Philosophy, Resistance and War
Christopher Kullenberg December 21st, 2006
In radical philosophy one approach to theory is that it functions as a tool-box, where concepts are like weapons against oppression. Many philosophers think of this as a way of descriping how power is practised, what the nature of class-divisions is, or how racism is constructed through history by dividing people. But what happens when the “enemy” uses this tool-box?
Eyal Weizmann elaborates on this problem in an article called The Art of War. By interviewing military theorists of the Israeli Defense Forces, he is surprised to hear them express their war against(of) terrorism in a critical philosophical vocabulary. Here is a quote:
I asked Naveh why Deleuze and Guattari were so popular with the Israeli military. He replied that ‘several of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaux became instrumental for us […] allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have otherwise. It problematized our own paradigms. Most important was the distinction they have pointed out between the concepts of “smooth†and “striated†space.
Now, being a very enthusiastic Deleuze & Guattari reader myself, I cannot but start to reflect on this. A couple of years ago I visited Bayt Lahm on the West Bank. With a lousy camera I shot this picture of the famous wall:
Now, according to Deleuze and Guattari, there is an opposition between what they call the State-apparatus and the War machine. The primary objective for the State-apparatus is to make smooth spaces striated in order to control the movements of the War machine. One way of doing this is to build high walls, as on the West Bank. But there is one problem. The War machine works with a different logic than the monstrous State-apparatus – it is even ontologically different. It connects rhizomatically, and gains power through multiplication rather than by metric numbers. This way, it can never be quenched by striating a landscape with walls only, it always finds a flight line of escape. What we see on the picture (above) is a strange discursive battle written on the wall, but this type of resistance is only superficial. The power of resistance is in the creative (but often violent and repulsive) attempts at breaking through. Building a wall may work statistically, but it will not change resistance at its core. The IDF has learned the tactics of striating smooth spaces, but they have hardly solved the problem of rhizomatic resistance. My suggestion, is not only that the IDF changes politics, but also heads back to the library to re-read A Thousand Plateaus.
- Boycott , Resistance , Terrorism , Uncategorized , War , philosophy
- Comments(4)
[...] historie- och identitetspolitiken ett tag. För vad som står på spel är en territoriell kamp om rum och siffror. Eftersom det ter sig omöjligt att någon skulle överge identitetspolitiken (vi är [...]
This article misses the point of the IDF’s engagement with Deleuze and Guattari: the problem is that the IDF takes on the role of the war machine as well as that of the state. On one level, Israeli state forces relentlessly striate Palestinian space, imposing a system of controls that severely limit population movement and behaviour. With their roadblocks, checkpoints, Israeli-only roads, curfews, control of water sources and closure of borders, the Israeli state tries to limit Palestinian movement to zero. (ICHAD is very good on this and provides a number of detailed maps). At the same time, the IDF has learned from Thousand Plateaus the value of smooth space; the IDF becomes a war machine. Deleuze and Guattari say “make the world Swiss cheese,” and the IDF moves through a city by blowing holes in walls. They do not move down the roads, they create a new route through buildings: the war machine erupts into a Palestinian living room. Deleuze and Guattari acknowledged that this could happen: an insurgent inhabits smooth space, but so does globalised capital and all the violent apparatuses in its service.
Elinor: Thank you very much for your elaborate comment! I believe you are right, and what I wrote (now a few months ago) does miss the point. It is equally important for the IDF to know how use/create/destroy smooth spaces. And we must remember the last words in ATP before the conclusions: “Never believe that smooth space will suffer to save us”. What lurks in smooth space may not be the totalitarian assemblage of a controlling State, however assemblages are not less powerful only because they are in shapes of war machines.
Elinor, have you written more on this subject, or other nearby topics? If so I would be happy to read, and if you are interested please send me an e-mail at christopher.kullenberg@theorysc.gu.se and maybe we can continue the discussion.
[...] am very interested in walls, as they have popped up in for example Israel for basically the same purpose, and has severe conseqences for dividing cities in more than just [...]