Accueil
https://fr.book4you.org/book/768818/c5b894
"Deleuze’s thought provides a way of understanding the peculiar modality of feminist questions and the active nature of feminist struggle. When confronted with a theory or body of thought feminism has tended to ask an intensely active question, not ‘What does it mean?’, but ‘How does it work ?’. What can this concept or theory do ? How can such a theory exist or be lived ? What are its forces ?
One thing that runs through Deleuze’s diverse readings of the history of thought and its concepts is an ethic of affirmation. A thought is active or affirmative if it avows its status as creative and if it realises itself as the formation of concepts and as an event of life. A thought is reactive, however, if it pretends to be the mere adherence, representation, replication or faithful copy of some prior truth or meaning. An active philosophy or theory asserts itself as force, as what it is capable of doing and willing, and is affirmative of the events it effects. A reactive theory, on the other hand, subordinates itself to some unquestioned good ‘image of thought’ (Deleuze 1994a: 118). In so doing, reactive philosophy mistakes the cause–effect relation. In the beginning thought confronts chaos (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 208). Thought is a hetero-genesis or becoming. In its confrontation with chaos thought creates concepts – so that concepts are the effect of active thought, and not laws by which thought ought to proceed. A reactive philosophy misrecognises this relationship. It sees effects –concepts– as the grounds or cause of thought. Thus reactive philosophy takes certain concepts – such as the subject, man, the human, being, reason – and subordinates thought to such concepts. Of course, it would be no less reactive to oppose reactive thought with another concept of the active. On the contrary, thought must reactivate its concepts: see concepts in terms of effects. One can’t simply identify or find active philosophy; becoming-active must be a continual challenge. (Thus when feminism takes hold of the arsenal of philosophical concepts it can’t be a question of how correct or faithful a certain concept is, rather, one might ask how a concept might be made to work.)" (pp.7-8 )
-Ian Buchanan & Claire Colebrook (eds.), Deleuze and Feminist Theory, Edinburgh University Press, 2000, 250 pages.
"Deleuze’s thought provides a way of understanding the peculiar modality of feminist questions and the active nature of feminist struggle. When confronted with a theory or body of thought feminism has tended to ask an intensely active question, not ‘What does it mean?’, but ‘How does it work ?’. What can this concept or theory do ? How can such a theory exist or be lived ? What are its forces ?
One thing that runs through Deleuze’s diverse readings of the history of thought and its concepts is an ethic of affirmation. A thought is active or affirmative if it avows its status as creative and if it realises itself as the formation of concepts and as an event of life. A thought is reactive, however, if it pretends to be the mere adherence, representation, replication or faithful copy of some prior truth or meaning. An active philosophy or theory asserts itself as force, as what it is capable of doing and willing, and is affirmative of the events it effects. A reactive theory, on the other hand, subordinates itself to some unquestioned good ‘image of thought’ (Deleuze 1994a: 118). In so doing, reactive philosophy mistakes the cause–effect relation. In the beginning thought confronts chaos (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 208). Thought is a hetero-genesis or becoming. In its confrontation with chaos thought creates concepts – so that concepts are the effect of active thought, and not laws by which thought ought to proceed. A reactive philosophy misrecognises this relationship. It sees effects –concepts– as the grounds or cause of thought. Thus reactive philosophy takes certain concepts – such as the subject, man, the human, being, reason – and subordinates thought to such concepts. Of course, it would be no less reactive to oppose reactive thought with another concept of the active. On the contrary, thought must reactivate its concepts: see concepts in terms of effects. One can’t simply identify or find active philosophy; becoming-active must be a continual challenge. (Thus when feminism takes hold of the arsenal of philosophical concepts it can’t be a question of how correct or faithful a certain concept is, rather, one might ask how a concept might be made to work.)" (pp.7-8 )
-Ian Buchanan & Claire Colebrook (eds.), Deleuze and Feminist Theory, Edinburgh University Press, 2000, 250 pages.
