CEU eTD Collection

THE POLITICAL PROMISEOFTHE DISIDENTIFICATION: In partial fulfillment for the degree for fulfillment the inGender ofpartial ofMaster Arts Studies BUTLER ANDBUTLER DELEUZE& DepartmentGender Studies of Central European University Second reader: Eszter Supervisor: Budapest, Hungary Blaz Skerjanec Submitted to Submitted 2015 By Andrew Ryder

GUATTARI

Timár

ASSEMBLING

CEU eTD Collection GuattarianDelueze Guattari and and Butlerian. are becoming out tracing thinking of matter and affects terms. positive in considerations ontological to performativity Butler’s opens becoming Guattarian of limits discursive performativity t other. the of limit the individuations affective positive and subjections/subjectifications out sketch assemblage and signifier) out spelled analytical an as theory assemblage with engages differentiating t for searches perspective quasi the within of possibilities disidentification of Dele and hand, one the Butler,on Judith of thoughts assemblingthe of possibilities exploresthe followingthesis The Abstract nin bten h to oe o asmlg. t hw hw ulrs deconstructive Butler’s how shows It assemblage. of poles two the between ensions

as pltcl ie f hnig a thinking of line political a

an immanent logics (of matter and affects). and matter (of logics immanent an matter/affects. with thinking a constant dynamic movement movement dynamic constant a - rncnetl princip transcendental

uze and Guattari, on the other, through an an through other, the on Guattari, and uze that points towards the shared the towards points that its Deleuzo

negatively charged performative politics of resignification of politics performative charged negatively h asmld reading assembled The

change and transformation. While Butler finds the possibility of change of possibility the finds Butler While transformation. and change

e osblte o cag i a imnn raig f pre of reading immanent an in change of possibilities he two forms of (political) individuation: negative discursive discursive negative individuation: (political) of forms two In order to think these two these think to order In - utain fimtv pltc o becoming of politics affirmative Guattarian

I n this sense n this e f icrie citationality discursive of le ot disdentification bout i on centered is ewe a (quasi a between ,

the statement the appropriation of heterogeneous logics that are that logics heterogeneous of appropriation

dedica tion ( political

In political terms, the two logics of of logics two the terms, political In

analysis of political considerations political of analysis of the two philosophies two the of , at the core of the, at thesis, the core highlighting

- - ulr s eoig Deleuzo becoming is Butler haecceity where each p each where haecceity )transcendental logics (of the the (of logics )transcendental )

thoughts together, t together, thoughts a Deleuzo a ,

h oclain, the oscillations, the wie Deleuzo while ,

draws out the the out draws - -

Guattarian Guattarian individual individual to finding to

he thesis he is resents that

in - - CEU eTD Collection 5. 4. political ofbecoming signifierspolitics a and 3. becoming(of matter) 2. 1. Contents of Table

3.3 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 Bibliography Disidentified c From a ofthe critique psychoanalyticalassemblage to ofperformative Real confluence as a 2.4.2 2.4.1 Languageas Butler’s thesite ofcontestation: and resignification Deleuzo Introduction

Political implicationsPolitical ofButler’s performativity Butler’s hegemonicalliances Matter, affect Molar and sexual difference: molecular Re Two understandings oflanguage Assemblage asand thepoliticalButlerDeleuze Guattari confluence and of

- readingcollective assemblage terms ofenunciation in ofButler’s performativity AssemblingButler’s performativityand Deleuzo Butler’s (quasi

......

......

onclusions ...... - becoming and performativity becoming - )transcendental materializations meet materialism Kirby’s new

......

......

......

...... ii

(quasi

......

...... - )transcendence and immanence

...... - Guattarian becoming ...... - ...... Guattarian ......

......

......

......

...

.. ..

50 48 39 36 33 33 29 25 24 19 12

5 5 1

CEU eTD Collection Figure 2:Puar's sexuality Figure 1:Deleuzo Figures of List

- Guattarian tetravalance assemblage of - as - assemblage &assemblage homonationalism iii

...... - as - assemblage

......

41

8

CEU eTD Collection disidentification as a potentiality toen extrapola to aim we theory, of strands two the reading of process our In 46). (ibid, them” between sorts exists already of union a that acknowledge to reason immediate and pressing most the is This politics. the structures, philosophical their and themselves that statement their especially thesis, following (concept D and Butler reading together for all of their differences (ontolog effects synergetic possible the on article insightful the one hand, and J on Guattari, and Deleuze of philosophies the of (in)commensurabilityof problem the tackles that times, at if, even thinkin in outcomes productive have can approaches these that is thesis, presented the of core the at wager our divide, (analytical) similar a see approaches that focus sexuality on ‘affectiv and strand) Butlerian the this call could (we approachesdeconstructive into divided is view, her in theory, Queer academia. the within established been has theory queer contemporary add another ofdivergence, point r salient which istheir would we insights Butler’s To unconscious. the and negativity of rejections supposed Deleuze’s own Butler’s In diverge. to seem also they (2004, 198) makes it and subject volitional the representation of criticism like points vantage common post as classified been have A Thousand Plateaus to it compare is

being translated into poli into translated being 1.

According to Jasbir P Jasbir to According sexuality and gender theorizing how into insights provide will we thesis, following the In Introduction

f becoming of

Deleuze and Guattari’s two most notable works, namely, namely, works, notable most two Guattari’s and Deleuze

e hi dfeig and, differing their te in a conflictual relation. Our project is situated in an ongoing academic debate academic ongoing an in situated is project Our relation. conflictual a in udith Butler, on the other. Hickey explicit in

(2004). Since both theoretical approaches, Butler’s and Deleuze pltcl stance political , the search of potentialities that spring from failed dialectics, as Butler as dialectics, failed from spring that potentialities of search the tical terms of radical democracy radical of terms tical - uar (2013), who draws on Giffney and Hird (2008), a division of division a (2008), Hird and Giffney on draws who (2013), uar of amount fair a share they that assume to safe is it structuralist Undoing Gender - as - assemblage (the Deleuzo vision y ). t h sm time same the at , relationship to psychoanalysis) a hs ril sre a te nta isiain o the for inspiration initial the as served article This understanding, her thought is incommensurable with with incommensurable is thought her understanding,

a political projecta ofradical political democracy. 1 . However, for everything

“ ir writings are used in ways that effect similar similar effect that ways in used are writings ir b eyond a hagiographic focus on the theorists the on focus hagiographic a eyond - Moodey and Rasmussen (2009) provided an espective views on materiality.espective views on alism, anti alism, mtal rifrig ecpin of perceptions reinforcing mutually , g the possibilities of political change political of possibilities the g in Judith Butler’s Judith in - Guattarian strand). While we also - foundationalism, Anti these approaches share nd their - Oedipus earlier works earlier eleuze& commonalities

& a

assembling (2009) and and (2009) Guattari’s, critique o critique Guattari Guattari

and and e’ e’ f

CEU eTD Collection of thou that will still enable us will we Nevertheless, significantly. Butler’s level, conceptual a collect Guattari’s on and Deleuze and performativity that, show will we iteration, of system heterogeneous open, an as (signification) language of account (1982) Derrida’s of analysis an Through citationality. Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy languagehowitcompares and of toButler’s first the of focus main The language. be be Th read together. Deleuze& (undertaking) an such endeavor. Deleuze and Butler reading of sense make to trying are we that say could we manner, plainer a In intervention. political for desire affective endeavor intense,performative affective toan politics of limits discursive performativity assemblage. of poles their two the between tensions the (and individuations variations transformative Deleuzo affective potential reterritorializations). and deconstruction) an be will matter). (of logics immanent (quasi a between (becoming) movement dynamic theory will be expl immanence/transcendence (positivity/negativity)and materiality. oration of Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of assemblage. Our engagement with assemblage with engagement Our assemblage. of concept Guattari’s and Deleuze of oration ght togetherght oee, ro t eaoaig h pltcl dimension political the elaborating to prior However, an through possible made be will theory of blocks two these of reading assembled An - utain huh ae fe bsd n pirtzto o te maet pla immanent the of prioritization a on based often are thought Guattarian will tendtoarticulatewill and

Guattari together, we will have to indicate in what way the two theoretical corpuses can and positive, a

sebe ciia rea critical assembled an with

the two main (and interconnected) issues that we will tackle will be the problem problem the be will tackle will we that issues interconnected) (and main two the analytical analytical e entry point of the comparative analysis of these two clusters of will thought comparative these ofthe analysispoint two entryof e Deleuzo its Even though political derivatives and normative claims drawn out of of out drawn claims normative and derivatives political though Even

to put them into communication. I

negatively charged perform charged negatively ffirmative up appropriation of heterogeneous logics that are spelled out in a constant

- In other words, words, other In Guattarian affirmative politics of becoming, while the latter opens latter the while becoming, of politics affirmative Guattarian

,

explore at the same time ding of processes of of processes of ding - takings of affect, section

, material disparities in the two theoretical corpuses; disparities disparities corpuses; theoretical two the in disparities & a synthetic reading of Butler and Deleuze and Butler of reading synthetic a utai oehr in together, Guattari 2

- of our thesis, will be to be will thesis, our of ive assemblages of ennunciation do not depart not do ennunciation of assemblages ive )transcendental logic )transcendental ative politics of resignification of politics ative , We will show how show will We

embody, tosay, thatis textually perform its beside our n an effort to read the two st

reading will center on the oscillations, . As an assemblage itself, our textual textual assemblage itself,our As an icrie ujcin (and subjections discursive ta o fnig h sne in sense the finding of stead

s of reading Butler and and Butler reading of s s (of the signifier) and signifier) the (of s Butler’s deconstructive deconstructive Butler’s provide an provide performativity as

draws out the the out draws rains of queer analysis of analysis ne and its its and ne & Guattari their an an

CEU eTD Collection read signification). ( ’camp discursive. the reading of Butler opens a which one as them sk how Deleuze and Guatta thought, we will diverging relationship to matter. With the Deleuzo Butler’s of tha assertion Guattari’s re of philosophy a as it expose/resignify will we exclusively, positivity and affirmation of philosophy takingInsteadof 42). 1999, (Olkowski carry out” candesire, corporeal of action the through negativity, only that function a function, remaking and making for i Butler searches negativityInthat the view her relationship Deleuze. Butler’s to of out ananalysis fleshed already has (1999) Olkowski Dorothea thought. Deleuze’s in negative the of register no from away stray will Butler’s weown interpretation of Deleuze, for negativity/positivity, of issue the with dealing when Nevertheless, rel expression of forms of confoundingdifference productive culture, tothe sphere of D negativity mandatory a on hinges discourse as language confined to culture to confined

etch out a perspective on matter on perspective a out etch expression n Deleuzea lationality between the positive the between lationality n ih of light in s’ seems to be the relationship between Deleuze and Guattari’s ontology and Butler’s politics appears as a as appears Secondly, the two strands of critical theory have a of principle governing the formulating in depart to seem approaches two the Firstly, - quasi Guattari in terms of

differentiating - that finds its its finds that

However, if However, transcendental transcendental n thought As a consequence of their views on matter, the core difference between the two the between difference core the matter, on views their of consequence a As

investigate how new materialism an ulrs performativity Butler’s

process of process ), between the emphasis on positivity (of differentiation) and negativity (of negativity and differentiation) (of positivity on emphasis the between ), collective assemblage enunciation. of immanence and transcendence t signification t ri ri resonate in new materialism). Kirby’s new materialist interventions will

possibility of yet fails to find is

ies Deleuzo specific maet system. immanent

performativity can be re be can performativity sediment on a positive, generative view of the process of differentiation. differentiation. of process the of view generative positive, a on

that -

place in an assemblage an in place Guattarian collective assemb collective Guattarian and negative. This negative. and

as collective assemblages of enunciation of assemblages collective as thinking does not does ation of ation

help of Vicky Kirby’s (2011) deconstruction of Butler’s

(

she she has, as we have above,mentioned claimed there is “the importance of negativity (that) lies in its identity s a as

about about ontology proper beside or, better yet,

3

n otat o ulrs iw n materialization, on view Butler’s to contrast In effect of discursive performativity discursive of effect distinguish between distinguish eosrcie rtqe of critique deconstructive

resonates in Deleuze and Guattari (or better yet, that delimits the signifier from the referent, referent, the from signifier the delimits that . Insofar as Butler’s understanding of language

- consideration read as a formalization of expression of expression of formalization a as read

significant . More accurately More eleuze andeleuze Deleuze and Guattari’sand Deleuze lage

but not

culture and nature, but nature, and culture has to do with Deleuze and Deleuze with do to has s

of enunciation enunciation of Guattari extendedGuattari

an itrcly specific historically , we will show how show will we ,

in is a formalization a is commensurably , a thought

naturalistic naturalistic can be re be can

with/in notion

sees sees as a - -

CEU eTD Collection becomingDeleuzo disidentification other each of scope the delimit disentification mediation. discursive elude sense some in that affects and particles material acknowledgment ontological dom with life of forms viable as recognized culturally become to constitutive outside calls for a proliferation of molar identity categories that are opened up in order affective individuation: (political) of forms d creative of proliferation positive a and expression) of formalization a as (signification language in meaning of deferral endless negative, the between relationality a as ‘exposed’ be ultimately Guatta and Deleuze and Butler of our desire to assemble these q a Deleuze& that and Butler between assemblage of apparatus conceptual the through precisely thesis the materialization logics distinct two become they rather, other, the into subsumed not is one incommensurable, assemblag an of pole )transcendental expression of formalization ifference With With an assembled reading of Butler and Deleuze&Guattari in place, the individuation

nn dsusv interpellations discursive inant will focus on explicating the political consequences of consequencespolitical the explicating on focus will

(of matter and effects) and matter (of

that function together s and allow and s - Guattarian and and Delueze - haecceity haecceity where each )

thoughts , we will show how Butler’s performativity can become the (quasi the become can performativity Butler’s how show will we , us to reiterate Cohen and Ramlow’s (2006) assertion that Butler is Butler that assertion (2006) Ramlow’s and Cohen reiterate to us

Guattari will be rendered possible for us for possible rendered be will Guattari (affirmation) . In political terms political In negative i bcmn, t h lvl f hoeia asrcin will abstraction, theoretical of level the at becoming, ri, . In order to keep up with our synergetic and eclectic reading

by posing the limits (of perception) limits eachby the posing to other . h to iw o mte, ec, o o become not do hence, matter, on views two The e. Deleuzo , discursive subjections/subjectifications and subjections/subjectifications discursive

presents presents the of of Guattari areButlerianGuattari becoming 4 ,

ifrnitn pre differentiating hy rae the create they - , Guattarian politics of becoming calls for an an for calls becoming of politics Guattarian

the two the

through a call to collectively disidentify disidentify collectively to call a through limit limit of the other logics

this

oiia poie of promise political of assemblage sketch out two out sketch assemblage of

theoretical assemblagetheoretical -

individual/desubjectivized individual/desubjectivized ueer ueer and will in turn legitimize turn in will and . If Butler’s logic of the political As the two logics of logics two the As second second

partnership .

section positive positive situated . It is Itis

of of of -

CEU eTD Collection Guattari. and Deleuze of thought the and materialism new with affiliation possible Butler’s on view won our of development the of All with studies. engage however, performativity theorists, feminist these and physics theoretical from insights combining for renowned is however, thinker, identi Colebrook them of all matter discussing to commitment share a While Barad. Karen and Kirby, Vicky Colebrook, Claire of work the highlighting be will we Specifically, 1 indirect becomes statement discourse Each consequences. important carries which 93), 2004, Guattari an meeting initial ofthe point twotheoretical corpuses. and Guattari’s collective assemblage of enunication to Butler’s performativity in order to establish understanding of language and situate it in their language of understandings thequeerwithin assemblage. logics of quasi synergetic materialist new performativity thoughts. their of language presents a vantage point that will enable us to expose the confluences and discontinutities theory engage between partnership a negotiating of point language via the notion of performativity, the question of language presents the most fruitful entry the match

Our engagement with new materialist thought will be limited to a strand of Australian feminist new mate new feminist Australian of strand a to limited be will thought materialist new with engagement Our 2.1 2. -

transcendental resignification as potential tools of a political promise of disidentification of promise political a of tools potential as resignification transcendental

o Dlue n Gatr “agae n t etrt i in is entirety its in “language Guattari and Deleuze For In this understandings of Two language To what extent does Butler’s cultural analysis (and political operationalization) of language Guattarian matter) becoming (of asthesite Language of contestation:resignification Butler’s - Deleuzo

ue rltosi bten Deleuzo between relationship queer it can be ripped out of a specific moment of utterance and inserted in new contexts, new in inserted and utterance of moment specific a of out ripped be can it

fies herself as a Deleuzean, Kirby’s main philosophical reference is Derrida. Barad, an American an Barad, Derrida. is reference philosophical main Kirby’s Deleuzean, a as herself fies first , we , with and depart counterpoin After an initial initial an After sub - will will Guattarian take on language? Since Butler is renowned for her analysis of analysis her for renowned is Butler Since language? on take Guattarian

section, show how Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy of language presupposes a presupposes language of philosophy Guattari’s and Deleuze how show t . Firstly, we will delve into Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophical philosophical Guattari’s and Deleuze into delve will we Firstly, . 1

our task will be limited to an exegetic from Austinian performativity, discussing their respective takes on to

Butler’s view on matter paving the way for a negotiation of a of negotiation a for way the paving matter on view Butler’s elaboration of Deleuzo of elaboration - in - itself, they come from very different philosophical backgrounds. While While backgrounds. philosophical different come fromvery they itself,

Judith Butler’s thought, which provides a fruitful vantage point for for point vantage fruitful a provides which thought, Butler’s Judith

Butler and Deleuze&Guattari and Butler concept 5

- utain maet eoig n Butler’s and becoming immanent Guattarian

of assemblage. We will compare Deleuze - Guattarian assemblage and of Butler’s Butler’s of and assemblage Guattarian iet icus” Dlue and (Deleuze discourse” direct elaboration and . S .

Deleuzo ince both strands of strands both ince

of two theoretical - rialists. rialists. CEU eTD Collection performative the short, In 94). (ibid, system” linguistic the of elements the o utilize and possibilitylanguage of condition the effectuate that transformations incorporeal of set the expresses it because is it whole, a as language to and considered, system linguistic the with coextensive of variables become they finally assemblages collective and express they transformations incorporeal the through order Guattari’s and Deleuze modifications, definitional of series a of possibility of language, they delimit the possible (proper condition the force into put they presuppositions, implicit sedimented historically as function but mak a institutions producessocial contingent notarbitrary. but socia their on hinge effects) (perlocutionary coercioneffectuate to Order 84). (ibid, marker” syntactical a onlanguage view and Deleuze Guattari’s is put, simply downto, boils of individuality. this What attributions and subjectification of processes (relative) of distribution shifting the determine that situated historically of cluster complex a by preconditioned are they that means This enunciation). (of assemblages order of conceive but cannot Guattari acts. (speech) as rituals) laws, (norms, obligations social implicit to socio the in functions expression, of a quote The claim: potent the multiplying infinitely thus a peoeo’ netd y oe: A ue f rma i a oe mre bfr i i a is it before marker power a is grammar of rule “A power: by invested ‘phenomenon’ a s e subjectification possible. However, since order since However, possible. subjectification e

Their account of order Their account of subjects language, in (ibid,87). infactdeterminedistribution their juridical acts, which, far from depending on subjectification proceedings or assignations of explaine turn in is illicutionary the And presuppositions. implicit or nondiscursive the constitutes ccurately spells out Deleuze and Guattari’s logic of how language, as a formalization formalization a as language, how of logic Guattari’s and Deleuze out spells ccurately The performative itself is explained by the illocutionary. It illocutionary that the by explained is illocutionary. The the itselfis performative b cletv asmlgs f nnito, y uiia at o euvlns of equivalents or acts juridical by enunciation, of assemblages collective by d sedimentations, to use to sedimentations,

f enu of

nd situations via signification via situations nd - words, as explicit commands, supports their position that language commands, that language supportstheir position explicit as words, nciation - - words (by virtue of illocutionary force) and their capability their and force) illocutionary of virtue (by words Order political. ial voices that utter the statement. Deleuze and Guattari’s Guattari’s and Deleuze statement. the utter that voices ial : “Thus if the collective assemblage is in each instance instance each in is assemblage collective the if “Thus : - od a big odtoe b iproa collective impersonal by conditioned being as words Derrida’s vocabulary, of un/conscious social relations relations social un/conscious of vocabulary, Derrida’s 6

- - words are relations of all words/statements all of relations are words words are not equivalent to language itself, itself, language to equivalent not are words ) usages of linguistic elements. Through

or ,

to put it more bluntly, order bluntly,more it put to lly accepted meaning, which is is which meaning, accepted lly - words become (speech become words

Consequently, Deleuze and and Deleuze Consequently,

- words words - )acts f CEU eTD Collection sphere theother. into one reducing without other each with imbricated and interconnected as but relationship, causal classical a in as not deteritorialization) or (re)terirorialiazation of forces by upon acted objects of forms and objects incorporeal as expressions of (forms elements/objects asse An 96). (ibid, way” different a in them delimit them, combine or separate up, them speed or down them into or intervene in contents, not to represent them but to anticipate them or move them back, s rather are, but relationship assemblage bigger a in together distinct These content. of forms or bodies, affecting incorp bodies as modifications as corporeal and expression, acts speech between distinction important an acts as expressions incorporeal of a statement (ibid, 89). At this point, andDeleuze Guattari make different domains in regard to bodies: firstly, actions and passion that affect bodies and, secondly, bodies. to assigned transformations incorporeal all as described be can acts transformations or noncorporeal attributes they express” (ibid, 90). As we have seen above, speech ins this designate illocutionary) semantics, syntactical phonological depend and (ibid,101). determinations oth in or, assemblage an of tetravalance the of matrix a within language of functioning the see Guattari and Deleuze how elaborate further to need we quote, this of meaning full the clarify to order In express. they depend presuppositionssocially they implicit determined to relation in i.e. circumstances, of backdrop a against assessed be only can statements of force

Te order “The assemblages have a certain independence from each other, but are nevertheless meshed meshed nevertheless are but other, each from independence certain a have assemblages mblage is a thought experiment through which we can think think can we which through experiment thought a is mblage - od o asmlgs f nnito i a ie scey i sot the short, (in society given a in enunciation of assemblages or words

er words, the abstract machine of language upon which pragmatics, pragmatics, which upon language of machine abstract the words, er ,

“confirmed by the fact that the expression or expresseds are inserted inserted are expresseds or expression the that fact the by “confirmed tantaneous relation between statements and the incorporeal incorporeal the and statements between relation tantaneous n wy ht t ant e ad hy r i a contradicto a in are they said be cannot it that way a in 7

on, acts they enact, andtransformations actsenact, theyon, oreal transformations, or forms of of forms or transformations, oreal

T content as corporeal corporeal as content hey distinguish two two distinguish hey heterogeneous low low ry ry CEU eTD Collection it” (ibid,100). through running flight of lines the by than contradictions and conflicts its by less defined is field of instance the in differabsolute other each from indistinguishable ultimately are assemblages both (while are primary to bodies and collective assemblages of enunciation are primary to language and words of fixing or stabilizing these variables (ibid, 97 away variable elements of the forms of content and expression to (re)terrirorialization as a process carrying of process a as deterritorialization from expands thus axis vertical The axis. horizontal parlance this process of variation is usually referred to as the process of deterritorialization) o Deleuzo (in character variable continually the in intervene (politically) to serves axis of comprised enunciation of assemblage interacting bodies (material components) and, secondly, the form of expression, that is, a collective assemblage of a machinic that is, ofcontent, form Firstly, the eachreciprocally other. presuppose T axes. two of comprised is which general), Figure 1 : Deleuzo Deleuze and Guattari draw on these insights to produce the concept of an Assemblage (in (in Assemblage an of concept producethe to insights these on draw Guattari and Deleuze - Guattarian of tetravalance assemblage entiation on the plane of consistency) or, if put in slightlytermsin different put consistency)of if planeor, the on entiation

acts and statements (semiotic components). The vertical vertical The components). (semiotic statements and acts

- 8). 8). For Deleuze and Guattari machinic assemblages e oiotl xs s eie into devised is axis horizontal he 8

w prs that parts two - Guattarian Guattarian ,

“a social social “a f the

CEU eTD Collection performativity. 237). 2003, it use who subjects the of subjectivity the determines and upon works language ways, “ how to. refer or represent can it what of instead do, composed out of order or refer, buttoperformatively enactIf what asincorporeal they label transformations. langu continuous variation” (ibid). oppo variable the of treatment a is it variable; to opposed not is “Constant variables: and variables) with between relationships engagement constant (or their constants linguistic from seen be can as thought, their of feature salient a is flight of lines t of ordering political) ) ((violent of aspect an as negativity primacy the of endorsement Guattari’s t from drawn are constants that political a of virtue byintervention into is fixing, stabilizing, it centralizing, constant, as defined be can that language of elements are there If political. They deem language as heterogeneous by virtue of declaring all of ultimately as exposed is it that (stratified), ordered being by precisely is It ordered. as language constantly topoliticallabor: exposed or, violence political to recourse a without objectivism scientific to claim a make cannot linguistics why heterogeneous, ultimately is it why language, of exteriority language is invested with relations of power before power of relations with invested is language As we have seen, Deleuze and Guattari hold that the function of language is not to represent let Now, inseparablefrom an internalpragmaticsownfactors its involving (ibid). is itself linguistics because is it consideration, into taken be must factors nonlinguistic of variables of con the from separable longer no then are expression of variables these itself; enunciation to no is there claim Guattari and Deleuze why understand to equipped are we point, this At rm hs perspective this From The pseudoconstants of language are superseded by variables of expression internal

us turn to the political consequences of Deleuze and Guattari’s discussion of of discussion Guattari’s and Deleuze of consequences political the to turn us - words, words, Deleuze and Guattari are more preoccupied with what language can tent with which they are in perpetual interaction. If the external pragmatics

he variables themselves” (ibid, 114). This indicates Deleuze and Deleuze indicates This 114). (ibid, themselves” variables he

, their theory of language is comparable to Butler’s Butler’s to comparable is language of theory their ,

f oiiiyafrain o dfeec) However, difference). (of positivity/affirmation of

9 And, perhaps even more importantly, they stress they importantly, more even perhaps And, homogenizing variable elements

subjects put it to use and, in important in and, use to it put subjects sed to the other kind of treatment, o treatment, of kind other the to sed he constantly differentiating, primary differentiating, constantly he in short, why language is is language why short, in

its its elements variable.

“for it is obvious ” (Barton (Barton ” age is age r

CEU eTD Collection to) context i.e., dissemination, to exposed are signs all framework a traits such Within différance. generalizable three The 9). (ibid, experience” call would semio beyond moreover, but general in languages all for and ‘signs’ of orders “all to generalizable become inversion, of law the as deconstruction of logics structural argues that absence in writing is a ‘ru inverts that 2 which signification, of failure the to given is attention special unconsciousness, structural prohibits any this saturation of context” (ibid). Clearly, utterance, in Derrida’s intervention into of speech act theory, actuality the intending of essential absence this all, “above and 18) 1982, (Derrida content” its and itself to present through and theory: its three main characteristics (absence, reiterability, différance) that transform Austin’s speech act iterability general of principal the of out consequences two derives language, in différance) of possibility a changeand thecitational transformationwithin chains ofconventions. for allow that iterability and différance Derrida’s needs she above, described the within agency of possibility a for account to mechanical order simple In a repetition. not is that movement a as iterability of understanding Derrida’s utilizes cond the enables that discourse a discourse; a is primary is what that stresses Butler effects, discursive eme declares that citationality constitutes the performative force of she as performative, the of theory Austinian into intervention Derrida’s uses Butler sense, this su volitional a (of act deliberate or singular a to accorded be can that something not is performative the of power binding the that discourse, on the one hand, and Derrida’s formulation of poweriteration, on the other, Butler of pronounces conceptualizations Foucauldian of reading synthetic a In power. binding a exert that statements as acts performative deems Butler

Derrida general rges in the context ofa (ibid). context rges chain intheconventions” ofbinding itions of possibilities of an emergence of a socially recognizable subject. However, Butler However, subject. recognizable socially a of emergence an of possibilities of itions ,

“without any center or center any “without Derrida, by affirming a permanent, structural possibility of pa of possibility structural permanent, a affirming by Derrida, produces consequently and speaks/acts that subject volitional a for arguing of lieu In For Butler (1993, 2 “G (1982) iterability

iven the struct and displaces and

deals with the concept of absence (as negativity) in writing in order to make it the general principle with writing it concept of(as in make principle the negativity) general deals in to the absence order

(différance) (différance)

the classic hierarchical duality between speech and writing and speech between duality hierarchical classic the ure ure of iteration, the intention animating the utterance will never be through 25),

absolute anchoring” (ibid, 12), (ibid, anchoring” absolute as

the “the performative is one domain in which power acts as discourse.” pture pture in presence’ and enumerates the nuclear traits of writing that, due to the bject)

structural structural , but , - to the to quasi linguis - 10 principal tic communication, for the entire field of what philosophy philosophy what of field entire the for communication, tic structural quasistructural

,

at the same time same the at yet exposed to (or, in the final instance, even equal equal even instance, final the in (or, to exposed yet

. f writing of

speech acts. In other words, an

-

are absence/spacing, reiterability and and reiterability absence/spacing, are becomes a structural law of the of law structural a becomes principle , to language as an open system of of system open an as language to

rasitism (as reoccurrence of of reoccurrence (as rasitism enact something as well as well as something enact

schema of performativity performativity of schema

in communication in of iteration/citation. In iteration/citation. of

f o like, you if . Derrida . 2

“act “act and and and CEU eTD Collection instantaneously singularity its and inaugurates iterability. context, rather, it emanates from its citationality/iterability, its circulation in the socio performative the of force deferred be always can that origin. Deleuze and Guattari wo its than rather language of effect becomesan subject) the (of consciousness Guattari andDeleuze non a of affirmation an and subject volitional the of critique (named discourse or collective assemblage of enunciation respectively conventions binding of chain a of context the by produced are subjects intelligible that proclaim Guattar discourse) indirect context is the language of totality the secondly, and, enunciation) of system the driving force central fi impossibility, the emphasize too they for w resistance change of signification capacity productive and language, materiality the its and of performativity. location unpredictable linguistic of the possibility pinpoint the to (resignification), Butler allows that sexuality) and gender, I salient of for point her conceptualization of the performativeButler finds that performative due to the t is this this is t i’s collective assemblage of enunciation is primary to language and words. and language to primary is enunciation of assemblage collective i’s Deleuze and Guattari echo Derrida’s and Butler’s departure from Austinian performativity, Ias, would add, isalwayscontext it oranother found 147). insome (Butler 1997a, even particular in context no to bound is it that contexts, successive in work to continues repe be must conventional, is it that extent the to performative, a that argues he Indeed, contexts. new assume to capacity its and context prior a with break its from decontextualization, excessive iterability excessive o D For td n re t wr. n ti rptto peupss ht h frua itself formula the that presupposes repetition this And work. to order in ated ria te oc o te efraie s eie peiey rm its from precisely derived is performative the of force the errida, contextu

(act/statement) does not emanate from its pre its from emanate not does (act/statement)

and displaced and

of signification (displaced into the realm of cultural analysis of sex, sex, of analysis cultural of realm the into (displaced signification of I fr ulr icus i piay o h sbet Dlue and Deleuze subject, the to primary is discourse Butler for If . uld also subscribe to the al incompleteness of language. It is precisely in this characteristic

particular social significance ofiterability become thatwill a expropriation andresignification:

in an open, heterogeneous system of signification. of system heterogeneous open, an in rstly, to pin down the speaker’s intentionality (as the the (as intentionality speaker’s the down pin to rstly, 11

decentering

- masterable language. For Butler, For language. masterable ithin an immanent critique of of critique immanent an ithin

of of intentionality and meaning ). ). In this sense, they share a - established legitimized legitimized established

Both theories theories Both - political that

The The (all CEU eTD Collection and general iterability: power whose laws or rituals, norms, as in the possibilityenfolded is a a reiteration signification. within ofdiscourse as a systemof (subversive) reiteration of speec potential a where system, one as signification explains performativity Butler’s performativity. of and their positive use, as we have described it above, strongly resonates with Butler’s (1993) notion as isincludedinit, its it other assemblage,complex face other component”(ibid). its ina warn that fo positivity, a it assign major as language of order words an ostensibly negative assign role clearly connected Guattarito the power relations and inherent to the t Deleuze language. of function (deterritorializing) minoritarian and to one of the two treatments effectuates the condition of possibility of language and defines the usage of its elements according and how collective assemblage of enunciation can be enriched by Bu Deleuzo a of formalization specific historically lan of Butler it it as its 2.2 guage. , we will now will we ,

model, if it weremodel, ifit notthe iterable an with conforming as identifiable not a were marriage open or to ship a order launch meeting, in pronounce I formula the if words, other in or utterance, iterable or th If, has noted, been as vio a/n between (relationality) reciprocity immanent This Having Re For Deleuze and Guattari (2004, 118) (2004, Guattari and Deleuze For

“it would be oversimplifying to say that flight is a reaction against the order reverse side - reading coll reading

In this subsection, w subsection, this In Could a performative utteran performative a Could indicated indicated

turn to their to turn : “ : , it

r the order the r ective enunciationterms of in assemblage Butler’s performativity of T cannot be said he order he h shared the . ” The e escape order e from the n identifia n h acts is possible on the basis of focus

referred to two treatments are the majoritarian (reterritorializing) explicate will e - - word i word word brings with it with brings word

otlts eadn language regarding postulates

on that these lines of flight exist outside of social conventions

is conditioned and buttressed and conditioned is s a death sentence” (ibid, 118). (ibid, sentence” death a s

ble in some way asble insome way a ‘citation’ investigat ce succeed if its formulation did not repeat a ‘coded’ a repeat not did formulation its if succeed ce

12 - “ Guattarian colle Guattarian t how

he order he ing

- Butler’s performativity Butler’s

“a message to flee” to message “a word word the possibility of changing dominant uses uses dominantchanging possibilityof the - odi tevral nnito that enunciation variable the is word is indeed already included, enfolded already enfolded is indeedincluded,

a sort of ctive assemblage of enunciation enunciation of assemblage ctive lent/order tler’s tler’s political considerations.

n eez&utai and Deleuze&Guattari in by discursive citationality discursive by

immanence, which means

(Derrida 1982, 18)? 18)? (Derrida 1982,

Nevertheless

ing use of order of use ing and can be re be can ,

at the same time same the at - word; word; rather, , they also also they , -

read as a a as read reat

- word ment

- ,

CEU eTD Collection part (as intentional once at is speaker this that clear is it for speaker, sovereign the as subject the fix time a many that speech injurious into interventions (state) legalistic against cautions Butler searches for a possibility to change the conventional uses and meanings of certain injurious word enunciation. of assemblages collective of deterritorialization of force meaning of deferral order the of use alternative to the relentless search for legal remedy” (1997a, 15) for curing hate speech (a negative of replication a speech, in autonomy sovereign a of conventional master” of notions (ibid,15). restoration the not is agency where affirmative clear make more to hope I in modes. recontextualized and injure to power their from disjointed become time, condition of a possibility of repetition and causal relationship between the speech act and its (injurious) effect, necessary no thereis words, Inother 14). (ibid, produces” it effects the and animated is utterance cont preceding a (of resignification of possibility the where performativity discursive of notion her on rather than consolidates it injurious efficacy?” Butler’s affirmative answer to this question is based convent supporting its from act speech the disjoin might that repetition a there “Is speech: hate of case the in resignification positive of doubling iterative death by sentences performed (juridical/molar) l That is, the reverse side of a discursive power structure that effectuates order structure. (power) the of side inverse the as up taken thus are reterritorialization), call Guattari Deleu (what be that powers the by cooptation to prone always escape, of lines Guattarian Deleuzo These iterability). general i.e., différance, Derrida’s by performed function (the repeats acoercive itis rather, repetition; a only same, the of repetition a only not is repetition this However, extent. certain a to constant successful order the of use (positive) a above, quote the in claims, Derrida like Much ext) partext) Butler within the possibilityechoes contained this also (1997a,Butler 20) a way, In similar quite

if it was not in some sort of relation to an iterative model, if it did not repeat the molar repeatthe not did it if iterativemodel, to an relationof sort some in not was it if ly springs up from the ly up springs ,

in - od. h dcntutv apoc epaiig preul n irreducible and perpetual a emphasizing approach deconstructive The word). xial Speech Excitable presenting a pos a presenting that by affirmative, I mean ‘opening up the possibility of agency,’ agency,’ of possibility the up ‘opening mean I affirmative, by that repetition that can potentially differentiate the molar constants potentiallythemolar it differentiate thatcan repetition

“gap between the originating context or intention by orintention the originatingwhich context an “gap between sibility for resignification, employed by Butler, becomes the the becomes Butler, by employed resignification, for sibility ,

a developing was

resignification. It indicates 13 aw.

cnet of concept a ions such that its repetition confounds confounds repetition its that such ions

rather, this gap is precisely the “how words might, through

igitc gny as agency linguistic n ipe trs Butler terms, simpler In - words as commands, - word s

could not be not could ze and and ze

“an “an s. - -

CEU eTD Collection 1993, 4). (Butler concern” of critical matters disidentifications can facilitate a of reconceptualization wh norms by which sexualis difference feminist both that materialized queer and politics are mobilized. Such collective contestation. Indeed, it may be precisel a political goal, it may be that the persistence of 3 language capable language (ibid). major recognition” locally a a it it) making in writing homogeneity by only and (if constancy it giving by not if operate can language minor a of upholders the treatments not take statement this at face for value, we already have that major and are noted minor only two 200 Guattari and (Deleuze language” ‘minor’ a into it transpose that variations major a of characteristics the acquires or has aff an call might Butler what to close comes 110) Baktir2013, enunciation of assemblages novel i.e. constellations, divergent of possibility a of expression constants of conventions ordered of i.e. constants, speech of effects the of (predictability earlier, mentioned have we that a system of signification Deleuzo for a accorded transformation ofmeaning to to show how the disidentifications collective calls Butler what of site the linguistic its in bythe conditioned is inception because it through passes but 39). (convention/law/norm), apparatus state (ibid, the eludes acts) speech of deterritorialization effects perlocutionary of (unpredictability belong acts speech of character citational the of

“Although “Although the political discou igitc gny a dsrbd y ulr bv, oe srknl coe o ht in what, to close strikingly comes above, Butler by described as agency, Linguistic -

Guattarian parlance, we could call the possibility of v of possibility the call could we parlance, Guattarian

n power and of the same language:of theespecially politically, “Even same see isdifficult to it politically, how performative . /iteration Put diff Put

The

a a (as . Specifically, the minor use of l s - e rses that mobilize categories identity tend to cultivate identifications in the service of

erently, Deleuze and Guattariand erently,Deleuze

these lines of escape always enfolded in enfolded always escape of lines these agae s a as language , the deconstructive linguistic agency (if and when successful) partially eaie set f order of aspect negative

structure of collective assemblage of enunciation (discourse) allows formalized y y through practices which underscore with disidentification those regulatory auguratory force of a discourse.a of force auguratory eetr te motne of importance the decenters

- dis cs, ec siuaig poes f ifrnito of differentiation of process a stimulating hence acts),

identification identification is equally crucial to the rearticulation of democratic omlzd om f expression of form formalized ytm f signification) of system irmative mode of speech acts: “T acts: speech of mode irmative signifiers. 14 agae te oe t s fetd y continuous by affected is it more the language, ich ich bodies matter, and which bodies are yet to emerge as ing to specific communities) and unintentional unintentional and communities) specific to ing

-

words anguage, as a positive use of order 3

see the positive side of the coin; one thatone coin; the sideof positive the see . Butler’s linguistic agency is an attempt an is agency linguistic Butler’s . ,

n eez ad Guattari and Deleuze in ariation, deterritorialization deterritorialization ariation,

T agen linguistic his concrete concrete otxs n intentionality and contexts within the framework of of framework the within . What escapes these these escapes What .

he more a language language a more he assemblages of forcing official official forcing of 4 As a force of of force a As , 113). But let us us let But 113). , cy becomes becomes cy ,

- situates words, words, within within -

is an an is

( cf.

CEU eTD Collection sense, Foucauldian a In itself. names it that (effects) norms producing by poses discourse a that limits the within discourse, a within located be only can agency Butler, for how, see can We are which individuation, of models Foucauldian immanent power: to to recourse a extr with to structure attempts performative also but abjects, and subjects i concept any to unmatched philosophy. are thought Butler’s in subjects/abjects regarding considerations political the however, 119); 2004, Guattari and requires theerection opposable of form, an as well as theformation of distinct subjects” (Deleuze something for support prov that outside constitutive a subject, the of status the of deprived devalued, the regulatory norm and, thus, come to matte citing by materialize successfully that bodies bodies, constructs law the if So, 3). (ibid, subject” possib of condition the become rather obsolete, rendered not are groups These abjection and its disruptive return within the very terms of discursive legitimacy” experiences despite their articulating legitimately of possibility the people of groups abjected specific, granting of for structures of exclusion and devaluation the notion of the constitutive outside. with Butler’s performativity subjectification; that is, opp relation a not and power, to immanent practice, rearticulatory or reiterative a constitutive constraint does not foreclose the possibility of agency, it does locate agency as norms such resist would norm/law the how in interested only not is Butler Furthermore, T here is a valuable political lesson in Butler’s in lesson political valuable a is here osition to power to (Butlerosition 1993,15). similar that pertains to the effects of negative uses of order of uses negative of effects the to pertains that similar

eiiae ois ii, 16). (ibid, bodies legitimate h aao fsbetvto asjtsmn)i peieyta h ujc who subject the that precisely is (assujetissment) subjectivation of paradox The

and in spit

the ‘proper’ and ordered use o .

e of

ility of the ‘normal’, for they for ‘normal’, the of ility is itself enabled, if not produced, by such norms. Although this this Although norms. such by produced, not if enabled, itself is

“the constitutive force of exclusion, erasure, violent foreclosure, With t

of of bodies h r, r, it also produces (a) category(ies) of abjected bodies, n oprsn Dlue n Gatr wud state would Guattari and Deleuze comparison, In e utilization of this

, 15

with the notion of the constituti the of notion the with

plt a osblt o cag with change of possibility a apolate

in the realm of cultural intelligibility; f language reinstatement of Derrida of reinstatement

notion notion “circumscribe the domain of the of domain the “circumscribe

that is unavoidable and resonates one can - words: “ words:

cultural recognition of of recognition cultural Deleuzo n ( violently

politically account

(Butler 1993, 8). when producing producing when ve outside ve ds referential ides A ny new body body new ny - ) of external external of Guattarian

produces produces that is, that is, in the the in ,

they CEU eTD Collection mixed semiotics. only pr they do nor list exhaustive an not is this clear pre semiotics: distinct e linguistic of forms (formalized 4 performativity. read limits). its signifying and post subjectivity of production deconstruction of the logics of identity its limits Butler’s in incompatible are enunciation primary sit culturally Butler’s of intricacies sentence death or of uses (resignificatory) positive transformational effects and redeployment, by what they call the first aspect of the order the of possibility the bracket Guattari performativity. Butler’s of light in enunciation of assemblages collective a Deleuze affect subjects. intelligible transformational of production the enables that force is always firstly conditioned by disidentifying from this g very regulatory law” (ibid, 2). that of force hegemonic the question into call that rearticulations spawn to itself against turned be can law regulatory the of force the which in domain one mark that process this by up “opened towards coercive reit ar norms their and discourses

Deleuze and Guattari (2004, 123 Guattari Deleuze and /resignified

(melancholia, mourning,guilt, terror). All . their inherent instability. These hs however This, d Guattari nd

hs ngtv apcs f rnfraie d)ujciain ae under are (de)subjectivations transformative of aspects negative these n hs es D sense this In eration. eration. However, Butler claims eosrcie performativity deconstructive .

Nevertheless as a historically specific system of signification that has formalized as Butlerian as formalized has that signification of system specific historically a as

trait of reiterable

- - signifying, signifying, post signifying, signifying, signifying regime of signs

, hs rvdn a aube netv t erc ter ocpulzto of conceptualization their enrich to incentive valuable a providing thus , os o ma that mean not does ) xpression or collective assemblages of enunciation). They identify four analytically analytically four identify They enunciation). of assemblages collective or xpression , which corresponds to what Deleuze and Guattari are calling the the calling are Guattari and Deleuze what to corresponds which , eleu - , 164) distinguish several regimes of signs (or semiotics) as systems of signification signification of as systems semiotics) signs (or regimes of several distinguish 164)

with In other

e regulatory practices that effectuate materializations by virtue of of virtue by materializations effectuate that practices regulatory e t heir reasoning falls short of articulating all the all articulating of short falls reasoning heir zo discursive

- Butler’s utain olcie sebae f nnito cn be can enunciation of assemblage collective Guattarian ua

words, the possibility of transformation, in Butler’s thought,

e nto o lnusi agency linguistic of notion ted ‘space - esume any of these appears as such in everyday life, for there are there for life, everyday in such as appears these of any esume signifying, and counter and signifying,

performativity. L performativity.

the sole fact that the norms need to be reiterated points

conventions, conventions, in Butler’s thought, is usually a

4 s

is significance and subjectification (and the the (and subjectification and significance is eez ad Guattari and Deleuze ’ of instability as place of potent (the critique of molar identity/ide 16 , the negative conditions discourses impose on the

enerative aspect of a discourse’s - et us not forget that what is at stake stake at is what that forget not us et signifying semiotic; however, they make it make they however, semiotic; signifying

h icnie o enabling for incentive The s olcie assemblage collective ’s

that takes discourse as as discourse takes that

True, Deleuze and and Deleuze True, negatively charged negatively ial resignifications ntity politics and der - - od, their words, hoie in theorized -

word negative negative

iterable

this this – re of of

a -

CEU eTD Collection performativity. As far as Butler, through her utilization of Derrida’s signification Butler’s situates of consideration Guattari’s and Deleuze how shows Colebrook apropos Butler’sand, to Derrida’s byextension, thought: ofthespilling signifying128). thelimits system” (ibid, becomings subterranean signi assemblages machine abstract diagonal the to and assemblage an of outside something Real addition machinic Deleuzo in “interna an as understood pertain assemblages to that simultaneously is itself in system 123) (2004, Guattari and Deleuze for discursive/symbolic, Butler. in for

yn sse, hs are these system, fying as

‘anarchicg or alterity unthinkable and ineradicable an by structured being not therefore and relation, bodies and desires themselves as already machinic, as already productive of difference and t to way a allowed have to seem would Deleuze absence, anticipated an to relation some by structured already is it if lived be only can present a that insistence his in lived’ a Colebrook, Claire Deleuze and Guattari add something extra to Butler’s account of performativity that can be in something also is there Nevertheless, we shall explain in section 3.1 of the thesis. thesis. the of 3.1 section in explain shall we - utain alne etis o olcie sebae o eucain ny This only. enunciation of assemblages collective to pertains parlance Guattarian .

n oes hm p o becomings to up them opens and

hs s h cuil ifrne ht mre bten hs tw these between emerges that difference crucial the is This If Derrida’s philosophy is a radicalization of phenomenology’s attention to ‘the to attention phenomenology’s of radicalization a is philosophy Derrida’s If

(loo ht is That inseparable from and independent of the form of expression, and the two forms two the and expression, of form the of independent and from inseparable

enesis’ that bethoughtenesis’ cannot might quasi k rcial ipsil, because impossible, practically

at Figure 1) Figure at yet in contact with contact in yet - mlclr level molecular a - animal occur, becomings occur, animal loosely transcendetal l dialectics of the One (the discursi (the One the of dialectics l are notprincipally linguistic.” Deleuzean feminist, explains why this this why explains feminist, Deleuzean

“other zones infinitely muter and more imperceptible where where imperceptible more and muter infinitely zones “other be called the virtual real, a real quite real a real, virtual the called be ,

to non to

–

performativity as a historically specific system of of system specific historically a as performativity the virtual, the - the discursive, to the other side of the hor the of side other the to discursive, the representational matter representational

f analysis of 17 Deleuzo This . (Colebrook 2010,162 (Colebrook

- molecular, nocturnal deterriroializations over deterriroializations nocturnal molecular,

intense aspect that both conditions both that aspect intense Deleuze and Guattari’s Guattari’s and Deleuze tee s las fr o cnet ht is that content of form a always is “there

beside ht goes that -

Guattarian

claim ve)” (Zupancic Zerdin 2011, 41) 2011, Zerdin (Zupancic ve)”

s rgm dsic t ta of that to distinct regime a is

- that matter and affects as machinic machinic as affects and matter in quasi ‘ - machinic aspect machinic beyond

itself (machinic assemblage) (machinic itself thought that is unaccounted is that thought

an analysis of any semiotic any of analysis an distinct from the from distinct - 3). - transcendental transcendental principle

’

virtual h dmi o t of domain the izontal axis of axis izontal

real, refers to refers real,

ves on views o is important is Lacanian concrete hink

or he he

a - ,

CEU eTD Collection it population the describe subje to every that articulation (2) represents; particular any of failure the as “(1) ways: specific for possibility cultural and desire nature/m only, from this perspective Derrida’s of appropriation Butler’s play. differentiatio of movement “generative the power limits iterability discursive the of closure the prohibits that social possibilities” (Kirby 2007, 122) with a Derridean quasi and regulation social about presumptions “its by characterized discourse Foucauldian couples Butler it. constitutes that discourse the to immanent is subject Butler’s Foucault, to indebtedness la that difference originary the as loss or absence this understands Butler fill… to attempts sign the that absence founding a by life: Del human on claim that (Barton 2003, 229) of iterability, searches for the conditions of possibility that allow the functioning of speech acts speech of functioning the allow that possibility of conditions the for searches iterability, euz

that we can clearly see the (quasi o For Butler, though, “what defines language as language is the play of substitution, enabled simpl they than more do always they that implies iterability, of power transformative the like and regime reterritorialises them. Such signs contexts therefore take on a performative territorial dimension which, their from freed deterritor marks encodings, linguistic As society. a in practices of desire and matter out of which regimes of signs develop to order political structures and thought, a certain mandatory negativity or incompleteness or negativity mandatory certain a thought, - atter Guattari

“

agae ean containe remains language l atr in matter anguage is not life; it gives life orders” (Deleuze and Guattari 2004, 84). y intend todo( . Insofar as loss and absence ( This the the an , Deleuze and Guattari e ngtvl charged) (negatively

(Deleuzo perspective, , a perspective - tef ae h ncsay odtos f osblt fr hne n Butler’s in change for possibility of conditions necessary the are itself) Barton 2003, Barton aie sgs ra of n aiu lns f lgt ni a particular a until flight of lines various in off break signs ialised - Guattarian) ct is constituted differentially, and that what is produced as the the as produced is what that and differentially, constituted is ct gae s nbe o ear (ib 20, 0) Cery fr its for Clearly, 109). 2007, (Kirby repair” to unable is nguage

be perceived as perceived be

of delimiting the positive up taking of differentiation to culture - )transcendental )transcendental function of Butler’s performativity wti te ytm f utr ad a, s uh fo a from such, as can, and culture of system the within d political production of production political

253). perception of language provides insight into the flows the into insight provides language of perception xplicitly investigate the usages of what Barton, in the quote above, referred to as

18

a

formalized expressi formalized n” (ibid) to the sphere of culture. culture. of sphere the to (ibid) n” - transcendental transcendental principle of iteration

specific subject specific also on exerting its force over over force its exerting on becomes the condition of of condition the becomes

signification, for they - oiini two in position

Butler

a propos flows of ’s view It is is It

CEU eTD Collection change to sexes. molecularn 119). property has ownsex, its thecategory sex of negation a includes stance a such that proclaims Butler and Guattari that pert in with issue difference in relation to the molar and molecular in Deleuzo matter) two different perspective quasi the and becoming of aspects attain performativity Deleuzo alongside is, (that is f have to elaborate of in form affirmative an of development a in resulting role, political a attain desire) (of aspects of. speaks Butler that limitations discursive negative of duress totalizing affirmative, of think to possibilities culture. systemof specific the confinedto not and vital and transformative, productive, itself is difference rather, nature, to ascribed negativity et al.2000,12). ‘constitutive outside’of fully immanent” thesubjectButler become never (Butler can insideor in dividuation derived from this positive up positive this from derived dividuation rom this perspective 2.3

Butler In M Guattari’s and Deleuze pole pole signification

and would no longer be able to operate as a useful or descriptive generalization” (ibid, generalization” descriptive or useful a as operate to able be longer no would and olar and moleculardifferenceolar and sexual

order in her later essay published in published essay later her in and quasi , Gender Trouble Gender

in

to

Gender Trouble on

- Interestingly,h though, explicate the logic of an assemblage, oscillating between the immanent the between oscillating assemblage, an of logic the explicate Guattarian

some new materialist perspectives regarding Butler’s thought s a certain autonomy from matter from autonomy certain a s ) ained ained to the endorsement of the

- with its quasi its with transcendetal pole that s

forming assemblage, an twopolesof limiting each other.

