Paradeleuze, Metadeleuze

THE COMPAKATIST REVIEW ESSAYS JOHN RAJCHMAN. The Deleuze Connections. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. 167 pp. * IAN BUCHANAN. Deleuzism: A Metacommentary. Durham: Duke UP, 2000. 209 pp. PARADELEUZE, METADELEUZE Since the death of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze in 1995, over a dozen books on his thought have appeared in English, some devoted to specific aspects ofhis work, others to the grand design ofhis philosophy. Two outstanding examples of the latter kind are Rajchman's 7Ae Deleuze Connections and Buchanan's Deleuzism: A Metacommentary. In some twenty-five books written between 1953 and 1993, Deleuze commented on a dizzying number of subjects, ranging from philosophy and the arts to anthropology, metallurgy, mathematics, and embryology; grasping the whole ofthis corpus is no mean task. Both Rajchman and Buchanan approach this enterprise by identifying in Deleuze's thought a central problem —Rajchman, that of inventing a logic of connections, Buchanan, that of developing a politics ofactive self-construction. Each in his own way sifts through Deleuze's voluminous writings, isolates key texts, and suggests a shape and a trajectory to the formation ofhis thought. Neither falls into the trap of"speaking Deleuze," like some commentators who attempt to explain Deleuze exclusively via his own difficult and often idiosyncratic vocabulary, but each offers quite useful ways ofrephrasing Deleuze's insights, and each finds a voice distinct from and yet congenial to Deleuze's own. Both adopt a familiar, unaffected tone and frame clear explanations in straightforward language. Neither, however, offers an easy read. Much of Buchanan's analysis focuses on some of the most puzzling passages in Deleuze, and following the complexities ofthe arguments can at times be daunting. The ease ofRajchman's style creates the appearance ofsimplicity, but beneath the surface (and somewhat more directly evident in the footnotes) lie challenges as significant as those posed by Buchanan. The rewards ofnegotiating the difficulties ofboth works, however, are considerable. For Rajchman, Deleuze's central problem is that ofescaping the identities of orthodox mappings ofthe world and making alternate connections between newly configured territories—in short, a problem of moving from the identities of "is" (est) to the connections of"and" (et). Deleuze's method is to invent a cohesive set ofconceptual "bits" oriented around a particular problem, then connect that problem to another, reconfigure the bits, add new ones, rethink their mode ofcohesion, and then connect the bits to yet another problem. "The bits thus don't work together like parts in a well-formed organism or a purposeful mechanism or a well-formed narrative—the whole is not given, and things are always starting up again in the middle, falling together in another looser way" (21-22). As a result, no clear itinerary guides the Deleuzian reader; instead, "one is taken on a sort ofconceptual trip for which there preexists no map—a voyage for which one must leave one's usual discourse behind and never quite be sure where one will land" (22). Rajchman's own method is somewhat similar. His is a kind of para-Deleuzian reading, a reading along with and alongside ofDeleuze, which connects conceptual bits from one problem to the next within a theme-and-variations form (or, in more Vol. 27 (2003): 165 REVIEW ESSAYS Deleuzian terms, along a "line of continuous variation"). A coherent connective logic links the six chapters—the problem offorging connections (1: Connections) arises from Deleuze's rethinking ofempiricism (2: Experiment), which engenders a reconception of thinking itself (3: Thought), one that entails a new logic (4: Multiplicities) and new relations between thought and the world (5: Life) and between thought and art (6: Sensation). From chapter to chapter, however, there is a gentle drift, as motifs recur, recombine, and accumulate in a conceptual trip filled with subtle and unexpected shifts and turns. Rajchman's focus is on Deleuze's constant effort to "think otherwise," to create the possibility ofsomething new within thought. The philosopher's problem is in some ways like the painter's, which Deleuze details in his study ofFrancis Bacon . As the painter starts to work, the blank canvas is not really empty, but covered with clichés—readymade images, tired stereotypes, predictable narratives. The painter's task is to...