Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:23:56 -0700
From: Dan Smith <dls216-AT-psu.edu>
Subject: RE: Debt and Control


Thanks, Matt.  My thanks also to Mark Crosby, who was kind enough 
to offer some feedback.    -    DS


At 04:51 PM 10/15/01 +0100, you wrote:
>another line of thought with regard to debt is perhaps around the thought of
>artaud as well as nietzsche.  The essay I think might be a lot of use here
>is 'to have done with the judgement of god' in Essays Critical and Clinical.
>Here Deleuze distinguishes between the system of cruelty (artaud being key
>obviously to this) and the doctrine of judgement, where debt is key but in a
>particular way, debt as inscribed in the account books, the controlled debt.
>
>"In the doctrine of judgement ... our debts are inscribed in an autonomous
>book without our even realising it, so that we are no longer able to pay off
>an account that has become infinite."(ECC, 128)
>
>Interestingly the essay weaves in the nietzschean notion of the promise (the
>noble right), the oath (see footnote 7) for example being outside the realm
>of judgement and these original promises being debts inscribed 'directly on
>the body'.
>
>control seems to here be a distortion (bad word but it'll do for now) of an
>originary process of exchange (in which debt is primary - nietzsche), such
>that criteria can be established (in order to make judgements universal).
>the idea is something like the imposition of a realm of 'arbitration',
>whereby the directly involved bodies hand over (or have taken from them)
>their direct involvement in exchange and instead take part in an always
>mediated relation.  this suggests another thought with regard to control
>along the lines of mediated/immediate distinctions - the anarchist ideal of
>'direct control' of our lives depends, perhaps, on the removal of the state
>because it depends on a direct control, an immediate relation with the other
>in the community rather than a mediated relation (ie: distinctions between
>direct and representative democracy for example).
>
>to be in debt implies to be under control - the control lies in the hands of
>the creditor.  this is the model I associate with the doctrine of judgement
>and so within the system of cruelty the debt and the control are not the
>items of exchange (i do not gain the debt in exchange for control) but
>rather control is, if you like. 'out of the picture'.  no-one has 'control'
>over the sytem of cruelty it seems.  the system simply moves with its own
>forces moving it.
>
>of course, that would imply we had to somehow relinquish 'control'
>ourselves, not in order to be 'out of control' but in order to make the
>whole concept redundant.
>
>anyway, thoughts at random,
>
>matt
>
>???????????????????????????????????
>we are the dreamers of dreams......
>http://www.indifference.demon.co.uk
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>> [mailto:owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of
>> Dan Smith
>> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 1:07 AM
>> To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>> Subject: Debt and Control
>>
>>
>> In _Negotiations_ Deleuze states--regarding the movement from
>> discipline to control--that "man is no longer a man confined but
>> a man in debt" (181).  I am *very* interested in reading anything
>> else by Deleuze that elaborates further this connection between
>> debt and control.  Any citations??  If not something by Deleuze,
>> then perhaps something by someone who takes up this issue/problem from
>> a Deleuzean perspective?  I have come across one essay like this; I'm
>> hoping there are more.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dan (i'm hoping this list is still useful for something other than filling
>> my trash bin) Smith
>>
>