You are on page 1of 7

NicolaeMorar,ThomasNail,andDanielW.

Smith2014
ISSN:18325203
FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410,April2014

INTRODUCTION

FoucaultStudiesSpecialIssue:FoucaultandDeleuze,April2014
NicolaeMorar,PennStateUniversity,ThomasNail,UniversityofDenver,
andDanielW.Smith,PurdueUniversity

Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault are widely accepted to be central figures of postwar
French philosophy. Philosophers, cultural theorists, and others have devoted considerable
efforttothecriticalexaminationoftheworkofeachofthesethinkers,butdespitethestrong
biographicalandphilosophicalconnectionbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze,verylittlehasbeen
donetoexploretherelationshipbetweenthem.ThisspecialissueofFoucaultStudiesisthefirst
collectionofessaystoaddressthiscriticaldeficitwitharigorouscomparativediscussionofthe
workofthesetwophilosophers.

DeleuzesCourseLecturesonFoucault
In particular, this special issue is motivated by the recent (2011) online publication of Gilles
Deleuzes course lectures on Michel Foucault (198586) at the Bibliothque Nationale de France
(French National Library) in Paris. The BNF collected the available recordings of Deleuzes
seminarlecturesattheUniversityofParis8andconvertedthemintodigitalfiles.Needlessto
say,thetaskwasapainstakingone,butthemp3fileshavenowbeenmadeaccessibleonline
throughtheGallicasearchengineatthelibrary.1
WhenFoucaultdiedin1984,Deleuzewassoaffectedbythedeathofhisfriend,thathe
beganlecturingandwritingabookaboutFoucaultsphilosophicalcorpusimmediately.When
askedwhyhewantedtowritesuchabook,Deleuzewasquiteclear,itmarksaninnerneed
ofmine,myadmirationforhim,howIwasmovedbyhisdeath,andhisunfinishedwork.2
Deleuzes desire for some kind of reconciliation with Foucault seems to have been a mutual
one. According to Didier Eribon, one of Foucaults most heartfelt wishes, knowing that he
would not live long, was to reconcile with Deleuze.3 After speaking at Foucaults funeral,
DeleuzesbookprojectonFoucaultbeganasalectureseriesgivenattheUniversityofParis8,
between1985and1986.ButtheselectureswerenotmerelyascholarlycommentaryonFou
caultswork.Theywere,inthewordsofFrdricGros,[a]means[of]discoveringthefound
gallica.bnf.fr
Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, 19721990, translated by Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia University
Press,1995),94.
3 Franois Dosse, Gilles Deleuze & Flix Guattari: Intersecting Lives, translated by Deborah Glassman (New
York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2010),328.

1
2

FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410.

ing principles, [and] laying bare the inherent metaphysics of [Foucaults] thought.4 It is
amazing to see, Gros admits in an interview with Franois Dosse, how Deleuze, who
couldnthavehadanyknowledgeoftheCollgedeFrancelectures,wassoaccurateinhisinter
pretation.5

From 1985to 1986,Deleuze gavea weekly seminar at the University of Paris 8 every
Tuesday on Foucault. The seminars were scheduled for two hours but often lasted three or
evenfourhours,andfunctionedasakindoflaboratoryinwhichDeleuzewouldexperiment
with the ideas and concepts he was in the process of developing. Some of these eventually
madetheirwayintohisbookonFoucaultbuttherearemanyanalysesthatfindnoparallelin
his published book, Foucault. For this reason, some of the most innovative philosophical
scholarshiponFoucaultcanbefoundintheselectures.
For example, while Deleuzes published book on Foucault is approximately 40,000
words(140pages)long,histranscribedlecturesonFoucaultareover400,000wordslong(1600
pages).OnApril8,1986,Deleuzegaveathreehourseminarthatdevelopedanoriginalcon
ceptionofFoucaultsconceptofbiopowerthroughawiderangingreinterpretationoftheFou
cauldian corpus. The seminar is a tour de force, and clarifies the enigmatic relationship of
Deleuzes concept of control societies with Foucaults concept of biopower, that scholars
havestruggledwithforyears.However,inhispublishedbookonFoucaultthatwastheresult
oftheseseminars,theanalysisofthisentireseminarwascompressedintoscarcelymorethana
single page that never even mentions the word biopower.6 It would be difficult, even for
philosophically informed readers, to discern the breadth of the original analysis from the
summary presented in the book. Indeed, Deleuzes published book on Foucault is simply a
prcisofthemoredetailedmaterialpresentedintheseminars.
WebelievethattheselecturesofferanincrediblecontributiontobothDeleuzeandFou
caultstudiesandanopportunitytoformallyreflect(inthisspecialissue)ontherelationship
betweentwoofthegreatestthinkersofthe20thcentury.Inadditiontothisspecialissuewe
applied for and received two grants in 2011 to form a team to undertake a transcription of
DeleuzesseminaronFoucault.ThetranscriptionswerecompletedbyAnnabelleDufourcqin
2013andarenowavailableontheParis8websiteaswellasourparallelsiteatPurdue7.In
conjunction with the transcription project, we organized an international conference entitled
BetweenDeleuzeandFoucaultinNovember2012.8

WearenowcurrentlyworkingonanEnglishtranslationofthesetranscriptions.Itisourhope
that Deleuzes lectures and this special issue will prompt a critical revaluation of the philo
sophicalconnectionbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze.

FrdricGros,LeFoucaultdeDeleuze:unefictionmtaphysiquePhilosophie47,September(1995),54.
FrdricGros,InterviewwithFranoisDosse,inDosse,GillesDeleuze&FlixGuattari,327.
6GillesDeleuze,Foucault,translatedbySenHand(Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1988),8485.
7www.cla.purdue.edu/research/deleuze/
8Videorecordingsofthelecturesareavailableat:
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/research/deleuze/Conference/Conference%20Schedule.html.
4

Morar,Nail,Smith:Introduction

BetweenFoucaultandDeleuze
TherelationshipbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze,however,isasstrongasitisdisparate:itis
perhapsbestdescribedasaparallelism.AsDeleuzesays,IneverworkedwithFoucault.But
Idothinktherearealotofparallelsbetweenourwork(withGuattari)andhis,althoughthey
are,asitwere,heldatadistancebecauseofourwidelydifferingmethodsandevenourobjec
tives.9 While the two were drawn together through their novel readings of Nietzsche, their
commitment to a nonteleological theory of history, their activism in contemporary politics
(withprisons,68,Palestine,etc.),theirreturntothestoics,andatheoryoftheevent,Deleuze
andFoucaultwereoftendecisivelydividedintheirmethodsandmotivations.

Forexample,whatisthedifferencebetweenDeleuzesconceptofdesireandFoucaultscon
ceptofpleasure?Whywerethetwoauthorssoopposedtotheotherschoiceinterminology?
Is the difference semantic or is there a really an important philosophical difference between
them, as some commentators have argued10? If both the concepts of desire and pleasure are
meant to be radical departures from the psychoanalytic notion of desire as lack, why does
Deleuze choose to stick with the psychoanalytic word desire and Foucault with the more
amorphoustermpleasure?ThisdivergenceisclearlymanifestinaletterDeleuzewroteto
Foucault.Icannotgiveanypositivevaluetopleasure,becausepleasureseemstometointer
rupttheimmanentprocessofdesire.[]Frommypointofview,thisispreciselyhowdesire
isbroughtunderthelawoflackandinlinewiththenormofpleasure.11Thisdivideisalso
noticeable from Foucaults side. In an interview recently translated by Nicolae Morar and
DanielW.Smith,Foucaultemphasizesthisveryproblem.

I believe the problem of pleasuredesire is currently an important problem. I would


evensaythatitistheproblemthathastobedebatedinthisreevaluationthisrejuvenation,
in any caseof the instruments, objectives, and axes of the struggle. . . . Deleuze and
Guattariobviouslyusethenotioninacompletelydifferentway.ButtheproblemIhaveis
thatImnotsureif,throughthisveryword,despiteitsdifferentmeaning,wedontrunthe
risk, despite Deleuze and Guattaris intention, of allowing some of the medico
psychologicalpresuppositions[prises]thatwerebuiltintodesire,initstraditionalsense,to
bereintroduced.Andsoitseemstomethat,byusingthewordpleasure,whichintheend
meansnothing,whichisstill,itseemstome,ratheremptyofcontentandunsulliedbypos
sibleusesdontwehavehere...ameansofavoidingtheentirepsychologicalandmedi
calarmaturethatwasbuiltintothetraditionalnotionofdesire?12

