Manuel DeLanda. Assemblage Theory, Society, and Deleuze. 2011

moving on to social stuff social phenomena how to approach different types of social processes within the ontology that we've been sketching out remember it's important you know from yesterday not to confuse ontology and epistemology we need both of course we need a stance relative to what kinds of beings we are considering legitimate part of our world that's ontology we are not including anything transcendent in our ontology for instance God the devil angel demons essences but as we will see today ray fide generalities like the mark state science in general those are not part of our ontology little by little I'm going to start sketching out how to get rid of those to clean up our ontology because if we're going to believe that certain things are independent of our minds that those things need to be very clearly defined also remember ontological in particular is we're switching out to social processes that unlike yesterday morning in which intensive differences obey dynamics with populations topological structure of possibility spaces are independently of our minds completely in other words six million years ago this thing's already existed even though they were not minds present it's not human mind when it comes to social ontology we have to change that because communities or institutional organizations cities countries are not independent of our minds in the sense that if our minds disappeared all of those social entities would cease to exist automatic the only thing that would be left would be the physical infrastructure of a see the physical infrastructure of a neighborhood the physical infrastructure and organization the minds are indispensable to make all of those entities alive to make those dollars and it is real so in that place the criterion should be changed to they are independent of the contents of our minds our minds have to be there but our minds can have completely wrong ideas as to what makes a community work our minds have completely wrong ideas about what makes institutional organization work my our minds have a completely wrong idea about what makes a city worker even what is a city how they see formed and our minds have a complete wrong idea as to what countries are and yet our minds need to be there doing our jobs 5 to 9 or 9 to flag rather you know and being neighbors part of our communities and being taxpayers and perhaps recruits in an army because the our minds are necessary for all those entities to work so we're changing our criterion to do it you're just giving a new version of social entities the ones we're going to be talking about today we talk about social on ecology and work this is what we are we talking about this morning our independent of the contents of our minds which is a different very different thing reminds me to be there so I'm going to buy the class today the morning before lunch we're going to be talking about what about social on tala G now this is and I have to say this right away this is something where you will see divergences between my approach to loosen guitars approach okay and I'ma be pointing at those divergences as we go along so you don't get confused when you go back to the original literature and you compare the IDS see a particular assemblage theory it's going to become our main guide to social ontology but a simple steering is and when you try to find it in a thousand plateaus it's really all over the place this is a few pages here a few pages there the definition is in one page the elaboration is in another one and there is no really a whole book oh but where it is a whole thick chapter because all of the different elements are supposed to be there I have to kind of pull them put all the different parts together from different parts of book and also there's a problem that the listen guitar me when they join together to write this book both anti edifice and a thousand plateaus they decided deliberately not to have to reach consensus about everything because the whole point of experiment was that they would keep their differences the book was supposed to be an assemblage of heterogeneous elements precisely and if they have reached consensus with everything then it would have been a lot more homogeneous of more uniform I'm part of the experiment was for the list to learn from that re-pipe by seeing their differences like putting their ideas together but with rough edges without smoothing amount and the way this translates practically for us is that they really asked the art to assemblage theories in those one is good to the list the only one is good to get re we're going to try to blend them both into one coherent fear to further lose the main example of an assemblage is the assemblage form by horse a warrior and a weapon that the finishing we're here in an interview with Claire Parnell even before or as he was beginning to work with with a Qatari the idea an assemblage of course–you man on the horse with the weapon and the three things together form something that cannot be reduced to each one of the parts something that it's more than just a son of a horse a warrior and a weapon like the horse amplifies the powers of it of the mounted archer the way the weapon in motion becomes the you know as you shoot while you're running in your horse becomes more powerful than if you were shooting it standing still and so the different parts of the assemblage interact so that the whole is not reducible each one of his barns forgot army on the other hand and this appears in a chapter in a thousand that was called postulates on linguistics he didn't even use the word assemblage he used another word that in English would be translated something like agency and he uses you know I agencia moon or something like that in French and he actually is a longer word is collective assemblages or collective agencies of enunciation and which it now has some much more specific things that doesn't apply to the horse warrior weapon assemblage I just don't understand how that assemble should is supposed to be an assemblage of enunciation but it does apply to communities applies to institutional organizations which are going to appear in our in our in our narrative today so we can take elements from both but inevitably they the version I present to you is my synthesis you know I try to get rid of those rough edges I mean the rough edges and the distinction between them were important for them when they did that experiment of writing that book together but if the fear is going to have any future if it's going to be applied in special science at all those rough edges are going to have to go and so the version represent to you is already you know kind of a streamlined and fangy changed a little bit to make it more coherent okay I'm telling you this because when you go back to the original book and try to read it you're inevitably going to find certain parts where they depart from my version you're entirely free to choose whichever one of the three versions now you know got Teresa de luces for mine obviously I am going to be giving you my version which is why you know I took a lot more time to work on it and I included elements from other philosophies so let's begin by defining what an assemblage is the key notion here is a part to whole relationship which is of course a very old type of relationship goes back to the Greeks and the idea is that and that certain holes are just conglomerations of of parts of just collections of parts and those holes do not have properties that are not already present in the parts if we simply make a collection of items here one Apple one banana one book and just put them together they would not form an assemblage that's not an assembly there will be a mere collection for an assemblage to be an assemblage the parts need to interact with one another in such a way as to as to yield a whole that has properties of its own that is properties that are irreducible to the properties of the parts now in this version similar supplies to social things replies to natural things now the concept of emergence doesn't occur in the listened guitar I think the list uses only once the word in his book on Hume but it is inclined it is implied by that by the notion of irreducibility if assemblages were reducible to their parts if they were if there was nothing new at the level of the assemblage that's not already in the part there would be mere collections of things would be just like mounting unexperienced a horse rider on a horse and then giving him a weapon that he doesn't know how to use there will be the same assemblage as a normal assemblage with you know normal horse a Mongolian horse with an experienced warrior from say Genghis Khan's army who has used that arch for years and years and years run one hand you have an assemblage because it's something experienced a writer an experienced shooter with with the arch and the three things together do form something that is more powerful than any of the three things taken apart the inexperienced warrior that doesn't even know how to use the arch and doesn't even know how to ride a horse they're just going to form a collection the guy is going to be fumbling for the thing you know falling off the horse the horse is not going to be writing a text will ski or with the maneuvering capabilities that it has if the guide is not able to take advantage of the horse is going to be able to take advantage of the weapon none of them will amplify each other none of the weaknesses of each one requires will be compensated for by the others it will just be a collection of things just this guy with a weapon and a horse just a collection of things I'm not from the steps on the other hand formed and a hole with his horse and it's honest and his weapon in such a way that it was more than the sum of his parts so they both of urgent or emergent property is none of the listening Atari but if imply now the history of the word goes down to John Stuart Mill middle of the 19th century he was the first one all the light I've seen frankly it's in quotes by by Plato in which he in which he mentions something that would be similar to emergent properties so if we did the real genealogy we actually women have to go all the way back to the Greeks but in its modern form he goes back to John Stuart Mill okay a book called principles of logic I believe in which he begins to compare physics and chemistry if it was done in the context of natural history science and he says where as many things in classical physics are just sums like if two or three billiard balls hit each other the overall product would be same as see the first balls had hit first and then the third had come later there really is nothing about the complete complete set of billiard balls that is more than some of the spars and it compares that with a chemical reaction in which oxygen and hydrogen come together and form molecules of water now as a Stuart Mill said whereas hydrogen and oxygen are fuels you know you throw hydrogen or oxygen into a fire and you excite the fire when you bring them together into an assemblage they form a molecule of water they lose that capacity of being of you you throw water on fire and water extinguishes the five in other words water has properties that neither oxygen nor have have water has emergent properties now a Stewart nail did not use the word emergent but he started a whole line of thought like several British philosophers when went all the way to the 1920s which was a move emergentism and they use the word emergent you know throughout those word that was the first wave of philosophers are not even gonna give you the names there have been forgotten by history mostly and one of the problems they recognize of course that chemistry and forth in biology there are properties that emerge that cannot be you know boil down or reduce to those of the parts but they insisted that emergent property should be unexplainable there should be mysterious and of course that just made the work because of the commercial property into a mystical concept if that was the reason why analytical philosophers later on in the 30s and 40s rejected the concept of emergent because it was supposed to be something that is inherently unexplainable we cannot explain why water has the properties he has and why oxygen and hydrogen have ceased to be fuels once it's gone part of the assemblage that we've all a molecule of water today the word the concept of assemblage has been resuscitated without that requirement today's is understood that to explain how properties emerge is not to explain emergence away that was the fear of the early emergencies that if you could explain how something emerges within you're eliminating emergence you're eliminating the mystery you're eliminating the novelty but that's not at all the case you can give mechanisms of emergence you can say this is how this property emerges and still maintain that a property is irreducible that's the most important part of the concept of emergence to block reductionism to block the idea that all we are is a cloud of atoms you know like physicists would say but oh you're ultimately all you are is a cloud of atoms really a lot of atoms so molecules don't exist sales on exist tissues don't exist organs don't exist or not by all organisms those it doesn't exist it's just a bunch of atoms bouncing around that is what we need to of course block that maneuver and because physicists are the most prestigious of scientists when species is safe something like that some goofy thing like that a lot of people father did you start thinking well yeah all we are is a cloud of atoms and all the emergent properties are little molecules emergent properties the level of sales emerging profits of evolved tissues and level of oregon's at level organisms are left out why because a physicist doesn't care about all those things you know that's what chemistry that's what biology well yeah but a philosopher has to care about the irreducibility of each one of those levels to the to the level of atoms now we're not going to be talking about that tonight we're going to be talking about communities organizations cities and so on but I still will maintain that communities cannot be reduced to the people that make them up or institutional organizations cannot be reduced to the people that make them up social justice movements which are coalition's of communities cannot be reduced to the communities that make them up federal governments or all the types of urban parliamentary governments or aristocratic governments cannot be reduced to the organizations that make them up cities which are Mayor organizations communities neighbor transportation system streets and so on cannot be reduced to the part that may come up and so on and so forth so emergence is going to be a very important property that's why I let's say you know very minimum definition of an assemblage is a home there is an irreducible begin with and then I add decomposable why because once you have a merchant properties once the whole has an autonomy I know I know you know properties of its own it is very tempting to think that the parts somehow have fused together into the whole that the parts have in fact disappeared into the hole that was Harold's opinion in his book the science of logic if last three chapters or the science of logic are our 50 list physics chemistry and biology and in any case analysis of physics he follows the trend of the 19th century of course he was writing for John Stuart Mill he says very similar things than John Stuart Mill physics deals with aggregates of things that do not form something more in the chapter of chemistry then he says chemistry does have prohibitive or emergent properties believe it that's something more that is irreducible to the component part but Heather insisted that the parts of a whole are fused into a hero a seamless totality so that all we have to now think about is the whole itself so that for instance when you're talking about society society would be a whole that cannot be reduced to its component parts but this kinetic important person in a way disappear because they are a mere product of their societies or we as individuals and so on are not even something to be considered because we're near products of that whole of that that is the real reality here now the concept of assemblage was invented by the list precisely as a counterpart to the Hegelian idea of totality this is explicitly stated in the interview with clear for a name and the way in which the list conceptualizes it is by saying the difference between an assimilation a totality is the types of relationships that exist between the parts we have two possibilities here relationships of interiority and relationships of exterior relationships interior are precisely relations that constitute the terms of the relationship by the very fact that they are related in other words when two things in when two things are related by interior 'ti relations they do not have an independent existence there are properties and their very identity is defined by their relations this is why they can be fused into a seamless totality because you cannot take them apart you take them apart and then they are not the same thing that they used to be in the totality so they saw totality has emergent properties and says that it is irreducible but it is not decomposable is seamless everything has been fused so they normal to the concept of awesomeness really is since both assemblages and totalities are irreducible eyes in the fact that it is decomposed or and the list calls the relationships that can be separated out relationships of exterior and again this is in clear part in the interview with their partner relationship of exteriority mean that the parts interact with one another but they they retain their own identity in those so they can be detached from one assemblage and then plugged into a different assemblage they don't get fused into a particular totality so in that in this sense then the definition of emergent property would be this an emergent property is a property of a whole that arises from the constant interactions between its parts the part must interact and in those interactions they must exercise capacities that they have I remember capacities can be a real but their actual well in the case of an assemblage those capacities must be exercised they must be actual for because without those interactions and those capacities being exercised the emergent properties would disappear now what what this means is that emergent properties despite the fact that they are novel in the sense of they do not exist in the parts I nevertheless imminent to the plants if the component parts stop interacting the emergent properties disappear as well if we did not have this requirement then the emergent properties would be transcendent you would not they work they will transcend their parts where I say if the properties imply the constant day-to-day interaction between the components even though they cannot be reduced to this or that interaction they need some or other interaction to be occurring and that's what makes them imminent that's what makes them something that is not transcendence an existing above and beyond the component parts so we have been assemblages that are irreducible and the composer the decomposability is key here let me give you an example just to make sure you an image to make sure that everything is cleared back in terms of head on that is a bit early part of the 19th century the perfect example a seamless totality totality in which a component parts cannot be taken apart what the human body what if you want to the organism an animal body because back in the 19th century you could not really take the heart out you know and I'm continuing for it to be continued to be a heart it will die immediately and the person would die immediately you cannot take the kidney out you could not take the liver out because the person who died immediately and that organ would cease to be an honor so for Hegel it make perfect sense to say that all the organs that form our organism are confused and so integrated together they are so dependent on one another for the functioning they basically define one another in their relationships you cannot take a heart out and one for even if you continue to be a heart and the organism would also disappear now today 200 years later we know you can take the heart up you just need to put it on a freezer and you need to connect the body to a plump and if the pump continues doing the good job of the heart meanwhile you either fix the heart or change the heart for someone else's heart I mean I've seen in a baboon's hearts in putting on people right so technology has gone to the point who we now know that the body is decomposable not absolutely be composable isn't you have to take it apart a pretender that's still a body but you can take some parts out plug them into another assemblage you know do a card transplant and untrust like that heart someone else so the body is really an assemblage and not a seamless totality the organism has stopped being the poster boy of Hegelian seamless fuse together to Thailand so to repeat them we need the concept of emergent property a property of a hole that emerges from the interactions between the parts in those interactions the parts must exercise capacities that may be unique to those interactions but nevertheless their properties are not defined by the interactions only the capacities the exercise are defined by the interactions and now a Jungian totality the properties themselves are defined by their interactions and hence the parts cannot be taken apart because it will lose those properties so the distinction between properties and capacities is key here as you can see because we do want to say that the component saga of an assemblage interact in very specific ways with one another and that is what we learnt as part of the mechanism of emergence for those properties but we don't want to say so we do want to say that they exercise very special capacities when when interacting with one up we still want to say that they retained their properties that their properties were not defined by their being in that hole otherwise they would not be detachable and the assemblage would not be decomposable so you reduce ability and decomposability those two terms are not going to appear in your book on tulips they are just implied the terms are due up here as I said in the in the in you with Claire Barnett at the distinction between relationship of exterior re relationships that do not constitute the identity of the parts related versus relationships of interiority relationships that do constitute the identity of the parts related so this is hair go this is the loose now in the definition of assemblage which is given both in the appendix of a thousand photos or not appendicular I think what you take oh if you know in a kind of alphabetical order towards the end and given also in any and postulates of English sex they give two more conditions for assemblers to be an assemblage they say an assemblage is constituted by segments of content and segments of expression that is very confusing what do they mean by segments well they basically just mean component parts a segment is a segment of a line is a component part of a line but they use it in a special way because of course in evolution ontology as I was explaining when I did my public lecture on on the other day then whereas for Aristotle the world is already pre segmented into species and genus or in general that are eternal and sort of the world is already pre segmented into categories for the loose the world begins as a body without organs as unsegmented on genes whole define exclusively by intensities and remember intensive properties are problems that cannot be divided it's an indivisible continuous home that little by little acquire segmentation so if you think about say of a fetus of an animal the original cell and for a few weeks the cells that go around are on minted in the sense that every single cell is pluripotent can become bone it can become muscle it can become blood it can become nerve and there are no segmentation to the circuit and the sense that they are not divisions you're still no fingers are still no arms are still no you know especially little body without organs but little by little as that animal develops is going to become segments the limbs will appear each one of the limbs will be segmented into parts then the ends of the limbs the extremities will at first be on segmented but then start becoming segmented and each one of the fingers will be segmented so what the lists try to challenge is that unlike I stole for which reality for whom reality is pretty segmented our reality is also segmented or striated but starting with smooth virtual space that progressively as it actualizes itself becomes egg mented territory alized divided or or whichever way water you know it explains so segmentation exists for the lives this is why I started was able to classify things by general and species but the segments are not even segments are not there to turn on the segment's are produced in the process of actualization of virtual structures so teacher so that's why he uses the term segments to keep it simple ourselves and we're just simply going to use the term parts and so when they say an assemblage is composed of segments of content and expression I'm going to say is composed of material that's what content means an expressive compounds that's the word I'm going to use instead of seconds so we need to make a distinction between a role that the different parts on assemblers play some components are play of material role some components play an expressive role I'm going to come explain what expressive means you know in the 20th century expression became identified with symbolic expression all this question was supposed to be symbolic or linguistic the list breaks with that for the list expression can exist in a whole variety of different forms human expression has components like the face and the movements of the body that are not linguistic so that you would reject the idea of a body language you will reject idea of a facial language or the people of course does not reject the idea of facial expressivity or the expressivity of our bodies but in addition to that there is the expressivity of our behavior you know when you are part of a community and you say constantly are telling your friends you know yes I'm so done with you guys you know I am part