days off, delanda and deleuze...oh my!

Today was my first day off since starting egs. So what did I do? Attend someone else’s class, of course. I’m quite committed to my nerd-dom. But there’s something delightful about going to class when you don’t have to — it’s somehow fun, not just necessary work. Plus, this was Manuel DeLanda on Deleuze and Science; how could I not go?

DeLanda, a staunch materialist, is a sort of academic Antonio Bandera (which mostly means that he has a ponytail), a performer as much as a teacher/philosopher. As this morning’s class began, he announced that today was the precise day we would discuss Deleuze’s science. He began with an overview of class so far, emphasizing Deleuze’s multiplicity and specificity — we don’t discuss “the market”, but specific markets — emphasizing the same for science — “science” is not a singular understandable, theorizable entity, but specific sciences are: particle physics, molecular biology, organic chemistry. But the sparks began to fly a bit later with his commentary on social theorists of science, including those Latour and Haraway. DeLanda stands virulently against “linguistic constructions”, dismissing theories of language as that which fundamentally constructs the world, how we know it and our experiences therein (a move that also places him in opposition to most of the other theorists at egs). Thus, he perceives most social critics as problematic, offering false and useless critiques of science through short-sightedness and a complete dismissal of materialism.

DeLanda is beguiling, his arguments convincing if potentially riddled with logical fallacies. “Do you really think,” he’ll opine, “that oxygen ‘became’, began to exist only once we named it? What the hell were we breathing before that?!?!” And yet, such a strong position demands resistance, especially from this audience. Several members of the class (including yours truly) mounted arguments against his dismissals, and, to his credit, his position softened. Yes, Latour perhaps has points in the short-term, immediate argument, though fifty years of research over the study of oxygen lessens some impacts of specific rhetorical analyses. He refused to tell me his problems with Haraway, though with hilarious explanation (which I’ll resist giving the semi-permanence of printing. But ask me if you really want to know).