What do you think?
Rate this book
Forerunners: Ideas First
Dark Deleuze
French philosopher Gilles Deleuze is known as a thinker of creation, joyous affirmation, and rhizomatic assemblages. In this short book, Andrew Culp polemically argues that this once-radical canon of joy has lost its resistance to the present. Concepts created to defeat capitalism have been recycled into business mantras that joyously affirm “Power is vertical; potential is horizontal!”
Culp recovers the Deleuze’s forgotten negativity. He unsettles the prevailing interpretation through an underground network of references to conspiracy, cruelty, the terror of the outside, and the shame of being human. Ultimately, he rekindles opposition to what is intolerable about this world.
Forerunners is a thought-in-process series of breakthrough digital works. Written between fresh ideas and finished books, Forerunners draws on scholarly work initiated in notable blogs, social media, conference plenaries, journal articles, and the synergy of academic exchange. This is gray literature where intense thinking, change, and speculation take place in scholarship.
Culp recovers the Deleuze’s forgotten negativity. He unsettles the prevailing interpretation through an underground network of references to conspiracy, cruelty, the terror of the outside, and the shame of being human. Ultimately, he rekindles opposition to what is intolerable about this world.
Forerunners is a thought-in-process series of breakthrough digital works. Written between fresh ideas and finished books, Forerunners draws on scholarly work initiated in notable blogs, social media, conference plenaries, journal articles, and the synergy of academic exchange. This is gray literature where intense thinking, change, and speculation take place in scholarship.
90 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2016
56 people are currently reading
688 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
April 10, 2020
This is a book that can't decide if it wants to be a monograph on Deleuze, or an insurrectionary tract a la Tiqqun and the Commité Invisible. And sure, one can imagine a book that's exactly both ('disjunctive synthesis', no?), but this isn't it. The problem is execution: Culp is exactly right to insist upon an 'updating', as it were, of Deleuzian concepts for non-Deleuzian times. But decently done, such a project would need to engage both the times - our time! - and the concepts, and articulate the one with the other, if just to shed a little light on both.
Instead, Dark Deleuze - which frequently refers to itself in and as the third person ("Dark Deleuze intervenes", "Dark Deleuze contrasts", "Dark Deleuze parts ways..." ugh) - well, Dark Deleuze ends up splitting the middle and ends up offering instead - in more of it's own words - "a new nomenclature for old Deleuzian concepts". Again, not the biggest problem, were this procedure not its way - its only way - of calling for a 'hatred of the world' and an attendant 'conspiracy of communism'. All very good, but the means here are what? - A reworked glossary of Deleuzian terms? Some conspiracy.
Further reflections, 4 days later:
Having chased up some of Culp's other work and involvements (like the Hostis journal, which Culp edits), it's clear that one function of this book something like a flag planting operation: an attempt to 'claim' Deleuze as one of his own, an ally for the cause. Approaching it this way, the book's odd form becomes far more understandable, I think. It's a fragment of a larger project, and probably should be read as such. It still doesn't stand on it's own, and in fact some of the interviews Culp gave after the publication of this book make for far more engaging and far more interesting reading:
See here and here [both accessed 08/19].
So. much. yes. here: "[W]e need to be careful to engage in rhizomatic analysis rather than act as cheerleaders for rhizomes. It was not just the anti-globalization movement that was rhizomatic, so was globalization; the radical left has benefited from becoming-rhizomatic, but so has “the groupuscule right” of resurgent fascisms. Deleuze and Guattari’s famous warning in A Thousand Plateaus says as much, “Never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us”. While some readers read this alongside the line from the bodies without organs plateaus as a call for moderation, I instead see it as a methodological clarification— rhizomes are not the answer, rhizomatics creates a new category for analysis".
Instead, Dark Deleuze - which frequently refers to itself in and as the third person ("Dark Deleuze intervenes", "Dark Deleuze contrasts", "Dark Deleuze parts ways..." ugh) - well, Dark Deleuze ends up splitting the middle and ends up offering instead - in more of it's own words - "a new nomenclature for old Deleuzian concepts". Again, not the biggest problem, were this procedure not its way - its only way - of calling for a 'hatred of the world' and an attendant 'conspiracy of communism'. All very good, but the means here are what? - A reworked glossary of Deleuzian terms? Some conspiracy.
Further reflections, 4 days later:
Having chased up some of Culp's other work and involvements (like the Hostis journal, which Culp edits), it's clear that one function of this book something like a flag planting operation: an attempt to 'claim' Deleuze as one of his own, an ally for the cause. Approaching it this way, the book's odd form becomes far more understandable, I think. It's a fragment of a larger project, and probably should be read as such. It still doesn't stand on it's own, and in fact some of the interviews Culp gave after the publication of this book make for far more engaging and far more interesting reading:
See here and here [both accessed 08/19].
So. much. yes. here: "[W]e need to be careful to engage in rhizomatic analysis rather than act as cheerleaders for rhizomes. It was not just the anti-globalization movement that was rhizomatic, so was globalization; the radical left has benefited from becoming-rhizomatic, but so has “the groupuscule right” of resurgent fascisms. Deleuze and Guattari’s famous warning in A Thousand Plateaus says as much, “Never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us”. While some readers read this alongside the line from the bodies without organs plateaus as a call for moderation, I instead see it as a methodological clarification— rhizomes are not the answer, rhizomatics creates a new category for analysis".
