Felix Guattari - Machine and Structure

Machine and Structure'

The distinction I am proposing betweenmachine and structure is based solely on the way we use the words; we may considerthat we are merely dealingwith a 'written device'of the kind one has to invent for dealingwith a mathematicalproblem.or with an axiom that ma1'haveto be reconsidered at a particular stageof development,or againwith the kind of machinewe shall be talking about here. I want thereforeto make it clearthat I am putting into parentheses the lact that, in realitv,a machineis inseparablefrom its structuralarticulationsand, conversely,that each contingentslructure is dorninated(and this is what I want to demonstrate)by a systemof machines,or at the very leastby one logic machine.It seemsto me vital to start by establishingthe distinctionin order to make it easierto identif,vthe peculiarpositionsof subjectivityin relationto eventsand to history.2 We may say of structurethat it positionsits elementsby way of a systemof references that rel.tes eachone to the others,in such a wav that it can itselfbe relatedas an elementto other structures. The agent of action, whose definition here does not extend beyond this principle of reciprocal determination, is included in the structure. The structuralprocessofde-totalized totalizationenclosesthe subject,and will

r . l n i t i a l l y i n t e n d e dl o r t h e F r e u d i a n S c h o o li n P a r i s i n r 9 6 9 , a n d p u b l s h e d i n C h a n g en, o . t e ( S e u i l )r, 9 7r . r. To adopt the categoriessuggestedby Gilles Deleuze,structure, in the sensein which I am using it here, would relate to the generality characterized by a posirion oiexchange or substitution of p a r t i c u l a r i t i c sw , h e r e a s t h e m a c h i n e w o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e o r d e r o f r e p e t i t i o n ' a s b e h a v i o u ra n d '1D viewpoint rel a t ive to a singul ari ty tha t can not be changedor replaccd' fJ,ire.nu et ripitition,Presses Universitaires de France, I 969, p. 7). Of Deleuze's three minimum conditions determining strucrurein general, I shall retain only the first two: (r)Theremustbeatleasttwohetcrogeneousseries,oneofwhichisdefinedasthesignifierandrhe orheras the signi6ed. (c) Each of these series is made up of terms that exist oni1, through their relationship with one another. His third condition, 'tx,o heterogeneousseriesconvergingupon a paradoxical element that actsso as to di{lerentiare them', relates,on thc contrary, exclusivelyto the order of the machine (Logiquedu s a r oM , inuit, t969,p.63).

I 12 f'owards a Nerv Vocabularv n o t l e rs o a s l o n ga si t i s i n a p o s r t i o nt o r e c u p e r a t iet w i t h i n a n o t h e rs t r u c t u r a l determinatior.r. 'fhe n r a c h i n eo, n t h eo l h e r h a n d ,r e m a i n se s s e n t i a l lrve m o t e{ i o m t h e a g e n t 'fhe -fe o{ action. sLrbjectis alrval,ssomer,r,here else. mporaiizationpenetrates the machineon all sidesand can be related to it onl,vzrfterthe lashionof an evenrT , h e e m e r g c n c oe l ' t h ci n a c h i n en r a r k sa d a t e ,a c h a n g ec, l i f l e r e nf tr o m a structLlralrepresentatiolr. 'fhe history of technologvr.sdated bv the existencear each srageol a i ) a r t i c u i a rt 1 ' p eo f ' n i a c h i n et ih e h i s t o r \o f t h e s c j e n c eiss n o w r e a c h i n ga p o i n t , i n a l l i t s b r a n c h e sw , h e r e e v c r vs c i e n t i 6 ct h e o r ) ' c a nb e t a k e na s a m a c h i n e rzrthel than a strlicture, rl'hich relates it to the order of ideoiogr'.Everv (almostto the point machineis the negation.the destro;-erby ir-rcorporation o f e x c r e t i o n ) o, f ' t h e r n a c h i n ei t r e p l a c e sA. n d i t i s p o t e n t i a l l ,ivn a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i pt o t h e m a c h i n et h a t w i l l t a k ei t s p l a c e . Yesterdav'smachine, today's and tomorrow's, are not reiated in their structur?11 determinations:onlv by a processof historicalanal;-srs,by referr:ncetr) a signifling chain extrinsic to the machine, bv what u,e mrght call historical structur;rlism, can we gain anv overail grasp of the ei}'ectsof c o n t i n u i t v .r e l r o - a c t i o na n d i n t e l l i n k i n st h a t i t i s c a p a b l eo f ' r e p r e s e n t i n g . For the rnachrne,the subjectof history is elsewhere,in the structure. In I z r c tt,h e s u b j e c o t f t h e s t r u c t u r ec. o n s i d e r eidn i t s r e l a t i o n s h i o p f a l i e n a t i o nt o ;1s,vstemtrf cle-totalizedtotalizarion.shouid rather be seenin relation ro a of-'beingan ego'- the egoherebeingin contrastwrth the sub.ject ;;'henorrrcnon o i ' t h e t r n c o n s c i o uass i t c o r r e s p o n d st o t h e p r i n c i p l es t a t e d b y L a c a n : a s i q n i 6 e r - r e n r e s e ni t sl b r a n o t h e rs i g n i f i e rT. h e u n c o n s c i o ussu b j e c ta s s u c h will bc on the same side as the machrne,or better perhaps.alongside the r n a c h r r r cT.h e r ei s n o b r e a ki n t h em a c h i n ei t s e l f :t h e b r e a c hi s o n e i t h e r s i d eo f lt.

The indir.'idual'srelationto the machinehas beendescribedbv sociologists fi>llowingFriedn-rannas one of lundamentalalienatjon,This is undoubtedl,v true ii one considersthe individual as a structure for totalization of the irnasirarl'. But the dialecticof the mastercraftsmanand the apprenticeJrhe r.,ldpicrurcsof the clillelenttradesflourishingin dillerenrpartsof the countrv, in the faceof modern mechanizedindustry ail this has becomemeaningl.ess tlrat rcqLliresics skilled rvorkersto start lrom scratchagain ru'irhevel'\'new technoltrgical advance. But doesnot this startingliom scratchmark precisely that essentiaibreakthroughthat characterizes the unconscioussubject? Initiation into a trade and becomingacceptedas a skilledrvorkerno longer takes piace by wav of institutions,or at least not those envisagedin such s t a t e m e n t sa s ' t h e s k i . l lh a s p r e c e d e n coev e r t h e m a c h i n e ' ,W i t h i n d u s t r i a l capitalism. the spasrnodicevolution of machirrerykeepscr-rttingacrossthe c x i s t i n qh i e r a r ,l r v o f s k i l l s .

Machine and Structure I l3 In this sense,the worker'salienationto the machineexcludes him lrom any kind of structuralequilibrium, and puts him in a positionwhere he is as close as possibleto a radical svstemof realignment,rve might sav of castrarion, wherehe losesall tranquillity, all 'sellconfirming'security,all thejustificarionofa'senseofbelonging'to a skilledtrade.Suchprolessionalbodiesasstill exist,like doctors,pharmacists,or lawyers,aresirnplysurvivalsfrom the days of pre-capitalistproductionrelations. This changeis ofcourseintolerable;instirutionalproductionthereforesets out to concealwhat is happening by setting up systemsof equivalents,of imitations.Their ideologicalbasis is to be lound not solely in fascist-type, paternalisticslogansabout work, the lamily and patriotism,but alsowithin thevariousversionsofsocialism (evenincluding the most apparentlyliberal ones,like the Cuban), w,ith their oppressivemyth of the model worker, and theirexaltationof the machinewhosecult has much the samefunctionas that o l t h e h e r oi n a n t i q u i t y . As cornparedwith the work done by machines,the work of human beingsis nothrng.This working at 'nothing', in the specialsensein w,hichpeopledo it todav,r,vhichtends more and more to be merely a responseto a machinepressinga red or black button to producean effectprogrammedsomewhere else- human work, in other words, is only the residuethat has not yet been integratedinto the w'orkof the machine. Operations performed by workers, techniciansand scientistswill be absorbed,incorporated into the workings of tomorrow's machine; to do somethingover and over no longeroffersthe securityofritual. It is no longer possibleto identif. the repetition of human actior.Is('the noble task of the sower')with the repetitionof the natural cycleas the loundationolthe moral order.Repetitionno longer estabiishesa man as someonewho can do that particularjob.Human work today is merelya residualsub-wholeof the work of the machine. Tfris residual human activity is no more than a partial procedurethat accompaniesthe central procedureproducedby the order of themachine.The machinehasnow cometo theheartofdesire,and thisresidual humanwork representsno more than the point of the machine's imprint 'a'3). onthe imaginary world of the individual (cf. Lacan's functionof the Everv new discovery- in the sphereof scientificresearch,lor examplemovesacrossthe structuralfieid oftheorv like a w,armachine,upsettingand rearranging everythingso as to changeit radically.Even the researcheris at themercyof this process.His discoveriesextendlar beyondhimself,bringing in their train u,holenew branchesofresearchers,and totally redesigningthe treeof scientificand technologicalimplications.Even when a discoveryis calledby its author's name, the result,far lrom 'personalizing'him, tends to 3. SeeGlossar.v,Ohjelpetil

'a'.

r 14 Towards a New Vocabulary

be to turn his proper name into a cornmonnoun! The questionis whetherthis eflacing of the individual is something that will spread to other forms of productionas weli. Though it is true that this unconscioussubjectivity,as a split which is overcome in a signifying chain, is being transferred away lrom individuals and human groups towards the world of machines,it still remainsjust as un-representable at the specificallymachinic level. It is a signilierdetached from the unconsciousstructural chain that will acI as representallue to represent the machine. The essenceof the machine is preciselythis lunction ofdetaching a signi6er as a repr€sentative.as a'di{Ierentiator', as a causal break, di{ferent in kind lrom the structurally establishedorder of things. It is this operation that binds the macirineboth to the desiringsubjectand to its statusas the basisof the various structurai orders correspondingto it. The machine,as a reperition of the particuiar, is a mode - perhapsindeed the onlv possiblemode - of univocal repfesentationof the various forms of subjectivitvin the order ofi generalityon the individual or the collectiveplane. In trying to see things the other wav round, startinglrom the general, one would be deluding oneselfwith the idea that it is possibl"to baseoneselfon sonlestructural spacethat existedbeforethe breakthroughby the machine. This'pure', 'basic'signifvingchain,a kind oflost Eden ofdesire,the'goodold days' before mechanization,rnight then be seen as a meta-language,an absoluterelerencepoint that one could alwaysproducein placeofany chance eventor specificindication. 'Ihis would lead to wronglv locating the truth of the break, the truth of the subject,on the level of representation,information, communication,social codesand ever)'otherlorm ofstructural determination. T'hevoice, asspeechmachine,is the basisand determinantolthe structural order oi language,and not the other way round. The individual, in his bodiliness,acceptsthe consequencesofthe interaction ofsignifying chains of all kincis which cut across and tear him apart. Th€ human being is caught where the machine and the structure meet. Human groups have no such projection screen available to them. The rnodes of interpretation and indication open to them are successiveand contradictory, approximative and meraphorical, and are based upon di{Iererit structural orders, for instance on myths or exchanges. Every change produced by the inrusion of a machine phenomenon will thus be accom. panied in them with the estabiishment of what one may call a system of anti-production, the representativemode specificto structure. I need hardly say that anti-production belongs to the order of the machine:the keynotehere is its characteristicofbeing a subjectivechange, which is the distinctive trait of ever),order of production. What w'e need

lr,r

tr)A^a/J2_

J.

?^tn"t

Machine and Structure I I5

d

r I i

i i i

.

e

l

l

, d

thereloreis a meansof finding our way r.r,ithoutmoving as though by magic from one plane to another.We must, lor instance,relateto the samesystemof productionboth what goeson in the worid ofindustry, on the shopfloor or in the manager'sofFce,and what is happeningin scientihcresearch,and indeed in the world of literatureand evenof dreams, Anti-production rvill be, among other things, what has been described 'production relations'.Anti-production will tend to e{Iecta under the term in the directionof kind ofre-tilting of the balanceofphantasy,not necessarily inertia and conservatism,sinceit can alsolead to generalizingwithin a given socialarea a new dominant mode of production,accumulation,circulation and distribution rela!ions,or ofany other superstructuralmanifestationofa nervt,vpeof economicmachine.Its mode of imaginarvexpressionis then that of the transitionalphantasv. Let us then look at the other end ofthe chain,the levelofdream production. We may identify anti-productionwith working out the manifestcontentof a dream,in contrastto the latent productionslinked with the impulsemachine 'a', described Lacan the root that constitutepart objects.The objetpetit by as of desire,the umbilicus of the dream, also breaksinto the structural equilibrium of the individual like someinfernalmachine.The subjectfinds it is being petit rejectedbv itself. In proportion with the changewrought by objet-maehine 'a'in the structural field ofrepresentation,successive formsofothernesstake their places for it, each fashioned to fit a particular stage of the process. Individual phantasizingcorrespondsto this mode ofstructural signposting by meansofa specificlanguagelinked with the ever-repeated urgingsofthe 'machinations' desire. of petit 'a', irreducible, unable to be The existence of this objet-machine absorbedinto the relerences ofthe structure,this 'selfforitself' that relatesto theelementsof the structureonly by meansof splittingand metonymy,means that the representationof oneselfby meansof the'stencils'of languageleads 'otherness'.The to a deadend, to a breakingpoint, and the needfor a renewed objectofdesire de-centresthe individual outside himself,on the boundariesof the other; it represents the impossibility of any complete refuge of the self insideoneself,but equally the impossibilityof a radicalpassageto the other. Indi','idualphantasvrepresents this impossiblemergingof di{Ierentlevels;it is thisthat makesit diflerentlrom group phantasizing,for a group has no such 'hitchingposts' of desire on its surfiace,no such remindersof the order ol specifictruths as the body's erogenouszones,and their capacitvlor touching andbeingtouchedby other people. Group phantasy superimposesthe dillerent levels,changesthem round, substitutes one for another.It can onlv turn round and round upon itself.This circularmovementleadsit to mark out certainareasasdeadends,as banned, asimpassable vacuoles,a whole no-man'sland of meaning.Caught up within

r r6

Towards a New Vocabulary

currency,but a the group, one phantasyreflectsanotheriike interchangeable currencyrvith no recognizablestandard.no ground ofconsistencvwherebyit can be related.even partiallv, to anything other than a topologyofthe most purely generalkind. The group-as astructure-phantasizeseventsby means of a perpetual and non-responsiblecoming and going between the general and the particular. A leader,a scapegoat,a schism,a threateningphantasy from another group - anv of theseis equatedwith the group subjectivity. Each e'rentor crisiscan be replacedby anothereventor crisis,inauguratinga further sequencethat bears,in turn, the imprint of equivalenceand identity. Today's truth can be related to yesterday's,for it is always possibleto re-write history. The experienceof psychoanal,vsis, the starting up of the psychoanalvtic machine.makesit clear that it is impossiblelor the desiringsubjectto preservi such a s-vstemof homologt,and re-writing: the only function of the translerencein this case is to reveal the repetition that is taking place, to operatelike a machine- that is in a u'av that is the preciseoppositeof a group eflect. The group's instinctualsystem,becauseit is unableto be linked up to the petit 'a' returning to the surfaceof the phantasy body desiring rnachine - objets - is doomed to multiply its phantasy identifications.Each of these is structuredin itself,but is still equivocalin its relationshipto the others,The fact that they lack the diflerentiating factor Gilles Deleuze talks of dooms thenr to a perpetuai process of merging into one another. Any change is precluded, and can be seen only between structural levels. Essentially, no break is any iongeraccepted.That the structureshaveno specificidentifying rnarksmeansthat the;' become'translatable'into one another,thus developing a kind of indefinite logical continuum that is peculiarly satisfvingto obsessionals.The identification of the similar and the discoveryof diflerence at group level function according to a second-degreephantasy logic. It is, for example, the phantasy representationof the otlter group that will act as the locatingmachine.In a sense,it is an excessof logicthat leadsit to an impasse. This relationshipolthe structuressetsgoing a mad machine,madder than the maddestoflunatics, the tangentialrepresentationofa sado-masochistic logic in which everythingis equivalentto everythingelse,in which truth is always somethingapart" Political responsibilityis king, and the order of the generalis radically cut offfrom the order of the ethical.The ultimate end of group phantasy is death - ultimate death, destruction in its own right, the radical abolition of any real identifving marks, a state of things in which not merely has the probiem oftruth disappeared forever but has never existed evenas a problem. This group structure representsthe subject for another structure as the basis of a subjectivitv that is clogged up, opaque, turned into the ego. Whereas,for the individual, it was the object of unconsciousdesire that

Machine and Structure I r7 functioned as a system of change or machine, in a group it is either the sub-wholesthat happen to come into being temporarilvwithin the group or anothergroup that will assumethat function.This areaolstructural equivalencewill thus have the lundamentalfunction of concealingor abolishingthe entry ofany particular object representedeitheron the screenofthe human subjectby unconsciousdesire,or on the more generalscreenofunconscious signifying chains bv the change eflectedby the closeds),sremof machines. The structuralorder olthe group, olconsciousness, ofcommunication,is thus surroundedon all sidesby rhesesystemsof machineswhjch it will never be able to control, either by grasping the objets petit'a'as rhe unconsciousdesire machine, or the phenomena of breaking apart related to other types of machines.The essenceof the machine,as a factor lor breakingapart, as the a-topicalfoundationolthat order ofthe general,is that one cannotultimately distinguishthe unconscioussubjectofdesire from rhe order ofthe machine itself. on one side or other of all structural determi*ations.the subiect of economics,of history and of scienceall encounter that sameobjetpetit ,a;as the lour.rdationof desire. An exampleofa structurefunctioningassubjectlor anotherstructureis the lact that the black community in the United Sratesrepresentsan identification imposed by rhe white order. To rhe modernistconsciousness this is a confused,absurd, meaninglessstateof things. Art unconsciousproblematic challengesthe rejectionof a more radical 'otherness'that would be combined with. say, a rejectionof economic'otherness'.The assassination of Kennedy was an event that 'represented'the impossibilityof registeringthe economic and socialothernessof the Third World, as wirnessedby the failure of the Alliancefor Progress,the endeavourto destroyVietnam and so on. One can only note here the points of intersectionand continuity betrveenthe economy ofdesireand that ofpolitics. At a particular poinr in histor,vdesirebecomesfocalizedin the totality of structures;I suggestthat for this u'e usc the generalterm ,machine':it could bea new weapon,a new production technique,a ne1!'setofreligiousdogmas, or such major new discoveriesas the Indies,relativity,or the moon. To cope with this, a structural anri-production developsuntil it reachesits own saturation point, while the revolutionary breakthrough also develops,in counterpointto this, another discontirruousarea of anti-production that tendsto re-absorbthe inrolerablesubjectivebreach,all ofwhich meansthat ir persistsin eludir.rgthe antecedentorder. We may say of revolution,of the revolutionaryperiod, that this is rvhenthe machinerepresenrssocialsubjectivity lor the s!ructure - as opposedto the phaseofoppressionand stagnarion, when the superstructuresare imposed as impossible representationsof machineefrects.The common denominatorof w,ritingsof this kind in history wouldbe the openingup ola pure signifvingspacewhere the machinewould

I i8

Towards a New Vocabulary

l'epresentthe subject lor another machine. But one can no longer then continueto say ofhistory, as the site ofthe unconscious,that it is'structured like a ianguage'exceptin that there is no possiblewritten lorm ofsuch a language. It is, in fact, impossibletc systematizethe real discourseof history, the circurnstance that causesa particular phase or a particular signifier to be representedby a particular event or social group, by the emergenceofan individual or a discovery,or whatever. in this sense'we must consider,d priori, that the primitive stagesolhistory are u'here trurh is primarily to be sought; historv does not advancein a continuousmovement:its structural phenomenadevelop accordingto their own peculiar sequences, expressing and indicating signifying rensionsrhar remain unconsciousup to the point where they breakthrough.That point marksa recognizable breakin rhe rhree dimensions of exclusion, perseveranceand threat. Historical archaisn-rs expressa reinlorcing rather than a weakening ofthe structural eflect. That And16Malraux could say that the twenriethcenturyis the centuryof nationalism,in contrast to the nineteenth,which was that of internationalism, was becauseinternationalism.lacking a structural expressionthat matched the economicand social machineriesat work within it, withdrew into nationalism,and then further, into regionalismand the varioussortsof particularism that are developingroday, even within the supposedlyinternational communistmovement. The problem olrevolutionary organizationis the problem ofsetting up an institutional machine whose distinctive leatures would be a theory and practice that ensuredits not having to depend on the various socialstructures - above all the State strucrure, which appears to be the keystone of the dominant production relations, even though it no longer correspondsto the meansolproduction. What entrapsand deceivesus is thar it looks today as though nothing can be articulated outside rhat structure. The revolutionary socialist intention to seizecontrol of political power in the State,which it sees as the instrumental basisof classdomination, and the institutional guarantee cf pri..rateownership of the meansof production, has been caught injust that trap. It has itself becomea trap in its turn, for that intention, though meaning so much in terms ofsocial consciousness, no longer correspondsto the reality of economic or social forces.The institutionalization of 'world markets' and the prospect ofcreating super-Statesincreasesthe allure ofthe rap; so does the modern reformist programme of achieving an ever-greater 'popular' control ofthe economic and social sub-wholes.The subjectiveconsistencyof society,as it operatesat every level ofthe economy,society,culture and so on, is invisible today, and the institutions that express it are equivocal in the extreme. This was evident during the revolution of lvlay I 968 in France,when the nearest approximation to a proper organization of the struggle rvas the

Machine and Structure r r 9 hesitant, late and violently opposed experiment of lorming actior) commlttees. The revolutionarv programme, as the machine for institutional subversion, should demonstrateproper subjectivepotential and, at every stageof the struggle, should make sure that it is lortified against any attempt to 'structuralize' that potential. But no such permanentgraspofmachine effectsupon the structurescould really'be achievedon the basisofonly one itheoreticalpractice'.It presupposes the development of a specific analytical praxis at every level of organizationof the sruggle. Such a prospectwould in turn make it possibleto locatethe responsibility of those who are in any waf in a position genuinely to utter theoretical discourseat the point at which it imprints the classstruggleat the very centre ofunconsciousdesire.