Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hermeneutic: Orbit
Deleuze writes that the man of control is 'in orbit' (6), but does not explain. What, then, is man in orbit around? What is it that controls him, or can he know what controls him?
Connotation/Denotation: Serpent
Dictionary.com defines the serpent as a snake, which it defines as any of numerous limbless, scaly, elongate reptiles of the suborder Serpentes, comprising venomous and nonvenomous species inhabiting tropical and temperate areas.
In connotation, the serpent comes to mean much more. It can be seen as treacherous, deceitful, and predatory. In movement, the serpent slithers side to side until its ready for attack. The snake often lives in extreme locations (e.g. the desert or the rain forest), where its constantly in competition for prey. When I think of the serpent, I think of images like this and videos like this:
In connotation, the serpent comes to mean much more. It can be seen as treacherous, deceitful, and predatory. In movement, the serpent slithers side to side until its ready for attack. The snake often lives in extreme locations (e.g. the desert or the rain forest), where its constantly in competition for prey. When I think of the serpent, I think of images like this and videos like this:
Connotation/Denotation: Mole
Dictionary.com defines 'mole' as "any of various small insectivorous mammals, esp. of the family Talpidae, living chiefly underground, and having velvety fur, very small eyes, and strong forefeet." The denoted meaning of 'mole' can also refer to a spy, a unit of measurement in chemistry, a piece of machinery, a blemish on human skin, or even a spicy sauce.
The connotation of the term 'mole' is significantly different. For me, when I think of a mole (as an animal) I think of something that is nearly blind, that lives for all intents and purposes underground, is an industrious worker, moves forward as opposed to side to side. If I dig deeper, I also think of something that hides or tries to be surreptitious and that lives in a state of fear.
This video captures an alternative connotation of the mole:
The connotation of the term 'mole' is significantly different. For me, when I think of a mole (as an animal) I think of something that is nearly blind, that lives for all intents and purposes underground, is an industrious worker, moves forward as opposed to side to side. If I dig deeper, I also think of something that hides or tries to be surreptitious and that lives in a state of fear.
This video captures an alternative connotation of the mole:
Truth/Opinion: Discipline and Money
Deleuze writes that "discipline always referred back to minted money that locks gold in as numerical standard." (5)
By using the word 'always', Deleuze indicates that he is making a statement of fact and that his claim is widely understood and supported. A simple Google search reveals the opposite. In this way, it becomes unclear whether the statement is one of truth or one of opinion.
By using the word 'always', Deleuze indicates that he is making a statement of fact and that his claim is widely understood and supported. A simple Google search reveals the opposite. In this way, it becomes unclear whether the statement is one of truth or one of opinion.
Hermeneutic: Banks
Deleuze refers to the term 'banks' without defining what he means. While the word 'banks', unlike 'dividuals', is a commonly understood word, by using quotations and italics Deleuze indicates that he means an alternative definition for the word. What, then, does he mean by 'banks' in this context? How does the word 'bank' as we might normally understand it have to do with samples, data, and markets?
Hermeneutic: Dividuals
Deleuze writes that individuals have become "dividuals", but refuses to define his term for the reader. What does Deleuze mean by dividuals? Is everyone a dividual? When did individuals become dividuals? Are individuals dividuals all of the time, or just some of the time?
Memory/Forgetting: Priests
Deleuze writes, "Foucault saw the origin of this double charge in the pastoral power of the priest – the flock and each of its animals – but civil power moves in turn and by other means to make itself lay 'priest.'" (5)
This passage can be interpreted a number of different ways depending on the memory of the reader. First, assume the reader remembers nothing before this sentence. If one remembers Foucault's depiction of power in his A History of Sexaulity, than one might call to mind Foucault's depiction of power as being everywhere and constituting everything. In this way, one comes to see this quote as modifying a treatise on how power operates and who holds power. If one does not remember Foucault's depiction of power, on the other hand, then this sentence reads as nearly incomprehensible. Why does the priest have power over animals? Are we supposed to store in our memory this statement so that we can comprehend the author's argument in the future?
With memory of the sentence immediately before this, one sees that the statement is used as a digression from Deleuze's main argument and a means of giving legitimacy to his unreferenced definition.
With memory of Deleuze's overall argument, meanwhile, one reads the statement as an important historical reference for better understanding the operation of power under each of Deleuzes' three 'societies' (of sovereignty, of discipline, and of control). With this knowledge, meanwhile, one sees that Deleuze's argument rides on the back of Foucault's prior work and views the writing in that alternative context.
This passage can be interpreted a number of different ways depending on the memory of the reader. First, assume the reader remembers nothing before this sentence. If one remembers Foucault's depiction of power in his A History of Sexaulity, than one might call to mind Foucault's depiction of power as being everywhere and constituting everything. In this way, one comes to see this quote as modifying a treatise on how power operates and who holds power. If one does not remember Foucault's depiction of power, on the other hand, then this sentence reads as nearly incomprehensible. Why does the priest have power over animals? Are we supposed to store in our memory this statement so that we can comprehend the author's argument in the future?
With memory of the sentence immediately before this, one sees that the statement is used as a digression from Deleuze's main argument and a means of giving legitimacy to his unreferenced definition.
With memory of Deleuze's overall argument, meanwhile, one reads the statement as an important historical reference for better understanding the operation of power under each of Deleuzes' three 'societies' (of sovereignty, of discipline, and of control). With this knowledge, meanwhile, one sees that Deleuze's argument rides on the back of Foucault's prior work and views the writing in that alternative context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)