Butler’s performativity

of sex hasof sex noapplicability: “O

(1990). Butler criticized Monique Wittig’s alliance with Deleuze Deleuze with alliance Wittig’s Monique criticized Butler (1990). machinic difference, on the other hand, other the on difference, ,

does discuss not the relevance of contemplating these - transcendental aspects of performative significations become significations performative of aspects transcendental - transcendental principle of citationality of principle transcendental positive ‘sources’ of individuation that are not under a a under not are that individuation of ‘sources’ positive

becomings. becomings. (of (of signification) er insight into the into insight er Undoing Gender Undoing - taking of material of taking As such, it provides a perspective that can open up up open can that perspective a provides it such, As 19 : (quasi :

can be

“limitless “limitless proliferation of sexes” (ibid, 118). s fraiain f xrsin Butler’s expression, of formalization a As - i n - - )transcendence itself. The immanent, intense, machinic machinic intense, immanent, The itself. , re

- let us look at the problematic of sexu ne’s sex would sex ne’s be a radically singular Guattarian thought, which Butler took

- where Butler (2004, 197) asks Rosi Rosi asks 197) (2004, Butler where troubles with sexual differencesexualwithtroubles read as /machinic is not exposed to exposed not is tout court tout

a formalization of

, for if every individual individual every if for , differentiation, we will will we differentiation, and immanence and Because these material material these Because

and as such as and

any (section (section 2.4

mandatory mandatory expression singular, singular,

thought thought

seem seem

). (of al It CEU eTD Collection over it.The for political implication Deleuzo rather id the (i.e. category molar the with identical not is becoming that means which is repression”. Therefore, “even women must become what is missing in a in for argued Butler as problematic sex of category molar be the of use generalized cannot sexes of proliferation molecular the view of point this from and and troubling them. On the molecular level, the s mechanisms binary their eluding time, same the at but, them to molar relation in by remains it structures, appropriable is Becoming time. same the at repudiated and affirmed both is it level af is sexes between asymmetry the level effectively goes beyond any opposition between the one and the multiple” (ibid, 170). “i 275) (2004, D say thing” same the are multiplicity and becoming “Since time. same the dependenceon its a positing of difference is it rather, difference, sexual of positing fundamental a much so not is offers, Guattarian thought par majoritarian is man becoming no but man, of becomings many so there are “Why 320): (2004, Guattari and Deleuze by passage this reading when well fare not does however, reading, a Such thinking of mode binary however, they do accuse Deleuze and Guattari o a in difference sexual keep to like would they mean not difference.sexual like Braidotti (1991) and Grosz (1993) w more faithful reading of Deleuze and Guattari than that of Deleuzean feminists of sexual difference into binarity provocativ beyond this With move multiplicity?” itself difference sexual for framework the can’t “Why Braidotti: ,

it it destabilizes the molar binary concept of sexual difference, for something escapes it, spills becomes How can we understand this paradoxical situation? For Grosz and Braidotti, it would surely t is a problem not of the One and the Multiple but of a fusional multiplicity that that multiplicity fusional a of but Multiple the and One the of not problem a is t The woman as a molar entity has to become to has entity molar a as woman The -

or can become can or

desire desire (

molar aggregates. Sexual difference becomes both binary and multiplicitous at multiplicitous and binaryboth differencebecomes Sexual aggregates. molar - in cf. - itself that makes connections on a molecular level without ever r xelne wees eoig ae ioiain” ht Deleuzo What minoritarian.” are becomings whereas excellence,

Deleuze Deleuze and Guattari 2009, 26), “there is no fixed subject unless there - woman. It is, of course, indispensable for women to conduct a conduct to women for indispensable course, of is, It woman. e question, Butler Butler question, e ho firmed by Deleuze and Guattari and Deleuze by firmed

diligently insist - Guattarian feminist politics is feministpolitics asGuattarian follows: 20 f f assuming a symmetrical understanding of sexes. ymbolic molar laws have no

- woman” (Deleuze and Guattari 2004, 321), seems to seems

on - woman in order that the man also man the that order in woman

utilizing be be Gender Trouble Gender (unintentionally a binary notion , while , - absolute eleuze and Guattari Guattari and eleuze man? First because First man? entity) of woman, woman, of entity)

. The subject is subject The . on a molecular a on )

hint

jurisdiction jurisdiction On a molar

altogether of (

ing efuting efuting molar) molar)

at a at - , CEU eTD Collection Butler. organization/development) (or transcendence assemblage an between pass they say, to is deterritori (Foucauldian) well. as mimesis) blind of (not variation it say to differently, (re)territorialized, or, i.e. put into service o stratified being of ‘threat’ the to exposed are they true, functions; multiple attain ( other the on 312), 2004, Guattari and (Deleuze them” by explained way no in but nature, another of causalities general to of ( subject history, organism, the of (questions expression of content (question of the body, the movements of of forms both of relations reciprocal of immanence with characterized undeniably is however, molar confrontations, into that slips and passesor under through them.” G and Deleuze desire. affective productive of flows to up it opening thus practice, feminist in as Deleuze and Guattari, sexual difference needs to be schizophrenized further, both in theory as well by enriched be subjectification/post agains warned time, same the at contrary, they are affirmed in their machinic logic (as a response to what is given horizontal horizontal uattari (ibid) would claim that “i that claim would (ibid) uattari Guattari and Deleuze in becoming, of register the or sphere molecular intense, This the On desexualized. not are bodies female erased, not is above, difference, Sexual moved byressentiment, to the will women, of driest the by intoned often is life of song The flow. a stopping or spring a up it is dangerous to confine oneself to a such subject, which does not function without dying own subjectivity: ‘we women as …’ makes its appea their history, own their organism, own their back winning to view a with politics, molar alization” (Alliez 2004, 10). axis “resistance “resistance or counterattack in an assemblage, but (as) cutting edges of creation and

of assemblage – ulrs w cam t mnaoy nopeees f subject of incompleteness mandatory to claims two Butler’s

on - signifying regime of signs, i.e. as t

h oe hand one the vertical

points, between points of two of points between points, ), and effectuating t t the exclusionary pitfalls of fixed molar identity positions (of positions identity molar fixed of pitfalls exclusionary the t t is thus necessarythus to t is axis ,

h imnn pa() f consiste of plan(e) immanent the

Precisely because lines of flight arelines of becoming, that of assemblage of power andmothering cold (ibid,304). ie o fih, huh sol nt e nesod as understood be not should though, flight, of Lines , on the other the on , 21 singular singular heir lines of flight, which are

f molar function, but they are lines of potential ). These lines of flights, as becomings, can can becomings, as flights, of lines These ). he meaning of the given), thus awaiting to conceive of a molecular women’s politicswomen’s molecular a of conceive particle di

– rance rance as a subject of enunciation. But fferent logics or logics fferent

they attain an ambiguous status for for status ambiguous an attain they -

signs/haecceity) as well as forms nnito) o te n hand one the on enunciation),

c and ncy

plan(e)s “only in connection

biologically

-

omto. For formation. the plan(e) of of plan(e) the

enveloping enveloping ) ) but, ,

CEU eTD Collection expressed contrast, In matter. of representation the and itself 5 of consistency withits plan(e) of the transcendence of critique deconstructive (discursive) a as performativity, of plan(e) this between happen that movements the to attentive be to have we rather, d performativity, of weplan(e) transcendental means this Guattari, and Deleuze and Butler up partnering of task our to regards In 298). (ibid, poles” abstract two between that is planes two the between up set should we “Theopposition departure: of focalpoint their as consider wewhat the to relation variation movements.” the at only Look other: presence of througho haecceity in another, the prehension of one things, by the other or the passage from of one to the midst the in be will it limit; own its confront to account for both the molar Guattari and discursive (molar) categories of sexes that can potentially become (culturally) recognized. multiplicity th of displacement the regarding provocation Butler’s a from of deconstructingposition transcendence: theplan(e) of speaks she for imperceptible, are sexes n molecular affective or material these Butler, th toward tending flight of line the

We have noted how Butler’s quasi Butler’s how noted have We beingcapable ofbeing (Deleuze perceived and 2004,310). Guattari without perceived, being itself without perceptible renders that transcendence, of plane forms is It makes subjects. and perceiving to percepts perceivable and thresholds of distribution the effects that plane the on mediation a of role the plays thus and relative nature by is which perception, of threshold to refers register molecular Guattari’s and Deleuze in sexes of proliferation limitless The under specific conditions specific under might indeed be deeme be indeed might

surely does not rely on a proliferation a on rely not does surely (2004, 311) (2004, If movement is imperceptible by nature, it it nature, by imperceptible is movement If molar

constants machinic , however, , (a historically specific system of signification), and the immanent plan(e)

(discursive)

, which is not to say they would disagree with Butler with disagree would they say to not is which , - transcendental performativity subscribes to a radical separation of matter of separation radical a to subscribes performativity transcendental . This dynamism of assemblage in Deleuzo in assemblage of dynamism This . involutions d e plan(e) of consistency where one speaks of immanence. For immanence. of speaks one where consistency of plan(e) e

primary argue for a position of oscillating perception that will be able be will that perceptionoscillating of position a for argue In other words, the molecular as the field of proliferating of field the as molecular the words, other In

and the molecular

Deleuze and Guattari hold the view th view the hold Guattari and Deleuze 5 by Deleuze and Guattari; however Guattari; and Deleuze by .

22 the plane of organization and development, the the development, and organization of plane the

of molecular sexes, but sexes, molecular of nt ae o e g o Bte’ quasi Butler’s of go let to have not o

e framewo

(material, affective) s o las n eain o given a to relation in always so is k o sxa difference sexual for rk t t on rxmt, s the as proximity, own its ut

.

- at matter at Deleuze and Guattari do do Guattari and Deleuze on a proliferation of of proliferation a on Guattarian : , it is in constant in is it ,

“Perception will - in - itself can be can itself

theory is theory

Deleuze Deleuze into into - in - - CEU eTD Collection forms contend that matter cannot be represented through a signifier. identified: the relational theformer force between been have assemblage an form signification that logics heterogeneous distinct qualitatively to be faithful to our synergetic re Deleuzo in dep deteritorialization or (re)territorialization force, relational This analysis. the of core them between force relational affective the is it weight, (Being latter the or (beings) former the whether not is then, question, The given. performativity, Butler’s of inclusion t strives philosophy transcendence: of plane the and immanence of plane the between branched assemblages form that movements focu primarily are Guattari and Deleuze poles the of one privilege not do they say would we immanence, creat p (quasi for search not does hand, other the on philosophy, immanent Guattarian meaning the of genesis the and works that thought of difference as autonomous, as a form of recognition of an other. These two positions rest o certa a to responding as but others among difference a as difference sexual deem not would perspective Braidotti) and Grosz to (close Irigarayian an Secondly, 120). sexual di that, outlook Butler) to (close Derridean a Firstly, difference. sexual on outlooks possible three extrapolate might we (2000) Colebrook Claire Following potential. explanatory as to refer would Butler (what signifiers rinciples that would present an present would that rinciples es tothe given concepts thatrespond (ibid).

(of being) n poiin o oero’ itrrtto o Deleuzo of interpretation Colebrook’s to opposition In The descriptive/transcendental identity model rests on creating molar categories as ordered fference

and (quasi it’s

can come to be immanently expressed in Deleuzean thought look at at look thought Deleuzean in expressed be immanently come to can

“Look only at the movements” (Deleuze and Guattari 2004, 311). Insofar as their their as Insofar 311). 2004, Guattari and (Deleuze movements” the at only “Look

“to be a difference among others, a particular determination of différance” (ibid, o produce concepts that respond to the given it, at the same time, same the at it, given the to respond that concepts produce o

“with the transcendental programme of the subject’s relation to the given, the to relation subject’s the of programme transcendental the “with - )transcendentalit

ading of Butler and Deleuze& “account for the condition or meaning of the given” but, rather, rather, but, given” the of meaning or condition the for “account f h gvn (bd 13. codn t Clbok Deleuzo Colebrook, to According 113). (ibid, given” the of

also looks to account for the condition or meaning of the the of meaning or condition the for account to looks also .

identity positions) on the basis of which it attains an attains it which of basis the on positions) identity ig n h oclain bten h to oe, the poles, two the between oscillations the on sing y ending on which pole it is leaning towards. In order order In towards. leaning is it pole which on ending , matter 23

For a

and immanence its - further further

- the so called becoming called so the Guattarian parlance, is called either either called is parlance, Guattarian Guattari, Guattari, we would claim that three d iscussion on how ;

in problem rendering sexual sexual rendering problem in - rather Guattarian philosophy of of philosophy Guattarian Kerslake , and affect ,

we non ( 2007, 4). have shown that shown have - )transcendental -

- representational representational would render would

- ) carry more more carry ) that is at the at is that becoming

through an an through

n a model

as as -

CEU eTD Collection subject, master conscious a of critique place. first the in authentic it makes position identity stable a to the socio life (order ma 12). 1993, (Butler repetition” a acquiresact an o reiteration a always is it for ‘act,’ singular of notion Butler’s to extremelyclose of a social presupposition, as we have seen in our reading of Deleuze and Guattari, do we not come with interact elements way of sort some in as well as noncorporeal both produce to capacity e order of function have we comparison, In an representation of system a as signification through body a Barad 2003, 821 as performativity of notion discursive own her compose that power regulatory of notion Foucault’s logics heterogeneous distinct, three of performativity a out composed is assemblage discourse/signification. to relationship its difference as such included in a theoretical assemblage i.e., expression, of formalization fcs rte, hy also they rather, ffects, eilzto, n nopra tasomto efcutd y trbe oes f speech of powers iterable by effectuated transformation incorporeal an terialization, (signification) citationality

2.4 attains acertain (quasi) -

words). The structural operative principle of the functioning of Butler’s performativity, displaced displaced performativity, Butler’s of functioning the of principle operative structural The perspective this From that If established have we Matter, affect , if the two theoretical approa theoretical the two - order political sphere of gender, sex, and sexuality, is the

- This performative This like status inthepresent, concealslike status it theconventions ordissimulates ofwhich itis ttains the function of attains the quasi - - 2 - words, similarly show how effects of order of effects how show similarly words, words ). In regard to Butler’s theory - becoming

possess indicated effec - transcendental quality apropostranscendental matter quality

rdcs dsic ve o materialization on view distinct a produces tuate ulrs cetc edn o Drias etrto tgte with together reiteration Derrida’s of reading eclectic Butler’s

Performativity as citationality is a process of sedimentation, or sedimentation, of process a is citationality as Performativity

the force to produce subjects by virtue of coercion and reit

Deleuzo and performativityand force of ordering differentiations of differentiations ordering of force

Butler

how Deleuze and Guattari, in their analysis of the negative the of analysis their in Guattari, and Deleuze how ches ches these discursive discursive these performativityas rendering ’s performativity can re ’s performativity be hold in regards to hold in - Guattarian collective assemblages of enunciation of assemblages collective Guattarian

we have been building - s e ae rud n h peiu section previous the in argued have we As transcendental logic of signification. of logic transcendental signification. f a norm or set of norms, and to the extent that it that extent the to and norms, of set or norm a f 24 ,

Jarred (2008, 44) stresses that

the operations of power more complex (having complex more power of operations the

mat citationality? erializations.

conceptualizing matter( conceptualizing d its norms that constitute the body. the constitute that norms its d - words are not limited to linguistic linguistic to limited not are words fact that the possibility of botching o nyde ti aon o a to amount this does only Not - , we have in - - read as read “Performativity is thus not a not thus is “Performativity itself in Butler’sitself in thought non

If - representable order

to address the notable a

(

cf. historically specific historicallyspecific n hc B which in we can only know

- ulr 1993 Butler words

- in - itself) and itself)

corporeal ha material eration eration ve utler’s , , -

; acts . and and

the the the the cf.

CEU eTD Collection matter. of differentiations immanent of ‘untamable,’ resignification discursive of limitations sign of vitality pure the readin our emphasis, in this divergence from extrapolated 224) of spite In resignification. (ibid, of possibilities the constrain that discourses of chains citational sedimented of continuity resignification” of possibilities new’ ‘ever historica of contingency “the of value the stresses Queer, of 6 signs generative regimes But and to and transformative. add components Deleuze Guattari of twomore gen cultural signification process enriching it with its emphasis on negatively charged considerat analysis of the cultural, where Butler’s culture can be inscribed within Deleuzo pos Butler’s of outside constitutive the become would it does stimulate us to think of nature as a process of differentiation as well, where nature (matter) origin (the least in Deleuzo important politicalconsequ perspectives compose an assembled reading of Deleuze&Guattari and Butler; a the reading between that carries oscillations how and write to capacity own its attains that nature of reading quasi Butler’s to order in provide insights thought into a Deleuzo Butler’s into intervention materialist new Kirby’s explore will we thesis, variations vitalist (reiterative) underlying an contemplating of possibility gener and prohibitive both

A consideration of vitalism within performativity is touched upon by Butler in the last chapter, called Criticall called chapter, last the in Butler by upon touched is performativity within vitalism of consideration A sible to think of Deleuzo of think to sible rtv ad rhbtv, eez ad utais order Guattari’s and Deleuze prohibitive, and erative 2.4.1 ,

the diagrammatic and machinic. diagrammatic and the es If the regulatory norm functioning within Butler’s performativity as citationality is at once the of think to appropriate be not would it course, Of Bodies Bodies that Matter

of continuous variations by molar power structures ( (lines of flight of (lines Butler - chains in relation to matter. Nevertheless, we will pay great importance to Butler’s focus on these on focus Butler’s to importance great pay will we Nevertheless, matter. to relation in chains - transcendental performativity can be thought be can performativity transcendental ’s (quasi lly conditioned terms within sign within terms conditioned lly )?