of you and you know I love you and I'm really part of you and you're trying to express your soul very big words that's one thing but when they when they working-class community goes on strike and it's your turn – man the soup kitchen and you don't show up that expresses your lack of solidarity much more than any words that you could possibly use as everybody in a community knows talk is cheap you can promise all kinds of things and you can say all kinds of things that I have you love them but when it comes to actually helping them out and joining living in a solidary movement and doing it part of your job you're supposed to be doing you don't show up or you show up and you don't do your part well that behavioral attitude expresses much more your lack of solidarity and you cannot compensate with words yeah I'm not gonna show up but I still love you guys what would that mean right so we're going to find out forms of extra civet e some are symbolic some are not symbolic the material components are rather obvious but where we should stress them when we talk about a community of course there are all kinds of communities or communities in the internet they're communities that inhabit a small town their communities I'm having an ethnic neighborhood each one has a different type of materiality the materiality of an ethnic neighborhood or a small town is precisely the infrastructure of the town the proximity relationships of neighbors to one another they the composition of the town in which certain areas like a church serve to to reaffirm community ties every Sunday Mass in which the plot also serves to establish and maintain community bonds perhaps every night as they gather at the plot it's going to be a much a reality of the community that is in addition of course to the embodied agents that form the community we're talking about that yesterday we're not going to be considering here subjects as mental entities we want minds that are embodied and employ embodies that has skills not necessarily craft skills like we're joggin i yesterday were riding a bicycle in but social skills the skills that are necessary to you know for instance participate in conversations knowing when your turn is in a conversation knowing that you have to be paying attention to the person who's who's speaking right now at the conversation knowing that when your turn comes you have to say something it relevant to the conversation all those are social skills that you have to exercise in your interactions day to day interactions with one another because it is those day to day interactions that make the community have emergent properties of its own so different social entities will have different materiality or different material components we'll talk about it in a second so this is the way I replace the first in fact let me borrow your a thousand plateaus book so that I can wait one second we have to put a new blue signature the Bible with there is two media Instagram just to read the definition of assemblage shrine obviously should be in the a letter okay find anymore I'll find another layer they say an assemblage is defined along two dimensions or two axis along one dimension we have extinction between segments of content and segments of expression I'm changing that to along a first dimension an assemblage is compose of material and expressive components components a complete material role or an expressive role and then they say in the other axis an assemblage is defined by lines of territorial ization unexplained on the territorial ization now when the only place in a thousand photos when they define the term territorial ization there's really only one place is at the beginning of the chapter called eg the geology of morals and they define territorial ization for the natural world they define it in the context of finding stratification but let's not go that way there's not about that right temperature realization simply means how well define the identity of an assemblage is when an assemblage you know let's go back to an assemblage that's easy to think of an assemblage like small town or an ethnic neighborhood a community in having that small town of ethnic neighborhood communicate that name of that small town will have of course is borders its territory it occupies a pocket as a particular territory and the ethnic navel were also occupies a particular territory now think for instance of something like Lebanon before the Civil War which is not that long ago thirty years or so ago there were many communities of different ethnic backgrounds of different religious backgrounds some were Christians or Muslims or more Jewish living within their own territories but look side-by-side and before the Civil War there was plenty of intermarriage between ethnicities and even between religions and they were play friendship networks crossed the limits of the other neighborhoods so you have friends of different ethnicities and different religions in northern neighborhoods and they were good friends of yours so people crossed freely from one neighborhood to another and even inter Mayer is even a more permanent form of crossing those those limits let us say that before the Civil War the communities to different communities in having the neighborhoods in Lebanon where D Territory alized in other words their their borders were fussy they they blended into one another they overlapped with one another and they they had inter calorie elements those people who intermarriage which were joining them into two you know I was supposed to keep them separated but the more the Civil War started not only gangs of youths began to police the actual borders of the neighborhood and began to beat up people that belong to other religions if they dare to cross the borders of enamel in other words they sharpened the physical borders of a neighborhood by policing them but they thought not only that but the people within their neighborhoods began to police each other to see are you a true Muslim are you a true Jew are you a true Christian whereas before the Civil War they would allow you to you know to you know be here to lapse a little bit in your Christian beliefs maybe you didn't go to church every Sunday or maybe you didn't pray if you were a Muslim exactly at the same hour of the day that everybody else's pray well maybe if you were to you you open your business on Saturday when he was not supposed to be and they allowed you to do that you said because they were the territory lies the borders were fussy once the conflict began everybody began you notated distinction between us and them became sharp are you a Christian or if you're a person then you are not a Jew and you're not a Muslim you're not supposed to be married Jews and Muslims your nose will be having friends in the Jewish and Muslim communities and they began to police one another to see also you do not attend us every Sunday so perhaps you're not very good Christian so perhaps we could not trust you conflict territorial Isis communities conflict sharpens the boundaries between communities conflict sharpens a distinction between us versus them and so territorial station and digitalization in the first place refer precisely to how sharply delimited or how fuzzy is form are the limits of a territory but of course we can extend that to a whole variety of spatial borders they don't necessarily have to be territories in the proper sense of the world territories do apply to seas they do apply to towns if you apply to neighborhoods but they can also apply to a variety of if in a more general sense characterization defines how sharply defined is the identity of an assemblage how unchanging is the identity of the assemblage how formaggi nurses detect the identity of the assemblage and the territorial session is the opposite how many erogenous elements can an assemblage accommodate how fuzzy are the boundaries so that they if the assemblage basically blends with other assemblages and there are areas of indetermination where like you don't know if this is one assemblage or another because that the overlapping area assemblage that's the territorial acts is more open to change and that is basically the end of the map now I want to add one more element the loser guitaring distinguish between two categories of holes assemblages versus strata assemblages are supposed to be made of erogenous elements just as we said but you know for instance they assemblage you know a bank as I'm similar to a bank is an assemblage means the building of the bank they vault with the money the desks the computers in each one of the desks the people working and staffing each one of those positions if that's quite a heterogeneous assemblage because we're talking about a building which is very stone we're talking about technical equipment which is on the desks we're talking about a book of regulations which is now a text that's telling you the rules to be part of the bank we're talking about the people divided into a hierarchy with a boss and certainly levels of middle management and at the bottom of bunch of workers are doing a clerical work so we're talking about a very heterogeneous thing but they still feel that they have to differentiate between a simulation strata strata being a much more homogenized type of sandwich which territorial decision has not only done a thorough job of homogenizing the components but there is also another dimension which will pay for coding and decoding similar to territorial occasionally territorial sation in that it also applies to the identity of a whole and how sharply defined it is except that it operates via some form of code so the first clear form of code in this planet was of course DNA animals are particularly insects in which their behavior is rigidly determined by their genes that is animals that cannot learn from experience would be an example of an assemblage highly coded but some would be a religious organization which is a sect which everybody follows the sacred text to them to the letter there's absolutely no deviation from what you know in which they address is coded and their rituals are coded at every single hour of the day what you do in the monastery or in the particular building where their sect gathers is coded and prescribed by words by language so coding and decoding also define how sharply defined identity of an assemblage is or or a stratum and the coding also defines an opening for that identity an opening for change because the code has now stopped functioning one area and it allows for change to happen along the decoded the decoded a vector so but they apply this only to strata they claim at the beginning of one chapter which I remember in a second that assemblages are always decoded okay we could we could keep that but in my own work this is what I have done precisely so that not to have to introduce dualities and not to be open to charge the Rhydian charge that we are introducing opposition's and that it is a dualistic machine and this is a binary opposition and so on in order to avoid that charge I decided to eliminate this distinction and just take a concept of assemblage as it is with this material in other words with its emergent properties its decomposability its material and expressive components and then so to speak see it he was a machine I had to knots to parameters to it they're adjustable one parameter is territory notation the other parameter is coding this manoeuvre first of all is kind of original I don't know anybody else that has actually parameterize a concept in mathematics this is pretty used pre pretty normal a parametric equation is an equation with knots where you can control the variables or the parameters you know externally so I'm parameterizing because it was a simulation and getting rid of the binary opposition and so so then we end up with this concept as simply as a whole that has properties of its own non-reducible to the parts the part where the parts are maintaining their autonomy they exercise some specific capacities when they interact with one another but it could be detached from the assemblage the components can be divided into expressive and material and finally the identity of the assemblage at any one point in time will be determined by the setting of the parameters if the parameters have big territorial ization not all the way up and the coding not all the way up there is at maximum intensity then that assemblage is a stratum if they if the parameters have the Church realization high for the coding parameter low and that would be an assemblage in the way in which they define and finally if they both have low and there will be territory lies assemblance but the idea being that any assemblage any community any organization any city can change in sterilization and escorting parameters with history so we might as well make him knobs because we know they are going to be changing Lebanon's example as I just gave you the concept of assemblage that we needed to you can we need to use for the pre-civil war communities would be one in which they territorial ization parameter is very low the borders were very fuzzy the intermarriage a lot they may even be decoded if they blended portions of their religions if they which I am not sure if they did but they might they may have been highly coated in that Christians were Christians Jews were Jews Muslims or Muslims but if their we're intermediate groups in which because of intermarriage that they were practicing that kind of intermediate religion with pieces of code from Christianity and pieces go from Islam or pieces of code from Judaism and pieces of code from Christianity but then not also be decoded then the civil war starts and the conflict itself turn the knobs territorial eyes the assemblage now everybody is looking at the limits of the neighborhood nautical Muslim process into the Jewish never if beat up now if a Christian cross into the Moslem never gets beat up and all the people within each of those neighbors are policing one another to see who's a true Christian who's who is a true Muslim who is a true Jew that means the coding parameter was also up because they are checking they are checking you against the Old Testament they are checking you against the New Testament you're checking you against the code the Quran so via via this maneuver I got rid of the distinction between a sin and strata and by the way I couldn't find a quote right now but there is a quote in that book where they say exactly that the distinction they are trying to make is not between assemblages and strata but between actual things at different degrees of charity realization and the territorial excision and they absolutely territorial eyes plane of eminence this absolutely the territorial eyes body with our organs which makes perfect sense you can you can imagine the body better organs implement simply as an assemblage in which these two bottles now have reached a minimum value so this is a concept we're going to be using in class we're going to eliminate that that binary opposition that way we don't get into that and we know I have a single concept but have been parameterised now there's one more objection that I should meet before I move on and start giving examples for the losing litera the distinction between assemblages and strata is not just a quantitative distinction it's a qualitative distinction so it's not just a matter of how how many how many degrees of territory logicians your turn one way or another is not a quantitative distinction you're trying to make a qualitative distinction so am I not betraying that by making a purely quantitative distinction by adding parameters but the answer is no because parameters in general have and here gonna have critical points and we were will discuss this at which changes from quantity to quality exist circle faces like the liquid gas and solid phases of water if say if we took water as village we would know that by moving the one parameter which is temperature at a certain critical point that water would change from to a completely different qualitative state you will be gone eyes will become completely territorial eyes which is stratified crystallize whereas by moving it in the other direction you'll become vapor you will start occupying space in a much more free way you will start flying around become volatile you'll become a very different type of assemblage so what I mean I'm going to use this not not as a metaphor but as a reality I would want I want to argue that there are critical points in those parameters that mark changes from quality to quantity so that at a certain degree of charity realization encoding the assemblage actually changes face and becomes a stretcher a certain if you go the other the other way a stratum melts again into an assemblage that way we replace types the type stratum the type assemblage which can be in can be interpreted as transcendent essences with faces that is with something that is with a variation that is inherent to the assemblage at several points in a thousand plateaus the listen guitar you seem to agree that this is in fact the case because they always make a sharp distinction between rhizomes and trees between edge trade spaces and smooth spaces between assemblage and strata they first make an opposition that's very sharp only to move on towards the end of that chapter and say but rhizomes can be transformed into trees and trees can be transformed Rison smooth spaces can be transformed into Australia spaces Trading Spaces company smooth it out the assemblages can be stratified the strata committee stratified amacom assembled well if they can be transformed into one another well then that is the definition of a phase that is what a face is is something that is non transcendent that is imminent to the assemblage itself but that determines internal changes from quantity to quality now caramelizing the fronts of the assemblage gives us that precisely so here we can put outside this is the knobs here we could put certain markings that determine the critical point at which an assemblage will change from what the tea to well now this is as far as the abstract theory of assemblage is going to take us the real truth that assemblage theory works and that it's useful for us is in its applications in supplications to actual social ontology to actual social problems so let's move do that remember the key to this entire thing is the part-to-whole relationship because the worst part and whole are there in the definition of emerging property an emerging property is a property of the whole that arises from the interactions between its parts so the terms parts and and whole are there in the definition of emergence and since we need emergence to to block reductionism and we need to consider part two all relationships so I'm going to claim in the next section that most social entities that the company considered part of a materialist ontology have with one another a relationship of part-to-whole now yesterday we saw you know it was only one class we talked about selectivity we talked about how the subject could emerge whether whether in a Kantian way or in a human way clearly we did not reach agreement at the end as to what or which one or the other should be there was also a the Augean that maybe we needed some kind of hybrid between the two either position is fine as far as to take is concerned because we're not going to be dealing with subjectivity we're going to be taking subjectivity for granted we already talked about it yesterday so whether it is Canton or human we already discussed it so let's just put at the very bottom of it all persons this could also be say subjects or anywhere that you want to I happen to prefer the word person but you know what I mean you mean John Travolta right what were you see a person never figure that out but maybe that was a balance know now from the interactions of persons I just mentioned one type of interaction the interaction between the interaction between people in a conversation now the most important author in this regard is a sociologist from the 60 system is err Erving Goffman a fabulous book of interaction ritual he wrote actually several fabulous books he's a micro sociologist in the in the book interaction ritual he treats conversations as assemblages he says a conversation a constituting person to begin with for their social conversations to the Internet in chat rooms their social conversations to the telephone and so on I will get to that in a second but for let's first talk about territory alized conversations conversations in which there is a well-defined special limit and everybody stays in one another in say the corner of a neighborhood or some somewhere like that so Goldman says this is an assemblage in the sense that once everybody has ratified one another as part of the conversation any passerby that tries to kind of listen in to the conversation will be shot okay we do this a private conversation keep go on in other words they they have ratified each other as part of the conversation now they form a group that's self-contained that that's when I have an identity is one of us at least until the end of the conversation every passerby that tries to flee but is excluded from that and that already means that they are being that is being territorial eyes it included it involves embodied persons I mean with a day when I'm talking about telephone or chat rooms right so unique with your body your body oriented in a particular way everybody should be facing each other in the SM then there's going to be certain codes that rule the assemblage the coding parameter and in particular the code or the rule that says that there's going to be turn-taking not everybody can speak at once you know you need to sum what this is this is trying to talk and if then everybody's trying to listen then it's your turn to talk and everybody's trying to listen when the main form of currency or one of the two main forms of currency in that assemblage is attention when the person whose turn is to talk everybody's supposed to be paying attention at least pretending to pay attention to the guy but you must at least return because you cannot be like you know going like this what the other guys talk and they expect attention when it's your turn right you at least need to be you know you maybe think about something else you got very interesting and most importantly and this is something that we did not discuss yesterday yesterday we discuss the emergence of the subject but only the emergence of the private cell itself that contemplates itself that that perceives the self-organized perception one way or another if you believe in the linguistic ecology of experience is the sales the organizers experience via Calavera linguistic categories if you believe in the intensity a theory of experience well is a subject to consume those intensities that subject by the way the subject that consumes intensity is an anti Oedipus is the third synthesis synthesis of subjectivity is for the synthesis of consumption for loop does I think they call the energy that circulates in that subject because it is a subject that for luxuriously consumes the intensities the subject that voluptuously consume scholars consumes sounds consumes flavors consumes a romance right over Lucas but either way as I said I don't care right now yesterday I did care about destroying the pieces of a linguistic ecology the experience I failed miserably so I'm going to try today either way both of it two features that we were arguing about yesterday are about the private self in addition to our private sounds we have a public persona that is the part of ourselves that we project to others that we let others see a private ippolit persona is typically depending on you know it depends on the person of course you know there are some people who have a public persona that is that totally made-up right now I just came back from the moon yeah you know like I visited Mars last weekend yeah but most of us don't really exaggerate that much republic personas all we do is simply cover some of our weaknesses there's not reveal some of our weak points and saturate a little bit some of our strengths you know yes I'm a great soccer player no you just don't mean him so okay but how are they gonna know right so you project a certain persona and that's the public persona that you project to others and that is part of yourself yourself is like a double self with your preceding contemplating sound for your get itself that that structures experience but also the self that interacts with others the self that has the other as as a pole you know towards which you need to present a persona now in a conversation a starting government says personas are precisely what Perry the Commerce you're always you know every term that you have in the conversation you have an opportunity to say something about yourself about your public persona not necessarily talking about yourself but by date by your choice of subject by your choice of words by the funny comment that you made by whatever it was your intervention in the conversation you are giving orders information about your person oh yeah he's the funny guy that we that we heard about oh yeah yeah he's a serious guy that we talked about where you make always very concise very precise statements and then you let others turn oh yeah he said he's he talks very little but he says a lot when he talks well those are part of your public persona and I come the intensity's and this is where government excels he says one of the most important intensities circulating in a conversation is the possibility of embarrassment possibility of humiliation how does that come about well if your public persona gets hurt one way or another in the curse of in the course of that conversation you may make you make make a mistake you choose you chose the wrong word and everybody laughs at you well that hurts your public persona a little bit particularly if it was really humiliating particularly if you were in the middle of trying to make a very important point and you say fraud instead of Freud right and everybody loves a game right and you and you've got even maybe go red in your face you know rush embarrassment or humiliation is an intensity in the which we defined it yesterday right you can be mildly humiliated or you can be highly humiliated and as Coffman says humiliation can you know the people who participate in a conversation need to both have poised and tapped poised means that someone can say something funny about you something that hurts your public persona but you brush it off like