March 1, 2017
Nice cover design. I like the colors. Here's what was interesting in this book: discussions of "asymmetry," call to return to structuralism in anthropology, discussion of barbarians and nomads (nomads as literal barbarians), and his critique of scholars trying to liberalize Deleuze and preach tolerance. BUT. Every time Culp mentioned "revolution" or "full communism" or "guerilla warfare" or “the brilliant guerilla Che," I was tempted to break out in laughter. Stop LARPing. The gig is up with you academics. Culp also attempts a comically feeble critique of Nick Land by calling him a fascist and saying he "didn't go far enough." That did not go over well. Overall an interesting read!
October 20, 2021
Πολύ πυκνό, πολύ καλό, ήθελα κι άλλη ανάπτυξη σε πολλά σημεία του κειμένου. Θα ξαναδιαβαστεί!
August 1, 2022
Not too sure what to make of this Deleuze of Negativity and Darkness. But wonderful rhetorical writing, a great exploration of various topics like Cannibal Metaphysics which sounds awesome.
April 25, 2021
Too superficial to be critical and too self-serving and academically opportunistic to say anything about Deleuze or for that matter anything else. Grift humanities at its best.
July 10, 2024
اندرو کالپ گویی در نوعی رابطهی عشق و نفرت نسبت به دلوز قرار گرفته که نه میتواند از عشقش دل بکند و نه آن آمیزش دلخواهش محقق شده.
از دید او دلوز به اندازهی کافی رادیکال نیست و این را تا سر حد کلکل کردن بر سر هرچه رادیکالتر بودن پیش میبرد گویی فضیلت در رادیکالیتهی حداکثریست (فارغ از تمایز گذاری میان تحقق آن رادیکالیته و شعاری آتوپیایی).
مواضعی با این سطح از رادیکالیته آشکارا نشانگر اینست که هرگز تجربهای از برخورد مستقیم با بدن دولت (بخوانیم باتوم-بازداشت) نداشته. تصویری مهربان از سرمایهداری جهانی دارد که گویی به آتش کشیدن نهادی از آن میتواند انقلاب جهانی ایجاد کند. و تناقض در اینجاست که او تلاش دارد به درستی ما را از خوابی آشفته بیدار کند که جهان (که او مایل است به شیوهای رادیکال و قدری همراه با شوآف و غلو آمیز پایانش را اعلام کند) چندان صلحآمیز با مخالفانش برخورد نمیکند، اما گویی خودش هم واقف نیست این زیر میز زدن مستلزم اینست که هر دو پای خودش روی زمین باشد.
به نظر میرسد اندرو کالپ چندان به سرنوشت آنانکه بیهوا به زیر میز زدند واقف نیست. از این حیث ایراد روش او اینست که یک: گویی به ضرورت "قهر" به معنای اسپینوزایی آن واقف است، اما دستانش را هنوز به میدان عمل نیالوده. اتفاقا نفرتی که از آن صحبت میکند، آمیخته به روش نیست و در حد شعار باقی میماند. میتوان در این نفرت با او همدل بود، به شرطی که آن را به فرمی تکثیرپذیر و بادوام در آورد و بدل به تاکتیک کرد. در واقع مشکل اینجاست که پیوستار میان نظریه، روش و عمل را نادیده گرفته. دو: تکثیرپذیر/ترجمه پذیر به هر جغرافیا و زیست سیاستی نیست. سه: با دوام و پایدار نیست. تاریکی پیشنهادی او چنان درخشش ستارهای در میان تاریکیهای ابدی گم خواهد شد.
خلاصه کنم، بیش از حد هیجان زده است. گویی از کمون پاریس یا می ۶۸ یکراست پرتاب شده به امروز. دلش میخواهد بزند زیر میز سرمایهداری و گویی این زیر میز زدن در نظرش آسان جلوه کرده، چنانکه هارت و نگری با محافظهکاری ترجیح دادهاند به جای برهم زدن بساط، پشت میز مذاکره بنشینند.
کتاب او متنی بسیار چگال است، پر از نقل قول و ارجاعات مختلف به متون مختلف از جمله تقریبا تمامی متون دلوز-گتاری و انبوهی فیلم و کتاب دیگر. او تقریبا هیچ فیلسوفی را از طعنه و کنایه بی نصیب نمیگذارد، گویی توانسته به شکلی موفقیت آمیز خشمش از تاریخ فلسفه را در یک کتاب گرد آورد. بیش از حد چگال بودن متن اجازه نمیدهد پی ببریم که خوانش او از متنها خوانشی ریشهای و عمیق بوده یا شبیه پسربچهای بازیگوش زنگ در خانهی همهی فیلسوفها را میزند و فرار میکند.
با این همه لحظات درخشانی در کتاب یافت میشود که ما را به هرچه رادیکالتر و سیاسیتر خواندن دلوز سوق میدهد یا دستکم جلوی برخی خوانشهای لیبرالی از دلوز نظیر خوانش پال پیتن میایستد و آن را به تمسخر میگیرد. همچنین بازخوانی دلوز به شکلی رادیکال، چنان که ترجیحش داده مستلزم جسارتی غیر آکادمیک است که دستکم امروز کمتر کسی به خود اجازه میدهد بیمحابا از چنین خطوط قرمزی (بخوانیم زرد) با فراتر بگذارد.
اگرچه متون دلوز-گتاری (گاه تفکیک دلوز از دلوز-گتاری واقعا دشوارست) قابلیت تفسیرپذیری فراوانی دارند، اما کالپ محافظهکارانهترین خوانش ممکن از آن را داشته و دستکم میان تمام تفاسیر ممکن، هارت و نگری که سیاسیترین و رادیکالترین تفسیر را داشتهاند تقریبا نادیدهگرفته یا دستکم سرسری از خوانش آنان عبور کرده تا بتواند با خیال راحتتری دلوز را متهم کند به محافظهکاری یا دست کم رادیکالیتهی ناکافی.
