Select

a page...

CIOS
home page

Membership
information

Electronic Journal
of
Communication

Visual
Communication
Concept Explorer

Electronic
Encyclopedia of
Communication

The Idea Money

Com!bstracts
database

Search
bibliographic

Current serials
tables of contents

CommJobs
postings

"ey#ord assisted
searches

$elp



Volume 22 Numbers 3 & 4, 2012
Social construction and difference: A
Deleuzian critique
ietro !arbetta "entro #ilanese di $era%ia della
&ami'lia, #ilan and !er'amo (ni)ersit*, !er'amo, +tal*
#aria Nic,terlein Austin -os%ital, #elbourne
and (ni)ersit* of Ne. Sout, /ales, 0ensin'ton,
Australia
Abstract: Social construction continues to exert significant
influence in the social sciences particularly psychology. As
a movement, it has captured the imagination of many in the
field perhaps because of its critique of empiricism and its
claims of addressing issues of equity and diversity. In this
paper, we question the status of social construction using
Deleuian conceptualiations. !rom a Deleuian
perspective, far from being transformative, social
construction is successful only if a number of its core
assumptions are left unquestioned.
$,e idea1l2 of social construction
Social construction is a concept that has continued to
capture the imagination of many within the social sciences.
"his is in spite of many critical interventions #$ibberd, %&&'(
i.e., the special later editions of Theory & Psychology edited
by Stam, %&&)( %&&%*. +ne ma,or concern of social
construction-s critics has been its consistency. Daniger
reviewed eleven titles in the influential Sage series Inquiries
in Social Construction and found it hard to specify a
consistent set of claims. Daniger argued that, as a
concept, social construction .S/0 has 1fraying boundaries2
and can only stand scrutiny in terms of its consistency if
1one focuses on the contrast between traditional
psychological approaches and that of social construction
.30 but once one adopts a wider, cross4disciplinary,
perspective, the 1ism2 in social constructionism becomes
virtually impossible to pin down2 #)556, p. 7&&*. S/ has
survived such critiques, which demands some reflection by
theoreticians and practitioners ali8e as to the mechanisms
and conditions that support this state of affairs. Daniger
may have been mista8en to focus on inconsistency9
perhaps, despite the apparent inconsistencies, there is
indeed an internal consistency within S/. :e will argue in
this paper that S/ is both internally consistent, and
misguided. :e will attempt to explore some of its
mechanisms and to articulate some of the theoretical
limitations that arise from these. In particular, we will explore
S/ under two aspects that, in our view, S/ has not
considered adequately9 the body and the fictional. In
articulating these limitations, we are mostly interested in
exploring the ways in which a Deleuian approach proves to
have a far more powerful effect in terms of both theory as
well as insights into living practices. :e will conclude the
paper by summariing the application of these ideas to the
clinical setting.
"here seems to be a general agreement amongst theorists
that S/ had a distinct origin in the seminal wor8 of ;erger
and <uc8mann #)5=7* in )5>>. "he narrative of the origins
of S/ would then refer to the landmar8 #?ychla8, )55%*
paper written by @enneth Aergen for the American
Psychologist, a paper that introduced S/ to the discipline of
psychology. Aergen-s paper The Social Constructionist
Movement in Modern Psychology #)5='* could be defined
as a manifesto for S/( a proposal that not only attempted to
articulate his increasing disillusionment with the state of
psychology in the B.S.A. #Aulerce, )55', p. )7=*, but also
an emerging 1shared consciousness2 #)5=', p. %>>*.
Aergen was clear that such a proposal constituted a set of
1bold con,ectures2 that he would cogently argue 1contain
implications of substantial significance .that could see us0
relinquishing much that is sacred2 #p. %>>*. In this paper,
Aergen identified four metatheoretical features that he
would claim are constitutive of S/, namely9
?adical doubt in relation to ta8en4for4granted 8nowledge
An awareness that the 8nowledge and ways of
understanding we have are historically and culturally
specific
An equal awareness that the prevalence and sustainability
of any form of 8nowledge is dependent on the
vicissitudes of social processes, and
An awareness that 8nowledge and social action go together.
Aergen-s manifesto called for a radical questioning of the
dominance of positivist4empiricist methodology in the field.
!or Aergen, S/ not only provided a suitable theoretical
frame that was congenial to the emerging post4modern
sensitivities #)55), )557*, but also provided a way forward
in terms of an alternative methodology that allowed for
difference to be accepted as core to social life and where
the production of 8nowledge was subordinated to the social.
S/-s presentation, mainly in the B.S.A., was triumphant and
full of optimism..)0 It presented the opportunity to engage
with social research in ways that escaped the rigid
demarcation of traditional research, allowing instead for
more creative and respectful conceptualiations. "he early
disillusionment seemed to give way to a more humane
idea#l* of theory4practice.
roblematizin' social
constructionism: 3n t,e material
limits of a conce%t
Are we then faced with a similar situation to !u8uyama-s
#)55%* claim in terms of witnessing the end of social
science-s historyC It is our intent in this paper to examine
S/ in ways which stand bac8 from such triumphalism and to
problematie its claims from a Deleuian perspective. :e
propose that instead of a progressive mindset, S/-s
1pragmatism2 has a strong association with conservative,
neoliberal ideas as shown by its focus on a 1free mar8et2 of
ideas and sub,ectivities. :e will now proceed with this
different reading of S/.
As an opening for this alternative reading, it should be noted
that S/ emerged as a movement in Dorth American society.
"he main proposal of S/ is to consider everything we face
as linguistic productions that are no longer thought of as
1out there2 in the world #as in naEve realism*, nor in the mind
of the transcendental sub,ect #as in @antianism*. "rue to the
liberal tradition of free trade in its place of emergence,
society #in the S/ conception* is considered a dominion of
ongoing negotiation between people. Fet, as with 1free2
trade agreements, there is the hidden clause9 it is open to
negotiations as long as the negotiators share a certain
amount of consensus about how things are and how they
wor8, and as long as their vested interests are loo8ed
after.%0. And here it shows its more dangerous aspect9 an
uncritical conservatism that characterises many
contributions to the field during the last twenty years.
S/-s lineage comes from American philosophical
pragmatism, social psychology and sociology. Although this
is an interesting lineage that has much to offer as one can
appreciate in its connections with literature #to be expanded
upon later in this paper*, from a theoretical point of view, it
could be argued that S/ is less rigorous than other points of
view in philosophy, because it does not engage with the
conceptual substance of thought. As Aergen bluntly puts it
when responding to critiques to inconsistencies in his
theory9 1Gy contribution to the constructionist dialogues
.comes from0 what is often viewed as a Hpragmatic
standpoint .where I0 write as a means to entering into
relationships .30 I am not trying to Hget it right-2 #Aergen,
%&&), p. 7)5*.
Ierhaps even more provocatively, S/ in many ways brea8s
away from the promise that pragmatism holds. Fet, as a
1pragmatic2 stance9 it wor8s3 1it serves the purposes2 that
Aergen wanted it to serve. "hat is its beauty and its
potential horror. "a8e for example9 1A primrose, is a
primrose, nothing more #or less*2. Social construction
scholars can discuss if it is li8e this because of <innaeus or
:ordsworth. "hey could even consider other historical
articulations of this flower and claim that there are an infinite
number of alternative names that could be played with
instead of 1primrose.2 Dotwithstanding this playfulness
however, it is clear that in their orientation S/ prefer the
young scientist for there are many meanings for the word
1science2 other than positivism who ta8es the 1real thing2
#i.e., the primrose and our experience of it* as irrelevant and
who focuses instead on other dynamics. "he dynamics that
interests S/ are the establishing and transforming of
relationships. It is because of this emphasis that S/ is
interested in how identities are shaped within the social
world9 in the context of mental disorder, racial and gender
issues, ageing, childhood or adulthood, medical practice,
psychotherapy, ,ustice, families, and so on, in the belief that
such dynamics can be considered only in their
institutionalied presentation, detached from their context
and their material substance and ecology.