GillesDeleuze,Fendreleschoses,fendrelesmots[1986],inPourparlers(Paris:Minuit,1990),117.
Forexample,WendyGrace,FauxAmis:FoucaultandDeleuzeonSexualityandDesire,CriticalInquiry,
Vol.36,No.1(Autumn2009),5275.
11GillesDeleuze,DesireandPleasure,inTwoRegimesofMadness:textsandinterviews19751995,Editedby
DavidLapoujadeandtranslatedbyAmesHodgesandMikeTaormina(Semoiotexte:LosAngels,2006),131.
12MichelFoucault,TheGayScience,TranslatedbyDanSmithandNicolaeMorar,CriticalInquiry,Vol.37,
No.3(Spring2011),385403.Inhisletter,DeleuzementionsanearlierencounterwithFoucaultwhenMichel
toldhim,Icannotbeartheworddesire;evenifyouuseitinanotherway,inDeleuze,DesireandPleas
ure.
9

10

FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410.

Deleuze similarly expressed concernoverthe conceptsof truthand subjectivity. As Jacques


Donzelotrecalled, Deleuzeoftenspoketomeaboutthat,saying:Jacques,whatdoyouthink,
Michel is completely nuts, whats this old idea about truth? He s taking us back to that old
idea,veridiction!Oh,itcanbe! Deleuze,inalettertoFoucault,continues,Thedangeris:is
Michel returning to an analog of the constituting subject and why does he feel the need to
resuscitatethetruthevenifhedoesmakeitintoanewconcept?13

Consider too Foucault and Deleuzes divergent concepts of apparatus (dispositif) and assem
blage(agencement).Bothconceptsseemtobeaimingtoreplacestructuralistconceptsoforgan
izationwiththeassemblyofheterogeneouselements,butwhyhavetheychosensuchdifferent
terms/methodstodoso?Again,aretheserealphilosophicaldifferencesthataremutuallyex
clusive?Aretheystrategicchoicesrelevantinacertainaxisofstruggleoraretheymerelyter
minological differences disguising philosophical homologies? While there has been much
writtenonbothconcepts,veryfewscholarshavetakenthetimetoclarifythedifferencesand
similaritiesbetweenthesetwoconceptsindepthandinrelationtotheiroriginalFrenchmean
ings.

Even,andperhapsespecially,intermsofpolitics,FoucaultandDeleuzeseemsosimilarand
yetsodifferent.Foucaultsconceptofbiopower(thestatisticalpoliticalcontroloverlifeitself)
andDeleuzesconceptofsocietiesofcontrol(postdisciplinaryformsofmodulatedandflexi
blecontrol)seemtobothbeofferingnewconceptsofpostinstitutional/disciplinarypolitical
power.However,FoucaultandDeleuzechooseverydifferentmethodsofanalysis(genealogy
vs.schizoanalysis)andhavedifferentmotivesfordoingso(tounderstandtheemergenceof
liberalismvs.tounderstandtheschizophrenicbreakdownofcontemporarycapitalism).How
havetheseapproachesshapedthealternativesthatFoucaultandDeleuzethenpropose(ethi
cal selftransformation vs. revolutionary nomadism)? Why does Foucault, in his later work,
thenturntoarevitalizationoftheconceptofthesubject,atermDeleuzerarelyuses,exceptin
his book on Foucault? If Foucault was initially in La Volont de Savoir against the use of the
worddesirebecauseofitshistoricaloverdetermination,whydoeshereturntotheterminolo
gyofthesubjectandself,andincludingofdesire14?

Theconvergencesanddifferencesonthesetopics(andothers)betweenFoucaultandDeleuze,
are further complicated by a third body of literature: the one they wrote about each others
work. Foucault wrote Theatrum Philosophicum (1970) as a review of Deleuzes Difference and
Repetition(1968)andLogicofSense(1969)wherehemadetheoftcitedclaimthatperhaps,one

Dosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,318.
AsFoucaultnotesintheIntroductiontothesecondvolumeofTheHistoryofSexuality:TheUseofPleasure
(translatedbyRobertHurley,NY:Vintage,1990),hisintentionwastostudythegamesoftruthintherela
tionshipofselfwithselfandtheformingofoneselfasasubject,takingasmydomainofreferenceandfield
ofinvestigationwhatmightbecalledthehistoryofdesiringman(p.6;italicsadded).
13

14

Morar,Nail,Smith:Introduction

day,thiscentury[thetwentieth]willbecalledtheDeleuziancentury.15Thetwoalsorecord
edaconversationentitledIntellectualsandPower(1972),laterpublishingitinaspecialedi
tionofthejournal,LArcdedicatedtoDeleuzesworks16.AfterFoucaultsdeath,Deleuzepub
lished his book, Foucault (1986) soon after, of course. Deleuze also wrote several articles on
Foucault,BreakingThingsOpen,BreakingWordsOpen,LifeasaWorkofArt,APortrait
ofFoucault,aswellasaprivatelettertoFoucault,deliveredbyFranoisEwaldin1977,titled,
DesireandPleasure(1994).Thesewritingsclarifysomeissueswhilemultiplyinganddeep
eningothers.Aboveall,theyexpressadeepadmirationandcomplexphilosophicalfriendship
whoseimplicationshaveyettobefullyexplored.

APhilosophicalFriendship
Inadditiontotheirphilosophicalsimilaritiesanddifferences,itisalsoimportanttoreflecton
thenatureofthefriendshipbetweenFoucaultandDeleuze.Together,DeleuzeandFoucault
launched a French revival of Nietzsche against phenomenology. In 1977, they helped co
edited Nietzsches complete works for Gallimard;17 they attended a major Nietzsche confer
encestogether(1964);18andtheywerebothclosefriendsofPierreKlossowski,whodedicated
hisbookNietzscheandtheViciousCircle(1969)19toDeleuzeandTheBaphomet(1965)20toFou
cault.
Both Deleuze and Foucault were political activists together in the Prison Information
Group (GIP). As Judith Revel interestingly suggests in an interview with Franois Dosse:
Foucaulttookexperienceandpractices[fromtheGIP]ashispointofdepartureandconcep
tualized from there. Deleuze and Guattari invented war machines then tried them out.21
WhereasFoucaultwroteDisciplineandPunishonlyaftertheGIP,DeleuzeandGuattaribecame
interested in the decentralized nonrepresentational structure of the GIP only after writing
aboutthesethemesinAntiOedipus.IneachcasetheGIPgavebirthtoawholenewrelation
betweenintellectualsandpowerforbothDeleuzeandFoucault.Atheorizingintellectual,for
us,theysayisnolongerasubject,arepresentingorrepresentativeconsciousness.22Their
involvementintheGIP,accordingtheDeleuzesseminaronFoucault,wasnotatallanaca
demiccritiqueofrepresentation,butasaspecificallypracticalcritiqueofrepresentation,23
Foucaultmadethisremarkinhis1970essayonDeleuze,TheatrumPhilosophicum,whichisincludedin
TheEssentialWorksofFoucault,Vol.2,Aesthetics,Method,andEpistemology,EditedbyJamesD.Faubion;Trans
latedbyRoburtHurleyandothers(London:PenguinPress,1998),343,translationmodified.
16MichelFoucaultandGillesDeleuze,Entretien:lesintellectuelsetlepouvoir,LArc,Volume49,(1980),3
11.
17FriedrichNietzsche,uvresphilosophiquescompltes,editedbyGillesDeleuze,MichelFoucault,etal,(Paris:
Gallimard,1977).
18Dosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,307.
19PierreKlossowski,NietzscheandtheViciousCircle,translatedbyDanielW.Smith(Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,1997).
20PierreKlossowski,TheBaphomet,translatedbySophieHawkesandStephenSartarelli(Hygiene:Eridanos
Press,1988).
21JudithRevel,InterviewwithFranoisDosse,inDosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,313.
22Dosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,312.
23GillesDeleuze,ParisVIIIFoucaultSeminar,BNFaudioarchives,Jan7,1986.
15

FoucaultStudies,No.17,pp.410.

that supported a non centralized movement that we both saw as an extension of the
eventsofMay1968.24
But the friendship between Deleuze and Foucault is also marked by a long silence.
Why?AplausiblehypothesisgoesbacktothetimewhenFoucaultandDeleuzebothdemon
stratedagainstthedeportationoftheBaaderMeinhofgroupsattorneyKlausCroissantfrom
France,butFoucaultrefusedtosignthepetitionbecausehewantedtomorecarefullydefine
his support for Croissant?25 Perhaps it was because Deleuze hated the nouveaux philosophes,
whereas Foucault supported them? Perhaps it was because Deleuze supported Mitterrands
Socialistpresidency,butFoucaultthoughtitwasbesttocriticizethem,justasonewouldcriti
cize any other party in power? Or perhaps it was because Foucault didnt not like Anti
Oedipus,asJacquesDonzelotclaims.26Orperhaps,itwastheinfamousletterDeleuzewrote
to Foucault criticizing his concept of pleasure in the History of Sexuality? Or perhaps, as
Deleuzesays,ina1990interviewwithJamesMiller,whenaskeddirectlyabouthisandFou
caultsmutualsilence:

(1)Theresobviouslynosingleanswer.Oneofuscouldhaveansweredonewayoneday
andanotherwaythenext.Notbecausewearefickle.Butbecausetherearemanyreasons
inthisareaandnosinglereasonisessential.Andbecausenoneofthemisessential,there
arealwaysseveralanswersatonce.TheonlyimportantthingisthatIhadlongagreedwith
himphilosophicallyandonspecificoccasions,Inolongermadethesameevaluationsashe
didonseveralpointsatonce.(2)Thisdidntleadtoanycoolingofrelationsbetweenus,
ortoanyexplanations.Wesaweachotherlessoften,asifbytheforceofcircumstances.
Andfromthereon,itbecamemoreandmoredifficulttomeetupagain.Itisstrange,we
didnt stop seeing each other because we didnt get along, but because we werent seeing
eachotheranymore,akindofincomprehensionordistancebetweenustookhold.(3)Ican
tellyouthatIconstantlymissseeinghim,increasinglyso.Sowhatstoppedmefromcalling
him? Thats where a deeper reason comes into it. Rightly or wrongly, I believed that he
wantedgreatersolitude,forhislife,forhisthinking;thatheneededthissolitude,keepingin
touchonlywiththepeoplewhowereclosetohim.InowthinkthatIshouldhavetriedto
see him again, but I think I didnt try out of respect. I am still suffering from not having
seenhimagain,evenmoresobecauseIdontthinktherewereanyexternalreasons.27

Conclusion
With the growing interest in Foucaults recently translated course lectures at the Collge de
France(19731984),andourrecenttranscriptionofDeleuzescourselecturesonFoucault,re
leasedbytheBibliothqueNationaledeFrance(2011),theeditorsofthethisspecialissuebelieve
that the time is right to address the relationship between these two great thinkers directly.
This collection of essays thus brings together both senior and junior scholars from diverse
Ibid.
ThishypothesisisfurtherdevelopedbyPaulPattoninActivism,Philosophy,andActualityinDeleuze
andFoucault,DeleuzeStudies,vol.4,2010,supplement,84103,especially85.
26JacquesDonzelot,InterviewwithFranoisDosse,inDosse,GillesDeleuzeandFlixGuattari,315.
27 Gilles Deleuze, Letter to James Miller (February 7, 1990), in James Miller, Michel Foucault (Paris: Plon,
1993),346.
24

25

Morar,Nail,Smith:Introduction

backgrounds to clarify the implications of this important philosophical encounter between


FoucaultandDeleuze.
MarcoAltamiranosessayfocusesonthesharedconceptsofmilieuandmachine,
inDeleuzeandFoucault.VernonW.CisneysessaydefendsaDeleuzianpoliticsbydrawing
on an important political conceptshared with Foucault: becoming other.William E. Con
nollysessayoffersanexplorationofcreativityandtheambiguousroleitplaysintheunder
standing of freedom that we find in Nietzsche, Deleuze, and Foucault. Erin Gilsons essay
offers an original account of the shared methodology of problematization found in both
DeleuzeandFoucault.WendyGracesessaytracesDeleuzeandFoucaultssharedNietzsche
an philosophical origins. Chris Penfields essay articulates a theory of transversal politics
commontobothDeleuzeandFoucault.Finally,DiannaTaylorsessaycomparestherespec
tiveontologiesofDeleuzeandFoucault.WewouldalsoliketothankAlanRosenbergforhis
invitation to publish this special issue and Ditte Vilstrup Holm for all her helpful editorial
work.Wegreatlyappreciatealltheirsupportinputtingtogetherthepresentcollection.

NicolaeMorar
TheRockEthicsInstitute
PennStateUniversity
206SparksBuilding
UniversityPark,Pennsylvania,16802
USA
ncm13@psu.edu

ThomasNail
DepartmentofPhilosophy
UniversityofDenver
2000EAsburyAve.,Suite257
DenverCO802080923
USA
thomas.nail@du.edu

DanielW.Smith
DepartmentofPhilosophy
PurdueUniversity
100N.UniversityStreet
WestLafayette,Indiana479072098
USA
smith132@purdue.edu

10

You might also like