G comme Gauche

Gilles Deleuze: Which takes us to "G"

Claire Parnet: Well, back to business. Here, this is not the point of insanity
that constitutes your charm, since we are going to talk about a very serious
subject...

Deleuze: Ah, yes, yes...

Parnet: That seems to amuse you, which makes me very happy... So, as we saw,
you came from a bourgeois family with conservative political leanings, and
since the Liberation in 1945, you have been what is called a Leftist. Well,
let's go more slowly: at the Liberation, many of your friends, a lot of people
around you who were students in philosophy, joined the French Communist Party
(PCF) or were very connected to it...

Deleuze: Yes, they all went through that... there was only me... I think, I am
not sure, but... they all went through it.

Parnet: So how is it that you avoided that?

Deleuze: Well, it's not really too complicated. All my friends went through the
PCF, and what prevented me from doing so? [lt was] because, I think... I was
very hard-working, and I didn't like the meetings, meetings where they talked
interminably, I simply could never stand attending them. And, being in the PCF
at that period meant going to cell meetings all the time. This was at the
period - this is a kind of reference point - the period of the "Stockholm
Appeal," and all of my friends, people of great talent, spent days on end
getting signatures on this Stockholm petition, from a priest, from anyone. They
would walk all over with this "Stockholm Appeal," and I cannot even remember
what it was! An entire generation of Communists got caught up in this, but that
posed a problem for me because I realized - a lot of friends who were Communist
historians, very talented, and I thought my God, if they spent their time
finishing their dissertations, it would be so much more important for the
Communist Party, which would at least have this work to be promoted, than
getting signatures for the Stockholm Appeal, some stupid petition for peace,
who knows what. I had no desire [to be involved in] that because I was neither
very talkative, I didn't talk much, so all this petition-signing would have put
me in a state of complete timidity, complete panic. I never had anyone sign
anything. And even going out to sell L'Humanité [the PCF newspaper], well, all
that was for some rather base reasons, doing that wasn't even a question for
me, I had no desire at all to join the Party.

Parnet: But you still felt close to their... commitments?

Deleuze: The Party's? No, it never concerned me, something else that saved me,
you understand... The discussions about Stalin, what they've discovered
recently, the horrors committed by Stalin, I mean, everyone has known this for
quite a while. And about revolutions going wrong, that makes me laugh because,
really, who are they trying to kid? When the "New Philosophers" discovered that
revolutions turned out badly, you really have to be a bit dimwitted, since they
discovered that with Stalin. So henceforth, the road was open, everyone
discovered it, for example, quite recently, about the Algerian revolution -
"Hey, it turned out badly because they fired on students!" Who ever thought
that a revolution would go well? Who? Who? People say the English spared
themselves a revolution, but that's absolutely false. I mean all that... Today
we live with such a mystification... The English had a revolution, they killed
their king, etc., and who did they get? They got Cromwell. And English
Romanticism, what is it? lt's a long meditation on the failure of the
revolution. They didn't wait for [André] Glucksmann to reflect on the failure
of the Stalinian revolution. They had one, really, they had one. And the
Americans never get discussed, but the Americans blew their revolution, as
badly as, if not worse, than the Bolsheviks. Let's not kid about it! Americans
when they... even before the War of lndependence - and "independence," I say -
they presented themselves worse than... or better than a new nation, they went
beyond nations exactly like Marx spoke later of the proletariat: they went
beyond nations, nations are finished! They bring forth a new people, they have
a true revolution. Just as the Marxists count on universal proletariatization,
the Americans counted on universal immigration, the two sides of class
struggle. This is absolutely revolutionary, it's the America of Jefferson, of
Thoreau, of Melville-Jefferson, Thoreau, Melville, all of them, it's a
completely revolutionary America that announces the "new man" exactly like the
Bolshevik revolution announced the "new man." That revolution failed, all
revolutions fail, everybody knows this, and now people are pretending to
"rediscover" that. They really have to be dimwitted. As a result, everyone is
getting lost in this, this contemporary revisionism. There is [François] Furet
who discovered that the French Revolution wasn't as great as had been thought.
Well, sure, fine, it failed too, everybody knows that. The French Revolution
gave us Napoleon! People are making "discoveries" that to me are not very
impressive in their novelty. The British Revolution resulted in Cromwell, the
American Revolution's results were worse, resulted in... I don't know...
Reagan, which does not seem any better to me. So, people are in such a state of
confusion... Even if revolutions fail, go badly, that still never stopped
people or prevented people from becoming revolutionary. They are confusing two
absolutely different things: the situations in which the only outcome for man
is to become revolutionary... And yet again, we have been talking about that
from the start: it's the confusion between becoming and history, and if people
become revolutionary... Yes, these historians' confusion... Historians speak of
the future of the revolution, the future of revolutions, but that is not at all
the question. They can always go so far back and try to demonstrate that if the
future was bad, it's because the bad element was there right from the start.
The concrete problem is how and why do people become revolutionary? And
fortunately historians can't prevent them from doing so. lt's obvious that the
South Africans are caught up in a becoming-revolutionary, the Palestinians are
caught up in a becoming-revolutionary. Then, if someone tells me afterwards,
"oh you will see, when they have won, if their revolution succeeds, it will go
badly, etc.," well, first of all, they won't be the same, there won't be the
same kinds of problems, and then a new situation will be created, once again
becomings-revolutionary will be unleashed. The business of men, it's in
situations of tyranny, of oppression, effectively it's to enter into
becomings-revolutionary because there is nothing else to be done. And when
someone tells us afterwards, "oh, it's not working out," we aren't talking
about the same thing, it's as if we were speaking two different languages - the
future of history and the current becomings of people are not at all the same
thing.

Parnet: And this respect for the "rights of man" which is so fashionable these
days, but it is not becoming-revolutionary, quite the opposite.

Deleuze: Listen, this respect for the "rights of man" - this really makes me
want to say, almost to make some odious statements. lt belongs so much to this
weak thinking of the empty intellectual period that we discussed earlier. lt's
purely abstract, these "rights of man." What is this? lt's purely abstract,
completely empty. lt's exactly like what we were saying earlier about desire,
what I tried to say about desire: desire does not consist of erecting an
object, of saying I desire this... We don't desire, for example, freedom, etc.
lt's zero. Rather, we desire... we find ourselves in situations. I choose the
example of the contemporary problems of Armenia, it's very recent. What is this
situation, if I understand it well? One never knows, really, you can correct
me, but that would not change it much. There is an enclave in another Soviet
republic, there is an Armenian enclave, an Armenian republic so that's the
situation, a first aspect. There is this massacre by some sort of Turkish
group...

Parnet: The Azeris.

Deleuze: ...To the extent that we don't know anything right now because we
haven't really... I guess that's what it is... But here we have yet again this
massacre of Armenians. So in the enclave, the Armenians retreat into their
republic, I guess - you can correct all my mistakes - and then, there is an
earthquake. You'd think you were in something written by the Marquis de Sade,
these poor people go through the worst ordeals inflicted by men, and when they
reach shelter, it's nature that gets involved. When people say "the rights of
man," it's just intellectual discourse, for odious intellectuals at that, for
intellectuals who have no ideas. First, I have always noticed that these
declarations are never made as a function of the people who are directly
concerned, the Armenian society, the Armenian communities, etc. Their problem
is not "the rights of man." What is it? lt's... Now this is what I call an
assemblage. When I was saying that desire always comes through assemblages,
well, there's an assemblage: what is possible in order to suppress this enclave
or to make it possible for this enclave to survive? What is this enclave within
all that? lt's a question of territory, not one of "the rights of man," it's
the organization of territory. What do they think that Gorbachev is going to
make of this situation? What is he going to do so that this Armenian enclave is
not given over to Turks threatening all around them? I would say that it's not
a question of "rights of man," it's not a question of justice, rather it's a
question of jurisprudence. All the abominations that humans undergo are cases,
not elements of abstract rights. These are abominable cases. You might tell me
that these cases resemble each other, but these are situations of
jurisprudence. This Armenian problem is typically what can be called an
extraordinarily complex problem of jurisprudence. What can we do to save the
Armenians and to help them save themselves from this crazy situation they find
themselves in? Then, an earthquake occurs, an earthquake, so there are all
these constructions that had not been built as well as they should have been.
All these are cases of jurisprudence. To act for freedom, becoming
revolutionary, is to operate in jurisprudence when one turns to the justice
system. Justice doesn't exist, "rights of man" do not exist, it concerns
jurisprudence... That's what the invention of law is. So those people who are
quite satisfied to recall and to recite "the rights of man," they are just
dimwitted, it's not a question of applying "the rights of man," but rather of
inventing forms of jurisprudence, so that for each case, this would no longer
be possible. lt's entirely different. lf you like, I will give an example that
I like a lot because it's the only way to help people understand what
jurisprudence is, and people understand nothing... well, not all, but people
don't understand it very well. I recall when smoking in taxis became
prohibited... People used to smoke in taxis... So a time came when people were
no longer permitted to smoke in taxis. The first taxi drivers who forbid people
smoking in the taxis created quite a stir because there were smokers who
protested, and there was one, a lawyer... I have always been fascinated by
jurisprudence, by law... lf I hadn't studied philosophy, I would have studied
law, but precisely not "the rights of man," but rather l'd have studied
jurisprudence. That's what life is; there are no "rights of man," only rights
of life, and so, life unfolds case by case. So, [back to] taxis: there is a guy
who does not want to be prevented from smoking in the taxi, so he sues the cab.
I remember this quite well because I got involved in listening to the arguments
leading up to the decision. The cab lost the case - today it would not have
happened, even with the same kind of trial, the cab driver would not have lost.
But at the start, the cab lost, and on what grounds? On the grounds that when
someone takes a taxi, he is renting it, so the taxi occupant is assimilated to
the [status of] renter or tenant, and the tenant has the right to smoke in his
rented location, he has the right of use and abuse. lt's as if he were renting,
it's as if my landlady told me, "No, you're not going to smoke in your
place..." "Yes, yes, I am the tenant and l'm going to smoke where I live." The
taxi is assimilated to being a rolling apartment of which the customer is the
tenant. Ten years later, that [practice] has become universalized, there are no
taxis, or practically none, in which one can smoke. On what grounds? The taxi
is no longer assimilated to renting an apartment, it has become assimilated
instead to being a form of public service. ln a mode of public service, there
exists the right to forbid smoking. All this is jurisprudence... lt's no longer
a question of the right of this or of that, it's a question of situations, of
situations that evolve, and fighting for freedom is really to engage in
jurisprudence. So, the example of Armenia seems to me quite typical: the
"rights of man," you referred to them, so what do they mean? lt means: The
Turks don't have the right to massacre Armenians. Fine, the Turks don't have
the right to massacre Armenians, and then? How far does that really get us?
lt's truly the feeble-minded or hypocrites, all this thought about the "rights
of man," it's zero philosophically, zero. The creation of law, it's not the
declaration of the "rights of man." Creation in law is jurisprudence, and only
that exists, and therefore fighting for jurisprudence.

Parnet: Well, we are going to return to two things that are connected...

Deleuze: That's what being on the Left is, I think, it's creating the law,
creating the law...

Parnet: We'll return to this question, this philosophy of the "rights of man"
and this respect for the "rights of man" now is like a repudiation of May '68
and a repudiation of Marxism as well. So, Marx, you must not have repudiated
him since you were never a Communist, you can still make use of Marx who
continues to be a referent for you. And as for May '68, you are one of the last
persons around who refers to May '68, not saying that it was meaningless, just
schoolroom pranks, and that everyone now has changed. So l'd like you to talk a
bit about May '68.

Deleuze: lt's simple... but I think you are being too harsh in saying that I am
one of the rare persons. There are a lot of people, if only the people around
us, and among our friends, there are very few... I know no turn-coats...

Parnet: But these are your friends.

Deleuze: Yes, but there are lots of people that have made no repudiation. lt's
almost a given, the answer is quite simple: '68 is the intrusion of becoming.
People have often wanted to view it as the reign of the imaginary, but it's not
at all imaginary. lt's a gust of the real in its pure state. lt's the real that
arrives, and people don't understand that, they say, "What is this?" Real
people, or people in their reality, it was astounding, and just what were these
people in their reality? lt's a becoming. Now, there can be bad becomings, and
it's what historians did not understand well, and that's understandable since I
believe so strongly in the difference between history and becomings... May '68
was a becoming-revolutionary without a revolutionary future. People can always
make fun of it after the fact, but there were phenomena of pure becoming that
took hold of people, even becomings-animal, even becomings- children,
becomings-women for men, becomings-men for women. All this is in a very special
domain that we have been pouring over since the start of our questions, that
is, what is a becoming? ln any event, May '68 is the intrusion of becoming.

Parnet: Did you have a becoming-revolutionary at that moment?

Deleuze: A becoming-revolutionary? Yes, although your very smile suggests that
this is a form of mockery. So, tell me instead: what does it mean to be de
gauche, on the Left?... lt's a bit more discreet than "becoming-revolutionary."

Parnet: I wouldn't say that, I would like to pose the question differently...

Deleuze: Yes?

Parnet: lt's that between your civic duty as a Leftist who votes and all that
and your becoming-revolutionary, since you are a Leftist, how do you manage,
and what does it mean for you to be on the Left?

Deleuze: Yes... well, I think that no leftist government exists, which is not
astonishing, our government that should be on the left but isn't. lt's not that
there are no differences between governments. The best one can hope for is a
government favorable to certain claims and demands from the Left. But a leftist
government does not exist since being on the Left has nothing to do with
governments. So if one asked me, how to define being on the Left? ln two ways:
first, it's a matter of perception. This matter of perception means this: what
would not being on the Left mean? Not being on the Left... lt's a little like a
postal address, extending outward from a person: the street where you are, the
city, the country, other countries farther and farther away. lt starts from the
self, and to the extent that one is privileged, living in a rich country, one
might ask, what can we do to make this situation last? One senses that dangers
exist, that it might not last, it's all so crazy, so what might be done for it
to last? So someone might say, "Oh la la, the Chinese, they are far away, what
can we do so that Europe lasts?" etc. Being on the Left is the opposite: it's
perceiving... And people say the Japanese perceive like that, not like us...
they perceive first the periphery, they would say the world, the continent -
let's say Europe - France, etc., rue de Bizerte, me: it's a phenomenon of
perception, perceiving just the horizon, perceiving on the horizon.

Parnet: Well, the Japanese aren't really so Leftist...

Deleuze: lt's not from generosity ... Your objection isn't, isn't... adequate.
On the basis of that [their perception], they're Leftist, on the basis of their
sense of address, postal address. First, you see the horizon. And you know that
it cannot last, that it's not possible, [the fact that] these millions of
people are starving to death, it just can't last, it might go on a hundred
years, one never knows, but there's no point in kidding about this absolute
injustice. lt's not a matter of morality, but of perception itself. So if you
start with the edges, that's what being on the Left means, Thus by knowing, and
advocating, in a sense... and thinking that these are problems that must be
dealt with. lt's not saying simply that the birth rate has to be reduced, which
is just another way of keeping the privileges for Europe, it's not that. [Being
on the Left] is really finding arrangements, finding world-wide assemblages
that would... Being on the Left is knowing that Third World problems are closer
to us than problems in our neighborhoods. So it's really a matter of
perception, more than a question of "well-meaning souls," that's what being on
the Left is for me, first of all. And second, being on the Left is being by
nature, or rather becoming - it's a problem of becomings - of never ceasing to
become minoritarian. That is, the Left is never of the majority as Left, and
for a very simple reason: the majority is something that presupposes - even
when one votes - it's not the simply a greater quantity [of people] that vote
for something, but the majority presupposes a standard. ln the West, the
standard that every majority presupposes is: 1 ) male, 2) adult 3)
heterosexual, 4) city dweller... Ezra Pound, Joyce say things like that, it was
perfect. That's what the standard is. So, the majority by its nature will go
toward whomever or whatever aggregate, at a particular moment, will realize
this standard, that is, the supposed image of the urban, heterosexual, adult
male such that a majority, at the limit, is never anyone, it's an empty
standard. Simply, a maximum of persons recognize themselves in this empty
standard, but in itself, the standard is empty: male, heterosexual, etc. So,
women will make their mark either by intervening in this majority or in the
secondary minorities according to groupings in which they are placed according
to this standard. But alongside that, what is there? There are all the
becomings that are minority-becomings. I mean, women, it's not a given, they
are not women by nature. Women have a becoming-woman; and so, if women have a
becoming-woman, men have a becoming-woman as well. We were talking earlier
about becomings-animal. Children have their own becoming-child. They are not
children by nature. All these becomings, that's what the minorities are...

Parnet: Well, men cannot become-men, and that's tough!

Deleuze: No, that's a majoritarian standard, heterosexual, adult, male. He has
no becoming. He can become woman, and then he enters into minoritarian
processes. The Left is the aggregate of processes of minoritarian becomings.
So, I can say quite literally, the majority is no one, the minority is
everyone, and that's what being on the Left is: knowing that the minority is
everyone and that it's there that phenomena of becomings occur. That's why, all
thinkers, regardless, they have doubts concerning democracy, concerning what we
call elections. All that is well known.