But of course I read it as “delusional”; my bad, I guess. The rest is ... well, you decide, lol.
There are, I think, two explanations one might give to explain the broad appeal of Deleuze’s thought. The first trivial, but not therefore wrong, and the second historical, but not easily demonstrated. The trivial answer is that Deleuze’s work has never demanded that anyone adhere to a particular methodology or way of thinking; on the contrary, he exhorts everyone to strike out on their own and do their own thing. There could hardly be a form of thought that was more consonant with the self-centered imperatives of late capitalism than this! Which is why it is a trivial and something of a dangerous answer, since it seems to confirm the damning indictments of Zizek and others who regard Deleuze’s work as something that only appeals to yuppies. ©
Baudrillard suffered a similar fate because once you’ve acknowledged that everything is a simulacrum of a simulacrum there’s not a lot left to do except congratulate yourself for not being taken in by appearances. Similarly, Lyotard named an epoch and said there was nothing left to believe in, thus giving us nowhere to go. Meanwhile, Badiou, as Deleuze and Guattari hinted, is so complicated no one really knows what he is on about. We can all feel clever by citing him, but this is the intellectual equivalent of eating fast food: it tastes good for a while but leaves you feeling empty afterwards. ©
No comments :
Post a Comment