:e could even propose that a 2right wing2 S/ was already
present and actively influencing right wing politics and
policies for some time..J0 :ho can in fact deny that "alcott
Iarsons #,ust to give a provocatively relevant example*
wasnKt a proto4social4constructionistC Seen from this angle,
S/ is defined by the need to apply a functional4structural
approach #Iarsons, )575, )5')*.70. So the norm the
unspo8en contract implicit in any language game #<yotard,
)5=7* in order to avoid the loss of all intelligibility #Aergen,
)5='* is the functional sub,ect, who achieves a good ego4
function through primary socialisation, and who tends to
achieve goals whilst adapting 1him24self to his social
environment, at the same time as integrating his family to
the habits and mores of the middle class.
"he 1left wing2 S/ the one that officially 1registered the
mar82 is a more liberal variation of such a
conceptualiation, where the functional4structural analysis
#IarsonKs AAI< paradigm* and with it, the problematic
notion of normality is cut from the theoretical apparatus,
and is substituted with a variety of other possible options9 a
functional family vs. multiple family possibilities, mental
disorder vs. variations in the way of living a life, ageing vs.
positive ageing, Lgo vs. multiplicity of selves, and so on.'0.
It may well be that that this change carried through by S/
has been a significant contribution towards a more equitable
social world, supporting change in social politics and
practices and that it has helped enlarge the margins of
democracy in the :estern :orld. At the same time,
paradoxically, it still has an ideological agenda that lays
strong claims( claims that can be dangerous to ta8e for
granted. "here are two claims that we consider particularly
dangerous perhaps because of their invisibility9 the ongoing
2optimism2 implicit in the positioning of people within
postmodern language games and the constant search for a
2successful andMor happy2 life which implicitly sets purpose
and direction. Such a search is still the goal of S/( a goal
that resonates with an ironic reading of the Bnited States
/onstitution on facilitating the pursuit of happiness.
"he emphasis of S/ through Aergen-s interest in
2transformative2 and 1generative2 psychology #)56J, )56=*
moved from critique and theory into action and change. In
this movement, what became obscured and simplified was
the material dimension. "his was partly facilitated by the
equation of possibility with chance. ;y equating these two
concepts, perhaps inadvertently possibility turns into a
logical exercise of options and probabilities. Alongside these
developments within psychology, including the emergence
of S/, there has been in recent decades an increasing
interest in post4colonial writings, as well as in continental
philosophy #!oucault, Derrida, ?icoeur and more recently
Deleue* .>0. "hese 1external2 contributions were changing
the whole meaning of the word 1possibility.2 Instead of
exploring 1possibility2 in concrete ways and conceiving it as
chance, they explored it in its association with imagination,
the virtual and the notion of life as fiction.
:e see this alternative reading as presenting a profound
epistemological challenge to S/. "o draw an analogy, <ewis
/arroll-s Alice found herself first in :onderland, with its
creative images of 1going through the tunnel.2 #:e will
discuss this point later in the paper when we tal8 about
Ieirce-s ideas around abduction. See Ieirce, )55=.* ;ut in
the sequel she is in the land of chess. If we are to
understand Alice through the con,unction of both of these
readings, the potential of 1passing through the tunnel2 is
restrainedMundermined by a 1return2 that in fact
consolidates the actual structures, thus restricting
existential options to already established patterns. Staying
however with the first of the gestures loo8ing at possibility
in its connection with the virtual, with the passing through
the tunnel.60 is a reading of possibility as an opening into
the fictional, an opening into what is yet to be eplored and
lived, into the future in as much as it is imagined in the
present. It is in this space, we argue, that Deleuian 1lines
of flight2 #)5=6* exist as existential possibilities. :e will
discuss this later.
Another example of what was lost in this shift that
emphasied 1transformative2 and 1generative2 psychology
was the !"eal# materiality of my body. "o return to the
American /onstitution with its reference to the pursuit of
happiness, one could argue that in such a pursuit,
happiness may be conceptually considered as 1something
other than the body in pain.2 If so this raises questions
about those who may loo8 for happiness by passing through
1a pain of the body,2 as is the case in many anthropological
experiences and in some medieval monastic practices as
well as in many sexual perversions, such as masochism.
"hose inclined to see8 happiness through such practices
may then be relegated to the ostracism involved in labels
li8e 1mad,2 1stupid2 or 1perverse.2 Is this not a parody of the
position of the hyenas in the Disney movie The $ion %ing
1barbarian2 animals forever outside the circle of respectable
lifeC
!odies t,at don4t mat1t2er
A 1left wing2 S/ which could also be called /ritical S/
#/S/* emerged in the )5>&s. It was in this period that
Schut- The Phenomenology of the Social &orld #)5>6*
became influential on social scientists in the B.S.A.,
particularly in the form of $arold Aarfin8el-s writings on
ethnomethodology #)5>6, %&&%*, and ;erger and
<uc8mann-s The Social Construction of "eality #)5=7*.
Schut had been a student of Ldmund $usserl and his main
interest was using phenomenology as a frame to
understand the social world of everyday life, integrating
$usserl-s phenomenology with Gax :eberKs thought.
Schut, and later /S/, have been for many years
influencing sociology and social psychology, helping these
disciplines in the development of new methodologies for
interpreting the everyday life in social interaction and
influencing researchers using qualitative methodologies.
Ierhaps Schut-s most important contribution to the social
sciences was the invention of the concept 1ta8en4for4
granted,2 a term he used in the Lssay The Stranger
#Schut, )577* to refer to the 1unquestioned scheme of
reference .that0 determines the strata of relevance for their
Hthin8ing as usual- in standardied situations and the degree
of 8nowledge required for handling the tested Hrecipes-
involved.2 #ibid, p. 755*.=0. In Schut-s view, it is the
Stranger who is in the best position to do social research
because sheMhe does not ta8e4for4granted the ongoing
consensual life that members of a community do ta8e4for4
granted on a moment by moment basis in their cultural
world. In Schut-s theoretical wor8 the body is the ground
against which the figures of social everyday experience
unfold. ;ut in the wor8s of his followers, including /S/,
there has been a curious shift in the analysis away from the
novelty even candidness of the stranger-s observation of
the social drama( a shift that progressively abandons the
corporeal ground as a constituent of the social experience.
.50
Ierhaps one reason for this smooth shift away from the
body can be traced bac8 to Schut-s own wor8. Although he
had been a student of $usserl, Schut did not ta8e the
corporeal turn of $usserl-s later wor8s #$usserl, )5=5*. "his
turn was however a main influence on the !rench scholar
Gaurice Gerleau4Ionty. :ith Gerleau4Ionty #)5>%*,
phenomenology developed its own interest in investigating
the body in a different direction to the developments in
America.)&0. $e did so in connection with Aoldstein-s
1neurological2 approach to the human body #)57&*.
Aoldstein-s approach was based on the experiences of
patients with brain damage, particularly aphasia,
anosognosia, phantom limb, and other strange behaviours.
Gerleau4Ionty was also studying development in children,
and the progressive constitution of body scheme in the first
years of life. Gerleau4IontyKs theory #)5>%* argues that our
personal bodies are inhabited by a corporeal schema which
is the ground of any possible experience in the world( a
#virtual* ground that embeds any encounter we can possibly
have in this world. Gerleau4Ionty-s claim was that we could
observe the constitution of such a pre4categorical ground in
the constitution of a body scheme by the baby( and its
brea8down in the behaviour and experiences of brain
damaged people.
In terms of maintaining a connection with the body through
grounding experience in a corporeal schema, Gerleau4
Ionty-s approach is a significant improvement compared to
the more abstract developments in B.S.A. where abstract
disembodied, even ethereal selves are seen as being
open to infinite negotiability. Gerleau4Ionty-s main
assumption, however, the body schema as the ground of
any normal behavioural experience of the human being, has
been extensively criticied in the post4phenomenological
thin8ing of Ailles Deleue and !elix Auattari, of Gichel
!oucault and of Nacques Derrida, allowing for an affirmative
and material pro,ect to emerge. :e will ta8e DeleueKs
position, supported by AuattariKs and some of !oucault-s
writing to explore the limits of the concept of schema.
In Theatrum Philosophicum #)566*, !oucault bluntly states
that we can no longer deal with Gerleau4IontyKs idea of
body schema after reading Deleue-s 'ifference and
"epetition #)557* and The $ogic of Sense #%&&)*. "he
problem was not with the corporeal grounding but with the
totaliing tendency behind the notion of a schema. !or
!oucault, DeleueKs philosophy had definitively bro8en away
from the Ilatonic conception of grounding philosophy on
consistency of being. :ith Deleue, the %)
st
/entury
philosophy, once and for all, starts with ambiguity9
difference, rather than identity, is what ta8es the centre. Any
repetition what appears to our senses through time
bears tiny differences, variations that ma8e identity a
perceptual exercise that requires cutting and distorting. It is
not difference that distorts but the search of stability in the
guise of identity( a provocative idea indeed and one that
promises much in our quest for anti4totalitarian regimes of
signs.
In DeleueKs and AuattariKs A Thousand Plateaus #)5=6*,
the tree of 8nowledge the Ihilosophical "ree, with its
accompanying categorical order of roots, a trun8 and
branches is substituted by the image of the rhiome.
Deleue and Auattari use this alternative botanical
metaphor quite intentionally to challenge the deeply
embedded image in :estern culture of 8nowledge as
centralied. Bnli8e the tree, the rhiome is decentralied
and unpredictable in its development.))0 expanding in all
different directions through the constant creation of new
roots and flourishing wherever propitious conditions exist.
Arasses are rhiomic in nature and any amateur gardener
will 8now how difficult it is to manage them and how easy it
is for them to become a weed. ?hiomic thought is wild
although it is far from being incoherent and cannot be
controlled by any abstraction or rational thought( its limits
and conditions are not human but ecologically driven9 the
terrain including the weather rather than a rational,
purposeful intent is its guiding principle. !rom this
perspective, :estern philosophical tradition starting with
Ilato has rather been a distorted attempt to get the
wildness.)%0 and the puissance of thought and of life
under control.)J0.
"he rhiome, li8e the tree, is also a type of order but, for
Deleue and Auattari, it is a different type of order
altogether to the one of the tree. It is not a transcendental
+rder to which we must sub,ugate ourselves thus
establishing docile sub,ectivities through processes of
sub,ectivation but is the order that is immanent to the
process of living, immanent to a life as a form of
organiation. "his order not only constitutes our emerging
existential parameters but also helps to deal with the horror,
the gripping fear of the surrounding chaos that constitutes
the foundation and the conditions of emergence of our lives.
Bsing Noyce-s notion of chaosmos 1a composed chaos,
neither foreseen nor preconceived,2 Deleue and Auattari
#)55), p. %&7* conceptualie life as an artistic construction
of a chaosmos, as an order that emerges out of and is in
constant relation with this ongoing chaos. "hrough this
gesture, this chaos is transformed into both, 1a threat to
coherence but .also0 the generative source of new
possibilities2 #;ogue, %&&7, p. >*.
"his chaosmos ta8es the shape of a plateau,.)70 a direct
reference #Deleue O Auattari, )5=6, p. %)4%* to ;ateson-s
ethnographic observations in relation to ;alinese ways of
life and practices of raising children #;ateson, )56J*. Any
plateau, in turn, is one amongst many even a thousand as
the title indicates co4existing in an infinite and chaotic
universe of flows, endlessly deMreMconstructing possibilities
of life, and possibilities of order. A life as articulated in the
rhiome is 1a self4differentiating difference that unfolds itself
and thereby creates a universe2 #;ogue, %&&J, p. 7*.
As indicated, order as conceptualied by Deleue and
Auattari is a type of order that is incommensurably different
to that indicated by the idea of a tree that imposes a
transcendental and, as Deleue and Auattari would add, an
authoritarian and hierarchical order. "he rhiome is
decentralied and unpredictable and emerges out of the
conditions of living in an immanent manner9 what
constitutes this order is experimental in nature and highly
contingent on the unique characteristics of the event at
hand. ;ecause of this, the rhiome presents an alternative
that is more humane which is not to be confused with
humanistic in terms of its effects on how we live together.
$ow to understand Deleue and Auattari-s notion of the
rhiome when applied to the human bodyC "o do so we
have to start by using notions of folding and of unfolding.
!olding is the metaphor used by Deleue #%&&&a, %&&>a* in
his articulations of life and of sub,ectivity. Starting from the
physical folding that ta8es place in the initial ygote, through
the morula to the baby, life is the recursive folding of cells.
Lqually so, Deleue and Auattari claim, the experiencing
sub,ect is a product of acts of folding of the lines of life the
flows that traverse our body( lines that establish the
outside and the inside through its folding. In other words,
the body is not an organism that is predefined and pre4
determined as it might appear at first glance, but a multitude
of components, criss4crossing paths and establishing
connections. /orrespondingly the experience that emerges
out of living through such a body is not a linear, story4li8e,
narrative, but a complexity of fictions and #dis*continued and
overlapping storylines, some of them edited for public
performance which many never #fully* rehearsed.
If we focus first on the constitution of the body, we could call
these bits 1organs2 provided we could be sure such naming
does not fall in the trap of reifying these organs in
conceptions of essential identity. In fact, Deleue and
Auattari resisted this image choosing instead to tal8 about
the 1body without organs.2 ;ut they were equally attracted
to the <acanian ob(et petit a ) ironically, itself separated
from the rest of <acan-s psychoanalytical theory as a
reminder that life wor8s through particulars instead of
totalitarian and totaliing processes. Ac8nowledging these
tensions, the term 1organs2 can still be employed. :hat 1is2
in the first instance, is a set of disparate organs.)'0 without
organism( a group of a4functional organs playing different
8ind of games with each other( a set of perverted and
polymorphic fragments interacting between themselves and
with the outside world in wild ways, connecting randomly
and creating a multitude of different combinations in what
Deleue and Auattari called 1assemblages2 or desiring
machines. "he only 1performance criteria2 for these
assemblages is 1to wor8,2.)>0 as in the case of the little
desiring machine nipple4mouth4coming mil8Mstopping mil8
during the suction, or the tube that connects the oral with
the anal orifices, through which passes the mil8 which is
transformed as a result of the productive activity of the
assemblage..)60
"he unique moment of the encounter has no frame( rather,
it appears ,ust before any frame analysis #Aoffman, )567*.
In this very moment, reality appears as a complexity of lines
repeating the dynamics we mentioned in terms of the body
and its constitution. "he lines that present themselves in the
encounter include lines portraying different forces
generating different movements9 there are movements that
they call of #re*territorialiation 1which tend to fix and
stabilise its elements, and Hcutting edges of
deterritorialiation which carry it away-2 #Deleue O Auattari,
)5=6, p. ==( in Iatton, %&&&, p. 77*.)=0. It is in the latter type
of movement where there is an intriguing dynamic that
Deleue and Auattari called 1lines of flight.2 "hese are lines
that open up the encounter to engagements through
parameters that are completely different and external to
those already present and familiar. As the /hilean physicistM
poet Dicanor Iarra would say9 sometimes % P% Q 7 and
sometimes % P % Q apple..)50 "hese are possibilities that
are not pre4existent but emerge from the mystery of the
moment of actual encounter. As such, they are powerful
reminders that the encounter that constitutes life has only
partially to do with #rational and docile* possibilities of
negotiations. Social construction, even /S/, has not
adequately considered the corporeal dimension of these
experiences. Shotter-s own corporeal turn #%&&', %&&5* has
in part addressed such issues, as have <annamann #)55=*
and, more recently, ;artesaghi O /astor #%&&=( %&&5*. In
this context it is not clear if these authors should be
classified within /S/.
In opposition to a conception of philosophy as a rational and
representational activity, for Deleue the focus and aim of
philosophy is to create concepts #Deleue and Auattari,
)55)*. Ihilosophy is not an abstract activity but a
positioning activity when facing the idiosyncratic uniqueness
of every single moment of living, a position vis4R4vis the
endless dilemmas that surround one-s encounter with the
other with an4other, which is not limited to human beings.
