Two Regimes of Madness: Texts And Interviews 1975 1995

by Gilles Deleuze

People tend to confuse winning freedom with conversion to capitalism. It is doubtful that the joys of capitalism are enough to free peoples.... The American "revolution" failed long ago, long before the Soviet one. Revolutionary situations and attempts are born of capitalism itself and will not soon disappear, alas. Philosophy remains tied to a revolutionary becoming that is not to be confused with the history of revolutions.
--from Two Regimes of Madness

Covering the last twenty years of Gilles Deleuze's life (1975-1995), the texts and interviews gathered in this volume complete those collected in Desert Islands and Other Texts (1953-1974) . This period saw the publication of his major works: A Thousand Plateaus (1980), Cinema I: Image-Movement (1983), Cinema II: Image-Time (1985), all leading through language, concept and art to What is Philosophy? (1991). Two Regimes of Madness also documents Deleuze's increasing involvement with politics (with Toni Negri, for example, the Italian philosopher and professor accused of associating with the Red Brigades). Both volumes were conceived by the author himself and will be his last. Michel Foucault famously wrote: "One day, perhaps, this century will be Deleuzian." This book provides a prodigious entry into the work of the most important philosopher of our time. Unlike Foucault, Deleuze never stopped digging further into the same furrow. Concepts for him came from life. He was a vitalist and remained one to the last.

Genres: Philosophy, Essays, Nonfiction, Theory, Politics, Art, France

415 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

About the author

Deleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.

Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.

He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.

Reviews

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is no absolute ear; the problem is to have an impossible one--making audible forces that are not audible in themselves. In philosophy, it is a question of an impossible thought, making thinkable through a very complex material of thought forces that are unthinkable.

Such statements -- though boggling -- are rather exciting, well at least to me. Two Regimes is a collected works volume, a bin for minor pieces, prefaces and interviews. One has to be familiar with Deleuze (especially with his famed collaborations with Guattari) to find much traction. There are some neutral selections that could enchant the novice, in particular a colloquium on Proust where Deleuze enchants while Roland Barthes comes across as bit of a dick. Deleuze is rather moving in his pieces on Guattari and Foucault, he notes on the latter that books of Foucault provide context but that is only half of the project, the other half is provided in the interviews. I would like to think the same applies to Deleuze himself.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Separate reviews published, of the French edition, Radical Philosophy 126 (July 2004): 53-54; and of the English translation, Deleuze Studies 1.1 (2007): 82-92.

[Fabiana · Rating 5 out of 5]

"This body is as biological as it is collective and political. [...] If I call it a body-without-organs, it is because it opposes all strata of organization, the organism's organization as well as power
organizations. It is precisely the whole group of body organizations that will smash the plane or the field of immanence, and will impose upon desire another type of plane, each time stratifying the body-without-organs." (130)

"What other people dream is very dangerous. Dreams are a terrifying will to power. Each of us is more or less a victim of other people's dreams. Even the most graceful young woman is a horrific ravager, not because of her soul, but because of her dreams. Beware of the dreams of others, because if you are caught in their dream, you are done for." (323)

"It is already hard enough to understand what someone is trying to say. Discussion is just an exercise in narcissism where everyone takes turns showing off. Very quickly, you have no idea what is being discussed. But it is much more difficult to determine the problem to which a particular proposition responds. Now, if you understand the problem which someone has posed, you have no desire to discuss it: either you pose the same problem, or you decide to pose another problem and continue in that direction. [...] Conversation is something else entirely. We need conversation. But the lightest conversation is a great schizophrenic experiment happening between two individuals with common resources and a taste for ellipses and short-hand expressions. Conversation is full of long silences; it can give you ideas. But discussion has no place in the work of philosophy. The phrase 'let's discuss it' is an act of terror." (384)