به علاوه چنان از هر دری سخن میگوید (از مارکس و لنین، مائو، چهگوارا، گی دبور و پل لافارگ تا پروست) که دست آخر نمیتوان پیبرد خودش کجا میایستد و موضع قاطعی دارد؟ یا همچون داور فوتبال قرارست بیطرف به دنبال خود توپ بدود.
متن علاوه بر چگال بودن پرشتاب نیز هست. فرصت تامل نمی دهد. بلافاصله پس از تلنگر زدن به جایی، می جهد به جایی دیگر. متن از این حیث که بازیگوشانه است و تلاش چندانی جهت متقاعد سازی مخاطب نمی کند و آزادی خودش را در اولویت قرار میدهد، فرم به غایت جذابی دارد، اما اعتماد خواننده را هم بر نمی انگیزد، مگر آنکه پیش از آن با سایر متون او آشنا باشی و دقیقا بدانی از چه مکانیزمی پیروی می کند، بی تعارف بگویم، بدانی که آیا او یک شعبده باز است، یا جادوگر. حتی تا همینجا هم میتوان با کالپ همدل بود، به شرط اینکه بدانیم که یک: او با دلوز چه خواهد کرد؟ و نقطهی عظیمتش کجاست؟
دو: اکنون کجا ایستاده؟ ( طیفی که میشود تخمین زد از نوعی آنارکو-کمونیزم است تا نوعی مائوئیسم بدیویی)
مسئله اینست که ترمینولوژی دلوز گتاری را میتوان ذیل دستگاهی بریکولاژ شده فهم کرد، اما آیا بدیلهایی که کالپ برای هر کدام از این ترمها پیشنهاد میدهد، میتوانند اندامهایی از یک نابدن را کنار هم قرار دهند که ضد هم عمل نکنند و پیش از آرایشی نظامی علیه "دشمن" (اصلاح خود کالپ) به جان هم نیفتند؟ آنچه که صورتبندی کلی نگری-هارت را از امپراطوری و انبوه خلق قابل اعتماد میکند اینست که این قبیل تناقضات اگر به صفر نرسیده باشند، دستکم به صفر میل میکنند.
کاری که کالپ میکند نه زدن زیر میز، بلکه گذاشتن پروپوزالی جدید، رادیکال، جسورانه و تا حدی خامدستانه روی میز است. مادامی که انداموارههای مفهومی که او به جای ترمینولوژی دلوز-گتاری پیشنهاد میدهد، نتوانند ارتباطی اورگانیک با یکدیگر برقرار سازند، پروژهی او همان قدر جدی گرفته میشود که کسی با فحاشی میز مذاکره را ترک میکند. با این همه نقد کالپ هرچه باشد دستکم به این کار میآید که خوانشهای لیبرالی/عرفانی از دلوز را قیچی میکند و ما را به تفسیری هرچه رادیکالتر از دلوز هدایت میکند، حتی اگر خودش چنین قص��ی نداشته باشد.
از دید او دلوز به اندازهی کافی رادیکال نیست و این را تا سر حد کلکل کردن بر سر هرچه رادیکالتر بودن پیش میبرد گویی فضیلت در رادیکالیتهی حداکثریست (فارغ از تمایز گذاری میان تحقق آن رادیکالیته و شعاری آتوپیایی).
مواضعی با این سطح از رادیکالیته آشکارا نشانگر اینست که هرگز تجربهای از برخورد مستقیم با بدن دولت (بخوانیم باتوم-بازداشت) نداشته. تصویری مهربان از سرمایهداری جهانی دارد که گویی به آتش کشیدن نهادی از آن میتواند انقلاب جهانی ایجاد کند. و تناقض در اینجاست که او تلاش دارد به درستی ما را از خوابی آشفته بیدار کند که جهان (که او مایل است به شیوهای رادیکال و قدری همراه با شوآف و غلو آمیز پایانش را اعلام کند) چندان صلحآمیز با مخالفانش برخورد نمیکند، اما گویی خودش هم واقف نیست این زیر میز زدن مستلزم اینست که هر دو پای خودش روی زمین باشد.
به نظر میرسد اندرو کالپ چندان به سرنوشت آنانکه بیهوا به زیر میز زدند واقف نیست. از این حیث ایراد روش او اینست که یک: گویی به ضرورت "قهر" به معنای اسپینوزایی آن واقف است، اما دستانش را هنوز به میدان عمل نیالوده. اتفاقا نفرتی که از آن صحبت میکند، آمیخته به روش نیست و در حد شعار باقی میماند. میتوان در این نفرت با او همدل بود، به شرطی که آن را به فرمی تکثیرپذیر و بادوام در آورد و بدل به تاکتیک کرد. در واقع مشکل اینجاست که پیوستار میان نظریه، روش و عمل را نادیده گرفته. دو: تکثیرپذیر/ترجمه پذیر به هر جغرافیا و زیست سیاستی نیست. سه: با دوام و پایدار نیست. تاریکی پیشنهادی او چنان درخشش ستارهای در میان تاریکیهای ابدی گم خواهد شد.
خلاصه کنم، بیش از حد هیجان زده است. گویی از کمون پاریس یا می ۶۸ یکراست پرتاب شده به امروز. دلش میخواهد بزند زیر میز سرمایهداری و گویی این زیر میز زدن در نظرش آسان جلوه کرده، چنانکه هارت و نگری با محافظهکاری ترجیح دادهاند به جای برهم زدن بساط، پشت میز مذاکره بنشینند.
