Anda di halaman 1dari 10
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
3,
 
2015
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
doi:
 
10.14355/ijps.2015.03.001
 
1
 
Approaching
 
Minoritarian
 
Ethics
 
from
 
Deleuze’s
 
Theory
 
of
 
Assemblage:
 
A
 
Proposed
 
Framework
 
 Jae
 
Eon
 
Yu
*
 ,
 
Department
 
of
 
Business
 
Administration,
 
Keimyung
 
University
 
1095
 
Dalgubeol
daero,
 
Daegu,
 
South
 
Korea
 
*
9070yu@hanmail.net
 
 Abstract 
 
This
 
paper
 
aims
 
to
 
propose
 
and
 
evaluate
 
Deleuze’s
 
perspective
 
on
 
social
 
change
 
in
 
relation
 
to
 
understand
 
‘humanities’
 
and
 
ethics
 
(what
 
we
 
refer
 
to
 
as
 
‘minoritarian
 
ethics’)
 
that
 
characterize
 
a
 
critical
 
discourse
 
on
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
modern
 
civilized
 
society.
 
We
 
develop
 
a
 
proposed
 
framework
 
for
 
understanding
 
“control
 
society”
 
in
 
order
 
to
 
 bring
 
about
 
changes
 
in
 
“control
 
society”
 
using
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
assemblage
 
and
 
propose
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
assemblage
 
to
 
map
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
social
 
transformation
 
in
 
terms
 
of
 
the
 
metaphor
 
of
 
rhizome
 
and
 
Deleuze’s
 
notion
 
of
 
events
 
as
 
a
 
new
 
type
 
of
 
open
 
system.
 
We
 
see
 
social
 
change
 
and
 
organizational
 
transformation
 
through
 
the
 
unfolding
 
process
 
of
 
problematization
 
that
 
allows
 
researchers
 
to
 
 be
 
‘critical
 
thinkers’
 
within
 
‘critical
 
systems
 
practices’.
 
To
 
 be
 
critical
 
thinkers,
 
what
 
is
 
important
 
for
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
problematization
 
that
 
aims
 
to
 
find
 
out
 
possible
 
new
 
assemblages
 
through
 
the
 
appreciation
 
of
 
minoritarian
 
ethics.
 
We
 
argue
 
that
 
our
 
proposed
 
framework
 
is
 
useful
 
towards
 
understanding
 
the
 
continuity
 
of
 
the
 
‘vitalism’
 
of
 
new
 
social
 
systems,
 
which
 
are
 
evolved
 
from
 
what
 
Foucault
 
terms
 
as
 
the
 
“critical
 
ontology
 
of
 
ourselves”.
 
Keywords
 
Social
 
Change;
 
 Minoritarian
 
Ethics;
 
Deleuze’s
 
Theory
 
of 
 
an
 
 Assemblage;
 
Problematization
 
Introduction
The
 
paper
 
is
 
 based
 
on
 
a
 
post
structural,
 
theoretically
 
 based
 
account
 
of
 
a
 
vitalist
 
holism.
 
We
 
explore
 
a
 
vitalist
 
holism
 
from
 
a
 
systems
 
science’s
 
perspective
 
and
 
post
structuralist’s
 
works,
 
particularly
 
Foucault
 
and
 
Deleuze’s
 
works.
 
On
 
the
 
one
 
hand,
 
our
 
systems
 
research
 
is
 
valid
 
where
 
the
 
‘critical
 
systemic
 
practice’
 
 becomes
 
an
 
issue
 
within
 
Foucault’s
 
critical
 
project
 
which
 
is
 
distinct
 
from
 
the
 
transcendental
 
search
 
for
 
formal
 
structures
 
of
 
how
 
social
 
systems
 
are
 
evolved
 
during
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
specific
 
historical
 
events,
 
which
 
he
 
calls
 
‘practical
 
systems’
 
(Tsouvalis,
 
1995:
 
223).
 
On
 
the
 
other
 
hand,
 
our
 
research
 
is
 
 based
 
on
 
Deleuze’s
 
thoughts
 
about
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
social
 
change
 
in
 
terms
 
of
 
his
 
theory
 
of
 
assemblage,
 
which
 
investigates
 
the
 
unfolding
 
process
 
of
 
how
 
social
 
systems
 
generate
 
new
 
assemblages
 
through
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
differentiation.
 
Deleuze’s
 
understanding
 
of
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
differentiation
 
is
 
to
 
appreciate
 
how
 
open,
 
nonlinear
 
and
 
rhizomatic
 
networks
 
or
 
‘meshworks’
 
operate
 
and
 
evolve
 
within
 
social
 
systems
 
(Deleuze
 
and
 
Guattari,
 
1987;
 
DeLanda,
 
2006;
 
Colebrook,
 
2010).
 
A
ccording
 
to
 
Deleuze
 
(1995),
 
vitalism
 
is
 
a
 
thought
 
that
 
seeks
 
to
 
invent
 
“possibilities
 
of
 
existence”
 
through
 
the
 
creation
 
of
 
novel
 
concepts.
 
Based
 
upon
 
Deleuze’s
 
thought
 
of
 
vitalism,
 
we
 
explore
 
the
 
meaning
 
of
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
assemblage
 
and
 
how
 
we
 
can
 
raise
 
critical
 
ethical
 
questions
 
that
 
seek
 
out
 
new
 
values
 
or
 
‘becoming’
 
for
 
new
 
life
 
that
 
allows
 
us
 
to
 
“free
 
life
 
from
 
what
 
imprisons
 
it”
 
(Deleuze,
 
1995:
 
143).
 
This
 
is
 
our
 
proposal
 
as
 
we
 
investigate
 
the
 
recent
 
phenomena
 
of
 
social
 
and
 
organizational
 
complexities
 
from
 
process
 based
 
methodology
 
or
 
assemblage
 based
 
explanation
 
in
 
the
 
social
 
science
 
(Latour,
 
2005:
 
DeLanda,
 
2006).
 
We
 
understand
 
social
 
complexity
 
from
 
post
structuralists’
 
perspective
 
and
 
recent
 
works
 
in
 
realist
 
social
 
ontology
 
(Deleuze
 
and
 
Guattari,
 
1987;
 
DeLanda,
 
2006).
 
To
 
do
 
so,
 
we
 
first
 
evaluate
 
and
 
appreciate
 
Foucault’s
 
research
 
methods
 
of
 
understanding
 
historical
 
research.
 
Following
 
Foucault’s
 
interpretation
 
of
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
modern
 
society,
 
we
 
develop
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage
 
as
 
it
 
operates
 
within
 
social
 
fields
 
from
 
social
 
ontological
 
perspectives.
 
Next,
 
we
 
discuss
 
Deleuzian
 
ethics
 
(what
 
we
 
refer
 
to
 
as
 
“minoritarian
 
ethics”)
 
in
 
order
 
to
 
make
 
sense
 
of
 
the
 
assemblage
 
theory
 
in
 
social
 
practice.
 
Finally,
 
we
 
conclude
 
with
 
the
 
usefulness
 
of
 
the
 
assemblage
 
theory
 
for
 
understand
 
social
 
change
 
in
 
the
 
mode
 
of
 
a
 
vitalist
 
holism
 
in
 
which
 
a
 
new
 
thought
 
for
 
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
3,
 
2015
 
2
 
understanding
 
social
 
complexity
 
is
 
developed
 
from
 
the
 
relations
 
of
 
people
 
and
 
material
 
world,
 
and
 
discourse
 
within
 
social
 
contexts.
 
Appreciating Foucault’s Research Methods of Understanding Historical Research
In
 
order
 
to
 
make
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage
 
more
 
accessible
 
to
 
readers
 
who
 
are
 
not
 
familiar
 
with
 
his
 
work,
 
we
 
introduce
 
Foucault’s
 
works
 
on
 
research
 
methods
 
so
 
the
 
ideas
 
of
 
Gilles
 
Deleuze
 
can
 
 be
 
facilitated
 
in
 
the
 
Foucauldian
 
sense.
 
Foucault’s
 
early
 
research
 
methods,
 
what
 
he
 
called
 
archeology
 
and
 
genealogy,
 
are
 
mainly
 
concerned
 
with
 
how
 
power
 
is
 
exercised
 
in
 
relation
 
to
 
knowledge.
 
Foucault
 
thinks
 
of
 
history
 
as
 
an
 
ongoing
 
struggle
 
 between
 
different
 
forces
 
and
 
forms
 
of
 
power.
 
His
 
historical
 
research
 
is
 
concerned
 
with
 
how
 
subjects,
 
actions
 
and
 
meanings
 
are
 
shaped
 
 by
 
discursive
 
and
 
non
discursive
 
forces.
 
Foucault
 
(1977)
 
understands
 
historical
 
forces
 
with
 
his
 
interest
 
in
 
power/knowledge
 
relations.
 
It
 
is
 
interesting
 
to
 
note
 
that,
 
for
 
Foucault,
 
discourse
 
is
 
not
 
the
 
same
 
as
 
ideology.
 
The
 
term
 
‘discourse’
 
refers
 
to
 
the
 
way
 
in
 
which
 
communication,
 
information,
 
ideas
 
and
 
other
 
sequences
 
of
 
signs
 
are
 
exchanges
 
and
 
signified
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
33
34).
 
Instead
 
of
 
using
 
the
 
term
 
‘ideology’
 
which
 
is
 
often
 
associated
 
with
 
what
 
Marxists
 
call
 
“false
 
consciousness”,
 
Foucault
 
is
 
interested
 
in
 
discursive
 
formation,
 
a
 
term
 
that
 
is
 
used
 
instead
 
of
 
science,
 
ideology
 
or
 
theory
 
(Foucault,
 
1972:
 
31
41),
 
understood
 
as
 
a
 
set
 
of
 
shared
 
imperatives,
 
correspondences,
 
rules
 
and
 
relations
 
that
 
govern
 
the
 
appearance
 
of
 
statements
 
(énoncés)
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
35).
 
Foucault’s
 
later
 
research
 
methods
 
are
 
concerned
 
with
 
what
 
he
 
called
 
ethics
 
or
 
“the
 
problematizations
 
of
 
subjectivity”
 
(Pasquino,
 
1986:
 
102).
 
Foucault’s
 
project
 
of
 
ethics
 
aim
 
to
 
rebuild
 
the
 
forms
 
of
 
self
reflection
 
of
 
human
 
 behavior,
 
 by
 
controlling
 
oneself
 
and
 
how
 
self
control
 
is
 
integrated
 
into
 
the
 
practices
 
of
 
controlling
 
others
 
(Foucault,
 
1988a:
 
258).
 
In
 
this
 
sense,
 
Foucault’s
 
later
 
research
 
interest
 
shifted
 
from
 
the
 
relation
 
of
 
power
 
and
 
knowledge
 
to
 
ethics.
 
According
 
to
 
Schirato,
 
Danaher
 
and
 
Webb
 
(2012:
 
181),
 
Foucault
 
suggests
 
that
 
Western
 
society
 
is
 
civilized
 
through
 
the
 
Enlightenment
 
project.
 
During
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
civilization,
 
critique
 
and
 
ethics
 
function
 
as
 
the
 
politics
 
of
 
“humanity
 
in
 
the
 
minority
 
condition
 
makes
 
use
 
of
 
a
 
critical
 
sensibility
 
to
 
lift
 
this
 
minority
 
condition”
 
(Foucault,
 
2007:
 
48).
 
Foucault
 
understands
 
critique
 
as
 
a
 
form
 
of
 
ethical
 
 behavior,
 
and
 
the
 
term
 
“ethics”
 
refers
 
to
 
the
 
“standards
 
 by
 
which
 
a
 
community
 
or
 
particular
 
group
 
decides
 
to
 
control
 
its
 
 behavior
 
in
 
order
 
to
 
make
 
sense
 
of
 
what
 
is
 
legitimate”
 
(Flew,
 
1983:
 
112).
 
Foucault
 
argues
 
that
 
the
 
processes
 
of
 
civilization
 
continually
 
play
 
through
 
a
 
constant
 
flow
 
 between
 
the
 
order
 
or
 
power
 
and
 
“resistance”,
 
which
 
is
 
integral
 
to
 
power
 
relations,
 
and
 
the
 
domains
 
outside
 
of
 
power
 
domination.
 
Foucault
 
also
 
argues
 
that
 
forms
 
of
 
knowledge,
 
categories,
 
and
 
discourse
 
are
 
not
 
natural,
 
 but
 
are
 
part
 
of
 
the
 
effects
 
of
 
power
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
49).
 
For
 
Foucault,
 
throughout
 
the
 
processes
 
of
 
civilization,
 
the
 
question
 
is
 
not
 
“what
 
is
 
the
 
self
 
or
 
self
reflected
 
individual
 
agent?”
 
 but
 
“how
 
it
 
that
 
the
 
self
 
is
 
(re)created
 
and
 
emancipated
 
from
 
the
 
man
 
of
 
the
 
human
 
sciences
 
that
 
supported
 
to
 
advance
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
civilization?”
 
In
 
this
 
sense,
 
Foucault
 
defines
 
and
 
explores
 
a
 
fresh
 
domain
 
of
 
research
 
into
 
what
 
he
 
calls
 
‘governmentality’
 
(Foucault,
 
1988b).
 
According
 
to
 
Foucault
 
(1977),
 
from
 
the
 
sixteenth
 
century
 
on,
 
there
 
has
 
 been
 
an
 
increase
 
in
 
the
 
institutionalization
 
of
 
different
 
aspects
 
of
 
government
 
in
 
Western
 
society,
 
and
 
of
 
the
 
productive
 
power
 
associated
 
with
 
sustaining
 
the
 
reason
 
of
 
state
 
and
 
of
 
the
 
security
 
of
 
the
 
emerging
 
nation
state
 
of
 
Europe.
 
This
 
phenomenon
 
is
 
what
 
Foucault
 
views
 
as
 
modern
 
governmentality.
 
A
 
good
 
example
 
of
 
modern
 
governmentality
 
is
 
the
 
role
 
of
 
political
 
economy
 
that
 
functions
 
as
 
a
 
control
 
mechanism
 
for
 
governing
 
the
 
population
 
in
 
Western
 
societies.
 
Foucault’s
 
work
 
on
 
governmentality
 
adds
 
to
 
our
 
understanding
 
that
 
power
 
is
 
diffused
 
from
 
a
 
closed
 
space
 
of
 
disciplinary
 
institutions
 
(e.g.,
 
prison,
 
army
 
and
 
school)
 
to
 
a
 
more
 
open
 
space
 
of
 
general
 
society.
 
This
 
new
 
type
 
of
 
power
 
 becomes
 
a
 
significant
 
factor
 
in
 
producing
 
what
 
Deleuze
 
(1992a)
 
calls
 
“control
 
societies”,
 
which
 
operate
 
through
 
continuous
 
control
 
and
 
instant
 
communication.
 
Within
 
such
 
control
 
societies,
 
one
 
governs
 
oneself
 
and
 
“becomes
 
detached
 
 both
 
from
 
power
 
as
 
relation
 
 between
 
forces,
 
and
 
from
 
knowledge
 
as
 
a
 
stratified
 
form
 
or
 
the
 
‘code’
 
of
 
virtue”
 
(Deleuze,
 
1988:
 
100).
 
By
 
telling
 
the
 
truth
 
about
 
their
 
sexuality,
 
individuals
 
 became
 
the
 
object
 
of
 
knowledge
 
 both
 
to
 
themselves
 
and
 
to
 
others.
 
Foucault
 
(1988b)
 
terms
 
the
 
conjoined
 
effects
 
to
 
these
 
two
 
‘technologies’
 
or
 
“techniques
 
of
 
the
 
self”
 
and
 
“governmentality”.
 
On
 
the
 
other
 
hand,
 
games
 
of
 
truth
 
are
 
the
 
discursive
 
conditions
 
that
 
determine
 
the
 
self
 
and
 
others
 
of
 
the
 
subject’s
 
relation
 
to
 
 both
 
the
 
wider
 
socio
cultural
 
field
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
185).
 
Foucault
 
(1997;
 
2007)
 
identifies
 
the
 
Enlightenment
 
project
 
as
 
the
 
‘civilizing
 
process’
 
whereby
 
what
 
he
 
calls
 
‘critical
 
attitude’
 
develops
 
from
 
the
 
creation,
 
dissemination
 
and
 
deployment
 
of
 
historically
 
specific
 
ideas,
 
imperatives
 
and
 
(ethical)
 
dispositions
 
that
 
come
 
to
 
contribute
 
or
 
constitute
 
a
 
particular
 
grid
 
of
 
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
3,
 
2015
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
3
 
intelligibility.
 
In
 
this
 
way,
 
Foucault
 
sees
 
that
 
discourses
 
(or
 
ideologies)
 
and
 
ethics
 
that
 
characterize
 
a
 
specific
 
discursive
 
regime
 
constitute
 
the
 
subject
 
who
 
questions
 
and
 
makes
 
a
 
‘problem’,
 
and
 
so,
 
to
 
question
 
norms
 
and
 
ethics
 
is
 
to
 
 bring
 
challenges
 
to
 
the
 
truth
 
and
 
sustainability
 
of
 
the
 
self
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
187).
 
In
 
short,
 
Foucault’s
 
pursuit
 
of
 
ethics
 
presupposes
 
 both
 
action
 
and
 
knowledge,
 
which
 
require
 
not
 
only
 
thought,
 
 but
 
also
 
an
 
examination,
 
of
 
reflexivity
 
and
 
testing
 
of
 
the
 
self
 
in
 
relation
 
to
 
the
 
wider
 
context
 
of
 
the
 
socio
cultural
 
contexts.
 
Understanding Deleuze’s Notion of Assemblage
Over
 
the
 
time
 
that
 
philosophy
 
of
 
social
 
science
 
has
 
progressed,
 
social
 
research
 
has
 
made
 
a
 
great
 
effort
 
to
 
think
 
about
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
social
 
research
 
in
 
organizational
 
and
 
social
 
contexts.
 
Gilles
 
Deleuze
 
was
 
what
 
Foucault
 
(1970:
 
367)
 
described
 
as
 
“a
 
lightning
 
storm
 
was
 
produced
 
which
 
will
 
 bear
 
the
 
name
 
of
 
Deleuze”,
 
and
 
what
 
Foucault
 
says,
 
“perhaps
 
one
 
day
 
this
 
century
 
will
 
 be
 
known
 
as
 
Deleuzian”
 
(Foucault,
 
1970:
 
343).
 
Deleuze
 
was
 
a
 
philosopher
 
who
 
posed
 
the
 
question
 
of
 
what
 
is
 
thinking
 
or
 
what
 
is
 
to
 
think,
 
questioning
 
the
 
conventional
 
way
 
of
 
knowing
 
and
 
thinking,
 
the
 
‘images’
 
which
 
constitutes
 
our
 
thought
 
(Boundas,
 
1993:
 
1
23).
 
Looking
 
at
 
the
 
nature
 
of
 
society
 
from
 
a
 
new
 
image
 
of
 
thought,
 
Deleuze
 
proposed
 
a
 
theory
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage
 
that
 
can
 
apply
 
to
 
a
 
wide
 
variety
 
of
 
wholes
 
constructed
 
from
 
heterogeneous
 
parts
 
or
 
entities
 
(DeLanda,
 
2006).
 
These
 
entities
 
range
 
from
 
molecules
 
to
 
 biological
 
organisms,
 
interpersonal
 
networks,
 
institutional
 
organizations,
 
cities,
 
and
 
social
 
 justice
 
movements,
 
all
 
of
 
which
 
are
 
“assemblages
 
of
 
several
 
networked
 
communities”,
 
and
 
even
 
 biological
 
organisms
 
are
 
treated
 
as
 
assemblages
 
(DeLanda,
 
2006:
 
5
11).
 
Deleuze
 
and
 
Guattari
 
(1987)
 
have
 
developed
 
a
 
theory
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage
 
that
 
is
 
applied
 
to
 
social
 
entities,
 
 but
 
the
 
very
 
fact
 
that
 
“it
 
cuts
 
across
 
the
 
nature
culture
 
divide
 
is
 
evidence
 
of
 
its
 
realist
 
credentials”
 
(DeLanda,
 
2006:
 
3).
 
Understanding
 
the
 
modern
 
society
 
as
 
Deleuze’s
 
notion
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage,
 
we
 
should
 
notice
 
that
 
individuals
 
are
 
controlled
 
 by
 
the
 
society
 
in
 
the
 
way
 
in
 
which
 
Foucault
 
(1981:
 
94)
 
discussed,
 
power
 
conceived
 
as
 
a
 
strategy
 
or
 
network
 
of
 
relations
 
that
 
exercised
 
through
 
institutions.
 
Foucault
 
stresses
 
how
 
power
 
can
 
 be
 
productive
 
and
 
positive
 
force
 
that
 
is
 
constantly
 
sustained
 
and
 
changed
 
 by
 
social
 
and
 
discursive
 
practices.
 
In
 
discursive
 
practice,
 
knowledge
 
and
 
discourse
 
are
 
material
 
practices
 
in
 
which
 
power
 
relations
 
produce
 
reality
 
or
 
material
 
practices,
 
and
 
power
 
can
 
 be
 
transformed
 
into
 
a
 
source
 
of
 
condition
 
that
 
influences
 
the
 
current
 
state
 
of
 
the
 
discursive
 
formation
 
in
 
local
 
and
 
contingent
 
contexts.
 
In
 
this
 
sense,
 
power
 
is
 
mobile
 
and
 
contingent,
 
and
 
it
 
is
 
not
 
a
 
property
 
possessed
 
 by
 
an
 
individual
 
or
 
a
 
group.
 
Put
 
differently,
 
power
 
is
 
created
 
and
 
maintained
 
with
 
an
 
objective
 
form
 
of
 
knowledge
 
that
 
is
 
contingent
 
on
 
a
 
set
 
of
 
material
 
practices.
 
Power
 
can
 
 be
 
conceptualized
 
as
 
a
 
commodity
 
which
 
circulates
 
and
 
functions
 
in
 
the
 
form
 
of
 
a
 
network
 
or
 
a
 
strategy.
 
Foucault
 
understands
 
that
 
power
 
is
 
always
 
 both
 
productive
 
and
 
disruptive
 
in
 
the
 
sense
 
that
 
power
 
relations
 
produce
 
a
 
series
 
of
 
transformations,
 
movements
 
and
 
responses
 
that
 
are
 
sometimes
 
radical
 
and
 
dramatic.
 
The
 
French
 
and
 
Russian
 
Revolutions
 
are
 
good
 
examples
 
of
 
the
 
productive
 
and
 
disruptive
 
features
 
of
 
power
 
(Schirato
 
et
 
al.,
 
2012:
 
50
63).
 
Interestingly,
 
Deleuze’s
 
theory
 
of
 
an
 
assemblage
 
is
 
 based
 
on
 
the
 
“image
 
of
 
thought”
 
that
 
aimed
 
at
 
creating
 
a
 
life
 
that
 
takes
 
place
 
within
 
a
 
“metaphysical
 
surface”
 
or
 
“plane
 
of
 
immanence”
 
(Deleuze,
 
2005).
 
In
 
the
 
terms
 
of
 
Foucault,
 
it
 
is
 
like
 
the
 
virtual
 
existence
 
of
 
the
 
fields
 
of
 
statements
 
(énoncés)
 
(Foucault,
 
1972:
 
44
55).
 
Upon
 
the
 
fields
 
of
 
statements,
 
the
 
life
 
of
 
the
 
individual
 
gives
 
way
 
to
 
an
 
impersonal
 
and
 
singular
 
life
 
that
 
transforms
 
into
 
a
 
pure
 
event
 
as
 
the
 
virtual
 
existence
 
of
 
an
 
individual
 
order
 
which
 
controls
 
the
 
space
 
of
 
discourse.
 
Then,
 
there
 
is
 
a
 
possibility
 
of
 
the
 
duality
 
of
 
things
 
and
 
propositions,
 
of
 
 bodies
 
and
 
languages
 
through
 
the
 
existence
 
of
 
a
 
‘plane
 
of
 
immanence’
 
(Deleuze,
 
1990:
 
125).
 
During
 
the
 
process
 
of
 
making
 
or
 
 becoming
 
an
 
assemblage
 
in
 
social
 
fields
 
through
 
nonlinear
 
causality,
 
casual
 
relations
 
must
 
 be
 
characterized
 
as
 
productive;
 
that
 
is,
 
a
 
relation
 
in
 
which
 
one
 
event
 
(the
 
cause)
 
makes
 
or
 
produces
 
another
 
event
 
(the
 
effect)
 
within
 
a
 
metaphysical
 
surface
 
(DeLanda,
 
2006:
 
20).
 
In
 
short,
 
a
 
series
 
of
 
events
 
takes
 
place
 
to
 
make
 
an
 
assemblage
 
within
 
social
 
fields
 
(Deleuze,
 
1990).
 
Seeing the Process of Becoming Assemblage As An Open System
In
 
systems
 
sciences
 
and
 
sociology,
 
an
 
organismic
 
model
 
of
 
an
 
open
 
system
 
achieved
 
great
 
prominence
 
in
 
the
 
late
 
nineteenth
 
century.
 
The
 
 basic
 
assumption
 
in
 
the
 
organismic
 
metaphor
 
is
 
what
 
we
 
may
 
call
 
relation
 
of
 
interiority,
 
which
 
means
 
“the
 
component
 
parts
 
are
 
constituted
 
 by
 
the
 
very
 
relations
 
they
 
have
 
to
 
other
 
parts
 
in
 
the
 
whole”
 

Puaskan Keingintahuan Anda

Segala yang ingin Anda baca.
Kapan pun. Di mana pun. Perangkat apa pun.
Tanpa Komitmen. Batalkan kapan saja.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505