How Do We Recognize Structuralism?

by Gilles Deleuze

Genres: Philosophy

27 pages, Unknown Binding

Published January 1, 1972

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

[Carol Chen · Rating 1 out of 5]

The worst philosophy article/book I've ever read. Maybe I just don't have enough background in structuralism (but I read Roland Barthes and it was actually enjoyable). This, on the other hand, was pure mumbo-jumbo. I read this five times and still don't understand it. The only conclusion I can come to is that between Deleuze and I, one of us must be illiterate.

(Also, I feel a pathetic sense of revenge lowering the average of this book, given how few ratings this book has, for all the pain Deleuze has affected upon me. Take that, Deleuze.)

[manjing · Rating 5 out of 5]

my experience with structuralism does not involve a long history of several forward literatures, simply: foucault, barthes, a little bit of lacan here and there, and hjelmslev in college, among others in a minor capacity, so i have no way of saying that i'm 100% fluent in any meaningful context. i think deleuze's prognosis regarding the discipline of structuralism serves as an interpolation into the (admittedly rather large) clefts in my attempt at periodizing my observations in both epistemic and historiographic spaces which i found consistent with the works of his i have already read, that being not many complete works, but more shorter essays broken up into several perforations as was this one. when i mention epistemic and historiographic spaces i'd argue this essay better describes an elaboration for the latter.

that is to say, this was incredibly useful to better understand deleuze' approach to differential relations like "species and parts" (as he thoroughly notes) or difference in its entirety, and conceptually extends hence from lacan's semiotic linguistics, hjemslev's glossematics, or leibniz's infinitesimally small perceptions, et cetera; and what this signifies implicitly within his literary background. algebraically one can think of the units, —emes as the logic of relations, calculus, that is the reciprocal relations between symbols.

this was very good! maybe i will read guattari's machine & structure after all.

[Krambambuli · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Strukturalismus!] Ich kann mich nicht erklären, was das heißt, aber ich fühl's, und berufe mich der Kürze halben auf [Deleuze]. (Zum Schäkespears Tag)

Für mich war die Lektüre auf mehreren Ebenen interessant und aufschlussreich (müsste den Text aber sicher nochmal genauer lesen, vor allem im letzten drittel - Objekt x und das mit der Leerstelle - habe ich eher gefühlt als verstanden).
Zuerst finde ich Deleuze Abhandlungen über grundlegende epistemische Positionen und Denkfiguren des Strukturalismus ziemlich gut diagnostiziert und nachgezeichnet. Ich habe mich (u.a. - meint Lacan, Foucault und Lévi-Strauss) vor allem aus literaturwissenschaftlicher (eigentlich mediävistischer) Perspektive mit strukturalistischen Positionen und Ausarbeitungen (Greimas, Propp, Bremond usw.) befasst und fand das Deleuze einige Beobachtungen die ich selbst so angesammelt habe, hier sehr gut zusammenfasst und erweitert - so ah! Momente, die irgendwie Freude bereiten.

Zum anderen fand ich den Text im Kontext meiner Deleuze (eher Deleuze und Guattari)-Lektüren interessant. Deleuze (und Guattari) ruf(en)t bspw. auf den ersten Seiten der Tausend Plateaus strukturalistische Denkmuster auf ("Tiefenstruktur", "genetische Achsen" usw. S. 23) um zu markieren, dass hier (Plateaus) versucht wird mannigfaltiger zu denken - das Rhizomatische usw. als eine Art adaptiver Arbeit am Strukturalismus/ strukturalistischen Denken (?). Vor allem hat mich hier interessiert, welche Problemfelder Deleuze für strukturalistische Positionen auf den letzten Seiten des Aufsatzes diagnostiziert.
Guattari (Chaosmose) verweist im Hinblick auf eine "maschinische Autopoiese" bspw. S.52 (Ausgabe Turia + Kant) ebenfalls auf strukturalistische Positionen und darauf, was sie "verkannt" haben. - Also sicher Spuren denen gefolgt werden kann bzw. denen ich weiter folgen will.

[Gabi · Rating 2 out of 5]

męka i udręka

[Naushika · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deleuze stellt sich in diesem Werk mal wieder heraus als ein Autor der keine Scheu vor komplexesten formalen Zusammenhängen eingebettet in eine poetische Form der Darstellung hat. Deleuze gibt auf klare Weise mehrere Kriterien, welche den Strukturalismus seiner Zeit (der Strukturalismus französischer Art) kennzeichnen.

Es wird eine Position umrissen, welche in ihrer Anwendung so unterschiedliche Bereiche, wie Psychoanalyse, Mathematik, Literatur umfasst und letztlich zu einem Inbegriff von Theorie überhaupt wird. Die vorsichtige Entwicklung des strukturellen Gedankens, welcher seinen Ursprung bei Saussure und dessen Zeichentheorie hat, in ein Verständnis davon, wie jeder Gegenstandsbereich, welcher strukturiert ist, in wesentlichem SPRACHLICH strukturiert ist, ist Deleuze phänomenal gelungen.