DELEUZIONAL, LARDUELLEAN, OR LACANALISED?: My Big Other Exists Less

Duane Rousselle has posted a critique of those who live under the delusion of being Deleuzians. The same objections can be applied Laruelleans, and to many other followers of Big Masters, including Lacanians.

Rousselle’s text is a useful critique of many contemporary Deleuzians, just as Badiou’s critiques of Deleuzian ideology have been useful. These critiques do not actually touch Deleuze’s own works, and even less his collaborative works with Guattari, as Deleuze is the first to say “Deleuze does not exist”.

See the first paragraph of A THOUSAND PLATEAUS where Deleuze and Guattari say:

“To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves”.

But if Deleuze does not exist then neither does Lacan, and Rousselle cannot criticise the Deleuzians while supposing that his critiques repose on a secure “Lacanian” foundation.

Laruelle, riffing on Deleuze and Guattari, declared “Laruelle does not exist”. His followers naively quote this, without realising that in saying this Laruelle disavows every favorable preface, every translation, every recommendation, every endorsement he has ever made.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to DELEUZIONAL, LARDUELLEAN, OR LACANALISED?: My Big Other Exists Less

  1. JH says:

    This reminds me of Levi Bryant, with his hodgepodge of Lacan and Deleuze in his sophomoric texts. However, what would be the real harm of calling oneself a Lacanian or a Deleuzian really, if that entails that one is devoted to engaging with a certain line of a philosopher’s system of thoughts? For instance, I don’t see much to be worried about when Rosi Braidotti says she is a Deleuzian, Zizek that he is a Lacanian, etc – though surely, Harman a Heideggerian!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. terenceblake says:

    Surely you are right. We cannot live in all worlds, nor even in a single world supposed to be totally generic and universal. More on this in my next post.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Carl Looper says:

    Yes, it’s very good practice to write (or rewrite) a text in such a way that does not require (or otherwise removes) use of the “I”. Or replaces such usage with “we”. It’s quite amazing how much more can be written when this is employed. But also how much more substantial the resulting words become. For they are forced to make some sort of sense on their own, so to speak. They can no longer hide behind an IMHO. They make a stand, or a forced to do so. And in doing so they become debatable rather than withdrawable. And in the face of any accusations of “that is just your personal opinion” the come back is “well, of course, what else would they be”.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Carl Looper says:

    Deleuze pledges a certain kind of fidelity to various particular traditions, philosophies, thinkers, etc. which throws into question how many Deleuzians (or the oh-so-witty “Deleuzionals”) would actually occupy Rouselle’s set. But the way Rouselle puts it, suggests it would be quite full of such Deleuzians. Or worse – that the only occupants of this set would be Deleuzians. Or even worse: that all Deleuzians belong to this set.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s