Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:11:53 +0000
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: Relativity


Paul Bryant wrote:
> 
> It has been claimed on a number of occasions that Deleuze's
> perspectivism is not a relativism.  I agree with this assessment, but
> am interested to hear why others might think this is the case.  In
> order to answer this question it seems necessary to determine the
> presuppositions of relativism that Deleuze does not share, and clarify
> what is meant by perspectivism in Deleuze. 

Paul,

interesting question....  if you'll humour my ignorance of delueze
"solo" and I can assume here that your comments apply to deleuze &
guattari as well (and if you'll tell me sometime where the term
"perspectivism" is coming from, as I've not encountered it) then I'll
offer a few muddled thoughts...

first off, i think the obvious point is that d&g cover a lot of the same
ground that relativism does/did/has, challenging dominant significations
and cultural narratives, undercutting power's claim to be grounded in a
moral or natural world-order;  but equally, the difference is that d&g
refuse the main relativistic conclusion, which is that we cannot
ultimately order or select from different viewpoints in relation to any
set criteria of truth, or of selection! I think this would be just the
same as their dismiisive attitude towards "postmodernism" = it is the
"impasse" of a particular narrative, its bankruptcy - not something we
therefore necessarily have to concern ourselves with... the kind of
relativism I assume you mean is closely linked to that "postmodern
impasse", right? 

to put it a different way - I take relativism to be a conclusion drawn
from the observation that different cultures/societies/ultimately,
different "people" - have different experiences/interpretations of
experience;  more critically, perhaps, I would liken it to the moment
when the cultural bubble that protects a society bursts - the moment
when a culture realises its own specificity... and realises that the
framework of the world, the whole rationale which gives living a logic,
is part of a culture and not of the universe itself - that it is equally
possible to do things completely differently without terrible
consequences.

but, important though this realisation is/was (I say 'was' as I would
place this as a specific historical moment in western culture) it on the
one hand doesn't go far enough, and on the other goes too far!  it
doesn't go far enough because it remains tied to the premise of "one
true account" - but, seeing there are many accounts, positions itself as
a relation to the lack of this "one true account" - "there is no one
true account 'therefore' we cannot be sure of anything" ... it remains
tied to UNITY, the ONE, and bemoans its absence....  

on the other hand, it goes to far, because while "everything" may be
relative in human cultures (although, actually that is a dubious claim
too!), if we drop below the cultural level, "we" are clearly all human
animals who share, basically, everything in common ( i realise this is a
great affront to everyones collective dignity), and our common
biological systems, as well as ethnological and behavioural traits
certainly do not support the conclusion tha everything is relative. 
Different understandings of similar phenomena do not actually make that
phenomena in itself questionable... ( Nor, when it comes down to it,
does cultural data support relativism- there is no human culture that
has beliefs so divergent that they disable it from responding
effectively to its enviroment with much less than total efficiency....
on a contigent timescale, at least.)

something along these lines, i think, is flowing through d&g... their
broader notion of what we need to consider - as in your example of the
way the cannot make the individual the basis for anything - means they
see that cultural relativism is a fairly slender base to assert any
universal relativism.  On the contrary, they employ the concept of
stratification to show that "homeostatic"-type control systems produce
repetition (equilbrium) on all different levels of organisation... that
habit produces constants...   

I am well aware of the use of "concepts" as tools, and the ambiguity
involved in treating d&g as systematic thinkers... but I actually see
d&g as offering, in the end, an all or nothing propositon... these
concepts are not truly debatable, but to be used, as machines: and
machines determine their own use by the way they are made, which is
identical with how they function... which is not to say I accept their
proposition, necessarily... but I think on this list there is a tendency
- related I think to an engagement with derrida &, baudriallard, and
centered (or (un)centered!) on the concept of rhizome - to see d&g as
"postmodern" and therefore to assume that they "couldn't possibly" be
offering a systematic philosophy, or a totalised narrative...  possibly
I'm asking for trouble, but I think it's pretty obvious that they are
offering a systematic (but rhizomatic) philosophy... ( because they have
a different idea of what a system is... because they understand that
there are OPEN systems, rhizomes, multiplicities that can grow, and
which change as the grow...) and are therefore not at all
relativists....

sorry to write such a lengthy post... hope this is of interest...

cheers,

dan h.99


 One way of approaching
> this might consist in pointing to Deleuze's "deconstruction" of the
> Self.  Vulgar relativism seems to claim that all perspectives are
> relative to a self.  Since, in a Lacanian fashion, Deleuze claims that
> the self is an-other, his position is already outside of this sort of
> relativism.  As a consequence of this deconstruction of the Self,
> repetition and differences become intersubjective phenomena that can
> be reduced to neither self nor other...  That is, the series converge
> and diverge around singularities.  Since singularities and series can
> be identified and traced, it would then be possible to talk about
> structures belonging to certain perspectives.  Somehow this account
> doesn't seem very satisfying.
> 
> Looking foward to hearing your responses,
> 
> Paul
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 
hey! notice the new address for 
machine -AT- http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Field/1030/ 
aeon of horus -AT- http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/

Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.

We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.