{"id":5352,"date":"2023-10-31T22:25:13","date_gmt":"2023-10-31T22:25:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/?p=5352"},"modified":"2023-11-26T13:40:26","modified_gmt":"2023-11-26T13:40:26","slug":"not-one-but-three","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/2023\/10\/31\/not-one-but-three\/","title":{"rendered":"Not one but three"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I tend to write on whatever Gilles Deleuze and\/or F\u00e9lix Guattari have written or I somehow end up on some tangent that pertains to their work, typically in connection with either discourse<\/em> or landscape<\/em>. That’s partly because those are included in the name of this blog. I haven\u2019t really focused on other topics that they\u2019ve written on, unless it has had some relevance to what I have been dealing with. In other words, when I\u2019ve done that, it\u2019s been more like here\u2019s a couple of comments on this topic by either of them or both of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To get to the point, this essay will deal with what Guattari had to say about the world in his last works. It\u2019s, perhaps, easy to miss that he had plenty to say about the issues that concern us now already then, in late 1980s and early 1990s. Why is it easy to miss? Well, because he often gets cast as Deleuze\u2019s sidekick. To be fair, there\u2019s some truth to that. Then again, if we think of him or, rather, his work in that way, we end up focusing on Deleuze, even in their co-authored works. A lot of the good stuff is there, in Guattari\u2019s works. At times I find it a bit annoying how little attention those works get, while everyone appears to have read \u2018A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia\u2019. To be clear, that\u2019s an excellent book, as is \u2018Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia\u2019. Both are great, in their own right. It\u2019s just that even if people have read one of them, or both, which I often doubt, by the way, there\u2019s way, way more good stuff to read, and not only written by Deleuze, but also by Guattari.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Long story short, let\u2019s assume that the world is going to hell. That\u2019s, perhaps, a bit blunt, but it\u2019s an easy way to put it, without having get into heated discussions about whether it is like this or like that. Let\u2019s just assume that. Even if you don\u2019t agree with that, because I haven\u2019t given any evidence for that, let\u2019s just go with it, you know, for the sake of argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right, Guattari has this book called \u2018The Three Ecologies\u2019. But why three? Why indeed! Isn\u2019t ecology<\/em> about the environment? Well, yes, and Guattari isn\u2019t challenging that, but he wants us to take a step back and broaden our horizons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These three ecologies are the environmental, the social and the subjective, as mentioned by him (28). To distinguish his own approach from ecology<\/em>, he (28) calls his approach ecosophy<\/em>. But what is ecosophy then? He expands on that in another book, \u2018Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm\u2019. There\u2019s a chapter called \u2018The ecosophic object\u2019. The quick answer is, perhaps, the obvious one: ecology + philosophy. What about the long answer then? Well, I\u2019ll get to that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guattari (119) starts the book chapter with whatever I just stated: the world is going to hell. He (119) acknowledges that there\u2019s been all this progress, especially in technology, yet it\u2019s like out of the frying pan into the fire. It\u2019s like you\u2019d think all that technological progress would help us, and, to be fair, in certain ways it does, yet, somehow, there\u2019s, perhaps, even more poor people than there were back then, some thirty years ago, more turmoil, both in the form of armed conflicts and in everyday life, and the degradation of environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s holding us back then? Well, my answer is that a lot of people simply don\u2019t care about other people, like out of sight, out of mind, none of my concern. That\u2019s, however, not exactly his answer, as he (119) wants us to rather focus on why <\/em>that\u2019s the case, why people don\u2019t care about anyone else except themselves or the people they know (as that connection makes it about themselves)? To give you his answer, he (119) reckons that we\u2019ve been banalized and infantilized by the very technologies that we\u2019ve come to embrace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be more specific, he (119) mentions sensationalist imagery in the media as the main problem. Now, as this is from three decades ago, he\u2019d be referring to television, which is, to be honest, not that relevant today. I mean, okay, it sort of still is, but it\u2019s more in the form of streaming platforms. What I mean is that it\u2019s no longer apt to think in those terms, restricted to living room settings, people gathering around a TV. Then