کتاب او متنی بسیار چگال است، پر از نقل قول و ارجاعات مختلف به متون مختلف از جمله تقریبا تمامی متون دلوز-گتاری و انبوهی فیلم و کتاب دیگر. او تقریبا هیچ فیلسوفی را از طعنه و کنایه بی نصیب نمیگذارد، گویی توانسته به شکلی موفقیت آمیز خشمش از تاریخ فلسفه را در یک کتاب گرد آورد. بیش از حد چگال بودن متن اجازه نمیدهد پی ببریم که خوانش او از متنها خوانشی ریشهای و عمیق بوده یا شبیه پسربچهای بازیگوش زنگ در خانهی همهی فیلسوفها را میزند و فرار میکند.
با این همه لحظات درخشانی در کتاب یافت میشود که ما را به هرچه رادیکالتر و سیاسیتر خواندن دلوز سوق میدهد یا دستکم جلوی برخی خوانشهای لیبرالی از دلوز نظیر خوانش پال پیتن میایستد و آن را به تمسخر میگیرد. همچنین بازخوانی دلوز به شکلی رادیکال، چنان که ترجیحش داده مستلزم جسارتی غیر آکادمیک است که دستکم امروز کمتر کسی به خود اجازه میدهد بیمحابا از چنین خطوط قرمزی (بخوانیم زرد) با فراتر بگذارد.
اگرچه متون دلوز-گتاری (گاه تفکیک دلوز از دلوز-گتاری واقعا دشوارست) قابلیت تفسیرپذیری فراوانی دارند، اما کالپ محافظهکارانهترین خوانش ممکن از آن را داشته و دستکم میان تمام تفاسیر ممکن، هارت و نگری که سیاسیترین و رادیکالترین تفسیر را داشتهاند تقریبا نادیدهگرفته یا دستکم سرسری از خوانش آنان عبور کرده تا بتواند با خیال راحتتری دلوز را متهم کند به محافظهکاری یا دست کم رادیکالیتهی ناکافی.
به علاوه چنان از هر دری سخن میگوید (از مارکس و لنین، مائو، چهگوارا، گی دبور و پل لافارگ تا پروست) که دست آخر نمیتوان پیبرد خودش کجا میایستد و موضع قاطعی دارد؟ یا همچون داور فوتبال قرارست بیطرف به دنبال خود توپ بدود.
متن علاوه بر چگال بودن پرشتاب نیز هست. فرصت تامل نمی دهد. بلافاصله پس از تلنگر زدن به جایی، می جهد به جایی دیگر. متن از این حیث که بازیگوشانه است و تلاش چندانی جهت متقاعد سازی مخاطب نمی کند و آزادی خودش را در اولویت قرار میدهد، فرم به غایت جذابی دارد، اما اعتماد خواننده را هم بر نمی انگیزد، مگر آنکه پیش از آن با سایر متون او آشنا باشی و دقیقا بدانی از چه مکانیزمی پیروی می کند، بی تعارف بگویم، بدانی که آیا او یک شعبده باز است، یا جادوگر. حتی تا همینجا هم میتوان با کالپ همدل بود، به شرط اینکه بدانیم که یک: او با دلوز چه خواهد کرد؟ و نقطهی عظیمتش کجاست؟
دو: اکنون کجا ایستاده؟ ( طیفی که میشود تخمین زد از نوعی آنارکو-کمونیزم است تا نوعی مائوئیسم بدیویی)
مسئله اینست که ترمینولوژی دلوز گتاری را میتوان ذیل دستگاهی بریکولاژ شده فهم کرد، اما آیا بدیلهایی که کالپ برای هر کدام از این ترمها پیشنهاد میدهد، میتوانند اندامهایی از یک نابدن را کنار هم قرار دهند که ضد هم عمل نکنند و پیش از آرایشی نظامی علیه "دشمن" (اصلاح خود کالپ) به جان هم نیفتند؟ آنچه که صورتبندی کلی نگری-هارت را از امپراطوری و انبوه خلق قابل اعتماد میکند اینست که این قبیل تناقضات اگر به صفر نرسیده باشند، دستکم به صفر میل میکنند.
کاری که کالپ میکند نه زدن زیر میز، بلکه گذاشتن پروپوزالی جدید، رادیکال، جسورانه و تا حدی خامدستانه روی میز است. مادامی که انداموارههای مفهومی که او به جای ترمینولوژی دلوز-گتاری پیشنهاد میدهد، نتوانند ارتباطی اورگانیک با یکدیگر برقرار سازند، پروژهی او همان قدر جدی گرفته میشود که کسی با فحاشی میز مذاکره را ترک میکند. با این همه نقد کالپ هرچه باشد دستکم به این کار میآید که خوانشهای لیبرالی/عرفانی از دلوز را قیچی میکند و ما را به تفسیری هرچه رادیکالتر از دلوز هدایت میکند، حتی اگر خودش چنین قص��ی نداشته باشد.
November 11, 2019
Culp quickly develops a romp through Deleuze that insists on being a trudge. He develops the way in which we are denied identity by Deleuze, and thereby are constantly forced to speak to the revolutionary nature in which our very selves are the powers by which we must revolt against. We are but the cogs which find themselves pretending to function through gyration, but when torn apart we find outselves to be teeth constantly gnashing, and further still sparks being thrown and die in to the dark which deteriorate ourselves as our teeth wear away and we are unable to speak as a unified whole as the cogs deteriorate to nothing and we are left with two meaningless spinning wheels.
Culp is drawing out what a Deleuzian would mean to say we are diminished into nothing but an entirely unfolding undifferentiated universe. But he does so through a somewhat fatal error. He assumes the cognitive self of a singular body is separated into two parts which must fight each other. This is entirely against the program of Spinoza, and thus against the program of Deleuze. Culp establishes an intentionally ungodly radical individualism that the most staunch of individualists would say goes too far to be meaningful. We must still require the relations of bodies for Deleuze to make any sense. Things must connect. Certainly powers are found when productive failures come to exist in Capitalist workings, but Culp suggests that Communist/Marxist revolutions in Deleuzian translation happen in the dark of an individualism that is more individualist than the most conservatively Austrian school economist would agree upon. In this view to be a Marxist, one must be so painfully individualist that they cannot even trust their own body or cognition.
There is an insisting of a duality of light and dark in cognition that re-establishes the demon of Cartesian reason. In the dark, one suddenly must believe in God again as a Marxist. This will not do.
Culp is drawing out what a Deleuzian would mean to say we are diminished into nothing but an entirely unfolding undifferentiated universe. But he does so through a somewhat fatal error. He assumes the cognitive self of a singular body is separated into two parts which must fight each other. This is entirely against the program of Spinoza, and thus against the program of Deleuze. Culp establishes an intentionally ungodly radical individualism that the most staunch of individualists would say goes too far to be meaningful. We must still require the relations of bodies for Deleuze to make any sense. Things must connect. Certainly powers are found when productive failures come to exist in Capitalist workings, but Culp suggests that Communist/Marxist revolutions in Deleuzian translation happen in the dark of an individualism that is more individualist than the most conservatively Austrian school economist would agree upon. In this view to be a Marxist, one must be so painfully individualist that they cannot even trust their own body or cognition.
There is an insisting of a duality of light and dark in cognition that re-establishes the demon of Cartesian reason. In the dark, one suddenly must believe in God again as a Marxist. This will not do.
December 11, 2019
Not so much about Deleuze except as a muse for 'acting on our time'. From this perspective, Culp provides an interesting call to 'break the pillars' and 'burn the groves with fire'.
"The lesson to be taken is that 'we all must live double lives': one full of the compromises we make with the present, and the other in which we plot to undo them. … Some treat the conspiracy as a form of hobbyism, working to end the world only after everything else has been taken care of—the worst being liberal communists, who exploit so much in the morning that they can give half of it back as charity in the afternoon. And then there are those who escape. Crafting new weapons while withdrawing from the demands of the social, they know that cataclysm knows nothing of the productivist logic of accumulation or reproduction. Escape need not be dreary, even if they are negative. Escape is never more exciting than when it spills out into the streets, where trust in appearances, trust in words, trust in each other, and trust in this world all disintegrate in a mobile zone of indiscernibility (Fontaine, “Black Bloc”). It is in these moments of opacity, insufficiency, and breakdown that darkness most threatens the ties that bind us to this world."
"The lesson to be taken is that 'we all must live double lives': one full of the compromises we make with the present, and the other in which we plot to undo them. … Some treat the conspiracy as a form of hobbyism, working to end the world only after everything else has been taken care of—the worst being liberal communists, who exploit so much in the morning that they can give half of it back as charity in the afternoon. And then there are those who escape. Crafting new weapons while withdrawing from the demands of the social, they know that cataclysm knows nothing of the productivist logic of accumulation or reproduction. Escape need not be dreary, even if they are negative. Escape is never more exciting than when it spills out into the streets, where trust in appearances, trust in words, trust in each other, and trust in this world all disintegrate in a mobile zone of indiscernibility (Fontaine, “Black Bloc”). It is in these moments of opacity, insufficiency, and breakdown that darkness most threatens the ties that bind us to this world."
October 10, 2016
This almost reads like a manifesto for where Deleuze studies should head. To a great extent it reminds me of Alexander Galloway's call to 'Forget Deleuze' (or, to forget certain images of Deleuze that have picked up their spin in the contemporary anglophone digestions of his body). Culp adds some spice to this and supports this with a well-researched body of claims [even if this at times feels slightly mechanical] that suggest there indeed is a much more militant Deleuze where creation should not be uncoupled from destruction. Definitely worth a few reads.
March 10, 2024
I struggled to understand a lot of the ideas here, but I thoroughly enjoy its general challenge and main contention, to move away from a “joyous” deleuze and rhetoric of connectivity and productivity.
Read
July 24, 2024Como pueden ver, estoy teniendo un verano trepidante
November 12, 2020
Culp's take on Deleuze is not those unfamiliar with the philosopher or his neighbors. He begins one chapter with "Deleuze and Guattari's 'accelerationism' has been too tarnished to rehabilitate." There is, therefore, a 'small' expectation that a reader is familiar with both the terms and their academic history.
Nonetheless, this very approachable and brief read is packed with argument and provocation, especially as Culp scours dozens of sources to make his case for revolution and Destruction of the World as necessities of our embrace of Deleuze (alongside and despite more common readings of joy and optimistic production modeling). And, if I am not persuaded of Culp's reading of Deleuze completely (being one who has yet to read as much of the source material as this author), I at least find Culp's own "Dark Deleuze" stance compelling in and of itself.
What does "our communism demand" of us? Ultimately, Culp claims that we must all live "double lives," that our liberal one of a connective transparent compromise with present circumstances and one of our secret revolution to undo all of it. This is not spoiler: how he arrives at this conclusion is piercing through layers of contradictory narratives we have constructed for ourselves to avoid the inevitable.
Nonetheless, this very approachable and brief read is packed with argument and provocation, especially as Culp scours dozens of sources to make his case for revolution and Destruction of the World as necessities of our embrace of Deleuze (alongside and despite more common readings of joy and optimistic production modeling). And, if I am not persuaded of Culp's reading of Deleuze completely (being one who has yet to read as much of the source material as this author), I at least find Culp's own "Dark Deleuze" stance compelling in and of itself.
