Repurposing Deleuze and Design
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPURPOSING DELEUZE AND DESIGN by BILLY GOEHRING A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Philosophy and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2019 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Billy Goehring Title: Repurposing Deleuze and Design This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Philosophy by: Nicolae Morar Chairperson and Advisor Daniel Smith Core Member Colin Koopman Core Member Lisa Mazzei Institutional Representative and Janet Woodruff-Borden Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2019 ii © 2019 Billy Goehring iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Billy Goehring Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy June 2019 Title: Repurposing Deleuze and Design Gilles Deleuze’s interdisciplinary reception privileges the term, “assemblage,” but this translation runs the risk of appearing as jargon, whereas the original agencement would appear to a French audience as a more ordinary term. In the absence of a better alternative translation, I propose that we translate the problems motivating Deleuze’s word choice rather than the word, agencement, itself. I consult a wide range of the figures influential for Deleuze and Félix Guattari who are relevant for the many contexts in which agencement appears in their work. This leads me to propose design as suitable terrain for redescribing Deleuze’s philosophy. At the other end of the project, I note that design has its own share of problems. Theoretical approaches to design are often limited to particular kinds of design, and there are few efforts to reconcile design theories and definitions rooted in different designs, e.g. cinematography and engineering. Most accounts, though, define design primarily or exclusively in terms of its purpose or intended function. This poses problems for understanding changes in function and design’s unintended effects. Deleuze scholarship and design both have problems, and therefore I use each as an intervention into the other: design affords us the opportunity to redescribe Deleuze’s philosophy, while the problems at stake in Deleuze’s philosophy allows us to redescribe design and treat design in a more iv comprehensive manner. In the end, I propose that we understand agencement as the interaction between coinciding, heterogeneous considerations or perspectives of the same substance; a living room is a series of activities, a spatial configuration of things, a collection of ideas, an arena of feelings and affects, and so on. We can tell a similar story with design, which explains why intentional design decisions can have unintended consequences. I arrange furniture while considering quantity, but unbeknownst to me, the change in quantity results in a change in quality. Both agencement and design are ways of describing how considerations which are different in kind can nevertheless coincide and affect one another. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Billy Goehring GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, 2019, University of Oregon Master of Arts, Philosophy, 2013, Duquesne University Bachelor of Arts, English, 2011, Missouri State University GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Philosophy, 2013-2019 First Place Graduate Research Panel, University of Oregon, 2018 Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship, University of Oregon, 2015 Strasser Scholarship for Language Study, Duquesne University, 2012 Critical Language Scholarship, U.S. Department of State, 2009 PUBLICATIONS: Goehring, Billy, and Larry Alan Busk. “Narcissus and the Transcendental: Merleau- Ponty, Deleuze, and the Challenge of Meillassoux.” Chiasmi International 19 (2018). ———. “What is a Working-Class Intellectual?” Rhizomes 27 (2014). vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to gratefully acknowledge the endlessly generous and patient support of my advisor, Nicolae Morar, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. For their helpful feedback and encouragement at various points in the planning and writing process, I would also like to thank the members of my committee: Daniel Smith, Colin Koopman, and Lisa Mazzei. The completion of this project was made possible, in part, by the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oregon, whose financial support I appreciate. My colleagues, Larry Busk and Eli Portella in particular, offered invaluable feedback that not only informed the direction of this research but led the way for its future development into other projects for publication. Finally, because the object of my inquiry is design, I acknowledge the practical and theoretical insights I owe to regular conversations with two designers—my brother, A. J. Goehring, and my partner, Chad Lowe. vii To Mom and Dad, for everything. You may have wondered what it is I’ve been doing with my life. You supported me, nevertheless. (This probably won’t make it any clearer.) viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. TRANSLATING AGENCEMENT .......................................................................... 1 A Reader Caught Unawares ................................................................................... 2 The Translation of Agencement............................................................................. 6 The Meaning of Agencement in General ............................................................... 14 According to Deleuze and Guattari........................................................................ 18 Substitutions: What Agencement Is Not .......................................................... 19 The Positive Definition of Agencement .......................................................... 25 General Problems, Translation............................................................................... 36 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 41 II. DELEUZE AND GUATTARI’S PLAN FOR POTTERY: FROM STRATIGRAPHY TO CERAMIC RUDIMENTS ................................... 44 Plan and Its Translation ......................................................................................... 45 Deleuze and Guattari’s Plans ................................................................................. 48 Content and Expression ................................................................................... 48 Note 1: Louis Hjelmslev .................................................................................. 52 Between Concepts and Chaos .......................................................................... 57 Note 2: Jakob von Uexküll .............................................................................. 60 Dessein and Dessin .......................................................................................... 64 Note 3: Cuvier and Geoffroy ........................................................................... 66 Two Houses in One .......................................................................................... 69 Note 4: Leibniz ................................................................................................ 72 ix Chapter Page The Meaning of Plan .............................................................................................. 75 Plan as Perspective ........................................................................................... 77 Plan as Attribute ............................................................................................... 80 The Agencement of Plans ...................................................................................... 82 A General Logic: Plan Philosophy ........................................................................ 88 Design .................................................................................................................... 91 The Word “Design” ......................................................................................... 92 Design’s Desiderata ......................................................................................... 94 Archaeology: Series and Type ............................................................................... 95 Ceramic Stratification ............................................................................................ 110 Skeuomorphs and Rudiments ................................................................................ 112 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 121 III. DESIGN BETWEEN DESSIN AND DESSEIN: DIAGRAMS ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE .................................................... 129 Christopher Alexander’s Whole Problem .............................................................. 130 Problems and Solutions.......................................................................................... 134 Diagrams in Architecture ....................................................................................... 138 Eisenman’s Diagrams ............................................................................................ 143 Diagrams, Regarding Continuity ..........................................................................