foucault and deleuze introduction

8/9/2019 Foucault and Deleuze Introduction

1/7

4

NicolaeMorar,ThomasNail,andDanielW.Smith2014

ISSN:1832

5203

FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410,April2014

INTRODUCTION

FoucaultStudiesSpecialIssue:FoucaultandDeleuze,April2014

NicolaeMorar,PennStateUniversity,ThomasNail,UniversityofDenver,

andDanielW. Smith,PurdueUniversity

GillesDeleuze

and

Michel

Foucault

are

widely

accepted

to

be

central

figures

of

post

war

Frenchphilosophy. Philosophers, cultural theorists, and othershavedevoted considerable

efforttothecriticalexaminationoftheworkofeachofthesethinkers,butdespitethestrong

biographicalandphilosophicalconnectionbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze,verylittlehasbeen

donetoexploretherelationshipbetweenthem. ThisspecialissueofFoucaultStudiesisthefirst

collectionofessaystoaddressthiscriticaldeficitwitharigorouscomparativediscussionofthe

workofthesetwophilosophers.

DeleuzesCourseLecturesonFoucault

Inparticular, thisspecial issue ismotivatedby therecent (2011)onlinepublicationofGilles

Deleuzescourse lecturesonMichelFoucault (198586)at theBibliothqueNationale

de

France

(FrenchNationalLibrary) inParis. TheBNFcollected theavailablerecordingsofDeleuzes

seminarlecturesattheUniversityofParis8andconvertedthemintodigitalfiles. Needlessto

say,thetaskwasapainstakingone,butthemp3fileshavenowbeenmadeaccessibleonline

throughtheGallicasearchengineatthelibrary.1

WhenFoucaultdiedin1984,Deleuzewassoaffectedbythedeathofhisfriend,thathe

beganlecturingandwritingabookaboutFoucaultsphilosophicalcorpusimmediately. When

askedwhyhewantedtowritesuchabook,Deleuzewasquiteclear,itmarksaninnerneed

ofmine,myadmirationforhim,howIwasmovedbyhisdeath,andhisunfinishedwork.2

Deleuzesdesire forsomekindofreconciliationwithFoucaultseems tohavebeenamutual

one. According toDidierEribon,oneofFoucaultsmostheartfeltwishes,knowing thathe

would not live long,was to reconcilewithDeleuze.3After speaking at Foucaults funeral,

DeleuzesbookprojectonFoucaultbeganasalectureseriesgivenattheUniversityofParis8,

between1985and1986. ButtheselectureswerenotmerelyascholarlycommentaryonFou

caultswork. Theywere,inthewordsofFrdricGros,[a]means[of]discoveringthefound

1gallica.bnf.fr2GillesDeleuze, Negotiations, 19721990, translatedbyMartinJoughin (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity

Press,1995),94.3

Franois

Dosse,

Gilles

Deleuze

&

Flix

Guattari:

Intersecting

Lives,

translated

by

Deborah

Glassman

(New

York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2010),328.


2/7

FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410.

5

ing principles, [and] layingbare the inherentmetaphysics of [Foucaults] thought.4 It is

amazing to see, Gros admits in an interview with Franois Dosse, how Deleuze, who

couldnthavehadanyknowledgeoftheCollgedeFrancelectures,wassoaccurateinhisinter

pretation.5

From1985 to1986,Deleuzegaveaweeklyseminarat theUniversityofParis8every

TuesdayonFoucault. Theseminarswerescheduled for twohoursbutoften lasted threeor

evenfourhours,andfunctionedasakindoflaboratoryinwhichDeleuzewouldexperiment

with the ideasandconceptshewas in theprocessofdeveloping. Someof theseeventually

madetheirwayintohisbookonFoucaultbuttherearemanyanalysesthatfindnoparallelin

his publishedbook, Foucault. For this reason, some of themost innovative philosophical

scholarshiponFoucaultcanbefoundintheselectures.

For example,whileDeleuzes publishedbook on Foucault is approximately 40,000

words(140pages)long,histranscribedlecturesonFoucaultareover400,000wordslong(1600

pages).On

April

8,

1986,

Deleuze

gave

athree

hour

seminar

that

developed

an

original

con

ceptionofFoucaultsconceptofbiopowerthroughawiderangingreinterpretationoftheFou

cauldian corpus. The seminar is a tour deforce, and clarifies the enigmatic relationship of

Deleuzes concept of control societieswith Foucaults concept ofbiopower, that scholars

havestruggledwithforyears. However,inhispublishedbookonFoucaultthatwastheresult

oftheseseminars,theanalysisofthisentireseminarwascompressedintoscarcelymorethana

singlepage thatneverevenmentions thewordbiopower.6 Itwouldbedifficult,even for

philosophically informed readers, to discern thebreadth of the original analysis from the

summarypresented in thebook. Indeed,DeleuzespublishedbookonFoucault issimplya

prcisofthemoredetailedmaterialpresentedintheseminars.

WebelievethattheselecturesofferanincrediblecontributiontobothDeleuzeandFou

caultstudiesandanopportunitytoformallyreflect(inthisspecial issue)ontherelationship

betweentwoofthegreatestthinkersofthe20thcentury. Inadditiontothisspecial issuewe

applied forand received twogrants in2011 to forma team toundertakea transcriptionof

DeleuzesseminaronFoucault. Thetranscriptions werecompletedbyAnnabelleDufourcqin

2013andarenowavailableontheParis8websiteaswellasourparallelsiteatPurdue7. In

conjunctionwith the transcriptionproject,weorganizedan internationalconferenceentitled

BetweenDeleuzeandFoucaultinNovember2012.8

Weare

now

currently

working

on

an

English

translation

of

these

transcriptions.

It

is

our

hope

thatDeleuzes lecturesand thisspecial issuewillpromptacritical revaluationof thephilo

sophicalconnectionbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze.

4FrdricGros,LeFoucaultdeDeleuze:unefictionmtaphysiquePhilosophie47,September(1995),54.5FrdricGros,InterviewwithFranoisDosse,inDosse,GillesDeleuze&FlixGuattari,327.6GillesDeleuze,Foucault,translatedbySenHand(Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1988),8485.7www.cla.purdue.edu/research/deleuze/8

Video

recordings

of

the

lectures

are

available

at:

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/research/deleuze/Conference/Conference%20Schedule.html.


3/7

Morar,Nail,Smith:Introduction

6

BetweenFoucaultandDeleuze

TherelationshipbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze,however, isasstrongas it isdisparate: it is

perhapsbestdescribedasaparallelism. AsDeleuzesays,IneverworkedwithFoucault. But

Idothinktherearealotofparallelsbetweenourwork(withGuattari)andhis,althoughthey

are,asitwere,heldatadistancebecauseofourwidelydifferingmethodsandevenourobjec

tives.9While the twoweredrawn together through theirnovelreadingsofNietzsche, their

commitment to anonteleological theoryofhistory, their activism in contemporarypolitics

(withprisons,68,Palestine,etc.),theirreturntothestoics,andatheoryoftheevent,Deleuze

andFoucaultwereoftendecisivelydividedintheirmethodsandmotivations.

Forexample,what isthedifferencebetweenDeleuzesconceptofdesireandFoucaultscon

ceptofpleasure?Whywerethetwoauthorssoopposedtotheotherschoiceinterminology?

Isthe

difference

semantic

or

is

there

areally

an

important

philosophical

difference

between

them,assomecommentatorshaveargued10? Ifboth theconceptsofdesireandpleasureare

meant tobe radicaldepartures from thepsychoanalyticnotionofdesire as lack,whydoes

Deleuzechoose tostickwith thepsychoanalyticworddesireandFoucaultwith themore

amorphoustermpleasure?Thisdivergence isclearlymanifest ina letterDeleuzewrote to

Foucault. Icannotgiveanypositivevaluetopleasure,becausepleasureseemstometointer

rupttheimmanentprocessofdesire. []Frommypointofview,thisispreciselyhowdesire

isbroughtunderthe lawoflackandinlinewiththenormofpleasure.11Thisdivideisalso

noticeable fromFoucaults side. In an interview recently translatedbyNicolaeMorar and

DanielW. Smith,Foucaultemphasizesthisveryproblem.

Ibelieve theproblem of pleasuredesire is currently an importantproblem. Iwould

evensaythatitistheproblemthathastobedebatedinthisreevaluationthisrejuvenation,

inanycaseof the instruments,objectives,andaxesof the struggle. . . . Deleuzeand

Guattariobviouslyusethenotioninacompletelydifferentway. ButtheproblemIhaveis

thatImnotsureif,throughthisveryword,despiteitsdifferentmeaning,wedontrunthe

risk, despite Deleuze and Guattaris intention, of allowing some of the medico

psychologicalpresuppositions[prises]thatwerebuiltintodesire,initstraditionalsense,to

bereintroduced. Andsoitseemstomethat,byusingthewordpleasure,whichintheend

meansnothing,whichisstill,itseemstome,ratheremptyofcontentandunsulliedbypos

sibleusesdontwehavehere. . . ameansofavoidingtheentirepsychologicalandmedi

calarmaturethatwasbuiltintothetraditionalnotionofdesire?12

9GillesDeleuze,Fendreleschoses,fendrelesmots[1986],inPourparlers(Paris:Minuit,1990),117.10Forexample,WendyGrace,FauxAmis:FoucaultandDeleuzeonSexualityandDesire,CriticalInquiry,

Vol.36,No.1(Autumn2009),5275.11GillesDeleuze,DesireandPleasure,inTwoRegimesofMadness:textsandinterviews19751995,Editedby

DavidLapoujadeandtranslatedbyAmesHodgesandMikeTaormina(Semoiotexte:LosAngels,2006),131.12MichelFoucault,TheGayScience,TranslatedbyDanSmithandNicolaeMorar,CriticalInquiry,Vol.37,

No.3(Spring2011),385403.Inhisletter,DeleuzementionsanearlierencounterwithFoucaultwhenMichel

told

him,

I

cannot

bear

the

word

desire;

even

if

you

use

it

in

another

way,

in

Deleuze,

Desire

and

Pleas

ure.


4/7


7

Deleuzesimilarlyexpressedconcernover theconceptsof truthandsubjectivity. AsJacques

Donzelotrecalled, Deleuzeoftenspoketomeaboutthat,saying:Jacques,whatdoyouthink,

Michel iscompletelynuts,whats thisold ideaabout truth?Hes takingusback to thatold

idea,veridiction!Oh,itcanbe! Deleuze,inalettertoFoucault,continues,Thedangeris:is

Michelreturning toananalogof the constitutingsubjectandwhydoeshe feel theneed to

resuscitatethetruthevenifhedoesmakeitintoanewconcept?13

Consider tooFoucaultandDeleuzesdivergentconceptsofapparatus (dispositif)andassem

blage(agencement). Bothconceptsseemtobeaimingtoreplacestructuralistconceptsoforgan

izationwiththeassemblyofheterogeneouselements,butwhyhavetheychosensuchdifferent

terms/methodstodoso?Again,aretheserealphilosophicaldifferencesthataremutuallyex

clusive?Aretheystrategicchoicesrelevantinacertainaxisofstruggleoraretheymerelyter

minological differences disguising philosophical homologies?While there hasbeenmuch

writtenon

both

concepts,

very

few

scholars

have

taken

the

time

to

clarify

the

differences

and

similaritiesbetweenthesetwoconceptsindepthandinrelationtotheiroriginalFrenchmean

ings.

Even,andperhapsespecially,intermsofpolitics,FoucaultandDeleuzeseemsosimilarand

yetsodifferent. Foucaultsconceptofbiopower(thestatisticalpoliticalcontroloverlifeitself)

andDeleuzesconceptofsocietiesofcontrol(postdisciplinaryformsofmodulatedandflexi

blecontrol)seemtobothbeofferingnewconceptsofpostinstitutional/disciplinarypolitical

power. However,FoucaultandDeleuzechooseverydifferentmethodsofanalysis(genealogy

vs. schizoanalysis)andhavedifferentmotivesfordoingso(tounderstandtheemergenceof

liberalismvs. tounderstandtheschizophrenicbreakdownofcontemporarycapitalism). How

havetheseapproachesshapedthealternativesthatFoucaultandDeleuzethenpropose(ethi

calselftransformationvs. revolutionarynomadism)?WhydoesFoucault, inhis laterwork,

thenturntoarevitalizationoftheconceptofthesubject,atermDeleuzerarelyuses,exceptin

hisbookonFoucault? IfFoucaultwas initially inLaVolontdeSavoiragainst theuseof the

worddesirebecauseofitshistoricaloverdetermination,whydoeshereturntotheterminolo

gyofthesubjectandself,andincludingofdesire14?

Theconvergencesanddifferencesonthesetopics(andothers)betweenFoucaultandDeleuze,

arefurther

complicated

by

athird

body

of

literature:

the

one

they

wrote

about

each

others

work. FoucaultwroteTheatrumPhilosophicum (1970)asa reviewofDeleuzesDifference and

Repetition(1968)andLogicofSense(1969)wherehemadetheoftcitedclaimthatperhaps,one

13Dosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,318.14AsFoucaultnotesintheIntroductiontothesecondvolumeofTheHistoryofSexuality:TheUseofPleasure

(translatedbyRobertHurley,NY:Vintage,1990),hisintentionwastostudythegamesoftruthintherela

tionship

of

self

with

self

and

the

forming

of

oneself

as

a

subject,

taking

as

my

domain

of

reference

and

field

ofinvestigationwhatmightbecalledthehistoryofdesiringman(p.6;italicsadded).


5/7


6/7


9

that supported a non centralizedmovement that weboth saw as an extension of the

eventsofMay1968.24

But the friendshipbetweenDeleuze and Foucault is alsomarkedby a long silence.

Why?AplausiblehypothesisgoesbacktothetimewhenFoucaultandDeleuzebothdemon

stratedagainstthedeportationoftheBaaderMeinhofgroupsattorneyKlausCroissantfrom

France,butFoucaultrefusedtosignthepetitionbecausehewantedtomorecarefullydefine

his support forCroissant?25Perhaps itwasbecauseDeleuzehated thenouveauxphilosophes,

whereasFoucault supported them?Perhaps itwasbecauseDeleuze supportedMitterrands

Socialistpresidency,butFoucaultthoughtitwasbesttocriticizethem,justasonewouldcriti

cize any other party in power?Or perhaps itwasbecause Foucault didnt not likeAnti

Oedipus,asJacquesDonzelotclaims.26Orperhaps,itwastheinfamousletterDeleuzewrote

to Foucault criticizing his concept of pleasure in the History of Sexuality? Or perhaps, as

Deleuzesays,ina1990interviewwithJamesMiller,whenaskeddirectlyabouthisandFou

caultsmutual

silence:

(1)Theresobviouslynosingleanswer. Oneofuscouldhaveansweredonewayoneday

andanotherwaythenext. Notbecausewearefickle. Butbecausetherearemanyreasons

inthisareaandnosinglereasonisessential.Andbecausenoneofthemisessential,there

arealwaysseveralanswersatonce. TheonlyimportantthingisthatIhadlongagreedwith

himphilosophicallyandonspecificoccasions,Inolongermadethesameevaluationsashe

didonseveralpointsatonce. (2)Thisdidntleadtoanycoolingofrelationsbetweenus,

ortoanyexplanations.Wesaweachotherlessoften,asifbytheforceofcircumstances.

Andfromthereon, itbecamemoreandmoredifficulttomeetupagain. It isstrange,we

didnt

stop

seeing

each

other

because

we

didnt

get

along,

but

because

we

werent

seeing

eachotheranymore,akindofincomprehensionordistancebetweenustookhold. (3)Ican

tellyouthatIconstantlymissseeinghim,increasinglyso. Sowhatstoppedmefromcalling

him?Thatswhereadeeper reasoncomes into it. Rightlyorwrongly, Ibelieved thathe

wantedgreatersolitude,forhislife,forhisthinking;thatheneededthissolitude,keepingin

touchonlywiththepeoplewhowereclosetohim. InowthinkthatIshouldhavetriedto

seehimagain,but I think Ididnt tryoutofrespect. Iamstillsufferingfromnothaving

seenhimagain,evenmoresobecauseIdontthinktherewereanyexternalreasons.27

Conclusion

With

the

growing

interest

in

Foucaults

recently

translated

course

lectures

at

theCollge

de

France(19731984),andourrecenttranscriptionofDeleuzescourselecturesonFoucault,re

leasedbytheBibliothqueNationaledeFrance(2011),theeditorsofthethisspecialissuebelieve

that the time is right toaddress the relationshipbetween these twogreat thinkersdirectly.

This collection of essays thusbrings togetherboth senior andjunior scholars fromdiverse

24Ibid.25Thishypothesis isfurtherdevelopedbyPaulPatton inActivism,Philosophy,andActuality inDeleuze

andFoucault,DeleuzeStudies,vol.4,2010,supplement,84103,especially85.26JacquesDonzelot,InterviewwithFranoisDosse,inDosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,315.27

Gilles

Deleuze,

Letter

to

James

Miller

(February

7,

1990),

in

James

Miller,

Michel

Foucault

(Paris:

Plon,

1993),346.


7/7

Morar,Nail,Smith:Introduction

10

backgrounds to clarify the implications of this important philosophical encounterbetween

FoucaultandDeleuze.

MarcoAltamiranosessayfocusesonthesharedconceptsofmilieuandmachine,

inDeleuzeandFoucault. VernonW. CisneysessaydefendsaDeleuzianpoliticsbydrawing

onan importantpoliticalconceptsharedwithFoucault:becomingother.WilliamE. Con

nollysessayoffersanexplorationofcreativityandtheambiguousroleitplaysintheunder

standingof freedom thatwe find inNietzsche,Deleuze,andFoucault. ErinGilsons essay

offers an original account of the sharedmethodology of problematization found inboth

DeleuzeandFoucault. WendyGracesessaytracesDeleuzeandFoucaultssharedNietzsche

anphilosophicalorigins. ChrisPenfieldsessayarticulatesa theoryoftransversalpolitics

commontobothDeleuzeandFoucault. Finally,DiannaTaylorsessaycomparestherespec

tiveontologiesofDeleuzeandFoucault. WewouldalsoliketothankAlanRosenbergforhis

invitation topublish this special issueandDitteVilstrupHolm for allherhelpful editorial

work.We

greatly

appreciate

all

their

support

in

putting

together

the

present

collection.

NicolaeMorar

TheRockEthicsInstitute

PennStateUniversity

206SparksBuilding

UniversityPark,Pennsylvania,16802

USA

[email protected]

ThomasNail

DepartmentofPhilosophy

UniversityofDenver

2000EAsburyAve.,Suite257

DenverCO802080923

USA

[email protected]

DanielW.

Smith

DepartmentofPhilosophy

PurdueUniversity

100N.UniversityStreet

WestLafayette,Indiana479072098

USA

[email protected]

foucault and deleuze introduction

Documents