7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGEQJHQWDRQWHQWLVWULEXWLRQ3V3UHVV7LWOHV2Q0DUFKFFHV ID: 497225
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 7 K L V D U W L F O H Z D V G R Z Q O R D G H G E \ � , Q J H Q W D & R Q W H Q W ' L V W U L E X W L R Q 3 V \ 3 U H V V 7 L W O H V @ 2 Q 0 D U F K $ F F H V V G H W D L O V �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f \n ' H O H X ] H D Q G * X D W W D U L \n V / D V W ( Q L J P D W L F 0 H V V D J H \n $ Q J H O D N L b Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ANGELAKIjournalofthetheoreticalhumanitiesvolume10number2august2005experimentingwithwhatisphilosophy?ormany,GillesDeleuzeslastmessage,isPhilosophy?,writtentogetherwithFelixGuattari,cameasasurprise,evenassomethingofadisappointment.Indeed,inWhatiswefaceastrongdifferentiationbetweenthecreationswhicharepropertophilo-sophy,toscience,andtoart.Iwillleaveartasideandconcentrateonthedifferentiationbetweenphilosophyasacreationofconcepts,andscienceasdealingwithfunctions.Moreprecisely,Iwilltrytoapproachthestrikingaf rmationthatconceptsandfunctionsmaywellintersect,butonlyaftereachhasachieveditsownspeci cself-ful lment. isabellestengersDELEUZEANDGUATTARISLASTENIGMATICMESSAGEISSN0969-725Xprint/ISSN1469-2899online/05/020151^172005Taylor&FrancisandtheEditorsofAngelakiDOI:10.1080/09697250500417399 151 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 andeffectuatedfollowingalinethatbelongsneithertotheinitiatorsnortothereaderbuthappensbetweenthem.Notcommentingbuteffectuatingmeansexperi-mentingwithalinethatisnotthatofthebook,butwhich,iftheeffectuationisnotafailure,shouldconnectdifferentaspectsofthisbookthatother-wisewouldappearasindependent.Theeffectua-tionlineIwillexperimentwithstemsfrommyconvictionthat,inspiteoftheseeminglyclassi-caloutlookofWhatisPhilosophy?,whichdisappointedmanyreaders,thisbookmaywellbethemostpoliticalofDeleuzesbooks.Itishisonebookthataddressesitsreaderasifhewereperhapsafriend,butatthattwilighthourwhenonedistrustseventhefriend,eventheonewhohadmostenthusiasticallyfollowedthegreatopen-ingofpossibilitiesthatDeleuzianthemeshaveinspired.Here,thecrucialproblemmaywellbethatwelackresistancetothepresent,andtoresistheredoesnotmeantocriticizeortodenouncebuttoconstruct.Forinstance,whenwereadthatphilosophershavenotbeensuf cientlyconcernedwiththenatureoftheconceptasphilosophicalreality,thepointwouldnotbe,orwouldnotonlybe,todealwithaquestionofspecialinterestforphilosophers,aclosureonaprofessionaldomain,itwouldbepartoftheproblemofthislackofresistance,aproblemthatscienceandprobablyartalsoshare,entailingtheverystronglikelihoodoftheirdestruction.Butthepointisalsonothowtoavoiddestructionasifitwerethecentralquestion,asifourworldwouldloseitsverysoulifphilosophy,orscience,orartweretobecomepartofadestroyedpast.If,asIreadit,Whatisisindeedapoliticalbook,thepointisthatlearninghowtoresistisataskwhichtoleratesnoeconomy.Nogreatmasterword(motdordredesignatingacommonenemymaysparethosewhobelongtoathreatenedpracticefromaskingwhatkindofspeci cvulnerabilitythisenemyisexploitingsincehe(orit)doesnotneedtouseviolent,repressivemeans.Thustheseeminglymodesttaskofapedagogyoftheconceptmaywellbetheonlywayforphilosophytosituateitselfamongotherthreatenedpractices,eachfromthepointofviewofitsownspeci ccapacitytoresist.Foreachofthem,thepointwouldbeitsownspeci cbadwill,whatforcesittothinkandcreate,asopposedtogoodwill,beingallowedtothinkbyconsensualevidence.Eventhejoyfulaf rmationofproductiveconnexionsmayturnintogoodwill,leadingtoanabsolutedisasterforthoughtwhateveritsbene tsmightbe,ofcourse,fromtheviewpointofuniversalTheexperimentationonWhatisPhilosophy?willproposestemsfromthisguess.IwilltryandaddressdisappointedDeleuzianfriends,whowonderaboutDeleuzessuddenlyacriticalturn,whodeplorethefactthatheseemstohavesuddenlyforgottenhehasbeenthinkingallhislifeagainsttheimageofthoughtassociatedwithdominantphilosophy,andhaschosentocelebrateallgreatphilosophers.Iwillexperimentwiththefeelingthat,atthistwilighthour,WhatisasksustoconsiderwhatDeleuzesfavouriteconceptualpersona,theidiot,keepssayingwhileothershurrytowardsconsensualgoals:thattheremaybesomethingmoreimportant.Somethingmoreimportantdoesnotmeansomethingwhichwouldtranscendourdisagreementsandreconcileusaroundasacredcause.Theidiotisunabletomobilizeorconvince;perhapshecanslowdownthemobilizationandhavesomemobilizedcertaintiesstutter.Theidiotwillneveracknowledgethatsome-bodyhascorrectlyunderstoodwhatwasmoreimportant.Itisthetaskforeveryonetolearnandfeelwhereandhowhisorherslowingdownandstutteringactuallyhappened.MyexperimentalreadingstemsfromthefeelingthatDeleuzeandGuattariwerebothaddressingtheirepoch,thatistheirfriends,anddistrustingitandthem,askingustothinkwiththeepochalfactthatbadwillassuchcannolongerbetakenforgranted.Thisiswhymyreadingwilltakethereadertoastillmoreacriticalposition.Itmaywellbethatwhatwevitallyneednowistohonourwhatforcesustoescapegoodwillandconsensualthought,whatindeedcausesustodivergeandtothink,eachwithdivergingmeans.Anditmaywellbethatwhatwehavetohonourwilldesignateusassurvivors,havingtodisentangleourselvesfromallthewordswhichdesignatedoursurvivalassomethingwediddeserve. lastenigmaticmessage 152 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 mattersoffactandstatesofaffairsLetus rstaddressthequestionofscienti cfunctions,andbeginwithasmallproblemoftranslation.WhenthetranslatorsofWhatisdealtwiththeclaimthatscienti cfunctionsrefertodesetatsdechoses,theychosetotranslatetatsdechosesasstatesofaffairs.Thishasratherstrangeconsequenceswhenthosestatesofaffairsarecontrastedwiththings(andafterthatwithbodies).Withtheliteraltranslationstateofthings,thecontrastdoesnotbearonaffairsasdistinguishedfromthings,butonthepresenceandabsenceofstates.Thisisameaningfulcontrast.Indeed,thetriumphofthenotionofstate,atthecentreofdynamics,isconditionedbytheindependenceofthedynamicvariablesenteringintostatefunctions.DeleuzeandGuattarischaracterizationofthingsasentailingvariablesthatarefunctionsofeachother(energeticcoordinatesofcoupledsystems)thusratherellipticallydramatizedthechallengewhichproducednineteenth-centurythermody-namics,withthedistinctionbetweenexternal,controllingvariablesandinternalones,andthelossoftherealistvalueassociatedwiththenewkindsof(thermodynamic)statefunctionswhichnowderivefromentropy.Iwouldguessthatthestateofaffairstranslationstemsfromthefactthattheusualtranslationfortatsdechosesismatteroffact,andthatmatteroffactbelongstoanempiricisttraditionthatthetranslatorscouldnotendorse.Statesofaffairs,incontrast,mayrefertothelucid,socialconstructiviststancethatwhateverscientistsclaims,theycanneverescapestatesofaffairsforsomepuri edmatteroffact.Whatevertheirachievement,itwillalwaysrefertoastateofaffairs.Butthenwouldwhatwecallthingsorbodiesnottranscendourstatesofaffairs?Itmaywellbethatherethetranslatorsstoppedtryingtounder-stand(thosepagesarethemostellipticalandobscureonesinthebook,anyway).Myguessmaywellbewrong,butIwilltakeitasaproblematicstartingpoint.Letusforgetaboutthedistinctionbetweenstatesofthings,things,andbodies;thechallengeisthattheyarenotdescribedintermsofaffairs.InordertodramatizethischallengeIwilldesignatethemallusingtheoppositetermthatIsuspectthetranslatorswishedtoavoid:mattersoffact.ItseemsthatDeleuzeandGuattariacceptthatfunctionsmaybede nedbyareferencewhichwouldbecharacterizedasamatteroffact,thatisasholdingtogetherbythemselves,andnotasobtainingtheirde nitionfromthestatesofaffairsandthepowerdimensionsthatthosestatesofaffairsinclude.AreaderofMilleplateaus,whoenjoyedthecharacterizationofRoyalScience,canonlybedisappointed.Iwassuchareader,anditisthis rstdisappointmentwhichledmetoapoliticalreadingofWhatisPhilosophy?Inowneedtocomplicatetheproblembyrecallinganotheraspectofthesituation,theexplicitthesisofDeleuzeandGuattarithatIstartedwith,namelythatitisonlyintheirfullmaturitythatphilosophyandsciencemayinter-sect.Inotherwords,DeleuzeandGuattariseemtocreateaprivilegeforwhatisusuallycalledsciencemadeagainstthevivid,open,riskyconstructionofscienceinthemaking,whilemostcontemporarystudiesprivilegescienceinthemakingastherelevantaccesstoscience.Inordertodramatizethisstrangechoice,Iwillrefertothecontrastbetweensciencemadeandscienceinthemakingascharacterizedpower-fullybyBrunoLatourinhiswell-knownScienceinbyadouble,Janus-like gure.Onefaceisthatofabeardlessyouthdescribingtheriskyproductionofscienti cfactsandtheirsocialconstructivedimensions,asthisproductionrequiresthecomingtogetherofpeoplewhoseinterestmustbegainedandwhoparticipateintheveryde nitionofthemeaningandimportanceofthescienti cfacts.Theotherfaceisthatofanoldbeardedmanexplainingtherobustnessofsciencebyitstruth,byitsobjectivity,byitsrespectofsettledmattersoffact,andsoon.ThisJanus-like guremaybesuf cienttoexplainwhyDeleuzeandGuattariclaimedthatphilosophersshouldrefrainfrominterveninginthecollectiveconstructionofscienceinthemaking,eveniftheyoungbeardlessscientistisquitereadytowelcomethem,toquotethem,andtogaintheirinterest.Theyshouldresistthetemptation,resistbeingseducedbytheopennessofscienceinthemaking,andalsoresist stengers 153 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 believingthattherewouldbenewsciencescontradictingtheclosed,dogmaticcharacterofsciencemade,becausethetwofacesoffernocontradictionbutacontrast,acontrastedunity.Thekindofsciencethattheyouthhaslearnedisthebeardedone.Heisspeakingaboutaprobleminconstructionbutheknowsthatifheistosucceed,ifthestoryoftheconstructionistobetoldasthestoryofascienti cachievement,itwillbetoldinthetermsofthebeardedoldman.Inotherwords,thedreamsoftheyouth,hisambi-tions,arebeardedones.Ifhesucceedsandgetsthebeardofhisdreams,philosopherswillbeleftoutsidebecausethesuccessful,stable,maturede nitionofmattersoffactwillberelatedtosciencesownspeci cmeans.ButDeleuzeandGuattarialsoaskphilosopherstoresistunderstandingadescriptionsuchasBrunoLatoursasadenunciation:thebeardedoldmanwouldjustbelyingsincewhathecelebratesthepowerofmattersoffactaspuri edfromstatesofaffairswouldjustbeasociallystabilizedstateofaffairs.Theyaskusnottoconsensuallyrecognizethatifphilosophersareleftoutsidematuresciencethenitisnot,ornotonly,becausethematurescientistshaveacquiredthesocialpowertoclaimthattheirresultsarepurelyscienti c.Indeed,whenDeleuzeandGuattaride nedthecreationofscienti cfunctionbysciencesownspeci cmeanstheycertainlydidnotagreewiththeoldbearded-faceexplanation,buttheyneverthelessaskedustorelatescienceascreationwithsciencesownspeci cmeans,whichareassociated,onewayortheother,withthepossibilityofascientistgettingabeard.Ofcourse,thetemptationtodenouncethebeardedoldfaceisstrong.Abittoostrongformewhenthecontrastbetweenthetwofacesisnotalivesomeso-calledsciencesdoindeedseemtobebornwithabeard.ThisiswhyIwillconcentrateonexperimentalsciences;intheircasewecertainlymayimagine,wishfor,andstruggleforalessdissociatedoramnesicpersonalitythantheJanusone,forabeardedoldmanwhowouldrememberandcelebratetheadventuroussocialprocesswhichanyscienti cachievemententails,insteadofdescribingtheachievedresultasthedirectconsequenceofanormal,rationalmethod.Thismayindeedappearasthemostimportantchal-lenge,inpoliticalterms,becausethepricepaidforthereductionofexperimentalachievementtoanormal,rationaloperationisthegeneralauthorityattributedtosuchanoperation,thatisthede nitionofscienceandscienti cexpertiseaswhatIwouldcallthethinkingheadofmankind.Thisiswhysocialconstructivismmaysoeasilybeidenti edwithpoliticalemancipationagainsttheauthorityofscience.Thebeardeddreamsmaywellentailimportantproblemsofpoliticalpower,butfollowingmyreadingoftheoriginalpoliticalstanceofWhatisthereissomethingthatisstillmoreimportant.Indeed,theresultofthedenialthatsciencewouldhavespeci cmeansisthat,whateverthescienti cproposition,weknowhowtoresist.Wewouldnotneedtocreateinordertoresistthebeardeddream,wewouldjustneedtorecognizeit.Itisbecauseofthisinstantrecogni-tionthatmanyreaderswillhaveidenti edBrunoLatoursproblematiccontrastbetweenthetwofacesofthescientistassocialconstructivism:theyrecognizedthepossibilityofderidingtheoldbeardedface,ofclaimingthatbehindanyscienti c(matterof)factthereisa(stateof)affairsdressedwiththesocialpowertoparadeasauthorizingscienti cclaims.ThisispreciselythepathDeleuzeandGuattarirefusedtotakewhentheychosetocelebratethematurescienti cfunction(andmatteroffact)asacreation(scienceisacreationoffunctions).Asociallystabilizedstateofaffairs,havingacquiredconsensualauthority,allowingscientiststofeelthattheyknowwhattheyaresaying,orthattheycande newhattheyareobserving,istheverycharacterizationofwhatDeleuzeandGuattariproposedtonamefunctionsofthelived(tionsduve):functionswhoseargumentsareconsensualperceptionsandaffections.Forthosefunctions,thereisnocreation,onlyrecognition.DeleuzeandGuattariwonderedwhetherallthehumansciencesshouldbeincludedinthiscategory:howeversophisticatedlypresentedorstatisticallyveri edtheywouldconstitutejustscienti copinion.ButtheydidnothesitatewithregardtologicasitcomestodominatephilosophywhenphilosophyfollowstheroutemarkedoutbyFregeandRussell:logicismheraldsthevery lastenigmaticmessage 154 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 triumphofgoodwillfunctionsdependingonstatesofaffairs,functionswhoseargumentdependsonconsensualrecognition.ForDeleuzeandGuattari,identifyingscienceorwhateverotherpracticeasaquestionofstatesofaffairsonlyisnotalucidstatementbutisthedenialoftheirrelationwithcreation.Inotherwords,thereiscertainlyastrongappealinthestatesofaffairsdisenchant-mentofscience,butitisaconsensualappeal,whichcreatesnopossibilityofresistingtheprobabilitythatthefunctionsofthelivedwillcometode neeverything.Suchalucididenti cationhasastrongsenseoftruth,butthisisthepoisoningtasteofresentment:itmeanstellingscientists:wakeup,youarejustlikeeverybodyelse.And,asisalwaysthecasewithresentment,itisparticipatinginthedestructionofwhatismoreimportant,namelythecapacitytoIwillcertainlynottakeasacon rmationofmythesisthedreadfulhistoricalironythatsocialconstructivismmaybedescribedasunwittinglycollaboratinginthedestructionofthoseveryaspectsofsciencethatitderided.Asweknow,scientistsarenowaskedmoreandmoreinsistentlytorenouncetheirdreamsandtodeservethemoneytheyget.Andinordertodeservemoneytheyareaskedtoforgetaboutthedistinctionbetweenscienti cmattersoffactandstatesofaffairs.Forinstance,biotechnology,andthepossibilitytoinsertnewgenesinagenome,innowaymeansthatbiologywouldbeabletode nethefunctionarticulatingtheso-calledgeneswiththefeaturestheyaremeanttoexplain,butthisdoesnotmatter:whatmattersisthattheproduc-tionofgeneticallymodi edorganisms(GMOs)hasaveryinterestingstrategicmeaningforindustrialstatesofaffairs.Thisisnotacon rmationthatimpliesthatthesocialconstructivistanalysiswouldbeobjectivelyguilty,asStalinistswouldputit.Butitiscon rmationthatweliveinadangerousworldandthatwhenonetakestheeasyconsensualpathofdenouncinganddeconstructingothersdreams,thereisalwaysthedangerofdiscoveringthatonehasstrangebedfellows.Thereissomethingmoreimportant,welackresistancetothepresent.We,here,meansallofus,whateverour(good)will.Eachpracticeisweakenedbyitsownpoisons,isinfectedbyitsownlackofresistance.ThedissociatedpersonalityoftheJanus-likescientists,thewaythebeardedoldmandescribesasamatterofgeneralmethodologythescienti cde nitionofamatteroffact,indeedpoisonsscientistsandmakesthemunabletoresistthereductionoftheirpracticetotechnoscience,toresisttheblindconfusionbetweenwhatDeleuzeandGuattariinsistmustbede nedascreationandthegeneralpowertomanipulate.Butwearealsopoisoned,lackingresistancetothepresent,wheninallsinceritywedenouncethebeardeddreamsofscience,forget-tingtocreatethemeanstoresistbeingjoinedbyotherswhohaveundertakentodestroythedreamer.Resistanceisamatterofcreation,notofsincerity.DeleuzeandGuattariwerenotsincerewhencelebratingmaturescience;theydidnotparticipateinasincere,consensualbeliefintheautonomyofscience.Celebratingmaturescienceascreation,theyendeavouredtocreatemeansphilosophicalmeanstotellanotherstory,toescapetheconsensualoppositionbetweentheclaimsofabeardedscienceandthecriticaldeconstructionoftheseclaims.ThisistheprocessofcreationInowwishtocontinue.scientificfunctionsascreationsLetusstartagain,explicitlytakingintoaccountwhatDeleuzeandGuattariseemtoignore,namelythesocialconstructiveactivityofscienceinthemaking.Howdoweneverthelesscharacterize(mature)scienti cfunctionsandtheirreferredmattersoffactascreation;thatis,howdoweresisttheimageofscienceasasimplecaseofsocialconstruction,producingfunctionsofthelived?Howdowetell,whenascienti cfunctionhasbeencreated,thatsomethingnewhasenteredtheAgain,BrunoLatourhelpsushere.InPandorasHopehedescribesthekindofstateofaffairstheyoungunbeardedscientistmustorganizeinordertosucceedinmeetingthedemandsofascienceinthemaking.Thisisacomplextaskindeed,asitincludesfourkindsofongoing,distinct,andcorrelatedprocessesofsocialconstruction.Inorderforhisworktobepossible,togainimportance,andtoachieveconsideration,aninnovativescientisthastoform stengers 155 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 withstateorindustrialpowers,soastogetthemtodecidethattheyindeedneedthekindsofresultsheisworkingtoobtain.Hehastoacademicrecognition,meaningthattheacademicdemandsandcriteriaforthenewinnovative eldwillthenbetherelevantones,asautonomouslyproducedanddiscussedbycol-leaguesinthisnew eld.Hehastosucceedintheworld,meaninggettingtheneededresources,i.e.,therelevantinstrumentsbutalsotheambitious,innovativewell-educatedstudentswithaninterestin,andloyaltyto,thenew eld.Finally,hehastoproduceapublicrepresentationofthis eld,thatishaveitacceptedasthelegitimateoutcomeofscienti cprogress,asrationallyansweringimportantquestionswhichdoorshouldinteresteveryone,and/oraspromis-ingpositiveconsequencesforhumandevelopmentandwell-being.Assuch,eachofthesefourprocessesofconstructionisnotspeci c.Theirstrongcorrela-tionisalreadymorespeci c,becauseifoneofthemfailsthentheotherswillbedenouncedaspathologicalinonewayoranother.Butwhatmakesthemallproperlyscienti cisthe fthongoingactivitywhichLatourcharacterizesasthemakingofLinksandKnots.Thisdesignatesthekindofactivitymostscientistswouldde neaswhattrulymatters,theactualproductionofthoseverymattersoffactthatthebeardedoldscientistwilllateruseassuf cientbythemselvestoexplainthescienti cachievement.Indeed,the rstfouractivities,asLatourcharacterizesthem,doconstructastateofaffairswitharatherpeculiarstake.Theycreatearelationwithanoutsidewhichmustbebothactivelyinterestedandalsoplacedatadistance(withadifferentkindofdistanceinadifferentkindofspaceforeachone).Inallcasesthedistancemeansthatwhateverthesuccessofthosefourprocessesofconstruction,itmustbepossibletopresentanddescribethemasnourishingthemakingofLinksandKnots,asbeingconditionsfortheachievement,nottheexplanationofthisachievement.Ifoneclaimsthatitisamatterofpresentationonly,Latoursdescriptionwillbereducedtosimplesocialconstructivism,andloseanyrelevanceforreadingWhatisPhilosophy?Avoidingthisclaimdoesnotmeanacceptingthekindofeasyseparationthattheartofdistancesismeanttopromote.ButitmeansaddressingthemakingofLinksandKnotsasentailingthosespeci cmeanswhichscientistsde neaswhatmatter,whattheyhavetoprotect,whatmakesthespeci cityofascienti cachievement.WhatdoesitmeantoachieveLinksandKnots?Scientistsarecertainlynotlinkedtogetherbytheircommonbeardedsubmissiontorationalityorobjectivity,orbysomegoodwillwhichexplainshowtheyareabletolistentoeachotherandrespecttherulesofrationaldiscussion.AsIwilltrytoshow,thelinkisnotamonghumansassuchbutexistsonlybecausethosehumansconferonthecreationofreliableKnots,i.e.,tothecreationofreliablereferencesbetweenfunctionandmatteroffact,thepowertolinkthem,toforcethemtointeractandentertainthekindofagonisticcooperationonwhichthisachievementdepends.WhenGalileowrotethatonemanwillwinagainstathousandrhetoricians,whatevertheirgiftforpersuasionortheauthorityoftheirreferences,ifthisonemanhasthefactsonhisside,weusuallyrecognizeitassomekindofpositiviststatement.AndindeedGalileowasintheprocessofbuildingthe rstpublicrepresentationofexperimentalscience,producingastateofaffairswhereexperimentalfactsclaimthepowertosilencebothphilosophersandtheologians.ButweshouldnotforgetthattheGalileowhowaswritingwashimselftheproductofthe rstexperimentalachievement,the rstexperimentalknot.TheInventionofModernScience,Ichar-acterizedthisachievementastheabilitytoshort-circuitthescepticalargumentwhichrefersanygeneralstatementtothepowerof ction.IdescribedtheeventoftheexperimentalinventionwhichproducedGalileoasitsspokespersonastheinventionofthepowertoconferonthingsthepowerofconferringontheexperimenterthepowertospeakintheirname.Powerintervenesthreetimesinthisdescription,eachtime,asIwillnowshow,withadifferentmeaning.InventionofthepowertoconferonreferstoGalileointheveryprocessofdiscoveringthepowerofthe rstexperimentaldevice,theinclinedplane.Thisdevicedidgivehimthepowertotransformausualstateofaffairs,aconsensual lastenigmaticmessage 156 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 functionofthelivedperceptionoffallingbodies,intoascienti cmatteroffactcorrelatedtoascienti cmathematicalfunction.Indeed,thepoweroftheinclinedplanewastotransformthefactthatheavybodiesdoperceptivelyfallintoanarticulatedfact,de nedintermsofindependentvariables,variableswhosevaluecanbemodi edatwill,andthearticulationofwhichproducesafunctional(state)description.Inotherwords,thereferenceofamathematicalfunctiontoanexperi-mentalmatteroffactisneithersomekindofrightbelongingtoscienti creasonnorisitanenigma,butactuallytheverymeaningofanexperimentalathinghavingthepowerofconferringonahumanistheveryde nitionofwhattheexperimentalknotachieveswhentyingamatteroffacttoascienti cfunction.KnotisaveryhappywordandthisachievementisacaseofwhatDeleuzeandGuattaricalledamarriageagainstnature.Theideathatsciencewouldnaturalizeanythingisacompletenonsense.Itwouldmeanattributingtonaturewhatwemustdescribeasanevent,thelocalentanglementbetweentwolineswhichgenerallyhavenothingincommon.Beforetheevent,fallingbodiesandtheproblemofthekindofknowledgewecangainaboutthingsweremutuallyindifferent.Therewasonlyadiscursivereference,amongothers,totheperceptualfactthatbodiesdofalldown.Suchafallingdownhadnopowertoforcethinking,itwasconsensualevidence.Allheavybodiesdofalldown.Thisappleisaheavybody.ThusthisapplewillfalldownifIopenmyhand.AfterGalileo,younolongerhaveapples,oratreecrashingtotheground,oramanfallingfromawindow.Youhavesomethingnew:aGalileanbody,abodywhichcanexistnowherebutinthelaborinthesky,sinceitsmotionmustapproximateafrictionlessoneinorderforthefunctiontohaveanypowerofde nition.Correlatively,thelineofhumandiscur-siveargumentationaboutthede nitionofvalidknowledgeasopposedtointerpretationand ctionhasbifurcated.Oneparticularfunctionalinter-pretationhasgotareliablewitness.Galileonolongerhasanyneedtoargue;heisabletoturnhisbackagainsthishumanbrothers,tocutanykindofintersubjectivedebate.TheexperimentaldevicegavetheGalileanbodythepowertoallowGalileotoremainmute,toshowjustthefacts.thepowertospeakintheirname.ItisbecauseGalileocanpresenthimselfasessentiallymutethathecanclaimthathehasthepowertospeakinthenameofthefallingbodies.Heisjustrepresentingthething.Theso-calledobjectivescienti crepresentationisaneventbecauseitmayclaimtobeauthorizedbywhatisrepresented,whilewhatisrepresentedhasnohumanvoice.Butwhowillbeinterestedinthisclaim?WhowillcelebrateasaneventthefactthatGalileoisabletorepresentthewayinwhichabodyfallsinafrictionlessenvironment?Galileoneedscolleagueswhowilltakeasprimordialtheveri cationthataknothasindeedbeencreated,thatnoneoftheirobjectionscandefeatit.Heneedscolleagueswhowillacceptbeinglinkednottohim,andnotbecauseofhispersuasivepower,butbytheproductionoftheknot.Inotherwords,inorderforthespeci ccharacterofhisachievementtobeveri ed,heneedsnotthegoodwillofcolleaguesagreeingwithhimbutthespeci cbadwillofcolleaguesforwhomwhat rstmattersistotestthereliabilityofthewitnessheclaimstohaveInordertocelebratethesuccessfulknot,scientistswillsometimesannouncethatNaturehasspoken.Thistriumphalstatementisobviouslymisleading,butthewayinwhichitismisleadingisimportant.Indeed,thepointisnotthetraditionalphilosophicalone,namelythatthingsaremuteandonlyhumansspeak.Thepointisthatifnaturehadindeedspoken,allhumanswouldbeconcerned.Listeningwithrespectwouldbethenormalanswer.Aknot,amarriageagainstnatureontheotherhand,isalwaysalocal,selectiveevent.Theonlyonesconcernedarethosewhobelongtothetwolines,thosenon-humanswhichcaneffectively,thatisexperimentally,bede nedasreliablewitnesses,andthosehumansthoseIcallcompetentcolleagueswhowillconsideritascrucialtotheirownactivepracticetoverifythatacolleaguewasindeedauthorizedtoclaimthetriplepowerachievement.Thoseandonlythosewillbelinkedbytheeventasamatterofcollectiveconcern,exploringtheconsequences,testingtheifthenmaybethatmayfollowaseventually stengers 157 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 entailedbytheevent.Amarriageagainstnatureisneverbetweenmanandnature,whichwouldmeanaconvergence,anadequateknowl-edgeatlast.Themarriageknotproducesadivergence,itlinksthesekindsofhumans,endorsingverystrongspeci cobligations,andthosekindsofphenomena,verifyingveryselectiveIttakestheproductionofLinksandKnotsasthefabricationofanactivelydivergingadventure,embodyingDeleuzesclaimthatthereisnorelativityoftruthbutthereistruthonlyofwhatisrelative.Thereisascienti cexperimentalkindoftruthbecausescienceisrelativetotheadventureofthecreationofLinksandKnots,tothecreationofknotsandtheproductionoflinksaswhatscientistsexploretogether.Theimportantpointhereisthattherearemanykindsofadventures,andeachhasitsowntruthanditsownkindofloyalty,asitaf rmsitsowndivergingvalue.Wemaythinkhereoftheadventureofmakingamovie,ofwritingatext,andalsoofanalpinistscarefulandriskyclimb,orofamathe-maticianintheprocessofproducingademonstra-tion,orevenofajudgehesitatingabouthisorherjudgement.Theimportantpointisthatnoneoftheseadventuresneedstobelittletheotheronesinordertoaf rmitself.Eachofthemisbyde nitionaminorityadventure,asDeleuzeandGuattaripositivelycharacterizeaminorityasthatwhichdoesnotdreamofbecomingamajority.Anditispreciselybecauseaminoritycollectivelyproducesadivergencewithoutadreamofconvergence,ofrepresentingafuturemajorityorconsensus,thatsometransversalconnectionsarepossible.Awritercanunderstandsomethingaboutanalpin-istsdiscipline,oramathematicianaboutthejudgesselectiveandcreativeprocessingofacase.ThisisthewayIunderstandDeleuzeandGuattarispropositionaboutthecomplementarylinesofscienceandphilosophy.Sciencewouldactualizeandeffectuatetheeventofthecreatedknotasitproducesitsmanyconsequences,takingornottakingintoaccountobjectionsfollowingthestatesofaffairs.Andphilosophywouldcounter-effectuatetheeventandisolate,thatiscreate,itsconcept.Notre ectingonsciencebutdivergingfromscience.Indeed,suchaphilosophicalcounter-effectuationwouldnotbeastrangebutwouldcreatebyitsownmeanswhatbusyscientistssoeasilyforget,namelythedignityofeventthatmakesthembusy.Thisisacaseofvitalcommunicationbetweendivergingadventuresandademanding,selectiveoneforthesciences,asthequestionoftheeventtheyareintheprocessofeffectuatingwouldleavesomuchoftodaysso-calledsciencebornwithabeardaghastandspeechless.Suchaperspectivehasadreamlikequality,however.Itmayhelpphilosopherstoresist,butweneedtoknowwhattheyhavetoresist,tocharacterizethekindofpresenttheylackresis-tanceto.Wethusneedtogobacktothesocialconstructionofscience,toBrunoLatoursfourcorrelatedsocialprocessesofconstruction.PhilosophershavenopartinthecreationofLinksandKnotsbutwenowhavetoaskwhichpartscientistsproposetheyplayinscienceinthemaking,apartDeleuzeandGuattarirefusewhentheyaskthatphilosophersrefrainfrominterven-ingbeforeascienceismature.scienceanditspublicIhavealreadyemphasizedhowmisleadingthestatementNaturehasspokenis.Inowhavetoemphasizehowitdramaticallyexpressesoneofthewaysinwhichthescienti cadventuremaybecomeanepic,thescientistthenbecomingthethinkingheadofmankind,theonewhoisabletogetoutofthecave,toescapeaworldofmereopinion,ofarbitraryhumanfabricationsandconventions.TheNaturehasspokenstatementispartofthepublicrepresentationofascienti cachievement,andsoareallothermoresophisticatedepistemo-logicalversionsofscienti cobjectivity:theircommonfeatureisthedemandthatweallfeelReturningtoLatourscharacterizationofscienceinthemaking,itisnowcrucialtonotethatthefourcorrelatedprocesseshedistin-guishesaremarkedbyastrangecontrast.Ascientistwillnevertellacolleague,ademandingallyoraproviderofmobilizingresourcesthatNaturehasspoken,andthattheyhavetolisten.Theirinteresthastobewon,andcannotbedismissedasblind.Incontrast,thepublicdesig-natesallthosewhoareboundtobeconcerned, lastenigmaticmessage 158 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 whoseinterestdoesnothavetobewon,butmaybedemanded.Sciencemustmatterforthepublicwhichistherebyde nedasmereopinion,tobeconvincedthatitisitsonlychancetoescapeirrationalbeliefandblindinterests.SinceGalileo,theepicstoryofscienti cprogress,groundedonfactsasopposedtoarbi-traryopinion,hasbeenpartofthepublicrepresentationofscience,requiringandmaintain-ingade nitionofthepublicashavingtotrustscienceastheonlywaytoescapeopinion.Andhere,unhappily,philosophyentersthescene,butnotasacreationofconcepts.Thekindsofphilosophersthatthepublicrepresentationofscienceneedswillnotbepartnersintheproduc-tionoflinksandthecreationofknotsbutalliesparticipatinginthepublicrepresentationofscienceallieswhoseinterestmustnotbewon,whosegoodwillisdemanded.Butthenatureofthisdemandedgoodwillisratherundetermined:philo-sophersarewelcomeiftheyputtheirownmeans,whatevertheymaybe,attheserviceoftheimageofthoughtthatsciencerequires.Itmaybethroughadirectcelebrationoftheoppositionbetweenrationalscienceandopinionbutitdoesnotneedtobe:aslongasaphilosopherhelps,onewayortheother,inenforcingtheideathatopinionissome-thingtobecriticizedandovercome,astrategicallianceispossibleandscientistsmayincludehimintheirpublicrepresentation.EvenHeideggerhasbeensoincluded.ItmaybeinterestingtoapproachthesituationIhavejustdescribedwiththeconceptsthatDeleuzeandGuattariusedinMilleplateausinordertodescribehowthewarmachinewasencastedbythestate.Indeed,whenscienceispresentedasaconvergentepic,scientistscometoberespectedasacasteinthefamousivorytower.Butasacasttheyarecaptured,boundintotheserviceofthe(modern)statebytheirstaticidenti cationwiththerational,apoliticalaimtheycometoembody.Thepublicrepresentationofscienceisnomereideology;itisthebind,whatmakesitpossibletotransformthedivergingcreationsofscienceintothekindsofconvergentvaluesthestateneedsforitsownproduction.Andwecouldthendescribethepresent-daysituationasthetransitionfrombeingencastedtobeingappropriatedproper.ReadDonnaHarawaysModestWitness,forinstance,tofeelwhatisnowhappening.ThekindofadventureIhavejustcharacterizedmayberelevantforGalileoGalilei,RobertBoyle,LouisPasteur,andFrericJoliot-Curie,butnot,emphaticallynot,forcontemporarybiomedicineorbiotechnology.Indeed,inthosecaseswecansaythattheartofdistancerequiredbydemandingconstructionofLinksandKnotshasbeensweptaway,andthatwearedealingwithanewkindofarticulationbetweenpowers.Itwillnolongerbepossibletotellthetaleofthosedevelopmentswithouthavingfortheleadingprotagoniststhosepowerfulallieswhoarequitereadytoacceptnominalde nitionsprovideditmeansnewpossibilitiesforindustrialinnovation.Whathasbeenboundlacksresistanceagainstappropriation.Butthereversemaybethecase.Theonlychanceforsciencetoresistitsappro-priation,tosurviveasaminoritydivergingadventure,maybetobreakthebind,namelytheoldstrategicalliancewiththegreatconsensual,convergentthemeofthestruggleofreasonagainstmereopinion.Thisbindisindeedwhatmakesscientistsunabletodefendthemselves,thatistotryandproducekindsofalliancesotherthantheoneswhichareintheprocessofappropriatingthem.Theycannotcallinthosethattheyde nedasmereopinion.Theyarealone,feelingbetrayed,feelingthatmankindisbetrayingitsthinkingNow,atlast,wefacetheproblemofmodifying,notdestroying,theoldbeardedfaceinLatoursJanus-like gure,thefaceunabletocelebrateascienti cachievementinwordsotherthanthosewhichpresentthegeneral,consensualtriumphofrationalityoveropinion.Andherewehavetoavoidanyconsensual,majoritymasterwords,suchasageneraldemocraticrightofthepublictoparticipate,nicelyturningwhatwasmereopinionintoanuntappedsourceofwisdom.Thebindwillnotbebroken.Scientistswillbepolite,butindifferent.Indeed,theyknowthehardworkittakestogainallies,togainautonomy,tomobilize.Alreadytheircolleagues,iftheyarenotinthesame eld,haveonlyaveryvagueideaabouttheissuesatstake.Howcouldsovereigncitizensofgoodwillbeabletoparticipateinthosecomplexconstructions?Theconsensualtransformationoftheignorantpublicmasterwordintothe stengers 159 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 citizensmasterwordisanEmptyGreatIdea.Itwillnotwork.Doesanideawork?Isitabletomakeadifference?Whatkindofdifference?Thesearethequestionsofpragmatism.ItisapragmaticdistinctionIamdrawingbetweenthecitizensmasterwordandthepublicinvolvedinthepublicrepresentationofscience,thepublicthatisaskedtoacceptscienceasauthority.Whilecitizensareagoodwill,convergent,political ction,andassuchlackresistancetothepresent,thepublicismuchmoreinterestingbecausetheproblemwiththepublicisitseventualbadwill.HereIamfollowingthepathopenedinJohnThePublicanditsProblems.Deweyarguedpowerfullyagainsttheabstractidealofcitizenswhowouldbeableandinterestedinparticipatinginallpoliticaldecisions,astheyareentitledtodo.Inordertoresistacceptingdemo-cracyasjustanemptyword,hecreatedanewconceptionofthepublic.InnotwoagesorplacesistherethesamepublicbecausetheDeweyanpublicisnotsomethingwhichexists,butsome-thingwhichemergesaroundaproblem,andemergesasanobjectingpowernotasasovereignjudge.Theemergenceofthepublicisanevent,andforDeweytheidentityofthestateisthehistoricaltranslationofasuccessionofsuchevents,thetransformationofthescopeandnatureoftheresponsibilityofastatebeingthestaticanswertothesuccessfulemergenceofanewpublic.TheDeweyanpublicisnotassuchpartofacreationprocess,however:itemerges,objectsto,anddemandsthesolutiontoaproblem.Itasksthestatetoanswer,toprovidethesolution.Furthermore,Deweywasunabletogetbeyondthemerehopeforanewemergenceofthepublicsincehehadtoacknowledgethatthemodernso-calleddemocraticstatescoincidewiththesilenceofabound,remarkablypassivepopulation,withagenerallackofresistancetothedoublepowerofthestateandcapitalism.However,theremaybeasmall,precariouspossibility,partofourepoch,thatanewkindofpublicisemerging,andthatsuchapublicmaybeabletomakeanotherkindofdifference.IncontrastwiththeDeweyanpublic,whatwenowseeemergingandstutteringhasfeaturesofwhatDeleuzeandGuattaricalledminorities,creatingtheirowndiverginglinesofescape,theirownways.Thesemaybecalledobjectingminorities,minoritiesproducingnotastheiraimbutintheveryprocessoftheiremergencethepowertoobjectandtointerveneinmatterswhichtheydiscoverconcernthem.Theemergenceofthesedivergent,problem-creating,multiple,empow-eredminoritiesiswhatIwouldde neasanunknownofourepoch.Itdoesnotconcernthesciencesspeci callybutitistheonlypossibilityIcanenvisageagainsttheprobabilityofthescienti cadventurebeingappropriatedthatis,beingdestroyed.DeleuzeandGuattariaskthatwethinkparle,meaningbothwithoutgoingtotherootortothe nalaimofaquestionandtakingintoaccounttheenvironmentthatthisquestionrequiresandcreates.Theemergenceofempow-eredminoritiesalreadyproducesaveryinterestingtransformationinthemilieuofscience,com-pletelyforeigntothefundamentalquestionsaboutthegroundsoraimsofknowledge,buteffectivelymodifyingthescientistsdreams,whichboundthemtothestateandcapitalism.Inrecentyears,thefactthatpublicminoritieswereabletoobjecthasbeenasourceofgreatsurpriseforconcernedscientists.Amongcompetentcollea-gues,objectionscertainlydomatter.Inordertoconstructanalliance,tomobilize,ortogainautonomy,objectionshavetobetakenintoaccountandnegotiated.Butthepublicwasidenti edassomethingwhichwaseitheragainstscienceorsupportingscience.Somescientistsnowbegintowonderwhetherthepowerfulallieswhoclaimedtoprotectthemagainstanirrationalpublicwerenotinsteadusingthepublicrepre-sentationofscienceasopposedtomereopinioninordertosilenceobjectionsthattheydiscoverindeeddomatter,andindeedputintoquestiontheblinddivideintotheso-calledscienti c,objectivede nitionofaproblemontheonehand,andignorantirrationalbeliefsandtraditionalvaluesontheother.Iamnowinapositiontoaddressthequestionofwhatphilosophersmayhavetocreateforavitalcommunicationbetweenscienceandphilosophysdivergingadventurestobepossibleandtogiveeachofthemsomemeanstoresisttheirrespectiveandprobabledestruction.Weneedspeci c, lastenigmaticmessage 160 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 philosophicalmeanstoescapeourownencastedacademicclaims,moreancientonesthanthescientists.Theoppositionbetweenmereopinionandwhattranscendsopinionwasthepoisonwhichmodernscience,sinceGalileo,inheritedfromphilosophyandusedtoproduceitsownpublicrepresentation.Butwhenwecometophilosophyitisnotamatterofpublicrepresentationonly,itisacommon-senseconsen-sualconvictionwephilosophersinheritbeforewebegintothink.apragmaticconcernforconventionsOnewayofcharacterizingtherolethatphilosophyhasplayedintheepicrepresentationofscienceagainstmereopinionleadstotheproblemofconvention.Philosopherswouldratifybytheirownmeansthegreatdividebetweenwhatareonlypragmaticconventionsontheonehand,whichworkbutmaybeanalysedawayintermsofhabits,settledinterests,andthebalanceofpower,andontheotherwhatisworththinkingabout,beyondmerestatesofaffairs.Andherewemaymakeabriefreturntotheproblemofsocialconstructivism.Thefactthatsocialconstructivistsenteredthesceneasthosewhowerebetrayingtherolethatthepublicrepresentationofscienceattributedtophilosophersissomethingthatrequiresattention.Indeed,youcannotbetrayarolewithout rstclaimingit,hereclaimingitforyourjobtotestthegreatoppositionbetweenscienceandmereconvention.Butsocialconstruc-tivistsdidnotseethemselvesasphilosophers.Itisthuspossibletotakeuptheroleofphilosopherswhileclaimingtobelongto eldssuchassociologyorculturalstudies.Iwouldproposethatsocialconstructivistswereabletoassumetheroleofphilosopherswithoutrecognizingitbecausetheyknewwhatconven-tionsare,thatis,theyrecognizedthem,asamatterofthefunctionsofthelived.Asaresultofthisproposition,Iwouldstressthatescapingtheirroleinthepublicrepresentationofscienceimpliesthatphilosopherscreatethemeanstoescapesuchaconsensualrecognition.AnditispreciselysuchacreationthatDeleuzeandGuattaricelebrateinthevibranthomagetheypaytopragmatismasassociatedwiththeAnglo-Americantraditionofadventurousnon-analyticalempiricism:TheEnglishnomadizeovertheoldGreekearth,brokenup,fractalized,andextendedtotheentireuniverse.WecannotevensaythattheyhaveconceptsliketheFrenchandtheGermans;buttheyacquirethem,theyonlybelieveinwhatisacquirednotbecauseeverythingcomesfromthesensesbutbecauseaconceptisacquiredbyinhabiting,bypitchingonestent,bycontractingahabit[...Wherevertherearehabitsthereareconcepts,andhabitsaredevelopedandgivenupontheplaneofimmanenceofradicalexperience:theyareconventions.ThatiswhyEnglishphilo-sophyisafreeandwildcreationofconcepts.Towhatconventionisagivenpropositiondue;whatisthehabitthatconstitutesitsconcept?Thisisthequestionofpragmatism.Witheachnewconvention,somethingnewhasenteredtheworld,anewtenthasbeenpitched,andnotonasettledgroundthatwouldexplainitsstabilitybutinaprocessoffractalization:thenewgroundisproducedtogetherwiththenewtentpitcheduponit.Ineachcasethepragmaticitworksmaybecounter-effectuatedasitentailsconsideringwhathasbeencreatedinthiscase,thenewitworksnowresounding,asaneventwhichtheconvention,alwaysthisconvention,effectu-ates.Whatmaybecomeamatterofconsensus,thefunctionsofthelived,settledinterestsandbalanceofpowerthatwillbeusedafterwardstoexplainorjustifyit,doesnotexplainaconvention.Aconventionisneverexplainedbysomethingelse,itproceedsfromacreation,amarriageagainstnature.Andyesthescienti cachievementofanexperimentalknotisaconvention,butitisnotonlyaconvention,itfractalizesthegroundfollowingitsowndivergingdemands,itsownde nitionofwhatmattersandhow.Theawful,despicablepragmaticitworksmaythenbecomeamatterofconcern,ofevalua-tion,notofdisquali cation.Forinstance,thestrengthoftheproperscienti cconvention,thereliabilityofthecreatedknots,maybeevaluatedasachievingaconventionwhichdependsspeci -callyonthepowersuccessfullyconferredonthingstointerveneinhumanaffairsanddiscussions.But stengers 161 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 thepossibilityforthethingtobecomeanactual,crucialpartinascienti cconventionhasasitsconditionthatallcompetentobjectionsaretobetakenseriously,asitmustbeveri edthattheexperimentaldevicegivestheexperimenterthepowertoanswerthoseobjections.Thethingisnotabletomakeadifferencebyitself,itisenabledtomakethisdifferencebyandforacollectivewhichisenabledtotestthisdifference,whichislinkedbytheobligationnottosilencearelevantcritique.Thisiswhythepowerofsuchaconventionchangesinnatureassoonasitleavesitsbirthplaceandconcernshumanaffairswhereallprotagonistsarenotenabledtoobject,wheresomeareaprioride nedasnotmattering.Theeffectuationoftheevent,themeaningoftheitworks,radicallychangesassoonasthetentispitchedonthesettledgroundofinterestsandpower,andassoonasthehabitofthepublictoacceptbeingaddressedaspowerless,mereopinion,unabletoobjectandpropose,isaningredientinitsconcept.TorepeattheprecariouspoliticalpragmatichopeIpresented,itisonlyifwebecomeable,asphilosophers,toputscienti cachievementsonthesameplaneofimmanencetogetherwithotherdivergingconventions,eachwithitsdemandingde nitionofwhatmatters,thatwecanstoppoisoningthishope,thatwecanshare,instead,thepragmaticconcernfortheitinerantprocessofcreationofnewitworksastheymarktheprocessofempowermentofnewminorities,withnewactivelydiverginghabitsthatmustbecelebratedeachtimeassomethingnewenteringtheworldandindeedasmodifyingit.WhenDeleuzeandGuattariemphasizedtheneedforapedagogyoftheconcepttheywerepragmatistsbecausepedagogymeansthecreationofahabit,herelearningthetasteofconcepts,beingmodi edbytheencounterwithconcepts.TheDeleuziande nitionofscienceasdealingwithfunctionsispreciousforprotectingthispragmaticconcernagainstanyscienti cparadigm.Whateverthefunction,beitproducedbyasuccessfulmarriageagainstnatureorbyalivedconsensusaboutwhatmattersandhow,anyfunctionrequiresastableworld,allowingforastablearticulationbetweenthoseaspectsthefunctionalbeingistakingintoaccount.Nofunctioncandealwithlearning,producing,orempoweringnewhabits,asallrequireandachievetheproductionofdifferentworlds,non-consensualworlds,activelydivergingworlds.Therewillbenoscienti cexplanations,betheypsychological,sociological,cognitivist,orneurophysiological,ofthewaynew,non-consensual,diverginghabitsmaycomeintobeing.ItisprobablywhatFeGuattarihadinmindwhen,in,hecalledforanewparadigmthatwouldbeanethico-aesthetico-politicalone.Itistemptingtothinkthatsuchaparadigm,asitaimsatmakingthecreationofnewperceptualandaffectivehabitsamatterofconcern,shouldprivilegeart,whichisthethirdkindofcreativeadventurecharacterizedinisPhilosophy?Butherewemustslowdownandpayattention.Theremaybesomethingmoreimportant.Weshouldnotforgetthattheverypossibilityofassociatingscience,art,andphilosophytocreation rsttesti esforadepopulatedworld.Thesearepracticesthatarenowindangeroflackingresistancetothepresent,ofbeingappropriated,buttheyarealsothesurvivingones,theoneswhichweretoleratedordomesticated,encastedwhilesomanyothersweredestroyedbywhatwecallmodernization.Asaresult,thesepracticesmustalsobeconsideredfromthepointofviewofthepricetheypayfortheirdomesticatedortoleratedsurvival:divergingpricesbutheavyonesanyway.Deleuzeconsideredthepricephilo-sophypaidwhenitwasassociatedwiththetripleideals,allofwhichimplyjudgementandmayenterintothestrategicallianceagainstopinion:contemplation,re ection,andcommunication.Ihaveconsideredthepricesciencepaysaspresent-ingitselfintheguiseoftheold ghtofreasonagainstmereopinion.Insteadofconsideringthepriceartmaybepaying,IwillstressthatGuattarisethico-aesthetico-politicalpara-digmmayaswelldesignatemagicastheneo-paganandpoliticalactivistwitchStarhawkThatis,notinsupernaturaltermsbutasanexperientialandexperimentalart,daringtotryandtestwhatittakesandwhatitrequirestoproduceethico-aesthetico-political lastenigmaticmessage 162 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 survivorsWenolongerburnwitches,buttakinginterestinempoweringprocessesneedstheknowledgethatweriskhavingthosewordsusedagainstus.Indeed,itmaywellmeanfacingsuchaccusationsasirrationality,superstition,andregression:backtoPlatoscave.Myconvictionisthat,asphiloso-phers,wemayandindeedhavetocounter-effectuatethiseventualaccusation.AndhereImustgonotbeyondDeleuzebutelsewhere.InapproachingthequestionWhatisphilosophy?my rstconcernistoresistwordsthatwouldcharacterizeourrighttoexistwhileratifyingourowndomesticationandthedestructionweThisiswhyIchoosetotaketheriskofusingthetermmagic,justaswitchesthemselvestakethisrisk.Forthemtheveryfactofnamingmagicaswhattheyaredoingisalreadyanactofmagic,producingtheneededexperienceofdiscomfortwhichmakesperceptiblethepoweroverusofconsensualfunctionsofthelived.Ifthosecontem-porarywitchestookituponthemselvestocallthemselveswitches,suchashockingname,itwasinordertoproducetheliving,disturbingmemoryoftheTimeofBurning,thedestructionoftheGreatArt,whichhappenedintheveryepochwhenManasthemajoritystandardcametoimposeconverging,consensualfunctionsofthelived,explainingawayasillusionsandsuperstitionseveryactivedivergenceexceptthethreesurvivingonesphilosophy,science,andart.Tonamethemselveswitchesistopresentthemselvesassurvivors,andwhatIaskisthatwe,asphiloso-phers,understandourselves,asfarasweresistthepoweroffunctionsofthelived,assurvivors.Namingwitchesandmagicdoesleadtowardsthequestionwhatisphilosophy?,withadoublyantagonisticmove.Ontheonehand,itleadsbacktowardsthehistoricaloriginwhichmaycertainlybeassociatedwiththeirrepudiation,withthechoiceofpublicandconsensualargumentsagainstdangerouspowers,tobeexcludedordomesti-cated.Butontheotherhand,itleadstowardsthepoweroftransformationthatDeleuzeassociateswiththephilosophicalconceptassuchwhenhewrites,forinstance,thatthinkingimpliesasortofgropingexperimentationanditslayoutresortstomeasuresthatarenotveryrespectable,rationalorreasonable.Tothinkisalwaystofollowthewitchs ight.Indeed,itmaybethatifphilosophywasabletosurviveitsGreekorigin,toresistmanythreateningpresents,itisbecauseitunwittinglycaptured,inadisguisedmanner,somethingquitedifferentfromrationalargumen-tation.Itmaybethattheprephilosophicalplaneitbuiltonandsecretly,unwittinglycontinuedwasinhabitednotonlybyurbanSophists,asisof ciallyrecorded,butalsobythoseotherswhosenotveryrespectable,rationalorreasonablemeasuresthesophistartoflanguagehadalreadyurbanized.Anditmaywellbethatifyouseparatephilosophyfromwhatitpro tsfromandsecretly,unwittinglycontinues,thenyoukillphilosophy.ForDeleuze,Russell,Wittgenstein,andothersarekillers.Butmyconvictionisthat,asphiloso-phers,scientists,andartists,wecannotsaveourselvesfromsuchkillersalone,byourownmeansonly.Wehavetothinkinfrontofthosewhodidnotsurvive.Andthisconvictionisalsoaspeculationforthefuture,afuturewherephiloso-phycouldplayapartinthekindofenvironmentneededforGuattarisethico-aesthetico-politicalparadigm,anenvironmentabletoresistthepowerofconsensualfunctions.Counter-effectuationmaywellbephilosophysspeci cactivedivergence,itsactivewayofresistingsuchapower.However,asDeleuzerightlyremarks,itmaybepresentedasaStoic,oraSpinozistone,amorfatigreatmodelforbadweather,fordangeroustimes,certainly,butabittoobeautifulamodelformytaste.Ifinallgoodwillweacceptsuchamodel,howdoweavoidusingwordsthatwillalsoratifythedestructionofobviouslynon-StoicorSpinozistwitchesandthuslackresistancetothegreattaleofprogresswhichjusti edtheirIthusclaimthatphilosophersneedtohonourtheactivedivergencethatcounter-effectuationcreateswithwordswhichexhibitinamoreopen,self-jeopardizingwaythenotveryrespectable,ornotverypublic,measureswhichdoenablephilosophicalcreation.Amorfatiisnotcompro-misingenough,itseemstoomuchofageneral,convergingideal,andthepathitneedsmayquiteeasilybecomeanethical,solitaryversionfortheoldmajoritytaleofMankindhavingtogetoutof stengers 163 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 Platoscave.Wemaywellstress,withDeleuze,theneedforapedagogyoftheconcept,meaningtheneedtolearnhowtoencounterthepowerofconceptsandthewitchs ightthatitinduces.ButittookDeleuzehiswholelifetoreachthatpointofnonstyle,whereonecan nallysayWhatisitIhavebeendoingallmylife?Ithinkwehaveavitalneedtobemoreexplicitaboutwhythepedagogyofconceptsmattersandenablesphilo-sopherstoresistthepresent.Weneedtopresentourselvesasindebtedtosomethingwecallconcepts,becauseitisonlythroughencounteringtheef caciousnessofconcepts,throughexperi-mentingwiththewitch ighttheyproduce,thatwemaybecomephilosophers.ItisindeedsomethingveryhardforaStoicoraSpinozisttoadmit:thetruthoftherelativeimpliesbeingindebt,notanin nitedebt,tobesure,butadebtwhichneedstobeopenly,self-jeopardizingly,cultivated.Itismuchmorecomfortabletoproducedeep,beautifulmeditationsaboutanauthornotbeingtheauthorofwhatheorshewritesthanreachingthispointofnonstylewhenyousimplyaf rmthatwritingisnotaspontaneousactivityofhumangoodwillbutputsthewriterindebttowhatmakeshimorherwrite.Debtmustbehonoured.ThisisthelessonIlearnedfromthewitches.TheydonotneedatalltobelieveinaGoddessasasupernatural,transcendentbeing,buttheylearnedtheprag-maticneedforempoweringritualshonouringapowerwhoseanswerisnothingotherthantheveryprocessofempowering,ofbecomingabletoresistthepresent,whichtheritualismadetoinduce.Inordertomakethispointalittlemoreconcrete,Iwill nallyturntoanexample:thatoftheverystrange ight,trulyawitchs ight,ofAlfredNorthWhitehead,thismathematician-turned-philosopherwhomostperfectlyembodiestheEnglishwayofdoingphilosophytowhichDeleuzeandGuattaripaidhomage.honouringwhatmakesusabletodiverge?Whiteheadsadventurewasindeedastrange,self-jeopardizingone,andhepaidthepriceforleavingtheconsensualground.Hisnamehasbeenoblit-eratedbyEnglishphilosophy,andinparticularinhisoriginalhometown,Cambridge,asifitdefacedthenoblecollegehehadsolonginhabited.WemaywellsaythatWhiteheadsfailurewascompletefromtheusualpragmaticpointofview,sinceourworldisstilldominatedbythemodernabstractionshewantedtodisplace,themutuallyincoherentabstractionsoftranscendentfreedom,asattributedtohumans,andoffunctionalexpla-nation,asobjectivelyde ningtheworld.Buttheimportantpointisthekindofbadwillthatforcedhisadventureandwhichisaconditionforreadinghim.Neverdidaphilosophersoprag-maticallydevelopandgiveup(faireetdeconceptsinutterdisregardforthekindofpiousloyaltywesoeasilydedicatetowhataimsattruth.TheprobleminreadingWhiteheadisthatthewitchs ightthathisconceptsdocreatecannotbedisentangledfromhisexplicitde nitionofthetaskofphilosophy:itshouldtakecareofourabstrac-tions.Astheequipment,boththetoolsandthelure,forfeelingandthinking,abstractionsneedengineering.Buttode nephilosophyasanengineeringofabstractionsputstothetestourwishtogobeyondabstractionsofourownmaking,toescapetheprisonofourownfabrication.Whiteheadasksustoacceptleavingasideanykindofdramaturgy,anykindofdramaticpresen-tationofphilosophyasthinkingtheunthinkableoraddressingwhatcannotberepresented.Heendeavouredinsteadtocounter-effectuateabstrac-tions,pragmaticallyevaluatingandmodifyingthekindoflureandconstraintthatabstractionsprovide,goingsofarastoincludethecreationofaconceptofGod,ashediscoveredthatsuchaconceptwasrequiredbytheproblemashewasconstructingit.Howcanwetakeonthatengi-neeredconceptofGodaftersomanyyearsofcelebratingtheDeathofGod,ordeploringhis nalThisconceptisrequiredbytheproblemIconstructandbecauseofthewayIconstructedit.Itmaybethatanotherde nitionoftheproblemourmodernabstractionsimposeonuswouldneednoGod,butthisinnowayputsitintoquestion.ThiscouldbeWhiteheadsanswer,andthediscomfortbecomesexplicit:doeshebelievethatheisfreetogoagainsttheverypridewecultivateinbeingabletolivewithoutGod,ortheverysolitudewesufferhavingtolivewithoutGod,and lastenigmaticmessage 164 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 allthatbecauseofthewayheconstructedhisproblem?WemayfeelthesamekindofexperienceofdiscomfortaswiththewitchesGoddess.TheGoddessisjusta ction,howcanwehonourHer?ThefactthatAlfredNorthWhiteheadwasamathematician-turned-philosophermayexplainwhyhedaredtoconceivephilosophyasanopenlyconstructiveadventureandaself-proclaimedspeculativeone.Mathematiciansareusedtogivingmathematicalexistencetoverystrangebeings,providedtheyful lmathematicalconstraintsandareneededforunfoldingamathematicalproblem.Thosebeingsarelikepolesforthetenttheyarepitching;theirvalueistoallowtheproblemtoachieveitsfullamplitudeinordertoarriveatasuccessfulworkingsolution.Mathematiciansareprobablythosewhoknowbestthattheyarenotfree,thattheproblemthattheyconstructiswhatmatters.Theyknowthatananswerhasmeaningonlybecauseandthroughtheconstructiveadventureoftheproblemthattheirquestioninduces.Thisiswhycreativemathema-ticiansdonotneedtodreamofthepowerofconvergingrecognition.Whattheyhonouristhepowerofthequestiontowhichtheyareindebtedbecausethisquestionempowersthem,forcesthemtothinkandcreateasmathematicians.Whattheymayteachusisthattohonourisnottobelieveinatranscendentpowerbutpragmaticallytocallforththemarriageagainstnaturethatanyempower-mentprocessrequires.Whiteheadgavetoaverysimplequestionthepowertoforcehimtothinkandcreateasaphilosopher:howtoproducecoherencewhere(modern)incoherencerules?Andhegaveitsfullamplitudetotheproblemshisdemandforcoherenceentailed,acceptingthethoughtallthewaydowntoitsconsequences;thatis,creatingthemeanstodramatizeandnottotametheincoher-enceofmodernthought.ForWhitehead,nohopeful,good-willed,fuzzyinterdisciplinaryunity,nodreamofsomehalf-wayhousewherefunctionswouldsweetlyloosesomeoftheirpower,allowingforsomethingwhichcouldresembleaphilosophicalconceptoffreedom,oratleastitsfunctionofthelivedversion.Noseducingtermspromisingbothtoexplainandtogiveroomtowhatweshouldprotectagainstexplanation.Instead,themostfabulousprocessofcreationofoddandhabit-disturbingconcepts,openlyspeculativeones,openlyconstructedones.Inordertotryandfeeltheef caciousnessofthoseconcepts,youhavetoacceptawitchs ightfarfromthegroundofanysecuregood-willedoppositionorsettledhabit.Butyouthenmaytastetheirpowerwhichmayresemblethatofamagicformula,astheyempowerbecominginthedevastatedlandscapeofourimpassablecontra-dictions.Indeed,Whiteheadsconceptsareneithertruenorfalse,theydonotrefertoanystateofaffairs,nortoanymatteroffact,nortoanyexperiencetranscendingtheengineeringofabstractions.Theyareef cacious,deliberatelyengineeredinordertodeprivethoughtofanypowertojudgeorexplainawaypartofourexperienceinthenameofanotherpartofourexperience,withoutcreatingthekindofconfusionwefearifwestopjudgingandexplainingaway.Whatwediscoverinsteadistheratherstrangepossibilityofappreciatingjudgementorexplain-ingawaytogetherwithwhatisjudgedorexplainedaway,allputonthesameplane,allexhibitingintheirowndivergingwayscreativityastheultimatetheyallexemplifyandwhichexistsnowherebutinitsexempli cations.Itmaybethatamathematicianwasneededtodaretotakethephilosophicalstepofpragmati-callyengineeringconceptsaswitchesengineerrituals,inordertoinduceandexperimentwiththeempoweringtransformationthoseconceptsproduceandthenewluresforfeelingtheycreate.Whenamathematicianconcludesitworks!heiscelebratingthetruthofwhatisrelative,theonlykindofimportanttruth,thetruthoftheproblemwhichhasachievedtheproductionofitsownspeci cempoweringmeansandobligations.Butsoalsodothewitchescelebratewhentheirritualsproducetheempower-ingpresenceoftheGoddesstowhomtheypragmaticallyde nethemselvesasindebted.Soalsocouldaphilosophercelebrate,oranartist,orwhoeverknowsthatwhatempowerstheircreationisnottheirs.Andsoshouldwelearntocelebratescientistswhenannouncingthecomingintobeingofanewmatteroffactendowedwiththepowertoactasareliablewitness. stengers 165 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 Attheveryendofhislife,inSomeProblemsofPhilosophy,WilliamJameswrote:Wecanandwemay,asitwere,jumpwithbothfeetoffthegroundintoortowardsaworldofwhichwetrusttheotherpartstomeetourjumpandonlysocanthemakingofaperfectedworldofpluralisticpatternevertakeplace.Onlythroughourprecursivetrustinitcanitcomeintobeing.Thereisnoinconstancyanywhereinthis,andnoviciouscircleunlessacircleofpolesholdingthemselvesuprightbyleaningononeanother,oracircleofdancersrevolvingbyholdingeachothershands,canbevicious.ThefaithcircleissocongruentwithhumannaturethattheonlyexplanationofthevetothatintellectualistspassuponitmustbesoughtintheoffensivecharactertothemofthefaithsofcertainHeremaybethegreatlessonofspeculative,conceptualpragmatism,anditsoundslikeadangerous,self-jeopardizingoneindeed,sinceweknowthatnotonlyaretheremanydivergingkindsofjumps,butthatsomejumpsaredangerousones.Leavingthecommon,settledgroundisalwaysarisk.This,however,isnoargumentagainstwhatWilliamJamescallsthefaithcircleasitisnotsomethingwewouldhavediscoveredbutsome-thingnon-moderntraditionsknewverywell.Theyknewthatpartsoftheworldwhichcomeandmeetsomejumpsmaybedevouringones,andthatsomemaybecomedevouringonesifwedonotknowhowtohonourthemwhenwehavecalledthemup.lixGuattarisethico-aesthetico-politicalpara-digmthusimpliesthatwecanlearnfromthenon-modernwisdom,learnhowtocarewithoutvetoingthejumpsorreducingthemtosomefunctionsofthelived.Thismaybewhyhetoldoftheneedforanecosophy.notesIamhappytothankthemembersoftheGECo(GroupedEtudesconstructivistes)fortheirmostinspiringcommentsandcritiques.1G.DeleuzeandFelixGuattari,WhatisPhilosophy?(London:Verso,1994)161.HereafterWP.2IamspeakingofDeleuzeonly,here,becauseGuattariwroteopenlypoliticalbooks.Itisnotbychancethatmytextwillendwithafreeinterpre-tationofGuattarisecosophy,introducedinTheThreeEcologies3WP108.4Ibid.11.5Ibid.12.6Ibid.122.7Forgetitonthisoccasion,butthedistinctionisneverthelessamostimportantone.Indeed,itoffersalineofescapefromtheGreatSadProblemofscientificreductionism,anditspoison-ingconsequence:theverysadroleacceptedbyphilosopherswhentheyseetheirtaskasthatofdefendinghumanvalues,experience,orresponsi-bilityagainstitsreductiontoscientificexplanatoryframeworks.Whenascientistaffirmsthatexperi-enceshouldbe,andwillbe,naturalized,explained(away)inscientificterms,weforgettoaskwhichfunction,referringtowhat?Werecognizetheinexorableadvanceofscientificknowledgethatwillreduceexperience,onewayoranother,topropertiesofthecentralnervoussystem.Thisindeedisastateofaffairs,dominatedbyconsen-sualrecognition.Philosopherstrytodefinehumanexperienceinsuchawaythatitwouldexhibitarecognizableirreducibilitytoscientificproperties,andscientiststakesuchdefinitionsastheiraim,aswhattheyhavetoexplainaway.Bothscienceandphilosophyarethuspoisonedbythestateofaffairstheyproduceforoneanother.8BrunoLatour,ScienceinAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineersthroughSociety(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,1987).9WP135.10Consensualdoesnotmeandominantbutmaybeconnectedwiththemajority/minoritycontrastproposedinMilleplateaus.Apositionmaywellbeaffirmedbyaqualitativelyminoritygroupandwillbeamajoritypositionifitpresentsitselfaswhatshouldbeacceptedbyeveryone,i.e.,asapoten-tiallyconsensualclaim(evenifsuchaconsensuswouldmeandefeatingpowerfulillusions,ideolo-gies,balancesofpower,andsoon). lastenigmaticmessage 166 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011 11(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,1999)99^108.12(Minneapolis:UofMinnesotaP,2000)88.13WP130.14Ibid.159.15JohnDewey,ThePublicanditsProblems(Athens:OhioUP,1991)33.DreamingtheDark(Boston:Beacon,1997).17WP41.18Ibid.1.19Reprinted(LincolnandLondon:UofNebraskaP,1996)230.IsabelleStengersULB,CP175/0150avenueF.Roosevelt1050BrusselsE-mail:istenger@ulb.ac.be stengers Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 22:32 4 March 2011