{"id":1229,"date":"2018-07-24T23:19:37","date_gmt":"2018-07-24T23:19:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/?p=1229"},"modified":"2024-03-19T15:58:02","modified_gmt":"2024-03-19T15:58:02","slug":"hung-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/2018\/07\/24\/hung-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Hung up"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I\u2019ve written on governmentality<\/em> before, but that has been more of me going through how Michel Foucault explores and explains it in his work, namely in an aptly named essay \u2018Governmentality\u2019, which can be found in ‘The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault’. This is not directly related to my work. It is, however, directly related to how I get to do my work, if and when I get to do my work, so I thought I\u2019d give another go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This time I\u2019ll be looking at how it pertains to the everyday life of someone like me, who could be labeled as early career researchers (ECRs) or early stage researchers (ESRs). The former gets used more in general whereas the latter is defined in European Union legalese (see, for example: Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers) as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c[T]he term Early-Stage Researcher \u2026 refers to researchers in the first four years (full-time equivalent) of their research activity, including the period of research training,\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Which is contrasted with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cExperienced Researchers \u2026 are defined as researchers having at least four years of research experience (full-time equivalent) since gaining a university diploma giving them access to doctoral studies, in the country in which the degree\/diploma was obtained or researchers already in possession of a doctoral degree, regardless of the time taken to acquire it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In other words, you are considered an experienced researcher if you have a doctorate. However, it\u2019s worth noting that this also applies to anyone with at least four years of full-time research experience after being granted the rights to doctoral studies. Now, it\u2019s obvious that, as of now, right now, I fall into the ESR category, albeit it\u2019ll soon be hazy whether that applies or not as it\u2019ll really depend on what is meant by full-time. Ask a doctoral candidate how many hours they put into something and it\u2019ll be hard to give you a number because it\u2019s hard to delineate work from free time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course labels in legal documents are not exactly the same thing as things are in real life. For example, EURAXESS \u2013 Researchers in Motion, the EU portal for \u201cunique pan-European initiative delivering information and support services to professional researchers\u201d that \u201csupports researcher mobility and career development, while enhancing scientific collaboration between Europe and the world\u201d uses a different classification that refers to \u2018First Stage Researcher\u2019, \u2018Recognized Researcher\u2019, \u2018Established Researcher\u2019 and \u2018Leading Researcher\u2019 with remarkably bland R1 to R4 designations that tell you nothing. I struggled finding a way to navigate to the specific area of the site on their site, but searching for \u2018Research profiles descriptors\u2019 should do the trick. Apparently, that is unless I\u2019m mistaken, this is based on a document known as \u2018Towards a European Framework for Research Careers\u2019, dated July 21, 2011. In the document it is indicated that (2) R1 is \u201cup to the point of PhD\u201d, R2 is \u201cPhD holders or equivalent who are not yet fully independent\u201d, R3 is \u201cresearchers who have developed a level of independence\u201d and R4 is \u201cresearchers leading their research area or field\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m going to look at R1 first. I\u2019ll mark what applies to me accordingly, if for nothing else than for the added humor value. It is indicated (7) that researchers labeled as R1 includes doctoral candidates (check), \u201ccarry out research under supervision\u201d (\u2026?), \u201chave the ambition to develop knowledge of research methodologies and discipline\u201d (check), \u201chave demonstrated a good understanding of a field of study\u201d (check), \u201chave demonstrated the ability to produce data under supervision\u201d (\u2026?), \u201cbe capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas\u201d (check), \u201cbe able to explain the outcome of research and value thereof to research colleagues\u201d (check). I marked the supervision bits with question marks because I\u2019ve basically done those things unsupervised. Sure, I\u2019ve have had the blessing of my supervisor whatever I\u2019ve done but no, no one held my hand or kept me under surveillance while I was at it. I\u2019ve done what I\u2019ve done by myself, for myself, constantly making \u2026 up as I go as one might expect when you do something new and exciting. I find those bits actually rather condescending, infantilizing, as if you wouldn\u2019t be able to do anything by yourself but rather clinging on to your seniors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to R1, the R2 is defined (8) as having a doctorate, the all empowering PhD or equivalent experience and competence, but, yet, \u201chav[ing] not yet established a significant level of independence.\u201d So, oddly enough, this is still infantiziling the researcher, despite having the qualifications. Apparently it\u2019s not enough to have what it takes in terms of knowledge, ambition and critical analysis listed for R1. It\u2019s also not enough to have (8) \u201cdemonstrated a systematic understanding of a field of study and mastery of research associated with that field\u201d, \u201cthe ability to conceive, design, implement and adapt a substantial programme of research with integrity\u201d, \u201cmade a contribution through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge by developing a substantial body of work, innovation or application\u201d, \u201cdemonstrate[d] critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas\u201d and \u201cbe able to explain the outcome of their research and value thereof to the research community\u201d, as well as having \u201c[c]o-author[ed] papers at workshop[s] and conferences[.]\u201d No no, the researcher is still not independent \u2026 enough. I wonder what totes amazeballs is in store for R3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s indicated (10) that R3 is when you \u201chave developed a level of independence.\u201d I can only chuckle at this. Not independence, but a level of independence. So, independent but not still not exactly independent? Haha! The what … now? How old does one need to be independent? Anyway, it\u2019s noted (10) that all of the above applies, but now the researcher \u201c[h]as an established reputation based on research excellence in their field\u201d (oh, it\u2019s about your track record! yay for one upping y\u2019all!), \u201cmakes a positive contribution to the development of knowledge, research and development through co-operations and collaborations\u201d (aka conducts research?), \u201c[i]dentifies research problems and opportunities within [one’s] area of expertise\u201d (aka does something novel?) and \u201cappropriate research methodologies and approaches\u201d (aka knows what to do and how?), \u201c[c]onducts research independently which advances a research agenda\u201d (which you\u2019d think you\u2019d do in the first place, eh?), \u201c[c]an take the lead in executing collaborative research projects in cooperation with colleagues and project partners\u201d (oh, great, hierarchy among peers…), \u201c[p]ublishes papers as lead author, organises workshop or conference sessions\u201d (aka does something on one’s own).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I find it hilarious that you are to level up to R3, go up two levels from the set starting point, to be, supposedly, able to do something like doing your own thing, to know what that thing is and how it ought to be approached. Haha! Oh my! My oh my! I did this in the first year of R1! Even better I did this before R1! No one told me what to do or read for my BA, nor my MA. I did something as crazy as doing things by myself, for myself. No one gave me the relevant literature, nor the data. I did all that and it was not even hard. Yes, it did take time and effort, but so does about everything. Independence, no, sorry, a level of independence, so not even actual independence, happens only on level three, which I take to be some years, if not a decade, of non<\/em>-independent research after a PhD. You are killing me with this. R4 better eclipse this in terms of the humor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

R4 is indicated (11) as the level in which \u201ca researcher lead[s] their area or field.\u201d In other words, the researcher is not only a researcher but a team leader, \u201cthe team leader of a research group or head of an industry R&D laboratory.\u201d Now that\u2019s a bit too field specific, so it\u2019s also pointed out (11) that this may mean in certain disciplines that the researcher operates as a lone researcher. Right, in other words, to be truly independent, no longer infantilized, you need to reach level four in the system. I can\u2019t help put to think of this along the lines of some sacred order or society in which you level up through the ranks. The point here is that you need to make it to the top in order not to be a follower who, well, aren\u2019t independent because they are mere followers, disciples. What this level entails is explained (11) as including the earlier levels but surpassing them, as one might expect already. More specifically, on this level the researcher \u201c[h]as an international reputation based on research excellence in their field\u201d (a patriarch?), \u201c[d]emonstrates critical judgment in the identification and execution of research activities\u201d (passing the judgment of gods of academia?), \u201c[m]akes a substantial contribution (breakthroughs) to their research field or spanning multiple areas\u201d (gets all the credit?), \u201c[d]evelops a strategic vision on the future of the research field\u201d (an oracle?), \u201c[r]ecognises the broader implications and applications of their research\u201d (clairvoyance?) and \u201c[p]ublishes and presents influential papers and books, serves on workshop and conference organising committees and delivers invited talks\u201d (a preacher?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do have to give it to the people, the ones responsible for drafting this document. It gets better and better as you go through the text, through the levels from R1 to R4. Sure, the levels below R4 made me chuckle, but R4 was not a let down either. I know they are trying to do good with this, to make it easier to grasp what\u2019s what and what is to be expected of researchers, but at least the way I read it, it just segments you into this and\/or that. It doesn\u2019t recognize that there are people who are not only ambitious, but also very independent already, way before it is, apparently, to be expected of researchers. Oddly enough, this just ends up setting up a frame that positions those without certain formal qualifications, namely those without a doctorate, the R1 people here, as the unworthy. They went with the title \u2018First Stage Researcher\u2019 but, in contrast to the \u2018Recognised Researcher\u2019, it would be more apt to call it \u2018Unrecognised Researcher\u2019 instead. In other words, it\u2019s not even being unworthy, lacking something necessary in terms of, for example, knowledge, but about being formally recognized. It\u2019s not that you are nothing, a nobody, but that you aren\u2019t anything. You don\u2019t exist, unless you are recognized as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I like how this is addressed by Pierre Bourdieu in \u2018\u00d6konomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital\u2019, translated to English as \u2018The Forms of Capital\u2019. I have discussed this in more detail before in one of my previous essays, but I don\u2019t mind going through this again briefly. Anyway, Bourdieu (247) brings up autodidacticism<\/em>, learning things by yourself:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c[There is a] difference between the capital of the autodidact, which may be called into question at any time, \u2026 and the cultural capital academically sanctioned by legally guaranteed qualifications, formally independent of the person of their bearer.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The point here really is, in case you didn\u2019t get it, that it doesn\u2019t count if it isn\u2019t legitimized<\/em>. Your knowledge isn\u2019t legit unless \u2026 before it\u2019s acknowledged as such. To put it bluntly, it doesn\u2019t matter if you embody all the good traits associated with R2\/R3\/R4 if you are designated as an R1. It\u2019s also worth noting that just to make it to R1, the first rung, you need to have qualified for it, having obtained the necessary qualifications. That\u2019s typically a Master\u2019s Degree. We could call it the R0, being at the bottom of the ladder, having access to the said ladder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, it seems that I\u2019ve ended up on a tangent. That I have, or so it may seem. That said, this is all very relevant to what I wanted to jump straight into initially. I wanted to explain the acronyms first, but that resulted in a joyous exploration of good intentions gone bad, in my opinion that is. Anyway, the thing is that this, what\u2019s been covered so far, is quite relevant to what I want to discuss. But before I get to that, I think I\u2019ll reiterate what Foucault has to say about governmentality<\/em>. Firstly (102), it has to do with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, it is (102-103):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe tendency which, over a long period and throughout the West, has steadily led towards the pre-eminence over all other forms (sovereignty, discipline, etc.) of this type of power which may be termed government, resulting, on the one hand, in the formation of a whole series of specific governmental apparatuses, and, on the other, in the development of a whole complex of savoirs<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The third part (103) I don\u2019t think I need to reiterate from the previous essay as it only pertains to how it all happened, how the state became governmentalized<\/em>. What\u2019s particularly important here in the first part is how this has to do with populations <\/em>and in the second part how it is instrumental <\/em>and pertains to knowledge<\/em>. Simply put, as he (95) points out, this has to do with the management of things, ensuring \u201cthat the greatest possible quantity of wealth is produced\u201d, \u201cthe pursuit of the perfection\u201d, \u201cintensification of the processes which it directs\u201d, while, at the same time, providing people \u201cwith sufficient means of subsistence\u201d so \u201cthat the population is enabled to multiply, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another relevant concept here is biopower<\/em>. This is also a concept coined by Foucault and can be found discussed in, for example, the first volume of \u2018The History of Sexuality\u2019, as well as in \u201cSociety Must Be Defended\u201d: Lectures at the Coll\u00e8ge de France 1975\u20131976\u2019. In volume one of \u2018The History of Sexuality\u2019, Foucault (139) brings up discipline<\/em> as pertaining to optimizing the body<\/em> of the individual<\/em>, shaping it in ways that are, in general, useful to the society. He (139) contrasts it with biopower, the optimization of the mass<\/em>, \u201cthe species of the body\u201d. Moreover, he (141) adds that biopower is not by itself sufficient for the optimization of the mass, but that\u2019s where discipline comes in as the means to achieve something on a grand scale, the scale of the population<\/em>. It only makes sense, really. It\u2019s quite hard to optimize people\u2019s lives, the births and the deaths, if you don\u2019t have any means to do so, if there\u2019s nothing to get people to do as is deemed optimal. Discipline does marvels in this regard. I think Foucault (144) defines biopower aptly in the first volume of \u2018The History of Sexuality\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c[A] power whose task is to take charge of life needs continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms. It is \u2026 of distributing the living in the domain of value and utility. Such a power has to qualify, measure, appraise, and hierarchize \u2026 it effects distributions around the norm.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Two words are particularly important here: utility <\/em>and norm<\/em>. The whole point is to have a norm according to which to judge <\/em>people as of use to the society rather than a hindrance. To put it in simple terms, this is all about min\/maxing, minimizing the costs incurred to the mass <\/em>from each individual <\/em>that is part of the mass while simultaneously maximizing the profit to be made from each individual. That\u2019s pretty much what optimization means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, you might be puzzled as to how this is at all relevant and\/or connected to the everyday life of an Un<\/em>recognised Researcher. Perhaps it\u2019s better to speak of an early career researcher, considering that I\u2019m a bit skeptical whether people go with the non-mandatory EU designations, as informative as they may be. Anyway, the point here is that such official labels, be they de jure or de facto, are well intended, to help the young academic (read: job seeker) to find positions (read: jobs) that match existing \u2026 skill set. The thing is, however, that it\u2019s only bound to work the other way around. The universities (read: employers) will implement formal criteria as requirements for a certain position (read: job). Simply put, if fail you meet that criteria, the employer can bin that application. The thing is that they don\u2019t even need to do that, as such, considering that, I reckon, all the systems are database driven anyway. Just set certain mandatory fields with fixed options for, for example, level of education and you can have the system automatically filter all those who fail to meet the criteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make this more concrete, we can set some criteria as necessitating a doctorate. Indicate that you only have a Master\u2019s degree and you won\u2019t get the position (read: job). Of course you can set it the other way around as well. Don\u2019t want to hire overqualified people? Just set the system to filter out anyone with a higher education than desired. Now, you might wonder why would anyone do that, what is overqualified anyway? Well, I reckon there\u2019s no such thing as overqualified as such. What it means is that the person is undesirable because the person may opt to seek a better position (read: job) elsewhere. It\u2019s less of a hassle, more optimal, to hire someone who won\u2019t go elsewhere, weigh one’s options, not to mention develop oneself in order broaden one’s horizons in order to \u2026 go somewhere else. Simply put, you want to optimize your workforce, spend the least amount of money in wages, as well as any other costs that may incur, for the maximized output. This is employer min\/maxing 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The system can, of course, be customized to filter more or less anything, not only what degree you happen to hold. Relevant here might be what you studied, your discipline (gotta love that word, for it is often so profoundly ironic in the academic context). For example, if you want someone in the field of linguistics, because, surely<\/em>, only a formally trained linguist can understand linguistics, you only allow certain preset choices and then filter out all the people who set their field of education, their major, as something else. Boom done, no need to worry about people who clearly<\/em> aren\u2019t up for the task. The thing here is, as it is with the degree, that this ignores people who they might have the skillset, despite having no formal qualifications, no legitimized record of such. As Bourdieu (247) might put it, it makes it preposterous to know something that wasn\u2019t vetted through the system. Simply put, it\u2019s worth nothing as it\u2019s not recognized as anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To give you an example of this, I reckon I\u2019m fairly qualified in geography as that was my minor as an undergrad. I\u2019m actually qualified enough in it that I could teach it to up to high school level and they have to pay me accordingly for my knowledge. I have the formal qualifications for that. However, if I were to apply for university positions in geography, my applications would end up being filtered out because I did not major in geography. I can\u2019t even argue my case because either you did or didn\u2019t study it properly<\/em>. That means that I can\u2019t point out how much literature in geography I\u2019ve covered while doing my doctorate because autodidacticism <\/em>doesn\u2019t count. My cultural capital <\/em>is thus worthless because it\u2019s not recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a side note, this reminds of how in a recent conference I was asked why I cover so much theory, about things <\/em>and discourse<\/em>, and would I simply be able to do my research without it. It was hard to answer the question as I gathered that the person asking the question after my presentation did not understand the core concept, landscape<\/em>, so, I reckon, I went full Kant and Deleuze on that question. I know, I know, how does someone without a doctorate do that? All I know is that I did, apparently to the person\u2019s great dismay and\/or annoyance. How do I know? Well, you know you may\u2019ve stirred some emotions of a professor, apparently a hot shot of sorts in the field (well, not my<\/em> field though), i.e. an R4, if after the presentations are done you try to compliment a certain point in the presentation of the person asking you the question(s), the person looks and moves away in mid-sentence. Hurt much R4 by being served by an R1? I bet it does. I bet it does. I guess there\u2019s nothing like getting served by some random scruffy looking dude with unkept beard and hair, wearing a t-shirt, some worn shorts and sneakers, hailing from some random backwoods university. The funniest thing is that I didn\u2019t even take it as serving anyone. I take questions as they come and this time was no different. There\u2019s nothing personal to it. For me that was a challenging question and I reckon I managed to answer it well. Others told me so later on as well. The same applies to the related question of what\u2019s the \u2026 cough\u2026 cough\u2026 thing with speaking of discourse and doing quantitative work. I know the way I conceptualize things and how that\u2019s been done in previous research may seem esoteric, but I reckon I was on point with my answers, explaining, for example, that if others have not done similar research, I find it rather dishonest to simply opt for qualitative work. Why? Well, because I can\u2019t know if what I encounter really is a thing or not. I have to put in the extra work. It’d be just lazy to ignore the issue. I also have to explain the theory on \u2026 things \u2026 or discourse as otherwise the whole endeavor is rather pointless, leading back to the sovereignty and autonomy of the observer, which, pretty much goes against what I explained in my presentation, as based on a ton of prior research on landscapes. Anyway, I didn\u2019t see much into it, whatever, question-answer, question-answer, on the point, but, according to others who were present at the presentation, I, an R1, did manage to pull it off, to effectively serve someone well, well above my pay grade, an R4. It only tells you that it actually matters little in combat-against<\/em> what your formal qualifications are and what your status is. What matters is the level of combat-between<\/em>, if you know what I mean (yes, you have to read more if you don\u2019t get it). That said, we can happily forget about this \u2026 nonsense \u2026 because such could not have happened as my knowledge <\/em>isn\u2019t formally legit, am I right? All hail the R4!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay, back to business. So, it\u2019s entirely possible that they don\u2019t autofilter all applications. Granted. Then again, it\u2019s likely in their interest to do so. Why? Well, the thing about optimization is that it tends to apply to more or less anything. Sure you might miss the odd super knowledgeable autodidact, the diamond in the rough, here or there, but come on, who has the interest and the time, to go through people\u2019s applications in detail, not to mention perhaps further query or interview the person on such. It\u2019s simply way, way more efficient to set certain criteria, then set an automated process that yields you the most useful candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, I haven\u2019t given actual examples, beside the applicability of my own record, or the lack thereof, so you may object to all of this. I acknowledge that it\u2019s rare to come across people who are autodidacts, people who learn things by themselves for themselves, even if only just for the sake of it. Then again, they do exist and I\u2019d count myself as one. I can\u2019t help but to dabble in a bit of this and a bit of that, as infuriating as that may be to people who like to erect fences around their<\/em> discipline. I realize that using myself as an example, as brave as that may appear, isn\u2019t necessarily convincing. I mean I haven\u2019t exactly come up with anything that I could claim as my own, as such. I haven\u2019t exactly created something like a concept that no one else ever came up with. So, I reckon it\u2019s better to provide an example of someone who is like me in this regard, an autodidact, but has actually accomplished something, on record, despite having next to no formal qualifications for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To give you an example of an autodidact, F\u00e9lix Guattari ought to do. To my knowledge, he first studied pharmacology but then shifted to philosophy, yet never really getting anywhere with that in the formal sense of progressing in one\u2019s studies. That means that he never had any formal qualifications for \u2026 well \u2026 beyond finishing high school. Fran\u00e7ois Dosse (38-39) notes in \u2018Gilles Deleuze and F\u00e9lix Guattari Intersecting Lives\u2019 that Guattari knew Jacques Lacan before he was known for packing a lecture hall, on a first name basis, mind you. This friendship didn\u2019t exactly end well though, as noted by Dosse (71, 183-185), apparently because of Lacan didn\u2019t like those close to him doing things without his supervision. Anyway, Dosse (46) also notes that, if we are to put this in terms of some actual competence, Guattari acquired his training through actual work, not gaining a degree despite attending seminars. In other words, I guess you could call him a student who never graduated. If you are aware of what his line of work was, working at a clinic at La Borde, as discussed by Dosse (46), you\u2019d probably point out how irresponsible that is for someone to work with mental patients despite having no actual formally recognized education in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we take another example, with whom Guattari, somehow, ended up collaborating with, Gilles Deleuze, he wrote a bunch of books, yes books, not mere cookie cutter mold articles, before his dissertation projects, \u2018Diff\u00e9rence et r\u00e9p\u00e9tition\u2019 and \u2018Spinoza et le probl\u00e8me de l’expression\u2019. I guess back in the day expectations were a bit higher than they are these days when it comes to productivity and doing things all by yourself. Nothing like publishing a book, what, fifteen, sixteen years before going through your doctoral defense. That said, working together, Deleuze is usually the one who gets the credit and is attributed for this and\/or that, because he is the academic of the two, the one formally recognized as such, despite the contributions that can be attributed to Guattari, as noted by Dosse (192). Their books are attributed as Deleuze and Guattari, but there seems to be tendency to ignore the \u2018and Guattari\u2019 part. As Dosse (192) notes, looking at Guattari\u2019s notes, it\u2019s evident that he came up with quite a bit of their work. This is further evident from the collection of his notes, eventually published in \u2018The Anti-\u0152dipus Papers\u2019. For example, Guattari (399-401) writes in a diary entry, dated October 6, 1972, that, for him, what really matters is not the end product, but the process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhen it works I have a ton to spare, I don’t give a shit, I lose it as fast as it comes, and I get more.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

To put it in other words, he is pointing out that when he\u2019s in the zone, he is very productive, coming with up all kinds of things. In his (400) words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI’m a sort of inveterate autodidact, a do-it-yourself guy, a sort of Jules Vernes \u2013 Voyage to the Center of the Earth<\/em>. In my own way I don’t stop\u2026 But you can’t tell. It’s the work of never-ending reverie.