Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Deleuze

Gilles Deleuze


The above special issue of Deleuze Studies is now available online from Edinburgh University Press at:

Register at to receive Table of Contents Alerts when new material in your field of interest is uploaded to the site and to view sample issues and featured articles for free.

Special Issue on Deleuze and Marx

Editor’s Introduction

Capital, Crisis, Manifestos, and Finally Revolution
Dhruv Jain
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 1-7.


Deleuze, Marx and the Politicisation of Philosophy
Simon Choat
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 8-27.

The Marx of Anti-Oedipus
Aidan Tynan
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 28-52.

Marx as Ally: Deleuze outside Marxism, Adjacent Marx
Aldo Pardi
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 53-77.

The Fetish is Always Actual, Revolution is Always Virtual: From Noology to
Jason Read
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 78-101.

Minor Marxism: An Approach to a New Political Praxis
Eduardo Pellejero
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 102-118.

Politicising Deleuzian Thought, or, Minority’s Position within Marxism
Guillaume Sibertin-Blanc
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 119-137.

Review Essay

After Utopia: Three Post-Personal Subjects Consider the Possibilities

William E. Connolly (2008) Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Alexander Garcia Duttmann (2007) Philosophy of Exaggeration, trans. James Phillips, London: Continuum.

Adrian Parr (2008) Deleuze and Memorial Culture: Desire, Singular Memory, and the Politics of Trauma, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Jeffrey Cain
Deleuze Studies, Vol. 3, No. suppl: 138-143.

Best wishes,
Wendy Gardiner

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas:

Gilles Deleuze

Gilles Deleuze



Jason Adams

While the relevance of Gilles Deleuze for a materialist feminism has been amply demonstrated in the last two decades or so, what this key philosopher of difference and desire can do for the theorization of race and racism has received surprisingly little attention. This is despite the explicit formulation of a materialist theory of race as instantiated in colonization, sensation, capitalism and culture, particularly in Deleuze’s collaborative work with Félix Guattari.

Part of the explanation of why there has been a relative silence on Deleuze within critical race and colonial studies is that the philosophical impetus for overcoming eugenics and nationalism have for decades been anchored in the conventional readings of Kant and Hegel, which Deleuze laboured to displace. Through the vocabularies of psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and moral philosophy, even the more sophisticated theorizations of race today continue the neo-Kantian/neo-Hegelian programme of retrieving a cosmopolitan universality beneath the ostensibly inconsequential differences called race.

Opposing this idealism, Deleuze instead asks whether the conceptual basis for this program, however commendable, does not foreclose its political aims, particularly in its avoidance of the material relations it seeks to change. The representationalism and oversimplified dialectical frameworks guiding the dominant antiracist programme actively suppress an immanentist legacy which according to Deleuze is far better suited to grasping how power and desire differentiate bodies and populations: the legacies of Spinoza, Marx and Nietzsche; biology and archeology; Virginia Woolf and Jack Kerouac; cinema, architecture, and the fleshy paintings of Francis Bacon. It is symptomatic too, that Foucault’s influential notion of biopolitics, so close to Deleuze and Guattari’s writings on the state, is usually taken up without its explicit grounding in race, territory and capitalist exchange. Similarly, those (like Negri) that twist biopolitics into a mainly Marxian category, meanwhile, lose the Deleuzoguattarian emphasis on racial and sexual entanglement. It would seem then, that it is high time for a rigorous engagement with the many conceptual ties between Foucault’s lectures on biopolitics, Deleuze and Guattari, and Deleuze-influenced feminism, to obtain a new materialist framework for studying racialization as well as the ontopolitics of becoming from which it emerges. While it will inevitably overlap in a few ways, this collection will differ from work done under the “postcolonial” rubric for a number of important reasons.

First, instead of the mental, cultural, therapeutic, or scientific representations of racial difference usually analyzed in postcolonial studies, it will seek to investigate racial difference “in itself”, as it persists as a biocultural, biopolitical force amid other forces. For Deleuze and Guattari, as for Nietzsche before them, race is far from inconsequential, though this does not mean it is set in stone.

Second, as Fanon knew, race is a global phenomenon, with Europe’s racism entirely entwined with settler societies and the continuing poverty in the peripheries. The effects of exploitation, slavery, displacement, war, migration, exoticism and miscegenation are too geographically diffuse and too contemporary to fit comfortably under the name “postcolonial”. Rather, we seek to illuminate the material divergences that phenotypical variation often involves, within any social, cultural or political locus.

Third, again like Nietzsche, but also Freud, Deleuze and Guattari reach into the deep recesses of civilization to expose an ancient and convoluted logic of racial discrimination preceding European colonialism by several millennia. Far from naturalizing racism, this nomadological and biophilosophical “geology of morals” shows that racial difference is predicated on fully contingent territorializations of power and desire, that can be disassembled and reassembled differently. That race is immanent to the materiality of the body then, does not mean that it is static any more than that it is simple: rather what it suggests is that its transformation is an always already incipient reality.

Possible themes:

CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS – Oedipus and racialization – fascist desire – civilization, savagery and barbarism – earth and its peoples – delirium and hallucination as racial – miscegenation

CAPITALISM – faciality – colonization and labor migration as racializing apparatuses of capture – urban segregation – environmental racism

POLITICS – hate speech and law as order-words – D&G, May ’68 and the third world – Deleuze and Palestine – Guattari and Brazil – terrorist war machines and societies of control – Deleuzian feminism and race

SCIENCE – neuroscience and race – continuing legacies of racist science and the “Bell Curve” debate – kinship, rhizomatics and arboreality – animals, plants, minerals and racial difference – miscegenation – evolutionary biology and human phenotypical variation – vitalism and Nazism

ART – affects of race (sport, hiphop, heavy metal, disco…) – primitivism (Rimbaud, Michaux, Artaud, Tournier, Castaneda, etc.) – vision, cinema and race – music, resonance and bodies

PHILOSOPHY – geophilosophy: provincializing canonical philosophy – race and becoming – decolonizing Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Schelling… – the effect of criticisms of Deleuze (Badiou, Zizek, Hallward) on antiracism Chapters will be between 4000 and 7000 words long.

Arun Saldanha will write the introduction and a chapter called “Bastard and mixed-blood are the true names of race”.

Jason Michael Adams will write the conclusion.

For more details on this project, contact Jason Adams at: adamsj@HAWAII.EDU

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas:

The Ockress:




Date: 23 June 2009
Venue: Queen Mary, University of London
Call for papers deadline: 22 May 2009
All papers and enquiries to:

Keynote speakers:

Professor James Williams (University of Dundee)
Dr Ray Brassier (American University of Beirut)
Dr Alberto Toscano (Goldsmiths, University of London)

The concepts of immanence and materialism are becoming increasingly important in political philosophy. This conference seeks to analyse the connections between these two concepts and to examine the consequences for political thought. It is possible, as Giorgio Agamben has done, to make a distinction within modern philosophy between a line of transcendence (Kant, Husserl, Levinas, Derrida) and a line of immanence (Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Foucault). If we follow this distinction, then ‘the line of immanence’ might include Spinozist interpretations of Marx, Althusser’s aleatory materialism, and Deleuze’s superior empiricism. But what is the value of this work and is it useful to distinguish it from ‘transcendent’ philosophies? Distinctions between materialism and idealism are equally complex: Derrida, for example, might as easily be classed a materialist as an idealist. And where can we place more recent work like the critiques of Deleuze by Badiou and Zizek, or Meillassoux’s speculative materialism?

Papers may wish to consider the following questions:
* What is materialist philosophy? How can it be distinguished from idealist philosophy, and is it useful to do so? Are all philosophies of immanence necessarily materialist?
* Is it legitimate or useful to make a clear distinction between philosophies of immanence and philosophies of transcendence?
* How have the concepts of immanence and materialism traditionally been conceived within political philosophy?

* What, if any, are the political consequences of pursuing a philosophy of immanence?


Paper titles and a 300-word abstract should be sent by Friday 22 May 2009 to Simon Choat at:, Department of Politics, Queen Mary College, University of London.

Graduate papers welcome.

Dr Simon Choat
Lecturer in Politics
Queen Mary, University of London
Office: Hatton House 1B
Tel: 020 7882 8592



Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: