File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 297


From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:52:49 EST
Subject: Re:  Re: Durkheim



In a message dated 12/15/98 4:12:46 PM, you wrote:

<<does it make sense to say that the
> > capitalist socius offers more freedom than the primitive one--more flows,
> > more machinic connections, more freedom?>>

I kinda got the notion that D&G were being "campy" when they used the
"primitive, barbarian, capitalist" rubric ... Frankly, I don't see any basis
for subsuming the experiences of noncivilized peoples around the world into
any general type of "primitive" .. i don't see an anthropological basis for
this ... what was the basis for their anthropology? certainly not Levi-
Strauss, I hope, the armchair anthropologist who seemed more interested in
generalizations than ethnographic empiricism ... i mean, when we use the word
"primitive", do we mean nonState societies : precivilized agricultural,
horticultural, pastoral, and hunting-gathering peoples? How the hell are you
going to subsume all these people into one framework? And then the Barbarians
refer to peasant societies, ie. civilized agriculturalists, along with their
interactions with the Imperial Center and the nomadic pastoralists? (and let
us not forget there is a huge difference between the nomadism of the
pastoralists and the nomadism of hunter-gatherers).

i would say it depends upon the particular society in question. i would say
that some noncivilized cultures definitely did offer more flows than
capitalism ... but again, we're going to have to be more precise to really do
accurate schizoanalyses on these questions ...

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005