Felix Guattari - Machine and Structure

  • Published on
    14-Apr-2015

  • View
    469

  • Download
    47

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

in Change 12

Transcript

<p>Machine and Structure'</p> <p>The distinction I am proposing betweenmachine and structure is based solely on the way we use the words; we may considerthat we are merely dealingwith a 'written device'of the kind one has to invent for dealingwith a mathematical problem.or with an axiom that ma1'have be reconsidered to at a particular stageof development, againwith the kind of machinewe shall or be talking about here. I want therefore make it clearthat I am putting into parentheses lact to the from its structuralarticulations and, that, in realitv,a machineis inseparable conversely, that each contingentslructure is dorninated(and this is what I want to demonstrate) a systemof machines, at the very leastby one logic by or machine.It seems me vital to start by establishing distinctionin order to the of to make it easierto identif,v peculiarpositions subjectivityin relationto the events and to history.2 We may say of structurethat it positions elements way of a systemof its by references rel.tes eachone to the others,in such a wav that it can itselfbe that relatedas an elementto other structures. The agent of action, whose definition here does not extend beyond this principle of reciprocal determination, is included in the structure. The structuralprocessofde-totalized totalizationencloses subject,and will the</p> <p>r . l n i t i a l l y i n t e n d e dl o r t h e F r e u d i a n S c h o o li n P a r i s i n r 9 6 9 , a n d p u b l s h e d i n C h a n g en o . t e , ( S e u i l )r, 9 7r . r. To adopt the categories suggested Gilles Deleuze,structure, in the sensein which I am using by it here, would relate to the generality characterized by a posirion oiexchange or substitution of p a r t i c u l a r i t i c sw h e r e a st h e m a c h i n e w o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e o r d e r o f r e p e t i t i o n ' a s b e h a v i o u ra n d , '1D viewpoint rel a t ive to a singul ari ty tha t can not be changedor replaccd' fJ,ire.nu ripitition,Presses et Universitaires de France, I 969, p. 7). Of Deleuze's three minimum conditions determining strucrurein general, I shall retain only the first two: (r)Theremustbeatleasttwohetcrogeneousseries,oneofwhichisdefinedasthesignifierandrhe orheras the signi6ed. (c) Each of these series is made up of terms that exist oni1, through their relationship with one another. His third condition, 'tx,o heterogeneous seriesconvergingupon a paradoxical element that actsso as to di{lerentiare them', relates,on thc contrary, exclusivelyto the order of the machine (Logique du s a r oM i n u i t , t 9 6 9 , p . 6 3 ) . ,</p> <p>I 12 f'owards a Nerv Vocabularv n o t l e rs o a s l o n ga si t i s i n a p o s r t i o no r e c u p e r a t ie w i t h i n a n o t h e r t r u c t u r a l t t s determinatior.r. 'fhe e { n r a c h i n eo n t h eo l h e r h a n d ,r e m a i n s s s e n t i a l lrv m o t e i o m t h e a g e n t , e 'fhe -fe o{ action. somer,r,here sLrbject alrval,s is else. mporaiizationpenetrates the machineon all sidesand can be related to it onl,vzrfter the lashionof an n a fr e v e n r T h e e m e r g c n c o l ' t h ci n a c h i n e r a r k s d a t e ,a c h a n g ec l i f l e r e n t o m a , e , structLlral representatiolr. 'fhe history of technologvr.sdated bv the existence each srageol a ar o t s t a i ) a r t i c u i a r 1 ' p e f ' n i a c h i n e ih e h i s t o r \o f t h e s c j e n c eis n o w r e a c h i n g p o i n t , i n a l l i t s b r a n c h e sw h e r e e v c r vs c i e n t i 6 c h e o r ) ' c a nb e t a k e na s a m a c h i n e , t rzrthel than a strlicture, rl'hich relates it to the order of ideoiogr'.Everv (almostto the point by machineis the negation.the destro;-er ir-rcorporation o f e x c r e t i o n ) o f ' t h e r n a c h i n e t r e p l a c e sA n d i t i s p o t e n t i a l l ,iv a s i m i l a r i . n , r e l a t i o n s h i po t h e m a c h i n et h a t w i l l t a k ei t s p l a c e . t Yesterdav'smachine, today's and tomorrow's, are not reiated in their structur?11 determinations: by onlv by a process historicalanal;-srs, referof r:ncetr) a signifling chain extrinsic to the machine, bv what u,e mrght call historical structur;rlism, can we gain anv overail grasp of the ei}'ects of c o n t i n u i t v . e l r o - a c t i o n n d i n t e l l i n k i n st h a t i t i s c a p a b l e f ' r e p r e s e n t i n g . r a o For the rnachrne, the subjectof history is elsewhere, the structure. In in I z r c tt,h e s u b j e c o f t h e s t r u c t u r ec o n s i d e r eid i t s r e l a t i o n s h i o f a l i e n a t i o no t . n p t trf ;1s,vstem cle-totalized totalizarion.shouid rather be seenin relation ro a of-'being ego'- the egoherebeingin contrastwrth the sub.ject an ;;'henorrrcnon o i ' t h e t r n c o n s c i o ua s i t c o r r e s p o n d so t h e p r i n c i p l es t a t e d b y L a c a n : a t s s i q n i 6 e r - r e n r e s e n t sb r a n o t h e rs i g n i f i e rT h e u n c o n s c i o us u b j e c t s s u c h i l . s a will bc on the same side as the machrne,or better perhaps.alongside the T r n a c h r r r c .h e r ei s n o b r e a ki n t h em a c h i n e t s e l f : h e b r e a c h s o n e i t h e r s i d e f i t i olt.