(Butler (Butler 1993, 22 , productive difference) that power appropriates. power that difference) productive , - - ences. Guattarian thought) )transcendental tv fntos bt w wud ru, t lo ons oad the towards points also it argue, would we but, functions) ative - Guattarian lines of flight as a complementary addition to Butler’s to addition complementary a as flight of lines Guattarian

- Guattarian inspired becoming of matter – g will tend to push Butler’s rationale into the direction of contemplating the the contemplating of direction the into rationale Butler’s push to tend g will

in the logic of logic the in

3 This means that regimes of signs as signs thatregimesof This means - 4 ).

Butler Butler counters the vitalist impulse in Nietzsche and Foucault that

materializations assemblage they will become the (quasi) the become will they assemblage

25 in a conventional meaning of that word - chains. Butler’s focus, in contrast, lies in emphasizing the the emphasizing in lies contrast, in focus, Butler’s chains.

quasi - transcendental - words could be labelled as at once once at as labelled be could words

alongside a naturalistic, immanent naturalistic, a alongside ions and limitations imposed on the

as a quasi above mentioned above meet Kirby’s new materialismmeetKirby’s new 6

nesadn o continuous of understanding -

in - thought. thought. transcendental system of - itself. We will see how

semiotic machines (a semiotic machines In this section of section this In - Guattarian thought

lines of flight as as flight of lines - In this case this In transcendetal limit transcendetal ; however, se two two se , is it it is , the the

s y CEU eTD Collection Deleuzo Cultu of system open an of logic the matter itself” 109). (Kirby 1997, for chains, citational quasi Butler’s rather, she of misunderstandings mediated matter) become intelligible, while ( others discourse creates a constitutive outside of its own. Some kind manifestations that, in avery real are sense, all true” (ibid, From 108). point this of Butler’s view, prohibits all oeuvre, the how Butler’s namely, in work at own its of prohibition a is there how shows effectively she effort, destruct also and creative, perverse, most the in “What do we forfeit if we concede that Nature reads and writes, calculates and copulates with itself attempt an in (2011), see an anticipation of or a reverberation of Vicky Kirby’s intervention into Butler’s though writing. Writing now functions on the same function andintensity that is unformed either physically or semiotically” (ibid), where matter i matter and matter, formed is “Substance indistinguishable: are form and substance where variation of virtuality a is machine abstract intense molecular, say, could we The, 156). machine abstract an 200 Guattari and (Deleuze systems)” (physical bodies of regimes or content of forms and systems) semiotic (as signs of regimes or expression the principle, governing assemblage expression), of formalizations Kirby’s work Kirby’s statement last this In -

Guattarian “the incestuous nature of Nature, its ‘unnatural’ capacity to reproduce itself in myriad in itself reproduce to capacity ‘unnatural’ its Nature, of nature incestuous “the doe s

f bodies of - s not grant transcendental perspective, matter perspective, transcendental

- that encompassing domain of the discursive, or Culture as Ki as Culture or discursive, the of domain encompassing

terminology , pushes Butler’s post Butler’s pushes - to deconstruct Butler’s own position on Nature on position own Butler’s deconstruct to

Butler let usemphasize that let expression

a frs f content) of forms (as “operates by “operates

it

tutrl rnil that principle structural “a frame of reference that is pr ,

from the perspective of the virtual, intense plane of consistency of plane intense virtual, the of perspective the from rpeetto o mte i smtig ulti something is matter of “representation composed of order of composed

w cm t a on where point a to come we ,

has

re to re “ matter only ‘tensors,’ as in a system of mathematical, or musical, or mathematical, of system a in as ‘tensors,’ only - s

an level as the real, and the real materiality writes” (ibid.). tructural logic to its extreme; its to logic tructural Butler does deny not theexistence ofmatter , not by substance; by substance; by not ,

open system of Nature. of system open 4 . 26

, 155) into a mutually constitutive relations constitutive mutuallya into 155) , ive ways” (ibid, ways” ive eez ad utai ae ti diagrammatic this label Guattari and Deleuze -

in - words matter -

itself can only be known throu known be only can itself puts ,

- operly its own” (Kirby 2011, 74 are expo are in frs f rspoiin frs of forms presupposition, of “forms s of matter (specifically, discursively - itself) itself) are abjected. In order to ward

95)? In her In 95)? h process the sed to machinic assemblages, assemblages, machinic to sed function -

matter, provocatively asks: asks: provocatively matter, - In thinking Kirby through through Kirby thinking In content content is only a degree of

that is to say, to is that aey eaal from separable mately , not by form” (ibid, (ibid, form” by not ,

immanent reading immanent rby likes to call it, call to likes rby of differentiation differentiation of gh discursive discursive gh s a substance substance a s it - i n t. Kirby extends extends ). -

hip as hip itself; From ,

we we -

CEU eTD Collection culture. and Being, is this mutable intert of ground the substance, of tissue very the if as is It causality. rewrites that substance and representation between worlding 7 Kirby theenvelopeeven pushes further: differentiating and writing to regards in specificity any culture grant not does of the ‘no outside of text and Guattari’s ‘forms of expression’ might as well be more compatible with Kirby’s interpretation of expression to the signifier” as D thought a is critique ofButler’s ‘reductive’ reading of Butler’s into intervention Her 109). (ibid, world” the of substance unrepresentable the mediates does not assume that the human condition is bound within language/discourse nor ’there is no outside of text’ in a manner that does not confound it to human language only: “Derrida explaining limited autonomy. a attains that expression of form nature’s of formalization a is performativity Butler’s demy system’s the not system, the of part a becomes one of (collective Culture and bodies) of assemblages (machinic Nature yet,both better Or, differentiation. own Nature’s of expression an consistency, of plane the of perspective the from process that runs through both. autonomo an in neither is (becoming/deterritorialization)

“ But But there is approach to another the dictum "there is no outside of text," it and comes the in suggestion "the that system

is conv re limit of mutation complex the is morphing of logic the If is. "intelligibility" of workings the include dif a From of the world" as "writing in the general sense" articulates a differential of space/time, an inseparability an space/time, of differential a articulates sense" general the in "writing as world" the of - ” (Kirby 2007, 61) 2007, (Kirby ” articulation cannot be restricted to the polysemous possibilities and constraints of what what of constraints and possibilities polysemous the restrictedto be cannot articulation

how human language comes life. toorder It constitutes a constitutes It - entionally as language127). understood (Kirby 2007, Différance is "becoming itself." It is a writing and reading whose many expressions Assemblage eet mtrait perspective, materialist ferent,

ext 7 . ’ than Butler’s

— In short, Kirby rereads Derrida’s “no outside of text” as “no outside of Nature.” of outside as“no text” of outside “no rereads Derrida’s Kirby short, In quasi . a "writing" that both circumscribes and exceeds the conventional divisions of nature

In a peculiar inversion of Derridean logics, Butler’s deconstruction Butler’s logics, Derridean of inversion peculiar a In

More accurately, in -

transcendental bio

eleuze and Guattari (2004, 73) would say. assemblages of enunciation of assemblages - oy n cnesto ta rcniue wa ad where and what reconfigures that conversation a in logy

‘Cultural’ readings of Derrida. Such a reading of 27 perspective, an undeniably powerful perspective, perspective, powerful undeniably an perspective,

Nature is now a system within which Culture is Culture which within system a now is Nature

ib (2007) Kirby alliance with Kirby

the sign as solely a signifier, stification. Or, to put it in different terms, different in it put to Or, stification. us domain of Nature or Culture or Nature of domain us /Butler’s performativity /Butler’s

a etnig erd’ claim Derrida’s extending was

(2011, (2011, 110) we claim that In this sense,

(Kirby 2007, 122). 122). 2007, (Kirby

that this binding

“the reduction - ing, then this this then ing, ) are a part part a are )

Derrida, Deleuze Deleuze but is a is but

,

CEU eTD Collection transubstantiations.” effective are which page, this on marks tiny the to internal even is reproduction and genesis universal of operation t 2.2) (section 9 argued have we view, poles imman of the between oscillation the relation, the primarily, as, philosophy this to contrast In 55). (ibid, Being” whereas in Derrida one finds an ontology that seeks to trace the eruptions movementsand of transcendence within a merely continues not and term, the of sense Deleuzian the in 'concept', a thus is (and difference of Being beings.and ontology, that differs from ontology, that goes beyond or is more 'originary' than the ontological difference between ( Smith Warren Daniel relationship. this appropriate is it transparency, in relationship this of conceive appropri materialist Kirby’s with engaging by relationship this of interpretations relationsh 8 spea truly can one where imperceptible; indistinguishable, become expressions and contents being described here? Deleuzo the of logic the entities are the call forms of content. Nature and Culture, substance and interpretation Guattari and Deleuze what to analogous practically is substance calls Kirby What expression. of substance highlights substit of play a it as (signification lack/absence as such, difference conceptualizing into As insights Butler’s troubles 231). 2011, Wilson and Kirby in (Kirby expression” worldly a of morphogenesis or absent not is It itself. of reformulation itself ontology of principle longer ofBeingcomes from outside necessarily linked to a semiology of the (Deleuzesignifier” and Guattari 2004, is signs of semiotic the whether signifiance, with endowed are signs all whether signifiers, are ques “The sign: the over concerns Guattari’s and Deleuze with resonates that constitution atomic its of interrogation

Due to spatial restrictions of our discussion, we a In another way Kirby (2011, xi) with a Deleuzo a with xi) (2011, Kirby way another In What What Kirby calls language is practically analogous to what Derrida of reading extended Kirby’s

ip between Deleuze and Derrida. Derrida. and Deleuze between ip i Dlue n fns n ontol an finds one Deleuze “in ution unable to mend its originary loss of the materiality of the referent) and instead and referent) the of materiality the of loss originary its mend to unable ution .

the

productive traits productive différant Deleuze's aim, by iscontrast, aim, Deleuze's to show itselfontology that by a is immanently constituted principle

tion here is not whether there are signs on every stratum but whether all signsall whether but stratum every on signs are therewhether not is here tion

That is to say, isn’t Kirby talking of the logic of the abst

expressions of expressions a unified field, ‘a general text.’” (Kirby 2011, Is13). it not - Guattarian assemblage Guattarian

to hint how and why we part from at least one view of the burning problematic o problematic burning the of view one least at from part we why and how hint to materialist 9 “n vr ra sne fr erd te rgn s relentless a is origin the Derrida for sense, real very a “In :

of a relational entanglement of language of entanglement relational a of 2003, 51) argues that: “For Derrida, différance is a relation that transcends transcends that relation a is différance Derrida, “For that: argues 51) 2003, , as a quasi, ogy that seeks to expunge from Being all remnants of transcendence, transcendence, of remnants all Being from expunge to seeks that ogy em ta si or ruet However, argument. our suit that terms oee, e r dsacn orevs rm oe f h canonical the of some from ourselves distancing are we However, - Guattarian diction asserts: “Life reads and rewrites itsel rewrites and reads “Life asserts: diction Guattarian re not able to fully elaborate on the underlying problematic of the lost, never to be retrieved: rather, it is the enduring the is it rather, retrieved: be to never lost, 8 -

28 transcendental principle,

rmss ritrrtto o te in o the of sign, the of reinterpretation a promises from the perspective of the plane of immanence of plane the of perspective the from

a w prev Deleuzo perceive we hat Deleuze and Guattari call forms ations of Derrida that allow that Derrida of ations ence and (quasi ence and ,

“these seemingly separate

but becomes thebut interna (in a general sense) general a (in for the sake of academic academic of sake the for ract machine where

73). 'quasi - )transcendence. Différance Différance no - concept')” and and concept')” - Guattarian Guattarian f, and this this and f, s

us to to us k of of k and and

l f

CEU eTD Collection Guattari’s a system of signification incorporeal transformations. Nature on Culture of impositions a of modus a in (formalized) expressed already th are exactly they are because poses, )transcendental Culture of deconstruction Butler’s riddles consistency of plane p (Culture’s)/ nature of outside no becoming of becoming o (quasi) theory of assemblage we are trying to sketch out, includes a and Guattari 2004 on the one hand, and the strata and their programs and con ourselves with a dualism between the plane of consistency and its diagrams and abstract machin intra th of part any assign to not careful are Guattari and Deleuze However, organization/development). 1) Figure reached.F expression? substance plus ideality into out as language of ontology an henomenon, one implicated space implicated one henomenon, is general is 2.4.2 - acting - Butler’s deconstructive performativity is thus a specific critical description relationality this of oscillations the in precisely is It of point end our Nevertheless, rncnetl rnil of principle transcendental

or Deleuze and Guattarior Deleuze and loosely referred to referred loosely

Assembling Butler’sAssembling performativity Deleuzo and atrpmrhs’ ifnt dfeetain/pcfcte ae xrsin o one of expressions are differentiations/specificities infinite ”anthropomorphism’s

t bro Krn aa’ ( Barad’s Karen borrow to , dualism

- form of expression, i.e., signification. The reterritorializations, the captures, the the captures, the reterritorializations, The signification. i.e., expression, of form

the diagram (or plane of consistency) and the strata (or plane of of plane (or strata the and consistency) of plane (or diagram the , 159).

of the assemblage the of but, at the same time, takes into account a different perspective. That is, the is, That perspective. different a account into takes time, same the at but, ). ).

f f the plane of consistency (indistinguishable expression that that can be thought of as Th

“

systems of becoming whose relational imbrications do not separate separate not do imbrications relational whose becoming of systems mixed semiotic of sig of semiotic mixed s ocpulzto o asmlg, hs acknowledges thus, assemblage, of conceptualization is (ib 21, 9 2011, (Kirby ”

(2004) two planes are always enveloping assemblages twoareenveloping always planes (2004) ar about carry timemattering” (Kirby 2011, 21) from the perspective the from 21) 2011, (Kirby timemattering” agae s signification as language assembling

primacy, keeping them in a perpetual dynamic relation of relation dynamic perpetual a in them keeping primacy, 03 815 2003,

29 hi on fet ta isatnosy effectuate instantaneously that effects own their a a formalization of expression, what

, no itnt om o c of forms distinct into ), Butler and Deleuze and Butler n ifiance and subje and ifiance - 8) crete assemblages on the other”

term

multi

that we can further our argument. A argument. our further can we that : -

Guattarian Bte’ performativity) (Butler’s - “ linear logic that travels from the e ant hwvr content however, cannot, We & ctification. ctification. ose that that ose Guattari still has not been not has still Guattari becoming net n frs of forms and ontent itrcly situated historically - we contents It is p Itis

(perception)

em (quasi term Deleuze and

recisely as recisely ( , Kirby’s

Deleuze (look at (look

to the the to o

f the f that

of of es es -

CEU eTD Collection concept Sedgwick’s/Tomkins’ the and immanence in affect, though terms Even Guattarian 8). 2003, (Sedgwick telos” and origin respectively, of, narratives implicit seems to offer some to the useful resistance ease which with performativities: “Invoking a Deleuzian interest in planar relations, the irreducibl and latitudes a find to order in of philosophy Deleuze’s to referring starts herself position Sedgwick that surprising (inclusive assemblages non of and linguistic lens time, and the space longitudes, through phenomena about thinking to approach take deconstructive of impetus epistemological the but performativity, refute or deny to discursive not of aim critique we materialist performativity new of a models of expose our In performativities. Butler’s and Derrida’s from departure 10 allows what is This immanence). of plane molecular the (to states intensive to extension an and of signification) Butlerian citational performativity (as a description and outside age is (that transformational constitutive the of politics intelligibility/ Butler’s like just political impetus that strives to sort. does not grant nature/matter a capacit role on processes of materialization, but does not speak of the constitutive role of matter itself. She constitutive sign’s linguistic the of primacy the affirms Butler dynamic, the in place constitutive affects and matter to assigned differentiation theory matteras temporal of or indispensable. It is from perspectivethis that are we enacting Sara (2008,Ahmed’s 33) pervasive and violent how of those butto social(discursive) can effects (especiallyworld, be tothe power especially us, teaches she lessons The signification. of s is thought such,

The reason for including affects in the mixed bag of matter and and matter of bag mixed the in affects including for reason The compare Our use oftheconstitutive ofthe outside,here, concept toward aspoints our isintentional, it

ht icrie efraiiy can performativity discursive that W positive of function the is theory of strands two the between difference main The hv se hw eez ad utai sin h sm srcue f eeaie and generative of structure same the assign Guattari and Deleuze how seen have e

urely a line of flight, so to speak, a critical tracing of a (quasi a of tracing critical a speak, to so flight, of line a urely Butler’s recognition to socialrecognition to abjects. , is taken as an intense state that equals becoming (i.e., an oscillation between the plane of of plane the between oscillation an (i.e., becoming equals that state intense an as taken is ,

that constitutes both an both extension inspacethat constitutes tomach (connection to wid to transcendental

a is which materialization, of process a of effect an as matter of “definition en their scope. In this sense, we see an apparent alliance between a Deleuzo a between alliance apparent an see we sense, this In scope. their en ualization of affect. of ualization ntic) function to both matter both to function ntic) , toother forms of materialization.”

ontologically

plane of organization), we think think we organization), of plane y to write, thus exiling it into the constitutive outside of some - linguistic elem linguistic

e noprtd n h lgc f sebae Butler’s assemblage. of logic the in incorporated be acknowledge acknowledge the agentic potential of m 30 10

W . beneath ents) and Sedgwick’s turn to affects. Thus, it is not not is it Thus, affects. to turn Sedgwick’s and ents) ie eez ad Guattari and Deleuze hile

a critique of - affect and discourse. and affect

affects and and beyond

t tan a attains it s egiks 20, 3 (2003, Sedgwick’s is y y spatial of positionality a quasi tie to strive

turn fromturn spatial descriptors into

nature/matter asnature/matter well) - )transcendental system system )transcendental - t ranscendental system beside fruitful relationship to to relationship fruitful It is an addition to addition an is It inic assemblages) inic assemblages) rn cultural grant

to deconstructive deconstructive to str rn te a them grant atter - ) bene 9) ictly Deleuzo ictly

call call to use - - beside Guattarian Guattarian in - itself, itself, volent volent ,

s on on s

also are are - CEU eTD Collection perspective formalizations that attain a certain autonomy, they construct their own of plane organization. becomings d nature contemplating postulates rudimentary its deny to attempting of Deleuzo condition of search principle of citationality inscribed in signification molecular haecceities, their (with models individuations, physical immanent and organisms) and histories between movement dynamic constant the is sense, this in assemblage, The side. other the on consistency, particle of flows deterritorialized intensive, (immanent, the towards extends machinic and enunciation assemblages) it touches of the stratified transc assemblages collective of side reterritorialized (the side one on plan(e)s; both towards up opens that assemblage of concept the is It logics. intensive molecular, with composition/consistency of plan(e)s immanent the to opposed abstractly the plan(e)s of organization/development, discursive models, strata and is as such analytically and machinic eff machine of enslavement overcodes or axiomatizes the earth: these are in no way illusions, but real a head, the even and body the overcodes and machine faciality a language, overcodes machine immanence within transcendence i However, nature/matter. to relation in sedimented effect of Deleuze and Guattari tospeak of iscourses do not work by themselves, rather,

for for a necessary minimum of strata. This principle is, far from being an illusion, the ne In short, say could We In this sense Butler’s performativity takes on the role of the plane of (quasi) transcendental discursive models (with their logics of subjectivation, molar identities, molar subjectivation, of logics their (with models discursive transcendental . -

Guattarian affirmative becomingGuattarian and affirmative ofmatter affects. allowed ects” ( thought/ Discourses appear as formalizations of nature’s own differentiations; however, however, differentiations; own nature’s of formalizations as appear Discourses and pre our naturalistic Deleuze Deleuze and Guattari 2004

social life. discursive discursive

eez ad Guattari and Deleuze , then, Butler’s then, , as a process of differentiation itself differentiation of process a as - individual individual

In this sense, Butler’s discursive materializations present the limits performativity. interventions into Butler’s deconstructive performa an does affects ontology diff (of deconstructive performativity with its quasi its with performativity deconstructive

not t is our wager, our reading of Deleuze and Guattari, that Guattari, and Deleuze of reading our wager, our is t ). endent

take on on take

to they they are co , 565

31 r ; explore complements complements and adds to Deleuze and Guattari’s al

te, t ather, - 6). Rather, it is an abstract principle governing

the role of role the plan(e)s of organization/development while it erence), whilst Butler’s - form a implicated implicated with matter/bodies and affect . From this this From . hey

provide a different perspective to to perspective different a provide a

f iglr niiuto called individuation singular of simple

new materialist new

illusion: “An order “An illusion: ontology -

signs) plan(e)s of of plan(e)s signs) its own machinic, own its - - tivity transcendent transcendence perspective,

is always

were not gative - word word

This al

a -

CEU eTD Collection defenseagainstDeleuzean(Butler negativity” 2004, 198) in thought. a perceived, been some, by has, what resignifying, between conflicts of aspects political subjectivities (melancholia, negativemourning, guilt, terror), thus enriching, the we are tempted to say subjection, of forms agency, of forms situated and theory assemblage our in importance great attains thought subjects (of evolution of terms in both thinking other; the to end one from oscillations the preconditioning, mutual their of think to plan(e) ofimmanence, as the well plan(e)as transcendental the toboth assemblage up as opening Deluez the of part can through beButlerian fullyexplicit made reading a that these Butlerdeveloped by Judith theorizing would be better Hickey contemplate agency. of forms situated extent, limited differentiations how and indicated that clear is it however, transcendent structures (state apparatus, capitalism, d Deleuzo a towards capture is telling from a political perspective we are attempting to provide in that haecceity - To this insightful observation, we might add that in our reading Butler is also becoming also is Butler reading our in that add might we observation, insightful this To machine andflight (Cohenand line2006). ofRamlow a part with are Guattari them and with Deleuze allying difference. but Guattari, and Deleuze regurgitating or reproducing, or call a potentially subversive disloyal repetition, becoming isn't mimetic. She is not "being," I ody n Rsusns 20, 2 assmn ta Deleuzo that assessment 42) (2009, Rasmussen’s and Moodey t

has become apparent to us to apparent become has performative

the the oscillations of assemblages between the two abstract poles. in their view comes to be to comes view their in Butler is becoming deleuzoguattarian. Akin deleuzoguattarian. becoming is Butler

for o - - Guat h ngtvl cagd icrie moiin ta delimit that impositions discursive charged negatively the utain assemblage, Guattarian limitations limitations were partly ain mhss n h primacy the on emphasis tarian our use of use our

Our reading of Deleuze and Guattari and Deleuze of reading Our

off if it did not do away with ”

resonates with ourargumresonates

and discourses) and involution (of matter and affects). and matter (of involution and discourses) and discourses Butler’s how Deleuze and Guattari already account already Guattari and Deleuze how

over

- hi rsgiiain I is It resignification. their theory exert their own exert coded by coded accounted accounted for 32

of Butler's own queer assemblage, her war war her assemblage, queer own Butler's of lso by Butler herself, as an almost: “manic “manic almost: an as herself, Butler by lso has situated these ‘untamable these situated has iscourses/singification, iscourses/singification, etc.). ent. Even more, we wereestablish more,ent. we Even trying to . In. vein, this

“located and embodied notions of ag apparatuses of capture. This metaphor of metaphor This capture. of apparatuses

f ifrnito ta i cpue by captured is that differentiation of as it provides insights into insights provides it as

to her own notion of what we might we what of notion own her to in Deleuzo performative

has

extrapolated

- eesr t tik f an of think to necessary Guattarian theorizing effectuations From From this perspective this this analysis. It points - Guattarian

ed the possibility to possibility the

Surely enough, Surely enough, embodi a to although ,

and si and

embodied .

Butler’s ( n ed queer gular

ency

and but ) ’

CEU eTD Collection theory the of backbone 192). 1993, (Butler formation” discursive any in lack or contingency the constitutes real “The contingency: precisely, more or, negativity pro founding a invokes it as grounds, foundational on Zizek’s in for advocated Real, the that assessment her on based specific echoesregimes, DeleuzeGuattari’s discursive and ofOedipal psyc critique to immanent is that outside constitutive the of concept her into discursive, the or symbolization, retheoriza Butler’s Anti in pronounced theory,psychoanalytic in lack with dissatisfaction Guattari’s and Deleuze to close Zizekian in lack of negativity, of Real, the of universality affects) Deleuzo resignification disidentification performative of politics a for partnership queer a I disidentification. of potentiality political the on outlooks very different reasons for doing so. declare theories both that the notion of the Lacanian Real and compare it to Deleuze and Guattari’s democracy. radical of project Mouffe) (and Laclau and Zizek with Deleuzo Butlerianand 3.1 3. - Oedipus

. Succinctly put, Butler’s dissatisfaction with Zizek’s appropriation of the Lacanian Real is Real Lacanian the of appropriationZizek’s with dissatisfaction Butler’s put, Succinctly Firstly Butler’s hegemonic alliances In performative of apolitics signifiersand political becoming thepsychoanalyticalFrom of Real acritique toassemblage asaconfluence of

- utain oiis f becoming of politics Guattarian

the last part of the thesis we will extricate the political consequences of assembling of consequences political the extricate will we thesis the of part last the (2009), that it cannot be counted as mere coincidence. We will try to illuminate how ,

let us examine how Butler, in Butler, how examine us let in f ie’ aporain f h Ra a te rdsusv otie to outside prediscursive the as Real the of appropriation Zizek’s of tion - Guattarian thought. We will start byButler’sstart engagingwith will GuattarianWe thought.

f rdcly eortc hgmn dvlpd y alu n Mouffe and Laclau by developed hegemony democratic) (radically of

the

Lac Our engagement with this debatewill this with engagement Our dsdniiain rm oiat icrie interpellations) discursive dominant from (disidentification anian The The two critiques of the Real carry with themselves two distinct that took place in order to order in place took that

Real, as an ahistorical lack, a discursive effect, they have have they effect, discursive a lack, ahistorical an as Real,

( Contingency, as the traumatic outside, becomes the the becomes outside, traumatic the as Contingency, affirming affirming Bodies that Matter that Bodies 33

hibition that takes the name of lack and of of and lack of name the takes that hibition d sbetvzd rlfrto o material of proliferation esubjectivized

e il sebe ulrs oiis of politics Butler’s assemble will we n order to continue our g our continue to order n

thought, a gesture that is so extremely so is that gesture a thought, Sublime Object of Ideology of Object Sublime

draft a t a draft (1993), criti (1993),

extricate Butler’s position on position Butler’s extricate

real. While we will show heoretical alliance for a for alliance heoretical cizes

oal of creating of oal the ahistorical the hoanalysis. hoanalysis. conversations , rests rests ,

and

-

CEU eTD Collection In lack. of notion psychoanalytical the of adversaries prominent most the of two are Guattari and Deleuze that known widely is It psychoanalysis. of critique a tackle signifiers, political performative in based disidentification border“inside” between“outside” thesymbolic and the of intelligibility”once all and (ibid). for and unifies that law single a to subjugated not is and scrutiny historical and social this that condition the under only but 206), (ibid, social” to the socially intelligible, a Butler ascertains that she would agree wit essential and ahistorical character present in Zizek and Laclau and Mouffe (ibid, 204). In this vein, l in real, the structure that power of relations contingent to due Symbolic the from excluded are signifiers why and how over ponder to Butler for possible becomes it proper, the into proper a discourse discurs specific within effect) (as unsymbolizable the produce that foreclosure of mechanisms of multiplicity the where,relation historicalandofsymbolization toZizek, to trauma thelimits opposed she stresses ( of effect (discursive) an as trauma historical (asbetwe differences the and Real) the (as kernel traumatic the of distinction absolute Laclau’s and Zizek’s of critique of critique Butler’s symbolic. the on imposes itself it that contingency of logic the to subjected be never can that law ahistorical the as i.e. symbolic, the to radicallyexternal as itself posits that law prediscursive a to is being posited as external to any and all discourses. Zizek’s Real, in trauma motivating the very symbolization by which it is incessantly covered over” (ibid, 195) that constantly and 192) 1993, theideologidestabilizes (Butler determination” complete of “failure a marks it for (1992) violent eoe yn Bte’ dcntutv apoc t fnig h pltcl rms of promise political the finding to approach deconstructive Butler’s tying Before It is clear what She )

effect of a discourse. In the following pages Butler goes on to re

d oe” ii, 0) Butler 205). (ibid, power” nd reads

v rgms ht a that regimes ive constitutive outside. When the constitutive outside replaces the Real as outside outside as Real the replaces outside constitutive the When outside. constitutive

Zizek’s take on the Real the the Butler is attempting to achieve here cal fieldcal instableand rendering it psychoanalytical concept of lack hinges upon the discursive historical historical discursive the upon hinges lack of concept psychoanalytical nd that “outside”this will always be that which negatively defines the en formations). specific social e themselves re a

law, thus opening it up to a possibility to interpret it as a as it interpret to possibility a to up it opening thus law, h Laclau and Zizek on the point

“as the unsymbolizable threat of castration, an originary resignif 34

hsoia wrig o seii mdlte of modalities specific of workings “historical ies

ie’ (sconltc R (psychoanalytic) Zizek’s

– thus open tointervention.

constitutive antagonism constitutive

a historicization of trauma, to redeploy let us see how Deleuze and Guattari and Deleuze how see us let

Butler’s view, takes recourse Anti

“that there is an “outside” evaluate psychoanalysis’ - Oedipus ieu of accepting its its accepting of ieu a a outside as eal

, Deleuze and and Deleuze , is exposed to exposed is “secures the “secures

CEU eTD Collection 12 2012). the social formation, in which one has already (involuntarily) invested one's desire, has produced that lack denote lack, as cannot some art cri asymmetries piece's the that asserts thus formation This lack. to relation in held be never can on, so and affect desire, way, this in Taken formation. social the of forces unqualified impersonal, are but own, her not a desires one's then, Deleuze, to According formation. social the in) invested positively (i.e., to relation positive 11 being objective “The notion: Lacanian to tied be to appears still sense some would. On the contrary, Deleuze and Guattari would argue for a positive notion of the Real that in Deleuze seems laudatory and critical once at Lacan, to relationship ambiguous their Considering Guattari. and Deleuze to relation in question this asking are we around, time this However, 195). 1993, about Zizek’s work: “ withinconstituted the social. w Guattari and Deleuze and Butler both that assume to safe seems now it discussion, our of basis the On there seems to be an endorsement of the primacy of the positive/affirmative at the molecular level. again, the negative in Deleuze and Guattari is reg in stressed Butler as completely negativity of Deleuze and Guattari, is a logical conclusion that Deleuze and Guattari do not rid their philosophy of thoughts respective the together bringing of point desired our advance us help will thatin terms amountsto, this What 27). (ibid, being”objective its of desire deprivesorganization “Desire molar: the of realm the into Symbolic), the and Imaginary the (of representations of sphere the into displaced is it Deleuzo in negativity, consequently and Lack, repressed where other the beliefs, desiring by replaced becomes production social repressive where one capture: of operations two of crossroads the at exist etc., signifier, the castration, “Oedipus, psychoanalysi classical by criti imposed is They that aggregates. unconscious the molar of of understanding representational level the at operation structural a only is desire into 306 (2009, Guattari

“That is to say, for Deleuze, desire consists of one's involuntary impulses/affects which have been assembled in a a in assembled have been which impulses/affects involuntary one's of consists desire Deleuze, for say, is to “That For analyses of this relat analyses this of For

At this juncture, it is worth asking ourselves the same question that Judith Butler asked Butler Judith that question same the ourselves asking worth is it juncture, this At - rdcin id isl rpae b rpeetto” ( representation” by replaced itself finds production ould view psychoanalytic lack as an effect of the s the of effect an as lack psychoanalytic view ould and Guattari do not refer to the Real as a rock, as primary lack as Slavoj Zizek Slavoj as lack primary as rock, a as Real the to refer not do Guattari and tics tics have maintained; for Deleuze, lack only appears at the level of personalized interest because - 13) ef 13)

W ionship between Lacan and Deleuze and Guattari see Smith (2004) and Cadwell (2009). and (2004) see Guattari Smith and Deleuze and between Lacan ionship hich hich rendition of the real fectively show how psychoanalysis’ omnipresent distribution of lack of distribution omnipresent psychoanalysis’ how show fectively

does not express a molar lack within the subject; rather, the molar molar the rather, subject; the within lack molar a express not does

Undoing Gender Undoing - Guattarian thought is not erased or denied, rather, rather, denied, or erased not is thought Guattarian 35

is appropriated from the Lacanian corpus” (Butler istered

11 ; it is registered on the molar level, while eez ad utai 09 313). 2009, Guattari and Deleuze . As we have noted, time and time time and time noted, have we As . ocial , that is, of a discursive law discursive a of is, that ,

of desire is the Real the is desire of Butler and and Butler ”

cize (Rodrigez 12

the , it , re re s:

CEU eTD Collection 13 in Mouffe and Laclau and Zizek asserting functions every discourse through exclusion: that with alliance strong a finds Butler above, shown been has her political work (discusse individuation distinct from that different subject,afrom orsubst person, thing, that of for their contemplation of haecceity rep not is transcendental the and Butler’s social/ transcendental ontheother. ontologies, of dispositive immanent contemplating 27). 2009, Guattari everythin real the within contrary, the non a around, time additional this real, the an about statement make they below lines few A 27). 2009, Guattari and (Deleuze itself” of and in

For a discussion of these two points seeAlliez(2004). points two these of discussion a For 3.2 immanent, machinic immanent,

et al.2000,31). antagonism isthesharedandall equalidentity of condition without emerge can a identity presuming particular no emergence: differential its of result direct a is identity every and each of ‘incompleteness’ the Moreover, limitless. be must emerge Butler’s theoretical endeavor is bound to her dedication to the theory of performativity. As Political different something at hinting is real Guattari’s and Deleuze resentable, yet it resentable, te il of field “the can only respond to respond only can biopower implications discursive, discursive, something that form d ncig h ecuin f tes ad hs osiuie xlso or exclusion constitutive this and others, of exclusion the enacting nd

hs ahnc el f eie rsns eez ad utais hf to shift Guattari’s and Deleuze presents desire of real machinic This

real of materiality (of (of materiality of real

machinic , wt is ocpulzto o resistance) of conceptualization its (with intra d

differential relations from which any and all particular identities identities particular all and any which from relations differential in section 2.2).

of Butler’s performativityof

- of the Foucauldian inspired assujetissment that Butler discusses in acts with acts

, through a discursive mediation discursive a through

of of virtual singularity, which “is a mode of individuation very nooy ht ofot bt st both confronts that ontology g is possible, everything becomes possible '' (Deleuze and and (Deleuze '' possible becomes everything possible, is g

the discursive field of enunciation. of field discursive the

affect); the real of mater of real the affect); 36 - capitalized real: ''The real is not impossible; on impossible; not is real ''The real: capitalized

alizes in a manner distinct to signification. It is ance”

(Deleuze and Guattari(Deleuzeand 2004 - . This Deleuzo This . constitution” (Butler inButler constitution” (Butler from ructuralism 13 o te n hn, and hand, one the on ,

to which Butler which to

both

It becomes the basis the Itbecomes

Lacan’s s

- n Foucault’s and Guattarian real Guattarian

Symbolic , 287) ’s quasi ’s ,

an -

CEU eTD Collection goals and identities their articulate should groups social various say, to is That conflicts. of traits social movements as a synthetic gesture of arr legal recognition), fail: identity politics, relying solely on the force of legal right’s discourses (and concomitant search for 221). 1993, live up to the descriptive ideal, thu concomitant signifiers as non their and Categories them. denoting signifiers and categories identity of fullness 14). conceptual horizons opened up by anomalous or subversive practices” (Butler in new and rearticulated, are relations social daily which in ways the through precisely but cause, unintelligible performativity, she also a linguistic of nature embodied and situated the denied consequently intelligibility, social of identification whose people those i.e. abjects, by populated outside forecloses others. The law, identification governed by a specific logic of an some exclusionary matrix, produces enables its constitutive that law discursive the on hinges identification how generative positive more a and exclusion negative through both ‘being’ as counts what produce to power Foucauldian

Butler’s endorsement of hegemony does not rely on a unification of dispersed (leftist) (leftist) dispersed of unification a on rely not does hegemony of endorsement Butler’s (Butler 1998, 37). its makes what limit: constitutive its articulation rather, possible is at t or, identity of possibility of condition of difference as that which emerges between one identity and another; but difference is the cohere and unity own its tofortifyin order These negati this on solely rely not does performativity of theory her However, reiteration (Butler 1993, 188). B 188). 1993, (Butler reiteration

However, a promise of collective disidentification for Butler lies where the logics o logics the where lies Butler for disidentification collective of promise a However, origins : social social practices exceeding

“

Factionalization, understood as a process whereby one identity excludes another excludes identity one whereby process a as understood Factionalization, S - referential terms (the in ocial transformation occurs not merely by rallying mass numbers in favor of a a of favor in numbers mass rallying by merely not occurs transformation ocial

it it also ascrib

locate

s

a certain vitality the within realm of bodies that are constructed as es discourses a generative role he same time what makes any final or closed articulation possible s prompting

famous examples of ‘women’ and ‘queer’) can never fully identity identity categories also point utler’s theory spells out a out spells theory utler’s anging conflicts

“factionalized “factionalized disputes over self ec ta cn cu wti the within occur can that gency 37

status of a subject. subject. a of status nce, makes the mistake of locating the problem problem locating the of themistake makes nce, ; rather . Discursive performativity has the s ,

do not fall under the banner banner the under fall not do it towards towards the impossibility of In spite of the of spite In

complex understanding of of understanding complex accentuates - definition” (Butler Butler et al. 2000, ve aspect. For its Forits aspect. ve

framew the the productive

emphasized ork of of ork s

and and f

CEU eTD Collection function of marginalization, the political impetus of Butler’s thought is to pinpoint possibil a to unintelligibility of function a from resignified is role their once subjects, of constitution the outside constitutive the of notion the (quasi) the within organization. recognition) (in living of possibilities finding of hesitation. significantly be can norms these but exist, already deterritorializedthe citation” through (ibid, that norms cites surely “One words: differing repetition of these norms that bu intelligibility cultural of realm the circumnavigate that norms (discursive) 217). 2004, (Butler transformation” exc constitutive the with ways, myriad in living norm the occupy can always which that is body in the otherwise, becoming of and possibility becoming, of mode the in being of consequence perilous as rendered promises. permanently political recitations, to exposed always unprefigurable, always are if to note, that if there is space signifiers, as it also advocates for a whole set of p that brings an open 1993, 222). In other words, the political identityand attoopenthe thecategory same time movement double a involve signi political Performative effectuated. be to ‘subjects’ of kinds different there are today laws/norms/customs, these signifiers have tofunction inaradically manne different as discursive signifiers inauguratedterms are by citationality.For, subjects of performativity as if struc a on project, democratic identical becoming without another one against always eed the norm, and expose realities to which we thought we were confined as open to to open as confined were we thought we which to realities expose and norm, the eed h pltcl rjcoy f ulrs huh cn be can thought Butler’s of trajectory political The This is through and against against and through Namely, it is a normativity that does not go by the name of normalization of name the bygo not does normativitythat a is it Namely, We have already shown (section 2.1) the salient political gestures undertaken with undertaken gestures political salient the 2.1) (section shown already have We

not to say Butler’s political project operates only through a creation of performative

- n s In ended reality 130).ended 2013, (Butler existence”inButlerand into Athanasiou hort, what seems to be at stake here is the notion of becoming: “As a a “As becoming: of notion the is here stake at be to seems what hort,

and and time

t ivk te aeoy n, ec, rvsoal t isiue an institute to provisionally hence, and, category the invoke “to tural basis, hinges on employing political signifiers functioning in functioning signifiers political employing on hinges basis, tural ( violent

One is constantly exposed to the power the to exposed constantly is One

for for a possibility to – they )

once abjects are abjects once promise of the performative is recitations of the law/norm, these political performances political these law/norm, the of recitations

can be altered. In Butler’s Deleuzo 218). 38 erformative political practices.

I ti sne Bte’ poie f radically a of promise Butler’s sense, this In .

as a contest” siteof permanent (Butler political

perform perform these ‘actions’ disruptively, even understood to have a constitutive role in role constitutive a have to understood ple ot without out spelled

“an “an exercise of articulation - rncnetl ln of plane transcendental - knowledge nexus of of nexus knowledge - Guattarian inspired And it is important t it is through the the through is it t

any reserve or or reserve any r than they do , but , by way byway ities of fiers fiers

CEU eTD Collection and hand, one the on deconstructive approaches that critically intervene into discursively constructed (sexual) identities, d performativity an within isenfolded assemblage matter transcendental logic on of proliferation positive a and writes) differentiat and reads also Nature that Kirby, with seen, have we is ultimately a relationality between the negative, endless deferral of meaning in signification (but eclectic reading of Butler and Deleuze sexuality on focus that approaches ‘affective’ and approaches deconstructive into theory queer contemporary of division a on draws Puar Jasbir theory. assemblage of adaptation contemporary a of use make us let they Deleuzo disidentifications transcendental interpretation, sign organs without of human beings difference more a for departure of point the itself is identification democratizing affirmation of failure that slippage, that of injury or loss of actions that prompts these possibilities are processes of disidentification from articul epart

regulatory norms; disidentifications that are that disidentifications norms; regulatory 3.3

are

ating/enacting from

The queer our situate to order In Assemblage astheof Deleuze confluence Butler political and Guattari and politic this of think we Can

- assembled Guattarian asignifying and asubjective affect asubjective and asignifying Guattarian ,’ ,’ as an ing

Puar ocpul structure conceptual

pointing towards the impossibility of full recognition

matter (bu matter ? ’s

– , as , affirm Can we think of it (this

? (2013) (2013) BwO

culturally recognizable forms of viable lives. One of the most prominent prominent most the of One lives. viable of forms recognizable culturally (in) a

strand of queer theory that contemplates “sexuality as assemblage and not and assemblage as “sexuality contemplates that theory queer of strand ation ation of

felicitous failures of identification/signification, of failures felicitous t we have seen, with Butler Butler with seen, have we t articulation – of internal difference

h bd o desire of body the ).

the bodily affect/flesh

i fiance, subjectification? f n sebae os o poii promtvt, rather performativity, prohibit not does assemblage an of - as political l rms o dsdniiain ti ‘ this disidentification, of promise al

& - of assemblage theory assemblage. In order to keep up with our synergetic and and synergetic our with up keep to order In assemblage. Guattari, Guattari, be

molecular partner 39 , in Butler’s the Butler’s in , ”

(see sec

a a eane atr we after remainder a as ) (Butler 1993, 219).

it coming, at the level of theoretical abstraction, ship between Butler and Deleuze & Deleuze and Butler between ship , in Deleuzo , in terms of s

that of the BwO the of tion 2.4) tion We We will not ask if .

signification imposes its own quasi own its imposes signification Puar ascribes to a separation of orizing, . Thisis why we to have - affirming Guattarian parlance, is the body : “ ; rather ; I

t may be that the affirmation

unleashed

can fimto o internal of affirmation , non

it is time to ask how ask to time is it Butler’s /deterritorializations

be assembled with assembled be undo - human properties

by a negative a by

(2013, 41 (2013,

h (quasi) the undoings undoings as

Guattari slightly queer - 2), - -

CEU eTD Collection which of di a political promise on terrain a become to is it if it in enfolded necessarily deem we which trait, deconstructive a 2) such) as reality (and individuals epistemo new) to identity iden circumnavigate can particles) bodily variable unstable (as assemblages that Sexualities Affective Travels, Viral Assemblage: as Homonationalism an identity of notion the to resistance non “the seamlessly be cannot that with second the and positions identity with do to has first the where analyticalprinciples, distinct assemblages “unstable as assemb bodies and intersectionality Puar For (ibid). formations” identity into disaggregated with do to have ultimately Puar t connection.” refuses to rather but (enunciation) statement to nor (essence) affairs of state the to co of terms in assemblages explains stance, latter the revisiting that processes molecular affective) (bodily, destabilize fixed identity position (as an to analytic pre solely assemblage of notion the delimits she where she revisits her ‘reductionist’ reading of assemblage in of assemblage is taken up by Jasbir Puar in her to any notion of the political” (Puar 2012a, 151). be must irreduciblycen (howprimary feel) political,things processes then bodily ofthe realm perspectives of aware keenly of plane immanent the consistency of perspective the from sexuality perceiving of espousal the towards 42) identity”(ibid,

Puar’s tity isopposed toassemblages’ omtvte a open as normativities Nevertheless, - o fuse intersectionality intersectionality fuse o

logical illusions hesitation representational referent of matter of referent representational

: “If signification and representation (what things mean) are no longer the only only the longer no are mean) things (what representation and signification “If : where identity becomes imperceptible becomes identity where a

, on theother on ,

need of c of need to

in order to buttress our view on assemblage theory assemblage on view our buttress to order in fully

but as signifiers (themselves imbued with affective desires) that produce acknowledge acknowledge the political potential of deconstruction to think (old and - ritical thought ritical ne identities ended sidentification can thought. be . .

Inth Consequently, we have added to added have we Consequently, into

mode of being

e latter e d the politics of recognition tied to it. In her recent work, work, recent her In it. to tied recognition of politics the d n sebae fr h frl blee ta assemblages that believes firmly she for assemblage, an

- to assemble both deconstuctive as well as affective as well as deconstuctive both assemble to

in case, case,

- I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess (categories) 40 itself” (ibid). Puar still seems to be resorting to a to resorting be to seems still Puar (ibid). itself” It is interesting to see what sort of understanding

Puar’s use of assemblage seems to be pointingbe to assemblageseemsof usePuar’s as becoming . rogative of intersectionality). Puar (2012b), in At

other times, other

that carry their own weight, not as as not weight, own their carry that Terrorist Terrorist Assemblages

nnections: “T nnections: .

Puar’s assemblage (see assemblage Puar’s

however,

(2013), she seems to insist insist to seems she (2013), ,

we have to be attentive be to have we he priority is neither neither is priority he

Puar (2005). There

lage are two two are lage seems to be to seems because ,

(2012b) Figure tral tral

CEU eTD Collection the discursive force of negativity presen machinic immanent departure of point Guattari’s and Deleuze while analysis, political a for point vantage non of significatio logic the of limits the exposes approach critical her Inshort, subjectifications. discursive primary proliferation the destabilize that categories discursive of immanent critical approach to the disidentification of becoming intense performativity, adding to it concomitant, but qualitatively distinct, logics of affect and matter drafting, been have we ) between oscillations transcendental apparatutranscendental - representable ulrs efraiiy ae dsore ad hi subjectifying their and discourses takes performativity Butler’s o In Figure r edn o asmlg theory assemblage of reading ur s 2 hwvr i Bte’ tertcl approach theoretical Butler’s in however, , n : Puar's: ,

representation ,

intense

sexuality differentiations of matter of differentiations immanent ses of ses

, positive los o a osblt o icuig h lgc f deconstructive of logic the including of possibility a for allows - as - assemblage& homonationalism , capture of signification. signification. captureof

and identi binary systems of signification multiplic

proliferation of . t in subjectivation as

Butler’s deconstructive performativity is a thorough thorough a is performativity deconstructive Butler’s tywhile te o afraie eoig and becomings affirmative of ities - political affects. Deleuze and Guattari and Deleuze affects.

41 we we

,

at the same time

pre pay - as - imposition The individual individual - assemblage special ,

can only spring up as reiterations of of reiterations as up spring only can conceptualization of assemblage of conceptualization a

form form of individuation.

that advocates for teto to attention s

matter

, also of discursive binaries. These These binaries. discursive of

- becomes ofthe the limit affects. fet a te primary the as effects

do h transformative the

not do away with away do not

a proliferation

Rather, their the the are the the are ( quasi

, that , –

the -

CEU eTD Collection of(culturally) life: intelligible possibilities diside a means it Guattari means it ofpre an affirmation disidentify to impetus an identify can we cases, both In subjects. intelligible mean would a deterritorialization, Deleuze and Guattari a political For other. the on Guattari, and Deleuze and hand, one the on Butler, of consequences political and call for subjects/abjects. social unprefigurable upholding and macro the of a entail would proliferation a as versa) vice ( and nevertheless political them institutional of affecting outside (however, (mainly) arrangements place taking imagine can we which becoming, of a situatedform of relati certainin primacy a hold they rather, subjectifications, discursive on reliant not are flight of lines singular these But some way constitutive, there can only be phenomena of ‘resistance’ against them” (Deleuze 1997). referred areflight, toaslines of contrastedtoFoucault’s resistance: “I the another fo a adds ( Sedgwick’s use To discursive. purely not is that individuation of thinking of characterized by an accen thought ontologically

what they dodifferently can ina risks beside experimentally discovering what bodies and languages can Finally, we we Finally, In political terms,

complements this negativity this complements

- of rm of individuation level of politic of level capture

rsgiiain f ii pltcl signifier political rigid of resignification a in lieu of a teleological beyond and original beneath. original and beyond teleological a of lieu in acknowledged) subversion

Assembling Assembling these two political positions would demand an articulation that would ntification a dual movementa of dual are

n affirmation of a non a of affirmation n of arriv on to them to on

a Deleuzo h former. the al analysis (hegemony), a struggle taking place in the sphere of creating sphereof the in place taking struggle a (hegemony),analysis al tuation of a certain positivity;

of/resistance to of/resistance

from discursively imposed categorizations and orderings that delimit that orderings and categorizations imposed discursively from ing -

pre haecceity from subjectivation distinct thatis butalways

at the point when we are equipped to understand to equipped are we when point the at project - individual . - Assembling these two perceptions of individuations demands individuations of perceptionsAssemblingthese two Guattari

conflictual hs snua, ahnc niiutos smtms also sometimes individuations, machinic singular, These by - disidentification.

individual variabilityindividual ofmatter would follow somesort ofa line of escape, aa becoming, enns srgln oe/o clua rcgiin of recognition cultural over/for struggling meanings,

adding different forms/logics of individuation that are that individuation of forms/logics different adding

social norms/conventions; an norms/conventions; social - an

human/pre proliferations

position 42

productive alliance

that is to say, they introduce different ways

- would advocate for a molecular

individual ta ae h peodto o effecting of precondition the are that s . On the other ha do

varia . Deleuze and Guattari present Guattari and Deleuze ,

what what they can f dispositifs of power aref dispositifs in - affects, whereasButler for bility open ended struggle on on struggle ended open nd, nd, a Butlerian , w , cf. ; for Deleuze and and Deleuze for ;

hile for Butler it it Butler for hile 2003, 8) term, it it term, 8) 2003, the assembled assembled the do differently exposed to to exposed revolution

politics politics ,

CEU eTD Collection (identity). non perspective out draws disidentification Deleuze&Guattari of project political The it. with contact constant in remain but discourse, and representation exceed they representable, only not message ofas affirmation/positivity. of field uncontested the as variations proliferating affects/matter, that might even not representable be intelligible, yet not are that possibilities of think and enact to possibility the enabling thus it, on it desubjectifies desire. organism, It strives to free desire representable of the molar mediated, discursively the desubjectifies becoming of politics The of matter.and affectsof realm the into disidentification of logic the push and human guise as well. The politics of becoming complement deconstructive critiques of subjections thoug run not doestheory, critical of impulse signification/representation. of principal transcendental account to insufficient Deleuzo temporal discontinuities of discursive performative enactments ( totality the of impossibilities discursive If

becoming disidentifies from the confines of Culture, exposing matter h individ the - representable (affective) itself Our reading Our constant a but individuals, hierarchized generator of de uniting bond organic the be not must group The combinations. diverse displacement, and multiplication of means by individualize' th is individual The them. defined has - Guattarian becomings add a layer of intensive texture rendering From one perspective, one From . It relies on queerness in more than one sense, because queer is queer because sense, one than more in queerness on relies It . subjectivation sembling a i ide te rdc o power, of product the indeed is ual Do not demand of politics that it restore the "rights" of the individual, as philosophy of a prioritization of either linguistic deferral/discursive foreclosures or or foreclosures deferral/discursive linguistic either of prioritization a of of assemblage of -

individualization Butler andButler Deleuze&Guattari for for s

are pre

of discourse give way to rediscovering linguistic agency in the the in agency linguistic rediscovering to way give discourse of i queer s - individual individual o t b jtioe hastily jettisoned be to not Butler’s

but it does .

,

–

(Foucau not rely on exclusivity, on a separation of identit of separation a on exclusivity, on rely not nevertheless

queer eainly queer relationally matter h discursive elements only, rather, it takes on a on takes it discursiveonly,rather, elementsh 43 pout f oe. ht s edd s o 'de to is needed is What power. of product e

lt inDeleuzelt andxiv). Guattari 2009, as a political signifier seems to seems signifier political a as

- fet wtot euig hm to them reducing without affects

ulrs nlss of analyses Butler’s . Social that ,

passes through regimes of passes through regimes Disidentification, a politically normative politically a Disidentification, (

symbolic/social n sebe raig f ulr and Butler of reading assembled an and political fights andstruggles are , queer in its constantly changing changing constantly its in queer , . Her probing of the structural structural the of probing Her . cf.

Sedgwick Sedgwick 2003). - in discursive / humanist - the persistent force of of force persistent the

itself itself as an agent itself. In a sense, the politics politics the sense, a In hs s h political the is This ,

to a certain extent certain a to hint at what we we what at hint representability

deconstructi ) lack imposed Nevertheless, Nevertheless,

h quasi the y and and y non on - - - ,

CEU eTD Collection that have crystalized all as and any in enfolded is performativity of notion A Butlerian. becoming are Guattari and Delueze in the non becoming non The deconstruction. by denaturalized and investigated thoroughly exposed thus in and translated (signification) are they that acknowledge must we affective/molecular traits discursive and material intertwined multiplicitous its exposingdangers, theparadoxes, affects, and form potentialities matter and together. signs contrary, assemblages try to conceive of these interrelated phenomena in a highly complex manner, l interacting of affectivities, relational of experiences, lived of sphere in of production analytic a is interventions material these of consequences political The deconstruction. become also matter and t with However, discourse. a of chains manner inwhich latter the takes performativity deconstructive of critique benevolent open and of perspective a disidentification is anargument certainpr normativity, against a what wa certain a in desire to I have lesbian “ queer: (2001) Butler’s for. looking are ayered logic ayered volvement with - semblages insofar as one of their axes is composed of collective assemblages of enunciation enunciation composed collective assemblages of of is axes their one as of insofar semblages ended signifier, a signifier a signifier, ended Queer, in this sense, does not circumnavigate identity, it passes through it and it through passes it identity, circumnavigate not does sense, this in Queer, t If

models ofnon

this open signifier - a a part of signification, it is enfolded repr his is a glimpse of of glimpse a is his

s not only in th in only not

esentable. of assemblages do not deny not do assemblages of

an ontological beside ontological an in a political political a in individuation (as /formalized - linear, non

It is in this sense that co e sphere of discursive structures of political signifiers, but also in the in also but signifiers, political of structures discursive of sphere e

- promise to actors signifier

as a historicallyspecific hege always as termed be can that queerness -

o n captured and to subjectification binary mode binary of individuation of ?

