Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Postcolonial Haecceities
  • Edited by Simone Bignall, University of New South Wales, Paul Patton, University of New South Wales
  • Book: Deleuze and the Postcolonial
  • Published by: Edinburgh University Press
  • Published online: 12 September 2012
  • Print publication: 15 April 2010, pp 119-162
  • View extract

    Summary

    If philosophy of the future exists, it must be born outside of Europe or equally born in consequence of meetings and impacts between Europe and non-Europe.

    (Foucault 1999: 113)

    It is impossible to understand how they have got as far as the capital: however, they are there, and every morning their numbers seem to grow.

    (Kafka, from a draft of The Great Wall of China)

    Arnaud Bouaniche has recently drawn attention to the curious way in which Gilles Deleuze opens his Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (1988) with a dialogue excerpted from Bernard Malamud's novel The Fixer (1966), a dialogue which Bouaniche (2006: 131) describes as ‘a perfect mise en abyme of the change in perspective’ that, in his opinion, occurred in Deleuze's work after May 1968, and which points to the position that Spinoza occupied in Deleuze's thought. What Bouaniche emphasises, and what is of particular interest for us as we try to understand the nature of the relations between Deleuze and his ‘mediators’, is that when one character in the dialogue is ordered by the other, a judge, to explain what brought him to read Spinoza and what meaning he took from this encounter, the character in question

    emphasises not the speculative content or the theoretical propositions in Spinoza's thought, but thepractical effectsthat they have had not only on him as a reader and an individual (‘After that I wasn't the same man’), but also on their author (‘[Spinoza] was out to make a free man of himself’), having decided, in the words of the judge, to approach the problem ‘through the man rather than the work’.

    (Bouaniche 2006: 131; emphasis added)