immanence-materialism papers

I know a few of these were up a while ago, but almost all of the papers (including mine) from June’s Immanence and Materialism conference at Queen Mary are now up on the conference website.

If anyone has thoughts on my paper, feel free to comment. It contains a lot of ideas I’m exploring and playing around with, and I’m already convinced some of the arguments in this don’t pan out, but either way, would love to chat about it more, especially as some of what I try to outline here relates (i think) to the recent Hallward discussion.


7 thoughts on “immanence-materialism papers

  1. Nathan says:

    In reponse to Michael Burns’s paper, I have to say I entirely agree with Zizek in his war against Deleuze. I have frequently found Deleuzians to be nothing more than liberals, with a certain cult of personality around Deleuze that makes any criticism of him or his philosophy treated as a form of heresy that requires a thorough doctrinal re-education.

    Since in the world of Deleuze scholarship it seems that all questions are settled once and for all, Deleuzians should thank Zizek, Badiou and Hallward for giving them something to talk about. Correcting deviations is at least better than merely ‘applying’ theories here, there and everywhere or performing microscopic exegesis and inter-textual comparison pieces.

    Also contra the French-Nietzchean emphasis on renouncing the friend-enemy distinction (in the name of pluralism) it clearly gives Deleuzians an enemy to sink their teeth into with authentic hatred. The endless ad hominem attacks on Zizek, Badiou et al. by Deleuzians and Foucaldians is reiterated in Burns’s piece where he cannot resist trying to ridicule them as people: the way they dress, they way they talk, the way they sweat etc.

    Ironically, it seems like Deleuzians are more Badiouian than Badiouians. For Deleuzians the event of Deleuze appears to have invoked a violent, militant faithfulness to their idol, to which the name Deleuze stands as Mao Zedong once did for Badiou. The only difference is that the philosophy of their idol is all too convenient for academics who want to posture as radicals, but in reality disown working class struggle and the fight against capitalism. Or even worse, are abjectly apolitical and smugly enjoying the fruits of their academic pay checks by spinning a new kind of radical philosophy that upsets no one.

  2. Nathan says:

    Sorry, correction, this screed was obviously in reference to Goddard’s paper, not Burns’s.

  3. Nathan says:

    By way of provocation…

  4. Nathan says:

    Well, my commitments are political. From what I have seen, Deleuze and ideologies of pluralism are not helping (may not even be able to help, may even work against) the ability of workers to overcome capitalism. And I stand by the content of my comments, even if strongly polemical in tone!

  5. Oh, well if they’re political commitments, well then, by all means be unhinged as much as you like!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: