Nicholas Tampio教授论文全文（2）
-接上文-
Nicholas Tampio教授论文全文（2）
12 Nicholas Tampio
than tracing:because any such drawing (one circle, two sides, three strata) is a provisionalstart to practical reflection or experimentation (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:12).
Fourth Rule:Construct Theories
A norm is anought-claim; it is also, etymologically, a 'carpenter’s square’ (Latin norma;Greek gnomon). By diagramming Deleuze’s arguments, we begin to see thathe is a profoundly normative thinker when he asks how we ought to draw thelines that compose our individual and collective bodies (see also Jun 2009).'How do you make yourself a Body without Organs?’ – the title of Plateau Number6 – could also be restated: how ought we balance the side of our bodies thattend towards order with the side that opens up onto difference? An ethicalquestion: how do I experience the heightened sensations afforded by drugswithout self-destructing or contributing to social violence (Connolly 1999:97–114)? A political question: how do we delimit the identity and borders of Europeor North America in conditions of globalisation (Braidotti 2006)? Once weattend to the normative dimension of A Thousand Plateaus, we begin tosee a pattern of injunctions.
First, map ordiagram the body of which we are composed. Deleuze speaks of 'territories anddeterritorializations measured with the craft of a surveyor’ (Deleuze andGuattari 1987: 160). Political theorists ought to avail themselves of empiricalresearch produced by political scientists using techniques such as multiplelinear regression, as well as relevant scholarship produced by sociologists,historians and economists.
Next, chisel theborders that delimit our identities. 'It is an inevitable exercise’ for humanswho must breathe, eat, defecate and perform other activities that involvetaking or releasing things into and out of our bodies (Deleuze and Guattari1987: 149). But it is also a political question par excellence: how do wedefine our ethical and political subjectivities? What historical material do wewant schools to teach or not teach? With what countries, internationalorganisations and foreign political parties do we want to forge alliances? Whatbodies threaten our integrity or amplify our joy? Deleuze’s criteria foraddressing these questions are Spinozist: 'life and death, youth and old age,sadness and joy’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 151). Sadness and joy diminish orincrease the power of a body; thus, evaluative criteria always shift dependingon the body and the forces that act upon it: 'each individual’s pleasure orpain differs from the pleasure or pain of another to the
Entering Deleuze’s Political Vision 13
extent that thenature or essence of the one also differs from that of the other’ (Spinoza2002: 309). There is no a priori answer to the question of how to draw orpuncture the lines that define us: so we need to experiment. And thesensibility of A Thousand Plateaus – though more sober than Anti-Oedipus(Holland 1999; Buchanan 2008)–is that we need to experiment more aggressively:'Let’s go further still’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 151).
Yet Deleuze alsorecommends the 'art of caution’ to ensure that we do not experiment recklessly.'You don’t do it with a sledgehammer, you use a very fine file. You inventself-destructions that have nothing to do with the death drive’ (Deleuze andGuattari 1987: 160). Philosophy, for Deleuze, may be about exploring thepowerful and mysterious forces above and below the level of perception (themolecular), but political philosophy means translating these insightsinto concrete practice: 'molecular escapes and movements would be nothing ifthey did not return to the molar organizations to reshuffle their segments’(Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 216–17).
In an article on 'Dramatizationas Method in Political Theory’, Iain Mackenzie and Robert Porter detail theprovisional and experimental procedure that Deleuze recommends for constructingconcepts and principles. 'Dramatization is a method aimed at determining thedynamic nature of political concepts by “bringing them to life”, in the waythat dramatic performances can bring to life the characters and themes of aplay script’ (Mackenzie and Porter 2011: 482). A philosopher performs the roleof screenwriter and director, issuing prompts on what to think as one goesthrough a text. But the text itself does not come alive unless the readerinvests his or her own thoughts, interests and desires into it. Deleuze’sphilosophy has a systematic character that rewards determining how the partsfit together. Deleuze viewed his writing as an egg in which concepts and themesshoot off into every direction and yet reunite into a whole (Deleuze 2005: 14).At the same time, Deleuze encourages his readers to experiment with theconcepts, looking for new ways to use them and to enlarge the stock ofconcepts. 'In political theory, dramatization as method requires that we stagenew relations within and between the concepts that animate politics in order toexpress the indeterminate yet endlessly provocative nature of the Idea of thepolitical’ (Mackenzie and Porter 2011: 494). This process combinesintellectual, aesthetic and practical faculties: no two people will dramatise apolitical theory the exact same way. Still, a political theory can provide auseful function by outlining a 'realistic utopia’ towards which politicalbodies can strive (Patton 2010a: 185–210).
14 Nicholas Tampio
III. APolitical Aphorism
An aphorism, properly stamped andmoulded, has not been 'deciphered’ just because it has been read out; on thecontrary, this is just the beginning of its proper interpretation, forthis, an art of interpretation is needed. (Nietzsche 2007: 9)
There is a differencebetween how philosophers exposit their ideas (Darstellung) and how theyformulate them (Forschung) (Hardt 1993: 87). I have been articulating an'art of interpretation’ that enables us to see a pattern, a refrain, in many ofDeleuze’s key political arguments; in this section, I employ this art todecipher a remarkable political theoretical statement in A Thousand Plateaus.This analysis reveals more of the steps (the Forschung) than may benecessary for most Deleuze commentary or application. But my hope is that thisprocedure will help us understand and explain to others – who may be on thefence about whether to invest time and energy in the Deleuzian venture – thepower and appeal of Deleuze’s vision.The aphorism addresses the question: how youdo make yourself a body without organs? Or, how does one, as a political actor,maximise joy and minimise sadness (cf. Deleuze 1988: 28)?
This is how it should be done: Lodgeyourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageousplace on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible linesof flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try outcontinuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land atall times. (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 161)
The image thatinforms the title of A Thousand Plateaus may be 'the landscape ofLimousin, specifically the Millevaches plateau [Deleuze] could see from thewindows of his house at Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat’ (Dosse 2010: 249). Regardless,the terms in this passage paint a landscape of land (stratum, place,deterritorialisations, land), sky (lines of flight) and water (flowconjunctions).
Deleuze invites usto imagine ourselves inhabiting this landscape. Lodge is from the Frankish *laubja'shelter’; stratum is a 'horizontal layer’. To lodge yourself on a stratummeans to inhabit a slice of the world: to be part of a family, country,religious group, profession, school of thought or any other customary practice.In each of our worlds, there are elements of stability, flux and uncertainty;the challenge is to diagram them with the 'craft of a surveyor’.
Entering Deleuze’s Political Vision 15
We can schematisethis passage, like so many in A Thousand Plateaus, by drawing a circlewith a perforated line down the middle, with the left side of the circle moresolid (though, importantly, with holes) and the right side more porous, withlines of flight escaping out the side. The circle represents ourselves: theleft side is our 'normal’ or 'established’ side (with a family, career, majorlanguage, profession, favourite sports teams, and so forth), the right side isour more experimental side (that gently challenges established family norms,that stretches the canon of our academic disciplines, that ignores popularcustoms and adopts unusual ones, and so forth), and the 'lines of flight’emanating from that side represent our nomadic tendencies of which we may notrecognise their origin or anticipate their destination (listening to new musicmay germinate these tendencies).
Deleuze’spractical rules in this passage are more 'counsels of prudence’, given thevarious landscapes we each inhabit, than 'categorical imperatives’, which applyunconditionally to every rational being (Kant 2002). On the one hand, Deleuzeclearly presses us to test out (Latin experiri) new possibilities oflife, to make the hemisphere of traditional values and practices smaller andthe hemisphere of new values and practices larger. For each layer, stratum, wecan try out appropriate strategies: say, by making friends with peoples ofother religions, by attending lectures in other academic disciplines, bylearning other languages, by going to the movies, by ingesting hallucinogens,by practising yoga, and so forth. If we are to imagine ourselves inhabiting alandscape, Deleuze presses us to cultivate a more 'wild’ garden. On the otherhand, Deleuze’s advice to 'keep a small plot of new land at all times’indicates that we should not gamble everything at once in our experiments. Harddrugs or violent revolutionary politics may be terrible ways to become a BwO.From the perspective of a United States citizen, Deleuze reveals how misleadingthe dualities between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans,can be: we all balance traditional and experimental elements, though that factdoes not diminish the still-relevant ethical distinction between how we balancethose sides.
Finally, we havemany options for how to flesh out this passage, for one, because we all inhabitmultiple strata. In the same paragraph, Deleuze notes that 'We are in a socialformation; first see how it is stratified for us and in us and at the placewhere we are; then descend from the strata to the deeper assemblage withinwhich we are held’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 161). Social is from the Latin sequi'to follow’ and implies any way in which two or more humans
16 Nicholas Tampio
are connected. Wecould apply this passage to ourselves and our spouses, ourselves and ourmentors, ourselves and Egyptian activists, ourselves and other people whoaren’t rich, and so forth. An aphorism 'must produce movements, bursts ofextraordinary speed and slowness’ (Deleuze 2006: xiii). The aphorism we areconsidering can move fast, as when a college student interprets thisimmediately in connection to how she ought to participate and intervene in hersorority ('gently tip the assemblage’); but the aphorism can also linger in ourminds and produce new thoughts and connections ('actually, what happens inEgypt affects our own way of life’, or 'maybe I thought I was more open-mindedthan I was on this particular issue: how can I expand my thinking or acting inproductive ways?’). Deleuze’s political vision bears the mark of its creator;but it also aims to enrich rather than supplant the singular ways that each ofus views the world and ourselves. A genius does not want to be imitated but tobe emulated 'by another genius, who is thereby awakened to the feeling of hisown originality’ (Kant 2000: 195). By this definition, Deleuze’s politicalvision is both genius, or profoundly original, and aims to help all of us produceour own fresh ways of seeing the world.
IV. Deleuzeand the Political Theory Canon
Wolin’s Politicsand Vision has been an extraordinarily influential text for leftistacademic political theory since its original publication in 1960 (Frank andTambornino 2000; Connolly and Botwinick 2001). Yet the updated editiondismisses postmodernists such as Deleuze for both misreading Nietzsche andcorrupting democratic theory and practice with playfulness (Wolin 2004: 708).In a recent survey of political theorists in the United States, Deleuze isranked number thirty-eight among scholars who have had the greatest impact onpolitical theory in the past twenty years (Moore 2010: 267). Several decadesinto Foucault’s prediction/invocation of what would come to be known as aDeleuzian century, Deleuze has not yet entered the canon of the history ofpolitical thought, though an increasing number of anglophone politicaltheorists in political science departments employ Deleuzian approaches (seeBeltrán 2010; Bennett 2010; Connolly 2010).14
Why shouldpolitical theorists treat Deleuze with the seriousness hitherto reserved forRawls and Habermas (numbers one and two in the aforementioned survey)? First,Deleuze illuminates aspects of the virtual level of politics that eludetraditional political science and
Entering Deleuze’s Political Vision 17
theory. JoshuaRamey has shown that Deleuze participated in the hermetic and mysticaltraditions, as when he extols 'a politics of sorcery’ in A Thousand Plateaus.As Rawls’s and Habermas’s constant invocations of reason and reasonablenessattest, there is something deeply unsettling for post-Enlightenmentphilosophers to think about magic and the occult. Yet Kant himself recognisedthat there were limits to what could be explained phenomenally, and thus manyof his most interesting (and controversial) passages consider the realm ofreality that we can only think about but not know. Deleuze’s explorations ofthe 'virtual’–his recasting of the Kantian 'noumenal’–illuminate 'themultiplicity of experiential states in which lines are blurred between humanconsciousness and animal awareness, between biopsychic life and the nature ofmatter itself’ (Ramey 2010: 10). From the perspective of thinking about thesubtle forces that influence politics – for instance, the way that support fora political idea or movement, as in the 2010 Arab Spring, can spread likewildfire–Deleuze provides an invaluable pair of lenses. Just as Van Goghpresented the energy radiating from trees, stars and sunflowers in a way thatcameras cannot, Deleuze portrays the political flows and lines of flight thatslip beneath the radar of most political scientists and theorists.
In addition,Deleuze provides a normative framework that enables us to recognise both thegreatest threats to contemporary liberal democratic societies as well as themost fruitful avenues to their transformation. Al-Qaeda is a 'rhizome’ – thatis, an acentred, multidimensional, often- imperceptible network – that hasbefuddled political scientists and actors around the world. Deleuze helps usrecognise the existence of these non-State 'war machines’ and, as should beclear from Deleuze’s more 'conservative’ statements, marshal the resources tocombat them.15 Moreaffirmatively, though, Deleuze’s vision presses us to live life with a greaterappreciation of the porosity that defines our ethical and politicalsubjectivities. Many of us know, on some level, that bodies take things in fromand leak out into the world and that, for instance, in seven years our bodieswill retain none of their current cells. Yet this philosophical insightconstantly combats the common-sense habit of ascribing fairly stable identitiesto bodies. Part of Deleuze’s brilliance is that he provides a philosophicalvocabulary–grounded in the roots of European languages and anomalous – toappreciate the plasticity and openness of our political identities,territories, parties, economies, and so forth. Reading Deleuze gives us insightinto how to fold joy into our political practices.
18 Nicholas Tampio
Notes
1.Félix Guattari contributed key concepts – including the'refrain’ (ritornello) – to A Thousand Plateaus and wroteimportant essays and books on his own, including The Three Ecologies andChaosophy (Dosse 2010; see also Guattari 1996 and Genosko 2009). In thisessay, I focus on 'Deleuze’ rather than 'Deleuze and Guattari’ for two reasons.First, Deleuze had expressed his political vision before meeting Guattari in1968 – see, for instance, the discussion of institutions in Empiricism andSubjectivity or the treatment of nomads in Difference and Repetition.Second, Deleuze wrote the final drafts and built a conceptual system fromGuattari’s 'schizoid writing-flow’ (Smith 2006: 36–7). Deleuze is the propername for the candidate to enter the history of political philosophy. On howproper names describe a collective machine of enunciation that includesmultiple voices, see Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 37–8.
2.Or: 'Can we really envision and concretise a Deleuzianpolitical activism, a becoming-active so badly needed in relation to today’spolitical state of affairs?’ (Thiele 2010: 29).
3.See also Deleuze’s remark in an interview about Anti-Oedipus:'We’re looking for allies. We need allies. And we think these allies arealready out there, that they’ve gone ahead without us, that there are lots ofpeople who’ve had enough and are thinking, feeling, and working in similardirections: it’s not a question of fashion but of a deeper “spirit of the age”informing converging projects in a wide range of fields’ (Deleuze 2005: 22).
4.Deleuze rejects the mantle of 'the self-styled lucidthinker of an impossible revolution, whose very impossibility is such a sourceof pleasure’ (Deleuze and Parnet 2007: 145).
5.'Deleuze and the political can only refer to anopen-ended series of relations between philosophy and politics, a series ofencounters between philosophical concepts and political events’ (Patton 2000:10). Political thinkers can better grasp the singularity of contemporarypolitical events by using and modifying Deleuzian concepts; see Hickey-Moodyand Malins 2007. This process can be intensified, though, by a deeper grasp ofhow Deleuze’s system fits together, and this essay aims to disclose a procedureto do that.
6.Deleuze’s main contribution to contemporary politicaltheory, according to Nathan Widder (2012: x) is 'an unwavering attempt toexpose [the micropolitical], investigate its mechanisms and dynamics [...],show how it unfolds to form the concepts and categories that define so much ofpersonal, social, and political life, and explore how it can be engaged andadjusted’.
7.On the differences between Deleuze’s and Foucault’sconceptions of the theory–practice relation, see Patton 2010b.
8.On the political implications of a Deleuzian conceptionof the body–brain– culture network, see Connolly 2002.
9.'Perhaps it is finally the strangeness of the lexicon,the heterogeneity of the abstract terms and their sheer number that are moststriking about Deleuze’s diction: an abstract, incorporeal, alien vocabularyfor a new foreign language’ (Bogue 2004: 12). The question becomes, though, howcan we democrats popularise Deleuzian insights?
10. The etymologies inthis essay draw upon the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com)and the Online Etymology Dictionary (http:// www.etymonline.com).
11. Classicalpolitical philosophy 'hardly uses a term which did not originate in themarketplace and is not in common use there’ (Strauss 1989: 130). On the onehand, Deleuze, in the Straussian narrative of the history of politicalphilosophy,
Entering Deleuze’s Political Vision 19
is a modern, refusing his assent tootherworldly metaphysics or elitist politics. On the other, Deleuze replicatesthe ancients’ efforts to follow 'carefully and even scrupulously thearticulation which is inherent in, and natural to, political life’ (Strauss1989: 61). Robert Pippin (2005) argues that Kant and Hegel do the best jobarticulating the concepts of modern life. I contend that our era – the'postmodern’, for lack of a better alternative–requires a different conceptualsystem and that Deleuze may be its finest exponent. Even though Deleuze’spolitical philosophy requires intense effort to analyse the concepts andsynthesise the whole, the language almost always emerges from simple images,such as the flow of a stream or a gust of wind.
12. Much of the best Deleuziansecondary literature may be similarly diagrammed; see, for instance, VéroniqueBergen’s essay on the Deleuzian 'cartographic task’ (Bergen 2010).
13. A Thousand Plateaus employsintuition, the method of Bergsonism: 'If the composite represents the fact, itmust be divided into tendencies or into pure presences that only exist inprinciple (en droit)’ (Deleuze 1988: 23). In Bergsonism Deleuzespeaks of any body having two slopes, or directions, space and duration,whereas in A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze employs other comparabledistinctions, such as between the poles of fusion and scission. On the onehand, Deleuze’s philosophical corpus as a whole grapples with the question ofhow to convey the distinctions and interconnections between the visible and theinvisible, the actual and the virtual. On the other, Deleuze tries out several'planes of immanence’ that do not necessarily present the (political) cosmos inthe same way (Patton 2010a: 9–15).
14. Deleuze is aprominent figure in academic disciplines across the humanities and socialsciences, but his name rarely appears in top political theory journals such as PoliticalTheory, the American Political Science Review or the Journal ofPolitics. One purpose of this essay is to help Deleuzians explain Deleuze’simportance to political theorists and indicate how his work may be translatedinto debates about matters such as immigration, the environment or economicjustice.
15. For instance, MarcSageman’s (2008) examination of terror networks may be enriched throughDeleuzian concepts of the crack (fêlure), regimes of signs, war machinesand lines of destruction. This topic merits its own books and articles: Imerely mention it as a promising research agenda for Deleuzian politicalscientists.
References
Arendt, Hannah (1998) The HumanCondition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beltrán, Cristina (2010) The Troublewith Unity: Latino Politics and the Creation of Identity, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Bennett, Jane (2010) Vibrant Matter:A Political Ecology of Things, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bergen, Véronique (2010) 'Politics asthe Orientation of Every Assemblage’, New Formations, 68, pp. 34–41.
Bogue, Ronald (2004) Deleuze’s Wake:Tributes and Tributaries, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Braidotti, Rosi (2006) 'TheBecoming-Minoritarian of Europe’, in Ian Buchanan and Adrian Parr (eds), Deleuzeand the Contemporary World, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.79–94.
20 Nicholas Tampio
Buchanan, Ian (2000) Deleuzism: AMetacommentary, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Buchanan, Ian (2008) Deleuze andGuattari’s Anti-Oedipus: A Reader’s Guide, London: Continuum.
Colebrook, Claire (2002) GillesDeleuze, New York: Routledge.Connolly, William E. (1995) The Ethos of Pluralization,Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.Connolly,William E. (1999) Why I Am Not a Secularist, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.Connolly,William E. (2002) Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.Connolly,William E. (2010) A World of Becoming, Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.Connolly, WilliamE. and Aryeh Botwinick (2001) Democracy and Vision: Sheldon
Wolin and the Vicissitudes of thePolitical, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.Deleuze, Gilles(1988) Bergsonism, trans. Constantin V. Boundas, New York: Zone
Books.Deleuze, Gilles(1990) The Logic of Sense, trans. Mark Lester, with Charles Stivale,
ed. Constantin V. Boundas, New York:Columbia University Press.Deleuze, Gilles (1991) Empiricism and Subjectivity: AnEssay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature, trans. Constantin V. Boundas, NewYork: Columbia University
Press.Deleuze, Gilles(1994) Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton, New York:
Columbia University Press.Deleuze,Gilles (2004) Desert Islands and Other Texts, 1953–1974, trans.Michael
Taormina, ed. David Lapoujade, NewYork: Semiotext(e).Deleuze, Gilles (2005) Negotiations, 1972–1990,trans. Martin Joughin, New York:
Columbia University Press.Deleuze,Gilles (2006) Nietzsche and Philosophy, trans. Hugh Tomlinson, New
York: Columbia University Press.Deleuze,Gilles and Félix Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (1994) What IsPhilosophy?, trans. Hugh
Tomlinson and Graham Burchell, NewYork: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, Gilles and Claire Parnet (1996) L’Abécédairede Gilles Deleuze, television programme, directed by Pierre-André Boutang.France: Video Editions
Montparnasse.Deleuze, Gillesand Claire Parnet (2007) Dialogues II, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and
Barbara Habberjam, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Dosse, François (2010) Gilles Deleuze and FélixGuattari: Intersecting Lives, New
York: Columbia University Press.Foucault,Michel (1977) Language Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and
Interviews, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, ed. Donald F. Bouchard,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Foucault,Michel (2008) Introduction to Kant’s Anthropology, trans. Roberto Nigro
and Kate Briggs, ed. Roberto Nigro, LosAngeles: Semiotext(e).Frank, Jason A. and John Tambornino (2000) Vocationsof Political Theory,
Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.Genosko, Gary (2009) Felix Guattari: A Critical Introduction, NewYork: Palgrave
Macmillan.Guattari, Félix(1996) The Guattari Reader, ed. Gary Genosko, Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Entering Deleuze’s Political Vision 21
Hardt, Michael (1993) GillesDeleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy, Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.
Hegel, Georg W. F. (1977) Phenomenologyof Spirit, trans. Arnold V. Miller, ed. J. N. Findlay, Oxford: ClarendonPress.
Hegel, Georg W. F. (1991) Elementsof the Philosophy of Right, trans. Hugh Barr Nisbet, ed. Allen W. Wood, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Hickey-Moody, Anna and Peta Malins(2007) Deleuzian Encounters: Studies in Contemporary Social Issues, NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holland, Eugene W. (1999) Deleuzeand Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, New York: Routledge.
Hume, David (2000) A Treatise ofHuman Nature, ed. David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Jones, Graham and Jon Roffe (2009) Deleuze’sPhilosophical Lineage, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jun, Nathan (2009) 'Deleuze andNormativity’, Philosophy Today, 53:4, pp. 347–58.
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique ofthe Power of Judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, ed. Paul Guyer,New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (2002) Groundwork forthe Metaphysics of Morals, trans. and ed. Allen W. Wood, New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Kerslake, Christian (2009) Immanenceand the Vertigo of Philosophy: From Kant to Deleuze, Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.
Lampert, Jay (2006) Deleuze andGuattari’s Philosophy of History, New York: Continuum.
Lampert, Laurence (1996) Leo Straussand Nietzsche, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1936) Politics:Who Gets What, When, How, New York: P. Smith.
Mackenzie, Iain and Robert Porter(2011) 'Dramatization as Method in Political Theory’, Contemporary PoliticalTheory, 10:4, pp. 482–501.
Moore, Matthew J. (2010) 'PoliticalTheory Today: Results of a National Survey’, PS: Political Science &Politics, 43:2, pp. 265–72.
Negri, Antonio (1995) 'On GillesDeleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus’, Graduate FacultyPhilosophy Journal, 18:1, pp. 93–109.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (2007) On theGenealogy of Morality, trans. Carol Diethe, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Olkowski, Dorothea (2011) 'TheInteresting, the Remarkable, the Unusual: Deleuze’s Grand Style’, DeleuzeStudies, 5:1, pp. 118–39.
Patton, Paul (2000) Deleuze and thePolitical, New York: Routledge.Patton, Paul (2010a) Deleuzian Concepts: Philosophy,Colonization, Politics,
Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.Patton, Paul (2010b) 'Activism, Philosophy and Actuality in Deleuze andFoucault’,
in Marcelo Svirsky (ed.), Deleuzeand Political Activism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.Pippin,Robert (2005) The Persistence of Subjectivity: On the Kantian Aftermath,
New York: Cambridge University Press.Protevi,John (2001) Political Physics: Deleuze, Derrida, and the Body Politic, New
York: Athlone Press.Ramey,Joshua (2010) 'Deleuze, Guattari, and the “Politics of Sorcery”’, Substance:
A Review of Theory & LiteraryCriticism, 39:1, pp. 8–23.Reggio,David (2007) 'The Deleuzian Legacy’, History of the Human Sciences,20:1,
pp. 145–60.
22 Nicholas Tampio
Sageman, Marc (2008) LeaderlessJihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-first Century, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Smith, Daniel W. (2005) 'Deleuze onBacon: Three Conceptual Trajectories in The Logic of Sensation’, inGilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, pp. vii–xxvii.
Smith, Daniel W. (2006) 'Inside Out:Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus Papers’, Radical Philosophy: A Journal of Socialistand Feminist Philosophy, 140, pp. 35–9.
Smith, Daniel W. (2012) Essays onDeleuze, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Spinoza, Baruch (2002) CompleteWorks, trans. Samuel Shirley, ed. Michael
Morgan, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Strauss, Leo(1989) An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays, ed. Hilail
Gildin, Detroit, MI: Wayne StateUniversity Press.Svirsky, Marcelo (2010) 'Introduction: Beyond the RoyalScience of Politics’, in
Marcelo Svirsky (ed.), Deleuze andPolitical Activism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.Tampio,Nicholas (2009) 'Assemblages and the Multitude: Deleuze, Hardt, Negri,
and the Postmodern Left’, EuropeanJournal of Political Theory, 8:3, pp.
383–400.Thiele, Kathrin(2010) “'To Believe in this World, as it is”: Immanence and the Quest
for Political Activism’, in MarceloSvirsky (ed.), Deleuze and Political Activism,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,pp. 28–45.Widder, Nathan (2008) Reflections on Time and Politics, UniversityPark, PA: Penn
State University Press.Widder,Nathan (2012) Political Theory after Deleuze, New York: Continuum.Wolin, Sheldon (1969) 'Political Theory as a Vocation’, The AmericanPolitical
Science Review, 63:4, pp. 1062–82.Wolin, Sheldon(2004) Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western
Political Thought, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Žižek, Slavoj (2003) Organs withoutBodies: Deleuze and Consequences, New York: Routledge.
-全文-