InternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015www.seipub.

org/ijps
doi:10.14355/ijps.2015.03.001

ApproachingMinoritarianEthicsfrom
DeleuzesTheoryofAssemblage:
AProposedFramework
JaeEonYu*,
DepartmentofBusinessAdministration,KeimyungUniversity1095Dalgubeoldaero,Daegu,SouthKorea
*

9070yu@hanmail.net

Abstract
This paper aims to propose and evaluate Deleuzes perspective on social change in relation to understand humanities and
ethics(whatwerefertoasminoritarianethics)thatcharacterizeacriticaldiscourseonthenatureofmoderncivilizedsociety.
We develop a proposed framework for understanding control society in order to bring about changes in control society
usingDeleuzestheoryofassemblageandproposeDeleuzestheoryofassemblagetomaptheprocessofsocialtransformation
intermsofthemetaphorofrhizomeandDeleuzesnotionofeventsasanewtypeofopensystem.Weseesocialchangeand
organizationaltransformationthroughtheunfoldingprocessofproblematizationthatallowsresearcherstobecriticalthinkers
withincriticalsystemspractices.Tobecriticalthinkers,whatisimportantfortheprocessofproblematizationthataimstofind
outpossiblenewassemblagesthroughtheappreciationofminoritarianethics.Wearguethatourproposedframeworkisuseful
towardsunderstandingthecontinuityofthevitalismofnewsocialsystems,whichareevolvedfromwhatFoucaulttermsas
thecriticalontologyofourselves.
Keywords
SocialChange;MinoritarianEthics;DeleuzesTheoryofanAssemblage;Problematization

Introduction
Thepaperisbasedonapoststructural,theoreticallybasedaccountofavitalistholism.Weexploreavitalistholism
fromasystemssciencesperspectiveandpoststructuralistsworks,particularlyFoucaultandDeleuzesworks.On
the one hand, our systems research is valid where the critical systemic practice becomes an issue within
Foucaults critical project which is distinct from the transcendental search for formal structures of how social
systemsareevolvedduringtheprocessofspecifichistoricalevents,whichhecallspracticalsystems(Tsouvalis,
1995: 223). On the other hand, our research is based on Deleuzes thoughts about the nature of social change in
terms of his theory ofassemblage, which investigates theunfolding process of how socialsystems generate new
assemblagesthroughtheprocessofdifferentiation.Deleuzesunderstandingoftheprocessofdifferentiationisto
appreciatehowopen,nonlinearandrhizomaticnetworksormeshworksoperateandevolvewithinsocialsystems
(DeleuzeandGuattari,1987;DeLanda,2006;Colebrook,2010).AccordingtoDeleuze(1995),vitalismisathought
that seeks to invent possibilities of existence through the creation of novel concepts. Based upon Deleuzes
thought of vitalism, we explore the meaning of Deleuzes theory of assemblage and how we can raise critical
ethical questions that seek out new values or becoming for new life that allows us to free life from what
imprisons it (Deleuze, 1995: 143). This is our proposal as we investigate the recent phenomena of social and
organizational complexities from processbased methodology or assemblagebased explanation in the social
science(Latour,2005:DeLanda,2006).Weunderstandsocialcomplexityfrompoststructuralistsperspectiveand
recentworksinrealistsocialontology(DeleuzeandGuattari,1987;DeLanda,2006).Todoso,wefirstevaluateand
appreciateFoucaultsresearchmethodsofunderstandinghistoricalresearch.FollowingFoucaultsinterpretationof
thenatureofmodernsociety,wedevelopDeleuzestheoryofanassemblageasitoperateswithinsocialfieldsfrom
social ontological perspectives. Next, we discuss Deleuzian ethics (what we refer to as minoritarian ethics) in
order to make sense of the assemblage theory in social practice. Finally, we conclude with the usefulness of the
assemblage theory for understand social change in the mode of a vitalist holism in which a new thought for

www.seipub.org/ijpsInternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015

understanding social complexity is developed from the relations of people and material world, and discourse
withinsocialcontexts.
Appreciating Foucaults Research Methods of Understanding Historical Research
InordertomakeDeleuzestheoryofanassemblagemoreaccessibletoreaderswhoarenotfamiliarwithhiswork,
we introduce Foucaults works on research methods so the ideas of Gilles Deleuze can be facilitated in the
Foucauldian sense. Foucaults early research methods, what he called archeology and genealogy, are mainly
concernedwithhowpowerisexercisedinrelationtoknowledge.Foucaultthinksofhistoryasanongoingstruggle
betweendifferentforcesandformsofpower.Hishistoricalresearchisconcernedwithhowsubjects,actionsand
meaningsare shaped by discursiveand nondiscursive forces.Foucault(1977)understandshistorical forces with
hisinterestinpower/knowledgerelations.Itisinterestingtonotethat,forFoucault,discourseisnotthesameas
ideology.Thetermdiscoursereferstothewayinwhichcommunication,information,ideasandothersequences
ofsignsareexchangesandsignified(Schiratoetal.,2012:3334).Insteadofusingthetermideologywhichisoften
associatedwithwhatMarxistscallfalseconsciousness,Foucaultisinterestedindiscursiveformation,atermthat
is used instead of science, ideology or theory (Foucault, 1972: 3141), understood as a set of shared imperatives,
correspondences,rulesandrelationsthatgoverntheappearanceofstatements(noncs)(Schiratoetal.,2012:35).
Foucaults later research methods are concerned with what he called ethics or the problematizations of
subjectivity(Pasquino,1986:102).Foucaultsprojectofethicsaimtorebuildtheformsofselfreflectionofhuman
behavior,bycontrollingoneselfandhowselfcontrolisintegratedintothepracticesofcontrollingothers(Foucault,
1988a: 258). In this sense, Foucaults later research interest shifted from the relation of power and knowledge to
ethics.
AccordingtoSchirato,DanaherandWebb(2012:181),FoucaultsuggeststhatWesternsocietyiscivilizedthrough
the Enlightenment project. During the process of civilization, critique and ethics function as the politics of
humanity in the minority condition makes use of a critical sensibility to lift this minority condition (Foucault,
2007:48).Foucaultunderstandscritiqueasaformofethicalbehavior,andthetermethicsreferstothestandards
by which a community or particular group decides to control its behavior in order to make sense of what is
legitimate(Flew,1983:112).Foucaultarguesthattheprocessesofcivilizationcontinuallyplaythroughaconstant
flowbetweentheorderorpowerandresistance,whichisintegraltopowerrelations,andthedomainsoutsideof
powerdomination.Foucaultalsoarguesthatformsofknowledge,categories,anddiscoursearenotnatural,butare
part of the effects of power (Schirato et al., 2012: 49). For Foucault, throughout the processes of civilization, the
question is not what is the self or selfreflected individual agent? but how it that the self is (re)created and
emancipatedfrom the man of the human sciences that supported to advance the processof civilization? In this
sense, Foucault defines and explores a fresh domain of research into what he calls governmentality (Foucault,
1988b). According to Foucault (1977), from the sixteenth century on, there has been an increase in the
institutionalizationofdifferentaspectsofgovernmentinWesternsociety,andoftheproductivepowerassociated
withsustainingthereasonofstateandofthesecurityoftheemergingnationstateofEurope.Thisphenomenonis
what Foucault views as modern governmentality. A good example of modern governmentality is the role of
political economy that functions as a control mechanism for governing the population in Western societies.
Foucaults work on governmentality adds to our understanding that power is diffused from a closed space of
disciplinaryinstitutions(e.g.,prison,armyandschool)toamoreopenspaceofgeneralsociety.Thisnewtypeof
power becomes a significant factor in producing what Deleuze (1992a) calls control societies, which operate
through continuous control and instant communication. Within such control societies, one governs oneself and
becomes detached both from power as relation between forces, and from knowledge as a stratified form or the
code of virtue (Deleuze, 1988: 100). By telling the truth about their sexuality, individuals became the object of
knowledge both to themselves and to others. Foucault (1988b) terms the conjoined effects to these two
technologies or techniques of the self and governmentality. On the other hand, games of truth are the
discursive conditions that determine the self and others of the subjects relation to both the wider sociocultural
field(Schiratoetal.,2012:185).Foucault(1997;2007)identifiestheEnlightenmentprojectasthecivilizingprocess
wherebywhathecallscriticalattitudedevelopsfromthecreation,disseminationanddeploymentofhistorically
specific ideas, imperatives and (ethical) dispositions that come to contribute or constitute a particular grid of

InternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015www.seipub.org/ijps

intelligibility. In this way, Foucault sees that discourses (or ideologies) and ethics that characterize a specific
discursive regime constitute the subject who questions and makes a problem, and so, to question norms and
ethicsistobringchallengestothetruthandsustainabilityoftheself(Schiratoetal.,2012:187).Inshort,Foucaults
pursuit of ethics presupposes both action and knowledge, which require not only thought, but also an
examination,ofreflexivityandtestingoftheselfinrelationtothewidercontextofthesocioculturalcontexts.
Understanding Deleuzes Notion of Assemblage
Over the time that philosophy of social science has progressed, social research has made a great effort to think
aboutthenatureofsocialresearchinorganizationalandsocialcontexts.GillesDeleuzewaswhatFoucault(1970:
367)describedasalightningstormwasproducedwhichwillbearthenameofDeleuze,andwhatFoucaultsays,
perhapsonedaythiscenturywillbeknownasDeleuzian(Foucault,1970:343).Deleuzewasaphilosopherwho
posed the question of what is thinking or what is to think, questioning the conventional way of knowing and
thinking,theimageswhichconstitutesourthought(Boundas,1993:123).
Lookingatthenatureofsocietyfromanewimageofthought,Deleuzeproposedatheoryofanassemblagethat
can apply to a wide variety of wholes constructed from heterogeneous parts or entities (DeLanda, 2006). These
entities range from molecules to biological organisms, interpersonal networks, institutional organizations, cities,
and social justice movements, all of which are assemblages of several networked communities, and even
biological organisms are treated as assemblages (DeLanda, 2006: 511). Deleuze and Guattari (1987) have
developed a theory of an assemblage that is applied to social entities, but the very fact that it cuts across the
natureculturedivideisevidenceofitsrealistcredentials(DeLanda,2006:3).
Understanding the modern society as Deleuzes notion of an assemblage, we should notice that individuals are
controlled by the society in the way in which Foucault (1981: 94) discussed, power conceived as a strategy or
network of relations that exercised through institutions. Foucault stresses how power can be productive and
positive force that is constantly sustained and changed by social and discursive practices. In discursive practice,
knowledgeanddiscoursearematerialpracticesinwhichpowerrelationsproducerealityormaterialpractices,and
powercanbetransformedintoasourceofconditionthatinfluencesthecurrentstateofthediscursiveformationin
localandcontingentcontexts.Inthissense,powerismobileandcontingent,anditisnotapropertypossessedby
anindividualoragroup.Putdifferently,poweriscreatedandmaintainedwithanobjectiveformofknowledge
thatiscontingentonasetofmaterialpractices.Powercanbeconceptualizedasacommoditywhichcirculatesand
functionsintheformofanetworkorastrategy.Foucaultunderstandsthatpowerisalwaysbothproductiveand
disruptiveinthesensethatpowerrelationsproduceaseriesoftransformations,movementsandresponsesthatare
sometimes radical and dramatic. The French and Russian Revolutions are good examples of the productive and
disruptivefeaturesofpower(Schiratoetal.,2012:5063).
Interestingly,Deleuzestheoryofanassemblageisbasedontheimageofthoughtthataimedatcreatingalife
that takes place within a metaphysical surface or plane of immanence (Deleuze, 2005). In the terms of
Foucault,itislikethevirtualexistenceofthefieldsofstatements(noncs)(Foucault,1972:4455).Uponthefields
of statements, the life of the individual gives way to an impersonalandsingular life that transformsinto a pure
event as the virtual existence of an individual order which controls the space of discourse. Then, there is a
possibilityofthedualityofthingsandpropositions,ofbodiesandlanguagesthroughtheexistenceofaplaneof
immanence(Deleuze,1990:125).Duringtheprocessofmakingorbecominganassemblageinsocialfieldsthrough
nonlinearcausality,casualrelationsmustbecharacterizedasproductive;thatis,arelationinwhichoneevent(the
cause)makesorproducesanotherevent(theeffect)withinametaphysicalsurface(DeLanda,2006:20).Inshort,a
seriesofeventstakesplacetomakeanassemblagewithinsocialfields(Deleuze,1990).
Seeing the Process of Becoming Assemblage As An Open System
Insystemssciencesandsociology,anorganismicmodelofanopensystemachievedgreatprominenceinthelate
nineteenthcentury.Thebasicassumptionintheorganismicmetaphoriswhatwemaycallrelationofinteriority,
which means the component parts are constituted by the very relations they have to other parts in the whole

www.seipub.org/ijpsInternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015

(DeLanda,2006:9).Inthisapproachoftheorganismicmetaphor,anopensystemisdevelopedtowardthestateof
heterogeneity and complexity, and as with all other functioning systems, there are constant exchanges and
transformationsofenergyandinformationwithinthesystemofaction.Incontrast,thenewthinkinginthesocial
sciencebasedonthemetaphorofrhizomeisdeveloped(DeleuzeandGuattari,1987).AccordingtoYu(2013),new
considerationsinsocialprocesstheoryconceivesofthesystemasanopenendedprocess.Inthisnewapproachto
Deleuzestheoryofanassemblage,arhizomatickindofanopensystemispossibleinwhichhumanororganiclife
isinvitedtoopenitselfuptotheopensystemoftheoutside(DeleuzeandGuattari,1987:6;Pearson,1999:114).
Using the rhizomatic metaphor of an open system, it is the notion of multiplicity which informs Deleuze and
Guattaris conception of rhizome. This allows us to appreciate a new image of thought, as the assemblage is an
opensystem,fromwhichsomeelementsdeterritorialize,andintowhichsomeelementsreterritorializewithinthe
social field. When an element connects itself with an assemblage, it territorializes in that assemblage. When it
disconnects,itdeterritorializesthesocialfieldwhenitconnectsitselfwithanotherassemblage.Usingthenotion
of assemblages, Deleuze and Guattari (1987) focus their attention on strategies for initiating social change, and
hence on process of deterritorialization (and reterritorialization) that make possible the invention of something
newwhichisutopianprojectthatmaybedescribedascosmopolitics(Archibugi,2003).

Understand How Assemblages Operate within Social Fields

ForDeleuzeandGuattari(1987),theconceptsofmapandmappingareintegraltotheirthoughtthatishighlighted
bytherhizome,whichismobileandnonhierarchical,andanassemblageisarhizomaticthoughtwhichwould
make connections between different systems of knowledgeformation (Kaufman and Heller, 1998: 5). To
understandDeleuzetheoryofassemblage,itwouldbebettertoconsidertheBorgesiancartographerwhodrawsa
mapasitcontainsboththereallifescaleoftheactualandthepossibilityofthevirtual.Suchacartographerisnot
constitutedbyhumanagentsorindividualsubjects.Rather,itreferstoadepersonalizedcartographyofthebody
(orabodywithoutorgans)totheconceptofhaecceityasitmeansthediscoveryofasingularentitywhichcanbe
brought into existence during the process of becoming or differentiation in relation to the movement and rest
between molecular particles, and capacities to affect and be affected (Kaufman and Heller, 1998: 3; Deleuze and
Guattari,1987:260261).Throughbecominghaecceity,Deleuze(1990)wasabletoextendhismetaphysicssothatit
enters into relations with nature, history of creative evolution, with the pure form of inorganic life where an
eventtakesplace,andtheintensitieswhichcometopassuponit(Pearson,1999).ForDeleuzeandGuattari(1983),
everything is a machine and everywhere there is production in which the machine, a fragmented aggregate
whose part do not constitute a unified whole, operates in the world. A machine is like the living being so that
desiringmachine operates with desire that is constantly coupled with continuous flowsand partial objects that
are, by nature, fragmentary and fragmented (Deleuze and Guattari, 1983: 56). The concept of machine or

InternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015www.seipub.org/ijps

machinicassemblageisawayofapproachingrealityfromanewperspectiveontheworld(Marks,1998:9899).A
machine or machinic assemblage is controlled by the enunciative assemblage that connects a language to the
semanticandpragmaticcontentsofasetofstatementsthatdevelopsfromthesocialinteractionsbetweenmachine
and the abstract machine which refers to the diagrams (Deleuze, 1988: 34). According to Yu and Lee (2008),
eventsgeneratefromthedynamicprocessofaninteractionbetweenthemachinicandenunciativeassemblagesas
eventsareeffectsthatcorrespondtothestatesofaffairsandactionsaredeterminedbythemachinicassemblage
(Figure1).
Assemblagesarenotlinkedtosomeintrinsicrelationtoonesownperception,buttotheprocessesofthediscovery
of the actual mechanisms operating at a given spatial scale; defining or appreciating the diagram or abstract
machineofanassemblagemustbevirtualandmechanismindependent,capableofbeingrealizedinavarietyof
actual mechanisms within the territories (DeLanda,2006:31). Territories heremay beunderstood as surfaces (or
social fields) of the combinations of machinic and enunciative assemblages turn into particular assemblages that
bearuponthemsingularitiesorevents.Inamoregeneralcontext,amachinicorcorporealassemblagereferstothe
real entities of a social meshwork (e.g. the group of people, buildings, machinery, and other material resources)
(DeLanda, 2006). However, the enunciative assemblage refers to the statements (noncs), which constitute an
(in)visibledimensionofasetofstatements(e.g.thelanguagesofpeople,therulesofacorporation,thelawsystem
of a nation and so on) within the social fields. In Foucauldian terms, the corporeal part of an assemblage is the
nondiscursivepracticeswhiletheenunciativepartofanassemblageisthediscursivepractices(Foucault,1972).
As Foucault (1972) indicated the complicated relations between the nondiscursive and discursive practices,
Deleuze and Guattari (1987: 142) showed how the diagram or abstract machine of assemblages is formed and
transformedinordertoconstructanewtypeofreality.Dealingwiththisrealitythatcomesfromthesocialentities
thatareproductsofhistoricalprocesses,thus,weneedapparentlytohaveanewsortofmetaphysicalconceptof
theassemblage(DeLanda,2006).Methodologically,theassemblageexistsasatranshumanconceptcomingfrom
viroidlife,inwhichwecreateinavirtualworld.Weshouldincludenaturalandtransculturalcontexts.Onthe
other hand, the assemblage is real and independently exists from the human consciousness (DeLanda,2006: 3).
The assemblage has life which consists of formless and dynamic flux, natural, and event streams. In a theory of
assemblage,thereisanunthought,priortothought,natureorchaospriortoconsciousness,whichalonganomadic
andrhizomaticpathofbecomingsandencounters,addsnewandstrangerelationsasitproceeds.Theaccountof
studying the nature of assemblage shows that assemblage reproduces and changes its patterns and the flux of
naturaldriftthroughspaceandtime.Inthepresenceoftheassemblage,theactivematterscommunicatewith
one another in which nonhuman time exists within the mechanism of evolution that produces chaotic or
unpredictablebehaviours.
The mechanic locomotion of assemblages seems to have the mechanism of life which contains the duality of the
actualityandvirtualitythatenabletoproduceaneventsoraseriesofeventswithinthewholesocialfield.Onthe
one hand, analysis in the machinic assemblage is concerned with the discovery of the actual mechanism of the
machinicassemblageinreality,operatingagivenspatialscale.Ontheotherhand,thediagramofanassemblageis
virtualandmechanismindependent,capableofbeingrealizedinavarietyofactualmechanisms.(DeLanda,2006:
31).
Havingunderstoodtheassemblagesthatoperatewithinsocialfields,itisinterestingtoacknowledgethatDeleuze
says that becomingimperceptible or becomingother proceeds via assemblages, an assemblage being a co
functioning, it is sympathy, symbiosis (Deleuze and Parnet, 1977: 52). In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and
Guattari address the collective and social dimensions of ethical and political natures are given priority over the
personal. In distinguishing molecular and the molar, the micropolitical and macropolitical, Deleuze and
Guattari are speaking about qualitatively different processes that take place at all levels of social interaction. A
molecular politics, what Deleuze and Guattaris thought about the political dimension of becoming
imperceptible,whichClark(2008)namesapoliticsofsympathy,isutopian(Patton,2010),inwhichessential
componentsofthisutopianismarethenormativeprinciplesofjustice,equalityandfreedom.

www.seipub.org/ijpsInternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015

Making Sense of the Assemblage Theory: Proposing the Minoritarian Ethics

HowcanweapplyDeleuzestheoryofanassemblageandamolecularpoliticsintorealworld?Whatisrequiredis
a new kind of ethics or Deleuzian ethics that are informed by minoritarian ethics and firmly rooted in social
reality.YuandLee(2008)proposedthattheminoritarianethicsareanewkindofethicsforminorities,refering
tothesociallydisadvantagedormarginalisedgroupinsociety(seefurtherdetailsoftheminoritarianethicsinYu
andLee,2008:254).DeleuzesnotionofbecomingimperceptibleandFoucault(1984a)snotionofproblematization
applytominoritarianethicsinaprocessofthetransformationofproblemsinsocialfields.Foucaultattemptsto
interpretthecontemporarysocietyasadisciplinarysocietywherepowerisexertedthroughnetworksofcontrol.
For instance, the modern (capitalist) society follow the disciplinary control and panoptic rules in which the
panopticonautomatizesandfunctionsasthemechanismofpowerandcontrolofbodies,groupsandknowledge
through spatial ordering under the regime of the capitalist discipline. Following Foucaults definition of
disciplinary regimes that it is historical; and after disciplinary societies, Deleuze (1992a: 230231) describes the
societywearelivingintodayasthecontrolsocietiesthatenteredthesceneofapostcivilsociety.Themovement
fromthenaturaltothecivilandpostcivilwasthehistoricalandtheoreticalmovementofhumancivilization.When
Foucault argues that power comes from everywhere and relations of power are immanent to the process of
economicproductions,knowledgerelationshipsandsexualrelations,thelinesofpowerextendthroughoutsocial
space in the channels created by the institutions of civil society. Foucault insisted that institutions are not as the
sourceofpowerrelations,butanassemblageofstrategiesofpower.Whatunderliesthevariousinstitutionsisthe
diagram, that is the anonymous or abstract strategic machine, the unformed mechanism of power relations.
Foucaults famous example to understand the diagram of disciplinary society is his analysis of the panopticon.
Foucaultsawthisdisciplinarydiagrammatics(panopticon)functionedintermsofpositionsandidentities.Inthe
society of control, the diagram of control is oriented towards mobility and anonymity. Dealing with power and
panopticrule,Foucault(1984b:4647)offerssomeideasonhowwecanappreciatehumanismbasedonthecritical
ontology ourselves that regards as value judgments on what we are doing, thinking and saying. In order to
createaplatformofchange,Foucaultexplainsthatthecriticalontologyofourselvesmustbecarriedoutthrough
thegenealogicalanalysisofparticularhistoricalcontextsdefinedwithinthreeaxesoftruth,powerandethics.In
Foucault(1984c:351)sownterms,
Threedomainsofgenealogyarepossible.First,ahistoricalontologyofourselvesinrelationtotruththroughwhich
wecanconstituteourselvesassubjectsofknowledge;second,ahistoricalontologyofourselvesinrelationtoafield
ofpowerthroughwhichweconstituteourselvesassubjectsactingonothers;third,ahistoricalontologyinrelation
toethicsthroughwhichweconstituteourselvesasmoralagents.
Withinthenewcontrolsocieties,thediagramfunctionsonthebasisoftheflexibleandtemporaryperformanceof
contingentidentities,thus,itsassemblageorthe(mobile)institutionsareelaboratedthroughtheproductionofthe
machinicassemblageintheterritories.Socialandpoliticalchangesthatresultedintheaccumulationofpowerwith
the development of the mechanism of power have had to open their gates for continuous education, and
communicationinwhichnewformsofcontroloperateontheassemblagesofsocialbeings,thebareconditionsof
action, and penetrate into the entire of process of life. Changes seek legitimacy from public opinion and ethical
right (Vhmki and Virtanen, 2006: 215218). Dealing with control, which is power that permeates society and
makesitsrelationswithknowledgeandeconomicprocess,whichalwaysinsomeformspreadinglikeavirus,the
composition of a new assemblage has to be designed and supported by the minoritarian ethics or ethics for
marginalizedgroup(YuandLee,2008).Minoritarianethicsareconcernedwiththeminoritiesormarginalized
group who will create new social relations where active minorities enter into a nomadic space with a collective
actionwhichleadstotransformingvirtualeventsintoactualeventswithintheterritories(Deleuze,1969:1819).We
propose that the minoritarian ethics function as a mode of resistance that questions and challenges the morality
and a mode of existence rooted in the present system or the actual assemblage that is intrinsically linked to its
powerofacting.
What, then, is the relationship between Deleuzes theory of assemblage and the minoritarian ethics? In other
words,howwecanapplytheminoritarianethicsintoaprocessofcreationofnewassemblages(orproblems)in

InternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015www.seipub.org/ijps

socialfields?Inourproposedapproach,therearefivedistinctivephasesthatunveilsprocessofproblematizations
(Figure2).

Theinitialanalysisatthefirstphaseisconcernedwithfindingoutsolutionsordevelopinganappreciationofthe
situation in which solutions are to be made. In next phase of the proposed methodology, the purpose of the
secondphaseistoensurethatoncethesolutionshavebeenmadeintermsofconcernedsituationsandcontexts,
problems are identified which are derived from the virtual assemblages that coexist with and is immanent
within an actual dimensions of individuated assemblages in given social fields. The problems are conceived as
onlythecausesofnewpossibilitiesorcluesofdiscoveringawidercontextwhichcontainsallsolutionsthatwere
originally generated from local contexts. In phases two and three of the methodology, actors or participants
questionthesolutionsoractualassemblagesthatoperatewithinsocialfields,andidentifyproblemsorvirtual
assemblagesthatgivepossibilitiesofgeneratingvirtualeventsthatcanbeappreciatedaccordingtothenormative
principles of minoritarian ethics. In the final phase of the methodology, then, new solutions can be generated
fromatransformativeprocessthattakesplacewithinadomainofpractices,actsandthoughtswithapluralityof
problemsandethicalquestionsposedtoproducethediversepossibilitiesinaspecificcontext.
Through this transformative processes of problematization, when one enters into the process of making the
assemblageofhaecceities,anewthoughtproceedsastheethicalquestionthatoccursinaformoftheethological
ethics,whichreferstotheethicsofevents,ratherthanmoralandethicalperspectivesofmantakingplaceinthe
actual process of decisionmaking within the organization (Pearson, 1999). Deleuzes concerns about ethics of
liberatingdesire,andliberationthatmeanssomethingnew,areperceivedasthemodeofcreativeinvolution
in terms of becominghaecceity that takes place within the plane of immanence (Pearson, 1999: 3). In order to
create or appreciate new assemblages in social fields, a nonhierarchical ethical form of reasoning is needed to
functionasthejudgementsystemsinthetermsofDeZeeuw(2010),whichevolvesfromacollectivethatcanbe
madethroughtheprocessofproblematization.Hence,theminoritarianethicsreflectsthepositionoftheothersor
minorities through the process of problematization in which participants should search for all chances and
possibilitiesandcreatecriticaldiscoursewhichwillproduceamultiplicityofalternativesthroughopennesstothe
ethical questions and the determination of a problem. Above all, the minoritarian ethics is concerned with a
question of the political project of assemblage theory, through the application of critical action research and
learninginpractice(YuandLee,2008).

www.seipub.org/ijpsInternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015

Conclusions
AninquiryintothesystemsapproachofDeleuzestheoryofanassemblagetheoryprovidesfurtherinsightintothe
critical ontology of ourselves as it treads on a set of ontological, epistemological and ethical toes in systems
thinking tradition. Exploring social beingsin termsofassemblagesand becomingminoritariansas weproposed,
how do we move forward in a systems science? Our contention is that Deleuzes theory of the assemblage and
minoritarianethicshelpustounderstandavitalistholismandthemeaningoflifetoexplorethepoliticsofnature
or cosmopolitics. It can be grasped by the normative principles of justice, equality and freedom that make the
continuousprocessofcreativeinvolutionandinnovationtoproceedwithinsocialfields.Todoso,ourproposed
methodologybasedonDeleuzestheoryofassemblageandtheminoritarianethicsshouldbecarriedoutthrough
the process of problematization. It might create new and possible assemblages in social field as nonhuman
communicationgoesonwithinchaoticandunpredictableconditions.Hence,theminoritarianethicsfocusupon
the making the sense of the collective action through the appreciation of Deleuzes notion of an event, which
creates condition for critical ontology of ourselves that generates critical discourse on what we are and a
collectiveactionformakingaprocessoftherecreationofourselves(Foucault,1984b,c).Therearewaysofknowing
andactingshouldbeadaptive,responsiveandopentosocialfieldsthatisnotonlyrepresentedobjectivelybutfelt
throughthesense.Furtherwhatisretainedofvitalistaction,evenwhilethereislongeravitalforcedistinctfrom
matter,isavitalistethics,whatwecalltheminoritarianethics.Theminoritarianethicsisestablishedonthebasisof
theemergentrelationsofnewassemblagesthatregardascausesormotiveforcesofthesocialtransformation
thatmakesavitalistwholeasthelivingandopensystemswithinsocialfields.
REFERENCES

[1]

Archibugi,D.(ed.).DebatingCosmopolitics(NewLeftReviewDebates),VersoBooks,2003

[2]

Boundas,C.V.TheDeleuzeReader,(eds.)NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993.

[3]

Beer,S.TheHeartofEnterprise,Chichester:Wiley,1979.

[4]

Beer,S.Brainofthefirm,2nded.,Chichester:Wiley,1981.

[5]

Bertalanffy,L.von.,GeneralSystemsTheory,NewYork:Braziller,1968.

[6]

Boundas,C.V.(eds.)TheDeleuzeReader,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversitypress,1993.

[7]

Colebrook,C.DeleuzeandtheMeaningofLife,London:Continuum,2010.

[8]

Clark,T.BecomingEveryone:ThePoliticsofSympathyinDeleuzeandRorty,RadicalPhilosophy,147(2008):3344.

[9]

DeZeeuw,G.Researchtosupportsocialinterventions,JournalofSocialIntervention:TheoryandPractice,19(2)(2010):4
24.

[10] DeLanda,M.ANewPhilosophyofSociety:AssemblageTheoryandSocialComplexity,Continuum,London:Continuum,
2006.
[11] Deleuze,G.EntretienavecJeanetteColombel,LaQuinzaineLittraire,68(1969).
[12] Deleuze,G.Foucault,London:AthlonePress,1988.
[13] Deleuze,G.Cinema2:TheTimeImage,(trans,Tomlinson,H.andGaleta,R.)London:Athlone,1989.
[14] Deleuze,G.TheLogicofSense.(trans.Lester,M.withStivale,C.),London:AthlonePress,1990.
[15] Deleuze,G.Pourparlers,19721990,LesditionsdeMinuit,Paris,1992a.
[16] Deleuze,G.Cinema1:TheMovementImage,(trans,Tomlinson,H.andGaleta,R.)London:Athlone.1992b.
[17] Deleuze,G.DifferenceandRepetition.(trans.PattonP.),London:AthlonePress,1994.
[18] Deleuze, G. Negotiations: 19721990, (trans. Joughin, M), Columbia University Press, New York: Columbia University
Press,1995
[19] Deleuze,G.PureImmanence:EssaysonaLife,NewYork:ZoneBooks,2005.
[20] Deleuze,G.andGuattari,F.AntiOedipus:CapitalismandSchizopherenia,London:Athlone,1983.
[21] Deleuze,G.,andGuattari,F.AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia.(trans.Massumi,B.),London:Athlone,
1987.

InternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015www.seipub.org/ijps

