Customer Reviews

Deleuze: The Clamor of Being

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Amazingly enough, I was unaware of this book until Slavoj Zizek recommended it during a public lecture several days ago. Zizek was right to recommend it, but there's actually far more to the book than he let on.

Many of us in Continental philosophy have been deeply fascinated by Deleuze for years, but have never quite been able to define just what it is he's doing. It has been extremely difficult to integrate Deleuze with the stream of thinkers running from Husserl through Heidegger and beyond. Most Deleuzians have not been especially helpful in clarifying things, since they tend to be satisfied with a series of negative remarks about Plato, Hegel, et al., and hardly further the work of their hero except to propagate lame simulacra of his wonderful style.

With respect to this problem, Badiou's book is a bolt from the blue. He begins the book by frankly stating that 20th century philosophy was far more important for its focus on being than for its supposed linguistic turn. This would be a predictable statement from a dogmatic Heideggerian, but Badiou doesn't seem to be a champion of Heidegger at all, which makes the reader's ears refreshingly alert for the argument that follows.

What we receive from Badiou is: a) a very judicious account of what Heidegger's unique contribution to philosophy really is; b) a shocking but believable claim that Deleuze is Heidegger's most direct heir; and c) a masterful statement of those points on which in Badiou's opinion Deleuze goes far beyond Heidegger. This is not only the clearest statement I have ever heard of Deleuze's basic ideas, but one of the best such treatments of Heidegger as well. And all of it in just a handful of pages! Suddenly, Deleuze emerges as not just a lovable and hard-to-place flamethrower, but as the foreboding Crown Prince of a post-Heideggerian century. Wonderful and believable! I now want to go back and re-read all of Deleuze.

Badiou also hits upon an excellent idea in including as an appendix all of the key passages from Deleuze on which his interpretation is based. We all ought to do this in our commentaries from now on.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the Univ. of Minnesota Press on developing a striking new format for the Theory Out of Bounds series in which Badiou's book is published. With its floppy front cover and huge overhead margins, the book looks and feels more like an elementary school workbook than a dry academic tome. As a result, the reader cannot resist making Medieval-style commentaries along the top and side of every page. Talk about "the end of the book" all you like, but whoever designed this series has done far more to alter the genre of philosophical books than most would-be revolutionaries in academia.

In sum, this is an invigorating work that puts to shame the tedious wordplay of so much American Continental thought. I now look forward to ordering Badiou's major work, L'Etre et L'Evenement.

I wish to concur with the first reviewer on the intelligence and importance of this volume.

I also wish to suggest that there is a downside to it, namely that Badiou vastly underestimates the work Deleuze did with Guattari, and seems to underestimate the importance of this work for Deleuze himself. Insofar as there is a classical philosophical side to Gilles, there is also a thoroughly anarchistic, antiphilosophical, schitzophrenic side, which must not be underestimated, and which often leads him to talk about things he does not totally grasp. This side to Deleuze is underplayed by Badiou who largely attempts to sanitize Deleuze, to rehabilitate him into the core of continental philosophy and disregard, to a certain extent, that Deleuze himself would

Badiou's attempt is not misguided; on the contrary, it is largely correct. Deleuze occasionally becomes the most analytical French thinker of his generation (see his Nietzsche and Philosophy, for example), writing only too clearly and consistently. Badiou reads this way of thinking correctly, understanding it as indicative of Deleuze's relationship to his intellectual genealogy and environment.

Nonetheless, Badiou's attempt is insufficient and incomplete. So, unless you are trying to fit Deleuze into the straightjacket of the more classical philosophical tradition (as opposed to, perhaps, a more postmodern one), you should be advised against considering it your only guide to his work. On the other hand, if you are trying to erase any connections between Deleuze and his "predecessors," and insist on his "wacky" side as "cool," be advised to return to this book again and again, as well as to return to the traditions he emerged from, an emergence to which this is a fairly good guide.

In any case, read this book. You'll learn a lot. And you'll fight with it a lot, only to come out much improved, and not only insofar as reading Deleuze is concerned.

To begin, i should note that prior to reading Badiou's book, much of Deleuze's earlier work had remained mysterious to myself. Thus, i am not in much of a position to offer any real challenge to Badiou's interpretation of "Difference and Repetition" and "The Logic of Sense." Regardless, if nothing else, the interpretation that Badiou gives is clearly presented. Although this sounds trivial, the clarity in this book is appreciated in a genre where clarity if usually disregarded, and unfortunately, often for mere stylistic (and not philosophical) reasons. Thus, because of this "Deleuze: The Clamor of Being," although dealing with difficult topics, can be understood by anybody with some knowledge of Deleuze, even if this knowledge is not extensive.

The clarity of the presentation, however, almost seems too obvious. That is, the way in which Badiou describes Deleuze's "philosophy of the One," and the quotes that he extracts to demonstrate this claim, make this thesis to be obvious to anybody who has read Deleuze. However, clearly this is not the case, as Badiou himself recognizes that this book should shock those who take pride in Deleuze's "schizophrenic" aspect. Thus, merely taking Badiou's interpretation of Deleuze, and the fact that so many thinkers have overlooked what he presents as information that should be clear to any reader, this gives me the uneasy feeling that he, and not these other thinkers, has missed something fundamental in Deleuze's thought. This, of course, necessitates a re-reading of Deleuze's own work, something that "Deleuze: The Clamor of Being" necessitates, i believe, for anybody who overlooked the first time around what Badiou reveals as self-evident to any acute reader.

As a previous reviewer pointed out, Badiou gives little interest to Deleuze's work with Guattari. However, although there definitely is a schizophrenic aspect to this work (especially in "A Thousand Plateaus"), it seems as if the fundamental concept of the Body Without Organs corresponds in most, if not all, ways to the concept of the virtual/ the One. Badiou does occasionally use ideas expressed in Deleuze's work with Guattari, especially "What is Philosophy" concerning the status of philosophy, however, he fails to cite these sources.

Additionally, it seems to me as if the interpretation that Badiou gives to Deleuze's work indicates more of a pantheistic vision that one that indicates transcendence. Of course, there is a bit of irony to write that Deleuze has "transposed transcendence beneath the simulacra of the world, in some sort of symmetrical relation to the `beyond' of classical transcendence," but regardless of the irony, the very idea of Being as univocal and as One chimes much more with eastern worldviews than western Platonic and Christian ideas of transcendence. This especially seems to be the case when we consider Deleuze's work with Guattari in which all strata (that is, all different properties of the world that surrounds us) are merely "coagulations, slowing-downs on the Body without Organs."

Finally, even if Deleuze's ontology indicates "heirarchical thought," this doesn't mean that Deleuze's task, therefore, is to "submit thought to a renewed concept of the One." In fact, it seems to me as if there is a crucial distinction in his work with Guattari between "methodological" claims and ontological claims. Rather than encouraging us to employ reductionist schemas in our analyses of any given system, the very title "a thousand plateas" indicates that we need to take into account as many different aspects at work as possible-- biological, economical, polotical, geological, etc. (this distinction between a methodology of multiple aspects of reality and an ontological expressing only One fundamental reality is continued in Manual Delanda's appropriation of Deleuze and Guattari's thought in "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History.")

Despite these further considerations that would have been made necessicary had Badiou taken into account Deleuze's work with Guattari, "Deleuze: The Clamor of Being" provides a tremendously useful, and strikingly clear, interpretation of Deleuze's independent work to the point that it necessitates a re-reading of this work.

In the 1970s Harold Bloom focused on poetic misprision. This is the intentional or unconscious misunderstanding of a master, poetic or philosophical, who has occupied so much ground that s/he must be distorted in order to create a space for the follower. This distortion, named in the most basic form (after Lucretius) clinamen -- the swerve -- misrepresents the parent text, allowing the subsequent to proclaim a mastery over the parodic picture presented as the original. While Badiou is very important, smart, and interesting in his own right, this re-packaging of Deleuze is a projection of his own program's need for "Lebensraum." While Badiou does not give us Deleuze's own letters to him (perhaps out of "respect"?), he usually quotes D out of context and by leaping from work to work to create a pastiche of the Deleuze he wishes to construct. Even the bit used for his title -- the clamor of being - is only part of the sentence without its modification and ripped from a two page paragraph. All this is interesting but not high fidelity: read it like an Oedipal assault or like Griswold's treatment of Poe. However, I do not think it is a fair, accurate, or even valid treatment of Deleuze.

I urge anyone interested in Deleuze to read this book, which is a interesting critical assessment of G.D.'s thought. Deleuze would be flattered and irritated to see his work read as he has read other thinkers. Badiou transforms Deleuze's work into that which it was not, while ever maintaining the singularity of Badiou's own project. Suggestive but polemical Alain Badiou struggles to step from out of the shadow of his only true precusor -- he admits as much in the introduction. In a move that should make Harold Bloom proud, Badiou produces a "strong misprison" of Deleuze's work, casting him in the ranks of a crypto-theo-philosopher. Taking a great many cues from Phenomenology and the "Theological Turn" by Dominique Janicaud, who compared Badiou's L'etre et l'evenement to Being and Time, Badiou is more interested in reducing Deleuze and his work to a form ascesis. A reduction that shifts the points of engagement between Badiou and his most formidable precusor away from mathematics and the idea of the multiple to nothing more -- and little else -- than a kindly father confessor is a strategic move that may render "his" Anti-Oedipus blind and pious, but defies the logic of sense.

Published in the original French merely two years after Deleuze's death, Badiou, in his scathing, nigh malicious, introduction to Deleuze: The Clamor of Being goes so far as to identify himself as a `Bolshevik' and Deleuze as a `Fascist', before challenging, disseminating & dismissing Deleuze's key concepts throughout the book, by persuasively exposing their contradictions, mocking their valor & confuting their foundation, leaving them solely to implode on their own absurdities.
Consequentially, both philosophers come out on top in this strategic conflux of discourse, once more challenging the parameters of philosophy itself and its intellection of being.
Badiou's is a seasoned stage, certainly not for a novice to dialectics, but well worth the bother for anyone enticed by the controversy of rational thought.

Postmodernism. What are we supposed to make of the stuff? It's all written in a stream of consciousness style by obsessive compulsives. And most of their arguments are circular and utterly unconcerned with facts. Well, here's the best start. Badiou explains everything Deleuze wrote on his own simply and coherently, which many of Deleuze's disciples do not. And best of all, he doesn't do it in a superior, combative tone. He even explains why Deleuze's disciples are all so combative and superior. (Something to do with cynicism on Deleuze's part.)

Though I will say, if you're a science studies type and you're rigorous in your thought, you'd best do to steer clear of this book. Because your rigor usually comes from willfull blindess.

Caveat to any scientific types: Badiou is an unabashed vitalist. I don't know what his defense here is. The way they usually defend themselves sounds a lot like that line "If I have a choice between the state and my friend, I hope I have the good sense to choose my friend." That is, he appeals to raw uninterpretable first-person experience over third person points of view. With the fact that the Flynn effect remains unexplained and preformationism has turned out right (all life is, literally, is just the result of folds in DNA), this may not be such a bad thing.

Now for fun, once you've read this book, you can read Derrida's Postcard and see why it's one of the most compulsively amusing books ever written. (The difference between Deleuze and Derrida? Derrida is flat-out hilarious and provides the raw uninterpretable experience that he describes.)