Annual Review of Critical Psychology 12 (2015)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Managing Editor Ian Parker Editorial Board Alex Bridger, Huddersfield, England Ingrid Palmary, Johannesburg, South Africa Alexandra Zavos, Athens, Greece Isabel Rodriguez-Mora, London, England Anat Greenstein, Manchester, England Jan De Vos, Ghent, Belgium Angel Gordo López, Madrid, Spain Jane Callaghan, Northampton, England Angelo Benozzo, Aosta, Italy Janet Haney, London, England Anup Dhar, New Delhi, India Jemma Tosh, Manchester, England Babak Fozooni, London, England Jill Bradbury, Gauteng, South Africa Barbara Biglia, Tarragona, Catalunya John Cromby, Loughborough, England Bernardo Jimenez Dominguez, Guadalajara, Mexico Jude Clark, Durban, South Africa Brenda Goldberg, Manchester, England Karen Ciclitira, London, England Calum Neill, Edinburgh, Scotland Kathy Skott-Myhre, Atlanta, USA Carla De Santis, Caracas, Venezuela Kazushige Shingu, Kyoto, Japan China Mills, Manchester, England Ken McLaughlin, Manchester, England Christian Ingo Lenz Dunker, Sao Paulo, Brasil Khatidja Chantler , Manchester, England Christian Yavorsky, New York, USA Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Santa Barbara, USA Conceição Nogueira, Porto, Portugal Manasi Kumar, Nairobi, Kenya Dan Heggs, Cardiff, Wales Manuel Llorens, Caracas, Venezuela Daniela Caselli, Manchester, England Maria Nichterlein, Melbourne, Australia David Harper, London, England Marisela Montenegro, Barcelona, Catalunya David Pavón-Cuéllar, Morelia, Mexico Maritza Montero, Caracas, Venezuela Debbie Thackray, Manchester, England Mihalis Mentinis, Oventic, Chiapas, Mexico Deborah Marks, Leeds, England Mike Arfken, Prince Edward Island, Canada Diane Burns, Sheffield, England Nadir Lara Junior, Porto Alegre, Brazil Elliot Cohen, Leeds, England Narcisa Canilao Baguio, The Philippines Erica Burman, Manchester, England Nikolai Jeffs, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Esther Wiesenfeld, Caracas, Venezuela Nuno Santos Carneiro, Porto, Portugal Euclides Sanchez, Caracas, Venezuela Pam Alldred, London, England Eugenie Georgaca, Thessaloniki, Greece Pauline Mottram, Bradford, England Flor Gamboa, Morelia, Mexico Pauline Whelan, Leeds, England Geoff Bunn, Manchester, England Peter Branney, Leeds, England Gill Aitken, Salford, England Rachel Robbins, Stockport, England Gill Craig, London, England Raquel Guzzo, Campinas, Brazil Gordana Jovanović, Belgrade, Serbia Rob Evans, Birmingham, England Grahame Hayes, Durban, South Africa Rosario Gonzalez Arias, Queretaro, Mexico Gregorio Iglesias Sahagun, Queretaro, Mexico Rose Capdevila, Milton Keynes, England Haim Weinberg, San Diego, Sam Warner, Manchester, England Hannah Berry, Manchester, England Sean Homer, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Hans Skott-Myhre, St Catherines, Canada Shaun Grech, Manchester, England Helen Spandler, Preston, England Sue Makevit-Coupland, Lincoln, England Hernan Camilo Pulido Martinez, Bogotá, Colombia Suryia Nayak, Salford, England Hidemoto Makise, Kyoto, Japan Susana Seidmann, Buenos Aires, Argentina Husain al Hakami, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Terence McLaughlin, Stockport, England Ian Law, Adelaide, Australia Teresa Cabruja Ubach, Girona, Catalunya Ian Parker, Manchester, England Tom Billington, Sheffield, England Ichiro Yatsuzuka, Kumamoto, Japan Tom D’Arcy, Carlow, Ireland Ilana Mountian, Manchester, England Yasuhiro Igarashi, Tokyo, Japan Peer-reviewed online open-access journal, published on http://www.discourseunit.com/annual-review/ ISSN: 1746-739X Annual Review of Critical Psychology Issue 14 (2018) Putting the Deleuzian Machine to Work in Psychology Edited by Maria Nichterlein 4 Deleuze & Psychology Annual Review of Critical Psychology 14 (2018) 5 Table of Contents Putting the Deleuzian Machine to Work in Psychology: Critical and Clinical Becomings Maria Nichterlein 7 Section I: Philosophical Provocations 19 Gilles Deleuze in Social Science: Some Introductory Themes Casper Bruun Jensen 31 Deleuze, Spinoza and Psychology: Notes Towards an Experience Ecology Steven D. Brown 51 Actualising the Virtual: Deleuze, Temporality and Memory Alan Bristow 67 Section II: Scientific Provocations 85 Deterritorialising the Psychological Subject (For a ‘People to Come’) Cameron Duff & Rhys Price-Robertson 93 Pragmatism after Deleuze and Guattari: The Problem of Method in What is Philosophy? James Williams 111 Deleuze, Simondon and the ‘Problem’ of Psychological Life Ian Tucker 127 Section III: Artistic Provocations 145 Percepts, Affects and Desire Pietro Barbetta 153 The Risky Truth of Fabulation: Deleuze, Bergson and Durkheim on the Becomings of Religion and Art Paul Stenner 169 Deleuze’s Critical and Clinical Uses of Literature Be Pannell 193 Book Review: Deleuze and Becoming (2017) by Samantha Bankston Alan Bristow 211 6 Deleuze & Psychology Annual Review of Critical Psychology 14 (2018) 7 PUTTING THE DELEUZIAN MACHINE TO WORK IN PSYCHOLOGY CRITICAL AND CLINICAL BECOMINGS Maria Nichterlein﹡ Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Introduction to this special issue We have yet to write the history of that other form of madness, by which men, in an act of sovereign reason, confine their neighbors, and communicate and recognize each other through the merciless language of non-madness: to define the moment of this conspiracy before it was permanently established in the realm of truth, before it was revived by the lyricism of protest. (Foucault, 2004, p. xi) It should not be taken as surprising to start an issue of the Annual Review of Critical Psychology aiming to introduce the ideas of Gilles Deleuze, with a reference to Foucault. Quite on the contrary, English speaking scholarship seems to have found its way to Deleuze through the (in)famous assertion Foucault once made that “perhaps this century will be known as Deleuzian.” 1 Foucault saw in Deleuze’s project a philosophical grounding for his own work and, what is perhaps of more importance for the discipline of psychology, the philosophical foundation for a “non-fascist life” (1983, p. xiii). Foucault’s prophetic announcement was made in his paper Theatrum Philosophicum (1970) where he reviews two of Deleuze’s books: Difference and Repetition (1994) and Logic of Sense (1990). Foucault saw Deleuze as the one amongst the multitude of philosophical rivals – “starting with Aristotle” (p. 344) – to have been able to effectively overturn the foundational Platonic orientation of Western Philosophy: identity. As ﹡ Address for correspondence: [email protected] 1 Deleuze’s response was that Foucault was a terrible joker and that such a grand statement should be seen just as that: a joke… a joke made between friends to annoy their critics (1995, p. 88). For Deleuze, Foucault’s gesture was one of friendship rather than of self-importance 8 Deleuze & Psychology Foucault explains, instead of the ‘Ulyssean’ search for the purity and authenticity of essential identities – of an ‘ideal’ model – Deleuze’s overturning of Platonism “consists in displacing himself within the Platonic series in order to disclose an unexpected facet: division” (ibid). Rather than identity, what Deleuze proposes as the central concept to uphold within a metaphysical project is difference – a difference that is in constant process of differentiation (thus creating series, a moving identity if one wants to play with such an ‘image’… like in the cinematic image). Such a displacement, such an overturning of the tenets of Western philosophy since Plato, has profound implications for the structure of Western society (and thus for the subjects it produces), effects that we are still in the process of ‘making sense of’. Psychology – in particular critical psychology – has started this process but much remains uncharted. The challenges are at a multitude of levels and, in line with its own claims, they are constantly shifting, requiring of the thinker – in this case, the apprentice of and in psychology – to think in a different way to that in which we have been trained, to think otherwise. It seems fair to say that these displacements force the apprentice psychologist to think through different constellations of problems and thus, to create new concepts for its discipline. Perhaps a simpler way to explain this is by noting that the move from identity to difference requires a move away from the representational forms of knowledge so pervasive in contemporary psychology into an engagement with a certain – different – kind of thinking the discipline. The emphasis here is important. More than the solution, a solution that often takes the shape of a true knowledge of a transcendent nature2 – of what is true and what is false, a solution that emerges out of the framing of a question within a Cartesian cogito – it is the acute awareness of the thought involved in the positing of a problem that fascinates Deleuze. As he writes in Difference and Repetition: ‘a solution always has the truth it deserves according to the problem to which it is a response’ (Deleuze 1994, p. 158-9). Wasser explains Deleuze’s statement further: “[b]eyond the dualism of questions and answers, truth and falsehood, […] Deleuze affirms the priority of a third register, that of problem-formation, a domain in which truth and falsity first acquire meaning and orientation” (2017, p. 49). In yet another way to explain the same point, rather than adding to an increasingly problematic disciplinary edifice, what Deleuze provokes the discipline to do is to reconsider what has been taken for granted in the foundation and the structure of such an edifice. Not just a change of name but a change of game, engaging with Deleuze provokes us to question the disciplinary assumption of the presence of (static)