maybe maybe making a self-deprecating joke and then that's the end of a thing right you kept your voice you did not equal embarrassed by that revelation right tap is the opposite tact is not to say things that are going to embarrass someone else or if you're gonna say him say him in such a way that's not going to hurt the public persona and why should they be poised on tap well because embarrassment draws attention away from the subject of the conversation to the person who is being embarrassed and this attention is the energy that keeps the assemblage together anything that draws attention away from that from the conversation to the person that's being embarrassed could destroy the conversation right in the middle of a conversation someone someone says you know you're talking about something else and someone mean said you know he was a virgin until he was 24 you know and you get caught completely out of whack because if persona you were trying to project you never ever said that it is true that you were a virgin until you were 24 25 gram but you have kept that very quiet and outside of your public persona because not only doesn't come opera that mean right now I just revealed it right and you get like totally flushed and you don't know how you lose your poise completely but then the person right next to you may become now embarrassed about the fact that you are embarrassed because if they care about you you know they are played first try to give you a moment to kind of recover yourself and continue that they the dynamic of the conversation but if you do not recover the person next to you becomes embarrassed now but the fact that you are embarrassed and that embarrasses the next guy the next car the next guy it follows that long awkward silence and everybody goes well I'll see you later people you know get they do beard virgin so embarrassment at a certain critical point can destroy and completely the territory lies the conversation right in the sense that it falls apart it doesn't continue so everything government does a fantastic job analyzing one particular sandwich the conversation assemblage conversation assemblages are very important because of course key not in a territorial eyes community like a neighborhood an ethnic neighborhood a small town that is one of the forum for interaction everyday interaction state everyday and remember the community is not going to have properties of its own if those interactions don't occur continuously that is that that is why as I said the properties of the community are imminent they are imminent to those interactions interactions stop and the community loses his properties the properties are not transcendent they are not independent of what's going on down there it can be reduced to it but at the same time they do depend on it so now let's just make a one more one more point here before I move on technology from a reliable postal service to the Telegraph to the telephone to the internet act to move the territorial ization parameter tourists D territorially station the scientific communities that existed in the 17th century for instance you know some lived in Paris some live in the provinces of France some lived in London some lived in the provinces of England some living in another and so you know they were just in Italy and so on they were kept together by a system of correspondence in which the economies of science of Paris of Florence of London had the specialists you know in languages that would read all the letters and answer all the letters we're actually all the layers were mostly written in Latin so it's not as if you have to know that many languages but did someone had to keep the conversation going someone had to keep the correspondence go under but nevertheless that created this first communities and this first communities do not have well-defined spatial boundaries almost by definition right so those communities are very different than the communities that are in have a small town or the communities that inhabit a net-net neighborhood with well-defined territories we can say that the scientific communities that existed in the 17th century and even today join together by a technology of postal service wordy territorial eyes the same thing applies to interpersonal networks of friends who live in different cities or even in different countries and keep together and keep in touch together via the telephone that has already made the presence the presence in a conversation a not useless but not necess unnecessary and of course in the internet we have not found ways of creating communities that are completely territorial eyes in that sense but that nevertheless can add this communities not only Facebook communities and Twitter communities but more important the open source communities that is the people the communities of volunteers that collectively produce software like linen Linux the operating system that the Indian proper of Windows Pachi software Perl programming languages it's gotta be at least 200 open-source projects right now and those are communities of people dispersed around the world linked together by the Internet I would say that those communities are still communities days assemblages of people similar is a persons but with it with a territorial efficient bottom almost all their way to the top they are all over the place they probably don't even know each other personally so we can have a whole variety of communities nevertheless the scientists have to interact via correspondence the friends need to keep in touch via the telephone right otherwise is a friend that you can talk to every three or four years where does not really that much of a friend is more of an acquaintance and the open source communities they need to interact via the code that they are producing together so they requirement that there is constant interactions for the community to have its own identity has not been waived it's just a tip knob the parameter of territorial region has publicly different value so keeping all that in mind this could have an arrow here and say that from the interactions between persons communities emerge so let's move on one level community then it's just an assemblage of persons and depending on the community some materials and expressive components the material components in the case of a community that inhabits a small neighborhood where ethnic neighborhood is a neighborhood itself the building's infrastructure of the neighborhood the extra Civet II of the neighborhood they might you know it might be an Italian neighborhood that looks Italian it might be a neighborhood in China a Chinatown and looks Chinese expresses its identity via a variety of you know architecture and symbols and so on but now let me just then say a few things about communities to see what the emergent properties are and let's begin with a simple case a territorial acts community territorial eyes assemblages are always easier to analyze than the territory last one so we're going to proceed that way today and it's almost time to write let's begin with the territorial eyes case since we can move the knob it doesn't really matter you want to move it the other way over the only way I'm just going to start you know it's easier to start with the territorial eyes case because we can easy visualize the boundaries so let's begin with a community that inhabits a small town or a an ethnic neighborhood and let's say that it is a tightly knit community what does that mean well it means that if you created a graph of the community's linkages you know you go house by house and you ask every person who are your friends and who are the friends of your friends and then you go to the next person who are your friends who are the Friends of your friends and for every person you put a little a little circle and for every friend you put an edge that joint circle to circle and then you begin analyzing the density of the linkages in a tightly knit community the friends of my friends know the friends of her friends who know that friends of his friends in other words everybody knows everybody dance now notice I'm saying the friends of my friends my indirect contacts because in in in the territory less communities my friends might know your friends who might not her friends but in app is only in a tightly-knit community that the friends of my friends my own direct contact know the friends of your friends who know the friends of her friends so this begin with that case a very densely linked community now what is one of the properties of density well that everybody knows everybody else so word of mouth travels very fast hearsay gossip right the analysis of that is in postulates of linguistics in that book 2002 a toast now when you gossip a word-of-mouth travels very fast it travels fastest when the content of the flow of the gossip is a violation or the local norm say an unfulfilled promise you know someone took care of your kids yesterday and you promised you would take care of the kids the following day or pick him up at school right and you break your promise and unreciprocated favor someone help you to move your your furniture from one place to another someone helped you to fix your sink and then the following day they come in and they want to borrow some tools what they want to they want to help to move a piece of furniture amen you know I'm like so busy I can't I can't really do it by now an unfulfilled promise and unreciprocated finger and unpaid that align any violation of a local norm word about that travels fast at the following day that you did not reciprocate a favor the following day that you did not not bad everybody knows that you don't do that and everybody starts gossiping even don't bet with that guy is he's not an opinion or don't do me favors or or insists in advance that he's going to reciprocate because he forgets about the favors he does he's worth his word is worth nothing he promises things and never keeps his promises which means that as word-of-mouth of that violation circulates and accumulates in the community the community as a whole can now act as a reputation storage mechanism there's a memory in the community about local violations of now not every member of the community needs to know that you don't pay your bets not every member of the community needs to know that you don't reciprocate favors not every member of the community needs to know that you don't keep your promises but as long as enough members of the community do you are in trouble because people are going to start refusing to interact with you now once you violate a local norm there's two ways in which the community can punish it ridicule and ostracism ostracism as I just said is refusing to interact with you refusing to take your promises do you promise something you can promise anything you want to but everybody knows you don't keep your promises you don't promise that to me they want to bet you know your back bet you are going to pay about tomorrow's game I don't bet with you man you don't pay your vets or you begin to an overarm eat it for week weeks or years to pay your debt they may need you to do me a favor you know it's very important I did you three favors you never pay back any of those three fingers and you want me to do a fourth baby go screw yourself ostracism can be a very powerful weapon particularly if your livelihood depends on all the people in the community like if you are the butcher in the community you are the judge in the community or you are a policeman community and unique cooperation by the others if they can now refuse to interact with you you have lost a very important resource and ridiculed both that's just laughing behind your back if you might not mind people having behind your back but but as I as I we were saying this before sent a sense of humiliation is one of those intensities that makes us what we are subjects people laughing behind your back particularly people laughing behind your kids back for people laughing behind your wife's back that is England once your family's honour is owned it on the on the table you do mind and if your livelihood depends on the community and a good portion of the communities laughing behind your back well you're in trouble you either move to another community or you'll repair those links that you broke so that this punishment stops so communities emerging properties or their emerging capacities they have a capacity to act as reputation storage mechanisms I'm going to put mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms foresman be are really cute and ostracism these are emergent capacities of the community it doesn't really matter who is the exact person who's laughing behind your back it doesn't really matter who is the exact person who saw you violating the norm as long as a large enough number of community members knows that your word but you never keep your word you never keep your promises as long as a large enough number of the community laughs behind your back as long as a large number of the community refuses to interact with you you have been ostracized you have been ridiculed it doesn't really matter what their personal identities of the people who are laughing behind your back are right and that is what makes it irreducible it does depend on some or others people laughing it does depend on some what other people ostracizing that's what makes them eminent but it doesn't depend on is one particular person or that one particular person laughing or ostracizing that's what makes them irreducible right so this capacities of course depend on the density of networks when you de territorial eyes the community and you transform it into an interpersonal network of friends in which the friends of your friends don't know the friends of my friends what is much easier to get away with that kind of stuff right the dispersed interpersonal network has very little enforcement capacities that's very little reputation storage capacities although maybe you know the reputation is different because the reputation can't travel through the phone someone wrongs you someone doesn't pay you money that you lent them you know the phone is very efficient at transmitting that information I don't lend money to that guy man because he never pays back right it's just that it's gonna be harder to enforce that it is hard to ridicule you although that could happen to what powers what capacity community has need to be checked empirical is not an a priori thing we need evidence case-by-case for instance I always thought that Facebook communities did not have these capacities and when Mark Zuckerberg of England by a year ago or a year and a half ago he went to the press stupidly and said Facebook owns all the profiles and all the links between friends in this particular software is they are the property of Facebook we can do anything we want with our information the following day something like 200,000 people organize themselves through Facebook against Mark Zuckerberg and he had to take it back now that is solidarity that is the capacity to mobilize together for a particular thing I always thought that solidarity needed a high degree of territorial incision well now it turned out that I was wrong in facebook facebook communities at least some of them can be mobilized for particular purposes which means that they do have a certain degree of territorial association yes so actually something is wondering better which would you say that in general there is a high degree of character or is it the territorial ization for web sites where people interact consistently and regularly on and so it's not the individual persons live all over the world but they are really territorial eyes it's not not like for instance I don't know like commenting on the New York Times or you know CNN or BBC websites where you've got kind of people who come in all over the place in this really dispersion and they just get together in a chat room for instance but I'm not sure it's rubbing I'm not sure I mean Facebook is different because Facebook was created to be territorial and Facebook was created on the basis of the fraternity right like the college fraternity in other words mutually exclusive groups of friends and you have to be invited to be joined as a friend so the very architecture of facebook creates territories I'm not sure if communities created via Twitter or communities create via just chat rooms where you can visit or not visit and have changed your name every time you visit and they don't know it's the same person and so on whether that ends up in a territorial eyes it positioned for the parameter because your identity is being changed before you can you can be an asshole with one of your names in the chatroom going to be a nice person with the other name in the chatroom right so again it's an empirical question that's what's very important for me because yesterday I kept saying I don't believe in a priori knowledge is I don't believe in things that are just purely theoretical I always need evidence for a particular assertion I will say that degrees of territorial ization and internalization coding and decoding need to be established empirical the only thing that is concept shortly the fact that the knobs exists their exact value at an exact point in history for a particular assemblage needs to be established empirical ok which which makes it interesting it means that it's an open field you know nothing has been determined in advance by theoretician there's a lot to investigate let me move on guys because actually we should take a break right now right let's take a 10-minute break

1 thought on “Manuel DeLanda. Assemblage Theory, Society, and Deleuze. 2011

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *