Complicating the Dualisms: History versus Becoming

Abstract

Complicating Dualisms: History versus Becoming Craig Lundy, History and Becoming: Philosophy of Creativity (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), Pages 218. Craig Lundy's History and Becoming: Philosophy of Creativity is an ambitious work that engages question of in thought, attempting to demonstrate the vital importance of philosophy of to his wider creative agenda (1). Lundy claims secondary works to date have largely misconceived relation of to thought. He criticizes Jay Lampert's problematic distinction good and bad in Deleuze--Lampert associates former with nomadic based on pure and latter with (103)--as well as Manuel Delanda's distinction ideal, top-down histories and material, bottom-up histories (8). Lundy claims Deleuze's hostility towards is highly superficial (37). Critical remarks Deleuze makes concerning bear on specific account of history, an understanding of as historicism. Hence, Lundy's primary aim is to show that need not be condemned to historicism (157), and that conceptual resources exist in work to formulate an account of in terms other than historicism, what Lundy describes as an understanding of as process of creation (38). Lundy links this account to figures discussed by Deleuze throughout his work, Peguy, Nietzsche and Foucault, who all promoted an alternative kind of history (181). Lundy includes Braudel in this list as well (180). Central to an understanding of in these terms is notion of becoming. The relation and becoming in thought should not be understood in either/or terms--where Deleuze rejects in favor of becoming. Rather, one can take up and explore conception of becoming, explaining how this notion lies at heart of Deleuzian account of history. Towards this end, Lundy focuses on complicating--or complexifying--a number of dualisms in terms of which Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari are commonly explained (66). The oppositions Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari establish between--for example--depth and height, and nomad and state, consist in extractions or abstraction of de jure purities from de facto mixtures (102). characterization of a monism that in fact equals pluralism, says Lundy, can be understood in these terms (89), as well as emphasis Deleuze places on the diagonal in his reading of Foucault (90-91). Lundy justifies this approach with reference to distaste for extremes (63), fact that Deleuze gives priority to between (56) or middle realm (97). Building on this claim, Lundy says thought should not be understood in terms of revolutionary alone, but is characterized by precaution and prudence (98). Similarly, one cannot overly demonize capitalism or overly valorize schizophrenia in reading Deleuze and Guattari (140). In fact, capitalism has itself great capacity for change--creating new things--which Lundy explains in terms of fact capitalism is characterized by an axiomatic; it lacks an essential code or sign of its own (122). Lundy goes on to further complicate distinctions made depth and height, Chronos and Aion, nomad and state, and smooth and striated in Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari's thought. …