Jump to content
parzival

Deleuze and Guattari Rounds

Recommended Posts

Does anybody have the links to some DnG rounds? I really want to learn about their kritik but have never actually seen it debated. 

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricardo Saenz also had a round up where DnG was read against an Oklahoma team that was reading a Geronimo Aff (the judge voted aff cuz he saw how Geronimo could've been rhizomatic/nomadic; DnG were somewhat influenced by indigenous philosophy) - maybe it's still there, it was a Doubles round at CEDA 2014 I believe 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvard BS read a DnG AFF (Faciality-centered) at round 8 of Wake; you should look on their wiki to see it - since Harvard BS is literally everywhere, you could probably find a round on youtube where they read that aff (Interesting point, Harvard BS has won 23 out of the 24 preliminary rounds they've been in, same thing with Northwestern MV)

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything by michigan lz might do the trick

here's a round where they beat oklahoma GW ironically enough on deleuze

 

 

this is everything til the 2nc, and the 2nc is up on ytube if you search for it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvard BS read a DnG AFF (Faciality-centered) at round 8 of Wake; you should look on their wiki to see it - since Harvard BS is literally everywhere, you could probably find a round on youtube where they read that aff (Interesting point, Harvard BS has won 23 out of the 24 preliminary rounds they've been in, same thing with Northwestern MV)

More Faciality

http://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Baylor/Boor-Gustavson+Neg

 

Edit: If you just google faciality...don't do it on a public computer or turn safe search on to avoid awkward coversations.

 

Edit 2: Found some cards on faciality from Wyoming if anyone wants them

Wyoming-Berry-Culver-Aff-UTD-Round1.docx

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody actually explain what faciality is?

 

good luck, Deleuze and Guattari usually couldn't explain what their words meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody actually explain what faciality is?

 

Well this is how I've seen it explained in debate terms, but this may not be 100 percent true to the writing.

 

Faciality is a Deleuzian approach to race relations. Deleuzians reject static ontological claims of race (they stand in stark opposition to theorists like Wilderson) and instead say that race is part of becoming minotarian (from the root word minority). This stands in contrast to the so called majoritarian which is the white, heterosexual, check your privilege, etc male. Racial difference is the measure of how far away from this majoritarian 'standard' you are, and race is interpellated (that is to say that something like the idea of blackness is an interpellation). The way to overcome this is to become minotarian (In ATP an example used is becoming-woman).

Faciality is usually run as a counter K to rigid race ontologies (unless your Harvard BS and you're tired of talking about vampires or whatever the hell it is) and it functions on a few different levels.

First is the challenge to the world view (that race is always foredetermimed and static), which stands as a uq challenge. This K requires examples, a good one i was told by a friend is that in the early 20th century, white Irish were considered 'black' which on face challenges the historical world view that blackness is 'in the flesh.'

Next is some sort of offense which usually comes in the form of a case turn (this is usually a method K).

The alternative can vary in specifics but it's usually some sort of becoming minotarian.

 

If you don't know what some of these words mean, I or someone else can try to explain them further but just use that as a check to see that Deleuze requires some investment.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is how I've seen it explained in debate terms, but this may not be 100 percent true to the writing.

 

Faciality is a Deleuzian approach to race relations. Deleuzians reject static ontological claims of race (they stand in stark opposition to theorists like Wilderson) and instead say that race is part of becoming minotarian (from the root word minority). This stands in contrast to the so called majoritarian which is the white, heterosexual, check your privilege, etc male. Racial difference is the measure of how far away from this majoritarian 'standard' you are, and race is interpellated (that is to say that something like the idea of blackness is an interpellation). The way to overcome this is to become minotarian (In ATP an example used is becoming-woman).

Faciality is usually run as a counter K to rigid race ontologies (unless your Harvard BS and you're tired of talking about vampires or whatever the hell it is) and it functions on a few different levels.

First is the challenge to the world view (that race is always foredetermimed and static), which stands as a uq challenge. This K requires examples, a good one i was told by a friend is that in the early 20th century, white Irish were considered 'black' which on face challenges the historical world view that blackness is 'in the flesh.'

Next is some sort of offense which usually comes in the form of a case turn (this is usually a method K).

The alternative can vary in specifics but it's usually some sort of becoming minotarian.

 

If you don't know what some of these words mean, I or someone else can try to explain them further but just use that as a check to see that Deleuze requires some investment.

That's not what faciality is, that seems more like an explanation of Difference and Repetition and On Kafka 

 

Faciality is a concept developed by DnG to problematize race relations and identity. It rejects the dialectical divide between identity and identity formation, for example, and thus operates upon a non-dialectical frame. It says that identity is not produced via the "Other" that is anti-thetical to the dominant racial dynamic, rather that is characterized by degrees of deviance from the standard racial dynamic. Faciality is also very literally (and figuratively) referring to the face, because it is on the face that individuation and subjectification produce the Face (or the identity as such); if the racial dynamics around you are contingent upon your differentiation from the dominant racial dynamic, then of course your racial subject-position is going to inextricably bound to oppression.

 

Faciality is also something we must dismantle :3 (which means you must dismantle your identity)  

 

This is a really good quote that explains it fairly well:

 

"Racism functions precisely by including everyone on the white screen and in the black holes including them and arranging them in a hierarchy defined by degrees of deviance from the dominant standard. That's the first thing to understand about faciality, then, that it is based not on a negative dialectic of identities but degrees of deviance, and that although it does not function through exclusion it nonetheless establishes a hierarchy of types. (Does faciality have to do with identity? Is a face an identity?) What, then, is faciality? So far we have only that it is a nondialectical machine of hierarchy or domination. "This machine is called the faciality machine because it is the social production of face, because it performs the facialization of the entire body and all its surroundings and objects, and the landscapification of all worlds and milieus" (p. 181). The machine imposes a face on a body or a landscape on a world. One might assume at first that a face or a landscape is an identity that is stamped onto the body or the world, and that notion of facialization as an identity-producing machine might end up being pretty accurate, but D&G take a different tack. The face that is created by this machine is a combination of a white wall or screen with black holes. The white screen is the surface on which meanings appear; it is a system of signification. The black holes, on the other hand, are the points of passion and subjectification. One should remember at this point that a few chapters back, On Several Regimes of Signs, D&G described four regimes that all centered around signification: the primitive pre-signifying regime, the counter- signifying, the signifying, and the post-signifying regime, which is also the subjective and passional regime. A face, then, is a coordinated arrangement of these last two regimes, signification and subjectification. Specifically, they told back in that chapter that faciality is the substance of expression. It is the material locus for signification and subjectification. "Faciality reigns materially over that whole constellation of signifiances and interpretations (psychologists have written extensively on the baby's relations to the mother's face, and sociologists on the role of the face in mass media and advertising). The despot-god has never hidden his face, far from it; he makes himself one or even several" (115). The face is thus a field or a milieu on which signification or subjectification can take place, but it is not a neutral field or milieu. It is constructed so as to make certain meanings and subjectivities appear. The baby's relation to the mother's face is an interesting example, and maybe gives us a reason for calling this face. But clearly this doesn't just have to do with what we normally call faces. This face in general is a constructed field or milieu that determines the possible signification and subjectification. We might be better off, then, understand the face as close to what Debord called a spectacle. Like the spectacle the face determines what can appear, what meanings and what subjectivities. And like the spectacle, the face corresponds to or determines a form of rule. "The face is a politics" (181). The despotic facial machine gives priority to the white wall and signification; while the authoritarian facial machine gives priority to the black holes and subjectification. The two, of course, mix and function together. Every face is a mixture of a despotic regime and an authoritarian regime, signification and subjectification. The revolutionary politics to counter or contest this, then, is not to return to any primitive, pre-facial regime -- nor is it to create any identity (which I assume would be to create a new face). The course D&G propose instead is to unmake the face. "If the face is a politics, dismantling the face is also a politics involving real becomings, an entire becoming-clandestine. Dismantling the face is the same as breaking through the wall of the signifier and getting out of the black hole of subjectivity. Here, the program, the slogan, of schizoanalysis is: Find your black holes and white walls, know them, know your faces; it is the only way you will be able to dismantle them and draw your lines of flight" (188). Here I think the difference between the face and the spectacle becomes more clear. Spectacles in Debord are always something external on us, projected for us, maybe at the limit on us. The faces, on the other hand, are us. They constitute us, our black holes and white walls. Dismantling our faces will be to a large extent dismantling ourselves. We have no choice but to start out from our faces on our lines of flight."

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what faciality is, that seems more like an explanation of Difference and Repetition and On Kafka 

 

Faciality is a concept developed by DnG to problematize race relations and identity. It rejects the dialectical divide between identity and identity formation, for example, and thus operates upon a non-dialectical frame. It says that identity is not produced via the "Other" that is anti-thetical to the dominant racial dynamic, rather that is characterized by degrees of deviance from the standard racial dynamic. Faciality is also very literally (and figuratively) referring to the face, because it is on the face that individuation and subjectification produce the Face (or the identity as such); if the racial dynamics around you are contingent upon your differentiation from the dominant racial dynamic, then of course your racial subject-position is going to inextricably bound to oppression.

 

Faciality is also something we must dismantle :3 (which means you must dismantle your identity)  

 

This is a really good quote that explains it fairly well:

 

"Racism functions precisely by including everyone on the white screen and in the black holes including them and arranging them in a hierarchy defined by degrees of deviance from the dominant standard. That's the first thing to understand about faciality, then, that it is based not on a negative dialectic of identities but degrees of deviance, and that although it does not function through exclusion it nonetheless establishes a hierarchy of types. (Does faciality have to do with identity? Is a face an identity?) What, then, is faciality? So far we have only that it is a nondialectical machine of hierarchy or domination. "This machine is called the faciality machine because it is the social production of face, because it performs the facialization of the entire body and all its surroundings and objects, and the landscapification of all worlds and milieus" (p. 181). The machine imposes a face on a body or a landscape on a world. One might assume at first that a face or a landscape is an identity that is stamped onto the body or the world, and that notion of facialization as an identity-producing machine might end up being pretty accurate, but D&G take a different tack. The face that is created by this machine is a combination of a white wall or screen with black holes. The white screen is the surface on which meanings appear; it is a system of signification. The black holes, on the other hand, are the points of passion and subjectification. One should remember at this point that a few chapters back, On Several Regimes of Signs, D&G described four regimes that all centered around signification: the primitive pre-signifying regime, the counter- signifying, the signifying, and the post-signifying regime, which is also the subjective and passional regime. A face, then, is a coordinated arrangement of these last two regimes, signification and subjectification. Specifically, they told back in that chapter that faciality is the substance of expression. It is the material locus for signification and subjectification. "Faciality reigns materially over that whole constellation of signifiances and interpretations (psychologists have written extensively on the baby's relations to the mother's face, and sociologists on the role of the face in mass media and advertising). The despot-god has never hidden his face, far from it; he makes himself one or even several" (115). The face is thus a field or a milieu on which signification or subjectification can take place, but it is not a neutral field or milieu. It is constructed so as to make certain meanings and subjectivities appear. T[/size]he baby's relation to the mother's face is an interesting example, and maybe gives us a reason for calling this face. But clearly this doesn't just have to do with what we normally call faces. This face in general is a constructed field or milieu that determines the possible signification and subjectification. We might be better off, then, understand the face as close to what Debord called a spectacle. Like the spectacle the face determines what can appear, what meanings and what subjectivities. And like the spectacle, the face corresponds to or determines a form of rule. "The face is a politics" (181). The despotic facial machine gives priority to the white wall and signification; while the authoritarian facial machine gives priority to the black holes and subjectification. The two, of course, mix and function together. Every face is a mixture of a despotic regime and an authoritarian regime, signification and subjectification. The revolutionary politics to counter or contest this, then, is not to return to any primitive, pre-facial regime -- nor is it to create any identity (which I assume would be to create a new face). The course D&G propose instead is to unmake the face. "If the face is a politics, dismantling the face is also a politics involving real becomings, an entire becoming-clandestine. Dismantling the face is the same as breaking through the wall of the signifier and getting out of the black hole of subjectivity. Here, the program, the slogan, of schizoanalysis is: Find your black holes and white walls, know them, know your faces; it is the only way you will be able to dismantle them and draw your lines of flight" (188). Here I think the difference between the face and the spectacle becomes more clear. Spectacles in Debord are always something external on us, projected for us, maybe at the limit on us. The faces, on the other hand, are us. They constitute us, our black holes and white walls. Dismantling our faces will be to a large extent dismantling ourselves. We have no choice but to start out from our faces on our lines of flight."[/size]