, can we we can , y. Or if I am a gay I have to desire in a certain way. Queer way. certain a in desire to I have gay a am I if y.Or work he aid of Deleuze and Guattari Guattari and Deleuze of aid he

P yet is an argument against lesbian specificity: that if I am a a am I if that specificity: lesbian against argument an is ractices

to be filled with filled be to that out a less rigidly formalized form of expression

in signification as much as signification is enfolded we we say Butler 44 s of thinking toward thatpoint s of perceive the latter the

of

)

takes place, theforce i.e.through ofcitational by that ha that oper lesbian or gayoper lesbian or identity is.” situated

its its

queer queer . become dominant ve E

is becoming Deleuzo culturally recognizable culturally disidentifications ven when, and if, struggles become become struggles if, and when, ven

monic account of significationmonic account a different logic to that of textual textual of that to logic different a from a different perspective different a from

discursively mediated, on the on mediated, discursively

political impetus political (parts of) (parts binary logic that has been been has that logic binary an we have seen how affects affects how seen have we to to embodied - ersnal isl is itself representable formalized

a need political for bodies. The multi The bodies. that - Guattarian

build build

n situated and content. Our Our content.

as only one one only as composes composes language through

,

. in an from

and and -

CEU eTD Collection its is contradiction) multiplicity, (perversion, queer if and differentiation of process the is nature mater new with departure spatio Queer difference of well. concept the as disidentification/desubjectivization, nature/matter to extended is it rather, acknowledgment, Ontological If cultural recognition is indeed always partial, this partiality can be tied to a change of perspective. manner)conceivedqueer ofas p would surely go against the grain of what mean) it does (what claims is something when precisely is It acknowledged in its difference signifiers. (how does it work) political and not recognized in performative its their of erection the and su of production the contemplate co of possibility formalized of confines the forms of being conceive to possibility the grants it rather rights, grant not does acknowledgment acknowledgment ontological seeks that project open (pre search for political recognition but, adds purely impulse to open up - individual) - human partiality andButler (ButlerAthanasiou in 68). 2013, practice to capacity our that and partial, always is recognition that say to is it rather, recognition; require not do we that say to not is This into a new regime. I take this to be a way of opening to new modes of sociality and freedom. both demands courage and critical that practices, a form movement of relating to a norms and to in others that d others, with awkwardly forward, move to is rather, This q affect/matter ueer

But neither is the point to celebrate unintelligibility as its own goal. The point, The goal. own its as unintelligibility celebrate to point the is neither But oilt ta de nt opeey ey on rely completely not does that sociality (dynamic

- singularities and disidentifications and singularities e volution/co relationality of disidentification ways of thinking about a world bjectivity through experimental transformations of situated social practices social situated of transformations experimental through bjectivity affective traits, material conditions, and queer embodiments

ialism and its understanding of nature as a process of differentiation. If differentiation. of process a as nature of understanding its and ialism as

that meaningful - involution from this other perspective other this from signification/identity

it becomes imperceptible. This claim to imperceptibility, in turn, in imperceptibility, to claim This imperceptible. becomes it olitics.

t

o it the politics of becoming; a amongst has but

, traditionally

rather 45

different forms of O/others that do not need to to need not do that O/others of forms different could represent the

where many worlds are possible, a type of (from discursive subjectifications) discursive (from . ,

as affirming difference, as a functioning of of functioning a as difference, affirming as nooia akoldmn gat the grants acknowledgment Ontological

beside freedom critically depends on that very that on depends critically freedom

been , is not solely tied to the human world; human the to tied solely not is ,

subverting

- (that is utrl recognition cultural in - - eprlt, h poess of processes the temporality, tef r al hrd ons of points shared all are itself non ,

in a strictly deconstructive politics politics of dniy n concomitant and identity - normalizing normalizing normalizing desubjectivized oes not ‘settle’ . Ontological Ontological . ) of changing changing of

, an always always an , that - normative normative normative exceed not -

CEU eTD Collection seem they identification) and ca naming, of politics the to (pertaining effects its of unpredictability the for known animate assemblages,and termsbut alsoin of responsive queer political ethics that does not operate only in terms of (partia (open incetive provides operationa Hence, immanence. of plane deconstruction Or one is promise of situated disidentification is thus both a disidentification on a molar (identity categories themselves becoming of politics approaches queer deconstructive jettison an to not obligation feel we that becoming of processes over exerted power (discursive) of forces recuperative modulation and monitoring increasing for up also is that one but resistance and discombobulation creative bodily of site a therefore is Puar (2013) calls affective energies (as particles (re)territori the considering one fragile promise of betweenoscillation differentiation nor of (quasi q relational transcendental this normalizati everywhere, attributions can is only be contemplated as impact)an effect of the (socio an make to capacity a (as agency corollary, ,

better yet, disidentification is becoming, a line of flight oscillating between the molar and and molar the between oscillating flight of line a becoming,yet, is disidentification better emnl uaodbe reig f difference of ordering unavoidable seemingly - interpellated ne) om ad laws and norms ended) Deleuzo a albeit politics, new a of promise a indeed is disidentification political of promise The iain of lization disidentified imperceptibility ueerness

of its plane of organization principle - utain fetv desire affective Guattarian

to build stable political institutions that allow for variation for allow that institutions political stable build to

into (partial) these two perspectives (two forms of disidentification) bring about a political a about bring disidentification) of forms (two perspectivestwo these

thus h da mvmn of movement dual the ) and molecular level (of pre

rns bu is w effects own its about brings

performs delirium and neither movement, that of immanent of that movement, neither and delirium performs signifiers. However, when pairedwith signifiers.when However, - )transcendental discursive capture, can be granted primacy ontological acknowledgement

to be put within an assemblage that can become a fruitful source of of source fruitful a become can that assemblage an within put be to o te n hn, n efcut rltoa, xeietl and experimental, relational, effectuate and hand, one the on , sebig ulr n Delueze&Guattari and Butler assembling become alizing forces of forces alizing .

and the molecular with its

stratified and codified into into codified and stratified s

” are

46 (Puar 2009, 161) 2009, (Puar disidentification that that can be ontologically acknowledged

las assembled, always - tasae it sgiiain ih t quasi its with signification into translated , individual individual affects and differentiating matter). ht ops lvd elt a such. as reality lived compose that disciplining control disciplining , .

but - po to include and embrace them, embrace and include to . . litical) capture of difference. discursive pltc o disidentification of politics A I t is precisely because of these these of because precisely is t intense state of producing its hy net n transform and invest they discourse

l) cultural recognition s performativit

,

exterted upon what upon exterted yet are themselves themselves are yet

s a is .

n n value and on h political The tegorization, ; rather the ( ) material : “ political yis that offered offered Affect Affect

This

But the for for ) -

CEU eTD Collection immanence politics, knowledge production, of analysis and politics, of identity and affective desire, of micro and micro queer a non and contestable as prefigured assembled linking of Butlerian performativity and Deleuzo are that constants however, constants; rather, based on disdentif the horizons of power of relations hegemonic constants) producing without practice experimental

it

partnership of partnership draws up draws f eouin n subversion, and revolution of –

subjectivity subjectivity production. A subject of a curiouslyof politicalwithc queer project

produci catapulting itself out of the field of structural and structured (in a sense of of sense a (in structured and structural of field the of out itself catapulting ying

new queer architect queer new

discursive discursive from ng political

fixed fixed concepts of identity

performativ

alternative ure s

f eaiiy n positiv and negativity of of political structures that rely on producing their own own producingrely their on politicalthat structures of ity s . This is not to say subjectivity production is solely ivity production based 47

and (new) materialism (new) and

; rather,

or blindly embracing pre uriously outcomes unpredictable -

Guattarian affective desire amounts to it

invest s them, them, s

t, f rncnec and transcendence of ity, both i , of academic and activist and academic of , n academia and social building - individual individual affects; - totalizable. The The totalizable.

and opening and .

CEU eTD Collection situated of force the that sociability of forms future produce politically explain to desire a of terms in disidentification to attempts Deleuze&Guattari and Butler of reading inclusive up opening for hope perspective fail to bound does what but work, their it does how only Not pragmatics. and analytics their discourses, contesting multiple of ground nesting a become even can sexes becoming), subjectification, (subjectivation, individuation of forms contradictory subjectivation, not only two sexes, not only one political goal. Assemblages bring together various, es an upon builds also but a Butlerian discursive regimes where quasi Butler’s Firstly, other. the of scope the delimiting of function the having assemblage the in place own their attained approach insights providing on creation toapoliticalof impetus new lessviolent future. ofistied the (re new the creating of paths for approachessearch Both radicaldemocracy. a of possibility the enables that point the is which period), time indeterminate an for determined be to it (preventing identity (molar) of constitutive concei also yet terms, affirmative in difference sees that politics a of post critical of camps Guattarian ssemblage theory ssemblage 4.

(be them molar or molecular) or molar them (be Deleuzo In the process of reading Butler and Deleuze&Guattari together we have resorted to to resorted have we together Deleuze&Guattari and Butler reading of process the In focused have we Deleuze&Guattari, and Butler readingbetween assembled an In drafting Deleuzo in queer something is there that conclusion a to come has thesis working Our conclusionsDisidentified

performativity to amaterialaffective beside.performativity and

/perception desire and something that is Deleuzo is that something and desire

ic te peet ah te’ lmt ec ohrs rnlto it a different a into translation other’s each limit, other’s each present they since - Guattarian . . This rich conceptual apparatus conceptual rich This . And, secondly,And, Deleuzo -

e psiiiis f thinking of possibilities new . search in synergies produce to order in together function to structuralisms no the into The sole ability to read these distinct lines of thought together inspires inspires together thought of lines distinct these read to ability sole The pousal of a proliferation of discourses within it. Not only one form of of form one only Not it. within discourses of proliferation a of pousal eoig exhaust becoming iteration of the norm, proliferation of preindividual affects) and this this and affects) preindividual of proliferation norm, the of iteration rnfraie exploration transformative

- , a plurality of political goals. One could say could One goals. political of plurality a , transcendental discursive performativity indic performativity discursive transcendental - Guattarian affirmative, productive difference ed 48

-

tef and itself Guattarian in performativity that enables both enables that performativity in Guattarian

not only accounts for accounts only not and acting. We have tried to show how an an how show to tried have We acting. and it mean as well, where both endeavors are endeavors both where well, as mean it

of was

dis

cpue’ n transformed and ‘captured’ identification ves of a negativity that is is that negativity a of ves

discourses .

Each theoretical theoretical Each ,

an assemblage assemblage an ated the ated nme of number n

and matter, matter, and opened opened

do not do

point point

by by - CEU eTD Collection and complex the fosters that subjectivity of paradoxicalsometimes intersectionsdesire ofdifference, and identity. production a on rather but exclusivity, on rely 49

CEU eTD Collection

5.

——— Butlerby 119 Salih, and Judith Sara ——— http://www.egs.edu/faculty/judith philosophy/. Michalik. Regina ——— ——— Stanford University Press. ——— ——— Routledge. ——— Gender.New Routledge. York: 1990. Judith. Butler, philosophy 1991. Rosi. Braidotti, Performativeand Deleuze/Guattari.” inDerrida Order the and “Iterability 2003. Cyril. John Barton, Matter ComestoMatter.” H of Understanding an Toward Performativity: “Posthumanist 2003. Karen. Barad, Theory ofOrder Baktir, Hasan. 2013. 6 Alliez, Éric. 2004. Anti GesturesNew ofthe Materialism. Ahmed, Sara. 2008. Imaginary Prohibitions: Some Preliminary Remarks on the Founding Bibliography - 12.

. 2004. . 2003. “Imitation and Gender Insubordinati by Interview Butler. Judith with Interview Philosophy. for Desire The 2001. . . 1998.“MerelyCultural.” 1997b. . . 1997a. 1993. .

. NewRoutledge. York:

Undoing Gender Excitable Speech:Excitable ofthe PerformativeA Politics ois ht atr O te icrie iis f “S of Limits Discursive the On Matter: That Bodies - The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection in Theories Power: of Life Psychic The word Speech Act SearlAustin, Theory: Derrida’s and Response Deleuze’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity of Subversion the and Feminism Trouble: Gender . Epiphany - atrs of Patterns Oedipus

Signs

. New York:. New Routledge.

28 (3): 801 – : Journal ofT

European Journal of Women’s of European Journal Studies New L

thirtyyears on. – isnne A td o Wmn n Contemporary in Women of Study A Dissonance: 37. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 50 eft Review

– 31 ransdisciplinary ransdisciplinary .

Critical Horizons Critical Radical Philosophy on.” In

227 (February): 33 -

od lta: Pltc o the of Politics A Plateau: Word The Judith Butler Reader - butler/articles/the S . New York: Routledge. York: . New tudies

4 (2): 227 . Stanford, California: Stanford, .

124 (March/April): –

6 (2): 100 44. ex.”

15: 23 15:

–

64. New York: York: New - desire . Thinking . –

39. – , edited 111.

- for ow ow

- CEU eTD Collection

International Review Philosophy of Grosz, ——— Press. 1982. Jacques. Derrida, Lane.Robert Hurley, R London:Helen and Books. Penguin ——— London;Massumi. York: New Continuum. ——— andTomlinson GrahamBurchell. University New Columbia York: Press. 1996. Guattari. Félix and Gilles, Deleuze, 1997. Gilles. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11320926/Deleuze Deleuze, Bloomsbury Academic. ——— University Press. Theory In Problem?” a Difference Sexual “Is 2000. Claire. Colebrook, (Fall 2005/Spring 2006). and Inhumanism.” Theory Queer Deleuze: of Vectors “Pink 2006. Ramlow. R. Todd and J., Jeffrey Cohen, Intersections An and [Guattari], Deleuze, Lacan: “Schizophrenizing 2009. Luke. Calwell, 2000. Žižek. Slavoj Universality: DialoguesontheLeft Contemporary and Laclau, Ernesto Judith, Butler, Political 2013. Athanasiou. Athena and Judith, Butler,

eie b Car Clbok n In uhnn 110 Buchanan, Ian and Colebrook Claire by edited , Elizabeth. 1993. “A Thousand Tiny Sexes, Feminism and Rhizomatics.”and Feminism TinySexes, Thousand“A 1993. Elizabeth. . 1988. 2009. . 2004. . 2010. . . 1editio

10 (3): 19 Limited Inc Limited A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia and Capitalism Plateaus: Thousand A Anti eez ad h Maig f Life of Meaning the and Deleuze

n. Cambridge, Polity.UK; Malden, MA: Rhizomes - Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizoph and Capitalism Oedipus: –

Margins of Philosophy of Margins 27.

. Evanston, IL:. Evanston, University Press. Northwestern

The Becoming

eie n pleasure and Desire 12 (2): 167 51

- Deleuzoguattarian of Queer Studies, no. 11/12 ht s Philosophy? Is What - – . Chicago, London: University of Chicago Chicago of University London: Chicago, . Desire 79. ipseso: h Promtv i the in Performative The Dispossession: . London:. Verso.

1 dto. odn Nw York: New London; edition. 1 . - and renia

- Pleasure (1

. Translated by Mark Seem, Seem, Mark by Translated . – 27. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Edinburgh Edinburgh: 27. Contingency, Hegemony, Hegemony, Contingency, . Deleuze and Feminist Feminist and Deleuze .

. Translated by Brian by Translated . Translated by Hugh Hugh by Translated cesbe via Accessible . June 2015 . June

ti - Oedipus.” Oedipus.” Topoi ).

- An : CEU eTD Collection

Durham: Duke UniversityPress. ——— 39. doi:10.1215/01642472 Puar, Jasbir University CaliforniaPress. of 1999. Dorothea. Olkowski, University Press. 2000. Negri. Antonio and Michael, Hardt Lyotard, Jean Radical Democratic Politics Mouffe.1992. andLaclau, Chantal Ernesto, doi:10.1177/1464700111404289. Elizabeth and Kirby Vicki with Conversations “Feminist 2011. Wilson. A. Elizabeth and Vicki, Kirby, Press Books. ——— Routledge. 2007. Vicki. Kirby, Academic. 2007. Christian. Kerslake, Merl Storr, 37 In Butler.” and Deleuze Hickey Giffney Hird. Aldershot u.a.: and J. Ashgate. Myra 2008. J. Myra and Giffney Noreen Hird, Laura 67 Dolan, ——— - 2007. . 2011. Vicki. Kirby, . In Desire.” Lesbian “Reconfiguring 1994. . Moody, Anna, and Mary Lou Rasmussen. 2009. “The Sexed Subject in Subject Sexed “The 2009. Rasmussen. Lou Mary and Anna, Moody,

K. 2005. “Queer Times, Queer Assemblages.”

- – François. 2004. François. 2004. 53. Deleuze Connections.53. Deleuze Edinburgh: Press. Edinburgh University errs Asmlgs Hmntoaim n ue Times Queer in Homonationalism Assemblages: Terrorist –

84. New York: Universi84. New Columbia Telling Fles Telling . Wilson.” A. Deleuze and Deleuze - Deleuze and the Unconscious the and Deleuze 23 . London:. Verso. - ils eez ad h ri o representation of ruin the and Deleuze Gilles unu Atrplge: ie t Large at Life Anthropologies: Quantum Libidinal Economy Libidinal

3 -

4_84 h: The Substance of the Corporeal the of Substance The h:

-

85 Queer Theory Queer 52 - 121. eiit Theory Feminist

ueig h Non/Human the Queering Empire Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: a Towards andSocialist Hegemony

. London; York: Continuum. New

Cmrde Msahsts Harvard Massachusetts: Cambridge, . ty Press. , edited by Chrysanthi Nigianni and and Nigianni Chrysanthi by edited , The Lesbian Postmodern Lesbian The . 1 edition. London: Bloomsbury Bloomsbury London: edition. 1 . Social Text

2 2: 227 (2): 12 . London, New York: New London, .

23 (3 . Edited by Noreen Noreen by Edited . . Duke University University Duke . - 4 84 Nx Wave. Next . , edited by edited , Berkley: . - 85): 121 - between between

– 34. – CEU eTD Collection

psihoanalizo. 2011. Alenka. Žerdin, Zupančič 46 (4): 635 ——— 46 Protevi 1.Edition, andPaulPatton, Rec in Directions Immanence Daniel Warren.“DeleuzeandSmith, and Transcendence: Derrida, 2003. Two SeriesUniversity Duke Q.Durham: Press. Kosofsky Eve Sedgwick, Affect.” Face's the and Simpson Lorna Difference: Immanent “Seeing 2012. Laurie. Rodrigez, ReviewJindal GlobalLaw ——— in Assemblage Theory.” ——— 149 1422179. (1): 18 Studies Gay and Lesbian of Journal A GLQ: ——— . 2004. “The Inverse Side of the Structure Žižek on Deleuze on Lacan.” on Deleuze on Žižek Structure the of Side Inverse “The 2004. . Sexualities.” Affective Travels, Viral Assemblage: as “Homonationalism 2013. . Becoming Goddess’:a Cyborgthan a BeRather “‘IWould 2012b. . of Cost The “Coda: 2012a. . Rhizomes

– 50. doi:10.1353/crt

ent French Thought.” In Thought.” French ent Deleuze philoSOPHIA 2003. .

4 (2): 23 and Photography,23 (2012). no. .2005.0019. Seksualno in ontologija in Seksualno ocig eln: fet Pdgg, Performativity Pedagogy, Affect, Feeling: Touching – 43.

–

Getting Better Suicide, Sensation, Switchpoints.” Switchpoints.” Sensation, Suicide, Better Getting 2 (1): 49. 66. London:66. BloomsburyAcademic. 53

Between Deleuze and Derrida and Deleuze Between

. Ljubljana: Društvo za teoretsko za Društvo Ljubljana: .

– 8 doi:10.1215/10642684 58. , edited by John by edited , -

Intersectional Criticism - .