Just passing through..

This Fanon reading is causing such deep turmoil within me. I don’t have the confidence to talk about it yet, but I sure hope I will emerge changed after this reading. Anyone else feeling as affected as I am?




“For he knows that he is not an animal; and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory.”  -Fanon

The Wretched of the Earth

BWO and Antonin Artaud

Body without Organs
In 1947, the French artist Antonin Artaud wrote and produced a play for radio entitled Pour en finir avec le jugement de Dieu (To Have Done With the Judgment of God). Drawing on his concept of the Theatre of Cruelty (cruelty not in the sense of sadistic pain, rather a violent shattering of a false reality which inveigles our perceptions), Artaud developed the notion of a body without organs, writing:

Man is sick because he is badly constructed. We must make up our minds to strip him bare in order to scrape off that animalcule that itches him mortally, god, and with god his organs. For you can tie me up if you wish, but there is nothing more useless than an organ. When you will have made him a body without organs, then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions and restored him to his true freedom. Then you will teach him again to dance wrong side out as in the frenzy of dance halls and this wrong side out will be his real place (Antonin Artaud: Selected Writings, 1976, p. 570-571).

For French theorists Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the body without organs describes the virtual dimension of the body. The two contend that there is actual body which expresses movements, affects, traits, etc., and a virtual body as well, which is a huge reservoir of potential connections, movements, affects, traits, etc. These potentialities operate as what Deleuze and Félix Guattari term the body without organs (often abbreviated as BwO). Like Artaud’s suggestion that the true condition of the body without organs is freed from a punishing and repressive God, Deleuze and Guattari remap the biological body into a space “permeated by unformed, unstable matters, by flows in all directions, by free intensities or nomadic singularities, by mad or transitory particles” (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987, p. 40).

In a debate setting, the body without organs illustrates both the shortcomings of psychoanalysis (due to its insistent focus on partial drives and objects) and a potential alternative. Deleuze and Guattari write:
The BwO is what remains when you take everything away. What you take away is precisely the phantasy, and signifiances and subjectifications as a whole. Psychoanalysis does the opposite: it translates everything into phantasies, it converts everything into phantasy, it retains the phantasy. It royally botches the real, because it botches the BwO (A Thousand Plateaus, 1987, p. 151).
In his recent book Organs without Bodies (2003), Slavoj Žižek takes issue with the concept, although several Deleuzian scholars strongly argue that Žižek royally botches his own understanding of the BwO.

Entry by Joey Battocletti, 19 June 2007

So we sometimes forget that the bWO was not an original of Deleuze but burrowed from the playwright Antonin . This comparison made between them helps me understand bWO from a different light

Reading Response 2-Intellectuals and Power

We hear that “knowledge is power” all the time. Foucault talked about the role the intellectual in his conservation with Deleuze. The intellectual known as the one who produces knowledge. This intellectual’s job  includes working with those in power, such as the bourgeois class, or working against it by exposing it. Foucault and Deleuze give examples of the prison, the school, and the factories. The prison warden, teacher, and boss are figures that exercise power. Their actions are justified. They work with the ruling class to reproduce its ideologies. However, the intellectual’s job should be a struggle against the forms of power. In other words, the prisoners, children, and factory workers should be considered as the intellectuals because they are struggling against power. We can go back to the Almighty Eye post that shows power is everywhere. It can come in all forms. Couldn’t we say that power does not have to be a physical place or person? Ideologies can also be a form of power as they play a major role in shaping our beliefs. How can we define the intellectual’s role as the one who struggles in this case?