again, that means that it has only gotten worse. Now everyone carries that TV around them and what they are presented has been coded to provide them with the type of sensationalist imagery that they\u2019ve been known to like in the past. That\u2019s exactly what\u2019s banal and infantile about it. You only get what the code gives you and it\u2019s presented as being for your own good, even though it\u2019s exactly what prevents you from looking up other things. That\u2019s the algorithm for you. It’s like your very own feedback loop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, the world is still going to hell. The difference is that now we know what the problem is, at least in the western context. So, why don\u2019t we just fix it? Why don\u2019t we solve the problem if it\u2019s as simple as that? Well, the problem with the problem is that it\u2019s not easy to fix. Once you\u2019ve been coded to not to stray from the code, it\u2019s difficult to recode yourself. In other words, that code is self-reinforcing. Again, think of it is as a feedback loop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be positive though, I wouldn\u2019t say that you cannot stray from the code, that you cannot recode the code, but rather that it is really, really difficult to do so, especially if you aren\u2019t even aware of how it all works. If you think that you are autonomous, in full control, at all times, as a lot of people think they are, as I\u2019ve come to notice over the years, as based on all kinds of feedback I\u2019ve gotten even from what, by all logic, should be very, very smart people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I were to summarize what he (119) thinks is missing, back then and still now, it\u2019s a sense of responsibility<\/em>. I agree. People are very happy to whatever they are doing, but it\u2019s rare that someone is willing to take the responsibility for their actions and thus be replaced by someone else who, perhaps, could do a better job. To be clear, I\u2019m not saying it has to be that drastic, as it\u2019s not all do or die, but rather that with what we like to call agency<\/em>, having the privilege to act and to be acted on in certain ways, ought to come corresponding responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s what I\u2019d call having integrity<\/em>. Why? Well, because it\u2019s not about finger wagging. It\u2019s not about disciplining <\/em>people through punishment or fear of punishment. It\u2019s more like, how to put it, honesty, being true to oneself and one\u2019s actions. It\u2019s like recognizing that you are in a certain position, having certain rights and responsibilities that come with it, and that you need to act accordingly. If you don\u2019t act accordingly, if you mess up, it\u2019s up to you to recognize it and make up for it. Sometimes that\u2019s not enough and it\u2019s just better to quit and let someone else be in that position, because you realize that you didn\u2019t do a good job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, if the authorities or politicians aren\u2019t doing a good job, you should be criticizing them for it, so that they get the point, that they understand that changes are in order. That they end up doing a better job in the future. In fact, they should be the ones to realize that themselves. It shouldn\u2019t be up to you make them do a better job. That’s what I mean by integrity<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the same in academics. If you think someone is being sloppy, doing poor research, more of the same, or so to speak, or half-assing it, you should be criticizing them for it, so that they come to realize that they need to change their ways of doing research. Again, this shouldn\u2019t even be something that others need to point out to them. It should be up to each and every academic to do a better job. That’s what I’d call integrity<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what does that involve? Doing a better job? Indeed, it\u2019s about the actions, not about the person. For example, if a minister says something that\u2019s incorrect, as in not backed up by the evidence, then the minister should take it back and admit that it was not the case. It can, of course, be that the minister has been misinformed or has simply misinterpreted something, fair enough, but that means that the minister should let people know that it was the case, like my bad, mea culpa<\/em>. This was the case with the current Prime Minister of Finland, Petteri Orpo, who made some statements about proposed changes in taxation, only to have to backpedal on those statements a day later. To my understanding, he had misunderstood the way that would work. Had it been that way, that would not have concerned him, but, alas, it was not that way and thus it did concern him. Okay, it\u2019s not great that you mess up something like that, as the head of the government (not the state, as the President is the head of the state, at least technically, as the President is not that important these days), but it is what it is. It\u2019s better to acknowledge that you were wrong, no matter what the reason behind it was, and move on. That\u2019s responsibility<\/em>. That\u2019s integrity<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To give you a contrary example, the previous Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, got so much shit for things that had nothing to do with her actions in that position. She was criticized for posing for a fashion magazine, wearing a swanky blazer, without a shirt under it. So, to be clear, she was not criticized for doing a bad job, having said something incorrect or the like, but for wearing a certain outfit in a magazine, which most people probably never read. Again, it\u2019s totally fine to criticize her for her actions that are related to her job, but it\u2019s not fine to criticize her for her actions that aren\u2019t related to her job. In the former case, that’s about about responsibility<\/em>, nor about integrity<\/em>. In the latter case, it’s about how neither has to do anything with her position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, it’s the same in academics. If you don\u2019t agree with someone or, rather, with their work, that\u2019s totally fine. I often don\u2019t agree with others, or their work, but that doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t like them or that I think that all their work is worthless or something. For example, I\u2019ve mentioned in the past that the discussion of landscape<\/em> in \u2018Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design\u2019 is pretty much shit, because, well, it just isn\u2019t that good, because it glosses over the complexity of the concept, because it gives this impression that landscape is this material entity, with its material features, as it is juxtaposed with what they (35) call semiotic landscape<\/em>. In other words, the problem is that the way it is presented ignores how landscape is, in fact, a semiotic. It is a way of making sense of the world, as opposed to the world itself, as well established in landscape research by the time the book first came out. However, that doesn\u2019t mean therefore the whole book is shit. No. Absolutely not. In fact, I highly recommend the book if you are into multimodality, or, more broadly speaking, semiotics. Plus, even if the entire book was trash, which it isn’t, that wouldn\u2019t entail that other books, book chapters or articles by them are thus trash. No. Absolutely not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve also went on and on about how landscape<\/em> is often ignored in linguistic landscape research, but that doesn\u2019t mean the work is thus worthless. Far from it. There\u2019s plenty to like, especially with the attention being paid to visual manifestations language. So, for example, while I agree with Joshua Nash on this and don\u2019t agree with David Malinowski on this, as discussed in a previous essay, but that doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t value Malinowski\u2019s work, nor that I therefore rave about Nash\u2019 work. No. That\u2019d be silly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is actually something I have to remind my students. Just because you disagree with something in some article, book, book chapter, interview, etc., doesn\u2019t mean that you have disagree with everything that\u2019s in it, not to mention with everything ever written by the same author or authors. Heck, you might even disagree with nearly everything in some publication or publications, but still find something in that work or those works that you agree with or even consider highly important, if not crucial to your own work. For example, while it may seem that I don\u2019t agree with Malinowski\u2019s and Stefania Tufi\u2019s take on assemblages<\/em>, as discussed in a previous essay, my disagreement is only partial and thus it\u2019s more like that I don\u2019t entirely agree with them on that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could say the same about Critical Discourse Analysis, which is these days known as Critical Discourse Studies. Just because I don\u2019t agree with some authors, on some matters, doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t agree with them at all. It all depends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there\u2019s the time aspect. While people tend to be rather consistent with their views, people do change. This means that while you may disagree with some authors\u2019 early work, but then agree with their later work, or vice versa. Some people might also have a number of interests, some of which are also of interest to you, but then the rest aren\u2019t. This then means that you are bound to agree with only some of the work. Again, this is totally fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That may also change. You might not find something to be of great value to you right now, but then come to appreciate it later. For example, I wasn\u2019t too keen on Jan Blommaert\u2019s work like a decade ago, but then came to appreciate it. To be honest, I don\u2019t know how that happened. It\u2019s just like some things didn\u2019t click initially and then they did. My guess is that whatever it is that I read in between