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s worth noting that this is, for him, in contrast to Deleuze, who he (399-401) characterizes as the one who\u2019ll figure out what he\u2019s on about, the one who works a lot and isn\u2019t \u201cfucking around\u201d all the time. It\u2019s not hard to see that he is the hyper productive one of the two, albeit now that risks relegating Deleuze as to some editing capacity, which was hardly the case, as noted by the editor, St\u00e9phane Nadaud (13). Sure, I guess one is more possessed whereas the other is more poised, but as expressed by Nadaud (13), Deleuze wasn\u2019t simple using Guattari, as if situated downstream from Guattari. Instead, as explained by Nadaud (13-14) and rather evident from their collaborations where they point this out explicitly, they functioned in an assemblage<\/em>. To summarize how it worked, or, to be more specific, how Nadaud (14-16) explains it, it sort of worked for the two as they were somewhat secretive, as well as, I guess, indifferent about what others would think of it, it being a sort of back and forth exchange, of ideas, interesting bits on this and\/or that, but never really a discussion that necessarily leads to some synthesis. It\u2019s actually rather academic, as expressed by Deleuze in \u2018Secret de fabrication: Nous deux\u2019, for which I\u2019m providing a proper translation included by Nadaud (16):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEach of us writes one version on a given theme, as it has been established in conversation. Then each of us rewrites it, given the other one’s version\u2026 Each of us functions like an incrustation or a citation in the other one’s text, and then, after a while, we’re not sure who is citing whom anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The point here is that they went back and forth, coming up with this and that, then working and reworking those ideas. If you\u2019ve written citation heavy papers, you\u2019ve run into this. You work on someone else\u2019s work, reworking it, putting it in other words, only to wonder after a while who is saying what now\u2026? What Deleuze says right after this explains this, as included by Nadaud (16):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt’s a sort of writing made up of variations. These two-fold processes only amplify what goes on when we work alone. It’s the same thing to say: we’re always alone, and: we’re always many. We’re alone when there are two of us, and we’re many when we’re alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Writing is like that, especially when alone. It\u2019s not a linear process without any variation. I don\u2019t know about others but I do go all over the place as I\u2019m writing, jumping back and forth, bouncing around ideas, connecting this and that, often rewriting what others have written, as well what I have written. After a while, it\u2019s then hard to say what is someone else\u2019s and what\u2019s mine, which makes it hard to write academic papers where someone is set to have come up with this and\/or that and it is expected of you to cite them. It has this idea of the author<\/em> that I\u2019ve covered in a previous essay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be honest, as pointed out by Nadaud (17-18), it was Deleuze who worked more on the books, hence it sort of makes sense that he is indicated as the first author in their works. Then again, as noted by Nadaud (16-17), it seems that Guattari was particularly important in coming up with the text and did make revisions to finalized texts by Deleuze, which he then did or didn\u2019t take into account. Anyway, be as it may, it\u2019s not at all clear that Deleuze should be indicated as the first author in their collaborations. Had it been up to them, rather than others who expect such of them, I reckon they would not have cared about having their names on their books as it was besides the point for them, for how they worked. Nadaud (19-20) characterizes their work as a boxing match between two modes of thought, Guattari\u2019s diagrams, flow and blinding speediness vs Deleuze\u2019s concepts, precision and imperceptible slowness. This is just priceless, so I have to include how Deleuze characterized this, as explained to in a letter to a translator, Kuniichi Uno, in \u2018Letter to Uno: How F\u00e9lix and I Worked Together\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cTogether, F\u00e9lix and I would have made a good Sumo wrestler.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Hahahahahaha! I told you it\u2019s priceless! Actually last night (actually some nights ago by now), I thought of them as a combiner, as a transformer that assemble to form a single bigger machine. I wasn\u2019t too far off with that. His version is just way more hilarious and aptly nonsensical. Anyway, what\u2019s important is that their work is not mere synthesis or, rather, as expressed by Nadaud (20), a consensus. It\u2019s not the triumph of one over the other either, be as it may, as also noted by Nadaud (20-21).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I seem to have strayed from the topic, again, as if I was writing for nobody, as wondered by Guattari (401). You, the reader, my foil, may find the diversions rather arduous, but it\u2019s of little consequence to me as I, to borrow Guattari (399, 401) again, expect you \u201cto figure it out, \u2026 to work it through\u201d all this \u201cfucking around.\u201d I was going to write a recap of sorts here, but I don\u2019t think I can do that, or go on further with this, not after that hilarious sumo wrestler anecdote by Deleuze and Guattari\u2019s expressions on how he operates. I feel like I can\u2019t top those. Well, maybe I could, but that\u2019d take some time and this would then take forever to get done. Anyway, this started with, if you didn\u2019t notice it, a certain frustration mixed with amusement about formal qualifications and how some well intended, introduced for the sake of clarity, really, ends up acting up as a major disservice to those who\u2019d just wish to move forward. That\u2019s what being in the zone is all about, but alas no, no, be patient, know your place and what not. All I can do is to be in a hurry to wait, wait and wait, followed by more waiting, just as it was in the army, always in a hurry to wait for others, others who get to decide how long it is that you have to wait after just sweating your \u2026 off to accomplish something. To be productive here, as everyone should be, duh, wink wink, obviously, as I\u2019m hung up here, as time goes by \u2026 “so slowly for those who wait” (I know! I just couldn\u2019t resist the Madonna reference! It just happened! Very perceptive of her!), do let me know if you think you\u2019d make a great Sumo wrestler together with<\/em> me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Bourdieu, P. (1983). \u00d6konomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten<\/em> (pp. 183\u2013198). G\u00f6ttingen, Germany: Schwartz.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Bourdieu, P. ([1983] 1986). The Forms of Capital (R. Nice, Trans.). In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education<\/em> (pp. 241\u2013258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Commission of the European Communities (2005). Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers<\/em>. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Deleuze, G. (1968). Diff\u00e9rence et r\u00e9p\u00e9tition<\/em>. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Deleuze, G (1968). Spinoza et le probl\u00e8me de l’expression<\/em>. Paris, France: Les \u00c9ditions de Minuit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Deleuze, G. ([1984] 2006). Letter to Uno: How F\u00e9lix and I Worked Together. In G. Deleuze, Two Regimes of Madness: Texts and Interviews 1975\u20131995<\/em> (D. Lapoujade, Ed., A. Hodges and M. Taormina, Trans.) (pp. 237\u2013240). New York, NY: Semiotext(e).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Dosse, F. ([2007] 2010). Gilles Deleuze and F\u00e9lix Guattari Intersecting Lives<\/em> (D. Glassman, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • European Commission (n. d.). EURAXESS<\/em>. https:\/\/euraxess.ec.europa.eu\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • European Commission (n. d.). EURAXESS: Research profiles descriptors<\/em>. https:\/\/euraxess.ec.europa.eu\/europe\/career-development\/training-researchers\/research-profiles-descriptors<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • European Commission (2011). Towards a European Framework for Research Careers<\/em>. Brussels: Belgium. European Commission.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Foucault, M. ([1976] 1978). The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction<\/em> (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Foucault, M. ([1978] 1991). Governmentality (R. Braidotti and C. Gordon, Trans.). In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault<\/em> (pp. 87\u2013104). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Foucault, M. ([1997] 2003). “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Coll\u00e8ge de France 1975\u201376<\/em> (M. Bertani and A. Fontana, Eds.; D. Macey, Trans.). New York, NY: Picador.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Guattari, F. (2006). The Anti-\u0152dipus Papers<\/em> (S. Nadaud, Ed., K. Gotman, Trans.). New York, NY: Semiotext(e).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Madonna (2005). Hung Up<\/em> (Madonna, S. Price, B. Andersson and B. Ulvaeus, Wr., Madonna and S. Price, Pr.). Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Records.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I\u2019ve written on governmentality before, but that has been more of me going through how Michel Foucault explores and explains it in his work, namely in an aptly named essay \u2018Governmentality\u2019, which can be found in ‘The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault’. This is not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3554,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[96,71,1013,48,123,1019,1016],"class_list":["post-1229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays","tag-bourdieu","tag-deleuze","tag-dosse","tag-foucault","tag-guattari","tag-madonna","tag-nadaud"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1229","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3554"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1229"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1229\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5430,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1229\/revisions\/5430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}