</p> <p>The indir.'idual's relationto the machinehas beendescribed sociologists bv Friedn-rann one of lundamentalalienatjon, fi&gt;llowing as This is undoubtedl,v true ii one considersthe individual as a structure for totalization of the irnasirarl'. But the dialecticof the mastercraftsmanand the apprenticeJ rhe r.,ld picrurcsof the clillelenttradesflourishingin dillerenrpartsof the countrv, in ail this has becomemeaningl.ess the faceof modern mechanized industry ics tlrat rcqLlires skilled rvorkersto start lrom scratchagain ru'irh evel'\'new technoltrgical advance But doesnot this startingliom scratchmark precisely . that essentiai breakthroughthat characterizes unconscious the subject? Initiation into a trade and becomingaccepted a skilledrvorkerno longer as takes piace by wav of institutions,or at least not those envisaged such in s t a t e m e n t s s ' t h e s k i . l lh a s p r e c e d e n co v e r t h e m a c h i n e ' ,W i t h i n d u s t r i a l a e capitalism. the spasrnodic evolution of machirrerykeepscr-rtting acrossthe h c x i s t i n q i e r a r ,l r v o f s k i l l s .</p> <p>Machine and Structure I l3 In this sense, worker'salienationto the machineexclude him lrom any the s kind of structuralequilibrium, and puts him in a positionwhere he is as close as possibleto a radical svstemof realignment,rve might sav of castrarion, wherehe losesall tranquillity, all 'sellconfirming'security,all thejustificarionofa'senseofbelonging'to a skilledtrade.Suchprolessional bodiesasstill like doctors,pharmacists, lawyers,aresirnplysurvivals exist, or from the days of pre-capitalist productionrelations. This changeis ofcourseintolerable; instirutionalproductiontherefore sets out to concealwhat is happening by setting up systemsof equivalents, of imitations.Their ideologicalbasis is to be lound not solely in fascist-type, paternalistic slogansabout work, the lamily and patriotism,but alsowithin thevariousversionsofsocialism (evenincluding the most apparentlyliberal like the Cuban), w,ith their oppressive ones, myth of the model worker, and theirexaltationof the machinewhosecult has much the samefunctionas that o l t h e h e r oi n a n t i q u i t y . As cornpared with the work done by machines, work of human beingsis the nothrng. This working at 'nothing', in the specialsense w,hichpeopledo it in todav,r,vhich tends more and more to be merely a response a machineto pressing red or black button to producean effectprogrammedsomewhere a else human work, in other words, is only the residuethat has not yet been integrated into the w'orkof the machine. Operations performed by workers, techniciansand scientistswill be absorbed, incorporated into the workings of tomorrow's machine; to do something over and over no longeroffersthe securityofritual. It is no longer possible identif. the repetition human actior.Is ('the noble task of the to of with the repetitionof the natural cycleas the loundationolthe moral sower') order.Repetitionno longer estabiishes man as someonewho can do that a particularjob.Human work today is merelya residualsub-whole the work of of the machine. Tfris residual human activity is no more than a partial procedure that accompanies central procedureproducedby the order of the The machinehasnow cometo theheartofdesire, and thisresidual the machine. humanwork represents more than the point of the machine's imprint no 'a'3). onthe imaginary world of the individual (cf. Lacan's functionof the Everv new discovery- in the sphereof scientificresearch, examplelor moves acrossthe structuralfieid oftheorv like a w,armachine,upsettingand rearranging everythingso as to changeit radically.Even the researcher at is themercyof this process. His discoveries extendlar beyondhimself,bringing in their train u,holenew branches ofresearchers, and totally redesigning the treeof scientificand technological implications.Even when a discoveryis called its author's name, the result,far lrom 'personalizing' by him, tends toOhjelpetil 3. SeeGlossar.v, 'a'.</p> <p>r 14 Towards a New Vocabulary</p> <p>be to turn his proper name into a cornmonnoun! The questionis whetherthis eflacing of the individual is something that will spread to other forms of productionas weli. Though it is true that this unconscious subjectivity,as a split which is overcome in a signifying chain, is being transferred away lrom individuals and human groups towards the world of machines,it still remainsjust as un-representable the specifically at machinic level. It is a signilierdetached from the unconsciousstructural chain that will acI as representallue to represen t the machine. The essence the machine is preciselythis lunction ofdetaching a signi6er of as a reprsentative.as a'di{Ierentiator', as a causal break, di{ferent in kind lrom the structurally established order of things. It is this operation that binds the macirineboth to the desiringsubjectand to its statusas the basisof the various structurai orders correspondingto it. The machine,as a reperition of the particuiar, is a mode - perhapsindeed the onlv possiblemode - of univocal repfesentation the various forms of subjectivitvin the order ofi of generalityon the individual or the collective plane. In trying to see things the other wav round, startinglrom the general, one would be deluding oneselfwith the idea that it is possibl"to baseoneself on sonlestructural spacethat existedbeforethe breakthroughby the machine. This'pure', 'basic'signifving chain,a kind oflost Eden ofdesire, the'goodold days' before mechanization,rnight then be seen as a meta-language, an absolute relerence point that one could alwaysproducein placeofany chance eventor specific indication. 'Ihis would lead to wronglv locating the truth of the break, the truth of the subject,on the level of representation, information, communication,social codesand ever)'otherlorm ofstructural determination. T'hevoice asspeech machine,is the basisand determinantolthe structural , order oi language,and not the other way round. The individual, in his bodiliness,acceptsthe consequences ofthe interaction ofsignifying chains of all kincis which cut across and tear him apart. Th human being is caught where the machine and the structure meet. Human groups have no such projection screen available to them. The rnodes of interpretation and indication open to them are successiveand contradictory, approximative and meraphorical, and are based upon di{Iererit structural orders, for instance on myths or exchanges. Every change produced by the inrusion of a machine phenomenon will thus be accom. panied in them with the estabiishment of what one may call a system of anti-production, the representativemode specificto structure. I need hardly say that anti-production belongs to the order of the machine:the keynotehere is its characteristic change, ofbeing a subjective which is the distinctive trait of ever),order of production. What w'e need</p> <p>lr,r</p> <p>tr)A^a/J2_</p> <p>J.</p> <p>?^tn"t</p> <p>Machine and Structure I I5 moving as though by magic thereloreis a meansof finding our way r.r,ithout relateto the same systemof from one plane to another.We must, lor instance, productionboth what goeson in the worid ofindustry, on the shopfloor or in research, and indeed the manager's ofFce,and what is happeningin scientihc in the world of literatureand evenof dreams, Anti-production rvill be, among other things, what has been described 'production relations'.Anti-production will tend to e{Iecta under the term in kind ofre-tilting of the balance ofphantasy,not necessarily the directionof within a given inertia and conservatism, sinceit can alsolead to generalizing socialarea a new dominant mode of production,accumulation,circulation and distribution rela!ions,or ofany other superstructural manifestation ofa is nervt,vpe economicmachine.Its mode of imaginarvexpression then that of of the transitionalphantasv. Let us then look at the other end ofthe chain,the levelofdream production. We may identify anti-productionwith working out the manifestcontentof a dream,in contrastto the latent productionslinked with the impulsemachine petit'a', described Lacan as the root The objet that constitutepart objects. by of desire,the umbilicus of the dream, also breaksinto the structural equilibrium of the individual like someinfernalmachine.The subjectfinds it is being petit rejectedbv itself. In proportion with the changewrought by objet-maehine 'a'in the structural field ofrepresentation, successive formsofotherness take their places for it, each fashioned to fit a particular stage of the process. Individual phantasizingcorresponds this mode ofstructural signposting to by meansofa specificlanguagelinked with the ever-repeated urgingsofthe 'machinations' desire. of petit 'a', irreducible, unable to be The existence of this objet-machine into the relerences to absorbed ofthe structure,this 'selfforitself' that relates theelements the structureonly by meansof splittingand metonymy,means of leads that the representation oneself meansof the'stencils'of language of by 'otherness'. The to a deadend, to a breakingpoint, and the needfor a renewed objectofdesire de-centresthe individual outside himself,on the boundariesof the other; it represents the impossibility of any complete refuge of the self inside to oneself, but equally the impossibilityof a radicalpassage the other. Indi','idual this it phantasvrepresents impossiblemergingof di{Ierentlevels; is thisthat makesit diflerentlrom group phantasizing, a group has no such for 'hitchingposts' no of desire on its surfiace, such remindersof the order ol specific zones,and their capacitvlor touching truths as the body's erogenous andbeingtouchedby other people. Group phantasy superimposes dillerent levels,changesthem round, the substitutes for another.It can onlv turn round and round upon itself.This one circular moveme...</p>

Recommended

View more >