made it work for me and, so, I was the one to blame there, not him. This happens all the time and at least I don\u2019t mind admitting that I might be just too stupid to understand something. That\u2019s why you want to keep an open mind and swing back to it later, just in case what you\u2019ve encountered in between has made it work for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make sure you get the idea, let\u2019s take a big name like Karl Marx. I don\u2019t really agree with his views, as presented in his works, and in the works of others, but that doesn\u2019t mean that I wholeheartedly disagree with him either. Plus, like with Plato, with whom I tend to disagree even more, I still acknowledge the importance of his views, just as I acknowledge the importance of Plato\u2019s views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, this also applies to my favorites. For example, Deleuze and Guattari are difficult to comprehend. You can give them shit for that. That\u2019s totally warranted. It takes a lot of effort to get used to their style. But does that mean that their work is poor? Well, no. Obviously not. Just because something is expressed in a certain way doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s poor. Then again, fair is fair, and I think you can give them shit for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this is too academic for your taste, it\u2019s also like how it is with music. It might be that you absolutely love someone\u2019s first four albums, but then think it just isn\u2019t that good by the fifth album and by the ninth album it\u2019s pretty much shit. Or, alternatively, you love certain songs on each of the albums, but wonder what the deal with the other songs on those albums are, like didn\u2019t they know that they just aren\u2019t that good and, perhaps, come across as shit, especially when paired with those songs that you just adore, as then there\u2019s that added contrast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there\u2019s the personal aspect. To summarize all these, I don\u2019t know any of the people that I\u2019ve mentioned so far. It\u2019s hard for me to even comment on them. Like what\u2019s there to say? I\u2019ve never been in the same room with the Prime Ministers. It would have been impossible for me to meet Marx and Plato. I\u2019ve never met Kress, nor van Leeuwen. What\u2019s in common with all of them is that I can\u2019t say anything about them, really, because I don\u2019t know them personally. I\u2019ve met Malinowski and Tufi in a conference, years ago, but I don\u2019t know them personally, so, again, I can\u2019t say anything about them. Okay, I guess I can say that they are alright people, but that impression doesn\u2019t tell you anything, really. That\u2019s like most people I\u2019ve met briefly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not having anything to say about someone may, of course, come across as not wanting to say anything about someone, but that\u2019s not the case. Even if the people I listed were people that I actually know, or have known, for better or for worse, it wouldn’t matter, I\u2019d keep it to myself. I like to operate that way, on a need-to-know basis. If the life of someone else doesn\u2019t concern you, but I happen to know about it, you won\u2019t hear it from me. I think it\u2019s just better that way, as I\u2019ve mentioned in a past essay. I leave it up to the people in question to deal with their personal lives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also think it\u2019s cheap to resort to personal remarks. If you don\u2019t like the actions of people whose actions concern you, let\u2019s say authorities or politicians, criticize them for those actions and be ready to back it all up with some evidence. Demand that responsibility<\/em>, that integrity<\/em>, but don\u2019t comment on their haircuts or the like as that doesn\u2019t really get us anywhere. It\u2019s the same with commenting on the company that they keep. At least I couldn\u2019t care less who is in a relationship with who, inasmuch it doesn\u2019t result in some conflict of interest and, even then, the problem is that conflict of interest, not the relationship itself. No matter what happens, all that matters is that the conflict of interest gets addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, moving on from responsibility <\/em>and integrity<\/em>, as well as agreement and disagreement, to technology<\/em>. Will it save us? Will it doom us? I\u2019d say no to both. It can provide some solutions, to some problems, but it can also create new ones. That\u2019s my take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what\u2019s Guattari\u2019s take then? Well, in his book chapter, he (120) seems to be well aware of what actually happened in the decades following his death, by which I mean the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, how we went from gathering in the living room to streaming content on the go, like wherever, whenever. As he (120) points out, new technologies have certain revolutionary potential, but it\u2019s how we use them that really matters. For example, I think he would have liked the idea of people communicating with one another, like it is these days, like having a casual conversation, but I also think that he\u2019d abhor how that panned out, how banalizing and infantilizing it has become, because of the way it has come to rely on sensationalist imagery and how subservient it is to marketing. That said, I think he\u2019d appreciate something like Open Source and collaborative efforts, such as Wikipedia, much more, because they involve people, like just about anyone, really, and because they don\u2019t rely on sensationalist imagery, nor seek to engage with you just to sell you something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His (121) comments on contemporary politics being, basically, a one-party system in which the former hardcore leftists, aka communists, are no longer there and the light leftists, aka social democrats, are no longer there either as they\u2019ve been converted to liberals, are also interesting. As he (121) points out, when it\u2019s election time, it\u2019s all, supposedly, high stakes, but once the elections are done, not a lot gets done, regardless of who people vote. I think he (121) is also correct about how that\u2019s, at least, partially attributable to how the politicians and the parties are tied to state bureaucracy, by which I believe he means that it\u2019s unlikely that voting this or that person, this or that party, makes a whole lot of difference when the people in the state institutions are largely the same people, regardless of the election year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s not entirely clear to me what he (121) means by some of his suggestions, but it seems like he\u2019d like to see something like more global politics, as well as more local politics, and not this, usual, state politics that operates somewhere in between the two. While that\u2019s a bit wobbly, as I\u2019m not exactly sure of that, he (121-122) doesn\u2019t want the sort of ethnic particularism that you find in a lot of nation states, because, well, they\u2019ve been constituted that way. It\u2019s exactly what we got in the decades following his take on the situation. So, in short, he (123) wants federalism, but one that is not as some lofty internationalism in which nation states come together to cooperate, you know, whenever they feel like being responsible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He (29) also brings up this issue in his earlier work, in \u2018The Three Ecologies\u2019, while noting two things. Firstly, capitalism has reduced different ways of valuing into one way of valuing it all. Secondly, the role of the states has been reduced to serve the capitalist system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not enough to oppose the system, aka capitalism, by means of seizing the means of production and the state institutions, as he (122) points out in the book chapter in \u2018Chaosmosis\u2019. Why? Well, my answer is that you end up replicating the system that you oppose as you haven\u2019t changed the system. You\u2019ve only put new people in charge of the old system and, perhaps, called them something else, that being the only novelty there is to it. This is why he (122) is so adamant to point out that you need a clean break, one in which the state and its institutions are redefined, completely, and the role of the market is decoupled from the production of subjectivities<\/em>, so that you don\u2019t end up with banalized and infantilized people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He (123) wants to emphasize that the market or, rather, world market doesn\u2019t exist. We keep being telling ourselves that there\u2019s this global economy and what not, but, as he (123) points out, you have all these markets that don\u2019t run themselves, but are run by power formations<\/em>, by which I believe he means, largely, states and corporations. The gist of this is that you don\u2019t have a free market, but a number of more or less regulated markets, which serve certain state and corporate interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is at this point that things start to get jargony. So, to summarize his (124) ecosophic object<\/em>, as opposed to the banalized and infantilized subject of capitalism, we have four dimensions: Fluxes<\/em>, Phylums<\/em>, Universes<\/em>, and Territories<\/em>. The fluxes, are \u201cmaterial, energetic and semiotic\u201d, the Phylums are \u201cconcrete and abstract machinic\u201d, the Universes are \u201cvirtual Universes of value\u201d and the Territories are \u201cfinite\u201d and \u201cexistential\u201d, to use the terms he (124) uses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To connect this to a previous essay, this is what he (26-28, 56-57) also presents in \u2018Schizoanalytic Cartographies\u2019 as the four functors <\/em>that operate in four domains<\/em>, the Fluxes<\/em> being the F, the Plylums<\/em> or Phyla being the \u03a6, the Territories<\/em> being the T, and the Universes<\/em> being the U. In summary, his four functors and domains can be summarized like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n