When we speak of an event, we speak in terms not dissimilar to when we discuss the machinic. Deleuze talks of the event as a formless elastic membrane that extends over plural elements, transforming the “many” into the conceptual “one”. This reminded me of Guattari’s abstract machine (from machinic hetereogenesis):
They are montages capable of relating all the heterogenous levels that they traverse… The abstract machine is transversal to them, and it is this abstract machine that will or will not give these levels…a power of ontological auto-affirmation
Central to both the “event” and the “machine” is “becoming”.
Deleuze (as I understand) argues that events only exist as perceived by individuals. Perception of a singular element is called prehension. The individual involves a convergence of such prehensions (“concrescence”) in the perception of an event:
The event is inseparably the objectification of one prehension and the subjectification of another…participating in the becoming of another event and the subject of its own becoming.
The event, like the machine, is a process always in a state of flux (fluvia).
So what is the difference between “event” and “machine”.
Some discussed how time is central to talking about an event but we also talk of machinic processes as existing in specific historic moments.
What then is the difference in talking about “event” and talking about “machine”?
My thought is that there is a lot of overlap when we discuss events and machines. But they involve different kinds of inquiries.
Talking about the event provokes inquiries of identification/conceptualization: i.e. if we are talking about Madonna, what is Madonna? How does event-Madonna permeate through elements in time-space? This is not just a question of definition. Firstly, definition is impossible as the skin of the event is always changing with each becoming. Secondly, where/when we define the skin (contradicting myself I know but bear with me) will have a bearing on what the event means and it’s political positioning e.g. What does the Buffy-event encapsulate? Is Buffy-slash that is created by fans/consumers part of the Buffy-event?
Here’s another example -
9/11…and the case of the crazy preacher’s comments:
Reverend Wright said:
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
This is far from original sentiment – the kind of thing you hear from your ordinary first year Arts student who has just joined the Socialist Alternative. But what you see in this statement is various elements (Bombings, state-supported terrorism) that the Reverend has prehended and now the 9/11-event has traversed them, permeated them. Because of this 9/11 is no longer a simple attack from evil-doers or a cause for war in Iraq. Now it is the consequence of American foreign policy, “America’s chickens” coming home to roost.
When I talk about the machine, on the other hand, the lines of inquiry are more of function: What does the machine do? What sorts of desires does the machine activate? What kinds of subjectivities are produced through the machine? Again, these inquiries will involve the analysis of the interactions of various elements – little becomings – so there is some overlap with the event, but we are attacking the issue from a different angle.
Have I got this all wrong? Or does this make some sense to you?
1 response so far ↓
Yosh // May 2, 2008 at 6:29 am |
This definitely makes sense to me, and Reverend Wright’s comments are a fantastic example of the event permeating backwards through time, as well as forwards. Of course, you can look at it from the perspective of the Hiroshima-event permeating forwards in time, as well.