Oh, I forgot I wanted to ask you guys something... I'm doing my thesis on V for Vendetta (the graphic novel) from a Deleuzian standpoint. But I've come across a bump in the road.. I can't find any mention to the concept of "communication" in any of his works... he uses the word a couple of times, but not as a clearly defined concept. Since I'm a communications student, this should be important, methinks. Though now that I'm reading his Leibniz, it's increasingly clear he doesn't use it because it's not relevant. I've come to think of communication as an operative concept, lacking conceptual weight. And since Leibniz monads don't actually communicate, this _frame_work makes a lot of sense.. though the whole "communication as a complex process that encompasses lots of stuff" has been deeply ingrained in my mind, it just doesn't hold water in this _frame_ of mind.

It's interesting cause I can't think of any contemporary philosopher who uses it in a satisfying manner (Foucault being the one who springs to mind as eluding the concept altogether). Can't remember if Virno or the other post-68ers use it.

Interesting question about communication, not knowing your specific needs a range of proper names that you can follow.... but it's very much an instant response so: I think that the most useful approaches are: Niklas Luhrman - see for example 'Theories of Distinction' where there is a whole section directly related to communication, The Habermas and Lyotard debate which whilst usually understood as being an argument about modernity/postmodernity can as well be understood as being about communication, and thirdly Jacques Ranciere's work - all his work has an element on this but 'Disagreement' (partially written against Lyotard) is especially good. Further on from that a careful review of Irigaray's work would be helpful perhaps starting with 'to speak is never nuetral', Kristeva would be a good resource on this and finally Zygmunt Bauman's recent work on the liquid modern has a fundamental line on the effects of liquidity on communication...

The deleuze is interesting - because you've neglected 'the logic of sense' and the two cinema books which would seem more relevant.

I also have spinoza practical philosophy available...

thanks for the tips, I'll see if I can get some of those authors...

devos wrote:

The deleuze is interesting - because you've neglected 'the logic of sense' and the two cinema books which would seem more relevant.

You mean relevant cause they touch on similar topics? I've skimmed through logic of sense, finding it pretty difficult and alien (compared to his other stuff). I've been meaning to buy his cinema books, I'll download the courses and see if there's anything there that could possibly help me.

My question remains, though... shouldn't there be a really comprehensive theory of communication or at least one that brings something to the table regarding the formation/mingling of the multitude? In this digital age, most technofiles (DeKerckhove, Negroponte, et al) seem superficial (and not in a "good" superficial way, like Deleuze argues for). It seems to me we're lacking someone who can articulate the "multitude" or philosophies of the event with the communication as an all-encompassing process in today's culture.

Part of the difficulty is that Deleuze and Deleuze/Guattari is a profundly anti-representational philosopher. The central influence on this aspect of his work is Nietzsche, Deleuze accepts Nietzsche's demonstration that there can be no truth behind the mask of appearences and Deleuze reproduces this as a _meta_physical principle, which produces the world as a swarm of appearences on an immanent plane. Representation from this line of thought is less an imagining of a possible world and more representation as a moral view that draws on what 'everybody knows' on 'common sense'. Hence a theory of communication for Deleuze/Guattari would be close to impossible... as the primary purpose of philosophy is precisely to break with common sense.

Some random thoughts: Is a theory of communication possible without the/a (Hegelian) dialectic ? Mostly I suspect not - Where Deleuze and Guattari write about linguistics the closest they get is the adoption of Hjemslev, social-linguistics and the use of order-words. Can a communications theory really be _base_d on a thought that aims to destroy such communications...

One of the problems with the theory of the multitude is precisely that the concept needs careful qualification - which is to say that we have to accept that there is a profound difference between the reactionary-multitude (what the spectacle calls radical-islamism) and the radical-multitude of left movements (say anti-globalization and latin-american populism) - they are all within the multitude but we plainly need the differentiation if we are to understand it. What Spinoza and Deleuze & Guattari give us is the question of why people/singularities desire their oppression, which is a partial answer to the former concept... (Hence the necessity of the qualification).

Reading your note made me realize that perhaps what you might be asking is why Deleuze could not co-opt the left-hegelian line of thought that follows from Hegel-Marx-Lukacs-Debord and recently Kristeva (for that matter) which is the line of thought that might begin to answer your question. Besides how else to discuss the spectacle? But the event reference will have to wait...

best
steve

Post edited by: devos, at: 2006/12/31 01:55

Yes, I agree that they're profoundly anti-representational...that's the basis of D&G's work. But I don't think a theory of communication necessarily relates to hegelian dialectics... I recently read a book (Politics of the Event) by Maurizio Lazzarato, an italian sociologist, very much in line with D&G and Foucault, though he builds his analysis on Gabriel Tarde's adaptation of Leibniz' monadology. He makes some interesting points towards bridging the gap between the constitution of the multitude and communication. His thoughts on memory and attention (from Bergson) in mass communication are solid enough to build on.

Now, reading Deleuze's classes on Leibniz, I've began to think of a possible theory of communication that bears in mind the monad while focusing on the body and its affections (in a Leibniz/Spinoza unholy union) as a means of putting the event in the center of the communication theory.

I've been wondering, though, about the relevance and practical use of the concept of communication. To me, it's an unmanageable concept that needs breaking up. As in, mass communications (an oximoron from a Palo Alto standpoint) considered from Debord or maybe Baudrillard (I'm short on other theorists about this specific subject); and on the other hand, "pure" communication (communication between equals / affection between bodies or monads, unmmediated or mediated by technologies of negligible side-effects, as in phones or internet).
Maybe this would help unclutter the bastard, since all the teachers and theorists I know don't think it's possible to make an all-encompassing and relevant theory of communication.

Post edited by: Prince of All Lies, at: 2006/12/31 05:30