"his creation of concepts is a call for thought as a response
to the problem of living a life. A concept is a creative
expression and articulation of the uniqueness of life instead
of a categorical ordering exercise. Ihilosophy is then the
activity that helps us to establish a chaosmos as a
#soothing* response to the mysterious moment of
unpredictability that is present in the corporeal encounter.
Ihilosophy is the activity of honouring such encounter by
finding its concepts, by being able to express it in its own
uniqueness, a uniqueness that is never to be repeated
again. +f course, it can be said that this is impossible. ;ut
one has to as8 whether it the ?eal 'ing*an*sich is
impossible or whether it is our #lac8 of* imagination that
ma8es it impossibleC A poet 8nows that this is not
impossible. "a8e, for example, the famous Spanish poet
Antonio Gachado9
/aminante, son tus huellas el camino y nada mSs(
/aminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar.
Al andar se hace el camino, y al volver la vista atrSs
se ve la senda que nunca se ha de volver a pisar.
/aminante no hay camino sino estelas en la mar.
.%&0
#Proverbios y Cantares ++I+, Gachado, %&&>*
Such a poet will also 8now that in understanding and living
with this complexity doesn-t mean that one needs to
express put into words all encounters. "hat is why for
Deleue, the art of life has nothing to do with negotiations
done by gentle egos but has much to do with the regulation
of intensities that traverse one-s life. "his brings us to the
next topic.
#ar)elous affections: $,e
emer'ence of t,e fictional bod*
In )5'J, a %64year4old Gichel !oucault was writing the
Introduction #)55J* of the !rench translation of <udwig
;inswanger-s Traum und ,isten-. ;inswanger was a
respectable Swiss psychiatrist.%)0 writing on the possible
uses of $usserl-s and $eidegger-s phenomenological
philosophy in the clinic in what was to be 8nown as
Lxistential analysis 'aseinanalyse #Gay, Angel, O
Lllenberger, )5'=*.
!oucault-s translation is a well48nown event amongst
intellectuals interested in his ideas because this introduction
ended up being significantly longer than ;inswanger-s
essay. Ierhaps today we could also say that it is even more
interesting than the original for in it we find !oucault dealing
with psychoanalysis in a very intriguing way. In the !rench
Introduction. !oucault ma8es the following charge against
psychoanalysis9 Isychoanalysis tends to reduce the oneiric
material emerging from the dream into a form of diagnosis.
As in the clinical practice in medicine, elements of the
dream are treated as symptoms for the diagnostic process.
!oucault-s proposal seems to transform the semeiotic
clinical process the observation of symptoms so as to
achieve a diagnosis into a semiotic #psycho*analysis.
As with many of !oucault-s claims, this is a powerful gesture
where a number of dynamics are traversing in different
directions. "his constitutes a unique opportunity to engage
with an opening in the dominant systems of interpretation.
Such an opening runs the ris8 of turning into yet another
variety of chess game( of further sub,ugation of the event
through the construction of yet another regime of
interpretation that rather than helping the encounter
captures it by superimposing itself through pre4established
categories, thus wor8ing against the possibility of creativity.
Interpretation with its obscured hierarchy of who 8nows
what smothers the possibility of the encounter with the
other and with the outside. :ith interpretation, the madness
and wildness both in the other and in ourselves.%%0 and,
most importantly, those who inhabit this4moment4here.%J0
are domesticated, fenced in within a supposed interiority
and within an intellectual apparatus( more often than not,
that of the doctorMpsychoanalyst. Ierhaps we were better off
with the Sha8espearean mad man who still had some
wisdom in his speech and who was thus still allowed into
the community.%70.
Lven so, !oucault-s gesture constitutes a powerful move
against the established medical semeiotic and towards
increased undecidability9 an opening to the ambiguity that
presents in the dream that invites for a creative wor8 out of
its meaning. Such a gesture moves in the opposite direction
of the imprisonment through transcendental interpretations
and engages us bac8 in an event4ful relationship based on
compassion and solidarity towards the person in suffering
a further gesture in line with the tradition of Iinel. :e
believe that this was !oucault-s gesture in terms of the
possibilities of semiology.
In order to understand this gesture, we will use some
concepts of /harles Sanders Ieirce-s semiotics #Ieirce,
)55=*. +ne can consider the three vertices of a triangle as
three ways of interpreting the world9 trace #contingency*,
icon #possibility* and symbol #necessity*. "he more a sign is
immediately affecting our body, the less it is arbitrary.
"races, li8e the remains of a hare-s fur on the ground,
immediately affect my sensations and give me the
impression that there must be hares, wild rabbits, or some
similar animal around the place. "his experience noticing
hare-s fur usually happens suddenly, unpredictably, and
only if I am open to notice what is around me.%'0. "he trace
that I-m finding right now is an event9 it surprises me. I can
tell my friend who is with me now9 1<oo8, there are hare
traces over here2. Bnfortunately my friend does not
understand Lnglish. "his alerts us to the fact that 1hare2 is
not ,ust a trace for my friend has no expectation of my
utterance but also it is a symbol in Ieirce-s terms. In order
to be recognised, a symbol requires that my friend and I
share an arbitrary system of codes that allows us to
understand each other. It is in such a system of
interpretation that the symbol acquires meaning and it is
such systems which afford the symbol its status as a
symbol. If we do not share such a system e.g. because
my friend does not spea8 Lnglish I could attempt a
different type of system of codification and ta8e a stic8 and
draw the image of the hare in the ground. "he image then
becomes a mediation between the trace and the symbol. In
order to understand the symbol then, one has to first 8now
the system of rules that govern that system.
"his can be applied to !oucault-s introduction to
;inswanger. "his intervention can be seen as an attempt
a strategy to transform the semeiotic clinical #medical*
process into a semiotic #psycho*analytic one. In
psychoanalysis we can consider the oneiric material as a
trace.%>0. <i8e the hare-s fur, any element of the dream can
be referred to the corresponding symbol. Devertheless
there is a big difference between the treatment of the hare-s
trace as fur and a dream, because the rules of codification
in psychoanalysis are of a very different nature to the ones
of the languages we spea8. Similarly, medicine presents yet
again a different order of discourse. "here is a significant
difference between a #psycho*analytic semiotics and
medical semeiotic, for the later has been codified into a
system of interpretation of the body symptoms that attempts
to leave out any dimension of undecidability. Gedical
semeiotic has a clear intention to establish a direct
relationship between symptoms and the signs #in Ieirce-s
language, physical symptoms Q traces and medical signs Q
symbols* so as to eradicate all degree of uncertainty and
ambiguity in order to ma8e the 1right2 diagnosis. "his is the
goal of medicine starting from the end of the )=th century.
So what we have in !oucault-s Introduction, if we see his
reading of the emerging 'aseinanalyse as a strategic move,
is his attempt to avoid this imprisonment of the encounter
through the creation of a new system of codification within
psychoanalysis. "hrough this reading he challenges and
resists the push of medical semeiotics as well as of a
1medicalied2 psychoanalysis. $is ta8e on psychoanalysis,
which was organised around language #langue*, was
contesting a space vis4R4vis the medical discourse and its
influence on psychoanalysis. Isychoanalysis had been
founded by a group where the ma,ority of members were
physicians..%60 !oucault was aware of these tensions. $is
preoccupation, as a young intellectual trained both in
philosophy and psychology, was to confront a scientistic,
medical psychoanalysis and to help loosen the stringent
associations between sign and symbol. :hat he was
fighting against was a tendency to reify the +edipus as a
scientific system of rules by which dream interpretation was
reduced to a set of pre4determined categories and
possibilities and where no poetic, or, for that matter,
productive space was possible. In that period !oucault was
deeply influenced by phenomenology, and in his
Introduction to Traum und ,isten- he saw 'aseinanalyse
#;inswanger-s and Gin8ows8i-s conception of
psychoanalysis* as a way to liberate psychoanalysis from
scientism. Ironically, he probably did not 8now that this
process of transforming semiotic in a medical semeiotic was
going to happen in the B.S.A. starting from the influence of
Anna !reud on the American psychiatric environment.
Deither did he 8now that the ideas in 'aseinanalyse would
give impetus again in the B.S.A. to the emergence of a
third type of interpretation9 humanistic approaches.
"he irony is infinite, for by thus combining the medical
discourse and the psychoanalytical discourse, each with its
own set of rules of codification as well as all the later
systems of codification we are given #the illusion of* a
possibility of choice that, in effect, bypasses the ?eal and
the connection with the mysterious and yet4to4be4codified.
:hat is bypassed is precisely the possibility of the ongoing
encounter with the real which constitutes life. Some call the
dimension that is lost in this process 1the imaginary2 to
ma8e reference to that direct image4li8e connection with
the ob,ect. :e have preferred to call it 1the fictional2.%=0 so
as maintain its connection with language, at the same time
stressing its openness to the mysterious and undecidable
element in the ?eal. "he fictional calls for the open space
that lies in between interpretations and codes, it calls for the
elements that escape all signification and yet are part of the
phenomena. "he fictional refers for us to the overflow of
possibility that is present in the moment4to4moment event
that is, for good and for bad, outside of our predictions. As
Deleue says 1.w0e cannot even 8now of what a body is
capable2 #Deleue, )5=>, p. J>*.
"his third dimension of 8nowledge has to do with the
connection between the fictional and the trace and lies in
the intersection of possibility and contingency. $ere there is
a difference between the position of Ieirce on the one hand
and that of Deleue, Auattari, !oucault, and ;ateson on the
other. "he term 1abduction,2 used by both Ieirce and
;ateson, can help us to understand this difference. In
Ieirce-s logic there are three types of syllogism9 deductive,
inductive and abduction. "he deductive syllogism says9 1In
this bag there are only white beans, if I ta8e some beans
from this bag, they are white.2 Deduction amounts to
certainty. "he inductive syllogism says9 1I too8 those beans
from this bag, and they are all white, so all the beans in the
bag are white.2 "his type of syllogism amounts to
probability. "he third type states9 1In this bag there are only
white beans, I have in my hand white beans, so therefore
they come from this bag.2 !or Ieirce, this type of
syllogism abduction amounts to circumstance and is
found in the structure of hypothesis. Ieirce arrives at this
circumstantial reasoning very much li8e Sherloc8 $olmes
goes about solving crimes. Ieirce goes as far as he can in
the analysis of the scientific method giving life to the
circumstantial paradigm. ;ut such a method poses a danger
that is often invisible9 As we had indicated earlier, the
problem is not to find a real man behind a monster li8e the
twice4disguised ;as8erville in the Sherloc8 $olmes story
but to imagine the 1wildness2 of a beast in the place of a
human being.%50 which, as a gesture, is more li8e Ioe-s
"ue Morgue.
Aregory ;ateson gives an entirely different example of
abduction9 1$uman beings are mortal, grass is mortal,
human beings are grass2 #;ateson, )565( $ui, /ashman, O
Deacon, %&&=*. :e believe that this is the way the fictional
wor8s and, what is even more important, the way that
Deleue4Auattarian 1desiring machines2 #)5=J* wor89
ma8ing biarre unexpected, even a4logical connections.
It is this wor8ing of the desiring machine that comes out
through imagination and the fictional providing an opening
for the creation of a life( it is the desiring machine before it
has given in for good andMor for bad to the process of
ad,ustment to the requirements of civiliation. ;ateson was
interested in these mechanisms. "his pro,ect was
maintained through his cybernetic investigations,
investigations with which he engaged as an alternative to
and a response to his discomfort with the standard theories
of his time #$eims, )55), p. '=( <ipset, )5=&, p. )=%*.
;ateson was aware that the social sciences were trapped in
a number of different dead ends and that they needed a
way out through a new theory. Social sciences needed a
line of flight, thus his interest and his perseverance with the
new science of cybernetics. ;ateson was not certain if this
approach would prove to be correct. Fet to be concerned
about 1being right2 as if we were tal8ing about a direct lin8
between the sign and the trace would be to miss the point,
as !oucault has shown us. ;ateson 8new that too.
:hat does Ieirce thin8s about possibilityC $e thin8s of
possibility in terms of real chance9 If Garia had not been
living in Australia, she would have stayed in <atin America( if
Iietro finds money he will organie a cultural foundation.
Garia cannot caress the belly of the moon #/alvino, )5>J4
7*, and Iietro cannot migrate to GaradagRl #Aadda, )5>J*,
or pass through the loo8ing glass #/arroll, )57)*. If human
beings are grass we can continue with such logic they
are tiny green blades vibrating in the wind, as they really do
in the face of the universe. In our view, within social
constructionism, even /S/ remains behind this line of flight9
It does not give us permission to de4lireMde4literate, to go
astray, beyond the lines of a moderate, tolerant, puritan
liberalism so as to explore the possibilities of life that our
desires call upon. In the present times, in which 1going
beyond2 means doing things that we had not dared instead
of imagining possibilities of life that are out of the ordinary
even things that perhaps we cannot or will not be able to
do /S/ is an anchoring point that 8eeps us captured in
the establishment, rather than a light of flight allowing for
genuine alternatives of existence..J&0 ;ut in such
compromise the access to possible worlds genuine
alternatives to live a life are not available( they are left
outside of the critical 1common and good sense.2 Such
alternatives are relegated to other domains of human
activity, namely the imaginary potentiality of fiction both in
literature and in art. "his is a serious loss to theory,
especially in terms of what it has to offer to the clinic.
-o. to do t,era%* .it, t,is foolis,
%,iloso%,*5
In DeleueKs concept of the ;ody without +rgans #Deleue
and Auattari, )5=6*, the corporeal schema as a set of
organs functionally embedded into the organism is criticised
in term of ontological primacy9 1in the beginning there is the
fragment.2 :ith breathing, the baby-s body has to engage
with a very different functioning altogether from the one
within the womb.J)0. :hen a child is born into the world,
#s*he is in the best position to create concepts, or, in
Deleuian terms, to ma8e creative acts, because the baby
experiments with the transition from one established
assemblage into another9 #s*he encounters difference .
American S/ did not envisage the body as something that
matters as in the title of Nudith ;utler-s boo8 /odies that
matter0 1n the discursive limits of 2se2 #%&))*. !or them,
the body does not matter either in a medical sense or in a
neurological sense. /S/ does not have an interest in the
functioning of the body. Deither is it seriously interested in
dance, theatre, not even sexuality as a different way of
loo8ing at the presence of the body. :hat actually matters
for S/ in general particularly those who practice it in
psychotherapy is conversation as an exchange of words,
strings of conversational exchanges, or phenomenological
descriptions. "he ground of conversation is a ta8en4for4
granted corporeal schema. $appiness, pain, grief and all
the affections that can be produced by the body are
reduced to a loo84ali8e :estern culturally constructed body.
"hat is the reason why S/ therapy may be one of the most
effective practices when wor8ing with suffering people who
have been well trained in :estern education, with good
intellectual capabilities, and with well4structured :estern
schemas. ;ut S/ based therapies struggle to help and
engage with people who inhabit difference either in an
actual form as is the case with migrants, trans4gendered,
prisoners and disabled people or in a virtual form the so4
called schiophrenic, borderline andMor histrionic personality
people.
Deleue and Auattari #)5=J* became notorious with their
strident warnings about the dangers of psychoanalysis.
"hese dangers emerged out of the position that
psychoanalysis occupied, in responding to the needs and
the agenda of a capitalist society by showing how one
should 8eep one-s desires under control through nuanced
exercises of domestication. !or Deleue and Auattari,
psychoanalytical interpretation, within this context, serves
the purpose of domesticating the infinite possibilities of a
true engagement with life. "heir proposal at the time as an
alternative to psychoanalysis was schioanalysis. ?ather
than using the metaphor of a neurotic sitting in a divan,
expanding a sub,ective interiority, their preferred image was
the one of the schiophrenic.J%0 inasmuch as it
represented neither a totaliing nor totalied psyche
strolling in the par8, encountering and experimenting.
Schioanalysis was not interested in domestification but in
the expansion of one-s life. ?ather than imposing through
an interpretative gesture a map of the experience of those
see8ing help, for Deleue and Auattari the therapeutic
moment was that which that helped the client in the creation
of a new map, a map that made no totaliing gestures.
?ather than arriving at some sort of interpretative closure,
therapy was an opportunity for experimentation within a
unique process of individuation..JJ0
Deleue-s last ma,or pro,ect was a series of essays, ,ssays
Critical and Clinical #)556*, in which he examined the
dimension that we have called 1fictional29 the connections
between literature and the clinical, between the challenge of
living a life and the subtle line that lies between suffering
and pathology. Deleue had a longstanding interest in the
clinic9 Lven before the Anti*1edipus he wrote an incisive
critique on the way how Sade and Gasoch were put
together as parts of one clinical presentation #Deleue,
%&&>b*, arguing instead that this was not only a poor
observation but a poor reading of very different social
dynamics. Sade and Gasoch were also studied by Deleue
as authors. <iterature was central for Deleue, for its ability
to show us possibilities of existence( for example, the wor8s
of Gelville, whose character ;artleby #Deleue, )556*
Deleue considered emblematic of the dilemmas presented
by modernity.
:hat was central to Deleue was to live a life that was fully
engaged with the world outside with the tribes, the
countries, the geopolitics and the ecologies that surround
us and to be part of a unique process of individuation that
was larger than the self. In this context, individuation was
not a heroic figure of romantic dimensions, but a subtle yet
infinitely unique articulation of a life within an equally unique
ecology9 a gust of wind. Such a life, such an articulation of a
multitude of living encounters that constitute a unique
individualiation, has nothing to do with the negotiations of a
trader. "he trader is in essence a tric8ster who brings with
him or her a cruelty that is, again, well portrayed by Gelville
in The Confidence Man. Deleue instead is interested in the
betrayal that comes with opening up to the new, to the yet to
be lived9 1.t0here is always betrayal in a line of flight. .30 :e
betray the fixed powers which try to hold us bac8, the
established powers of the earth2 #Deleue and Iarnet,
%&&>, p. J&*.J70.
Deleue and Auattari-s gesture is po#i*etic in nature and has
no measure that could be converted into a currency for
trade. As such, it has much to say when we reflect on the
promise of social construction.
6ndnotes
.)0 :e ac8nowledge Daniger-s #)556* fine distinction
between light and dar3 S/. !urther similar distinctions have
been made since #i.e., Iearce, %&&5*.
.%0 "his distinction already brings forth a ma,or
problematiation of the model around issues of power
dynamic often commented on by Hdeveloping countries.-
"his has also been commented on in the domain of therapy
#i.e., Auilfoyle, %&&J*.
.J0 +f course, such a movement too8 place before S/ was
recognised by its own name, but these ideas the ideas
articulated in Aergen-s manifesto in )5=' #Aergen, )5='*
were already in the air, shaping the space and the
conditions in which American theorists as well as artists
and intellectuals were ma8ing sense of the world.
.70 It is not surprisingly, then, that for Iarsons #)5&%4)&65
American sociologist* the famous AAI< the acronym that
stands for Adaptation, Aoal attainment, Integration and
<atence is a good representation a diagram of the
functioning of the modern social world9 permitting the
simplification of a caricature, adaptation relates to the Social
Darwinist idea that he who wins is more adapted to the
social world and, in order to be a winner, one has to
establish one-s goals putting care to be socially integrated
and having one-s ego in control of one-s unconscious.
.'0 :hen seen from this angle one could see left wing S/
as a fascicular type of 8nowledge using Deleuian #Deleue
and Auattari, )5=6* conceptualiation. Deleue saw ma,or
concerns with this type of 8nowledge for it gave the
impression of being rhiomic( yet this is only a tric8, for it is
a variation of the tree type of 8nowledge.
.>0 "hese developments were mostly among American
literary critics who were less interested in social #control*
issues. "his difference might have to do with the conditions
of emergence and the evolution of American literature
where the issue of control and regulation was not as central
#when compared with Lurope of the time* as the need to
articulate the awe #and horror* of the new world. +f course
this is a strong reminder that the writers we are referring to
are not Dative Americans but that such literature is a
variation in Luropean literature( a Luropean intellectual
exercise that emerges in a new inhabited and unfamiliar
country. "his difference allowed for a writing that was open
to the mystery and the exteriority of experience. S/ could
say very little if anything at all about writers li8e Ioe,
Gelville, $awthorne and Dic8inson.
.60 "he distinction is indeed nuanced for /arroll who, in
many ways, wrote at the limit of both these readings. "he
emphasis thus needs to be on the gesture of passing
through the tunnel without 8nowledge of what the other side
would loo8 li8e9 whether it would be wonderland, flatland or
another perhaps ;orgesian land. !rom this angle, there is in
fact a multiplicity an infinity of possibilities.
.=0 "he notion of a 1strata of relevance2 is an interesting
connection with ;ateson-s topological notion of plateau
which, in turn is ta8en by Deleue and Auattari as we will
discuss later.
.50 "a8e for example the variation done by ;erger and
<uc8mann of these ideas. "hey conceptualied the human
body as different to the ones of all other living creatures a
"omistic gesture praising the human body for its
1emptiness2 of defining characteristics. "he body is instead
paradoxically defined by its 1world4openness2 and its ability
to have a far more flexible yet institution based
relationship with the environment #)5=7, p. >'*. "he
characteristics of the body in its unique functioning are then
generalied and 1ta8en4for4granted2 a very different type
to the one proposed by Schut where the emphasis and
complexity is then located into the institution and its social
construction.
.)&0 Gerleau4Ionty-s emphasis on the body has been
explored by Tarela #Tarela et al., )55J* which is an ironic
twist for these ideas have later been criticied by /S/
particularly in the clinical field #$offman, )55&* as being
too individualistic and intrapsychic in orientation.
.))0 "here is a resonance between the rhiome and
Gaturana-s notion of evolutionary drift #Gaturana and
Tarela, )5=7*( a gesture within ;iology that attempted to
balance what Darwinian had done with Darwin in the sense
of restoring the original teleological arbitrariness to the his
evolutionary model.
.)%0 Stengers ma8es an acute and quite relevant distinction
between 1wild2 and 1savage2 #Stengers, %&)), p. xv*. It is
particularly relevant given the influence of :hitehead in
Deleue.
.)J0 Deleue #)55&* does however comment that there have
been exceptions which he used in his own Hperverse-
philosophical genealogy, including Duns Scotus, Spinoa
and Dietsche.
.)70 1Some sort of continuing plateau of intensity is
substituted for climax2. :e have already commented on the
changes that this reference has had in its translation into
!rench in its usage by Deleue and Auattari and then
bac8 into Lnglish #;arbetta and Dichterlein, %&)&*.
.)'0 "hat, as we warned before, cannot be identified with
the common names we give to organs in the body9
stomach, 8idney, brain, etc.
.)>0 "hus highlighting their appreciation of the promises
held by Anglo4Saxon Lmpiricism and American Iragmatism.
.)60 Strangely enough, at least for Deleue, one of the
references for these descriptions is Gelanie @lein.
Deleue-s heretical reading of @lein and of :innicott is
exactly the opposite interpretation of psychoanalysis than
that offered by Iarsons which has been successful in the
B.S.A., namely Lgo4Isychology. !or Deleue and Auattari,
there is no Lgo, no identity, no sub4,ectum. Lgo and sub,ect
are the by4product of the functioning of life, leftovers of the
creative and productive process of the assemblage which,
as with the example above is not limited to a body but is
radically relational. !rom this perspective, the sub,ect is not
at the starting point of the analysis as in the case of the
/S/ Lgo that is ready to negotiate but is a leftover of the
delirious world inventing functioning of the desiring
machine. In other words, the sub,ect so central to /S/
needs to be de4centered.
.)=0 "hus the importance of remembering that core to this
philosophy of Difference is ambiguity and ambivalence.
.)50 +f course Dicanor 8new of the limitations of such
descriptions ;orges would immediately comment but
this is the limitations that language imposes on us. "hat is
why for Deleue #it was important to push language to its
limits so as to ma8e it stutter #Deleue, %&&&b, and chapter
)J, Deleue, )556*.
.%&0 1:anderer, your footsteps are the way and nothing
more( :anderer, there is no path, one ma8es the path as
one wal8s. :hen wal8ing one ma8es the path, and when
loo8ing bac8, one sees the path that one will never wal8
again. :anderer, there is no path, only traces in the sea.2
.%)0 $is father had established a well4regarded asylum and
!reud would refer his clients to ;inswanger-s clinic
#!ichtner, %&&J*.
.%%0 !or this is the most obscured of the hierarchical
elements of the process of interpretation9 the /artesian
separation of a dream from madness #!oucault, %&&>*.
.%J0 :hich, as Derrida would say, was the trademar8 of
Deleuian thought9 cette*eventement*ici. #Derrida, )55=*.
.%70 +f course this is only in the fiction of Sha8espeare #and
many other compassionate yet not as famous people both
in his times and in other times*, for the relation of the mad in
medieval and renaissance society, as !oucault also tells us
#!oucault, %&&>*, was far more problematic.
.%'0 At least if I-m not a Auard of the par8 or a hunter used
to find those traces in that place.
.%>0 +f course this is not a full trace in the sense that a
dream is already part of the functioning within the person
who is dreaming it. As a dream it is already partially
processed, even more so when it is put in words no
matter how liberally for the listening of the analyst. ;ut we
need to simplify the complexities and the lines traversing
the act so as to Hhave a pointU-
.%60 Lven though at the time and particularly in !rance
there had been attempts of cure of what they were calling
Gental Illness through different criteria and methods #li8e
moral cure and hypnosis*.
.%=0 :hich must not be confused with narrative and
storytelling.
.%50 "his is a direct reference to Deleue and Auattari-s
notion of 1becoming animal2 as a gesture of the need to
escape the insidious humanism that has capture our
thought #)5=6*.
.J&0 "here is no doubt, that as an anchor, it is better an
honest /S/ than the dominant tea party trend.
.J)0 And so does the womb and the mother who holds such
womb but let-s focus on the baby at this point for
pedagogical reasons.
.J%0 "hey ma8e the distinction between the schiophrenic
process, which they see as being a better depiction of the
functioning of the unconscious and the clinical presentation
of schiophrenia which they describe as being a failed
schiophrenic process.
.JJ0 +f course we cannot claim to 8now what Deleue and
Auattari would have said about S/, but we are fairly sure
that they would have mourned the loss of the pragmatic
hope that is present in the S/-s reading of pragmatism.
.J70 $e also writes about this type of gesture when
discussing the disfigurement in ;aconKs paintings #%&&J*.
!iblio'ra%,*
;arbetta, I., O Dichterlein, G. #%&)&*. #?e*learning our
alphabet9 reflecting on systemic thought using
Deleue and ;ateson. -uman S*stems: $,e
7ournal of $,era%*, "onsultation & $rainin',
21# J*, J5547)5.
;artesaghi, G., O /astor, ". /. #%&&=*. Social construction in
communication9 ?evisiting the conversation.
"ommunication 8earboo9, 32, '4J&.
;artesaghi, G., O /astor, ". ?. #%&&5*. "racing our steps
through communication social construction9 Six
propositions for how to go on. In :. <eeds4$urwit O
A. Aalanes #Lds.*, Sociall* constructin'
communication #pp. %%'4%7J*. Gahwah, DN9
$ampton Iress.
;ateson, A. #)56J*. Ste%s to an ecolo'* of mind:
"ollected essa*s on ant,ro%olo'*, %s*c,iatr*,
e)olution and e%istemolo'*. !rogmore, Lngland9
Ialadin.
;ateson, A. #)565*. #ind and nature: A necessar* unit*
#)st ed.*. Dew For89 Dutton.
;erger, I., O <uc8mann, ". #)5=7*. $,e social
construction of realit*: A treatise in t,e sociolo'*
of 9no.led'e. $armondsworth, Lngland9 Ienguin.
;ogue, ?. #%&&J*. Deleuze on literature. Dew For89
?outledge.
;ogue, ?. #%&&7*. Deleuze:s .a9e: $ributes and
tributaries. Albany, DF9 State Bniversity of Dew For8
Iress.
;utler, N. #%&))*. !odies t,at matter: 3n t,e discursi)e
limits of ;se<=; Dew For89 ?outledge.
/alvino, I. 11>?3@?42= Ae cosmicomic,e= "orino, Italy9
Linaudi.
/arroll, <. #)57)*. Alice:s ad)entures in /onderland &
$,rou', t,e loo9in'@'lass. Dew For89 $eritage
Iress, )57).
Daniger, @. #)556*. "he varieties of social construction.
$,eor* & s*c,olo'*, B#J*, J5547)>.
Deleue, A. #)5=>*. Nietzsc,e and %,iloso%,* #$.
"omlinson, "rans.*. <ondon9 /ontinuum.
Deleue, A. #)55&*. <etter4preface to Nean4/let Gartin. In
A. Deleue #Ld.*, $.o re'imes of madness: $e<ts
and inter)ie.s 1>BC@1>>C #pp. J>)4J>J*. Dew For89
Semiotext#e*.
Deleue, A. #)557*. Difference and re%etition #I. Iatton,
"rans.*. Dew For89 /olumbia Bniversity Iress.
Deleue, A. #)556*. 6ssa*s critical and clinical #D. Smith
O G. Areco, "rans.*. Ginneapolis, GD9 Bniversity of
Ginnesota Iress.
Deleue, A. #%&&&a*. &oucault #S. $and, "rans.*.
Ginneapolis, GD9 Bniversity of Ginnesota.
Deleue, A. #%&&&b*. roust and Si'ns: $,e com%lete
te<t #?. $oward, "rans.*. Ginneapolis, GD9
Bniversity of Ginnesota Iress.
Deleue, A. #%&&)*. $,e lo'ic of sense. <ondon9 "he
Athlone Iress.
Deleue, A. #%&&J*. &rancis !acon= $,e lo'ic of
sensation, /ontinuum9 Dew For8.
Deleue, A. #%&&>a*. $,e fold: Aeibniz and t,e baroque
#". /onley, "rans.*9 /ontinuum.
Deleue, A. #%&&>b*. #asoc,ism: "oldness and cruelt*.
Dew For89 Vone boo8s.
Deleue, A., O Auattari, !. #)5=J*. Anti@oedi%us:
"a%italism and sc,izo%,renia #?. $urley, G. Seem
O $. ?. <ane, "rans.*. Ginneapolis, GD9 Bniversity of
Ginnesota Iress
Deleue, A., O Auattari, !. #)5=6*. A t,ousand %lateaus:
"a%italism and sc,izo%,renia #;. Gassumi,
"rans.*. Ginneapolis, GD9 Bniversity of Ginnesota
Iress.
Deleue, A., O Auattari, !. #)55)*. /,at is %,iloso%,*5
#;urchell O $. "omlinson, "rans.*. <ondon9 Terso.
Deleue, A., O Iarnet, /. #%&&>*. Dialo'ues ++ #$.
"omlinson O ;. $abber,am, "rans.*. <ondon9
/ontinuum.
Derrida, N. #)55=*. IKm going to have to wander all alone.
,iloso%,* $oda*, 42#)*, J4'.
!ichtner, A. #Ld.*. #%&&J*. $,e Si'mund &reud D Aud.i'
!ins.an'er corres%ondence: 1>0E@1>3E. Dew
For89 +ther Iress.
!oucault, G. #)566*. "heatrum philosophicum. In D. !.
;ouchard #Ld.*, Aan'ua'e, counter@memor*,
%ractice. Ithaca, DF9 /ornell Bniversity Iress.
!oucault, G. #)55J*. Dream, imagination and existence9 an
introduction to <udwig ;inswangerKs Wdream and
existenceW. In @. $oeller #Ld.*, Dream and e<istence
#pp. J)4=&*. Atlantic $ighlnds, DN9 $umanities Iress
International.
!oucault, G. #%&&>*. -istor* of madness #N. Gurphy O N.
@halfa, "rans.*. <ondon9 ?outledge.
!u8uyama, !. #)55%*. $,e end of ,istor* and t,e last
man. Dew For8, DF9 Avon ;oo8s.
Aadda, /. L. #)5>J*. Aa co'nizione del dolore, with an
introduction by A. /ontini #)
st
edition*. "orino, Italy9
Linaudi.
Aarfin8el, $. #)5>6*. Studies in et,nomet,odolo'*=
Lnglewood /liffs, DN9 Irentice4$all.
Aarfin8el, $. #%&&%*. 6t,nomet,odolo'*:s %ro'ram:
/or9in' out Dur9eim:s a%,onism. <anham, Gd.9
?owman O <ittlefield Iublishers.
Aergen, @. #)56J*. Social psychology as history. 7ournal of
ersonalit* and Social s*c,olo'*, 2?#%*, J&54
J%&.
Aergen, @. #)56=*. "oward generative theory. 7ournal of
ersonalit* and Social s*c,olo'*, 3?#))*, )J774
)J>&.
Aergen, @. #)5='*. "he social constructionist movement in
modern psychology. American s*c,olo'ist, 40,
%>>4%6'.
Aergen, @. #)55)*. $,e saturated self: Dilemmas of
identit* in contem%orar* life. Dew For89 ;asic
;oo8s.
Aergen, @. #)557*. $o.ard transformation in social
9no.led'e #Second ed.*. <ondon9 Sage.
Aergen, @. #%&&)*. /onstruction in contention9 "oward
consequential resolutions. $,eor* & s*c,olo'*,
11#J*, 7) 7J%.
Aoffman, L. #)567*. &rame anal*sis: An essa* on t,e
or'anization of e<%erience= /ambridge, GA9
$arvard Bniversity Iress.
Aoldstein, @. #)57&*. -uman nature in t,e li',t of
%s*c,o%at,olo'*= /ambridge, GA9 $arvard
Bniversity Iress.
Auilfoyle, G. #%&&J*. Dialogue and power9 a critical analysis
of power in dialogical therapy. &amil* rocess,
42#J*, JJ)4J7J.
Aulerce, A. #)55'*. An interview with @. N. Aergen #Iart I*
/ulture and self in postmodern psychology9 Dialogue
in "roubleC "ulture & s*c,olo'*, 1#)*, )764)'5.
$eims, S. N. #)55)*. "onstructin' a social science for
%ost.ar America: $,e c*bernetics 'rou%, 1>4? @
1>C3. /ambridge, GA9 "he GI" Iress.
$ibberd, !. N. #%&&'*. (nfoldin' social constructionism.
Dew For89 Springer.
$offman, <. #)55&*. /onstructing realities9 An art of lenses.
&amil* rocess, 2>#)*, )4)%.
$ui, N., /ashman, "., O Deacon, ". #%&&=*. ;ateson-s
Gethod9 Double Description. :hat is ItC $ow Does It
:or8C :hat Do :e <earnC In N. $offmeyer #Ld.*, A
le'ac* for li)in' s*stems: Fre'or* !ateson as
%recursor to biosemiotics #pp. 6645%*9 Springer.
$usserl, L. #)5=5*. +deas ertainin' to a ure
,enomenolo'* and to a ,enomenolo'ical
,iloso%,*, Second !oo9 #?. ?o,cewic O A.
Schuwer, "rans.*. Dordrecht9 @luwer Academic.
<annamann, N. #)55=*. Social "onstruction and
#aterialit*: $,e Aimits of +ndeterminac* in
$,era%eutic Settin's, 3B, J5J47)J.
<ipset, D. #)5=&*. Fre'or* !ateson: $,e le'ac* of a
scientist. ;oston9 ;eacon Iress.
<yotard, N.4!. #)5=7*. $,e %ostmodern condition: A re%ort
on 9no.led'e #A. ;ennington O ;. Gassumi,
"rans.*. Ginneapolis, GD9 Bniversity of Ginnesota
Iress.
Gachado, A. #%&&>*. oesGas com%letas. Gadrid9 Lditorial
LSIASA /A<IL.
Gaturana, $., O Tarela, !. #)5=7*. 6l arbol del
conocimiento. Santiago de /hile9 Lditorial
Bniversitaria.
Gay, ?., Angel, L., O Lllenberger, $. !. #Lds.*. #)5'=*.
6<istence: A ne. dimension in %s*c,iatr* and
%s*c,olo'*= Dew For89 ;asic ;oo8s.
Gerleau4Ionty, G. #)5>%*. ,enomenolo'* of %erce%tion=
#/. Smith, "rans.*. <ondon9 ?outledge.
Iarsons, ". #)575*. $,e structure of social action: A
stud* in social t,eor* .it, s%ecial reference to a
'rou% of recent 6uro%ean .riters. #%nd ed.*.
Alencoe, I<9 !ree Iress.
Iarsons, ". #)5')*. $,e social s*stem. Dew For89 !ree
Iress of Alencoe.
Iatton, I. #%&&&*. Deleuze and t,e %olitical. <ondon9
?outledge.
Iearce, ;. #%&&5*. /ommunication and Social /onstruction9
/laiming our birthright. In :. <eeds4$urwit O A.
Aalanes #Lds.*, Sociall* constructin'
communication #pp. JJ4'>*. /ress8ill, DN9 $ampton
Iress.
Ieirce, /.S. #)55=*. $,e 6ssential /ritin's. Dew For89
Irometheus.
?ychla8, N. !. #)55%*. !oreword. In ?. ;. Giller #Ld.*, $,e
restoration of dialo'ue: Headin's in t,e
%,iloso%,* of clinical %s*c,olo'* #pp. xv4xvi*.
:ashington, D/9 American Isychological
Association.
Shotter, N. #%&&'*. <-impossibilitR di essere se stessi.
<-incontro con l-altro nel momento responsivo. In I.
;arbetta O G. /orona #Lds.*, sicolo'ie e identitI
#pp. JJ46'*. ;ergamo, Italy9 ;ergamo Bniversity
Iress.
Shotter, N. #%&&5*. ;ateson, double description, "odes, and
embodiment9 Ireparing activities and their relation to
abduction. 7ournal for t,e $,eor* of Social
!e,a)iour, 3>#%*, %)54%7'.
Schut, A. #)577*. "he stranger9 An essay in social
psychology. American 7ournal of Sociolo'*, 4>#>,
Gay*, 7554'&6.
Schut, A. #)5>6*. $,e ,enomenolo'* of t,e Social
/orld. Lvanston, I<9 Dorthwestern Bniversity Iress.
Stam, $. N. #%&&)*. Introduction9 Social constructionism and
its critics. $,eor* & s*c,olo'*, 11#Nune*, %5)4%5>.
doi9 )&.))66M&5'5J'7J&)))J&&)
Stam, $. N. #%&&%*. Introduction9 Tarieties of social
constructionism and the rituals of critique. $,eor* &
s*c,olo'*, 12#+ctober*, '6)4'6>. doi9
)&.))66M&5'5J'7J&%&)%&&'=5J
Stengers, I. #%&))*. $,in9in' .it, /,ite,ead: A free and
.ild creation of conce%ts. /ambridge, GA9 $arvard
Bniversity Iress.
Tarela, !., "hompson, L., O ?osch, L. #)55J*. $,e
embodied mind: "o'niti)e science and ,uman
e<%erience. /ambridge, GA9 "he GI" Iress.
Copyright 2012 Communication Institute for Online Scholarship,
Inc.
This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without
written permission of the Communication Institute for Online
Scholarship, .O. !o" #$, %otterdam &ct., '( 121#0 )S* +phone,
#1-.--$.2//01.