[22] Deleuze,G.,andParnet,C.Dialogues,Paris:Flammarion,1977
[23] Flew,T.EthicsandPublicPolicy,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall,1983.
[24] Flood,R.L.LiberatingSystemsTheory,NewYork:Plenum,1990.
[25] Foucault, M. Theatrum Philosophicum, in Michel Foucault: essential works of Foucault 19541984, Vol. 2. Faubion, J. D.
(eds.)(1994)London:Penguin,1970.
[26] Foucault,M.TheArchaeologyofKnowledge,London:Routledge,1972.
[27] Foucault,M.DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison,London:AllenLane,PenguinBooks.Foucault,M.(1981).The
HistoryofSexualityVol.1,AnIntroduction,London:PenguinBooks,1977.
[28] Foucault,M.QuestionsofMethod,IdeologyandConsciousness,No.8(1981),pp.314.
[29] Foucault, M. Polemics, politics and problematizations, An interview with Michel in Rabinow, P. (eds.) (1997), Michel
Foucault:Ethics,essentialworksofFoucault19541984,Volume1,111119,London:PenguinBooks,1984a.
[30] Foucault,M.WhatisEnlightenment?inRabinow,P.(eds.),FoucaultReader,3250.NewYork:Pantehon,1984b.
[31] Foucault,M.OntheGenealogyofEthics:AnOverviewofWorkinProgress,inRabinow,P.(eds.),FoucaultReader,340
372.NewYork:Pantehon,1984c.
[32] Foucault, M. The Concern for Truth, in Kritzman, L. (Ed.), (1988), q.v., pp. 255267, (interview with Francois Ewald
originallypublishedinMagazineLittraire,(No.207,May1984),pp.1823,1988a.
[33] Foucault,M.TechnologiesoftheSelf,InMartin,L.etal.,(eds.)(1988),q.v.,pp.649.1988b.
[34] Foucault,MichelFoucault:Ethics,essentialworksofFoucault19541984,Volume1,111119,inRabinow,P.(eds.),London:
PenguinBooks,1997.
[35] Foucault,M.ThePoliticsofTruth,trans.LHochrochandCPorter.,LosAngeles:Semiotext(e),2007.
[36] Jackson,M.C.SystemsMethodologyfortheManagementSciences,NewYork:Plenum,1991.
[37] Kaufman,e.andHeller,K.J.(eds.)DeleuzeandGuattari:NewMappingsinPolitics,PhilosophyandCulture,University
MinnesotaPress,London:Minneapolis,1998.
[38] Latour, B. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (trans. Catherine Porter). Cambridge, Mass.:
HarvardUniversityPress,2004.
[39] Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An Introduction to ActorNetworkTheory, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005.
[40] Lazzarato, M. The concepts of Life and the Living in the Societies of Control, in Fuglsang, M. and Srensen, M. (eds.)
DeleuzeandtheSocial,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
[41] Marks,J.(1998).GillesDeleuze:VitalismandMultiplicity,London:PlutoPress,2001.
[42] Midgely, G. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers,2000.
[43] Mingers,J.SelfProducingSystems:ImplicationandApplicationofAutupoiesis,NewYork:Plenum,1995.
[44] Pasquino,P.TheWilltoKnowledge,EconomyandSociety,15(1)(1986):97109.
[45] Patton,P.DeleuzianConcepts:Philosophy,Colonization,Politics,Standford,CA.:StandfordUnivertsityPress,2010.
[46] Pearson,K.A.GerminalLife:ThedifferenceandrepetitionofDeleuze,LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1999.
[47] Schirato, T., Danaher, G. and Webb, J., Understanding Foucault: A critical introduction, 2nd edition, Los Angeles: Sage,
2012.
[48] Sellars,J.DeleuzesCosmopolitanism,RadicalPhilosophy,142(2007):3237.
[49] Tsouvalis,C.AgonisticThinkinginProblemSolving:TheCaseofSoftSystemMethodology,Ph.D.Dissertation,University
ofLancaster,1995
[50] Ulrich,W.CriticalHeuristicsofSocialPlanning,Chichester:Wiley,1983.
[51] Ulrich,W.CriticalHeuristicsofSocialSystemsDesign,EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,31(1987):276283.

www.seipub.org/ijpsInternationalJournalofPhilosophyStudy(IJPS),Volume3,2015

[52] Vhmki,J.andVirtanen,A.Deleuze,Change,History,inFuglsang,M.andSrensen,M.(eds.)DeleuzeandtheSocial,
Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
[53] Wellman,B.Thecommunityquestion:theintimatenetworksofEastYorkers,AmericanJournalofSociology,vol84,pp.
120131,1979.
[54] Yu,J.E.TheUseofDeleuzesTheoryofAssemblageforProcessOrientedMethodology,HistoricalSocialResearch,38(2)
(2013):197217.
[55] Yu,J.E.andLee,J.WCreatingrhizomaticnetworksandethicsforthemarginalisedgroup,SystemicPracticeandAction
Research,21(4)(2008):253266.

JaeE.YuisacitizenofRepublicofKoreaandcurrentlyresidinginKorea.HebornatSeouldatedonMarch
31, 1962. He earned his DPhil degree on Systems Approaches to Management from Business School,
UniversityofLincoln,U.K.in2001.
He is currently a fulltime ASSISTANT PROFESSOR at College of Business Administration in Keimyung
University, Daegu, South Korea. He was specialist Professor at Business School, Korea University, Seoul,
Korea from 2009 and 2011. He is currently a practicing advisor in the local government institute and
organizations at South Korea (e.g. Smile Microcredit Bank, Korean Microfinance Institution at Seoul, and
DaeguResourceDevelopmentCenter).HispublicationsincludebookssuchasSystemicUnderstandingof
Sustainable Social Enterprises (Seoul, Korea: HanKeong Sa, 2014), An Invitation to the Management of Difference (Seoul,
Korea: SERI, 2004), The Emergence of Community based Capitalism: the Case of Korean Village Enterprises (Chapter in
Capitalism and the Social Relationship: An Organizational Perspective, (London: Palgrave/ Macmillan, Kazeroony, H. and
StachowiczStanusch, A. (eds) 2013), Articles such as The Use of Deleuzes Theroy of Assemblage for ProcessOriented
Methodology(HistoricalSocialResearch,Vol,38,No.2,2013;CreatingRhizomaticNetworksandEthicsfortheMarginalized
Group (Systemic Practices and Action Research, Vol. 21: 253266). His current research includes action learning and critical
approaches to understanding community practice, business education, communitybased capitalism, community social
enterprises,microfinance,socialresponsibilityofprofitandnonprofitsorganizations.
Dr. Jae Eon Yu. Fulltime member of Academy of Management, International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS). Director of
KoreanSystemDynamicsSociety.
NationalAwardforEducationinCommunityBusinessandMicrofinancein2010.

10