In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Laruelle: Against the Digital by Alexander R. Galloway
  • Gabriela Galati
Laruelle: Against the Digital
by Alexander R. Galloway. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, 2014. 280pp., illus. Trade, paper. ISBN: 978-0-8166-9212-5; 978-0-8166-9213-2.

Alexander Galloway’s Laruelle: Against the Digital is the first in-depth study in English of the work of French philosopher François Laruelle. The book is divided into two parts: In the first, Galloway explains the main concepts of La ruelle’s thought and his relation with the digital, locating him as a philosopher of immanence; the second part approaches a methodology for withdrawing from the “Standard Model.” Although the title may be misleading and make the reader believe that the book will address subjects related to new media, software and computers, it does not, as Galloway briefly explains in the introduction and then develops further at the end of the book. Galloway takes as a point of departure Laruelle’s methodology to escape the standard method and embrace immanence—which, according to Laruelle, other philosophers of difference such as Gilles Deleuze and Alain Badiou have not attained. In this sense, according to Laruelle, the best response to philosophy is to cease doing it (p. xvii); Laruelle’s main aim is to think philosophy unphilosophically. In the first place, to do non-philosophy means for Laruelle to “abstain from the philosophical decision,” that is to say, to reject the idea that anything in the world can be subject of philosophical reflection: “Non-philosophy declines to reflect on things” (p. xxiv). In doing this, one is able to enter the terrain of “science,” in which theoretical validity is given by the possibility of elaborating axioms. In turn, this allows him to take philosophy as the “raw material” of non-philosophy; to do non-philosophy is to use philosophy as the object of study of non-philosophy. After clearly explaining that digitality is the basic distinction not so much between zeros and ones but between one and two, Galloway advances his own goals: to demonstrate that digitality and philosophy are the same because both are based on “distinction,” and therefore that in withdrawing from philosophy Laruelle was also withdrawing from the digital (pp. xviii–xix). In opposition to the digital, the analogue means to bring heterogeneous elements together as one. In this context, in Galloway’s insight, digitality is not in any way related to computers or new media but is considered as a strictly theoretical concept.

Galloway pedagogically exposes all these principles in the introduction; this discussion of course deepens throughout the book while at the same time building on his own principles and explaining at the very end the usefulness of the whole operation for the understanding and analysis of digital media. In Chapter I, “The One Divides in Two,” Galloway explains multiplicity, univocity and immanence, beginning with Deleuze but eventually discussing other philosophers who could not escape transcendence, and then advances his own first three theses. Chapter II is dedicated to “the Standard Model” and puts into relation immanence, [End Page 174] transcendence, difference, the multiple, integration, analogicity, distinction and digitality. Chapter III is dedicated to “The Digital,” and Chapter V to “Computers”; both are among the most interesting in the book thanks to Galloway’s detailed and acute analysis of Deleuze’s philosophy, but exactly because of it, these are also the chapters in which it is possibly most evident that Laruelle’s theoretical building does not add much to what Deleuze has already done.

In fact, the main problem the book has is not so much Galloway’s but Laruelle’s: His neologisms and conceptual operations often sound like a solipsistic exercise. Although certain concepts like “cloning” or “the prevent” are undoubtedly attractive, one cannot avoid asking about their theoretical relevance and consistency; and one has often the impression that Laruelle, when not inventing new words, is using the concepts of philosophy to do non-philosophy.

Having said this, the book is not only exhaustive in explaining La ruelle’s theoretical construction on philosophy but is also extremely clear in the analysis of other philosophers, mainly Deleuze and Badiou. Galloway concludes his work by...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 174-175
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Archive Status
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.