This collection of works just about sums up all the avenues Deleuze had taken up during his time as a philosopher (from Foucault, to cinema, to his works with Guattari, personal correspondences, political activism and the, still devastating, conditions of Palestine). Where I lose touch with Deleuze doesn't really matter (it has to do with Kant but i'm slowlllyyyy coming around lol). Others may refute his ontology of difference, but frankly I would die for it. It is everything I have been striving to name since before I fully committed myself to Philosophy. I was with a friend the other day and he said that he thinks Deleuze and the like just ripped everything from Heraclitus/Parmenides, (don't worry guys, I contacted some family... this friend won't be a problem to me or Dr. Deleuze any longer...) which like yes but also No. Sure, you could make the argument that the underlying principle here is change/fluxes as it pertains to being, but Deleuze is Not about synthesis. His thought goes extremely deep into these ancient concepts and develops them not only in a contemporary lens, but into the Rhizome and the true nature of multiplicities and denial of fixed principles. etc etc. Anyways following from this it just reinforces D's concept of philosophy and what it functions to do. That it is in its purest form, creation. Philosophy is the creation of concepts, period. I am so preoccupied with the idea that the Event is pure immanence as well.

Not only this, but the terribly long quote I included from page 384 about Discussion v. Conversation. When I read Deleuze I feel the same way as when I read Nietzsche, understood? Something like that... That discussion is the end of all thought. It purges creativity in the mind and settles for fixed, rigid forms of conduct that murder what else may be said. I'm very particular on this. I refuse to engage with people that can't tolerate nuance, or complication or anything of the sort. It closes the dialogue in on itself. Conversation is what flows, it bounces from wall to wall, hanging on every last word to drawn out what is left unsaid, or keep it hidden. Deleuze i FUCKING love you.

(please someone make me a #1 Deleuze-fan hat with the soda cans on the side I will pay top dollar )

[Levi]

"Un concept philosophique remplit une ou plusieurs fonctions, dans des champs de pensée qui sont eux-mêmes définis par des variables intérieures. Il y a enfin des variables extérieures (états de choses, moments de l'histoire), dans un rapport complexe avec les variables internes et les fonctions. C'est dire qu'un concept ne naît et ne meurt pas par plaisir, mais dans la mesure où de nouvelles fonctions dans de nouveaux champs le destituent relativement. C'est pourquoi aussi il n'est jamais très intéressant de critiquer un concept : il vaut mieux construire les nouvelles fonctions et découvrir les nouveaux champs qui le rendent inutile ou inadéquat."

[Enon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Skimmed a few essays in this work before returning it to Powells. Normally wouldn't include a half read work in my completed list, but consider this more a bookmark for a future return.. maybe.

[viy]

read the timothy s murphy translation of "the grandeur of yasser arafat"

[Charles Keatts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Currently reading. Love it esp. the talk with R. Barthes on Proust.

[Noah Christiansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read:
- Desire and Pleasure

[Alex Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since this was published after his death, one mustn't be too harsh. There is obviously very little coherency here. We get glimpses at some of Deleuze's brilliance, shown unevenly because he didn't refine much of this for publication. If you are starving for Deleuze, you should reach this book. You'll grasp that he is a much more disciplined writer than Guattari. His clarity is of course, delightful, as always. There are gems here, such as Deleuze's conflation of thought and life, transcendence and immanence. The title is compelling, but of this collection of works, there is little to show us of Deleuze himself -- beyond what he has already given us in his refined publications.

[Eric Phetteplace · Rating 4 out of 5]

disappointing only becuz everything else Deleuze I've read has been incredible. Some of the essays are useless summaries of ideas developed elsewhere, others are pretty simplistic and devoid of originality (most of the stuff on Palestine is surprisingly bland). The best parts are his essays on Foucault and some of the interviews where he talks in a more casual manner. Only buy this if you're hardcore into Deleuze, otherwise stick to his main books.

[Gary Norris · Rating 4 out of 5]

especially:

Schizophrenia and Society
The Interpretation of Utterances
The Rise of the Social
The Complaint and the Body
May '68 didn't Happen
What is the Creative Act?


but really it's all good

[Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I want to stutter language, not just words.