Perfect example of a high school dng round. Sounds "so smart", isn't abjectly wrong, but still has said almost nothing of value.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck, Deleuze and Guattari usually couldn't explain what their words meant.

Oh yeah because "what is philosophy" wasn't printed and everyone who reads dng from a scholarly perspective is just making shit up. Stop talking out of your ass - if you have literally no idea what is going on you aren't OBLIGATED to inform us of your ignorance. read a book you dude. Just...any book.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what faciality is, that seems more like an explanation of Difference and Repetition and On Kafka 

 

Faciality is a concept developed by DnG to problematize race relations and identity. It rejects the dialectical divide between identity and identity formation, for example, and thus operates upon a non-dialectical frame. It says that identity is not produced via the "Other" that is anti-thetical to the dominant racial dynamic, rather that is characterized by degrees of deviance from the standard racial dynamic. Faciality is also very literally (and figuratively) referring to the face, because it is on the face that individuation and subjectification produce the Face (or the identity as such); if the racial dynamics around you are contingent upon your differentiation from the dominant racial dynamic, then of course your racial subject-position is going to inextricably bound to oppression.

 

You do realize that is exactly what I said right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect example of a high school dng round. Sounds "so smart", isn't abjectly wrong, but still has said almost nothing of value.

Well...yeah...I'm in High school and sorry but I haven't had the luxury to discuss DnG with anybody other than the people in this forum 

 

It wasn't my intention to do the latter half of your rant, the person asked for a description of Faciality and I think that throwing out all the buzzwords FIRST helps the person remember it later, although Snarks post was really good it didn't contain all the buzzwords that would have been helpful in the future - FIRST IMPRESSIONS MATTER

 

Why isn't it "abjectly wrong" - I guess, what part of my explanation is wrong? The latter half is from an explanation on the internet from Duke University. I understand you have 9+ years of experience with DnG and the sorts but this type of response was uncalled for - maybe explaining what I interpreted wrong would've been much more helpful?

 

Nothing of value? Why? Would it have been better if I explained it in terms of potatoes:

 

There is the dominant potato that serves as a basis for identity 

 

Then there is the Other potato, that is not really an Other, that has it's identity formed based upon its deviance from the established norm of the dominant potato - that's how racial relations operate 

 

So when the Wilder-potato comes along and says blackness is ontological and creates the condition of social death (or abject blackness), the Deleuzoguattarian-Potato comes along and says "No, blackness is not outside of Civil Society [or is symptomatic of social death], rather it's contingent upon the the degrees of variance from the dominant Potato"

 

Edit: Here's the link to the explanation from Duke University -> http://people.duke.edu/~hardt/mp3.htm

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...