What does "our communism demand" of us? Ultimately, Culp claims that we must all live "double lives," that our liberal one of a connective transparent compromise with present circumstances and one of our secret revolution to undo all of it. This is not spoiler: how he arrives at this conclusion is piercing through layers of contradictory narratives we have constructed for ourselves to avoid the inevitable.
May 5, 2020
“As a prolegomena to any future negativity in Deleuze, this book risks being too condensed.”
Perhaps. Dark Deleuze’s pace, breadth, string of targets, provocative (and evocative) calls for the Death of this World (“This is not a call to physically destroy the world,” mind you...), and truculent attitude towards liberal and “Joyous Deleuzians” make it an exciting read, but oftentimes too vague and enigmatic, rather than too condensed.
The text revolves around a series of topics and two contradictory approaches to them. One approach is Joyous, and one is Dark. The Joyous approach is typical of popular Deleuzianism (for example, when discussing “Speed”, the Joyous approach is “Acceleration”.) The Dark approach (in this case, “Escape”) is born from a a critique of the Joyous, and is designed to be utterly contrary to it—though Culp stresses his choice in the text is not the only Dark approach possible. Perhaps this is why much of the book feels sketched out. The point isn’t to produce a static program, to tell us how to do Deleuze darkly, but to show how one might revive Deleuze’s “forgotten negativity” and divorce him from horizontal, productivist, connectivist capital.
This is fair enough, but the extent to which each topic is treated in a way that actually establishes a compelling Dark reading varies. I found the sections on Existence, Ontology and Difference especially suffered from being too brief: “By showing the nondurability of what is taken as real... communist politics is a conspiracy that writes the destruction of the world.”—Okay, I think, go on...—But it ends here, followed up immediately by another all-too-brief section on the disjunctive synthesis.
Undoubtably though, Culp is an interesting writer. I looked him up, hoping there was a fleshed out version of Dark Deleuze around, but there doesn’t seem to be. Which is a shame.
(P.s. I may come back to this review later, when I’ve had more time to think about this book.)
Perhaps. Dark Deleuze’s pace, breadth, string of targets, provocative (and evocative) calls for the Death of this World (“This is not a call to physically destroy the world,” mind you...), and truculent attitude towards liberal and “Joyous Deleuzians” make it an exciting read, but oftentimes too vague and enigmatic, rather than too condensed.
The text revolves around a series of topics and two contradictory approaches to them. One approach is Joyous, and one is Dark. The Joyous approach is typical of popular Deleuzianism (for example, when discussing “Speed”, the Joyous approach is “Acceleration”.) The Dark approach (in this case, “Escape”) is born from a a critique of the Joyous, and is designed to be utterly contrary to it—though Culp stresses his choice in the text is not the only Dark approach possible. Perhaps this is why much of the book feels sketched out. The point isn’t to produce a static program, to tell us how to do Deleuze darkly, but to show how one might revive Deleuze’s “forgotten negativity” and divorce him from horizontal, productivist, connectivist capital.
This is fair enough, but the extent to which each topic is treated in a way that actually establishes a compelling Dark reading varies. I found the sections on Existence, Ontology and Difference especially suffered from being too brief: “By showing the nondurability of what is taken as real... communist politics is a conspiracy that writes the destruction of the world.”—Okay, I think, go on...—But it ends here, followed up immediately by another all-too-brief section on the disjunctive synthesis.
Undoubtably though, Culp is an interesting writer. I looked him up, hoping there was a fleshed out version of Dark Deleuze around, but there doesn’t seem to be. Which is a shame.
(P.s. I may come back to this review later, when I’ve had more time to think about this book.)
May 20, 2017
I feel weird giving this less than 4 stars because it's Good but I picked it up knowing I would disagree with it anyway. Honestly this is, a lot of things. I forget half of the actual content because its just staccato list of concepts and ideas but there's a good critique of Land & accelerationism in here, a thing I liked about cruelty as a specific form of affect, idk a lot of weird stuff. The main strand is a political idea of "conspiratorial communism" which essentially seems like a form of insurrectionism on the idea of an "open secret" where everyone takes part in capitalism while growing ready to destroy it, or something. The main thrust of the book though is essentially aesthetic, it's provides pretty coherent critiques of stuff almost central to Deleuze himself (rhizomes specifically) but its largely just a rephrasing of Deleuzean stuff with an e d g y a e s t h e t i c.
also I feel bad because I could not parse the bit on anthropology for the life of me even though I like to think I'm familiar with Viveiros de Castro
also I feel bad because I could not parse the bit on anthropology for the life of me even though I like to think I'm familiar with Viveiros de Castro
June 8, 2017
Important intervention. But, as the author even observes in the conclusion, it feels rushed and reads like a prospectus. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But one should be clear about the intentions ahead of time... And just a personal pet peeve: dislike the hyper-intellectual, unnecessarily bookish jargon - particularly with consistent use of the royal "we" lol. But that's not reflected in my rated.
October 12, 2022
I was not a huge fan of this overall. This had moments of brilliance, and quite a few good passages succinctly laying out the thoughts of Deleuze. But often it left me bewildered. We must move beyond "rhizomes," I can agree there, but Culp goes on to suggest what we need then is the "destruction of the world," and a "communism that wants to consume the flesh and blood of the entire cosmos." I know he's not exactly being literal here, but perhaps for me, this Deleuze is too dark.
March 13, 2022
If Deleuze was a transcendental miserablist.
November 3, 2024
Existence emerges from a disaster, Deleuze says. Yet it says very little about us. It does not explain, but rather must be explained. Our connections to others and to society at large emerge from this fundamental catastrophe, this original wound that cannot be dressed.
What connects us to the social world is a system where relations are external to their terms. The external, develops as a vast machinery of contingent relational bonds that masquerade as necessity. This machinery operates through the folding back on itself of the fiber of individual beings, to form a compact structure that transforms mere sedimentation into hardened strata. But then, we mistake these hardened forms for natural connections.
Every social system is a system of interruptions that works by breaking down. When mediated through protocols, the potential for strategic interruption becomes not just possible but inevitable.
The path forward, in the end, lies not in restoration but in acceleration. In the systematic identification of these breaking points, these moments where trust in appearances, trust in words, trust in each other, and trust in this world, all disintegrate in a zone of indiscernibility. The points where the machinery of social relations reveals its own obsolescence. Each contains within it the seeds of its own dissolution - not as a flaw to be corrected but as the last red button to be pushed.
"Make thought a war machine",
Deleuze and Guattari command. A call to arms against the established order of thought. A war against the self, against the socialistic conditions that be. The goal being to dismantle the oppressive structures that confine us, to shatter the illusions of identity and meaning within our microcosms.
The resulting violence is not a mere physical confrontation, but a psychological war waged within the depths of the individual psyche and the im-personal unconscious. It is a war against the self, a struggle to overcome the limitations of subjectivity and to embrace the infinite possibilities of becoming the 'other'.
"It is time to accept Nietzsche’s invitation to philosophize with a hammer," we are told. To wield thought as a weapon, to shatter the idols of the past and to forge a new future. This is the task of the individual, to become a destroyer of worlds, to dismantle the oppressive structures that constrain human potential within our social circles.
"The Death of God" is not merely a theological event, but a psychological one. It is the death of the transcendent, the death of the subject, and the death of the world as we know it. In its place, we are left with a void, a nothingness that is both terrifying and liberating. This void is the space of possibility, the birthplace of new ideas and new ways of being.
"Subjectivity is shameful," Deleuze proclaims. It is a prison, a cage that confines us to a limited perspective. To truly be free, we must transcend the self. This is the path of un-becoming, of burning the adornments of identity and embracing the chaos of existence. It is a path that leads to the abyss. Thus, it is also a path of liberation.
~ Nakamura
What connects us to the social world is a system where relations are external to their terms. The external, develops as a vast machinery of contingent relational bonds that masquerade as necessity. This machinery operates through the folding back on itself of the fiber of individual beings, to form a compact structure that transforms mere sedimentation into hardened strata. But then, we mistake these hardened forms for natural connections.
Every social system is a system of interruptions that works by breaking down. When mediated through protocols, the potential for strategic interruption becomes not just possible but inevitable.
The path forward, in the end, lies not in restoration but in acceleration. In the systematic identification of these breaking points, these moments where trust in appearances, trust in words, trust in each other, and trust in this world, all disintegrate in a zone of indiscernibility. The points where the machinery of social relations reveals its own obsolescence. Each contains within it the seeds of its own dissolution - not as a flaw to be corrected but as the last red button to be pushed.
"Make thought a war machine",
Deleuze and Guattari command. A call to arms against the established order of thought. A war against the self, against the socialistic conditions that be. The goal being to dismantle the oppressive structures that confine us, to shatter the illusions of identity and meaning within our microcosms.
The resulting violence is not a mere physical confrontation, but a psychological war waged within the depths of the individual psyche and the im-personal unconscious. It is a war against the self, a struggle to overcome the limitations of subjectivity and to embrace the infinite possibilities of becoming the 'other'.
"It is time to accept Nietzsche’s invitation to philosophize with a hammer," we are told. To wield thought as a weapon, to shatter the idols of the past and to forge a new future. This is the task of the individual, to become a destroyer of worlds, to dismantle the oppressive structures that constrain human potential within our social circles.
"The Death of God" is not merely a theological event, but a psychological one. It is the death of the transcendent, the death of the subject, and the death of the world as we know it. In its place, we are left with a void, a nothingness that is both terrifying and liberating. This void is the space of possibility, the birthplace of new ideas and new ways of being.
"Subjectivity is shameful," Deleuze proclaims. It is a prison, a cage that confines us to a limited perspective. To truly be free, we must transcend the self. This is the path of un-becoming, of burning the adornments of identity and embracing the chaos of existence. It is a path that leads to the abyss. Thus, it is also a path of liberation.
~ Nakamura
May 17, 2020
While its brevity deprives it of the room to more fully develop its arguments, I think Culp's intervention here is absolutely pivotal in Deleuze studies and contemporary critical theory. He is fundamentally correct in his basic assertions: That Deleuze has been co-opted by liberals and Silicon Valley-esque nerds, and that we need to develop a new engagement with his work (especially those works with Guattari, in my view) which rejects the naive 'joyfulness' of much New Materialist ontology in favour of a much more negative, critical approach. This is clearly meant as a kind of 'manifesto', a direction of travel, a line of flight to explore and deepen, and in that regard I think it makes that case very well given its impressive command over Deleuze (and Guattari's) extensive literature. I enjoyed the references to Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee, though I think they're tackling things in slightly different ways: Tiqqun, for example, are attempting to reground anarchist praxis and theory in a more theoretically sophisticated set of engagements with thinkers like Foucault, Agamben, and Deleuze; Culp is trying to engage in a slightly more 'academic' affair, but with clear political implications which are slightly underdeveloped.
We've had enough of 'connection' and 'transparency'; these are just so many tools Empire uses to control us, tracking our behaviours, thoughts, moods and inclinations. We've had enough of 'affirmation', of being Nietzsche's ass who only says yes because it doesn't know how to say no, of 'affirming' the multiplicities of garbage and interchangeable commodities as the vector of contemporary freedom. If we are to affirm, we must first destroy those structures of power which suppress the latent virtualities within society. Dark Deleuze is important, we should read it, and we should heed its call. The 'joyful' possibility Deleuze offers can only be possible over the corpse of this world.
We've had enough of 'connection' and 'transparency'; these are just so many tools Empire uses to control us, tracking our behaviours, thoughts, moods and inclinations. We've had enough of 'affirmation', of being Nietzsche's ass who only says yes because it doesn't know how to say no, of 'affirming' the multiplicities of garbage and interchangeable commodities as the vector of contemporary freedom. If we are to affirm, we must first destroy those structures of power which suppress the latent virtualities within society. Dark Deleuze is important, we should read it, and we should heed its call. The 'joyful' possibility Deleuze offers can only be possible over the corpse of this world.
October 25, 2022
This is a very decent book presenting ideas of Gilles Deleuze. Its goal is to rectify the perception/reception of Deleuze by moving away from joyous concept creating Deleuze and towards a dark world destroying Delueze. There is a list of oppositions Culp presents between the Joyous Deleuze and the Dark Deleuze and Deleuze's ideas are presented by going through the list of concepts which can be contrasted in this way. It is an interesting way of approaching Deleuze, but I don't know if it's a necessary one. I don't have the impression that Deleuze is being misrepresented as being too joyous and there is plenty of dark in the Joyous Deleuze as well. Of course, my exposure to Deleuze may be too selective. But then again, Culp does refer to some other thinkers aiming to embrace the dark, specifically Nick Land and accelerationists, but I think he is too easy to dismiss them. His dismissal is probably motivated by his political views which luckily don't seep into this work. Then there's also Deleuze's reception in other fields, but it is hardly fair to complain that people there are not being nihilistic enough and are mostly focused on concept creation when it just makes sense to take from a thinker what is useful and most fields benefit more from building things up than tearing things down. Expecting architects to accept revolutionary nihilism that wants to tear things down is just naive considering their role is to build things up. There is a balance to be struct between joy and darkness and I don't know if Culp knows this. Or if he even understands darkness.
But that's just one flaw worth ranting about. It's a good book with an interesting approach, but the whole guiding principle for it is shaky and the author seems misguided.
But that's just one flaw worth ranting about. It's a good book with an interesting approach, but the whole guiding principle for it is shaky and the author seems misguided.
April 19, 2018
More manifesto than essay in some parts. This meticulously researched (and sourced) "prolegomena to any future negativity in Deleuze" is just that. The essay/manifesto concerned with salvaging Deleuze's revolutionary credibility in an age of neo-liberal appropriation asserts far more than it argues and openly acknowledges that the interpretation is "rigorous yet inexact", but that's a very Deleuze thing to do. The work feels a little short and light on the details in some places, but I think it achieves its goal of creating the groundwork for a conversation about revolutionary (and dark) Deleuze.
Read
February 18, 2025So I’m not educated enough about Deleuze’s later works in order to give a strong opinion, so just keep that in mind please. But from the sounds of it, this is a book that is squarely focused on combatting the state in which Deleuzians theory is used to be the “braying ass” as described by Nietzsche—one who affirms this present world rather than wishing for its destruction. To me, it sounds like an agreement with what Zizek frowns upon in Deleuze which is just that—a type of openness which will only be appropriated and reappropriated for the furtherance of capitalism. So yeah, just from that, I agree.
June 3, 2021
an interesting though at times excessively brief and circumspect overview of several key areas for the application of Deleuze's thought, and (from my own limited perspective, given that I'm a relative newcomer to this subfield) a critical intervention against the liberal warping of Deleuze's radical thought. i will likely revisit this work after having familiarized myself more with the primary material.
March 30, 2024
It is very clear that this book is intended not with constructing a complete, new reading of Deleuze, but rather of opening up a path for a Dark Deleuze. Not that it isn’t a rigorous text in its own right, but it is necessarily and self-consciously incomplete.
This text should be treated as a catalyst for a new approach in reading Deleuze rather than a complete text in its own right. If read with that in mind, this is a great read.
This text should be treated as a catalyst for a new approach in reading Deleuze rather than a complete text in its own right. If read with that in mind, this is a great read.
February 12, 2018
This is an argument for the dark as opposed to the joyous Deleuze, and it perhaps is not enough space. Culp spends quite a bit of time ironing out tangential arguments instead of going for the thrust. Also the introduction is a third of what he wants to say. It's a bit imbalanced but a provocative interpretation.
Read
August 3, 2021A polemic to rip Deleuze from the ghoulish grip of academic careerist publishing mills, Culp says its time to take Deleuze and do something with the theory, something that actually changes our daily lives. Posing Dark Deleuze against all that we hate, all that destroys us, all thats boring and doesn't do anything.
Fun, stimulating to read.
Fun, stimulating to read.
June 12, 2018
fine metaforce, "writing about others" as "buggery... taking an author from behind and giving him a child."
tempted to say more but this novella of a book on theory deserves no less than a more lucid commentary
tempted to say more but this novella of a book on theory deserves no less than a more lucid commentary
November 19, 2018
I actually enjoyed this more than I thought I would - it's short, but it's satisfyingly punchy and makes a good argument for appropriating Deleuze toward radical ends. If you are down the Deleuze rabbit hole, it's definitely worth a read.
January 29, 2020
This book has some really potent ideas which hold a Deleuzian lens over the conditions of the present while rectifying a few inconsistencies within Deleuze's work. I'd liked to have seen some of them more expanded on and the critiques of accelerationism much more fleshed out.
April 8, 2021
tautológico, repetitivo e rico em jargões deleuzianos, Culp parece estar interessado em revogar o deleuze acelerado e alegre, posicionando-o como seu aliado negativo. Sem êxito, no fim da leitura Dark Deleuze não apresentou um lugar diferente do inicial.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews