war machine At first glance, this hypothesis is inserted into the interior of the process of
primitive accumulation& or rather it dou"les the primitive accumulation of capital with a
primitive accumulation of a repressive ,tate po!er, in one sense that is perhaps more than a
simple analogy with the 9ar/ian analysis ,t is however true that the two processes seem must "e
distinguished, and do not appear on the same plane or in the same economy of violence )he
transformation of the relation "etween repressive power and !uridical apparatus in the
esta"lishment of the structure of capitalist production initially concerns the interior repression as
State police or #violence of law,% while the process of appropriation of the war machine seems
essentially to concern an e/terior violence, whether defensive or offensive, turned against other
States .rom this point of view, the two processes seem the inverse of one another: on the one
hand, interiorization of a violence less and less apparent insofar as it materially incorporates
itself into the social structure, and on the other, reinforcement and monopolistic concentration in
the State of a material power of war destined to appear on the international scene in more and
more considera"le proportions +ut a remar$ mentioned a"ove from ?lausewitz opens up
another route for us: the development of a #state cohesion,% which will determine the tendency of
nineteenth*century wars to return to attain an a"solute form, itself too$ place in an epoch when
wars did not at all display such a tendency& it is not in the age of the politics of total war that a
po!er of total war developed, "ut previously, when the policies affi/ed upon war (and
proportionally the military means to war) strictly limited o"!ectives
>A
.rom a Guattaro*
Deleuzian perspective, this ac$nowledgment must "e e/plained "y a new pro"lematic engaged
"y the 4ypothesis: the (uestion of modes of realisation of wars "etween States is second in
relation to modes of appropriation of the war machine "y the State )his process of appropriation
must then "e conceived as that of a #primitive accumulation% of a political power of total war,
that is to say an accumulation which cannot be e"plained by the political determination of war,
"ut "y the transformations of the war machine in the ?lassical Age according to new relations in
which the State and the socioeconomic field are determined to enter According to this last point
of view, the determining historical se(uence is that where the genealogy of the military power of
Tournament 16H
the State enters into a relation of reciprocal determination with the genealogy of the social power
of capital )wo movements reveal themselves from this moment as more and more indissocia"le:
the integration of the war machine into the State*form, "ut also the integration of State
apparatuses into the immanence of the social field ,n Anti+edipus, Deleuze and Guattari
designated as a #tendency to concretisation% this historical movement of incorporation of the
power and of the apparatuses of State into socioeconomic structures (and in the corresponding
social antagonisms)& they deduce not an a"stractly considered loss of State power, "ut on the
contrary its intensive socialisation conferring "estowing it with an unheard*of social power and
more and more differentiated functions, in its new tas$ of regulating decoded flows of capital, of
merchandise and human la"or force
>B
,n A Thousand Plateaus, and in light of their new hypothesis, they ta$e as a conse(uence this
correlative tendency: the more the war machine is interiorized "y the State, the more the
institutionalisation of war, its administration and its not only political "ut industrial, financial and
populational organization "ecome factors of intense creativity for this State which is itself more
and more immanent to the social field ,n other terms, the appropriated war machine "ecomes
itself a direct instrument not only of the policies of war, "ut of the growing implication of the
State throughout the social relations of production, at once as a stimulant and economic regulator
and as an instrument of domination at the core of class conflicts 1e will of course recall here the
recurrent utilisation of the war machine as an organ of repression in the multiple insurrectional
!unctures which roc$ed nineteenth*century Europe and the world of the twentieth*century, "ut
also the functions that it assumed "eginning in the fifteenth*and si/teenthcenturies with the
invention of new forms of socialisation of la"or 9ar/ remar$ed in a letter to Engels on
Septem"er 'A, 1FAD, that the military institution had constituted a formida"le la"oratory of
e/perimentation of the relations of production that would then "e #developed at the heart of
"ourgeois society% (for e/ample the systematisation of wages, the division of wor$ to the interior
of a "ranch, the #machinism%) ,n this perspective, Deleuze and Guattari recall the determining
role that military engineers, from the 9iddle Ages on, "egin to assume in the state management
of territory, #not only in the case of fortresses and fortified cities, "ut also in strategic
communication, the logistical structure, the industrial infrastructure, etc%
>D
,n a similar manner,
from the point of view of the transformations in modes of division and connection of the process
of la"or in the seventeenth*and eighteenth*centuries, they complement the analyses of 9ichel
.oucault of military models of the #dispositifs disciplinaires% mo"ilized to territorialize the
productive "odies onto the apparatuses of "urgeoning industrial production ,t is in the "arrac$s,
the arsenals and the weapons factories that ta$e place e/perimentations and systemizations of the
techni(ues which permit the #settling, sedentarizing la"or force, regulating the movement of the
flow of la"or, assigning it channels and conduits,% "y means of a striation of a #closed space,
detached, surveyed in all its points, where individuals are inserted into a fi/ed place, where the
smallest movements are controlled, where all events are recorded%
>F
1e understand now that the genealogical program opened up "y #the entirety of the hypothesis%
is not only to study the role of the pu"lic ta/ system, of the state management of territories and of
connections of productive wor$, in the appropriation of the war machine ,t is also, in return, to
analyse how this machine appropriated into the form of institutions and of military functions
"ecomes an intense vector of creation of $nowledge and techni(ues of power for the state
striation of the social field, without which the capitalist relation of production would not "e a"le
to esta"lish itself nor to e/tend its social domination )his program thus articulates the primitive
accumulation of the military power to the accumulation of capital, as the two processes that the
Tournament 161
State*form incorporates, and in which the modern State transforms itself )he ma!or effect of this
incorporation pointed out "y Deleuze and Guattari will "e the ine/trica"le lin$ of determination
and of reciprocal stimulation, "etween the rise of industrial capitalism and the development of
economies of war ,t is at the core of the same comple/ tendency that the modern State is
militarized, that it ta$es its new regulatory functions in a decoded capitalist field, and that the
material organization of the power of war "ecomes an intrinsic condition of the accumulation
and of the enlarged reproduction of capital )o finish, we would li$e to re*envisage in light of
this underlying unity the ?lausewitzian .ormula and the evaluation of its limits in the Treatise
on -omadology ,t is precisely at the level of these limits that the genealogical program is
engaged with a political diagnostic of the actual situation (that of A Thousand Plateaus, which is
not so far from our own), and thus, for Deleuze and Guattari, into possi"le lines of practical
intervention
4+ Final Pro-lem of the !y*othesis: 'nversion of the Form$la and the
Act$al (it$ation
)he limits of the .ormula were often enunciated "y the necessity, for historical analysis andOor
for the strategic calculation of new twentieth*century conflicts, of an #inversion% -olitics
"ecame a continuation of war "y other means, and the State, the instrument of a perpetual war
(whether overt or concealed), in any case of which the political States would no longer "e the
ultimate su"!ects 7evertheless, from Erich von =udendorff to -aul Tirilio, from ?arl Schmitt to
.oucault, this move could have meanings so diverse that Deleuze and Guattari do not adopt it
without the precaution of immediately reinscri"ing it into the system of their 4ypothesis@to the
point that the term itself of #inversion% seems to them to have a very limited relevancy: #to "e
entitled to say that politics is the continuation of war "y other means, it is not enough to invert
the order of the words as if they could "e spo$en in either direction& it is necessary to follow the
real movement at the conclusion of which the States, having appropriated a war machine, and
having adapted it to their aims, re*impart a war machine that ta$es charge of the aim,
appropriates the States, and assumes increasingly wider political functions%
>G
0ur first point is
that the inversion must not limit itself to an a"stract move upon the ?lausewitzian declaration& it
must comprehend a historical process which implicates not only the parameters of State politics
in the oscillation of real wars "etween simple armed o"servations and tremendous surges of
military hostility, "ut more profoundly, the evolution of the factor of appropriation uncovered "y
the hypothesis of the war machine ,t is in light of this criterion that our authors first evaluate the
interpretation of the inversion of the .ormula posited "y =udendorff
AH
,n his analysis of the total character of the .irst 1orld 1ar, =udendorff gives ?lausewitz credit
for having recognized the utmost importance of the #popular% dimension of modern conflicts 4e
nonetheless reproaches him for having failed to draw out all the implications of this realization,
due to a three*fold presupposition: ?lausewitz a"usively su"ordinated the military instrument to
diplomatic action, since he limited his notion of the political to e/terior politics while at the same
time continuing to thin$ of armies as the only su"!ects and o"!ects of confrontations =udendorff
o"!ects to this "y pointing out that, after the passage from the 7apoleonic 1ars to contemporary
total wars, the hostility henceforth opposes entire nations, the entirety of their civil population,
economy, and their ideological forces (which he refers to as the #spiritual cohesion% of the
people in (uestion) )he strategic o"!ectives are no longer only armies and their reserve "ases&
they are all of their industrial infrastructure, their financial resources, the human and moral
#reserves,% all enlisted and involved in the war effort ,n other words, the strategic #center of
Tournament 16'
gravity% is no longer a center, "ut the totality of the opposing society and of its State )his leads
=udendorff to the theoretical necessity of e/tending the notion of the political in order to ta$e
into account the increasingly determining role of domestic politics in the enterprise of war, and
the strategic necessity of entrusting to a military 4igh ?ommand the decision*ma$ing power
over the entirety of the military and political (diplomatic, economic, psychological, etc) means
in view of the sole final o"!ective which is henceforth ade(uate: no longer to confer through
armaments an advantageous relation to the political State in order to negotiate the conditions of
peace (following the privileged situation of ?lausewitz), "ut to militarily impose upon the
van(uished an unconditional capitulation )hat such a situation, for Deleuze and Guattari, results
directly from the underlying unity previously identified, is easily conceived: the entanglement of
the militarization of the State and the tendency to its concretization in the immanence of the
capitalist social relations means that the war machine cannot "e appropriated "y the State*form
without simultaneously "eing materialised in the increasingly intense networ$ of
interconnections of socioeconomic, political and ideological relations (which also means that at
no historical moment is the appropriated war machine to "e confused with the military institution
alone) ,t is in this sense that Deleuze and Guattari write that #the factors that ma$e State war
total war are closely connected to capitalism%
A1
,t is in the same movement that capital
#totalizes% the social field (which 9ar/ called the #real su"sumption% of social relations and the
process of production "y capital) and that the State military power is incarnated in the total war
machine, in other words, in a war machine of which the means and the ob1ective tend to lose
their limits: the means are no longer limited to the military institutions "ut e/tend themselves to
the totality of #the investment of constant capital in e(uipment, industry, and war economy, and
the investment of varia"le capital in the population in its physical and mental aspects ("oth as
warma$er and as victim of war)%& the o"!ective is no longer limited to stri$ing the enemy army in
order to "ring a"out the su"mission of the political authority upon which that army depends, "ut
tends to annihilate the entirety of the forces of the opposing nation
7evertheless, as 3aymond Aron as rightly demonstrated, the =udendorffian inversion of the
.ormula is not without am"iguity .irst, "ecause ?lausewitz does at times recognize the
importance of domestic politics in the war effort, and especially "ecause the unconditional
capitulation of the enemy remains e/tremely vague outside of a political will, even should we
only "e dealing with a will capa"le of proportioning this ultimate o"!ective to the conservation of
its own State
A'
7ow this am"iguity is not simply theoretical ,t is an effective am"iguity of the
politics of total !ar, which is revealed historically in the contradiction into which may enter the
political goal and the processes of a now unlimited war machine, and which, at the limit of this
contradiction, does not lead so much to the inversion of the hierarchical relation warOpolitics
announced "y the ?lausewitzian instrumental conception as to an abolition of the political as
such, ie, the a"sorption of the political goal "y a material process of war which has "ecome
autonomous )he historical effectiveness of this limit, which "rings "oth the ?lausewitzian thesis
and its =udendorffian criti(ue to their common #impensH% (and which cannot "e indicated "ut in
#symptomal% flaws, such as #?lausewitz]s vacillation when he asserts at one point that total war
remains a war conditioned "y the political aim of States, and at another that it tends to effectuate
the ,dea of unconditioned war%), is identified "y Deleuze and Guattari as well as Tirilio in the
glo"al war machine of the 7azi State ,n its process of total war, this machine tends to free itself
from every political goal, to "ecome an unconditioned process of war, ie, removed from any
political conditioning whatsoever ,t is not only that the political goal tends to mi/ with the
o"!ective of war (in the conditions descri"ed "y =udendorff), "ut this o"!ective itself tends to
"ecome a process without end, autonomous, and whose political goals are now only su"ordinated
Tournament 166
means )he total war machine is no longer only simply appropriated to the State and to its
political ends& it "ecomes capa"le on the contrary of su"ordinating or even engendering #a State
apparatus which is no longer useful for anything save destruction,% eventually reaching a state of
contradiction with every limiting condition of a political end, even with the fundamental
re(uirement of the political: the conservation of the State )hus the difference "etween the
7ational*Socialist State and a totalitarian State:
)otalitarianism is a State affair: it essentially concerns the relation "etween the State as a
localized assem"lage and the a"stract machine of overcoding it effectuates Even in the case of a
military dictatorship, it is a State army, not a war machine, that ta$es power and elevates the
State to the totalitarian stage )otalitarianism is (uintessentially conservative .ascism, on the
other hand, involves a war machine 1hen fascism "uilds itself a totalitarian State, it is not in the
sense of a State army ta$ing power, "ut of a war machine ta$ing over the State
A6
)he specificity of the 7ational*Socialist total State cannot "e fully determined without
recognizing the dynamics of virtually unlimited war in which it realizes its totalization@"y the
militarization of civil society, "y the total mo"ilization of the population in the war effort, "y the
conversion of the entire economy into a war economy, the movement of investments to means of
production and consumption toward the means of pure destruction, etc +ut in the very interior of
such a dynamic, the State tends to "ecome a simple means of acceleration of a process of
annihilation into which it plunges ,t is in this sense that, for Deleuze and Guattari, the full
realization of the 7ational*Socialist total State is less totalitarian as such (the total domination
would "e rather its #synthetically% necessary o"!ect, according to the re(uirements of total
mo"ilization, which is, after all, the wor$ of the -arty rather than the State) that its realization in
a #suicidal State% )otal war appears then less as the enterprise of a State as of a war machine
that appropriates the State and #channels into it a flow of a"solute war whose only possi"le
outcome is the suicide of the State itself% Even though she did not distinguish "etween fascism
and totalitarianism, 4annah Arendt wrote in a similar vein that the 7ational Socialist idea of
domination #could "e realized neither "y a State nor "y a simple apparatus of violence, "ut only
"y a movement which is constantly moving :;<& as for the political o"!ective which the end of
this movement would constitute, it simply does not e/ist%
A>
At this point, Deleuze and Guattari
add, the war, and even the ris$ of losing the war, and finally the inevita"ility of defeat, come into
play as accelerators of this now unlimited movement 9arch 1G, 1G>A@4itler@telegram D1: #,f
the war is lost, may the nation perish%
,n what historical situation would the ?lausewitzian .ormula "e #inverted,% properly spea$ing,
and not simply "rought to the limit where it loses all sense2 1e have reached the last conclusion
of the 4ypothesis, that is, the moment where the historical movement of the #appropriation%
factor !oins the actuality of the Guattaro*Deleuzian statement of the 4ypothesis itself 1e must
more than ever reaffirm its fundamental theoretical sense: the overdetermination of the relation
politicsOwar "y the relation war machineOState, without which the supposed #inversion% of the
.ormula remains a pointless ver"al artifice 1hat the first phase of the inversion which
culminates in the Second 1orld 1ar has shown us is that a glo"al war machine which tends
toward autonomy from States, at the outcome of a trend where the rise of industrial capitalism
and the development of war economies progressively merged, and where the intensive
militarization of European States made of the material organisation of the power of war an
intrinsic condition of capitalist accumulation +ut in this first phase, this inversion of the relation
of appropriation of the war machine and State does not bring about an inversion of the relation
Tournament 16>
of politics and war )his is "ecause the war machine only appropriates the political State in and
"y enacted war, in the form of total war& it is in continuing to ta$e war as its direct o"!ective that
the war machine materialises in the ensem"le of the socioeconomic field (economy of war and
total mo"ilisation) )his is such a way that the relation of appropriation is inverted, "ut under
conditions where the political goal (to su"!ugate or destroy the enemy) remains the determining
motive, and where war remains that of the ?lausewitzian .ormula, #the continuation of politics
"y other means,% even though these other means "ecome incompati"le with all political and
diplomatic solutions, and despite the fact that the political ends enter into contradiction with a
process of war leading the political State inevita"ly toward selfdestruction ,f a new threshold is
crossed during the post*war decades, it is precisely insofar as the inversion of the relation of
appropriation "etween war machine and State is em"odied in a glo"al configuration where the
militarization of States, the rise of the war economy in the structures of capitalism, the
su"sumption under the material power of unlimited war of the ensem"le of the planetary social
environment, come to "e realised !ithout enacted total !ar
)his worldwide war machine, which in a way Lreissues5 from the States, displays two successive
figures: first, that of fascism, which ma$es war an unlimited movement with no other aim than
itself& "ut fascism is only a rough s$etch, and the second, postfascist, figure is that of a war
machine that ta$es peace as its o"!ect directly, as the peace of )error or Survival )he war
machine reforms a smooth space that now claims to control, to surround the entire earth )otal
war itself is surpassed, toward a form of peace more terrifying still )he war machine has ta$en
charge of the aim, worldwide order, and the States are now no more than o"!ects or means
adapted to that machine )his is the point at which ?lausewitz]s formula is effectively reversed
AA
1e are in the presence of a configuration where the political effectively "ecomes the
continuation of war "y other means, but precisely because the global !ar machine ceases to
have !ar as ob1ect, !hile !ar ceases to be subordinated to political ends )he first important
factor of the reconstitution of such an autonomous war machine is of course geopolitical and
strategic, according to new a/es of international politics, the displacement of imperialist rivalries
of European States toward the a/es of the ?old 1ar: 1est*East and 7orth*South Such is first the
meaning of the remar$ according to which #it is peace that technologically frees the unlimited
material process of total !ar%
AB
=et us "e clear that it is the ominous peace in the new strategy
of nuclear deterrent (the #peace of )error or Survival%) which ma$es of the glo"al war machine
the o"!ect and means of a technological, scientific and economic capitalisation without
precedent, which no longer even needs the triggering of total war itself in order to develop +ut
there is a second, more profound factor, which e/plains that the reformation of a worldwide war
machine in the post*second world war decades, which Deleuze and Guattari mention, is not
simply a "roadening to new technological and geopolitical dimensions, or a continuation of
imperialist strategies of the 7ation*States of the first half of the twentieth century, "ut a ne!
situation Geopolitics itself in fact depends on a meta*economy which determines the relations
"etween the system of the world*economy and the political States which effectuate its
conditions, a meta*economy which, in the last instance, esta"lishes the degree of autonomy of
this system in relation to these States
AD
,n a general way, one could affirm that the autonomy of
the glo"al war machine in relation to State structures remains determined, as much in the first
phase as in the second phase of the inversion, "y the degree of autonomy of the process of
accumulation and reproduction of capital in relation to these same structures ,n "oth cases, we
are dealing of course with a relative autonomy, which could not "e identified with a pure and
simple independence
Tournament 16A
Deleuze and Guattari enter e/plicitly here into the posterity of theoreticians of the #State
monopoly capitalism,% from the analyses of =enin on imperialism to those of -aul +aran and
-aul Sweezy on the role of unproductive State e/penditures, "y civil government and militarism,
in the a"sorption of surplus
AF
?ertainly, the process of accumulation of capital passes
increasingly through an international division of la"or, a transnational circulation of capital and a
worldwide mar$et, "ut it is still o"viously up to States to manage the corresponding relations of
production, to overcome the systematic dise(uili"ria and the crises of under*investment and
overproduction, and to regulate for "etter or for worse their social repercussions inside national
structures )he novelty of the post*war decades is that the new worldwide war machine which
the States #unleash% appears henceforth endowed with a degree of autonomy far superior to
anything heard of "efore the Second 1orld 1ar )his provides evidence that the e/treme
integration of this machine in the capitalist structure which itself crossed a new threshold of
autonomization vis*\*vis State institutions At the same time that a trans*State monopolistic
capitalism is developing, which grafts itself onto State monopoly capitalism, which complicates
it rather than supplanting it, and which is em"odied in multinational firms and a worldwide
financial oligarchy, the glo"al war machine itself is em"odied #in financial, industrial, and
military technological comple/es that are in continuity with one another,% traversing the
administrative, !uridical and economic frontiers of national States
AG
1e are now a"le to clarify what we were earlier suggesting: when States tend to reconstitute a
glo"al autonomous war machine #of which they are no longer anything more than the opposa"le
or apposed parts,% it has less to do with a "inary #inversion% of the ?lausewitzian .ormula (is it
war that is the continuation of politics, or politics that continues war ;) than with a profound
redistri"ution and a systematic transformation of all the terms of its syllogism goal@o"!ective@
means, and, conse(uently, of a mutation of the meaning of o"!ective form of #the political% and
#war% themselves:
(a) .irst, if the war machine now ceases to "e su"ordinated to a political end, it is first of all
"ecause the end itself ceases to "e political and "ecomes immediately economic )he
accumulation of capital and its enlarged reproduction to the glo"al stage: this is the end or the
aim, under conditions which remain those which 9ar/ uncovered in his theory of crises ,n +oo$
,,, of .as Rapital, he emphasized the radical originality of capitalism with respect to all other
$nown modes of production: having no other goal "ut the production of surplus value, to ma$e
of growth of social productivity an #end in itself,% having thus no e/terior limit to its own
process of accumulation, "ut only interior or #immanent% limits, such as the delimited conditions
of the valorization of e/istent capital: limits of productive forces in the creation of surplus value
according to the relations "etween population and rate of e/ploitation of la"or, "ut also limits in
the a"sorption or #realisation% of surplus value according to #the proportionality of the different
"ranches of production and of the power of consumption of the society% As em"odied in e/cess
capital, unemployment and crises of overproduction, such "ounds generated "y the process of
accumulation in itself may only "e surmounted "y the periodic depreciation of e/isting capital,
"y the augmentation of investment in constant capital and the #continual upheaval of the
methods of production,% "y the creation of new mar$ets and the e/pansion of the scale of
production, which does not destroy the immanent limits "ut displaces them only to find them
again farther away, or which only destroys them in reproducing them on an increasingly large
scale
BH
,nside of this dynamic of the process of capitalist accumulation on a worldwide scale, the
new aim of the war machine must then "e dou"ly determined .irst, this aim "ecomes effectively
unlimited )otal war still needed a political end fi/ing an e/trinsic limit to the war machine
Tournament 16B
(annihilate the enemy)& "ut as soon as it crosses its new threshold of integration into the
structures of glo"al capitalism, the war machine "ecomes effectively unlimited, ie, re!oins the
"ase determination of the process of accumulation: not to meet any e/terior limit to this process
itself as an end in itself Second, this end is only limited "ecause it is intrinsically critical& the
process "rea$s any e/terior limit only insomuch as it generates its own immanent "ounds
(crises): #)he growing importance of constant capital in the :capitalist< a/iomatic means that the
depreciation of e/isting capital and the formation of new capital assume a rhythm and scale that
necessarily ta$e the route of a war machine now incarnated in the :militaro*industrial and
financial< comple/es: the comple/es actively contri"ute to the redistri"utions of the world
necessary for the e/ploitation of maritime and planetary resources )here is a continuous
Lthreshold5 of power that accompanies in every instance the shifting of the a/iomatic]s limits%
B1
(") )hus incorporated into the process of accumulation on the glo"al stage, the war machine no
longer has as its o"!ective war as such, nor even war carried to the a"solute )he o"!ective is
rather, Deleuze and Guattari write, the worldwide order as #a"solute peace of survival% )his is
o"viously not to say that wars diminish in fre(uency@ indeed, this is far from the caseC 3ather,
at the same time as the war machine is regaining an autonomy from the State form, war "ecomes
once again its only synthetically o"!ect ,ts analytic o"!ect, on the other hand, is to assure the
displacement of "ounds of the valorization of e/isting capital, through the e/tension of the scale
of production within the integrated worldwide mar$et, through the correlative intensification of
e/ploitation of energy and planetary resources, through the conse(uential reconfiguring of the
international division of la"or and of the relations of une(ual dependence "etween the regions of
the world*economy 1ithout a dou"t, none of these operations ta$e place without tensions
"etween States, or without confrontations "etween political wills +ut these are integrated
henceforth as wheels of a planetary security order which is planned throughout all civil disorders
which the reproduction of the capitalist mode of production does not cease to generate ,t is in
this sense that #war ceases to "e the materialization of the war machine& the !ar machine itself
becomes materiali8ed !arV%
B'
ie, war incorporated into #the order% and to the #security% of the
glo"al capitalist a/iomatic, which no longer even needs to pass through military operations, and
which passes more systematically through the decoding of alimentary flows which generate
famine, the recoding of population flows through destructions of settlement, forced migrations
and remote ur"anisations, the decodings of flows of energy*matter which generate political and
monetary insta"ilities, etc@in short, war which has "ecome perfectly immanent to the
systematically desta"ilized and #insecured% social and e/istential territories, of which even the
military out"urst of enacted total war was only a premonition
(c) ,t is to wars themselves that we must return, in order to conclude )he #peace% of the
worldwide security order does not imply any political pacification, or any (uantitative reduction
of wars, which may even contain certain of their functions from the imperialist age, according to
new geopolitical polarities and new relations of une(ual e/change "etween 7orth and South
7evertheless these partial continuities are capa"le of mas$ing the cru/ of the matter 0nce again,
the reali8ation of war depends upon varia"le relations of appropriation "etween State and war
machine 7ow, as soon as the war machine ceases to "e a means of State wars and "ecomes itself
materialised war or organised insecurity, a power of destruction of concrete social territories in
the #normal% order of a world*economy which, as -aul Tirilio has written, tends to dis(ualify
#the ensem"le of the planetary settlement while stripping peoples of their (uality of
inha"itants,%
B6
wars tend to ta$e new o"!ective forms ,n the first place, Deleuze and Guattari
o"serve, they enter into alliances with police interventions, police operations interior to the
Tournament 16D
#society% of the glo"al mar$et, which (relatively) su"ordinates the political and diplomatic
leverage of States An indication can "e found in the growing transfer of pu"lic functions of
States to the war machine itself@or to say this inversely, in the fact that military technologies are
more and more fre(uently transferred to the domain of civil government, of repression and
population control )a$e the e/ample, analysed "y Tirilio, of #the famous 9c7amara =ine which
was constructed, through an electronic system, to prevent infiltration of Tietcong infiltration, and
which was reinstalled, in the course of the summer of 1GD6, in the south of the Knited States, on
the frontier of 9e/ico, in order this time to prevent clandestine migration of wor$ers ,n .rance
also, after the arson of certain factories and fuel depots, the same electronic processes of
detection were put in place as those of American forces in the .ar East, "ut this time around
industrial zones Spy*cameras no longer only watched a declared enemy, "ut also the
mis"ehaving spectator of a stadium, the "ad driver, etc%
B>
)he new o"!ective forms of wars, as internal parts of the security glo"al order, thus com"ine a
#policification% of international space and a militarization of civil interior spaces ,n the second
place, such a correlation causes the wavering of the dou"le partition warOpeace and
interiorOe/terior, upon which is "ased the coding of military conflicts in the State*form (political,
!uridical and diplomatic coding) 4ere again, Tirilio made the following case: #At the moment
where, throughout the #operational defence of territory,% the military institution attends
increasingly to interior security, while the police tends to identify itself to pu"lic welfare .or the
army, there is no longer even a clear distinction "etween the #interior% enemy and the #e/terior%
enemy, there is only a general threat to all domains (demography, economy, delin(uency, etc),
and thus only one enemy without location, since it can "e discovered here or there, at the whim of
propaganda%
BA
At the same time as the diplomatic and strategic distinction "etween peacetime
and wartime tends to fade away, the (ualification of the enemy tends to "e decreasingly political
and "ecomes !uridical, economic, moral, religious, etc )hus the interest of Deleuze for the
strategic concept of the #unspecified enemy% formed "y .rench theoreticians of the 7ational
Defence "eginning in the 1GDH5s, a perfectly ade(uate concept to the security continuum in
smooth space constituted "y a new glo"al war machine
BB
1hen General Guy +rossollet presents
himself as the fervent partisan of an integration of anti*insurrectional techni(ues in strategies of
Defence, he e/plains that this is to deal not only with potential e/terior aggressions, "ut
especially with all sorts of much less localiza"le threats, #of moral, political, su"versive or
economic order, etc%: #)he adversary is multiform, manoeuvring and omnipresent )he threats
which .rance must deal with are found everywhere and affect very diverse sectors of national
potential )his is an alarming realization and implies a defence conceived according to the
diversity and u"i(uity of the threats%
BD
,n short, at the same time that war ta$es a police*!uridical
o"!ective form, the enemy "ecomes a"stract, virtually omnipresent, similar to a non*
individualised and un(ualified threat capa"le of springing up at any locus of social space and in
unpredicta"le forms (smooth space), independently of political criteria of association with a State
or relations "etween States
1e could call this state of affairs a paranoiac reign of #insecuriti8ing security%: #)he glo"al
entente "etween States, the organisation of a glo"al police and !urisdiction such as those in
preparation, necessarily clear the way for an e/tension where more and more people will "e
considered #virtual% terrorists%
BF
1e are o"viously not denying that #there are% o"!ective factors
of insecurity, terrorist practices, etc 1e are rather attempting to understand how new
com"inations of the military and the police implicate new procedures of discursive construction
of the figure of the enemy (construction which of course always has a firm grip on sym"olic and
Tournament 16F
imaginary structures), according to new relations "etween States and war machine, and
according to re(uirements and contradictions of the capitalist a/iomatic which over*determines
these relations 1e have seen in what sense the new glo"al war machine was closely lin$ed to the
process of accumulation of capital on the worldwide scale, which only traverses its internal
crises in precipitating cycles of depreciation of e/isting capital and of the formation of new
capital, with an unheardof scope and speed of rotation -recisely, such an e/pansion of the
capitalist a/iomatic necessarily passes through a generalised virtualisation of the enemy
"ecoming unspecified or un(ualified, and correlatively, through an acceleration of procedures of
(ualification of the enemy, and of continuous re(ualification of the enemy, at the price of an
enlarged criminalisation of social practices Such is the last correlate of the transformation of
o"!ective forms of war diagnosed "y Deleuze and Guattari: the rise of assem"lages of
enunciation capa"le of constantly revising the figure of the #threat,% assuring this discursive
reproduction of an #enemy% which may "e recorded, at the limit, in any fragment of discursive
code !hatsoever (according to varia"le of age, confession, profession, residence, political
ideology, social or economic conduct, etc)
1e "egan "y emphasizing that the Guattaro*Deleuzian theory of the war machine was first a
wor$ing hypothesis, the "asis of a genealogical program articulating the long*term history of the
concept as well as its contemporary relevance A categorical analysis of technologies of control
in smooth space (and nota"ly transfers of technologies from the military to the civil domain), a
semiological analysis of constructions of the figure of the unspecified enemy (and nota"ly
mechanisms of transformation or of rapid rotation of these figures in the media5s assem"lages of
collective utterances): such seem to us to "e the two aspects of the wor$ing program finally
accessed using the hypothesis of the war machine ,t is clear that such a theoretical program
would seem hardly dissocia"le from the e/perimentation of new practices of collective
resistance capa"le of reconstructing inha"ita"le territories, and thus recreating a new sense of the
#political% irreduci"le as much to its military coding as to its !uridical*moral, security and police
developments
)ranslated "y Daniel 3ichter
Guillaume Si"ertin*+lanc
Guillaume Si"ertin*+lanc is -rofessor of -hilosophy at the Kniversity of )oulouse, .rance, and
3esearcher at the ?entre ,nternational d5Etude de la -hilosophie .ran[aise ?ontemporaine
(E7S -aris) Secretary of the Euro-hilosophie Association, he coordinates the #Groupe de
recherches matIrialistes% http:OOwwweurophilosophieeuOrechercheO 4is recent pu"lications
include: Philosophie politi7ue Z:ZeCZZe siUcles (-resses Kniversitaires de .rance, 'HHF)&
#-oliticising Deleuzian )hought, or, 9inority5s -osition within 9ar/ism%, in D Rain (ed),
.eleu8e and Far" (Edin"urgh Kniversity -ress, 'HHG)& .eleu8e et ;uattari> l2Anti+edipe( Ea
production du dHsir (-resses Kniversitaires de .rance, 'H1H) Guillaume may "e reached at
si"erguiQwanadoofr 4is we"site is http:OOwwweurophilosophieeuOrechercheOspipphp2
article>HA
Notes
1 G Deleuze, .esert :slands and ther Te"ts ?@GDC?@BJ(=os Angeles, Semiote/t(e): 'HH>)
'FH
Tournament 16G
' See G Deleuze and . Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus(9inneapolisO=ondon, Kniversity of
9innesota -ress: 1GFD) '6H, 6BH, >1FS>1G, >'B, >6>
6 ? von ?lausewitz, n *ar(-rinceton, 7 R, -rinceton Kniversity -ress: 1GDB) +oo$ ,, ch ,,
^'>
> Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1F
A Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1GS>'H
B ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + T,,, ch 6+
D ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + T,,, ch 6+
F ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + , ch ', and + T,,, ch BAS+
G ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + , ch 1 ^6
1H ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + T,,, ch '
11 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6A>S6AA
1' ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + , ch 1& + T,,, ch ' and ch B+
16 See Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'1
1> Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6A>
1A See G Deleuze,.ifference and repetition(7ew Nor$, ?olum"ia Kniversity -ress: 1GG>) 16A,
1A>
1B See ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + , ch > ^6
1D Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'H
1F Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'H
1G ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + , ch 1 ^'>
'H ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + ,T ch 11& + T,,, ch 1
'1 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1B
'' Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6FAS6FB
'6 See - ?ontamine, Ea ;uerre au Foyen Age(-aris, -resses Kniversitaires de .rance: 1GGG)
FF
Tournament 1>H
'> Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6FHS6F', >G6S>G>
'A Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >''S>'6
'B Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1D
'D See Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'6
'F 3 Grousset, E2Empire des steppes(-aris, -ayot: 1GBA) 'FFS'G1
'G )E =awrence, ,even Pillars of *isdom> A Triumph(4ertfordshire, 1ordsworth Editions:
1GGD) FB
6H Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1F
61 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1FS>1G
6' Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1F
66 Grousset #=5Empire des steppes% >GAS>GB
6> Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6A1S6A', >'>S>'D
6A G ?ardascia, ArmHe et fiscalitH dans la 4abylonie achHmHnide, in ArmHes et fiscalitH dans
le monde anti(ue (-aris, ?entre 7ational de la 3echerche Scientifi(ue: 1GDD) 1S11
6B See E Tan5t Dac$, ,ur l2Hvolution des institutions militaires lagides,in #ArmIes et fiscalitI
dans le monde anti(ue% DDS1HA
6D See 9 DItienne, Ea phalange> problUmes et controverses, in R*- Ternant :ed< ProblUmes
de la guerre en ;rUce ancienne(-aris, SeuilOEditions de l5Ecole des 4autes Etudes en Sciences
Sociales: 1GBFO1GGG) 1BDS1BF
6F ?ardascia #ArmIe et fiscalitI dans la +a"ylonie achImInide% D
6G See G Deleuze and . Guattari, Anti+eligVdipus(9inneapolis, Kniversity of 9innesota
-ress: 1GF6) 1GBS1GD& and Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >>'S>>6
>H See 7 Elias, The <ourt ,ociety(0/ford, +lac$well: 1GF6) ch A
>1 See Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >6DS>>F
>' See 8 9ar/, .as Rapital +oo$ , (1FBD) Section T,,,
>6 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >>D
>> G Si"ertin*+lanc, .eleu8e et l[Anti+edipe( Ea Production du dHsir (-aris, -resses
Kniversitaires de .rance: 'H1H) ch 6
Tournament 1>1
>A See ?lausewitz #0n 1ar% + T,,, ch 6+
>B See Deleuze and Guattari #Anti*_dipus% ''1S''', 'A1S'AG
>D Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >1G
>F Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% 6BF& See 9 .oucault, ,urveiller et punir
(-aris, Gallimard: 1GDAO1GG6) 1BBS1DA, 1GHS1GG, '6H
>G Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'1
AH E von =udendorff, .er totale Rrieg (9`nchen, =udendorffs Terlag: 1G6A)
A1 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'1
A' See 3 Aron, Penser la guerre, <lause!it8( ::> E2\ge planHtaire (-aris, Gallimard: 1GDB) AFS
B1, 1'F
A6 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% '6H
A> See 4 Arendt, The rigins of Totalitarianism, :::> Totalitarianism (7ew*Nor$, 4arcourt,
1GA1O1GAF) ch1 ^1
AA Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >'1
AB Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >BD
AD See Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >B1S>BB
AF See - +aran and - Sweezy, Fonopoly <apital> An Essay on the American Economic and
,ocial rder (7ew Nor$, 9onthly 3ewiew -ress: 1GBB) ch D and F
AG Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >BB
BH See 8 9ar/, .as Rapital( 4ook ::: (1FG>) Section ,,,, ?onclusions & Deleuze and Guattari
#Anti*_dipus% '6HS'61& and Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >B6
B1 Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >BB
B' Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >BD
B6 - Tirilio, E2:nsHcuritH du territoire (-aris, GalilIe: 1GG6) GG
B> Tirilio #=5,nsIcuritI du territoire% '6FS'6G
BA Tirilio #=5,nsIcuritI du territoire% '61S'6'
Tournament 1>'
BB Deleuze and Guattari #A )housand -lateaus% >D1& and Deleuze, Essays <ritical and <linical
(=ondonO7ew Nor$, Terso: 1GGF) >AS>B
BD G +rossollet, Essai sur la non+bataille (-aris, +elin: 1GDA) 1A
BF See G Deleuze, #=es ganeurs%, in .eu" rHgimes de fous( Te"tes et entretiens ?@BGC?@@G
(-aris, Editions de 9inuit: 'HH6) 1>F

Symposium On Deleuze and War

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Symposium On Deleuze and War

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Trinity Debate 2009-2010 File Name

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen