Roy Deleuze Teachers in Nomadic Spaces

-
<
<
A Book Series
of Curriculum
Studies
William F. Pinar
General Editor
Vol. 5
PETER LANG
New YOfk Washington, D.C.lBaltimOfe Bern
Frankfurt am Main Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford
Kaustuv Roy
Teachers in Nomadic Spaces
Deleuze and Curriculum
PETER LANG
New York Washington, D.CJBaltimore Bern
Frankfurt am Main Berlin Brussels. Vienna Oxford
library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Roy, Kaustuv.
Teachers in nomadic spaces: Oeleuze and curriculum /
Kaustuv Roy.
p. cm. -(Complicated conversation; vol. 5)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
1. Deleuze, Gilles-Contributions in education. 2. Education-Philosophy.
3. Postmodernism and education. 4. Curriculum change.
5. Teacher-student relationships. I. Title. II. Series.
LB880. D4362R69 370' .1--dc21 2002154662
ISBN 0-8204-6737-5
ISSN 1534-2816
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek.
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the "Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie"; detailed bibliographic data is available
on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de/.
Cover design by Lisa Barfield
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability
of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity
of the Council of Library Resources.
2003 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York
275 Seventh Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10001
www.peterlangusa.com
All rights reserved.
Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,
xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.
Printed in the United States of America
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Contents
Fieldwork i Teory
Iduction and Retention
Constitutive Difference
A Deleuzian Approach
The Bigger Picture
Notes
Curriculum and Representation
Deleuze and Marxism
Feminisms and Deleuze
Deleuze and Psychoanalysis
Deleuze and te Poststructuralists
Deleuze and Systems Theory
Notes
An Outline of the Case Study
The Problematic
Talking to Teachers
Analytical Categories
Conclusion
VlI
1
6
8
9
16
17
19
3
38
41
4
49
53
56
62
64
72
79
vi
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Conclusion
References
Changing the Image of Thought
Curriculum as Rhizome
Micropolitics of Rhizoid Space
Curriculum, Lack and Resistance
Difference and Repetition
Grassroots Organization
Engaging Signs
Rhizome and Resistance
Conclusion
Notes
The Apprenticeship
Praxis
Case Analysis
Some Methodological Precautions
Conclusion
Notes
Becoming Nomad
Stress and Identity
Rethinking Repetition
Stress and the Simulacrum
Affect as Transition
Analysis of Case Data
Conclusion
Notes
The Line of the Outside
82
90
98
101
103
110
112
115
116
117
119
123
132
145
147
151
153
155
156
158
159
160
165
168
169
179
Preface
What does it mean to think again, deeply to reconsider someting?
For Deleuze, it i not simply the having of anoter thought or another
idea; instead, it is the very reinstatement of difference in tought:
"that profound fracture" by which thought can access the "genitality"
of thg. And this is at the same time incessant practce. I
conversation with Michel Foucault Deleuze once said, "No theory can
develop witout eventually encountering a wall," and the only way
to "pierce this wall" is through practice. Ths book presents elements
of that wall through which are dragged Deleuzian "tensors" to
produce an altered skapos and fresh oscillations. The inability to think
difference in most insttutional settngs makes such attempts at
tansformaton crucial. This is especially so in colonized spaces of
which te urban school setting is a prime example. Deleuzian
concepts place us in a tansformatonal matrix, a space of potental
difference tluough which passes, from tme to time, a spike of
lighting tat is the active realizaton of the transformative power of
life. Each concept shatters existing modes of thinking about the
everyday. Brought to bear on the conditions of schooling, tey allow
us to access sudden breathless hollows that can make curriculum
swerve from the old terrain. And what is surprising is that this does
not call for grand movements or breaks, nor for great reforms, but
depends on the subversive power of the very small and minor
"lectons"; secret lines of disorientaton. The change that i the result
i neiter structural nor individual, but consists of fresh embodiments
of a subpersonal kind: blocks of intensites that have te potential to
change curricular relatons within an inunanent field. This book is an
experiment toward such a change, invoking Deleuze i the midst of
an em iia series to open u a new conversation.
Introduction
Fieldwork in Teon)
A thng an anmal, a person are only defnable by movement and rest,
speeds and s)ownesses, and by aft and intnsitie.
-illes Deleuze, Dialogues
Most truths are less interesting than te complex and dynamic
intercrossing of forces, intensities, discourses, desires, accidents,
idiosyncrasies, and relations of power that produce those
culminatons. For these networks, while revealing the bifurcations
and determinations, the choices, impulses, and propensities, en-foute
to a particular set of distillations, cannot fail to indicate at the same
time unactualized possibilities, fields of indefinitude, and lines of
escape.
As found in te writngs of the Frankfurt School, the term praxis has
meant roughly, a tansformatve mode of percepton-in-action
(Vazquez. 197, 133). I will use the term here to indicate an effort t
reconstellate sense data, propelling us toward a reinserton of our
identties and practces that are reciprocally determined in such
indefinite networks as above, in the flows and unformed intensites
beneat systems of artculation in the social field, with a view not to
recover any essence or discover any tuth, but to open up the
fastesses in which thought takes refuge, provoking by that same
parting novel, nonhumarust stirrings.
The present study is praxeological in this sense. Although its
startng point i a case study, the work i not wholly or even largely
empirical. One can describe it in terms of what Pierre Bourdieu (1990)
2 Teachers in Nomadic Spaces
has called "fieldwork in philosophy." That is to say, it is an effort to
employ empirical work in directly engaging theoretical and
philosophical issues in order to achieve a reinsertion into the
morphogenic processes at the intersectons of which arise event and
phenomena. Expressed in other words, it makes philosophy go to
work for us amid the turmoil of the everyday and attunes us to a
different kind of observation or angle of vision that renders visible
what was not previously apparent. The theory that I engage here for
this purpose is the philosophy and social theory of Gilles Deleuze,
the philosopher of difference, for whom the important thing has
always been not solutons, but to pose a problem s as to open up
worlds.
In broad terms, there are two different series involved in this
study-one empirical and the other conceptual The primary effort
here is to set up a resonance between the two in order that
expressional flashes can occur between the two series creatng
sum arily breaches for action. The empirical part pertains to teacher
inducton and formaton under urban conditions, and is based on
observatons, discussions, and dialogues with novice teachers in an
urban irmovative school. Against the imperatives of the terrain the
teachers needed to negotiate, I examine the concepts, categories,
implicit assumptions, significations, and boundary distnctions on
which tey leaned in order to approach, and make sense of, those
spaces. To put it in another way, I observed the category constructs
through which the novice teachers approached the "known," in this
case the pedagOgic context, and the complex ways in which those
constructs contributed to the difficultes they encountered in the
urban situation. For it is accurate to say fom the perspectve of this
study that "to know is to produce in thought, and the production
reconstitutes the way in which phenomena are produced" (Pia get
cited in von Glasersfeld, 1987, 110). The pragmatic purpose was to
intoduce a "swerve" or a deviation in te plane of taken-for-granted
assumptions by means of which a new experiment in thought could
be inserted in the interstces that might help teachers get an insight
into te generative possibilites of the situation.
The necessity for producing that swerve ushers in te conceptual
part. Dissatisfied with the general thrust of mainsteam teacher
educaton that rarely considers the complex ambiguities of irregular
spaces, and prefers to raise issues in terms of limiting and wor-out
Introducton: Fieldwork in Theory 3
representations and categories-accountability, professionalization,
efficiency, to name a few-I reconstitute the spaces that I observed
using a different cartography. My intenton was to initate a plane of
intensites and becomings rather than recuperation and
representaton, new relays and formatons instead of the structure of
categories and boundaries that has dominated mainstream practces.1
For the question was, how can we get out of the cycle of stagnant
reproductons that produce "sell-reflectve homologies" and instead,
"reoin a continuum of potential." I other words, te question was
"how to perform an atypical expression capable of divertng the
process into rebecoming" (Massumi, 2002, xxvi). In pursuit of such
ontogenetc possibilities, that is, emergent relations of force rather
than fxed categories, I propose here a conceptual framework that
might allow us to array ourselves differently, and consider the new
set of subjectve acts that must be carried out when confronted with
the problem of reintensificaton.
Attemptng such a praxis, the book addresses itself to teacher
educators, curriculum theorists, practcing teachers, and to those
interested in differential spaces and urban issues, urging us into a
different kind of vectoring of sense-intensites than is afforded in
conventonal approaches to teacher educaton and curriculum
practce. The pragmatcs of such an effort involves the generaton of
new intervals that are sprouted by means of experimentaton through
insertng existng strata or bound qualites into Deleuzian concept
that act as circuits of "micro-agitations," or infinitesimal movements
of displacement, leading to a freedom for alterative deployments in
intervals that are "anexact and yet rigorous."2 The reader must b
wared that this is not a book about "fixing" anything or about
providing quick solutons. Instead, it invites the reader to enter into
an experimental mode and work through te contents of these pages
so as to become coextensive with the problem itself, enter its plane as
it were, extending and radicalizing the horizon of possibilites in
embodying it, discovering new chromatc variatons in the process of
such a meditation. For a tue problem, according to Deleuze, is never
fully solved, but persists despite solutons in the ite play of
desire, thereby retaining its problematcity.
Known as the "philosopher of the city,") Deleuze, along with Felix
Guattari, investigated the architectonics of urbanity, which makes t
analysis partcularly relevant, as it brings to bear Deleuzian
distinctons or differential formations on the learning spaces of an
irmer-city school, working out a different way of looking. Deleuze
saw the city as unleashing forces that are not fully captured or
contolled by the machinery of te State-ephemeral forces of an
irruptive kind with the power of metamorphosis. Seen through tis
lens, the complex and turbulent conditions of urban or iIler-city
schooling yield a somewhat different subtext, and offer a glimmer of
possibilities that might serve the irreducible multiplicity of the
student populace better than most of the modernist mainstream
educational policies and practces in which they are imbricated
(Giroux, 2000).
Seen through a Deleuzian lens, a curriculum that follows narrow
goals, that attempts to homogenize and limit the signs and processes
of learg, for example, to functioning within representationalist
ideologies and specific needs such as those of the market, denying in
the process difference and complex multiplicity, runs the risk of
locking us into increasingly oppressive grids. For implicit in such a
view of curriculum is the assumption of the "world as icon," or the
insistence of a unified reality that we must jointly hold and serve. But
as Nietzsche and a succession of oter thinkers have argued, tere is
no such world. Turning Plato's famous cave allegory on it head,
Nietzsche wrote: "behind each cave [there is] another that opens stll
more deeply, and beyond each surface a subterranean world yet more
vast, more stange ... under every ground, a subsoil more profound"
(cited in Deleuze, 1990b, 263). This gives an endlessly multplicitous
and divergent picture of the "world" that gets subsumed and
totalized in te convergent views of mainstream curriculum practice,
resulting in a cutting off from the field of potentialities that inhere in
difference.
The environment I discuss demanded a different response from
teachers in terms of what could unfold as learning opportunities, and
how tese could be successfully identified under volatile conditions.
Although te school itself was open to irmovation, te beg g
teachers I encountered were ill-equipped conceprually to countenance
these divergent forces, and contnued to be bound by the Platonic
tenets of "image-copy," or recogniton and representation, that
defines so much of schoolwork.4 The teacher education programs
some of these neophytes had been through had not helped them to
see te generative possibilites of irregular spaces, nor were te usual
Introduction: Fieldwork in Theory 5
professional development programs, aimed more at the normative
compulsions of mainsteam schools, of much use here.
Ill-equipped to see difference in terms of its pedagogical potental,
these beginning teachers struggled to cope in a highly differentiated
atmosphere, with the result that they experienced considerable
difficulties, friction, and stess. In other words, their training was at
odds with the demands of the context. Observing t, it seemed to
me that teacher preparaton deserved a different kind of theoretical
attenton that would not merely seek regularities and order, but be
able to see learning opportunites in irregular spaces and moments,
and in discontnuous flashes rater than in continuities. The supple
force of Deleuzian pragmatics tat sees difference, and not similarity,
as the driving force in processes of becoming, seemed partcularly apt
for working out the pragmatcs of tis alternatve vision.
Therefore, a basic conceptual shift seemed necessary that would
prepare begirming teachers to embrace te constuctive possibilities
of positve difference. For as I saw it, the learning spaces and
pedagogical possibilities often were where te teachers were not. It
also appeared to me that it was not a mere question of adding one
more pedagogic dimension to the teachers' repertoire; instead it
cormected to the very images teachers held of themselves and their
roles that reified the boundaries and limited possibilities of action. By
means of a theoretical effort of reconceptualization, I hoped to open
up these images in thought, with a view to offering a pragmatics of
reconstructon that would be dynamic and engage many more levels
than currently possible.
I saw the task as, first, theorizing the character of the spaces I was
observing in the school, and the pedagogical possibilites that these
held. Second, I viewed it as formulatng certain conceprual tools for
ways of looking, thinking, and experimentng so that through the
operationalizaton or enactment of this new mode, the grip of the
existng boundaries and categories that are the result of settled
dispOSitons could be loosened, as well as the means worked out for
realizing the pedagogical possibilities of irregular spaces.
And since dispositions cannot be isolated from the notion of
individuality, these could not be opened up witout an examination
of the noton of identty and affect that is woven into them (Pinar,
1994, 1998). Therefore it was important to look at certain affectve
investents of teachers as well, for which purpose I chose to look at
W
6
the occurrence of stess as a critical existential phenomenon among
teachers that arose from the way in which the urban situation affected
tem and was an important indicator of it. I SUffi, tese provided
contact with thought-affect networks where ideas of self and
curriculum are reproduced, and into the intersttal spaces of which
one could insert operations that might provoke a new intensity. But
before moving on, let us take a brief look at the empirical background
of the study and te conditons surrounding it.
Induction and Retention
First, the problem of teacher induction and retenton is a serious issue
not just in innovative environs but in school systems throughout te
United States. S. Eileen and Stephen Weiss (1999) observe:
Over two million new K-12 teachers will be employed in the U.s.
over the next decade ... more than one-third of these new teachers
will be hired in low wealth urban and rural school districts. This
large population of new teachers will be challenged to educate
diverse learners in an increasingly complex [situaton}. Unfortu
nately first-year teachers are frequently left in a "sink or swim"
position with little support from colleagues and fewopportu
nites for professional development. Well-organized inducton
programs are the exception rather than the rule, and haphazard
inducton experiences have been associated with higher levels of
attition as well as lower levels of teacher effectiveness. Current
estmates are that more than 20% of public school teachers leave
teir positions within three years. (4) (emphasis added)
This means that out of the total estimated number of fresh inductees
mentioned above, more than four hundred thousand will leave teir
jobs in the inital years. This, by all accounts, is an alarming rate of
attition.
Further, among tose who choose to remain in the profession, large
numbers-in some districts up to 40 percent-leave the urban settngs
to teach i suburban school districts (WeiSS, 1999). This problem of
'flight' among teachers is attributable in part to teachers' lack of
experience and understanding of the social and economic context of
the students, tat is, of the problem of difference. But school districts,
reading the problem in terms of control and classroom management
issues, have attempted to solve the problem of both teacher flight and
low student achievement by referring 'problem' students to
alteratve schools or programs or by referring them to special
education (Sanders, 2000).
However, tis system of wirulOWing and siftng students does little
to resolve critical questons surrounding the becoming and formaton
of teachers who will teach in urban settngs, and to determine how
best to construct a viable educaton for students in such settings.
Instead, this approach siply results in the undesirable formaton of
school tiers according to student skill levels, student compliance, and
teacher coping abilites. And that is merely to deflect the issue to an
alteratve site, not to deal with it. It leads to another kind of
segregaton.
A adequate response lies not in categorizing students and puttng
them away in special education sites, but in finding ways to help
teachers teach different students differently by reconsidering existng
assumptons of what consttutes teaching and learning that binds
them to the Same. It was apparent to me that this was not an issue of
systemic reform tat could be fixed by making large-scale stuctural
changes, but rather, a question of basic perceptions about education,
and the boundaries and categories employed in tg about school
and curriculum.
Of course, not all of te problem of teacher flight or attriton can be
attributed to problems of inadequate inducton processes, but studies
(Natonal Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996)
show that it plays a Significant role in the loss of teachers. Reports
also show that better induction programs keep teachers from leaving.
This makes teacher induction a vital area of concern and study. Its
importance is also heightened by the fact tat "it is a boundary
spanng field, cOlUlecting teacher education, teaching conditions in
the schools, and field based professional development" (Olebe, 2001,
71). There are often interestng problems at the edges and interfaces of
these adjoining fields because the interfaCing is not always smooth,
and te edges often do not mesh. These result in odd boundary
conditons that have generative possibilities. I other words, tere are
interstces and irregular spaces that can be explored. Eileen and
Stephen Weiss (1999) have also noted that, despite the positive impact
of inducton programs on retenton rates, there has been little
sustained commitent in recent years to permanently insttute
8
teacher induction programs as part of a formal entry process into the
field. New teachers have been left to figure things out once they get
into the classroom. An inadvertent consequence of this has been the
tendency on the part of teachers to reproduce the existing patterns in
a desperate bid for survivaL
Britzman (1986) and others have shown how young teachers
coming in with new ideas rarely have the room to exercise them or
know how to bring together theory and practce. This is bore out by
my own research and experience as a teacher educator. Further, this
tension is all the more heightened in the urban classroom, where the
old formulas of classroom management, a uniform curriculum, and
standardized assessments fail to work as tey fail to respond to the
hugely complex and often racially marginalized lives of urban
adolescents whose differences have been subsumed by a largely
inflexible education system that operates with liberal majoritarian
assumptons.
As te study proceeded, it became clear to me that the problem I
was looking at was not merely one of teacher becoming and
inducton, but could be seen as part of a larger problem of teacher
survival itself, in the context of increasing complexity of urban
education, and te challenges posed by a student body who could by
no means be seen or treated as a homogeneous group, and whose
needs were so diverse that te very assumptons of schooling, such as
a uniform curriculum, set tmings, and te classroom as the primary
site of leag, were put to queston. It appeared to me that the order
of complexity te teachers faced was not to be overcome merely
through experience and "adjustent," or a matter of picking up
certain "skills" on the job, but something tat required a deeper shift
in the conception of pedagogic relations, or a fundamental change in
the way we t about learg, its content and expression, in order
to free it from reification. That is to say, an efort at a much more
fundamental level appeared to be necessary that would not merely
amount to a reform of practce, but a reconfiguraton of teacher being
and becoming in an ever-shiftng context.
Constitutive Difference
Often, the tensions tat arose both in teachers and i te learning
situaton were the result of attempting to contain divergence within
techno-managerial spaces, that is, witin the horizons of possibility
delineated by the teachers' own habits of thought, and the taining
they had received (see Liston and Zeichner, 1996). Not only did this
subvert the innovative context, and result in important pedagogical
opportunities being missed, but teachers admitted to feeling stessed,
and expressed fears of early burnout through fricton that te
situaton produced for them. A major statement made here is about
the impossibility of dealing with difference from the perspectve of
unity. That is to say, to work positvely with difference, we have to
(find ways to) come to the realization that we ourselves are composed
of difference, and that the ting we know as identity is at base a play
of difference. It is then that a resonance occurs that breaks through
identitarian ways of thinking.
What was necessary, therefore, was a new conceptual space in
which the problem could be considered afresh, for new solutions
sometimes require an altered theoretcal skapos for their emergence.
To give an example, problems which have remained unsolved for
long periods of tme, say, in algebra, sometimes have yielded
solutions when restated in terms of geometry or topology. Likewise, a
problem in clinical psychology is suddenly illuminated by looking at
it from the perspectve of corununication teory (Bateson, 1991). My
problem, as I began to formulate it, was to constuct a conceptual
frame that when entered into, or a praxis that when enacted, new
teachers would be better able to insert themselves in differental
spaces, as well as cormect to creative fields of potential, avoiding the
reducton of curriculum to identtarian ways of thg. To put it
differently, the problem was to formulate an immanent plane of
expression that included the student, the teacher, and the curriculum
that would aid in dehabituatng us from frozen ways of thg
about the educatonal encounter itself, such as in the existing terms of
what I will call a 'will-ta-recognition' and a 'will-ta-representation'
that is discussed at length in the next chapter, and instead to grapple
wit the encounter from the perspectve of a creatve power of
difference.
A Deleuzian Approach
What follows i a brief overview of the experimental framework that
is appropriated for analysis of the case data, parts of which are
further developed in each individual chapter. But let me remind the
reader that the work is more of a looking into the possibilites of
resonance between the two series, the empirical and the conceptual,
than an interpretation. In this connection, Wolcott (1994) has written,
More than simply linking up with theory or leaning on it for
an interpretive framework, the objective here is to develop
that framework. (43)
This is quite true in the case of the present study. Using the case as a
tansformatonal matrix, a loosely aggregated plane of the potential
for innovative thinking in curriculum as well as the resistance to such
change, of reificaton and emergence, of di erence and repetition, I use
Deleuzian concepts to help develop a different orientation in
curriculum practice.
Fightng to retrieve philosophy from the oppressive weight of
Hegelianism and the dialectic, Deleuze is an avowed empiricist or
pluralists I line wit thinkers such as Spinoza, Nietzsche, and
Hume, Deleuze rejects all tanscendent or idealist ground of
experience. Universals do not explain anything, Deleuze is fond of
saying, but must themselves be explained. And all explanation can
only come from within experience, that is, from immanence, and not
from an a priori, tanscendental ground. There are no a priori Kantan
categories that are the grounds of experience, but all universals are
themselves the constructs of experience. Through the concept of
immanence, Deleuze makes a relentless and intensive bid to overturn
the transcendental idealism of Platonism. This means honoring
difference and realizing its positivity.
But at the same time, does this mean revertng to the pre-Kantian
deadlock between empiricism and idealism? The answer to that is a
resounding no. Hidden in the earlier form of empiricism was te
assumption of te experiencer as a sovereign humanistc agent. This
created a confusion about how do "we," or humans, organize
experience. It was a problem that could not be solved within the
earlier form of empiricism. But it turned out to be a false problem.
Nietzsche (1967) showed that "there i no 'being' behind doing ... the
deed is everything" (45). Radical empiricism contends that there is no
experiencer or subject distinct from acts or experiences, but the noton
of the experiencer itself comes out of the flow of experience.
Immanence cannot have embedded in it a transcendental subect or a
being who is outside the flow of experience.
What then is experience without the experiencer? It is nothing but
sequences of contemplaton and contraction, that is, observation and
absorption like photosynthesis, or te formaton of crystals, or the
replicaton of nucleic acids and so on, none of which presupposes an
agent, but the repettious effects of which give rise to the illusion of a
type of agency. Contactions built on contactons create layers or
strata which harden to form the appearance of stable categories or
agents. From the intensites and contractions that are infinitely strung
out, certain patters coagulate through insistent repetiton due to
previous constellatons. The dog does not possess characteristcs; out
of the million intensites or possible traits of dogginess that exist as
qualtes and possible branchings emerges the dog. That is to say, the
doglike traits that are themselves the result of infinitesimal
contemplatons are brought into proximity by vortces or atlractors or
resonances set up by previous contactions and contemplatons. At no
time is tere an essence or the remote need for one. This is pure
immanence that tur Platonism on its head.
What is the relevance of such a nonhumanist mode of thought and
analysis to educaton that is seemingly a very humanistc enterprise?
Before we can answer that queston, one more clarification is
necessary. Very broadly speaking, excessively categorical thinking
can be maintained only at the expense of further becoming; strata
upon stata generate forces that gravitate toward specific chanels
only. Over time, stingent orthodoxies appear that gover modes of
being and tg, along with rigid investents in maintaining the
status quo. These tell us what should be, and what is acceptable or
not acceptable, molding and shaping experience in highly selective
ways. In oter words, these adherences and allegiance to categories
reify, stangling life and repeatng old forms. It must be immediately
clear tat all forms of power and subjection must be predicated on
ideas of "what must be," that is, from preset notons that shape
experience, or what Deleuze and Guattari (1983b) call "signifier
systems." These ideas or discourses do not belong to any particular
agency but are the combined effects of myriad social forces that
intersect to form despotc systems.
Educaton is one such system ruled by several regimes of
signifiers-objectve assessment, competence, risk, standardizaton,
efficiency, to name a few, each a fallout of an earlier era of
development in te so-called human sciences. Often the system seems
to be in a viable mode to many as long as these slogans are repeated.
These despotic signifiers look for te legitimation of their own self
images, often resulting in the loss of other ways of looking, feeling
and tg, thus boxing up difference. As educators, therefore, it is
an ethical necessity to free ourselves from totalizing signifiers and
categories, a serious task toward which a praxis is proposed. I
introduce here a way of semiotzing ourselves in the pedagogical
encounter to help us wrestle with the sign before the signifier takes
hold of experience, in order thus to instigate a freedom at the level of
the subpersonal. Second, we must retrieve our affective investments
from reified categories and decrystallize them so as to regain the
power of becoming. Toward this I devote a secton that discusses the
Deleuze-Spinozist approach to active affect and tansformation. Thus,
it will be seen that, while the empirical part of te book is situated in
a specific context, the conceptual work, in the scope of its
experimental possibilites, takes it far beyond those limitations.
Early research had shown that the 'obectve reality' of the formal
organizaton called school is largely a result of the continual
affirmation of rules, dispositions, and habits of thought through the
everyday decision-making practces of teachers and administrators
(Cicourel, 1963). I other words, it is through the boundaries and
categories affirmed daily through organizational "habitus" that
school is experienced in a certain way. Te result is a structure of
beliefs and categories that emerge as solid and stable i our
significaton systems, and depend on te habitual substratum of
similarity and repetition for its perpetuation. Using a Deleuzian lens,
I ty to find ways of rethinking and experimenting with these
signifying orders, that is, to relocate difference within repettion, in
order to loosen them, that will allow us to move beyond those
cong spaces, and release the positivity of difference. The two
series-the empirical and the conceptual-will be interwoven to carry
out this exercise.
I the case study, we see evidence of the limiting assumptions
about the boundedness of the learing situation, the role of the
teacher, and the fixed reference points of school subjects, al of which
inhibit creative movement. Te insecurity that I witessed among
new staff, whe learg spills over in uncontollable ways into the
steets, off-campus placements, and beyond, and does not proceed i
a linear fashion within a physical location, subject area, or measurable
intervals, was te sense of loss of contro1.6 But indeterminacy is not a
lack, but a "perfectly objective structure" that acts as a fresh
"horizon" within perception, as Deleuze (1994, 169) puts it.
The use of Deleuzian concepts is to help pry open reWed
boundaries tat exist not just in thought, but as affective investments
that secure tose territorialities. The effort is to loosen them so that
new modes of tansformation become available that can enhance our
affective capacites. The irmovatve program of the school held te
promise of a different approach; in its effort to break away from more
limitng approaches, it recognized that students learned things that
are valuable to teir becoming at off-campus locatons, and in
between sites, in conversatons beteen te sites, in te unbridgeable
gaps between what they experienced and what language allowed
them to express, and in gestures and modes of being that are often
palpable but not measurable. But these possibilites were unevenly
grasped, and teachers were often unsure how to hold te formatons
open, or, rather, how to prevent structures from closing in so as to let
the various layers proliferate in intensites, and be able to multply the
connectons between te curriculum, the ongoing rich experiences of
the field, and the knowledge that their often difficult backgrounds
offered. The result was the repettion of a structure of innovaton
rater than innovation itself. This is where a Deleuzian praxis, that
talks of complex repetiton, or difference within repetition, can help.
It is contended here that a more complex understanding on the part
of the teachers of the nature of boundaries in which they are
implicated and an attention to the resonance between divergent
learning spaces and te discourses of beings in those spaces can open
the door to a fruitul set of relationships tat is both more fluid and
generatve. The Deleuzian notons I intoduce help us to reopen
petrified borders, as well as to look for the possibilities of gaps and
fissures, and in-between spaces, where learg takes place i
unusual and discontinuous ways. Or, to put it differently, the
producton of the space, or the opening of an irregular interval is not
separate from the learning. Chapter 1 is devoted to the explicaton of
some key Deleuzian concepts that frames the study, that pass into us
as much as we pass into their oscillations and act as the primary tools
of the investigaton. I te present book, I ty to be as economical as
possible with Deleuze's vast oeuvre, intoducing a concept only where
and if absolutely necessary.
Deleuze is an "etnographer" of the nomad; his philosophy tends
to be injected with sudden microelements of lived experience drawn
from history, art and literature that concretize the abstact formatons,
and is therefore valuable for the explicaton and theorizing of the case
study. Through Deleuze, and the questioning of "dominant
significatons," we reach a plane of multiplicites, a "nomadic" terrain
whose cartography is based on flight from "striated" or highly
regulated spaces where life's endless flux is coerced into preexisting
molds or "molar" formations. Escape from molarization involves
becoming "molecular," or entering microelemental passages of potental
transformatons, and resisting the overpowering forms of societal
expressions that endlessly tap experience. In chapter 3, I investigate
the in-between spaces in the school curriculum, the fissures, leakages,
and slippages, that contain transformatve possibilites, and that
become visible when we use a Deleuzian map. I have said earlier
that a key Deleuzian notion on which this book turns is that events
and phenomena including identtes are multiplicitous and
consttutive of difference. Therefore, te search for praxis is a search
for a way to operatonalize t perception.
One way to enter this mode is to see the pedagogical encounter i
terms of a system of signs. Signs arise when we encounter a difference
or make a distinction; we navigate by means of signs, mapping out
reality in terms of it. Through repettion of collectve beliefs,
predispositons, prevalent wisdom, power relatons, and existental
imperatives, groups of signs become isolated, and boundaries get
drawn unifying tem as this or that event (Deleuze, 1990a). This is a
molarizing effect by which powerful forms of cultural expression are
thrust on a group of signs unifying it into a category. For example,
when curriculum developers and textbook manufacturers pounce on
an idea, such as the notion of heuristcs suggested by the
mathematcian George Polya (1957), and reify it into a curricular
commodity, we see the emergence of a molar category.
But the limits placed around the sign, or rather, the process by
which we construct the discreteness of an event or sign, often remain
obscure to ourselves. Capter 4 goes into the question of sign regimes
and illustates how, by means of semiotic experimentation-I call it an
apprentceship of the sign-these constructs may become more visible
to us in the context of learing, helping us tereby to get away from
stratfied ground and onto a more open territory. Using a Deleuzian
Introduction: Fieldwork in Theory
15
praxis to move away from dominant regimes of significaton, I
examine the micropolitcs of the sig in the construction of the
educational encounter, and simultaneously look at our own
constitution by the sign. It is contended that by means of relentless
experimentaton we can escape being trapped in reified sign regimes
and enter into new becomings and reintensifications.
The analysis also deals with the important issue of stress and affect
in the teaching situation which is intimately ted to identty and
curricular responses. Following Deleuze's work on Spinoza, chapter 5
examines how signs can be engaged so as to release our existental
powers rather than dihing tem. It is to a pragmatics of the sign
that I tum in order to theorize about the problem of teacher stess.
That is to say, I shift the problem of affect from the domain of private
experience to a semiotic space, and examine the images in thought
that are the result of dominant significatons. By this I hope to show
that a certain manner of relaton to signs and the concomitant image
that we construct of ourselves has a certain relationship to the
problem of stess.
The major operaton in t book is, tus, the opening up of
pedagogical boundaries as these arise out of the modes of being and
thinking of the actors, in order to get beyond images that have
become congealed in thought through habit. To get beyond these
signifiers is to free the imaginaton. Such an operation is carried out
by means of careful examinaton of, and experimentaton with, sig
regimes, as well as through the release of affective powers, by looking
at the differental tansforms and fluxes beneath our constituted
selves. Deleuzian pragmatics allows us to envisage the production of
new spaces for teacher percepton and action, and to rethink
educational commonplaces and thereby release us from the
oppression of reified categories. It is my belief that such release
brings with it a certain transformatve energy, and a creatve potental
of difference, that has the possibility of releasing new powers of being
and actng.
The concepts in terms of which I have been discussing the
framework-signs, fields of flux, intensities, micro-intervals, affects,
and so on-are characteristc of the descriptve mode of what one
might call a posthumanist plane.1 These descriptors, which can be
identified in any part of the contnuum of life and are not necessarily
associated wit the human, slide beneat our gross identtes, in
order to free thinking from the dominaton of fixed systems of
significaton through the instantaton of the singular and the
producton of difference. In the book, in general. my stategy for
dealing with Deleuzian concept has been to proceed not by defining
them comprehensibly at the outet, but instead, allowing them to
unfold by returg to them again and again in different contexts.
The Bigger Pichlre
More broadly, this book may be regarded as joining the stream of
thought that James MacDonald and William Pinar have called a
"reconceptualizaton" of the field of curriculum theory. Pinar (1994)
states that the reconceptualization
begins in fundamental critique of te field as it is. The order of
critique distnguishes it from most reform efforts, efforts which
accept the deep structure of educatonal and social life, and focus
upon "improving it." The Reconceptualization aspires to critque
which insists upon te transformaton of extant structures. It
must function to dissolve frozen structures. Thus implicit in such
an analysis of contemporary educational practices is their
transformaton. (66)
Although Pinar (202, 3) has subsequently referred to the
contemporary scenario as "post-reconceptualist," I have used the
term without the prefi to indicate the unending work of contnuous
tansformaton. Part of the work of reconceptualization involves
looking at theory as experimental tools of thought in order to open up
ideas about practice. Such labor attempts to transform the field of
curriculum "into a theoretically potent, conceptually autonomous
field which inquires systematically into the multi-dimensional reality
that i education and schooling in ways that aspire to transform both"
(Pinar, 1994, 71). And this infUSing of te field with theory must be
done, as Pinar has pointed out, in a manner that is sensitive and
responsible to our present.
This book attempts to demonstate that Deleuzian pragmatism can
be appropriated and then reconsttuted through educatonal
experience to form an important conceptual matix for advanCing
tg in curriculum. It is especially relevant at t historical
moment given the increasing tlt toward conservatve agendas
sweeping trough most advanced capitalist societes and the
consequent shrinking of public spaces, a tendency that Deleuze and
Guattari (1987) have termed fascist-paranoid. Deleuze (1977) agrees
wit Foucault that theory "is a struggle against power, a struggle
aimed at revealing and undermining power where it i most invisible
and insidious." Deleuze adds that, "A theory i an instent for
multplicaton and it also multiplies itelf . . . and i by nature opposed
to power" (208). In other words, theory, by inventng multplicity,
continually displaces and makes suspect all identtarian grounds that
serve as foundatons for the exercise of power. This is micro
resistance, or resistance at the minoritarian level. I bringing together
the two series-the empirical data from the school and the Deleuzian
constructs-the book attempts to generate an experimental space of
"in-betweenness," an irregular dimension tat can aid the task of
rethinking aspects of curriculum by means of relentless
experimentation on ourselves that open up our constituted selves to
new becomings, which may be seen as a politcal process of
reinscripton. T book must not be seen simply as offering a new
way of functoning in the urban environment, keeping intact implicit
presuppositons about language, identity, and event. It challeges
some rather fundamental assumptions about who we are as teachers
and our relaton to the sense-making processes that we must daily
pass throug and that must pass through us.
Notes
1. Relays are sell-propagating impulses that have no particular
material content but are transmissions by means of a potental
difference.
2. In A Tousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari explain: "Two sounds
of equal pitch and different intensity cannot be compared to two
SOunds of equal intensity and different pitch. Multplicities of t
kind are not metic. They are anexact and yet rigorous" (483). I other
words, these are neiter exact nor inexact, but anexact, that i, ly-ing
beyond te metic dichotomy, in a nonmetic or non-Euclidean space.
18 Teachers i Nomadic Spaces
3. Deleuze's urban orientaton is contasted to Heidegger, who was
known as the "philosopher of the forest."
4. Image-copy is the Platonic noton of the "Idea" or ideal forms of
which objects of experience are copies. Experience is thus subjugated
and made to conform to a preexistng reality.
5. The dialectical method has a long history, and works through
contradictions by juxtaposing opposites in order to arrive at a higher
synthesis. It is a negatve method that views difference and becoming
as other than Being, which is supposedly fixed and eternal. In other
words, all difference ultmately serves to bring us doser to Being.
However, for Deleuze, difference is pure affirmation, it is life itself,
and not a movement toward pure being or an ultimate truth. Deleuze
therefore shuns the negative movement of te dialectic and its
totalizing noton of an absolute ground. Other French
poststructuralists such as Foucault have a similar positon against the
dialectic. As for pluralism, it is the refusal of any preexisting, unitary
ground that organizes experience, affirming instead the plurality and
the divergence of experience and therefore te possibility of new
ways of bing and bcoming. It is a challenge to all forms of
patiarchy which tell us how tings ought to be.
6. Placements are service-learg centers where students are placed
as part of their curricular requirements. This is explained at length in
chapter 3.
7. Posthumanism does not recognize any clear boundary between the
human and the nonhuman, and sees the "human" as a constructon or
assemblage of various other organic and nonorgaruc subsystems that
Guattari calls "part-subects," and that are found throughout the
natural world.
Chapter 1
The problem no longer has to do with the distncton Essence-Appearance or
Mode\--opy. This distinction operates wholly within the world of represent
ton. Rather, it has to do with undertking the subversion of this world-the
"twilight of the idols." --Gilles Deleuze, ThLi ofSse
Taking a Nietzschean view that it i necessary "to learn to think
difrently-i order to attain even more: to Jel dif erently" (Nietzsche
1982, 10), Deleuze attempts, through what may be se as a radical
form of empiricism, t change the very image of thought that has
dominated through the history of philosophy. And te image of
thought challenged by Deleuze is representatonalism: "According to
this image, experience can be reduced to the interiority of a self
constitutng subjectivity" (Hayden, 1998, 5). That is to say,
representatonalism assumes that thought is a faitful interior
representation of the "outside" within an autonomous subject, and
consequently, recognition becomes the chief tool of thought. This
vastly affects pedagogy as it does other forms of experiences, as
thought seeks and establishes unchanging forms, and laws, i the
outside, upon which to found its activities. From Plato to Descartes,
and Kant to Hegel, we find different forms of representationalism,
and synthesis of the faculties occurring that affrms tis view. One of
Deleuze's key projects i to librate thought from its representaton
alist image tat, according to h, has subugated thougt itelf and
inhibited it from functoning more freely. T i a positon tat
Deleuze shares closely with Foucault.
And how does representation end up subduing thinking? In
Deleuze's (1994) words,
Representaton fails to capture the affirmed world of difference.
Representaton has only a single cente, a unique and receding
perspective, and in consequence a false depth. It mediates every
thing but mobilises and moves nothing. (55-56)
This model of thought subordinates the experience of difference to
the noton of representton, seeking to validate experience from a
"single center." and terefore leaves us "unable to t difference in
itself" (Hayden, 1998, 6).
Immediately it is clear what it has to do wit our problem.
Representation captures the experience of difference and forces it to
conform to the four criteria of representaton, namely, identity,
resemblance, analogy, and oppositon (Deieuze, 1994), thereby
suppressing difference itseU in the interests of producing order and
recognition.! The novice teachers I observed stuggled to produce
"similarity" in the midst of proliferatng diversity, attempting to
contain the abundance of difference within the Same. To liberate
thought from the clutches of representaton is to be able to think
difference in iteU and realize the productve power of difference. For
it i difference rather than similarity-difference in temperature,
densit, currents, potentality, for example-that drives all change and
becoming in phenomena. Acknowledging t would allow te
curriculum to expand in previously unthought-of ways, and make
room for engaging constuctively with uncertainty and contingence.
The inadequacy of traditional methods, which emphasized
uniformity and manageriality (Blake et a!., 1998) in the urban
environment, was bore out in this case by the conversatons I had
wit the founding teachers at the site of the empirical srudy who had
opted out of the distict curriculum in order to formulate their own,
under an innovatve program, and in whose assessment the
mainsteam approach did not serve urban youth well. I the language
of te present analysis, the practces were overly determined by a
representationalist mode of thought. I have theorized the above
problem as it plays out in the specific instance of the case study a an
issue of teachers carrying with tem representatonalist ways of
constuctng boundary distinctions around learg, teaching,
Curriculum and Representation 21
identity, and processes of communicaton that mediated the complex
realit that they faced in the urban setting. Apart from pedagogical
consequences, there are serious affective ones including conflict,
stress, and even burout. While boundaries help us construct a reality
out of the sensible, when reWed they also cut us off from the
subtletes of differential transformations that occur continuously in
teaching and learg, as well as in experience in general. To put it in
Deleuzian terms, pure repetiton is impossible, and we must learn to
look in the passages and transformatons, at the outer edges of
phenomena, for intmations of composite relationships and
amalgamatons.
I other words, the attempt here is to find ways in which to connect
teachers to the positivity of difference. Such a praxis would allow
teachers to draw on the productivity of difference and thus to connect
more fruitfully and creatively to te divergent spaces of the urban
environment. Instead of being passively affected by conditions, I look
for ways in which teachers can affect te situaton in which they find
themselves by breaching or rupturing the old boundaries that can
lead to a release of new intensites. This is te notion of
"deterritorialization" in Deleuze-a movement by which we leave the
territory, or move away from spaces regulated by dominant systems
of sigification that keep us confined within old patter, in order t
make new cOJUlectons. For the very breach or rupture, when made
with a certain conceptual preparation, or grasp of the "geology" of a
new set of distinctons, becomes a producton of differentiation that
expands our powers of acting and affecting. Hence, an act of
becoming (another important Deleuzian concept), rather than look for
the similar, or the Platonic image-copy, seeks to produce difference,
and thereby articulate new worlds.
To reiterate then, the site under discussion was a highly
differentiated one in which the commonplaces of schooling had to be
renegotiated again and again. The often unarticulated middle-class
assumptions of schooling such as a stable home, a future orientation,
the idea of contnuity, and even average life expectancy could not be
taken for granted. Students often talked of not living beyond thirty or
thirty-five because they had not seen too many survive that age in
their irunediate surroundings. Middle-class becomings with their
blessed-by-the-State trajectories and lines of development seemed
somewhat alien on t landscape. The situation also demanded a
curriculum that could take into account complex themes of
uncertainty and loss, as artculated so well by Britzman (2002):
Part of the loss we confront in the feld of curriculum is the loss
of our capacity to recogize OUf own psychical reality as being
out of joint with ordinary reality. (%)
If we take the "psychical" to indicate a contnually differentiatng
subjectve reality with a kaleidoscopic mix of love, hate, fear, despair,
and hope, then a curriculum directed mainly at "average," or a
statstical reality, would appear to suppress the very ground i which
learg could take root in differential spaces.
Given te pressure of interal differences that distinguish urban
conditons from mainstream reliance on uniformity and homogeneity,
teachers who core to appreciate difference, not to fetishize or
hypostatze it, but to realize its creative potental, are more likely to
succeed in positively contibuting to the urban learg situation.
And it i more than likely, as tese pages will show, that they will
also have a better chance of survival under these complex conditons
if they allow conceptons to expand in ways other tan cong
learg to the limits of the repettous outcomes that are mandated
by the official curriculum. Citng Oliver and Gershman, Hartley
(1997) observes,
[EJducation is supposedly about leading us away from where we
are, but its effects may be t lock us into technical ratonality as
the only mode of thinking. I short, educaton ignores 'onto
logical knowing' . . . one which can include 'feelings, vague
sensibilities, and inarticulable thoughts' . . . Here speaks the
language of the unpredictable, of the imagination, of the passions
. . . none of which are objectvely reducible to discrete, analysable
entities. (7)
Decades of Taylorism and Tylerism have narrowed and reified the
bounds of practice (Kliebard, 1992), and it is mostly this 'other' of
educaton that has been suppressed in the attempt to scientze
learg and make educaton serve te interests of narrow goals. My
attempt here i t help teachers find ways to allow these submerged
sensibilites, murmurs, and unformed multplicites to surface, by
means of which we can explore new ways of tg and feeling,
and find ways of producing new and different effects in thought. The
implicit belief i that such novel movements can help us to
contnually defer "statification," or escape fromexisting stuctures of
ossificaton.
The philosophy of OeJeuze is eminently suited to te purpose of
creating new terrain. Deleuze conceives of philosophy as a pragmatc
practce of actvely creatng concepts that lead t new and different
ways of affectve thinking and being. He is the philosopher of
difference par excellence, who has been referred to as "the difference
engineer" (Pearson, 1997, 2), and whose effort has been to teorize
difference by breaking away from representationalist ground:
The primacy of identity, however conceived, defines te world of
representaton. But moder thought i bor of the failure of
representaton, of the loss of identities, and of the discovery that
. . . all identties are only simulated, produced as an optcal effect
by the more profound game of difference and repetton. We
propose to think difference in itself independently of the forms
of representton which reduce it to the Same, and te relaton of
different to different. (Deleuze, 1994, xix)
I the world of representation, "common sense," or the Kantan
concordia fcultatum, contibutes to the form of the "Same." That i, at
the heart of representaton is the image of thought as subectve unity
or a conjunctve synthesis of the faculties tat produces correspon
dence. This powerful tadition has an overwhelming echo within the
curriculum, which, operating within this image, aligns learg
substantvely with the notion of recognition. Hayden (1998) remarks,
The representationalist image of thought portays tg not as
the creaton of new values and new senses, but as the proper
allocaton and distribution of established values and te verifica
ton of it own image. (27
In other words, thought is confined to maintaining "correctess" of
existng ideals, and to the allocaton of established tut values rather
than te creaton of new etical and sensory engagements. I t
waY
I tought mirrors its own image in a process of inter reflecton
that largely shuts Qut new possibilites of percepton-acton. We want
teachers to move away from this image of thought and create new
values and new sense, and the poststuctural discourse is an ally.
Whereas, the modernist curriculum that dominates schools as well as
most reform movements is really a redistribution and strengthening
of existing stuctures. Hartley (1997) observes,
And yet, whilst postoder culture is centrifugal, curriculum
Planners-despite the rhetoric of choice and diversity-witdraw
to the centre, in a rearguard acton, to fe-grOUp, not only tem
selves, but also the subjects of the curriculum, building in courses
which will serve to integrate the fracturing self of the postmodem
pupil. (73)
This attempt to integrate is a last ditch attempt to save representation,
but cannot bring about new tg in relatons or provide solutions
to the problem of difference.
What can Deleuze offer us here? Reecting the representatonalist
image that what is encountered is experienced as recogniton,
Deleuze says, "Something in the world forces us to thi. This
something is an object not of recognition but of a fundamental
encounter" (Deleuze, 1994, 139), and in whichever manner this
something is grasped it can only be of the order of the sensible, and
not of the order of recognition which presupposes the existence of
categories of the possible. I rejectng recognition as the basis of
thought, Deleuze i rejecting the applicaton of the categories of the
possible to real experience: "To apply te possible t te real as if it
dictated what real experience can be is to posit a world of
representaton rather than to encounter the world of actual
experiences" (Hayden, 1998, 29).
For Deleuze, the world is fundamentally heterogeneous, with
perception the result of divergent series, that is, a consequence of
disjunctve synthesis, and not convergence. Turning Platonism that
sees the world as reproductions of an original Madel on it head,
Deleuze (l990b) posit the world as "simulacra," or copies without an
original:
To "reverse Platonism" means t make the simulacra rise and to
affirm their rigts among icons and copies. The simulac is
Curriculum and Representaton
not a degraded copy. It harbors a positive power which denies
tile original and the copy, the model and lite reproduction. (262)
2
To apply the possible to the real is essentialist thinking, whereby
things proceed from ideal forms, or eidos, to the particulars, and
experience must conform to essences. But for Deleuze, forms are not
established prior to populations; instead, they are more akin to
statistcal processes that are abstacted from populatons themselves.
Therefore, we must give up thinking typologically, and instead,
operate with the noton of multplicities that contnually diverge to
produce ever new populatons. Instead of approaching things as
approximatons of ideal states, we look for the advantages of
variatons; as there is no ideal image, we no longer seek degrees of
perfection in terms of a type, but look in terms of differential
relations, and coefficients of processes or intensive states. These
primary processes, which I briefly discussed in te Introduction, are
better grasped in terms of contnuous variations of propertes such as
density, pressure, catalytc acton, speed, mutaton, and other
variables. These differental relatons drive all becoming, not
categories.
But how do we connect these physical determinants to human
actors in pedagogical settngs? To grasp this, we must pause for a
moment and tur our attention to the mn er in which Deleuze
views te human personality. Deleuze argues after Bergson that the
human body itself is an image, empirically derived, that exists in
reciprocal presupposition with other images in the world. That is to
say, the body and the mind cn ot but be images among other
images, engaged in a complex and dynamic exchange, tat create the
sensaton of being in te world. These images are fndamentally
elemental or impersonal, and do not belong to the interiority of identity
or personality. Instead, personalites or identtes inhere in them,
derived in a stochastic manner from these multiplicity of images.
Therefore, the personal, in Deleuze, "is understood as the empty
site of passage between the subpersonal and the supra personal," that
is, between the elemental and the notonal (Massumi, 1992, 186). In
other words, the person is not a ting in itelf, but arises from
moment to moment out of a certin movement between images or
frames. Its organization depends on certain conditons which may
change, producing entirely new effects in the so-called personality.
Once we are rid of all transcendental imagery, we can see the
potentialities for change and becoming in terms of impersonal factors
that are differential relations and molecular movements. By backing
off from reified categories into the underlying fields of flux and
variaton, we shed layers of stata or deterritorialize, enabling
ourselves to move from closed spaces into more open terrain. Here it
is possible to reconsider our composites in terms of their constituent
differences that are the key to the pragmatc possibilities that
continually present themselves as pedagogical opportunities. How
we do this is the subject of later chapters.
Also, and most important, growth, in Deleuzian spaces, does not
occur by means of acquisiton of systems, elements, or components,
but by a loss: "It is through populations that one is formed, and
through loss that one progresses and picks up speed" (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1987, 48). That is, phase tansitons take place through the
loss of the characteristics of the previous plane. The emergent features
are not acquisitions but differentatons. This provides us with an
important insight into learning, which, in the moderst cast, is often
pictured in terms of an acquisiton model. I the Deleuzian diagram,
elements of which we are begg to draw out, learg becomes a
producton of difference, rather than acquisiton. This is a much more
helpful approach, espl y wit te disprivileged, whose narratives
and ways of being are rarely take seriously in the formal discourse
of schooling.
But to be in contact wit the arising of differental experiences in
the seses, we have to renounce stong identficaton with categories.
The powerful reasons for doing so will become clear by looking at the
following examples from current issues in schooling. Let us for a
moment consider the "whole language" versus "phonics" debate.
Considered in Deleuzian terms, this is a phony debate, for it grows
out of the hardening of the boundary lins around each of these
categories, that is, by solidifying the strata by means of these very
arguments. In other words, the battle lines are drawn trough a double
articulation-in turn, through a reificaton of categories, and then by
making a pedagogic method out of these hardened distnctons,
which further reifies, and so on. By the tme we are well into this
process, the two categories look distinct enough to be "real," and
opposed to each other.
One way to resolve this dichotomy is through the method of textual
deconstucton: by showing that phonics cannot be taught without a
measure of whole language in which it is embedded, and that te so
called "whole language" must always involve certain reductonist
moves from tme to tme. But Deleuzian pragmatcs goes further tan
textual analysiS. For Deleuze, text is only an extension of extra-textual
practce. Deleuzian pragmatics contextualizes te problem by
extracting from it the singularities of which the situaton is
composed.2 The extracton of singularities would involve looking into
the forces in the field that started the crystallizaton process, tat is,
the approaches to research, political alignments of autors, and
materials tat helped stucture the debate in the first place, and by
comparing it to narratives of actual situatons of instuction to see
how the idealizatons get distibuted in the field. A similar
investigation could be carried out with the notion of whole language.
I this mn er, we create what may be called a vector field that
shows the various series of diverging engagements that produce the
singular. What is also important in such an analysis is that we
ourselves are part of the field, and are not extrinsic to it. That is, we
take into account our particular positioning within a milieu. The issue
then no longer remains as a dash of dearly defined boundaries, but
instead, a more fuzzy, fractal relationship emerges, wherein, when
the attenton shifts fom the reified boundaries t te processes of
their becoming, a wholly new compositon becomes available.)
Consider yet another controversial topic such a religion in schools.
There are those who vociferously oppose it as an igement on
religious freedom, and others who cannot imagine schools without
religious instuction. Again, recasting the debate in Deleuzian terms,
the issue takes on a completely different hue.4 The debate produces
what Deleuze would call "surplus value." That is, an excess
generated by means of "interlocking syntheses" of incorporeal
transformatons induced by statements. These generate their own
terms, gradients, and resonances, as they organize themselves
through "infolding," or forming more stable relatonships to
neighboring enunciatons or "judgments."s It is the surplus value or
excess thus created tat begins t determine the gradient of te
terrain on which the debate carries on and hardens.
It is by recognizing that both sides have created a surlus value that
merely stengtens their own respectve terms of te debate, adding
new intensites and forces as tey roll along, without resolving
anything, that we are alerted to the necessity of a different kind of
investigation, in order that we may open up the bOWldaries and
categories tat reify like calcareous deposits at the edge of a pool.
Teachers and students who undertake the careful and arduous task of
mapping such a field would not only engage with the semiotcs of
religious instruction, as well as te assumptions of secular ideals, but
also come to grips with the stucturations of such discourses.
For Deleuze clarifies that all statements arise from indirect discourse,
that is, from the multiplicitous murmurs, dialects, continuous
variations, and nondiscursive presuppositions, all of which must be
temporarily suppressed for the optical illusion of clear speech to arise.
As Massumi (1992) has noted, "For a statement to appear in all its
apparent simplicity and clarity, its complicated genesis must recede
into the abyssal shadows from which it came" (46). I other words,
every utterance is a Bakhtinian heterogeneity, but is morphed into a
distinct enunciaton by means of what Deleuze and Guattari call
"order-words" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987).
Order-words, a vital concept in Deleuze and Guattari's theory of
language, do not consttute a particular type of statement; they are
incorporeal transformatons that make things fall into line with
prevalent social norms and expectatons. They are not a category,
"but the relation of every word or every statement to implicit
presuppositions" on which they stand (79). Order-words are not
commands, but those that l statements to "social obligatons."
They produce redundancies by means of which statements and acts
are connected, and by means of fixig the social gaze. For example,
the statement "I swear" or the word "dating" gathers a certain force
from the immanent social field through complicated sets of
presuppositions and obligations that produce a certain act.
One insidious consequence of order-words is the plane of
redundancy in which perceptons get immersed even as the rules of
that reality game are already established by relations of power. A
useful example is te projecton of the noton called "school choice,"
whereby the order-word "choice" is projected as value-free and
available for the asking. Thus, tacked onto a set of presuppositions
the queston is avoided as to who is really free to choose and under
what circumstances. For Deleuze, language is neither information nor
conununcaton, but an endless tansmission of order-words that leap
29
from statement to statement or accomplish an act within a statement.
Order-words can prove to be of great worth in analyzing the
semiotics of insttutions, especially of schools.
Concepts such as surplus value, order words, murmurs, the unsaid
of every utterance, presuppositions, and the surface effect of
enunciations slice open the grip of existing discourses and equip
teachers and students with a set of new analytcal tools with which to
look at their social milieu as well as the codings and the boundaries
within which they fucton. Moving beyond a critcal approach, we
are driven to the performative edge of those boundaries, and can
experimentally observe how we are consttuted at their conjunctions;
we enter a praxis.
But to help us undertake such work, we also need to reexamine our
relationship to signs, for according to Deleuze, what i encountered
by the senses "is not a quality but a sign," that i, not something
universal but differential, arisig out of the clash of forces that
produce a seething gradient of qualitative differences. Deleuze's
approach to signs is more akin to Foucault's than to Saussurian
systems. For Deleuze, an event or phenomenon is a sign, and the
significance it has depends on the forces that occupy it at any tme,
thus constucting it out of the notion of continuous variation. I some
signs appear stable, it is only because their current configurations are
maintained or "overcoded" by stong forces, such as, for example,
geolOgiC ones. In the instance of schooling, the pedagogic encounter is
an overcoding of the child, creatng a supplementary dimension in
which are inserted various transcendental and powerful unifying
images of identity, conformity, natonalism, work, achievement,
competiton, success/failure, and many others. These overpower
weaker forces of less unitary or chaotic actvity.
Signs tus have the capacity to affect and be affected by other sigs,
and each sig refers not to an intrinsic state of things but to other
signs in a chain of significaton. Although te latter position is a
poststucturalist one, Deleuze's approach to semiotcs has elements in
it that are not. For instance, Deleuze maintains that signs have
content, but the content is not essence but an array of forces that
occupy the sign at any given moment. And the sign perplexes us "as
though the object of the encounter, the sign, were the bearer of a
problem" (Deleuze, 1994, 140). In other words, each encounter or
phenomenon posits a problem i the form of a sign tat has to be
engaged and experimented with. Even) encounter is a fresh
problematc, and invites a new struggle for meaning.
Using these Deleuzian insights that it is the differential as the sign
that arises in an encounter rather than universals of representaton,
and that it is "the sensible multiplicities that are the conditions of
actual experience" (Hayden, 1998, 35), 1 look at the learg
encounters at the school in queston, and find it exhibitng such
slippages and leakages so as to constantly exceed and escape the
representatonalist space of technocratic rationalty within which the
signifying regimes of taditional curriculum tries to contain it. We see
how event, pedagogy, curriculum, and relatonships in the school
are irreducibly multiplicitous rather than inhabitng the linearity or
uniformity of techno-rational space, needing therefore mutant lines of
thought that can engage productively on such a surface.
Therefore, I make the theoretical move of casting the problem of
teacher becoming in semotc terms, that is, as a problem of engaging
and experimenting with sign regimes. I have argued in the book that
novice teachers are better served by being educated to see the
learning encounter as a system of signs they have to engage and
experiment with, and not something tey can take for granted or teat
in terms of representaton or recogition. Teachers have to construct
the plane of divergence, the "planomenon," even as they encounter it,
out of the differential experiences that are always in excess of what
thought as recognition can expect.6
But this demands a very different mode of perception, and a
manner of looking that cannot be from the static image of thought as
representation, that is, from within the old habits of thinking. What
can help us to disengage from deeply entrenched ways? For this we
must realize the transcendental illusion that is involved in
representational thinking. Representation assumes the possibility of
pure repetition of an Idea, but this repetition is always in relaton to a
subject, and therefore subject to the differences of thought, affect, and
consciousness within which it arises. This is made explicit here
through an experimentaton that leads to a semioticizaton of
ourselves. To put it differently, we observe a relationship of reciprocal
presupposition with Signs. It leads to the understanding of the
Deleuzian process of "disunctve synthesis" through which matter
sign composites arise. T experiment is explained i detail in
chapter 4.
The effort is to open ourselves up to signs in a manner that our
composite natures that arise trough reciprocal presupposition with
signs become apparent. Experimentally rejectng the bondage to
representation, we open a fissure into our molecular multplicites in
a lateral movement that challenges all hierarchical modes of thinking.
In other words, we attempt what Levi Stauss (1969) called, being
situated at the level of the signs themselves, and Deleuze (1972) has
called, being immanent t the sign. T is a becoming of the teacher
unto the sign, a perception-acton that changes the very image of
ourselves from transcendent subjects existng outside the signs we
perceive, to an immanent one in which we are no longer seU
presences looking at phenomena, but implicated in the signs
themselves.
That is to say, the image of ourselves and reality is displaced from a
universal and tanscendental plane onto a di erential and immanent
one where we begin t act and move with the productvity of
difference. It is only through a fundamental displacement of t
nature, I argue, that a new approach to the problem of difference in
pedagogic relatons is possible. This results in a change in the very
image of thought by initatng what Deleuze and Guattari (1983, 1987)
call "schisis" or "secret lines of disorientaton." as explained below.
With the inventon of a new cartography wherein what was once
regarded as a unified entity is redistributed semiotically over sign
regimes, we find ourselves at the level of the sign. To proceed in this
manner of deterritorializing, we make small ruptures in our everyday
habits of thought and start minor dissident flows and not grand
"signifying breaks," for grand gestures start their own totalizing
movement, and are eaSily captured. Instead, small ruptures are often
imperceptble, and allow flows that are not easily detected or
captured by majoritarian discourses. This emphasis on the minor and
the almost indiscernible is very important for the approach here.
These ruptures make connections across domains of signs through
a becoming that displaces anthropocentric and humanist obsessions,
allowing the emergence of multplicites or matter-thought
compositions that are always in the process of change, a becoming
other that creates new intensites and flows. For signs are hybrid
enttes, matter-thought conglomerates tat have nothing inherently
hUmanistc about tem. The framework of te present discussion
therefore is located on what may be thought of as a posthumaist
plane that attempts to be free of points of unificaton as the basis of
experience.
I Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari (1983) offer such a
framework which they call schizoanalysis. Schizoanalysis looks for
schisis, or a break from dominant significations and usual patterns of
thought that hold us captve by means of what William Blake had
aptly called "mind-forg'd manacles." Its work is to disorient and
displace us from the transcendent plane of the sovereign individual to
one of composites and multiplicites, in which, instead of
representaton and resemblance, we have differential constructons
and becomings. The dynamic constructvism of Deleuze comes out of
the possibility of releasing the singularities tapped witin OUf
composites. The discovery of singularities or traits that have no name,
label. or directonality allows us to glimpse the fields of flux and
indefinitude tat constitute us, as well as the events around us. The
apprenticeship helps us to play an actve role in such composition
and tereby increase our affective capacities (Deleuze, 1972).
But we have to be careful here. I do not mean to celebrate or
fetshize the notion of schisis or rupture for its own sake. Each schisis
can lead to a new capture: For example, Capitalism is one such force
of deterritorialization tat constantly creates flux and uncertainty,
and yet, at the same time produces new orders of enslavement. That
is to say, the desires released through irruptive decoding of social
mores, say, trough tedUlological innovaton, are immediately
captured in new crystallizations of consumption and social
formatons. Only a careful experimentation, knowing te risks, and
finding or inventng new terrain in which the released forces could be
distibuted will make an endeavor such as this successful. A
example is Guattari's (1995) clinical practce in psychiaty. Along with
founder Jean Oury, Guattari worked the clinic La Borde as a collectve
enterprise where the usual distinctions between patent, doctor, and
staff were mostly set aside in favor of overlapping and collectve
responsibilites. I t manner, "patients" were affirmed and became
joint producers of the place, rather than passive receivers of
teatment. Guattari thus fashioned a differential plane where
deterritorializaton found a creative escape. It also revolutionized the
clinic. This example is particularly relevant here, since, as Foucault
(1979) has shown, the clinic, te hospital, te prison, and the school
have emerged from similar urges of disciplinary society.
A conceptual schema where difference is not a threat to an
organizing principle, but of key productive potential, was vital to the
task of arriving at a theory/praxis for a pluralistic enterprise at the
school. The effort here is to realize by means of experimentaton that
difference is not an extrinsic phenomenon, but that we ourselves are
the constructs of difference, multplicities rather than identties. The
study unfolds as a praxeological analysis that offers a way of looking
at the learning encounter that helps teachers to emerge onto a new
terrain of complexity and realize in the process the power of their
own becoming and affectve capacities.
One of my suggestions in this book is that in the midst of an
unprecedented crisis of "civil society" (Hardt, 1998), and by
extension, of liberal insttutions therein, teachers and schools would
be better served if tey functoned with a differental cartography,
rather than an identtarian one, and lear the new language of the
mapping of intensities and becoming that leads to new possibilites.
As to the relevance and necessity of engaging the elaborate teoretical
machinery of Deleuze in conSidering the problem of teacher
beCOming, I contend that: First, as I have observed earlier, tere is
sometimes a necessity to change the very conceptual terrain on which
we consider a problem, and I believe we are in that situation today
with respect to teaching and schooling. The problem that I was
encountering had much broader implicatons than the immediate
context itseli. The particular situaton only served to highlight what is
rather common i schools and other social institutons-the
helplessness to appreciate and encounter difference without
attempting to subect it to te identtarian pressures of dominant
epistemologies (McCarthy and Dimitriadis, 2000a), that is, to the
pressures of representaton and recognition. Therefore, the issue
deserved a deeper consideration and a level of theorizing that befitted
it scope, since part of the task I have undertaken in te book is to go
beyond the case study and develop an analytcal framework for a
different effort in curriculum.
A second, and equally important, point is that the existing
approaches and frameworks have not resolved the problem that I
address here, and instead, there is only increasing pressure on
insttutons to find ways of managing difference that keep things
eVermore the same, resultng in deep frustraton for those on the
margins. O t issue, teacher education programs have not done
much more than include diversity as an added element to the existing
discourse, an approach thoroughly, and rightly in my opinion,
criticized by teorists such as McCarthy who observe that difference
has been co-opted into the discourse of power "that attempts to
manage te extraordiry tensions and contradictions . . . tat have
invaded social institutons, including the university and the school"
(McCarthy and Dimitiadis, 2000b, 70). The trust has been to
"petify" difference and absorb it into the mainstream instead of
allowing it te more profound consideration that it deserves.
Finally, woven through the book is the productve and affirmative
power of difference that is triggered trough sidelining the old urge
for representationalism, thus giving us the means to resist power and
domination at te micropolitical or minoritarian level, something not
found in psychoanalytic theory, social psychology, or the existing
discourses on diversity and difference. For those interested in
questons of freedom, divergence, power, and liberatory pedagogies,
the present analysis provides important tools of thought as well as
ways of becoming whose main tluust is to free spaces. Here, it will be
helpful to relate the framework of the present study to some
representatonal and non-representatonal perspectves. I will locate
my position using rudiments of Marxism and Critcal theory, some
feminist positions, psychoanalytic theory, poststuctural perspectives,
and systems theory.
Deleuze and Marxism
Although both Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, two of the most
well-known works of Deleuze (along with Guattari), are trenchant
critques of Capitalism and all forms of institutionalized dominaton
and oppression that force our multiplicities into false totalites,
Deleuze's approach to relations of producton and power is different
than those of the taditonal left. First, I will run a single thread that is
an intertext to many Marxist analyses in order to highlight this
difference. By making a brief allusion to the theory of surplus value,
which is basic to most Marxist positions, I will attempt t raise a
useful distincton. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) observe:
I these new [late Capitalist] conditons, it remains true that all
labor involves surplus labor; but surplus labor no longer requires
labor. Rather, it is as though human alienaton trough surplus
labor were replaced by a generalized "machinic enslavement,"
such tat one may furnish surplus-value without doing any work
(children, the retred, the unemployed, television-viewers, etc.).
Not only does the user as such tend to become an employee, but
capitalism operates less on a quantity of labor than on a complex
qualitative process bringing into play modes of transportation,
urban models, te media, the entertainment industries, ways of
perceiving and feeling--every semiotc system. (492) (emphasis
added)
35
The surprising insight that uncouples surplus value from labor, and
shows it to be the result of complex qualitatve processes that enslave
through consumption rather than exploit through relations of
production, is a powerful comment on cultural formatons in late
Capitalist societes. T can be a useful mode of analysis of the
exploitative regimes let loose in schools through gross and subtle
forms of commercializaton (Molnar, 2(02). Such an analysis goes
beyond neo-Marxist ones in showing the mechanism trough which
children's bodies are opened up, with the connivance of the school
system, for "vampiric extaction" of surplus value through
consumption (Massumi, 192, 81).
This is also a warrant for engaging a different plane of analysis
Whereby consumption, or the desire to be passively affected by other
bodies, in a Deleuzian-Spinozist sense, can be resisted. Deleuze's
work on Spinoza shows us te possibilites of tansforming passive
affects into actve ones, that is, entering a plane where we lear to be
producers rather than consumers of affect, thus reversing
dependencies. This is very important from the point of view of the
present analysis; it helps to create a new theoretcal basis for
resistance against te consumerist culture that reduces life and
learg to the banal.
Therefore, it may not be inaccurate to say that although Critical
theorists and neo-Marxists have criticized conspicuous consumpton
a
d Capitalism'S culture industies, they have not fully come to terms

WIth the fact that this has created a global space in which human
destiny itseU is recast (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). I other words,
MarXist positons fall short of giving us the tools necessary to escape
sUb
ugaton on t emergent plane that requires new forms of
res
istance.
Second, Critcal teorists "tend to employ a dialectical framework
of analysis, and therefore, the analyses tend to explain relations in
terms of opposing forces" (Fendler, 1999, 184). Arguments are cast
within such traditonal oppositons as oppressor/oppressed and
empowered/subordinate. Deleuze's analysis, instead, follows
nonbinary modes of differentation such as "singularities," and
change is seen in terms of becomings or formation of new
multplicites (Massumi, 1992). The tajectory of becomings of any
composite cannot b known in advance, and therefore adherece to a
priori categories becomes problematc. As, Deleuze suggests tat
each consttuted subject includes totalizing tendencies or micro lines
of dominaton that need to be worked upon, and therefore there are
no easy oppositions or platforms available. Careful selections have to
be made from our multiplicities that have both de- as well as re
territorializing elements.
Instead of the broad class struggle of te Marxist lineage, Deleuze's
politcal project and confrontaton with power is mostly at the
minoritarian level, concered wit te conditons of capture of the
"molecular," or freer multplicites, by the "molar," or forces of
homogenizaton; that is, it looks at the conditions of possibility of
specific struggles and resistances of different groups such as sexual
minorites and other marginal social movements which Marxism
teats as epiphenomenal to the historical antagonism between classes.
Within the context of schooling, class analysis no doubt has brought
to the fore several vital issues (see, for example, Bernstein, 1996, and
Willis, 1977), but local and minoritarian movements are indispensable
for preventng the srata or boundaries from locking us in. Deleuze
and Guattari enter the micro-politcal dimension to look at the
kaleidoscopic formations of desire and its becomings, and its
potential in the sruggle against hegemony. A awareness of the
molecular within the molar, that is, the singularities within our
constituted experience, create the possibilities of a "civil
disobedience," to borrow a phrase from Rajchman (2000), that can
direct our "badly analyzed composites" toward a constant
unbecoming, and therefore toward new social formations.
The phrase "badly analyzed composites," which Deleuze uses
frequently t indicate the false unit of our molar identites, i again
relevant from the point of view of students and schooling. It alerts us
t the possibility of very different axes of analysis i our pedagogical
encounters. For example, as Deleuze and Guattari love to point out,
the binary X or Y may be replaced by X + Y + . + + , that is, te exclusive
'or' by the inclusive 'and.' The exclusionary 'or' is a movement of
patriarchy, whereas the 'and' opens an escape route. Thus, it is not a
question of Ebonies or Standard English, but and; the simple 'and' is
one way of getting away from excluSionary logiC.
While attention to the microdynamics of desire opens the door to
the molecular politics of multplicites, it is also a threat at the same
time:
There are so many dangers, and each line [of becoming] poses its
own. The danger[s] of rigid segmentation or a break appears
everywhere . . . The prudence required to guide this line, the
precautons needed to soften, suspend, divert or undermine it, all
point to a long process of labor directed not only against the State
but against itself as welL (Deleuze and Guattari, 1983, 95-96)
Thus, unlike Marxism, which discounts individual stuggle, Deleuze
was tat we not only must struggle against the state but against
ourselves as well. Further, Deleuze and Guattari cauton us of "micro
fascisms that exist in a social field without necessarily being
centralized in a partcular state apparatus" (97). In other words, all
struggles themselves contain the potential of becoming new
hegemOnies. All this points to a level of complexity in Deleuzian
ethics and dynamiCS of stuggle and a differential politics of thought
not usually found in Marxist analyses.
Finally, as I have mentoned earlier, Deleuze detect a kind of
violence tat remains outside the state apparatus not conceived of by
Marxist analysis. Rajchman (2000) notes that it appears as
a violence of forces that no state can control or rationalize in
advance, and which comes to the fore in cities or is worked out
through city rather than state-forms . . . . lndeed one might say that
i Deleuze, a city-state tension tends to replace the great state
society distincton that Foucault came to see as the chief limita
ton of modem politcal thought. (103)
T uncontained element is a force of "deterritorializaton" that
eludes capture and regularizaton by the State. It i a violence that
always hovers at the fringes of order and upsets the totalizing
calculatons of power. Deleuze's subtle theorization of the city in
terms of a certain quality of molecular violence that is not fully
captured by the State machinery evokes powerful subversive energies
and intertexts, and reverses the usually dismal picture of urbanity.
This must not be mistaken as the adopton of a romantic attitude to
urban violence and decrepitude; in fact, the violence must not be
confused with the street type of aggression, but a tendency toward
molecularizaton7 tat state apparatuses dislike because it is a
violence in thought that makes us less predictable, and for Deleuze a
new thought is bor of a violence in thought.
Feminisms and Deleuze
Next, we will look at Deleuze's approach vis-a-vis some feminist
positions, broaching it with a quote from Elizabeth Grosz, an anti
essentalist feminist writer whose work on Deleuze is widely cited.
Grosz (1994a) observes that Deleuze and Guattari's
noton of the body as a discontinuous, non-totalizable series of
processes, organs, flows, energies, incorporeal events, speeds
and duratons, may be of great value to feminists attempting to
reconceive bodies outside the binary oppositons [of] mind/
body, nature/culture, subject /object and interior/exterior
oppositions. They provide an altogether different way of under
standing the body in its connectons with other bodies. (164-65)
Grosz sees Deleuzian conceptions of the body and the Spinozist
refusal to subordinate the body to the mind a a possible way of
undermining the phallocentric positoning of te female body.
Deleuze (1988a) has argued that the body always exceeds the
consciousness we have of it, and therefore we do not know what the
body i. I Grosz' work there is a sense that Deleuze's writng
contains resources that can help feminists map bodily practces tat
evade the masculinist notions of the self.
There are others (Shukin, 2000; lrigaray, 1985), however, who war
against hast adoption of Deleuze's texts in feminist thought. While
they agree with Grosz about its potental for escaping Platonic
thinking, at te same time, they also feel that Deleuze's works
mythiCize and fetshize te feminine witout paying attenton to the
39
actual conditions of embodied women. Shukin (2000) writes on an
apprehensive note,
Throughout A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari indirectly
summon up philosophcal and social texts with foreboding
investents. Deleuze believes, perhaps, that his own iconoclasm
is enough to redirect the force of these allusions to subliminally
power his own purposes .. ! would suggest, however, that while
Deleuze does manage to Siphon enormous affectve energy off
intertexts that are evoked without being raised, an inexorable
weight of allusions pressures his thinking into old molds
partcularly when it comes to sexual difference. (152-53)
The allusions to the limitless possibilities of geography in Deleuze's
writings evoke in some feminist minds "colonial anticipations" and
male adventurism. The frequent references to woman-becomings as a
"path to original potency" surrunon up existing "exploitatve
discourses of animalsaton and sexualisation" of the feminine in the
popular media. I other words, the objecton is that, while Deleuze
points to new possibilites for women, in his writings, gender remains
latent and women "a sort of threshold or medium" for possibilites
rather than "embroiled" actualites (Shukin, 2000, 153-54). But
animalizaton, it is important to realize, has little to do with animal
becoming, with which Deleuze is concerned. The former i part of an
insidious chain of Oedipalized discourses, whereas the latter is the
reconfiguraton of stratfied, molar identites into nuanced domains.
Also, to Shukin's queston above as to whether Deleuze and
Guattari can "control" the involuntary allusions to exploitative
intertexts in their work, one must respond that Deleuze and
Guattari's strategy seems to be to take the potency and the potential
released by evocatve and powerful intertextual material so far
forward as to subvert their own processes; that is, to a point where
they cannot recover their original ground in the reader. Massumi
(1992) observes:
The feminine gender stereotype involves greater indeterminacy
(fickle) and movement (flighty) and has been burdened by te
patriarchal tadition with a disproportionate load of paradox
(virgin/whore, mother/lover). Since supermolecularity involves
a capacity to superpose states that are "normally" mutually
exclusive, Deleuze and Guattari hold that the feminine cliche
offers a better departure point than masculinity for a rebecoming
supermolecular of the personified individuaL . . Becoming-woman
involves carrying the indeterminacy, movement, and paradox of
the female stereotype past the point where it is recuperable by
the socius as it presently functons. (87)
Therefore, bodies of eiter sex are urged toward a becoming-woman
which takes us beyond the limit of recuperability of gendered
individuality.
Along a different trajectory, feminists such as Alice Jardine (1985)
have objected to the tendency in Deleuze's writings to ignore
macropolitical and macrohistorical struggles in favor of minoritarian
ones. Jardine also objects to the dispersal of identity in Oeleuze's
work, and the active encouragement to become other, that is, to be
indiscernible or faceless. To this it is possible to argue that for Deleuze
and Guattari, macropolitcal struggles that are waged in terms of
well-recognized patters of significaton cannot get to the
rcropolitics of desire at the level where many of the struggles are
actually located. Deleuze's effort is to create a geography of
intensites that is free of all ideal sigatons and Platonic taint that
have enslaved thought and maintained territories of exploitaton.
I Platonism and all patiarchal systems, Deleuze and feminists
have a common enemy. In order to appreciate the significance of
Deleuzian resistance, we have to understand that struggles against
domination and against patriarchal systems are carried out not only
in groups and collectivites, but also wt te micro-multiplicities of
subjects in uncontrolled, secret, and subterranean ways. Thus, there
are "nonrepresentative struggles, struggles without leaders, without
hierarchical organizations, without a clear-cut program or blue-print
for social change, without definitive goals and ends" (Grosz, 1994a,
193). That is to say, while overt struggles with recognizable ends,
leaders, symbols, and means are important, faceless struggles that
have no particular definiton must and do occur alongside, every
moment. It is mostly to this kind of stuggle to escape patriarchy and
dominaton that Deleuze and Guattari address themselves:
It is, of course, indispensable for women t conduct a molar
politcs, with a view to winning back their own organism, their
own history, their own subjectvity . . . . But it is dangerous to
confine oneseU to such a subject which does not functon without
drying up . . . . It is thus necessary t conceive of a molecular
women's politics that slips into molar confrontatons. (Deleuze
and Guattari, 276)
41
Molar or majoritarian political projects tend to dry up without
corresponding struggles at molecular or minoritarian levels. It is a
misunderstanding to t that Deleuze is privileging the individual
struggle over the collective. For Deleuze, the so-called "individual" is
always already a collectve, a multiplicity, and therefore molecular
confrontations must not be understood as individualistc and solitary
escapades but new movements of desire unhindered by modernist
images of the seU. Foucault (1983) has noted that the question raised
by Deleuze is: "How can and must desire deploy its forces within the
political domain and grow more intense in the process of overhlrning
the established order?" (xii).
These stuggles without faciality need different tools and
conceptons such as schizoanalysis that can de-Oedipalize our
subjectvities and release affective energies for new forms of
resistance. It is the theorizing of these faceless, subterranean stuggles
that makes the Deleuzian approach so valuable and relevant for
looking at curriculum and teacher becoming. While category-based
stuggles are valuable, teachers must carry resistance into te micro
spaces of difference and reconstitution, that is, into a caring for the
seU (Swaminathan, forthCOming) that makes the possibility of change
at the grassroots level more conceivable.
Deleuze and Psychoanalysis
Let us also, briefly, locate Deleuze with respect to yet another major
twenteth century discourse-Freudian psychoanalysis. I Western
metaphYSiCS, from Plato to Lacan, desire has been seen as a lack in
being that stives to be filled through the impOSSible attainment of an
object. Deleuze comprehensively rejects this positon. Like some
feminists, Deleuze (1995) attacks the totalizaton of desire in Freudian
psychoanalysis, refutng the basic Freudian positon of the
unconscious as te Oedipal theater: "We attack psychoanalysis on the
following point which relate to its practce as well as it theory'; its
cult of Oedipus, the way it reduces everything to the libido and
domestic investments . . . " (20). For DeIeuze, the libido is invested in
the social field in complex ways that cannot be captured within the
reductionist space of the Oedipal stucture. His attempt is to release
the so-called libido, which itself is an order-word, from the grip of
this structure. In Foucault's (1983) view, Deleuze and Guattari combat
"the poor technicians of desire . . . who would subjugate the
multiplicity of desire to the twofold law of structure and lack" (xiii).
T highly limited view, one that has had a powerful impact on
twenteth-century thought, has prevented te conceptualizing of
desire in other ways.
First, let us look at te queston of the unconscious and make a
distnction between the two positions. For Deleuze, te unconscious is
not a repository of submerged feelings or a product of repression, nor
is it a dialectic between the Imaginary and the Symbolic as in the
Lacanian model. Giving a telescopic view, Massumi (1992) writes that
in the Deleuzian concepton,
the unconscious is everything that is left behind in a contraction
of selection o sensaton that moves from one level of organiza
tion to another: It is the stucturatons and selections of nature as
contacted into human DNA It is the multitude of excitatons of
rods and cones and nerve cells as contracted into a percepton of
the human body. I is the perceptions of the human body as
contacted into larval selves. (83)
I other words, fashioned ou t of te overflows, leftovers, and
latencies of successive levels of actualization, the unconscious is in a
continuous state of production, as the aggregate, that is, of the human
body's moves between states. It is ceaselessly in moton, and hence
continually changing in architecture. There is nothing particularly
humanistc about t interlocking synthesis of various levels of
subpersonal becomings.
Similarly, for Deleuze, desire "is never a stictly personal affair, but
a tension between sub- and superpersonal tendencies that intersect in
the person as empty category" (Massumi, 1992, 82). In other words,
the person i the product of the endless play of desire and arises at an
intersecton of specific interplays. Deleuze rejects the Freudian
position that desire is desire for an object, whether phallus or breast.
43
Following Spinoza and Nietzsche, Deleuze tums desire around and
unersta
.
nds it as primar, psitive, and productive. Instead of aligning
deSIre Wit fantasy and illUSion, as psychoanalysis does, Deleuze sees
desire as what produces te real, creatng connections, relatons, and
alignment. For Deleuze, desire is a relation of effectuaton, not of
satisfaction; it is the pri.ary producer of reality and all relations
within it. I Foucault's (1983) words, Deleuze and Guattari attempt to
free us from the "old categories of the Negatve" (xiii). It is possible
to add at this dramatic inversion of Freudianism must have positve
theorebcal consequences for feminist positions as well, since women
have taditionally been framed as the repositories of that lack within
male epistemologies.
To ree ourselves from the reductive psychoanalytc and Oedipal
yoke I to take a step toward freeing the multiplicity of desire from
bondage to totalites. But the problem of desire remains, and since we
can n longer leave desire in the hands of the experts and
professlOnals, who are seen by Deleuze and Guattari as agents of the
state, we have to analyze and actvely engage in ethical experimen
tation in order to make new "coIU1ections" in the production of the
real; tro
gh a proliferation of connectvites, there is te possibility

that we rrught escape Oedipalized territory.
This is Significant from the point of view of leag, teacher
development, and curriculum. For by radicalizing the concepton of
desire as irreducibly multplicitous and affirming it as te very site of
roduction, we take a step toward constructng a curriculum of

Intensites, leaving the ground of boundaries and categories. A
example might be worthwhile here:
I am in a mathematics classroom. The teacher is at the board
explaining linear equatons and coefficients. At the rear are two
boys executing some exquisite steps in an intricate dance
sequence. They are noticed eventually and are evicted, no
doubt to be followed by other inevitable consequences. (Excerpt
from Case Joural)
The actng out with bodies complex rhytms that did not find
represent
tional expression on the board was instantly condemned,

the Oedipal Stucture swooping down on them, curbing te
expression of desire.
While I am hardly suggestng that breaking into dance in the
classroom is an adequate response to mathematcs, the semiotzation
of those expressions could contibute much to the learg of math,
showing the two apparently irreconcilable series-the chai of
mathematcal significaton (see Walkerdine, 1988) and the exprsslOns
of intensity-as not necessarily antagonistc. Instead, a very different
set of Oedipal lines were drawn whose ultmate consequence could
only be the turng of desire against itself. I line with Deleuze and
Guattari, who use the term 'Oedipal' to allude to different forms of
"statization" or the confinement of experience within officially
sanctoned striated space, I will use the term in this broader sense.
Deleuze and the Poststructuralists
Next, we will place Deleuze against what goes by the name of
poststructuralist discourse. I will begin by comparing Deleuze to
Foucault; the two thinkers often appear very close in their utterances
and politcal conitment. Altough treated as poststructuralists,
Deleuze as well as Foucault can be distnguished from other writers
of that genre. I Truth and Power, Foucault (1984) observes, "I believe
one's point of reference should not be to the great model of language
(langue), but to that of war and battle. The history which bears and
determines u has the form of a war rather than that of a language:
relatons of power, not relatons of meaning" (56). With this Deleuze
would agree wholeheartedly. I fact, in Deleuze and Guattari's (1986)
monograph titled NOnladology: T War Machine, as well as scattered
throughout their other works, are references to this different point of
reference, of a machinery of war that is key to understanding social
formations and the clash of forces.
But a different distincton between Foucault and Deleuze may be
useful here, not in order to oppose them, for there is a great deal of
resonance between the ideas of the two, but to bring out the subtle
differences so that they can better complement each other. While
Foucault talks of power, Deleuze talks of force. Both Foucault's
'power' and Deleuze's 'force' are constitutve and producve. But
"Force is not to be confused with power," says Brian MassuIIU, one of
the most insightful readers of Deleuze, "power is the domesticaton of
force. Force arrives from outide to break constaints and open new
vistas" (foreword in Deleuze and Guatt 1987, x ) .
.
One
:
vay to
understand Deleuze' 5 noton of force is to consider the discurSive and
45
the nondiscursive and what brings them together in social acton.
Massumi (1992) gives the example of a set of instructons for
woodworking which gets translated into certain actons on the wood
although
te interrelaton of relatons between the wood and te tool bears
no resemblance to that between concepts, which bears no relaton
to that between phonemes or letters. (17)
The implicaton here is that there is an abyss between the discursive
and the nondiscursive, or the visible and the artculable, that is
bridged by force, a specific and contingent configuration of which has
also called a "diagram" by Deleuze. Without force tat is always
already present, the worker, the instructions for woodworking, the
tools, and the wood could not come together. Force then also acts like
insight, which makes the connections. Further, according to Massumi
(1992), what makes any action repeatable, what multplies it, is a
regularizing network of forces
.
"And since the acton of t
reproductve network of forces is qualitatvely different from that of
the productve network of forces from which te event arose" in te
first place, we must make a distinction. We give te reproductve
network another name- "power," in order to distnguish it from
force (19). Therefore, while power is the relatons of regularizaton,
force is te instance and the bridging moment between te dsive
and the nondsive.
Second, in The History ofSexuality, Foucault writes:
It is over life, troughout its unfolding, that power establishes its
dominaton; death is power's limit, the moment tat escapes it;
death becomes the most secret aspect of existence, the most
"private." (Foucault, 1984, 261)
e notion of power, then, in Foucault is seen to be closely aligned
Wit the unfolding of the human condition. Death is "power's limit,"
that is, i death there lies the pOSsibility of a final escape from power
or repetition. Power is thus constitutve mainly of social existence and
relatons.
It is precisely t human, organicist aspect that is absent in
Deleuze's noton of power or force. For Deleuze, the "ienHife
that is pure power" is "impersonal and nanorganic. . . that goes
beyond any lived experience" (Deleuze 1997, xiv). It is, insted,
"

ontological concept" in which virtual qualities become actualized m
determinate space-times. Deleuze's reading moves the concept of
force toward the impersonal. toward an "outside." Although, at first
glance, this might seem somewhat essentialist, Oeleuze is clear that
force is always contingent and ever becoming witout an arche or a
telos, to borrow a famous Derridean phrase.
In Cinema 1: Te Movment-Image, De1euze (1985) shows how Vertov
attempt to attain, trough cinematic means, a vision released from
human coordinates, a prehuman perception in a "any-space
whatever" (40). Similarly, Deleuze (1997) speaks appreciatvely of
Czanne' s ideas wherein form or even matter give way to forces,
densites, and intensities: the tectonic folds in a mountain, te forces
of germinaton in an apple, to what Cezanne referred to as the "dawn
of ourselves" or "iridescent chaos" from which the stubborn
geometies of ow world later emerge (xxxv). Here, death
.
is not
"power's lt"; instead, death iteU is a reordering of connectns, of
making momentarily visible the ordinarily invisible.
Finally, while Foucault talks of "limit experiences" that generate
new forms of subjectivity, Deleuze's intervention takes a
metaphysical tum in which "concepts" are created and "ontological
speculaton prepares the terrain for a constitutve practce" (Hardt
1993, 105). So, while Foucault's pragmatcs operates through a
negation, "through a refusal" of the kind of subjectivity that "as
been imposed on us for centuries" (Foucault, 1984, 2), Deleuzlan
pragmatics operates through an ontological constucton
.
d
experimentation with concept formation. I see the two as bearmg 1
on the same project but from two different planes, with diferent
coordinate systems, and with important differences in methods and
tools. For Deleuze, "when words and things are opened up by the
environment without ever coinciding, there is a liberation of forces
which come from the outside" (Deleuze, 1988b, 87). It is this emphasis
on "force" as also something operating on a space of the "Outside"
that distnguishes Deleuze's force from Foucault's power, while at te
same tme, te very noton of the Outside Deleuze borrows from
Foucault.
From te point of view of the case study, the establishment of a
posthumanist ground using the noton of force is useful. For in te
47
constucton of a terrain of multiplicites, or the "rhizome" (Deleuze
and Guattari, 1987, 3), what is important is to get rid of
antropocentric obsessions and hut images before we can even
begin to imagine ourselves as collectivities put together by an
aleatory Outside. So, altough teacher becOming, which is our central
issue here, may appear to be something personal, it is really a matter
of gettng away from personalist conceptions toward a more tectonic
and geographical distributon of forces and intensites trough which
one can b a producer of affectve power.
Again, situatng Deleuze relatonally to Jacques Derrida may b
useful here. Although both Derrida and Deleuze are staunchly anti
Hegelian, their attack on the totalization in the dialectc takes
different paths. Referring to Derridean deconstruction, Deleuze (1997)
writes:
As for the method of deconstuction of texts, I see dearly what it
is, I admire it a lot, but it has noting to do with my own method.
I do not present myseU as a commentator on texts. For me, a text
is only a small cog in an exta-textual practice. It is not a queston
of commentating on the text by a method of deconstucton, or by
a method of textual practice, or by other methods; it is a question
of seeing what use it has in the extra-textual practice that
prolongs the text. (xv-xvi)
Thus, while for Derrida there is "nothing outside of the text" or "there
is no outside text," or "there is nothing that is not a text" as his
famous line i n'ya ps d hOTS texte has been variously tanslated, for
Deleuze it is the extratextual practice that "prolongs the text" that is of
primary concer. Using Luhmann's (1990) insight that the world
emerges at the same time as our descripton of it, the text can be said
to emerge simultaneously with exta textual practce. Looked at in this
mn er, there is always an emergent "Outside" of the text that
remains cognitively unapproachable to it, except a posteriori. Thus,
Rajchman (1998) notes that Deleuze "makes constructon the secret of
empiricism," and that "deconstuction is not a word in his idiom" (2-
3).
In other words, dose texhlal analysis that exposes inherent
contadictons in the text is not Deleuze's stle. Instead, he
appropriates selectively from the texts that serve his pragmatc
48
purpose. That is, although Deleuze, in an apparently similar fashion
to Derrida, seizes hold of the works of previous philosophers such as
Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Bergson, unlike Derrida his work is not
directed toward a deconstructive reading of those works. Instead,
Deleuze is after ethical praxis, and describes himself as a
"constructivist." Reading selectvely, wit Bergson, Deleuze develops
an ontology; with Nietzsche, he sets that ontology in motion to
consttute an ethics; and with Spinoza he takes a further step in this
evolution, toward politics. His metod is a process of accumulation
and constituton. Ontology inheres in ethics, which in tum inheres in
politcs.
Deleuze's relationship with an "Outside" also allows h to deal
with the danger of idealism, something that threatens much of te
poststTUctural oeuvre. Critics such as Taussig (1993) and Massumi
(1995) have noted that one of the cental ironies of postmoder
theoretcal discourse is that the social constructionist cntque of
transcendence (i.e., reference to an independent reality) and the
metaphysics of presence (Le., inherent authorial meaning), that was
meant to ret meaning and interpretation to the social, historical.
insttutonal and material processes of their production, has turned
instead into its own form of idealism. By making human language the
measure of all things, these critics allege, the poststructural oeuvre is
threatened with linguistc idealism.
How does Deleuze's work meet this challenge? I will quote
Boundas (Deieuze, 1993) on this question:
Deleuze's thought cannot be contained within the problematics
of the now fashionable textual allegory. The main thrust of his
theoretical interventon is in the articulation of a theory of
transformation and change or, as he likes to say, of a theory of
pure becoming tat, together wit a language adequate to it,
would be sufficiently strong to resist all identitarian pressures. It
is tis relentless effort to articulate a theory of transformation
and change . . . that motivates Deleuze to replace Being with
difference, and linear tme with a difference-making repetition.
(4)
This intervention in te form of tansformaton escapes the over
determinaton by te linguistic sign by breaching the known in te
process of becoming. The world arises at the same tme as the
cognitive being, and therefore is not available as a text in the instant
of becoming. There is a relationship with the "Outside" of thought
that can be better understood from the systems perspective.
Deleuze and Systems Theory
Like Nietzsche (1967), who believed that the task of philosophy is to
create possibilities and modes of existence, Deleuze and Guattari are
incessant concept creators with which they forge new relations,
bringing into view new distnctions. Discussing the work of concept
creation, Deleuze and Guattari (1994) make the observation that no
cocept s ever complete, for that would be tantamount to invoking
pnmordIaI chaos, that is, in which there is no distincton. Every
concept is therefore limited and "irregular," and is "a matter of
articulaton, of cutting and cross-cuttng" (15-16). And further, they
contnue, "The concept is defned by it consistency, it
endoconsistency and exoconsistency, but it has no refrence; it is self
referental; it posits itself and its obect at the same time as it is
created" (2).
The idea that concepts are a matter of "cutting and cross-cutting,"
and that they are "self-referential," resonates stongly with certain
key notons of systems theory and especially the work of Niklas
Lu (1990). Luhmann writes that all observation is incomplete
and generates paradox and blind spots:
The source of a distinction's guaranteeing of reality lies in its
Own operatve unity. It is, however, precisely as this unity that
th tncton cannot be observed . . . . Another way of expressing
thlS IS to say the operaton emerges simultaneously with the
world which as a result remains cognitvely unapproachable to
the operation. (76)
The Deleuzian noton of concept can thus be seen as a close parallel to
Luhmann's notion of disttion. Just as the viability of a Deleuzian
Concept is based on its conSistency, the guarantor of the reality of an
ober
,
aton or distncton in Luhmann's case is its own "operative
'
.
I other word
, both are self-referential. This is highly

SIgniflcant from the pomt of view of curriculum, for if the world
arises simultaneously with the concept or distncton that we make,
50
then it is clear that the effort toward pure repetton or eidos is falsely
conceived, and that it keeps curriculum, students, and teachers mired
in ungenerative pursuits, resulting in frustation and violenc
.
e,
especially among underprivileged groups wh have n
,
o
.
stakes U
preserving the illusion of repetiton, or maintaimng e elstm
?
o
der.
In other words, the challenge i to move from decodmg life Within an
existng schema to producing those existental moments themselves.
,
The second important point of similarity is between Lun 5
notion of "world" or "environment," and Deleuze's (1988b) concept
of te "Outide." Their respectve analyses lean on a similar
distinction-system/ environment and conceptI outside, but these are
never absolute dualities, for what is system in one context can appear
as environment in another
.
For both, the environment and te
Outside, are inexhaustible, but with an important difference. I
Deleuze's work, the inexhaustibility tends to appear as a positivity,
that is, as a field of potentialities or virtualities, whereas for
Lun , te inexhaustibility arises out of te possibility of new
observaton or new djstnctons. For Deleuze, these potentalites or
virtualites "exist" in terms of "unformed matters or intensites"
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 511), as latencies like that of the
quantum world (Murphy, 1998) that can be actualiz
.
ed or
.
drawn into
zones of proximity by means of making connections, m order to
produce ite unique expressions. For Luhmann, new
.
worlds can
be brought into existence by making a new cut or observaton.
.
Such views are liberatng to say the least, and contrast sharply With
efforts to stndardize curriculum and assessment, and oter measures
that produce inflexibility in the system. New "cuts" or observatons
have the potency to bring forth new worlds and are our escape fr?m
the status quo. For in a Deleuzian schema, it is only the constuction
and proliferaton of connections that can be considered "reaL"
.
Deleuze's work also has close points of correspondence With te
work of the systems theorists Humberto Maturana and FranciscO
Varela. Maturana and Varela's (1998) notion of "structural coupling"
between system and environment resonates with te notion of
becoming in Deleuze:
I
.
[thel realms of interacton open te way t n
anorgamsm . . .
phenomena by allowing new dimensions of structural coupling.
(176) (italics in original)
51
For Maturana and Varela, the world is not a given, but i brought
forth continually through the very act of living or structural coupling.
Their term for self-referentality is "autopoiesis," or self-generation
that brings forth a world, and in the very process of world creation a
new cognitive being emerges every moment.
Further, Varela (1992) talks of microidentities and microworlds that
are the result of continual tansiton of the living organism from one
state of readiness-for-acton to the next. In Deleuze, we see its
resonance in "nonformal functons" that find expression on a plane of
contnuous variaton (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 511).8 There are no
stable entties, only dynamic states-singularities-that combine and
recombine and are drawn into temporary assemblages. It points to a
world populated by stuctures tat are accretions of a complex
mixture of geological, chemical, sociobiological. and linguistic
constructons shaped and hardened over tme. These accretons at
each point set up the matix for further accretions, and their
biological, social, or matematical components are inexticably mixed
to produce temporary coalescences or microidentites, or matter
thought multplicities or singularites-terms used more or less
interchangeably here.
In pedagogic terms, this means that any encounter, say, between
teacher and student, is a situaton where multipliCities encounter
other multiplicities and not identities. As will be explained later, these
are not numerical multipliCites, but qualitatve ones, variatons of
intensites on a continuous plane. When identties meet, there is the
dialectc, with opposing positons and so on, bringing with it existent
structures and teleological notons. Difference under such conceptons
is only a means t a syntheSis, and must ultmately be subsumed. But
When multplicites meet tere is a porosity; there are openings
through which new connectons and synergistic combinations can be
made. Difference here is affirmaton and not negation. When, for
ex
mple, as a teacher we face the intensity of a students hostility, we

mIght, instead of shrinking from it or opposing that state, or heaping
upon it conciliatory gestures, draw upon that very differential affect
Without threatening to aate it with carrot or stick. That is to say,
We encounter it as a field and not as a determinate incarnaton.
But this requires a certain kind of work, a fashiOning of the self
after Foucault (1988), as well a a willingness to move away from the
comfort of established or territorialized pathways and reconceptUal-
izing oneself. Working through the above concepts, together with a
willingess to experiment with novel existental moments, we may
become open to what Deleuze, in line with Foucault, calls the thought
from the "Outside," The Outside is the dangerous line that shows
itself whenever we live sufficiently intensely; it carries us into
"breathless regions." Breathless regions are regions of pure becoming
that are literally breathless because of an altered relationship between
the layers of determinaton. There is nothing mystical about this; one
has only got to consider the fetus in a state of becoming, for instance,
as a rough approximation. But our work is not to b carried off by this
"deadly" line that in a sense is really a pure confrontaton between
the actual and te vutual, between life and death, "but to make [tis
line] endurable, workable, thinkable" (Deleuze, 1995, 111). This line is
deadly because tere is no real distnction here between the organic
and the nonorganic, between one becoming and the next; it is
impersonal like lighting. In other words, we have to remain in
contnual and careful relatonship with this line of intensity and
creative uncertainty, and make it work for us productvely.
It could be said that this is, in a vital sense, the work of the
educator: to find ways of staying on this line and contnually push
against stratification, and survive "while stll confronting" it. This
confrontaton yields the necessary energy to deal with te everyday
without reducing it to the mundane, and is helpful for constructng a
plane of pedagogic relations, especially in working with marginalized
youth-nonmairteam people who have sources of experience that
are usually ignored or disvalued-and entering into a composite
plane of bcoming. This confrontaton displaces us from our molar
certainties.
The reference to microidentites above shows the usefulness of
Maturana and Varela's work in clarifying te Deleuzian positon, and
I rely on it at several junctures in order to draw analogies. The noton
of producing or "bringing forth a world" reveals a deep ethical
responsibility in each existential moment, which is coplanar with
Deleuze's noton of multiplicity and the necessity of producing
difference so a not to be enslaved by dominant patter, and te
worn-out spaces they occupy. Further, the inexhaustibility of an
Outside or the open l with the environment is also an indicator
that reality or the system is not a given, and we can collectvely
change it.
53
So far we have been discussing the conceptual framework of the
study, with a view to developing some basic Deleuzian concepts that
might allow us to map a more open and generative approach to
teacher educaton and curriculum but with reference to the
constaints and the specifcity of practce. And it is practice that we
will meet next by moving to the site of the empirical study, to
teachers and the school context involved in my observations. I will
devote the following chapter to providing a certain amount of
background on the case that will help situate our discussion. But I
must add that what follows is by no means a "thick description" of
the case, but simply an outline of the context. It allows us to view the
basic workings of the school and te pedagogical Structure within it,
as well as the problems of practce that are of interest here. The
experience of the site will be used to draw out the rich potential that
Deleuzian cartography holds for revolutOnizing curriculum practice
and teacher education. The data serve as a foil for the power of the
concept, te wall which theory must meet.
Notes
1. In DIfference and Repetition, Deleuze explains that difference is
"tamed" by subjectng it to the "four iron collars of representation:
dentity in the concept, opposition in te predicate, analogy in
JUdgement and resemblance in perception" (262). I other words, in
PlatOnic or representatonal thinking, difference is aUowed to b
ought of only as conceptual difference and so on, but not as
difference in itself. Two identical objects share the same concept and
yet are different.
2. In one sense, singularites are poised states of systems that are the
result of the architecture of forces being set up in a certain way, which
makes for the ariSing of certain nodal points and not oters. That is to
say, certain point intensites arise or are synthesized due to a
partcular distibution of forces in the social field. To give a concrete
example, many commentators hold tat the systematic underming
of the treaty of Versailles that led to the armistce in the Second World
War created the atmosphere for the rise of Nazism in postwar
Germany. Singularities are also multplicities since they can change
into alternatve states by being pushed over a certain threshold by
surrounding forces.
3. Fractals are inbetween, non-whole dimensions that emerge out of
endlessly proliferating subdivisions of a system such as a coastline.
TechnicalIy, they demonstrate the profound fact that the measures of
things depend on the scale used for measurement. A coastline from A
to B appears as limited, definite, and bounded when seen from a
large-scale perspectve. On a smaller scale, the irregularities multiply
in a countless mn er.
4. To return to our earlier example about religion, student and teacher
arrive at a much better position to deal with the signifying systems of
religion as well as liberal secularism. I fact, such investgation leads
to a more profound inquiry when it is seen that the foundatonal
figures of religions often belonged to no religion, each having walked
away from te earlier faith or the respective "molar" categories to
become truly nomadic, but who were, nevertheless, profoundly
religious. So the order-word religion carmot capture the excess that is
religiosity. Similarly, it can be shown that the slogan of "secularism"
is connected to a network of presuppositions. This way we extract the
molecular singularities of religiosity and secularism from their
bounded categories.
5. For instance, by pronouncing a substance as illegal it becomes
immediately proscribed, but this is only possible with the excess or
surplus value that the legal system generates, and not by the nature of
the substance itself. Or, by pronouncing two people as man and wife,
a whole set of social obligations and codes are suddenly placed
around the couple.
6. The planomenon is a term used by Deleuze and Guattari to indicate
a mode of compositon that holds together disparate and divergent
elements through states of intensity rather than any intrinsic
similarity. They sometmes refer to it also as the plane ofconsistenc
y
.
55
7: Molecularization is a return to premolar formations, that is, to the
stngular or the plane of intensites that cannot be divided into
indivialites. The sinlar is not a bounded unity but a multpliCity,
a condition, a state of thgs, an hour of the day, a pitch of tension.
8. The plane o continual variation i another way of talking about the
?lane
.
f consIstency described in Note 6 above. It is a plane of
mtenslties rather than individualizations.
Chapter 2
An Outline ofthe Case Study
it i s through loss, rather than acquisiton, that one progresses ad picks up
Deleuze ad Guattari, A TlIDl/snd Platalls
speed.
Here I will make a transition to the case study, to an intoduction tat
cannot be deferred any longer. The l, if the reader cares to hold on
t "t is the map. The previous sectons attempted to constuct a
crgraphY of the Deleuzian ontology and pragmatics that
emapped
the differentials subsumed by thought onto an alternahe
.
set of
empiricist coordinates. The Oeleuzian map is at once polihC
,
.
atl
philosophy, and social theory, and helps us move betwe
,
n te rIgId
formations of te state, the unconscious, [and)
.
lan
a
?
e (Kaufman,
1998, 5) and the tumult of experience, makmg It
valable for
navigatng the structure of an institution like school, wich lies at the
intersection of tese formatons.
.
And besides, the map is not merely navigational, but IS also
productive. When several maps are pr
jec
ed ont

o
.
ne anoer, we
have what Deleuze calls a diagram. ThlS diagram IS I a contuoUS
process of becoming:
A diagram is a map, or rather several superimposed maps. An
from one diagram to the next, new maps a
e drawn. :hus tre 1

.
S
no diagram that does not also include, besldes the U\ts v.:hich It
connects up, certain relatively free or unbound pOUlts, pomts of
creatvity, change and resistance. (4)
An Outline of the Case Study 57
By several superimposed maps-living configuratons of forces-I
will try to create a picture of the flows and blockages of the terrain
under investgaton. And the very act of superpositon will allow us
to construct new layers of connection to Deleuzian concepts.
Let us begin with an excerpt from the Case Journal:
Arnie emerges out of an obscure door along North Street's
scruff, brick-lined buildings, and ambles down the cold, windy
steet to the bus stop. A few dry leaves, remnants from te fall,
swirl around h. tie huddles in one corer of the shelter ad
fumbles in his pocket for the city bus pass. Are has just left his
placement for the day, and is heading back to The City Shool for
his afteroon "in-house" science class. He has spent most of te
morning at a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) distribution
center weighing and checking out the case histories of infants,
and distibutng vouchers that mothers can exchange for infant
food. This i a part of his school internship called placement.
Ae does not get paid for te work at the WIC but get school
credit toward his graduation, an event which seemed a very
remote possibility six months ago. Near the end of his junior
year, Ae had been expelled from one of the city's high schools.
According to Are, his expulSion was the result of a series of
difficultes, constant fights, ethnic tension, and gang actvity that
he got into during that year. Thinking over it all during the
summer, Are realized that he simply had to get back to school,
but he found that given his situaton, alteratve schools were his
only opton. But he wanted no part of alternatve schools. It was
his father who first told him about The City Shool, and together
they paid a visit to the school's lead teacher, M.S., to make
enquiries. M.S. was skeptical about Arnie's ability to work in the
community without supervision, but Arie's persuasiveness won
the day and he got his second chance. Talking about his experi
ence, Are says, "I leaed more in the first nine weeks here than
I did in all of high school." Goural Entry No.11)
The City Shool is in no small measure a remarkable place, an
eval
uation that someone like Ae would agree with wholeheartedly.
The group of teachers who founded the school did not form a charter,
but applied to start a school within the district public school system,
58
Teachers i Nomadic Spaces
under a scheme called the Innovatve Schools Program, floated in
order to invite new ideas for catering to difference, that is, for
responding to different needs of urban adolescents.
. . .
At te tme I began visitng the school, it was entermg Its eIghth
year of existence. District reports on The City School showed gh
level of attendance (93 percent) and graduation (90 percent) rates il a
district wit a truancy rate of 40 percent and an equally high dropout
rate. A Regional Educatonal laboratory report (NC
EL
:
1
98) also
stated that the innovatve schools "outperformed therr dlstnct peers
on te whole," achieving "Board Standards on seven indicators, while
the district as a whole achieved standards on two" (3). While te
statistcs were impressive, it was the sense of a somewhat altered
space tat made me want to get involve in what
.
te schol was
doing for young people, find out how It was domg what It was
doing, te kind of people that took on tis challenge, and te demand
the school placed on its teachers.
Preliminary visits showed that the school had, since its incepton,
distnguished itseU in many ways. Its raison d' ete was to establish a
different space. A group of teachers had decided to provide a very
different atmosphere than te "faceless and hostle buildings
[mainstream urban schools] where thousands are held" and where
"students have to switch off certain parts of their humanity in order
to survive." They wanted to create a place where "you did not need
to look over your shoulder in order to feel safe." (Field Notes
02/05/02, and excerpts from interviews with teachers)
Also, the founding teachers did not want hierarchy
.
They rejected
the usual separation between teaching and administration, and felt
that the two realms were really inseparable, especially in the kind of
school they wanted. Oe of te older teachers explained that by
creating a division between teaching and administering "the work of
the educator is fragmented . . . [the school} becomes like a factory."
(Field Notes 02/11/02) Another problem some felt was tat tis
caused zones to appear where neiter was responsible, for instance,
neither was responsible for the whole child. Therefore, The City
School, although a public school, and not a charter, decided to
become a teacher-run school.
This has a large impact on te nature of the terrain i whch school
relations artculate themselves. Looking trough a Deleuztan lens, I
saw it demonstrating some inchoate elements of what Deleuze and
59
Guattari call "smooth space" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 474-75). As
a quick contrast, smooth space is to "stiated space" as fabric is to felt.
Fabric is closely govered, has verticals and horizontals, and is closed
by the warp of the 100m. It serves as a good example of regulated or
administered spaces that are vertcally ordered, that is, have a top
and a bottom. Felt, on the other hand, is nomadic or smooth; it is
produced by the entanglement of millions of microfibers oriented in
every directon-it is an accumulaton of proximities all at the same
level, making it nonhierarchical.
At least in its setup, The City School was nonhierarchical; it was not
embedded in a higher or supplemental dimension; that is to say, te
pedagogic plane was not nested within a separately administered
space, but was its own space, which is characteristic of smooth spaces
i tat it saturates the plane. The cartography of Deleuze and Guattari
actvates "a method tat dehierarchizes te building blocks . . . and
reassembles them in a different and more elemental state" (Kaufman,
1998, 7). The refusal of a supplemental or superior dimension helps to
open up the potentalities tat would otherwise remain locked up in
boundary constucts, and a certain careful and intensive artculation
of the refusal can reorient experience toward new pedagogic
openings. In other words, it is a first step toward a pedagogy of
immanence.
Not only did the teachers at this school want to build a different
atmosphere, but te objective was also to offer a curriculum that was
much more suited to te needs of urban youth whose lives were
rather complex, many of whom had to support themselves and their
families from an early age, had no regular homes, lived i n unsafe
neighborhoods, and among whom teenage pregnancy, drug problems
and dropout rates were high. One teacher recounts making a home
visit to meet the parents of a particularly obstnate youth: "I was
getting ready to knock on the door, when I found that tere was no
door, only an opening where a door should have been."
(Conversatons, Field Notes, 03/19/02) Suppressing a desire to
escape, he went in to find that there were no adults living under that
roof. The fifteen-year-old was the sole occupant along with a sister
Who was also a minor, i a house tat had no door. The queston had
to
be asked: How must curriculum respond to tese rater unusual
Conditons? And the fact is that such questions do get asked at the
s
chool, which keeps open its innovatve character.
.
60
The building in which The Cit School is oused i not ery
different from Arnie's placement that was descnbed earber. It IS at
one end of downtown where te banks and prosperous businesses
taper off, and empty parking lot and closed storefronts take their
place. At the street level there are shops and eateries, d the levator
takes you up to the fifth floor where you step Qut duectly to the
lobby of the schooL The ceiling is low d the wlls are whIte and
clean, with large sections covered by nobees and dlsplay board. The
long corridor makes sharply angled tur and opens into a seles
.
of
classrooms on either side. Most of the classrooms are generous m size
and have large windows. Because there is a great shortage of spac,
there is no library in the school, and the students use the public
library, which is only a couple of blocks aa
.
y, as i
.
r li
.
brary
resource. There are no science labs or other auxiliary facihbes m the
place either.
. '
The City Shool's curriculum was orgaruzed by fusmg two broad
curricular strategies. One was the "city-as-school" model that
originated in the New School for Social Sciences; it involved ?ringing
in the issues of urban We into the school as much as possible, and
taking the school beyond the physical walls back into the city. The
idea was that the students must not be trapped within walls of the
classroom for too long and pursue teir learg into the life around
them that included educatonal field visit.
The second model brought into the picture was the idea of service
learg, that is, leag through experience, whe oots can be
traced all the way back to Dewey. Service Learrung IS structured
around placements that put students in the commty in
.
a work
learning situation. Placements are located in enterpnses rangtng from
law offices to elementary schools to community healt centers. The
teacher (also called the resource coordinator here) supervising the
student in the placement must write a curriculum for each placement
that reflects the type of work in which the student is engaged. So the
teacher is also a curriculum developer, which is important to note.
This individualized, placement-specific curriculum is called a
Learning Experience Activity Packet (LEAP), and is supplie to the
student by the teacher/resource coordinator. The packet COnsISts of a
series of assigrunents or projects related to the placement. LEAPs are
due at the end of every nine-week cycle.
AnOutline of the Case Study 61
Besides being supervised by the resource coordinator, students are
also mentored by personnel at the cooperating placements
.
These
individuals help plan learning goals and activities, and see that the
agreement t provide the student with a meaningful learg
experience is fulliUed. Occasionally, a placement tur out to be
vacuous in terms of meaningful learg, in which case it is dropped
after a periodic review. The cooperatng resource records the
student's attendance and assesses students' growt and learg as
part of an evaluaton report. The students do not receive payment for
this work but are granted one-fourth credit toward their graduaton
for every thirty-six hours worked at a placement.
The students indicate that the placements are a big reason that the
school has worked for them. "Our placements depend a lot on us,
expect a lot from us . . . and we have placement where we can usually
learn new things," one student observed. Anoter said, "They know
that I can do the job." The sense of reliance and responsibility seems
to play a big part in the relationship between placements and the
students. Supportng this view, the school program coordinator says,
"Having them [students] out in the community does a lot for their
sell-images a lot of te tme. Also, it's good for the community to
know tat these kids are okay." (Field Notes 04/05/02 and Interview
excerpt)
While placement are a key feature of The City Shool curriculum,
the students also enroll in other core classes at te school, which
meets the state and distict competency and proficiency standards.
The options are not too many but the science, math, and language
courses are all there. As for the "Advanced Placement" courses, the
students take them online with support from the staff. Students also
enroll in university courses to get college credit. Recently, the
students voted to lear Latin when a slot opened up for including an
additional course.
Innovative schools typically tend to be small. This one is a high
school with around a hundred and fifty students, of whom nearly 70
percent are African Americans, 7 percent Hispanics, 15 percent
Whites, and the rest Asians and Native Americans. A majority of
these students are described as being "at-risk." Many of them had
dropped out of school at one time or another and had found their
way to t place. The school has ten staff members in a , roughly
balanced in race and gender compositon.
.
A four-tier stucture exists for governing The City School. The
School Advisory Board represents broad and diverse community
interests. It meets quarterly and oversees the link between the
community and the program. Board input guides and informs the
overarching goals of the school and brings in issues of change in the
urban community. Next, the Board of Directors, composed of school
faculty, parents, and resource site representatves, oversees
operatons of the school. The group meets monthly and through it
site-based management orientaton monitors the school's actvites
and provides support where necessary. Third, day-to-day decision
making occurs at weekly staff meetngs. Decision-making takes place
through conus. Finally, a Student Council composed of student
volunteers sees to the more student-centered, day-to-day interests of
the school, such a plang field trips and other activities.
The Poblematc
The history of innovations shows that such innovations as I am
talking about ofte tend to have a limited life; aiter an inital period
during which there is a burst of enthusiasm, there is a tendency to get
reabsorbed into te mainstream due to internal differences, funding
dificulties, problems with facilities, and so on. This tends to happen
frequently when the founders retire or the original group fragments
and new group members join; the power of te original vision begins
to dilute and fade and the school falls back into the general mass from
which it had distinguished itself.
The City Shool is precisely at this critcal juncture now. My
concer is that in te process of falling back into the sea like a spent
rocket, the considerable positive gains made, and insights achieved,
are lost to the educatonal community. It is important that te
appetite for change and reform actively take into account the
significant work that happens in such places without attempting to
use it as a cookie-cutter model, nor pushing it aside as a one-of-a-lind
experiment. Instead, it would profit the educatonal community to
develop an actve relationship with such innovative moves as can be
pOSitively identfied. The City School is struggling to find out how to
resist the gravitatonal pull of the middle: "The vultures are always
circling overhead, waitng to rub us ouL . . Every year it is a battIe, the
big schools say, 'We could do with those funds, what on earth are
they doing: Internal resistance, that's key to our survival," M.S., a
A Outline of te Case Study
63
lead teacher observed (Interview with M.s. NO.1). Interal resistance
involves realization of the power of difference and innovation at all
levels within the school, and an important part of this is the
perception of new teachers.
For one of the major sources from which such a centipetal
tendency toward the "Same" and the elton of difference comes
is from the directon of fresh induction of teachers. M.S. tells me,
Soon there will be only myself and two others left of the original
group. Unless the incoming teachers lear how to run this place,
do the placements and things te school will slide . . . maybe close
down. Al te innovatve places I know are haVing touble with
their new hires. Most of them simply don't understand how
these places work. (Interview wit M.s. No.1)
There are powerful reasons for t. First, as we have discussed in the
previous chapter, teachers bring with them their conventional
expectations or boundary constructs of what a teacher's job entails.
Second, teacher educaton programs rarely take into account
innovatve programs and their very different needs. Also, new facult
often do not have much of an appreciation of the original imperatves
and the struggles the school has gone through, nor do they fully
comprehend the vision of the founders. Innautiveness can survive only
on frther innovation, at every turn, thereby aVOiding stagnaton and
assimilation. A disciplined and operational grasp of this generative
principle requires the release of certain resources, as well as ways of
tg and being, that are not often the focus of teacher
preparation. Specifically, at The City School, the problem was to draw
out the novice teachers' energies without subordinatng them to a
fixed vision, as well as to maintain a critcal line of flight without
compromising the very purpose of the innovation.
As te reader will observe, I have narrowed down the problem to
that of teacher inducton without falling into representatonal
structures-a queston of bringing the two, novice teacher and
existing innovative program, together without disabling either. One
way this seems possible is through operationalizing the Deleuzian
concept of becoming. In brief the pragmatcs of becoming. of which I
speak at length later in the book, is the contnual reconstellaton of
sense data, in conjuncton with other bodies, to yield new formatons
that do not fit any representational schema. I argue that the core of
innovativeness lies in becoming, and the praxis that I suggest in the
rest of the book involves such a becoming on the part of the teachers.
The radical implicatons of this go far beyond the current context,
for although the problem relates to a specific case, Wolcott (1994)
observes that "complex specificness:' while heightening
circumstantiality, may reveal implicatons and relevance to a broader
context (98). There is nothing partcularly new in the statement that
schools are not statc, but dynamic or evolving entities. But what I
want to suggest here is something different: It is that schools,
especially those like The City School, must operate as becoming
structures. The difference being tat becoming does not involve going
from point A to point B, as te term evolving might imply. Instead,
becoming generates new and irregular spaces of prolierating
connections that have important consequences for the harnessing of
new forces. But it also means preparing teachers to enter those spaces
in productive ways.
Talking to Teachers
While my conversatons with teachers contnue through the rest of
the chapters, I am going t intoduce some of te data here as a
prelude that will give us a prel sense of te situation. Along
wit the data, I will simultaneously start the work of unfolding the
conceptual series in a preliminary sort of way, allowing my of these
issues to crop up again later i te book. It is important to keep in
mind that the data are exemplary in te main, and rather than driving
the work, are used mostly to explicate the Deleuzian approach.
In my conversations, I frequently find concern on the part of the
older faculty regarding the issue of induction of new staff.
Interestingly, in the early meetings I attended, the talk was about how
the new teachers will "fit in" with the existing setup. In subsequent
references to this issue, the question became "How do we integrate
new staff?" More recently, the queston has further evolved into
"How can we work together?" This last has also come about with the
realization on the part of te school staff as a group that they will
have t be responsible for their own staff development in ways that
they had previously not considered. As I have mentoned before, this
is due to the fact that mainsteam teacher preparaton does little for
innovatve or small-school sihlatons, and it is a folly to t that
65
these are reduced-scale versions of mainstream schools. Here we need
teachers who are educated and willing to innovate.
Discussing novice teachers, M.s., who is a social studies teacher in
his early fiftes, and now a lead teacher, corrunent:
They usually tend to be managerial ln one of the other schools
tey are having touble with one of their new hires. He believes
in confrontaton, suspending kids . . . you know . . . We are begin
ning to get some of that too, but that is not what we are all about.
It changes the codes of the place.
In the language of our analysis, order-words like suspension or
discipline are connected to a whole hierarchy of presuppositions that
remain silent. Instead, molar categories attempt to establish contol
through layers of fictive alliances that work to exclude the
"stutterings" and "murmurs" within a situation. To my question as to
why he tought they tend to be managerial, M.s. responds,
Places like this are hard. The kids range from overeffusiveness
[laughs] to total indifference. Their backgrounds are very compli
cated and our educational assumptions and ideas of what tey
need are simplistic . . .To come to terms with all that is a first
step. But the first impulse is to control and the kd react to that.
(Interview with M.S. No.1)
Not listening to the "murmurs" makes our approach to curriculum
"simplistic," as we operate within te redundancies of established
strata. The murmurs contain rich and dense curricular material
studiously ignored by the official curriculum. I ask M.S. whether he
thinks teacher education programs can help new teachers orient
themselves differently, and confront these tendencies in any
systematic manner. M.S. seems doubtful: "It's a very different tack we
are talking about. . . what could be done other than somehow find the
right people?" he muses. (Interview with MS. NO.1)
Next I speak to L.S., one of the novice teachers who mentions some
of her difficulties at The City Shool:
K.R.: Tell me about your sense of this place and how you have
meshed wit it
L.S.: I have never done scheduling for students or the writing of
curriculum. In the schools I have worked in, the students get
their schedules from wherever . . . Here I am having to lear very
different things.
K.R
.
: Do you see these aspects as outside the scope of teaching?
L.S.: Well, mostly tey take up a lot of tme. I feel I have less
time for teaching. Altough students can actually choose and
write up their schedules but I had to lear how to keep track of
them all.
K.R.: What has been the most troublesome aspect?
L.S.: I have never seen a placement before or worked at going out
and creatng a new placement or interhip. That is a whole new
skill one has to lear. It means going out into the conununity and
convincing people. And each student's learning program has to
be written up around the Placement. I feel a little overwhelmed
at t point, but I'm sure I will get used to it, it is stll all very
new. (Interview with L.S. NO.1)
Sen from a conventonal perspectve, there is nothing startling in
L.S.'s comments-a novice teacher gradually adjustng to her new
situaton. But here is an important issue: Innovaton is not an old
structure adapting to a new one, nor even a new one repeating itself.
L.S. is proceeding in a categorybound manner, seeing herself and te
apparently linear tasks before her as two irreducible formations that
confront each other. But in Deleuzian terms, what we really have is an
interface as a result of a set of intensites that bear down on another
set, or rather, on each other, defining a field of relations that is
anything but linear. Settng up the analysis in these terms helps to get
at the emerging singularities of each moment rater than seeing the
situaton as a unied problem.
Another teacher, AD., from West Africa, and with a background of
having taught advanced programs in science in one of the city's well
known schools, came to The City Shool because he was looking for
something new.
AD.: I wanted a change and I knew some teachers here, and they
said, come on over and try this place if you want a change, you
are sure going to get it. And they were right.
KR.: Is t the change you had hoped for?
AD.: Well, this is different. The student is allowed to take charge
of how much they want to lear. But for new teachers like me, it
is a big change.
K.R.: Will you please explain that?
AD.: There are aspects about which I am not always sure. How
does the Learg Experience Actvity actually work? Does it
work? How can we maintain attendance in this place? How to
develop resources? There are many new adjustents to be made.
Student class size is anoter issue-these are small classes-how
to teach multlevel students? (Interview with AD. Nos.1 and 2)
67
From my conversatons with AD., it is apparent that he seeks some
kind of pedagogical meaning in the place that will give it a certain
coherence, a stable system that he was used to; that, in other words,
will nail it for h. But meaning, according to Deleuze, does not lie in
the particularity or genesis of a thing or place. Instead, it is a passage
or an interface between two force fields. The content, or force field
called curriculum, never really meets the expression, or function field
called teacher/student; their relaton is asymptotc. To put it
differently, contrary to the commonplace belief that there is a meeting
between student and the curriculum, in t mode of analysis we find
that these two series, or regimes of organization, are so unlike each
other that it is impOSSible to localize the point of such
correspondence; and it is reasonable therefore, although stag, t
come to the conclusion that there never is any meetng ground or
correspondence between them.
What occurs, instead, is that each cause breaks up into multiple
causes, and there is a contnual fracturing as every point turns fractal,
the teacher's translations, the pastfuture of the present moment, the
hour of the day, last night's lack of sleep, the particular organization
of knowledge in the text, testng, and a myriad of micro-events that
interpose themselves between the two series. How are these two
series, say, the child and the c ulum, then to correspond with each
other? It happens not through correspondence but through what
Deleuze calls an "abstract machine," a statstcal selecton from an
itude of forces and unformed matter that move back and forth
creating what we normally call meaning (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987,
511). This ack.and-fort movement cannot be fully captured by any
representatonal system. Thus, Massumi (1992) observes:
68
I meaning is a process of translation from one substance to
another of a different order and back again, what it moves across
is an unbridgeable abyss of fracturing. I meaning is the
in-between of content and expression, it is nothing more (nor
less) than their "nonrelaton." (16)
In other words, the "meaning" of te educatonal encounter lies not in
the capacity to produce a unified sensibility, but in its paradoxical
capacity to deal with nonreiation, or in placing itself in the "in
between" of content and expression. This in-betweenness or the gap
or nonrelation is neither vague nor confusing, but is an access to the
myriad forces and intensites that constantly cross our path but that
are ignored as we adhere to narrow ideas about curriculum.
I teat the school's attempts to irulovate very seriously here as an
index of the promised accommodaton of difference. Consequently, I
try to find ways that innovaton can find new lines of flight here. To
reiterate, innovation is not a stucture that is repeated, but a
progressive differentation that alone can enter, through slippage, the
in.between spaces. Innovation i the lateral inserton of a space of
becoming that is not metic in the sense of measurable, and yet
rigorous in terms of effects. It must tke place within the confines of
the distict rules and guidelines, and yet produce novel effects in
tought and curriculum. It is important t note that both L and AD
start out by perceiving difference not as an opening to innovate, that
is, not as a positvity, but as a lack, as someting they have never
countenanced before, and hence threatening. This notion of a lack or
deficiency, as Deleuze and Cuattari repeatedly observe in their
works, is one of the most deeply ingrained formatons in thought.
Also, C.M., an older teacher, t that novice teachers sometimes
place too much emphasis on the distnctess of the tasks:
The problem is that these are not separate skills that some of us
possess.They are part of a certain approach to students . . . it comes
out of that.
What kind of approach? I press him.
Well, some of us would fight for tem to get educated . . . and they
know that. We ty to do what is necessary. All t is taxing, I
admit, but the school remains open to these kids only so long
as each one of us is prepared to do the necessary. (Interview
with G.M. No.2)
69
G.M. seems to imply that what it takes to educate these kids is not s
much a list of skills as a certain mode of percepton--a gestalt. A
second point is that innovation or creating novelty in approaches,
methods, relatons, and content must occur at all point for the school
to remain innovatve. And yet, GM. does not go far enough from the
perspectve of a Deleuzian schema. For if it is tue that innovation is
not mere progression, but a more radical movement, then desire
cannot remain confined to educating "those kids." For then we are
leaving te teacher as an unquestioned molar category. While it is
certainly necessary to educate the kids, GM. needs to be pushed to
consider going beyond the "Other," in the direction of a more
nomadic tapas for true innovation. And in order to release the full
power of a Deleuzian cartography, we have t go after the
singularites, instead of the molar categories, that hold back too much
i the way of binding energy in the boundary constucts.
In operatonal terms, t means fuat one must loosen the molar
division between the teacher and the taught, and lea to look at the
field as emerging points of intenSity. It does not mean that teachers
abandon their adult roles and responsibilities; it simply means they
invoke their molecular multiplicites within the uning category,
and enter the curriculum as a becoming to combine wit singtes
or traits that make up the molar category called student. Every point
intensity or singularity in that field must proliferate in cormectons,
and not merely aim to affect the category called student. It is not so
much about educating those kids, as much as educatng the feld of
relations that includes the kids, teacher, and the environment. To put
it differently, the students' learning can better emerge in relation with
the teacher's struggle against the tendency toward molarization. This
is not a holistic perspective, but a proliferaton of multiplicities, or
enty into fractal dimensions.
, I ask K.c., another teacher new to The City School, who has
'substituted" in several schools in the distict, what distnguished
this place as compared with te other places where she had worked:
K.c.: This place is small and you work much closer with the kids.
And things like mentoring, for example, which is important here.
K.R.: What kind of different effort does it involve to do that?
K.C: I don't know that it is some additional thing, but there's lots
of things taken for granted which you find out gradually.
K.R.: Can you give me an example?
K.c.: Well, teachers are expected t keep tack of individual
students. Many students have had problems in the past. Close
mentoring rarely happens in large places. Also there are
consequences. U the kids goof off in te placements, they close
the door on us. The community comes to know . . . there is always
t pressure of things outside your contol. (Interview with K.c.
No. 1)
The notion of control, and the uneasiness over uncertainty, underlies
some of the key constructs of mainsteam pedagogical practices (see
0011, 2002). Therefore, it is not surprising to hear K.c. express concer
that things at the school seem somewhat out of control because of the
outside coming in constantly as students come i from the field. In
Deleuzian terms, the minimizing of Wcertainty is the work of the
State machinery, whose main goal in education is the manufacturing
of docile bodies that are predictable.
In Deleuze there i always an aleatory "Outside" from where forces
suddenly appear-forces of deterritorializaton that destabilize and
cannot be fully controlled. These are not to be shunned; they produce
new lines of thought. In a school that embraces a city-as-school
curricular model, we are likely to see more of these forces from te
outside. Rather than resistg these, we have to establish in teachers a
mode of being and thinking that sees the pedagogical potential of
these lines of force. The connectvites thus produced expand and
construct piecemeal a Deleuzian patchwork curriculum, extending i
all directions in the manner of a quilt.
To verify my observatons, 1 ask an experienced teacher, N.C., what
special nature of adaptive moves novice teachers could make in terms
of becoming more attuned to the place:
N.C.: Politically, this place works a little differently. Also, you
know, older staff have a shared vision that i hard sometmes to
communicate. O ways often come out of that vision. This is not
necessarily a difficult place t work i, but you have to get close
to the kids, and there is an enormous burden . . . too many things
going on in their lives. There is a frustaton sometmes in not
doing enough. Also there is a lot of uncertainty here. You never
know what the distict is going t do.
K.R.: How do new teachers cope with this?
N.C.: For those who stay on things begin to change after a while.
But you can also protect yourself by not getting involved, and
some choose tat route. But there is a price to be paid for that too.
(Interview with N.C. No.2)
71
The task of the teacher here is multiplicitous; not in the sense of the
conventonal duality of many versus one, but each one an irreducible
multplicty. As Bains (2002) has painted out, Deleuze's multplicity i
not a numeric multplicity; instead, it is a "qualitatve multiplicity
involving duration as one of its conditions. A qualitative multiplicity
is not an aggregate of parts constituted by the relation of separate
physical existents but an event, an actual occasion of experience. A
processual pathic intensity" (104). A qualitative multplicity is like
density or temperature-it is an intensity or intensive property that
cannot be divided up like space or volume. It is an event, and i not
an aggregate, just as the learning encounter, in which the various
element-student and teacher-exist only in reciprocal presupposi
ton and cannot b separated. The event is not happening to each of
them, but they are the event.
Not to start from identt but from qualitatve multplicity i a very
different way of relating to the world. To recall one of Deleuze and
Guattari's fundamental theses, entties are generated from a pre
individual autopoietic or self-referential node of events and itensive
singularites that are themselves multplicites brought about through
tendencies generated in the microphysics of contactons and
contemplations. Such a view alters the nature of space from an optc
visionality that sees things as points and numerical multplicites to
what Deleuze and Guattari have called a tactile space, that is, a space
i which orientaton is by means of intensive or indivisible propertes
of continuous variaton (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 492). I such a
space, one does not remai outside the event, but becomes implicated
i the plane of te event, emerging as part of a constellaton of forces.
Pedagogy on t plane has a very different implicaton; it means
moving fom a theorematic stance with appeals t universals, to a
72
more problematic one that considers the specificity of each encounter
as a new becoming. Admittedly, peeling off layers of strata,
dispositions, or habits of thought is not a simple matter; it needs a
concerted effort at the combined level of affect, concept, and percept.
Thus, the significant stand in what I was observing and what I
wish to comment on here is the ways in which new teachers, whether
new to the profession or to the innovatve environment, came
together with the school that seemed to throw up some unique
problems of practce for the entant. The difficulties faced by these
teachers, as observed by me, are grouped below under certain
categories in order to facilitate the work of analysis.
Analytical Categories
From a certain meditation on the interview data as well as
observations, some patterns emerged of the difficulties novice
teachers faced in encountering the more open environment. I have
cast these problems as effect of the confrontation with the incipient
nomadic situation at the school with its fissures and "irregularities."
These latencies, together with the semiotcs and the necessary lines of
praxiS, are more thoroughly discussed i the chapters that follow.
Here, an opening move is made in te directon of analysis; I revisit
these in depth subsequently.
Using Deleuzian cartography, I have grouped the latencies I
noticed in terms of five overlapping categories of spatal
characteristics as follows: 1. Smoothness; 2. Multplicity; 3.
Rhizoidnessi 4. In-Betweenness; and 5. Becoming. Taken together,
these traits open up lines of contnuous variation of nomadic space
that deterritorializes the categories and boundaries within which
conventonal approaches to curriculum operate. My observation is
that The City School exhibited certain nomadic fissures and openings,
but the novice teachers I observed, being prepared within mainstream
conventions, were not helped to recognize these as generative traits
that could overcome some of the difficultes they faced in educating
urban youth. The categories discussed below are not just the
problems, but also probings about theorizing these spaces, that is,
recuperating the existng positve latencies in a theoretical mold in
order to strengthen them operatonally. In other words, we want to
influence them in ways that te useful tendencies become actualized
AnOutline of te Case Study
73
in stonger ways. A autopoiesis or self-generaton can be the
outcome.
1. Smoothness. Smooth space is open-ended; it allows one to move
from any point to any other point with the least amount of resistance.
It is also a space of intensities constructed through a proliferaton of
connectons. As I have remarked earlier, the organizaton of The City
School appeared to have element of smooth space, owing to a
reducton of hierarchy, that is, stata, and the possibility of constantly
creating new curricular material through the LEAPs, that is, the
possibilites of making new connectons. A a teacher run school, it
has no separate administration, and on account of the absence of a
supplementary or "higher" dimension within te operatons of the
school, most problems cannot transcend, but must be flattened out
and dealt with on the pedagogical plane. While one of the senior
teachers carries out the administrative role as a lead teacher, the role
circulates, ad decisions are made jointly.
Teachers coming from a maisteam perspectve, who are used to
the clear separaton of teaChing from administaton, tend to find a)
the lack of cental authority, or the absence of an Oedipal figure,
generally unnerving; b) more specifically, that the absence of such a
figure of interdicton, to whom one can send a difficult student, or
whose proxy one can use as a deterrent, made functoning more
diffcult; and c) tat they were wantng in the skills of dialogue that
are necessary for te joint decision-making process that must replace
administatve authority.
In terms of flattenig out the diSciplinary dimension onto the
pedagogical plane, my data suggest that beg g teachers often
come in with certain persistent technocratic metaphors that drive
teacher behavior, one of which is "classroom management." Now, to
think in terms of management, i the context of learning, is to think of
apparatuses of control and stratification that seek to eliminate
disorder by taking refuge in sameness and identity. But innovatve
scools such as The City School work to operate along different lines
WIt
regard to such issues. Instead of the compliance, contol, and
confrontation paradigm, which springs from the traditional vision of
adults as legislators and students as subjects, small schools such as
this one attempt to create an atmosphere of close interpersonal
relatonships that tend to obviate the need for harsh disciplinary
measures by opening up lines of communicaton. Occasional
74
wayward behavior tends to be seen as a signal for help rather than an
isolated problem. For new teachers, te move to get away from te
"classroom management and discipline" mind-set takes considerable
work and revisioning of what it means to work with adolescents. It
partly means discovering the pedagogical possibilities of irregular
spaces and the positvity of difference, as well as perceiving the need
for breaking down categories. This part of the analysis is taken up in
detail along wit field data in te following chapter.
2. Multiplicity. Teachers play not a multiple but a multplicity of
roles at The City Shool. The teacher is not just an instuctor but also a
curriculum developer, a placement guide, and a mentor. But each of
these are also composed of the others, and cannot be fully separated.
The fact that the students are out in the community part of the tme
changes the dynamics of the school, requiring teachers to be more
inventve about their roles as well as make connectons between field
experience and school. This is not only with respect to the formal
aspects of the field experience, but also with respect to students
bringing with them atttudes and experiences that arise fom being
out there that result in a certain divergence and proliferaton of
differences. Connectons have therefore to be made between the
different sites. There is tus a continual three-way interplay between
school, communit, and curriculum that emerge out of this process.
But it is precisely this switching of roles that is often the most
difficult act for novice teachers, especially when they come with fixed
conceptons about teacher roles. One of the most difficult parts some
felt was the role of placement guide. This involves overseeing
student's actons in te community. Conventional categories, and
boundaries around te tacher's role, thus tend to loosen up
somewhat at The City School, and te demand is for a level of
flexibility and ability to deal with contingency for which newcomers
are often unprepared.
I hope to show in subsequent discussions that a Deleuzian
reconceptualization of te pedagogical encounter in terms of event
and multiplicites is very helpful, as it tends to dislodge us from fixed
ways of tg, and helps us to see the emergent propertes and
variations that produce multplicities. It is not that by emphasizing
multiplicity teachers are being asked to give up their identties in
some mindless form of coUectvity. O the contary, we are enabled,
by means of this radical eco-ontology, to staddle te plane of molar
75
iden
.
tity as well as the plane of microidentity or molecularity. This
tensIon between the two series produces resonance of productve
ambiguity
.
that can generate a new thought. Instead of a pre
formatted coherence in curriculum, the emphasis then shifts to
proucing connectons between different nodes in a contngent
fashion. The view of identity as multiplicity allows us to enter a
different relationship with the plane of composition out of which
curriculum emerges like an event, and breaks down taditonal roles.
In an enironment that shows a latent multiplicity, theorizing in this
manner mcreases te chances of strengthening the autopoietc or self
generatonal possibilites of concepts.
3. Rhizoidness. The "rhizome" is a lateral proliferaton of
cormectons, like the spread of moss, the sudden branching off or
joining up of different intensites, flows, and densites to form new
assemblies that have no fxed form or outline. A contngent mass, te
rhizome can be cut up in any way and still retains operational
wholeness; therefore it is highly tenacious. The rhizome is also a
tuber, and unlike ordinary roots, can sprout in any directon.
The success of a place like The City School depends to a large
extent on the ways each player finds or invents channels and bands of
communicaton bot within and without the school, that is, between
student and teacher, teachers and parents, the school and the district,
or among teachers themselves. Apart from the fact tat in a school
that is jointly run by teachers, much hinges on te ways in which the
players constuct "rhizoid" lines among one another that increases
the proliferation of intricate connectvity, increasing thereby the
chances of survival
.
Further, the fact of being different from
mainstream schools, and the effort to protect this difference itself,
calls for the creaton of various contnuums of intensites and
variatons.
Besides normal instructon, teachers also have to monitor the
students at their work places, finding ways of individually assessing
th
.
e
.
wor each student does at the placement through the LEAPs.
DiffIculties often crop up at te placements which have to be
smoothed out. Liaising between multple sites, the successful
placement coordinator has to project contnuously a forward-looking
agenda that keeps aU parties positvely engaged. Each of these
requires a degree of sophistcation i communicative abilites tat is
atypical of average teaching situatons. Conceived in rhizospheric
76
terms, such activity, instead of being seen as fragmented bits in
isolated spaces, can be reconceptualized as connecting up points of
intensites that together form different plateaus. A redescription of
this nature strengthens the operatonal and conceptual stength of the
space, as well as increases the range of te pragmatcs of action by
proliferatng the combinatons of these point intensities. It
.
is the
principle of pulling up by the bootstaps, or sell-generatIon; It takes
what is present, and feeding it into the theoretcal framework, lets a
new level of intensity emerge.
Even instuction tends to have a somewhat different emphasis. My
data show that the teachers who are successful with students at The
City School, that is, who are considered to have made a difference in
some of their lives, invariably are those who have taken a step
beyond teir more circumscribed teacherly roles and taken a special
interest in students' lives. It would be easy to jump to the explanatory
device of pastoral care and its positive effects, but discussions with
teachers give glimpses of another movement, a becomng in teachers'
lives not usually accounted for. Here, Deleuzian theory can play a
powerful role by making a distnction between standard explanatons
such as pastoral care and a rhizomatc mode where it is not a queston
of hierarchical giving, nor eve of growt, but the becoming of a
multiplicity.
4. In.betweenness. The sense one has at the school is that of being in
between tg. Students are often in between the field and the
classroom, te teachers are in between observing the placements and
teaching inhouse classes. Inbetweenness here is everywhere. It is
also a state of emergent tings; it can be viewed as a reiationality that
is always beyond determinate boundaries. This latency not only
remains undertheorized at the school, which, while it displays some
of these qualities has yet to draw rigorous pedagogical praxis from it,
but novice teachers also find the qualities of in-betweenness
discomforting.
To take in-betweenness not as a passage to something more definite
but to treat it seriously, as an open space within every process, we
have to understand how the teacher can act from the middle, from the
in.between spaces, neiter ung instuction nor offering discrete
packets aimed at different "individuals." Instead, the tak is to
constuct a plane -Deleuze would call it a plane of conslStency
which draws out al the unformed elements, and show the fields of
An Outline of the Case Study 7
indefinitude or flux in which they are embedded. To take an example,
in the teaching of history, inbetweenness destoys the linearity and
opens it up as a space of nonlinear becoming. No level is closed, and
all the unformed elements at each level only excite, attact, and free
p element at other levels, making aggregates that are fuzzy and yet
ngorous. At any point in tme, the class is thus a rhizome, stetching
and contactng between different point intensities, never unifying,
nor becoming disparate. And the teacher's positon is always in.
between, dancing between the lines. Under such circumstances the
emphasis moves from the unifying of curricular levels, topics, and
ideas to seeing/ constructing/ inventng new connectons between
them, and thereby also multiplying the pedagogical directions from
which to tackle an issue.
There is also another angle to thi s from the perspective of the whole
schooL The bottom line for innovative schools is an everpresent need
for a degree of creative enterprise. Because it is small, unusual, and
surviving against enormous odds, The City School staff must
contnually imprOVise. They must make decisions that no one else can
make for tem. They are a square peg in a round hole; te distict
rules regarding attendance, assessment, or school hours do not fit
them, making it necessary to remain on the witess stand. Therefore,
at every t there is the inbetweenness of being an innovatve place.
But these can also become part of the pedagogy, and need not remain
isolated from it. The school has yet to utlize these instabilites and
indeterminacies as pedagogic openings, although the possibilites are
thee. Beg g teachers can enter the plane of compositon, keeping
then eye on this line of tension between the school and its inunediate
Context.
5. Becoming. In a Deleuzian conception, becoming is the
transformation of life through the refusal of closed stuctures within
Which difference can be confined. It is the genesis of stuctures
hemselves that becoming reveals. Becoming is not the becoming of A
to , but a state of openness to the movement of pure difference.
orkmg closely with needy adolescents whose backgrounds are
anything but trouble-free is challenging work. T was something
that was pointed out to me time and again. Talking to older teachers
evealed that tey ha sensed a Change in themselves, an opening
ut, and they had survIved because of it. The language toward which
they groped was not fully formulated yet. Many of the student at
78
The City School come from difficult backgrounds,
nd some seemed
to have turned around due to the individual attentIon of members of
the staff. But these slopes of becoming. to speak metaphoric
l1
?
ha
e
steep gradients with considerable
cerintes and vanabo

n
U
relations. For new teachers, the situaton 15 stressful and sometnes
affectively draining, especially when it is also accompanied by wat
they recognize as student disinterest and apathy. I the
.
fauly
extensive literature on teacher burout, tere is considerable eVlde
ce
for believing that begg teachers are partcula
,
r1y prone to bemg
severely affected in this manner (Weisberg
,
and Sagle, 1999).
The data show a range of coping behaVIOrs. One teacher tended to
engage students in extended trivial conversatons that led nowhere,
another created a strict classroom atmosphere and acknowledged that
he was "becoming just the teacher I never wanted to be" (Fiel Notes
04/08/02). And a third teacher complained of being con
,
u
lly
depressed. Typically, mainstream literature talks of COplllg
stategies" to deal with emotional stess (Abel and Sewell, 19
9). But
as Byrne (1998) points out, these app
.
roaches,
.
instead of openlllg out,
tend to restict the pedagogical chOlces available. Our approach to
stress and affect will be radically different. It will bypass
.
the
humt route of placing a subect behind feelings
r e
o
.
bons.
Instead, it will posit the subject as a cons
ct
.
on of llltenslbes or
affects. Once situated on t plane of tg, affects can b
reassembled and connected to other intensites.
The Deleuzian praxiS I construct in chapter 4 ma
.
kes avaable to
teachers a mode of becoming in terms of producton of SignS, or
semioticizaton of the pedagogical encounter, whereby signs, afec,
and percepts come together to "release a powerful nonorgarc life
that escapes the strata, cuts across assemblages, and draws an ab
o
:
act
line of nomad art."(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 507. It is art, for It 15
fashioning of new alliances and assemblages. It is nomadic, because It
is the escaping of the strata that we have encountered before, and that
constantly exceeds all confining structures. This line of pure
acceleraton is therefore a "line of nomad art." As it escapes the snata,
it creates new forms and plateaus of intensities or beconungs
tangentially. By staying on this line of becoming, we develop
e
potential to counter the proble

o
.
f stess, wc, i Deleuz
an
concepton, i a passivity. To put It differently, t 15 the line of acbve
affect.
79
Conclusion
I do not claim that The City Shool functioned consciously or
unconsciously according to a Deleuzian cartography, nor that it was a
nomadic trrain in any extensive sense. The thing I want to suggest is
that tere were flashes and glimmers of nomadic possibilites in the
interstces of the loosened stucture, which could have been taken
advantage of were the situaton and the actors conceptually primed
for it. That is to say, the nomadic possibilities could have been
actualized in a more Sigificant manner if, into te existng plane of
relations, it were possible to introduce te concept I have been
discussing, to make a difference which would ten amplify to
produce new relations. For these thoughts could perform what
Deleuze might call "flecton," or a sudden movement of
deterritorialization, rather than reflection, which is reproduction.
Further, it is vital to connect up the existng irregular spaces, for
example, tose that are generated when the experiences from the field
enter the classroom, into webs and plateaus through a constant
attenton to intensity, intricacy, and sensibility infltatng from the
outside, so that by means of such recuperation, the potentalites
would intensify, and more creative possibilites could be generated.
To put it in the language of systems theory, these intensites can attain
an autopoiesis or selfMgeneration by means of the existng murmurs
that become a "foreign language" through experimentton of the
kind I suggest here. I Deleuzian terms, a plane of composition can be
constucted by means of the concept which, bor of necessity, harbors
it own forces of becoming, amplifying the existng differental
relatons (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994). I other words, struggling to
be different but still caught in the grip of an older semantcs-the
Signifier regimes that are based on recuperatng youthful energies
within the matrix of identity, and that cannot enter the irregular
Spaces-the existng relatons in the school needed a different
language of selFdescn'ption that would take it to an autopoietic or self
gen
erative plane through amplification.
Part of the goal here is to develop that language from wt the
concepts we have been diSCUSSing; rather than a hermeneutc
decOding of te patter that existed in the school, I "sniff out" the
POSsible opeings and in the pages that follow, deterritorialize them
further by emding them in a Deleuzian process of differental
be
cOming. Fortunately for us, Deleuze, together wit h coautlior
Guattari, offers a new semiology and a semantics with which each of
us can construct our minor or second language within language, a
"language of stanunermg:' as Deleuze would say. This language is
not about signification and meaning, but about osciUation and
resonance with the mass of other becomings.
To summarize then, the effort in this chapter has been to introduce
teachers' voices alongside some details about the stucture of the
school and its curriculum. It i te map under construction or rather a
mosaic of smaller maps-superimpositions that allow us to glimpse,
from time to time, te not-fully-articulated possibilites of the school.
and the directions in which te relatons need to move. Second, in the
interstces I have inserted Deleuzian reconstellations that do two
things: first, they link the data to our framework, and second, they
allow us to t in terms of new possibilites of praxis. In order to
facilitate the discussion, I have selected some analytical categories
that are nothing but certain key spatial qualities of Deleuzian
nomadic space. These categories are not hard-edged, but are mere
gradients along which to extend the work of theorizing te different
aspects of the pedagogic encounters in te school. They capture some
important and recurring themes about the nature of spatal relatons,
and give us a frame for considering some of the difficulties that the
novice teachers faced inencountering irregular spaces.
I the following chapter, I will introduce more data from the site
and continue the work of analysis that open up the possibilities
toward a nomadic topos. This will take the work of mapping one step
further. The map of a nomadic tapas is unlike any other map; it i at
once map and territory. It i nonrepresentatonal, which is to say, it
does not represent but makes connectons and projects new lines of
flight. Each concept in the map is also a living circuit of becoming,
rather than a dead icon. It i a bcoming-map-therefore, one cannot
read this map with the idea of a referent; one can only experiment
with it, insert oneseU into the making of it even as one constucts it.
This i possible because it is a map of intensites, of tansformatons.
In other words, te nomadic map is as much a map of the
cartographer herseU as it is of the geology of the terrain. Like a
normal map, this nomadic cartography has two coordinates: latitude
and longitude. But latitude here is the potental for change or degrees
of freedom, and longitude i the relatons of movement and rest. I
other words, bodies and percepts come to be and are related through
81
their differental
overents and their potental for transformaton.

:hese are coordmates of beComing, and are implicated in the
Imm
.
anent plane whence entties, events, and individuatons arise
The mterweaving of data and concept that is attempted here is main!;
to opn as mny doors as possible onto this nomadic terrain and
exp
nment Wth the working of this map even as we produce it,

adding small bit at a tme.
Chapter 3
If thought really yielded to the obect if its attention were on the object. not
on its category, the object would start talking under the lingering eye.
-Theodor Adorno, Negative Dialectics
I his well-known ethnographic account titled Adequate Shools
and Inadequate Education: The Life History of a Sneaky Kid," Harry
Wolcott (19) makes the important observaton that adequate
schools do not necessarily lead to an adequate education.
Increasingly, there are youth who, while not averse to learning as the
"sneaky kid" testifies, find schools to be impOSSibly circumscribed
spaces, and consequently for them there is no altemative but to drift.
Listening and observing at The Cit School, I find ample confirmation
of the above statement in the accounts that I hear, not only from
student who had dropped out from regular schools, but among staff
as well
In organizing itself along different lines, The City Shool in some
ways appears to have made an attempt to address some of these
issues that Wolcott raises, not only in being more than just an
"adequate" school, but in extending schooling in important ways to
other areas of social experience. But there is not yet a plane of
composition or a "style," a Deleuze would say, that would hold the
different pieces or connect the different plateaus or blocks of
intensites in an adequately theorized and generatve way. By making
central to its focus issues of relationship and connectedness, the
school makes a serious attempt at constuctng condtons of
Changing the Image of Thought 83
possiility for urban youth to stay cOIected to education, and makes
operungs so as to enable them to continue to lea in nonconventonal
ways. Although there is some literature on service learning, these
attempts at i ovation remain undertheorized, especially in the
context of the genesis and becoming of new teachers.
In this chapter I will discuss two things by means of data and
theory: First, we need a different kind of conceptualizaton of
schooling, an epistemological and ontological shift, in order to
appreciate the somewhat open, leaky, and indeterminate spaces that
can better accommodate "border" youth who cannot fit into
mateam school. Even within The City Shool, these spaces
re not fully articulated and not communicating with one another
effectvely so as to set up a resonance or a synergistc effect that can
take e movement beyond itself. I will use Deleuzian concept to
theonze these spaces of indefinitude, or differental formatons that
wll allow us to remain dose to their conditons of emergenc
.
We
Will produc
.
e
.
by means of such an analytic, an intensive composite
that can fadlitate our work of seeking, or even more, entering praxis.
The consequences go well beyond the context of the particular site,
not by the attempt to generalize, which carries the flavor of
essentalization, but by creatng the conditions that can realize the
importance of singularites or unique constellatons of forces and
historio-geographies of intensity.
Second, I will suggest that te difficulties novice teachers face on
entering such an environment, where there is less reliance on the
conventi0ral curriculu, and a significant absence as well of appeals
to conventonal authonty for stucture and discipline, are, t a large
extent, the result of certain unexamined conceptual conventons that
dOminate perception that result in turg away from creatve
0 '
d perungs an toward a self-imposed containment in representatonal
space. This part of the exploration will be carried out as a relay of
theory between
.
poin o practice, and practce actng as relays
between theoretIcal pomts 1 a nondialectical, multplicitous manner.
By means of t strategy, we will place under examination the very
Ommolaces
.
and ctgories on which the experience called
school IS built. Exag the primary drives of seeking order in
the classroom, percelVtng learg as coincident with what t k
I 'thin ' bo d .
a es
p ace WI It anes, and lOOking for certainty in the curricular
process contast With the possibility that learning might take place i
84
surpnsmg, nonlocalizable, and in-between spaces, through
cormectons rater than in specific significations, and in ways that are
uncertain and sometimes inarticulable.
We will see how pedagogical opportunites are missed in this setup
by holding on to the mainstream or conventional positions on
learning and curriculum, and also demonstrate the differential spaces
and possibilites in the school. This is based on what I leared from
the conversations and observations at the school, which showed that
the thing that seemed most important to these students was a sense of
belonging, as well as deeper communication with adults, both of
which often lie beyond the circumscribed roles of teachers in regular
settings. T is not to claim that mainstream schooling is monolithic
or homogeneous, but to point out that the overall emphasis that
arranges educaton in a techno-bureaucratc space missed the boat, so
to speak, where these urban youth were concered. This view is
corroborated by JS, a novice teacher, who tells me: "I come from a
minority conununity, and went to school in the city. The large public
schools did nothing for me . . . I came close to dropping out, and there
are many like me. That is why I came to teaching, to do someting
different." (Field Notes 04/12/02) The system forced JS to occupy
spaces where he was not afirmed, and did not give credence to his
own Lbnswlt and sensibilities. This is te plight of many urban
adolescents who have been standardized out of the system, and find
their way to the innovative school.
In this connecton, Giroux (200) points out that
the dominant features of public schooling are characterized by a
moderst project that has increasingly come to rely upon
instrumental reason and the standardization of curricula. (177)
This centered curricula, Giroux further observes, that is devoted t
the rule of a certain narrow kind of disjointed "reason:' and in which
affects and emotions mostly find no place except to pathologize
youth, is a heavily "coded cultural legacy . . . that privileges the
histories, experiences, and cultural capital of largely white, middle
class students" (178). In Deleuzian language, these are spaces
governed by "strata," and captured by "molar" or majoritarian
politcs. We have to fnd, instead, fissures and lines of escape from
molar into "molecular" becorgs within curriculum, that IS,
remappings on a transformational matrix of minoritarian politcs. I
In a school that attempts to serve marginalized youth, teachers
need not merely a separate set of skills, but new lenses through which
to rethink curriculum as a whole. It is therefore an important move to
help teachers equip themselves with the necessary theoretical tools
and concepts with which to remap what is going on, and gain a fresh
perspective on things; a perspectve that helps to move away from the
old habits of thought, and abandon wor-out spaces. And for this
purpose, we tum to Deleuze, who attempts what may be called a
perspectival reversal of Platonism in order to form a new sense of a
g
graph

.
of inensites orn of the irreglarites of thought. To
reiterate, It IS not m regulanzed spaces, but from the irregularities, that
a new thought is bor. Therefore, the added value of seeing the
processes through a Deleuzian lens is that it will allow teachers to see
in a
.
positive 1i
ht the very Slippages, affect, and other "unruly"

CUrricular experIences that tend to embarrass technocratc ratonality,
and look at these as new possibilities for curriculum development.
Deleuze , also an artst of unfinished geometies, of "what might
yet happen, and ceaselessly constucts in order to fee life forces
from being captive in regulated spaces or preViously staked-out
ground. In this chapter, I frequently use the Deleuzian notion of the
"rhizome" for drawing out the possibilites of multiple cormectons,
and emergent, as opposed to reified, relatons between the student
the cur
iculum, and the context. The rhizome moves and grows

unpredIctable ways and never attains a fixed and final form. I do not
claim that the school was already functiOning with a Deleuzian
perspective; rather that the existing conditons would be better served
or
.
its potentialities actualized, if such a perspective were to be
deliberately introduced in the thinking of the place. Small changes
a
plied through feedback would, by conceptually realigning the

dI
course, create conditons for new oscillations or resonances to

anse. Also I claim that, in communicatng with the new teachers
about the alteratve possibilities of the school, such a theoretical
p
erspective would be invaluable.
As we saw in the previo
s chapter, the fuidity and the multiplicity

of roles, and the neceSSIty of slipping in and out of different
functonal ad perceptve areas is disturbing and unsettling for those
who have been used to the security of more circumscribed roles. L.S.,
whom we have met before, and I contnue our conversation:
KR.: It seems to me from what you have said until now that you
are referring to more than just a list of things or skills that i
needed. You seem to be suggesting that there's sometng else
operatng that one needs to get acquainted wit. Can you
corrunent?
L.S.: Well, it is a sort of culture. I mean in the regular schools you
did things the way . . . there were lot of guidelines and the expec
tations were clear. Here, it is like it comes out of the culture of the
place. Things are not as explicit.
K.R.: Does that make it problematc?
L.S.: I am not always sure what the students are learning. So
things do seem more chaotc. (Interview with L.S. No.2)
Let us recall the issue of decentered authority as an aspect of
"smoothness" from the analytcal structure laid out in the previous
chapter. L.S. gives us a good example of the kinds of certainty many
teachers look for in teir practce, which, in the language of the
present analYSiS, is a search for a supplementary dimension since ony
an exteral relaton can guarantee certainty. That supplemental
dimension could be the formal structure of schooling, a standardized
curriculum, the relations of power and hierarchy, or simply a kind of
habitus (Bourdieu, 1990) that stuctures pedagogical response. But in
each case, it is a movement away from the performative present, from
te immanence of acton. Supplementarity thus may be opposed to
spontaneity. L.S., as the above conversation illustates, wants order in
the form of rules and definite expectations. She i also looking to be
tained in the correct way to do things. She uses the term" culture" to
mark a difference, of not being at ease in a space that is unfamiliar.
L.S. wants to be sure of "what the students are learg," perhaps in
clear quantfiable terms. But research has shown tat what students
learn is often unpredictable and uncertain, and depends less on
predetermined actvity tan on the goings-on at various levels in a
given context at a given time (Davis et al., 2000, 4-12). Learing tus
occurs or emerges at the intersection of complex factors that cannot be
fully contolled. But the need for suret and certinty i so ingrained
that we rarely stop to question it. Hartley (1997) observes:
The school is a monument to moderty. Virtually everything is
arranged ratonally, including space, time, curriculum, assess
ment and discipline. Children are classified according to a range
of
.
criteria. Rules regulate us. There are set procedures [for every
thing] . . . . Schools are places where reason prevails over emotons"
(125).
87
It is probably going to far to say that in schools "reason prevails over
emotion," for I am not sure how many of us would agree that schools
are always reasonable places, although tey seemingly carry out the
functions of a certain stucture, discarding in the process the breadth
of sensaton. But given that achievement of instumental order is of
the highest priority, it is not surprising that L feels uncertain in her
role at The Gty School, whose working represents what Hartley calls
a "apse" that s "oo unwieldy for our tdy-minded modem ways"
(120). The unwleldmess comes from an entangled, multiplicitous, and
divergent space in which things refuse to fall into neat categories. The
entangled character of curricular relatons in the school leads me to
posit th: conept o multiplicities-a key Deleuzian term. Every event
or n,
.
mcluding ourselves, is a multplicity, or rather,
multipliCIties. Beneath the apparent unity or coherence of an entty, or
an event, lie fields of flux and multiple layers of unformed or not
fully-formed elementl states. Through selectve processes, there arise
out of these fields temporary assemblages of elements, composites
that follow abstact lines of development and organizaton, through
what may be called a "connectve synthesis."2All phenomena thus are
multiplicities on a plane of continual variation.
Tg in terms of multiplicites becomes important, and gains
praxtal power when we realize that each abstract line of potentality
Or
combinatons of sense-marter-thought that enters into a composite
al
o h
s an escape, a mutational possibility not necessarily coincident

lt uwerse transformatons. That is to say, although events or
tites are bor of capture producing the perception of phenomena,
ere
.
r
.
also exits or escapes from these molar categories.
(UlhpliClties can be rearranged, disassembled, and reassembled to
arm new assemblages. This means that thought and affect can be
ansformed and etended in previously untought-of ways by taking
tnto account sensatons and intensites that were preViously excluded.
For teachers operatng in bleak urban landscapes that seem to offer
88
few breaks, and charged with the task of engaging students who seem
to have limited options within modert categories and assumptions,
operationalizing a Deleuzian cartography loosens boundari
.
es
within which thought can t. Formerly statified matenal
suddenly become available for opening out the curriculum. The
molecularizaton of previously statfied material gives a fleeting
glimpse of a deterritorialized moment.
.
The phenomenon of operational multplicity can emerge i
multple ways. When students' views and We experience
,
s are
affirmed, a class of individuals can be suddenly tansformed mto a
synergistc extension wit connectvities proliferatng in many
directions. Another name for operational multplicities used by
Deleuze is the rhizome. Rhizomes are contasted to trees or
arborescent systems; whereas tees are vertcally ordered, rhizomes
tend to be nonhieratic, laterally connected multiplicities that do not
feature linear development. Like tubers and mosses, they grow
laterally and entangled, and like knowledge, they are messy; any
point on a rhizome can be connected to any other point, making such
a structure open and dependent on emergent relatons. Rhizomes can
be interrupted at any point only to start up again, proliferatng lines
of flight that sprout contngently, not according to fixed pathwa!,
They thrive in irregular and in-between spaces, and have no specifiC
startng or ending point; they are always in te middle, in transiton,
on the verge of becoming something else. Rhizomes are structures of
intensity.
As I observed the workings of the school, it seemed to me that te
concept of the rhizome is particularly suitable for theorizing the
tendencies and potentalites of the narratve and descriptive spaces
of The City SchooL With the possibility of organizing the curriculum
in several ways, of initatng new ways of evaluation, as well as in its
connection to the field, a rhizomatic descripton seemed to be a
fruitful way of conceptualizing the situation, one that would allow
teachers to make new corutectons. Experimentng on ourselves as
rhizomes or collectivites that are laterally connected gives us room to
challenge the inner authority of our selectve procedures and
boundary constructs that exclude other ways of looking at schooling
than the representatonal. The rhizome is at the same tme a
analytcal tool and a bcoming that can help in c
nscti.ng neW
spaces for teaching and leag. As a tool of alYSIS, It helps us to
89
see te possibilites and connections in a non-Cartesian way, tat is, in
nonbinary modes of tg. As a way of becomin i t allows us to
conceive of lg our collectvites to other assemblages for actng
upon, say, the curriculum, embodying our sensibilites to extend it in
unaccustomed directons. Besides, for Deleuze, concepts like the
rhizome are really vectors that have a force and directon of their
own, extending the possibilites in the synaptic stuctures of te brain
itself. In oter words, thinking in this way changes the very
architee of the brain.
Intoducing t vital Deleuzian noton, I suggest tat the school
has in it potential rhizoid spaces. I watch a minor student "revolt."
The students insist that the name of the school be changed. The actual
name, which obviously cannot be revealed here, is found to evoke
certain associations that are unacceptable to many of them. After
several discussions there is a confrontation with the staff over this,
and a referendum is proposed. Staff and shJdents agree to do a
survey on possible alternatives and let it go to the ballot. The
importance of this event lay not i the inversion of power
relatonships but in te animaton and passion it generated.
Curriculum can be seen to be the embodied intensites that develop
when things close to the students are allowed to occur. For these
reasons one might say that a rhizomatic possibilit exist in the
schooL Therefore, the example cited above must not be confused with
student empowerment. The rhizome grows from within, making the
necessary connections in a system-environment coupling, whereas
the noton of empowerment invokes an exteral empowering agent.
In the above instance, the forces emerged more from the way in
which students were related to the school than from any conscious
effort to empower.
Deleuze and Guattari (1987 contast the open stucture of the
rhizome that can grow offshoots in any directon, to the hierarchical
structure of the tee or "arborescent" systems that are linear . Trees do
not
grow roots in the foliage, nor can they grow leaves among te
rOot
system. They are inflexible, and bound by the rules of
s
tatficaton:
Strata are Layers, Belt. They consist of giving form to matters, of
imprisoning intensites or locking singularites into molar aggre
gates. Stata are act of capture, they are like black holes stiving
90
to capture whatever comes within their reach. (40)
Strata are bands produced by thickening; they generate gravitatonal
fields, fields of determinate spaces like techno-managerial ones that
provide a sense of certainty and security. To seek certainty in the
context of learning is to inhabit stiated space; that is, to operate in
determined territories that resist border crossings, and therefore cut
communication lines stretching across boundaries. Open borders are
terrains of uncertainty and are the very conditons of the possibility of
learg -a fresh movement in thought. The growth of the rhizome i
unpredictable ways and its self-description can provide learing with
a cfoss-fertizaton between widely separated lateral spaces that
promote a dramatzation of knowledge. As discussed below, the open
borders of leag attempted by the LEAPs, which act as an interface
between the actvities at the placements and schoolbased learg,
allow for a level of indeterminacy and creative uncertainty to disturb
the strata. They open up the interstces, the sewnup structure of rigid
domains.
Curiculum as Rizome
The LEAPs that trouble most of the novice teachers are as much a
creative effort as a procedural one. There is no one way of doing te
LEAPs, since placements change all the tme, new ones are added,
and some old ones are dropped. Additionally, teachers have to design
te LEAPs according to the project te student is working on at the
placements; it cannot be generiC. For example, at a placement in the
Legal Acton Council, a student may either work on a project that is
based in history or in citizenship studies. The teacher must create a
LEAP that is congruent with the project, and the diSciplinary credit
must be granted accordingly. Further, students' requirements are
different, and each configuraton is required to dovetail with in-house
classes that lead to the necessary credits for graduation. I this way,
curriculum appears more like a rhizoid structure, concerned with
building connectons. Thinking the rhizome or entering a rhizomatc
mode allows us to conceive of more connections, not because the
rhizome is an effectve model or a metaphor-that is, it is not a mode
of organizing sensibilites from which we break into new orders of
thought -but because it releases us from the false bondage of linear
relationships, and allows us, even if momentarily, to realize our
multplicities, that which is always already (to use a Heideggerian
phrase). In other words, we live the rhizome or the rhizome lives in
us, and we ask what constucts we want and what determinatons
and intensites we are prepared to countenance.
The curriculum seen more like a rhizome, that is, in terms of
connectivities and relationalities rater than as a preformed and pre
given structure, has many other advantages. It foregrounds precisely
those aspects of exchange that are filtered out in the regular
curriculum processes, affirming intensites that are unaccounted for
witin mainsteam discourses. As Deleuze points out, rhizomes are
offshoots, not sowings; irregular growths, not deliberate plantngs. A
rhizomatc concepton allows affective investents and existental
narratves to enter the learg environment obliquely and
powerfully, in irregular ways, opporhmites not provided for by the
official curriculum, connecting the classroom with the lived realites
of the social actors in the school. I other words, every movement,
gesture, autobiographical event, and accidental phenomenon can
become a leag opporhmity, including those that are considered
disruptive behavior. The mimic, the bully, and the class clown
become contibutors to the curriculum once the archive of
presuppositons tat inform those actions are reconnected to the
learning process. L.5.'s concer about what the students are learg
are mostly to do with learg on the visible and conscious level. But
as Davis et aL (2000) point out, learning at the conscious level is only
a small fragment of leag that goes on at oter levels, and too
much focus on the conscious aspect can lead to a starvaton of the
senses. As we see later on, there is important learning going on in
nonregulated spaces, leag that is important for the lives of these
young people.
Corg from a way of doing tings that is firmly "territorialized,"
or set in the practce of containment, as well as predetermined in
terms of the intended effects, te actvities at the school seem
"chaotc" to L.S.; but she acknowledges that seeing the various
a
tivities as disparate and isolated from one another is not helpful

lth
er. Instead, as she noted earlier, it all seemed to come out of a
certain "culture." This culture is what we might call a "practice of the
ontingent," the exercise of a not-fully-determined space which is an

llnportant tool for survival for a school catering to uncertain urban
conditons.
92
But contngency is seen "as an enemy" of the governmentalized
social order (Bauman 1992). Giroux (2000) observes:
Rather than accepting the modert assumpton(s) . . .it makes
more sense in the present historical moment to educate students
to theorize differently about the meaning of work in a post
modern world. Indeterminacy rather tanorder should become
the guiding principle of a pedagogy in which multiple views,
possibilities, and differences are opened up as part of an effort to
read the future contngently. (179)
Partly, te necessity for understanding the nature of contngency
arises from the changed global conditions related to work, markets,
media, and identities that require new forms of literacy on the part of
the teacher as well as the student, since both have to face these
radically changed postindustrial conditions in which the character of
the economy, culture. and knowledge have become uncertain. I do
not mean to suggest here that schools ought to change in order to fit
in with the emergent world order and help to normalize it, but that
curriculum must take advantage of fssures that arise in times of acute
change, and open up complex, indeterminate
.
r
gions that are ':not

fully-formed" elements but patches of intenslhes and conn
ho.
The following is an example of the predicament teachers face I t
changing and problematic space:
T.G.: Take 5, she is currently undergoing training for six weeks
and is out of school. This is part of the W2 requirements. The law
now requires that she get taining in order to qualify for welfare;
she is a teenage mom and wants to complete school. However, by
the tme she completes training, she will tum 18 and so legally
she can be asked to work full time. That effectively puts her out
of school and she can kiss graduation goodbye. We here have
decided not to let that happen. So she is taking independent
studies with us and that will give her the few required credits she
needs to graduate. One of our teachers goes to visit her regularly
to check up on how she i doing. She is a diligent student and
will graduate but we have t find ways and means
.
and come up.
with creative solutons to tese conditons that kids face. They
are at the intersecton of work, the law, poverty and needing to
graduate. (Interview with T.G. No.1)
Here is an instance of the problem of being captured in strata. As
T.G. relates it, there is a gap between what the student need and
what bureaucratzed education provides, a gap between schooling
and education. Nancy Lesko (1995) has identfied such mixed needs
that policy i unable to come to terms with as "leaky needs" (199).
There is a necessity for teachers to find creative solutons t meet such
leaky needs and find the resources to be able to do so. Often, it is te
flexibility and the mutual understanding that the teachers have
developed between themselves that provide the ground for this
additonal "respond-ability." But a more important analytcal
moment is missed if we do not see that this is also the opportunity to
form a new composite. The projecting of curricuum onto an Outside
makes for a different order of integration that is based on difrentiation.
A lesson in social studies becomes more of a distributon of point
intensites in a field that lie beyond the utterances since it i
contnuously modified and modulated by the intensites of te space
surrounding 5. That is, it must be worked through the set of implicit
presuppositons that forms the context of 5, freeing a whole set of
minor narratves that lie as murmurs buried in the context. This
development of a "minor language" of intensities allows u to escape
gridded or state space and enter what, in terms of our Deleuzian
categories, I have called smooth space; to recall, it i marked by an
open-ended quality, and on its surface one can move from any point
to any other point with less hindrance.
This creates a bridgehead for a radical kind of empiricism, a
pluralism that indicates, in this partcular instnce, that innovatve
circumstances can do more than accommodate S with a lesson in
math or social studies at home. A attention to much that is in the in
between spaces that contain molecular intensities needs to be
explored. This cannot be fully mapped out in advance, but an
aWareness of a plane of continuous variation between school and 5
that changes every moment may be worked on as a curricular
?
Pportunity. Let me try and put it differently: One way of seeing tis
s to look at it as lessons being delivered to a student by a teacher; that

lS, contact between molar categories. This is the way we are usually
onditonec to look. A different way of looking I am suggestng here

1 to see tis process a distortng a plane of variatons, like a sht of
94
rubber which is te composite field that can be stetched and
manipulated to produce different shapes on its surface, somewhat
akin to a topological plane. There are no categories here but only
currents, flows, and eddies, and the "teacher" brings different
gradients of becoming to such irregular spaces. On such a plane, the
categories disappear momentarily to produce arrangements or what
Deleuze calls agencements, a term that closely parallels Foucault's
notion of the dispositi. The deployment of these intensities necessarily
begins from a certain degree of deterritorializing or shedding of strata
that makes room for new sensitvities and resonances. And the social
studies lesson becomes a study of the socially embedded ways of
percepton and the escape from it.
From a critque of State space, it is possible to read the above
example as a mechanism that does not concern itself with the
underlying ideology of W2, but merely ensures that the student falls
in line with the State machinery. But the thing to which I point here is
the multiplicitous and contingent becomings on the gradient of te
plane of curriculum, and the molecular possibilities on that plane;
each a possible line of escape from State space. So the confrontation
wit power is through experimentation tat breaks open the molar
categories on which power depends, to reveal fluctuating fields. And
it is the resonance issuing from the site that alerts me to the latent
possibilites of using a Deleuzian framework in order to build micro
circuits of change, small unravelings at a minor level. These tmbres
suggest the possibility of transformation in the encounter along
frequencies not usually considered by teachers in more conventonal
settings.
The plane of becoming or composition is a key Deleuzian (Deleuze
and Guattari, 1987 concept in which incorporeal transformatons take
place that insinuate us into new arrangements:
The plane of compositon knows nothing of substance and form.
It consists of modes of individuaton, i relatons of speed and
slowness between unormed elements, and in compositons of
corresponding intensive affects [that te} together heterogeneous
multiplicities of the rhizome type. (507
Substance and form are useful, but they become obstructive to te
process of tansformaton and becoming when overemphasized, as in
the modernist curriculum. We are always in te middle, Deleuze
would remind us-the teacher is a much in a larval state as the
student, and so is the curriculum. One errs in thinking that any of
these are finished products. The plane of composition is rather like a
topological space on which one can distort a tiangle to produce a
square, an octagon, or even a circle. Deleuze offers conceptions of
speed and slowness, flows, densities, and transformatons that help
us to change the image of ourselves in thought, and consequetly,
open ourselves to the transhuman, unraveling the body's molar
organization, exploring different zones of intensity. These variations
of "speed," or acceleraton, become evident when we contnually
push against ourselves, against our boundaries and the limits of
discourses. There is a movement of continuous tansformaton rather
than any major break. This hydraulic quality allows us to open up
boundaries long reified by linguistc habits and cultural
normalizatons. This is micro-resistance, at te minoritarian level
I the concept of multpliCities, and the plane of continuous
variation in which individuatons occur to form different plateaus of
intensites, a Deleuzian viewpoint offers a rhizomatcs of
connectvities that goes beyond the autonomous individual that is
emphasized by the moderns. The word individuation as employed
here must not be confused with the noton of individuality.
Individuaton refers to intensites, taits, or attibutes tat are pre
individual, that is, preexist the entty, and continue into other
becomings even after the entty has ceased to exist. Thus, an
individual is only a loose arrangement of individuatons that come
together and break up under different statistcal processes. The
pedagogic implication is that learg takes place in te interstces of
these individuations, in te in-between regions, and between bodies
and the curriculum, thereby permitting new arrangements. This
manner of looking reveals the radical possibilites of new kinds of
conjugatons unthought-of before that are composed of singularities
or unique moments ofthe world.
Observe below the reactons of L, who sees te lack of academic
rigor and equipment in the school as problematc and is frustated by
her construct of science a a formalistic exercise:
L.S.: Going over to te science museum, what does it achieve? I
would not give science credit for it. I'm sure of tat.
96
KR.: Does it fit in some other way with the rest of the program?
L.S.: Maybe. But it cannot compensate for competency in specific
areas such as science. I don't believe it can.
K.R.: What about making connectons in general, would you
consider that as part of science educaton?
L.S.: You have to be more specific than that. My frustation is
with t lack of specificity, for example wit the fact that I find
no science equipment. That's another source of tension for me.
Nothing here to show that the school has been up and rn g
for the last eight years. (Interview with L.S. No. 2 and follow-up
Conversaton)
While from a certain perspectve L.S. cannot be faulted for
demanding standard elements of curriculum for her students, she is
also tapped by strict category-oriented thinking; she is concered
that students are not obtaining the science lab experience at the
museum but she does not consider the possibility of investigating the
whole system of utterances and nondiscursive manipulations or
embodiments that might arise from working at the museum, as a
viable alterative mode of organizing the senses that might in
different ways l up with moments of the world. The consequence
of shuttng out the latter is a sense of lack and the persistent feeling of
not recovering adequately what is out there. But consider Varela
(1992) in this context:
Cognitve science is waking up to the full importance of the
realizaton that perception does not consist in the recovery of a
pre-given world, but rather in the perceptual guidance of acton
in a world that is inseparable from our sensorimotor capacities.
(17)
Learning, therefore, consi sts not of recovery or recogniton, but what
Varela calls "embodied action." In other words, there is an immense
field of relations waitng to be tapped into once we shed our
restrictve ways of looking. It is to the pedagogc possibilites of
embodied acton that L.S. must be invited to open her mind, instead
of being fixated solely upon the recovery of existng knowledge. I
argue that such an approach works better in the urban situation and
moves away from the notion of lack or deficiency. Deleuze points out
that our fixation on deficiency or lack is due to a general Oedipal
orientation that prevents our opening up to the forces that lie within
the immediate: "I order to harness the active forces that lie
embedded within mutant empires of reactiVity, [we] must acquire an
altered sensibility to deficiency and lack" (Conway, 1997, 82).
Therefore, although The City School, through its innovative
curriculum, has made attempts to mine the urban context for
providing learg opportunities, beg g teachers like L.S. are
conceptually underprepared for it.
Consider yet another example of how the allegiance to rigid
boundaries brings about frustation in its wake. We see A.D., a
teacher new to the innovative settng and who comes from having
previously taught in a more academically oriented school, expressing
concer for low academic standards:
I feel like I am doing nothing here. I feel like I am wasting my
time here. The standard is so low and students donot show any
interest in learg at all. I am saying to them, ask me questons,
I am here for you. There are so few students in the class, so take
advantage of t. (lnterview with A.D. No.1)
A.D. sees the "low" standard as a problem of the Outside, as an
objectve ting, and gives it a tanscendent meaning beyond the
active processes of which he is a part. But where is the "standard,"
this formal abstacton of the level of ignorance? I terms of our
analysis, the "standard" that A.D. refers to requires a supplemental
dimension for its concepton. To recall the discussion in chapter 2, this
supplemental dimension is provided by an act of "overcoding" that
codifies or stratifies the emergent into fixed categories of investment.
Otherwise, tere is only process and the movement of intensity. I
suggest that i AD. is helped to perceive himself as part of the process
he is discursively engaged in, that is to say, if he learns to let himself
into the plane of compositon as a composite being himself, te issue
of low standards evaporates. I other words, the supplemental
dimension collapses, and the teaching moments appear as the molar
categories come apart.
.
Fur
.
ther, in terms of pedagogy, AD.'s "ask me questions" approach
IS a dlsplac'lent of burden within reified categories, and a symptom
98
of the traditional role of teacher as repository of knowledge. Britzman
(1986) has observed:
The view of the teacher as expert also tends to reinforce the
image of teacher as autonomous individual As a possession,
knowledge also implies territorial rigts, which become natural
ized by the compartentalizaton of curriculum. The cultural
myth of teachers as experts, then, contibutes to the reification of
both knowledge and the knower. (450-51) (emphasis added)
Throughout our discussion, I have questioned in various ways the
notion of autonomy. I have inserted the pedagogical relation in the
plane of composition and asked that we consider the existence of the
various elements on this plane as existing only i reciprocal
presupposition. In other words, I have asked that we consider
abandoning the molar categories, and instead, treat the learng
encounter as an event that can arise only in between. The refrain "I
am the teacher, ask me" is precisely a negaton of this principle of
mutual determination that results in a boundary problem and that
needs to be deterritorialized. In my own experience in urban schools,
the "ask me" approach rarely works. For teaching and learg are
much more furtive and surrepttious acts tan is often acknowledged,
and in the representational space of te formal curriculum furtve
moves appear disingenuous and are routinely suppressed through
inticate disciplinary measures, indirect discourses, and systems of
reward and punishment.
Micropolitics of Rhizoid Space
Continuing our conversation, A.D. is also irritated by what he sees as
an unsupportive atmosphere. It is exacerbated by different
perceptons of what the role of the teacher is here:
AD.: This is the most hostile environment that I have come
across in all my years of teachig.
KR.: Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
AD.: They don' t do any orientaton here at all. And yet it is
supposed to be different. New people are left to find out things
themselves.
K.R.: Are there other reasons why you feel that this place is
hostle?
AD.: Yes, there are other reasons. It's hard to put your finger on
them. The atosphere of the place is part of it. Some people here
like to t of themselves as really big and go about shouting
"We built t school"; So what? They t tat they are te only
ones doing the work. R.S. [referring to another teacher] told some
visitors tat I watch T! Yes, I watch te news when I finish
teaching. I am not disturbing anyone and what else do I do when
I finish teaching? (Interview with AD. No.1)
99
R.S., an older teacher, responds to AD.'s comments uderlining the
tensions tat r among the staff, and the differences in perceptions
between new teachers and older members as to the extent of
responsibilites :
One day he said-"Well, it is 2:00 pm and I am going to get a
haircut" ] Sorry, if you are here and you have no teaching to do
then you should go out and start cultvatng some resources.
That is why he was hired. (Interview with R.S. No.1)
Although a different sort of problem, I deliberately include tis here
as a part of the tensions around curricular issues and terefore wort
discussing. While it is part of the district teachers' union, The Dt
School has relied more on interal negotatons t determine how te
unconventonal nature of its curricular demands could be met by te
group. The older staff insist that they do not wish to impose their
vision on newcomers, b t as Cherryholmes (1988) has observed, the
search for a negotiated settlement "cannot proceed witout normatve
COmmitents and power arrangements" (91). Here we have a double
bind: the senior staff not wanting to exercise authority but wanting
newcomers to "VOluntarily" see the needs of the place. I suggest that a
way out of tis double bind can be found in Deleuzian pragmatics,
and for tat it will be necessary for us to understand the important
Deleuzian (1990) notion of disjunctve syntheSiS.
For Deleuze, divergence is not a principle of exclusion, nor is
diSjunction a means of separation. Rather, disjunction and divergence
are a means of communicaton. [ order to explain t, let us
consider the two opposing series-the older teachers' views versus the
new staff's atttudes. Seen in a Deleuzian light, we wlfind thafthe
100
successive terms of te opposition do not coincide. That is to say,
although there is a disjuncton above, each series is necessarily
heterogeneous and presents elements that are full of "holes," Each
successive term in any series opens itself up to "the infinity of
predicates through which it passes," and "the communicaton of
events replaces te exclusion of predicates." This infinitely holed
surface tat is like a sieve cannot provide absolute opposition, which
requires identity, and hence, what appeared as hard-edged predicates
tum out to be events or processes or becomings. This is what makes it
possible to bring about communicaton between the two series since
they now exist in reciprocal presuppositon, and not as self-endosed
element of oppositon:
The synthetic disjuncton consists of the erection of a paradoxical
instance, an aleatory point with two uneven faces, which traverses
the divergent series as divergent and causes them to resonate
through their distance and in their distance. (Deleuze, 1990b, 174)
Communication happens through a "resonance of disparates"; that is,
by giving up the illusion that the two series are made up of "solid"
and independent contaries, we become aware not of the identity of
contaries but of resonances. What this implies is tat oppositional
terms in both series when investgated tur out to be heterogeneous,
and as events that depend upon context rather than preexist as fixed
predicates. This takes us into a zone of the "impersonal and pre
individual singularities" (175). To put i differently, it is a withdrawal
from reified stuctures of thought-affect to more fluid states. Deleuze
(1995) writes,
There's nothing transcendent, no Unity, Subject, Reason; there
are only processes. These processes are at work in concrete
multiplicities. It's multiplicities that fill the field of immanence.
[It] has to be constucted . . . any given multiplicity is like one
area of the plane . . . . [U]niicatons often amoWlt t an impasse or
closing off that prevents the multplicity's growth. (145-46)
Processes have no subject; for example, "it's raining"; this has been
known since the days of Heraclitus. Similarly, pleasure and pain do
not happen to subjects, rather, their molecular oscillatons give rise to
the idea of the subject or a center of perception. Further, for Deleuze,
these processes are becomings or "nonsubjective individuatons" that
arise out of a million micro-contractions or percepts, and can enter
into other becomings to form a plane of immanence, or patchwork
productions. In this new image of ourselves as process or patchwork,
we can break out of te double bind by entering a different level of
descripton than te one we are familiar with.
Curriculum, Lack and Resistance
Immanence affirms life, eschewing the notion of lack. Deleuze helps
us to change the image of ourselves, moving from enttes that lack
something or other when measured against preexisting models, to
processes and composites, currents and intensities that are Wlder
producton. But modernist educaton has increasingly brought a
culture of deficiency, and along with that a sense of alienation among
youth. Concered about the despair and dislocation in contemporary
youth, and the consequent ebbing away of "ethical disaton,"
Giroux (2000) has contended that, "The challenge for critcal
educators is to question how a transformative pedagogy might be
employed [for] appropriating some of [postmodersm's] more
radical aspects" (181). One of these radical aspect is the rethinking of
lack, which is a vestigial Odipal reaction recuperated within
Capitalism that serves to control and subugate.
Reading Giroux along with Massumi's (1992) commentary on
Deleuze, one major concern that needs careful attention is the
"consumer/commodity axis of the capitalist relation" that
increasingly allows participaton in the life of the world only as
consumers, and the mn er in which t positions youth (13). This
is certainly an example of control through lack. Massumi contends
that although the body's realm of possibility has expanded infinitely,
the transformational potential is still, for the most part, subordinated
to the axiomatics of capitalist relations. In order to release
transformative potentalities from the grip of existng power relations,
we have to realize and embrace our collectivites that present an
avenue for escaping the consumer/commodity relaton.
And this becomes possible when we begin to think in terms of
production, specifically the producton of act: "For affect is not a
personal feeling, nor is it a characteristic; it is the effectation of a
power of the pack that trows the [consttuted] self into upheaval and
makes it ree!," and when we cross over into our multiplicities, into
becomings that release actve passions, we become "sorcerers"
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 240-41). The sorcerer goes to the a
signifying semiotic and extracts therefrom the world of affect and
singularities.3 Sorcery is simply anoter name for a becoming otler by
connecting up to new affects. Thus initiated, we turn the tables on
lack, and move from passive consumerism to active producton.
Desire, or active passion, is the matrix of production, and contains the
possibility of taking us beyond our molar subjectivities that are
tapped within te axiomatics of Capital. Also, unlike psychoanalytic
space where desire is a lack, here it becomes the very field of
producton; t redescription is powerful and affirming, and is able
to replace lack by a proliferation of possibilities, especially in te
pedagogic encounter.
But what does this mean in concrete terms for teachers? It means
that as we destratify through the internalization of a different
cartography tat is being presented here, minuscule cracks appear in
the facade of reality that is of pure breach. This allows the entty
series to move beyond itself. It takes us momentarily beyond
crystallizations, and there are new individuations within curriculum
as a result, new arrangements that are more open, more generatve
and affirmative. For instance, it can open us toward affirming the
unknown which, in a sense, is pure difference:
[The} group of an equaton does not characterize at a give
moment what we know about its roots, but the objectivity of
what we do not know about them. Conversely, this non-knowl
edge is no longer a negative or an insufficiency but. . . something
to be learnt which corresponds to a fundamental dimension of the
object. The whole pedagogical relaton is transformed . . . [and]
many other things along with it, including knowledge and
sufficient reason. (Deleuze, 1994, 180)
Although Deleuze writes this using the context of the theory of
groups tat revolutionized mathematcs, and it is characteristc of h
work to rely on mathematics to clarif his ontology, the argument
easily lends itseU to our discussion here. The non-knowledge
transforms the "whole pedagogical relation." In other words, we see
the affirmatve character of that which is beyond conscious
103
knowledge that can change our understanding of knowledge and the
nature of reason. This does not refer to a sea of suppressed
unconscious actvity, but rather to a becoming or an emergence, a
virtual dimension beyond the actual. With this displacement or
decentering comes a wholly new way of relatng to knowledge and
reason. Although we have come a little way in opening a discussion
about the praxeological implicatons, we have some more work to do
before we can constuct more of this partcular map.
Thus far, we have seen how The City School offers new challenges
and reveals irregular learg spaces tat often result in d ultes
for new teachers when they are unable to appeal to the authority of
conventional assumptions about teaching and leag. I have
suggested that a Deleuzian lens is useful for teachers not only to
consider what is going on in those fissures but that such a perspective
helps us to loosen the boundaries and assumptons about the
identties or stata in which we are often "locked." T is important,
for how we think is closely tied to Our notion of who we are. Such a
praxis of "destatcaton" in the way of an apprentceship of the sign
is offered in the following chapter. In the rest of this chapter I will
explore the differental spaces that arise in the school that further
shed light onhow a Deleuzian pragmatcs might contribute to teacher
becoming. Our attempt will be to find ways to make the two
series-teacher and school-resonate in positive ways.
Difference ad Repetition
The present is always problematic and multiple, not only because it is
the ground for a colossal struggle between different pasts and
different lenses, but also because it is a contest between different
futures and different desires. It is this present as a passage I have to
contend with in my relatonship to the school, for as a researcher I a
i that eteral present. Every time I walk into The City School, the
first thing I notce about the atosphere is a certain gruff security.
Students look me in the eye, and some nod or smile, but there is also
a
biguity that is also a disjunctive synthesis of the qualitative

d
fferences that produce those responses. What is this present if not a

difference, a distnction that cannot be put into a preexisting mold in
order to make sense? What the school has not elated is a certain
productve sense of indeterminacy that comes partly out of the fact
that these students have not been made faceless, and partly because
104
they spend a lot of their tme in placements, and bring tose
qualitatvely different experiences with them into te school
everyday, through the day.
. .
Consequenty, there seems to be a clearing here, a differenhal space
in which, besides the repetitious formal curriculum, "issues of
allegiance, commitment, destruction, trauma, and community can be
taken seriously" (Britzman and Dippo, 2000, 36). I other words,
there is space to consider issues that often tend to get censored or
elided or reduced by repetton into facle vocabulary and
unproblematized assumptions. One teacher, CM., tells me tat she
has been helping some of the teenage single mothers with day care
issues and other kinds of support that are key t their remaining in
school. CM. denies that this is out of a sense of charity, but instead
says "it is a building of something in myseU" (Field Notes 04/12/02).
In Deleuzian terms, it is a becoming-other she experiences, that is, a
differental relaton, too easily passed over as a subjective feeling.
It will be useful to pause here and delve briefly into Deleuzian
ontology, especially his differental theory of producton:
A partcular obect is the result of the particular rule of its
production or the mode of its differential, and the relatons
between different objects result from the relations between their
differentals. (Salomon Malmon cited in Deleuze, 1994, 174)
In other words, objects are in reciprocal determinaton through the
relations between their differentls. I know red from green not
because of any intinsic qualitatve property that distnguishes them,
but because te two sets of vibratonne made up of the rods and
cones of my eye and the other of the surface interactions of te
object-resonate on certain frequencies. There is a synthes of
differences or a disjunctive synthesis. Now, what consequences oght
this have for us, or how does it help us to know about reciprocal
determination at that level? I suggest that systematically employed,
these concepts might unleash in us fresh oscillations by making
apparent the groundlessness that surrounds us, making us l

oriented toward the sttc and more interested in the dynanu
c
relationalites of formatons. Such conceptual awareness alters our
predispositions. Pedagogically this is powerful, since it opens a door
onto a more open plane or what I have referred t as the "nomadic."
Moreover, Deleuze contnues, "the differental is indeed pure
power, just as the differental relaton is a pure element of
potentiality" (175). The differential or pure difference is an
undetermined quantity: The biologist and anthropologist Gregory
Bateson (1991) pointed out that the difference between the chalk and
the board is neither in the chalk, nor in the board, nor i the space
between the two, and therefore it escapes determinaton. This is
precisely why the differental is able t carry out the determinatons
that we ask of it such as the producton of object of perception. This
is also why it is "pure power," carrying the power of determination.
O the other hand, the differental relaton is a potental since it is the
possibility of any two series resonatng with each other. The sum of
all these potentialities is what Deleuze refers t as the virtual. All
production is thus the actualization of the virtual. Before continuing, r
must make it clear that the virtual must not be confused with popular
terms like "virtual reality" that are associated with simulatons
produced by means of computer technology and so-called
cyberspace. The latter is no more virtual than the hardware itseU is.
The pedagogical consequence of this is Signifcant as is its import
for school relations. For this means that all learg is in an immanent
mode, or the actualizatons of so many possible resonances between
teacher and taught. In other words, curriculum is not a given, nor
even an interpretation or co-construction, as some moder theories
would have it. Instead, what we have in this framework is a becoming
curriculum, like becomingsorcerer that we saw earlier, that is an effort
to release the intensities tapped in the signifiers. On t plane there
is little distncton between teacher and learer. The student's
becoming is in reciprocal presupposition with the teacher's becoming.
The settng of the school, its begg, and its continued struggle
to remain different within a bureaucratic space that attempts to
reduce everything to identity bestows on it a certain sense of passion
that s not simply the tension bor of daily business. At weekly staff
m
egs, there are always questons, reservations, and contrary

OpmlOns about the directions te school is taking. More important,
student views are actively sought, discussed, and tken into
Consideraton in determining curricular directions. I a recent vote on
a
vacant slot for a course, seniors voted to learn Latin. Some of them
thought learg Latn was "cool." Urban kids voting to learn Latin
took even staff at the school, used to unpredictability, by surprise. As
106
a result, there is a distinctly nebulous quality, a becoming that is
uncertain and has a mitigating effect on the strict boundaries that
define teacher and student roles in larger, more impersonal settings
where difference gets reduced or forced into the violence of identity.
Deleuze claims tat dogged identtes are the product of an
"arborescent model" of thought, a proud tree model of hierarchic
representation that replicates the established order. I am a teacher
because the statute book has laid down the model of a teacher and I
a a replica of that model. In repetiton there is certainty. The
"arborescent" order functons on the basis of resemblance-on
likeness to the model of te good student, or the model of the good
teacher, a derivation of the Platonic "image-copy" or repettion. It
modus operandi is negaton: I you are not a good student, then you
are a poor student (X = X = not Y). There are clear outlines and
categories that one must fit, or fall into an alternative category. Such
spaces tickened into strata by repetton demand clear and constant
reinforcement of boundaries for the purpose of not losing control, for
lines of delineaton are also borders that control possibilites of
movement.
The relatively fluid space at the school, however, does not mean
that teachers here give up their adult roles and become
indistnguishable from adolescents. As M.s., a senior teacher,
observes: "Some people come in tg, 'I want to be teir friend'; [
have been through tat phase myself. But [students] don't want that,
they want you to be the aduIL.the caring but firm grown-up. e
.
y
want to feel the boundaries." (Interview with M.S. No.1) Thus, it 15
much more complex than simply a queston of dissolving all
boundaries. The boundaries are a becoming, that is, transforming
in response to ongoing processes. It is not difference or repetiton, but
difference and repettion. It is what Deleuze calls the "molar" within
the "molecular" or "striated" spaces within "nomad" territory,
implying that there are and must be regulated spaces within more
open territory and that one has to pay attention to bot because e
binary is always breaking down-controlled spaces lose therr
boundaries at critical moment and open territories become bounded
and reified over tme.
As I look and listen, it appears that the school is groping toward a
different order for which it does not yet have a language. It has a
certain appreciation of difference and leaky spaces i te context of
which I feel teachers might profitably embrace a Deleuzian
perspective that yields theoretical power and praxeological
alternatves. Specifically, theorizing these openings or introducing the
concepts we have been discussing might improve the quality of
correspondence betwee the existing faculty and new teachers. How
so? Because we meet in open territory or smooth space where
multplicities interact rather than strata attempting to dominate other
strata. But I must be cautious here. I do not mean to suggest a divide
between theory and practice; not only is that contary to the noton of
praxis, but Deleuze (1977) argues against any such distncton:
Practce is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another,
and teory is a relay from one practce to another . . . . No theory
can develop without eventually encountering a wall, and practice
is necessary for piercing this wall. (206)
Therefore, when I talk about injectng Deleuzian concepts, I mean
insertg into the pressures and flows of te school a fresh set of tools
that are themselves nothing but intensities, and not the implemen
tation of any theory.
To contnue the discussion on boundaries, the sense of fluidity, or
rather the partial loss of hard boundaries, at the school is also perhaps
due to the fact that identty here is based more on difrence than on
repetition. By that I mean to say, students are not treated, eiter in the
corridor or in the classroom, as a faceless mass, or a youthful gang
that has to be contended with and made pliant, like in larger schools.
Within the multplicites, the pedagogy works to afdifference:
Mark, responsible for computer literacy at an adult literacy center, or
Casey, working at the law office. These differences contribute to the
reduced reliance on resemblance or representation as a guide to
action.
In some cases I see the inchoate stirrings of the "nomadic."
Systematc challenge to identitarian drives can generate what Deleuze
calls nomadic space. Some of the staff go way beyond the call of duty
to
accommodate students' needs. [n Massumi's words, "Nomad
thought replaces te closed equaton of representation (I I = not
you) with an open" expression that might look like: I + you + her
+ . . . (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, xiii); that is to say, it creates open
patchworks rather than closed boundaries. Recent staff meetings have
brought up the whole question of leadership and whether the school
was lapsig into the usual pattern of increasing reliance on one
person to carry out leadership duties: "I am prepared to do full-time
teaching, let someone else do this [administraton]" said M.S.; who
has been handling most of the adminisrrative tasks in the lead
teacher's role. (Field Notes 04/19/02). Here we see brief evidence of
a different kind of rhizomatic sensibility emerging, a tense but
dynamiC interplay of power relatonships that are not solely linear. It
is a somewhat open patchwork that we see here, on which a
Deleuzian lens can operate to generate new possibilities. The
immediate response to the situaton is a stepping back by M.s. that
creates room for new affiliations. It can also be seen as a challenge to
the liberaltechnocratc vision that rests on the ideology of possessive
individualism. The ability to step back from ownership has its echoes
elsewhere too. A minor deterritorializing movement in tis direction
is evidenced in the way in which teachers are sometmes willing to
give up some of teir personal tme in te interests of te students. A
rhizome cannot be confined within linear coordinates; it tends to
produce its own temporal expansions and contactions within
relatons. MS. observes:
Sometmes I have to work during weekends and the evenings
because the students are in all kinds of placements. We are not in
a position to make tose clear distnctons here between personal
tme and school tme, but we try to be fair in load distribution.
(Interview with MS. No.2)
Tis atttde makes a minor dent in the ideal of possession, the clear
boundaries of the mine and the yours. Popkewitz (1988) has
remarked:
The view of society as composed by "possessive" individuals
provides a basis for organizing schooling. Atttudes, knowledge,
and skills were conceived of as personal property of the individ
ual. The psychology of a possessive individual is incorporated
into contemporary curriculum through the use of behavioral
objectives and psychological testing and measurement. Methods
of teaching are to enable individuals to develop particular attri
butes and abilites and to intere some logical state which
they " own" as one would objects or conunodities. (86)
The conventional organizaton of schooling is predicated on the idea
of the possessive individual that includes the dominaton of space
and of specific roles within it. But the stegth of the rhizome is that it
has no center. The resultant patchwork is a quickening of intensities
in an inunanent field, and a new micropolitics emerges: a politics of
becoming that invents a new plane. While not everyone, especially
novice teachers, feels positive about the loss of boundaries, and some
feel oppressed by t disappearing line, it is certainly a chaUenge to
established ways of doing tngs. Besides, it is a step toward a
qualitatve multplicity as a driving force of organizaton.
But cormectedness to the multiplicities does not mean the actors
become amorphous or lose any of their sense of personal identty. A
useful metaphor for thinking about t kind of multiplicity is the
"pack." Elias Canett has written that in a pack each member is alone
even a they partcipate closely in te actvites of the group: "I the
changing constellation of the pack, in its dances and expeditons, he
will again and again find himself at its edge. He may be in the center
and then, inunediately afterwards at the edge again. As the pack
forms a ring around the fire . . . each man's back is naked and exposed
to the wilderess" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 33-34). This sense of
being in the group and yet having one's back exposed is pecuLiarly
present here. Deborah Meier (1995) has observed that it comes partly
from the dangers and the lived uncertainties of urban conditions. It is
important for new teachers to appreciate this dual movement and not
see them as opposed. Pedagogy is apt to undergo change when a
teacher actuaUy comes into contact with the arising of identty within
multplicites.
MS says, "Every little thing affects te whole school" (Interview
with M.5. No.2). In oter words, there are no isolated occurrences.
This recognition that each encounter has consequences for the entire
school shows how discrete categories break down replaced by a web
of cormectedness. I stiated space or on a State grid, encounters are
assumed to take place in isolation wit local effects only. But in
smooth space there are no isolated points, only neighborhoods that
a
e in proximal relationships. Such an approach leads to a very

different response to, say. the manner in which disciplinary issues are
handled, among other tings. There are no detentons or suspensions
110
here, a fact that novice teachers often find problematic, nor is there an
administative hierarchy that takes care of disciplinary issues. The
thing must be handled on the pedagogical plane within less rigid
statifications or hierarches.
Grassroots Organization
The City School teachers believe that what young people need most,
in the kind of school they have created, are "sane adults" in whose
presence "students feet safe," who are "willing to listen to them/' and
with whom they can hold conversations without the feeling of "being
judged a the tme," I asked D.N., one of the teachers, what the term
"sane" meant to h in this context. He said, for him it was "people
who were willing to move away from fixed positions" while dealing
with issues (Interview with D.N. No.1). Phil, a fifteen-year-old, was
expelled from h previous school. His story of the events that led to
his expulsion is as follows:
Phil lives with h grandmother and earns for the two of them
. working evenings after school. Being ill last winter he was absent
from school for a week; and then his grandmother fell ill. Being
unwell hl, Phil had to take h grandmother down to Texas
t some relatves. O return, he found that they had struck h
name off most of the classes that were important to h, and
wouldn't let him back in. When he protested, one teacher dis
missed him saying he was "totally irresponsible." Enraged, he
yelled back and was promptly thrown out. No one, Phil claims,
was willing to hear h side of the story Ooura! Entry No.14).
State space is also mutlated silence. Deleuze (1977) remarks, "If the
protests of children were heard in kindergarten, i their questons
were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire
educational system" (209). Deleuze is suggesting that so-called
reforms attend to false problems, never paying attenton to those who
are actually affected by the school system. I State space one can
move only along approved gridded points that rarely allow student
the voice with which to speak. This could not have happened to h
at his present school, Phil asserts: "Here, they listen to you . . . most of
the time" (Field Notes 04/17/02). In this context, recall the debate
Changng the Image of Thought 111
about changing the name of the school. It seems to lend credence to
Phil's asserton that students here have a chance to be heard.
The right to speak for oneself is not a move toward identity but
always already a multplicity. It is the "indignity of speaking for
others" tha
.
t affirms representationalism (Deleuze, 1977, 209). Deny
representaton, and add it to multple voices, and you have the
rhizome. The rhizome is contrasted with arborescent systems, that is,
with roots and trees, that, according to Deleuze, "fix an order" and
are tereby restrictve and authoritarian. The image of te tree with
its linear hierarchy is present everywhere in Wester thought (the tree
of knowledge, the tee of lineage, etc.), which denies multplicity;
there is very little lateral movement. Rhizomes, instead, slide
laterally; :bers or mosses spread sideways and grow from the edges
at any pomt.
Selena and Jennifer, two seniors, are offering a semester-long
course on Greek mythology. The class is full. They demonstate a
surprising depth of knowledge on the subect. Observing these two
students take on the role of the teacher and co-teach is an obect
lesson. J.c., a teacher, says, "This is a grassroots organization. Ou
students are often prepared to take on these things" (Field Notes
05/06/02). For Deleuze, grass is rhizome, grows through the cracks,
and "in between" the cracks. The grassroots metaphor is therefore
strikingly apt. Here one identifies te possibility of a deeper
deterritorialization that would provide more cracks of the sort
through which Selena and Jennifer are operating.
Developing the metaphor of the rhizome further, in Deleuze these
are collective assemblages of enunciaton, heteroglossic chains of
every kind that bring into play not only different regimes of signs but
also sttes of things of different status. A rhizome "ceaselessly
establishes connectons between semiotc chains, organizations of
power, and circumstances relative to [knowledges] and social
StTuggl:s." Deleuze explains semiotic chains as tubers "agglomerating
very dIverse acts, not only linguistic, but also perceptive, mimetic,
gestural, and cognitive" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 7. I other
words, a rhizome cuts across boundaries between the discursive and
the nondiscursive and directly acts upon the micropolitcs of the
social field. It is a Virtuality that actualizes in concrete situations.
Also,
.
it is the concept of the rhizome to which one can profitably
appeal m order to understand a system that tries to functon witout
112
a center or a clearly identifiable cental authority. The school has no
central arboreal structure, and can be held together only by making
"ceaseless connectons" between people, ideas, and materials, and
through entanglements of concept, percept, a
,
nc affect. This means
pedagogy must invariably take into ac
.
cot vOl
e.
.
Mentoring is part of this rruzomatc dispersIOn and links back to
multiple connectons. Asked to identfy one key factor tha played a
role in his renewed interest in academics, Jardine, a seror at the
school who had once dropped out, said it was the way teachers here
mentored him and "were interested in his life," It had little to do wit
academics directly. It was as if he had suddenly "regained
something," a side of h that was missing had rejoined him. M.S.
observes that "in large urban schools students survive and sometimes
even do well, but they do it by shuttng out a part of the
elve"
(Interview with M.S. No.2). I Deleuzian te
.
rms,
.
the rhlzomatic
multiplicity of ourselves is forced into arboreahty With th
.
e resulta
t
loss of intensity. M.s. suggests that it is only by severmg certain
pathways and ways of connecting to te
:
V0rld aro
d them that
students are able to remain within the restrIcted domam where State
space puts them. I a conversaton with Foucault, Deleuze (19?'
writes that in State space, "Not only are prisoners treated like
children, but children are teated like prisoners. [They] are subtted
to an infantilizaton which is alien to them" (210). There 1 less
evidence at this school of this infantilization or humiliating treatment
that Deleuze speaks of.
Engaging Signs
.
"I am always having to read students' auras," laughs M.S. (lnterv
ew
with M.S. No.2). Several things in this utterance are remark
.
able. Fust,
it is unusual to hear a reference to "auras" in mainstream discourse
f
schools. Auras are not objectvely observable; they are esoteriC,
uncertain, and according to the literature, have fuzzy boundaries.
Metaphorically, the "aura" that M.s. attempts to "read" is n
.
ot only a
reference to the occult personality that hides behind the visage but
also an acknowledgment of the uncertainty of it boundaries, and a
degree of mutability that is inherent in the educat
nal encounter. For

the aura has to be "read," according to M.S., whlch I take to mean
"interpreted," and does not disclose itelf as tanspare
elf
presence. The reference to te aura is thus also an mdll'ect
113
acknowledgment of the presence of the absent. It is an important
indication of the impossibility of reducing everything to the simplistic
grid of techno-mgerial space. The value of such a reading is that it
leaves room for the student's becoming in the encounter, of the
possibilites of realizing unsuspected relatonalites that stiated space
excludes in its reinforcing of rigid boundaries.
But "[e]very rhizome contains lines of segmentarity according to
which it is strated, territorialized, organized . . . as well as lines of
deterritorialization down which it constantly flees" (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1987, 9). Elena, who is also a teenage mother, has not fared
too well academically. Her placement is at NH Academy, a private
school. CM and I talk to her placement mentor, who is full of praise
for Elena:
She has developed a full schedule for herself here, teaching
library skills and tutoring math. But what is remarkable is that
she has this strange way of communicatng with the girls. We
have some middle-school girls who give trouble to some teachers.
Elena just pulls them aside and t to them and they listen to
her. She has become an advoate for them with their teachers as
well. (Field Notes 04/09/02)
From a critcal angle, it is unclear whether Elena's efforts at enhancng
communicaton between students and teachers by means of a certain
advocacy and informal advising is empowering for the girls or is
compliCit in further extending the teachers' authority over them. But
seen from a Deleuzian perspective, it is not necessary to "clarify" or
comprehend Elena's position as either empowering or subordinating,
but the question instead is whether the girls find new ways of
expressing and communicating, that is, new ways of becoming in
conjuncton with her efforts.
For acts of freedom and acts of capture go on side by side. There is
n
?
dichotomy, only selections, says Deleuze. That is to say, although
hidden in every rhizome is also "oedipal resurgences and fascist
concretons," that is, the possibilit of slipping into centist
r
vements, we c choose to focus on the deterritorializing aspect,

bemg aware at al tmes of the reterritorializing movement. I terms
of te above example, while Elena's acts may be liberatory and
hegemOnic at the same tme, we choose to focus on the creatve
possibilities while alertly watching for the other movement. New
boundaries come up all the tme, even as the effort goes on to hold the
existng ones open and flexible. A constructivist curriculum may
contain in its bosom modernist assumptions even while attempting to
escape from it.
Therefore, there is no question of forming a "dualist oppositon," as
Deleuze points out, between unitariness and multplicity. Trees have
rhizome lines, and rhizomes have points of arborescence. "How
could," asks Deleuze, "mad partcles be produced with anything but
a gigantc cycloton? How could lines of deterritorializaton be
assignable outside of circuits of territoriality?" (De leuze and Guattari,
1987, 3). Both State space and nomad territory need the other for
definition and for action. What state philosophy tries to do is to bring
under control te unmanageable existence, but in the process of doing
so, it reifies the reference paints, thus reducing existence to a grid.
Nomad thought, which is its Outside, must reintroduce multiplicity
to free thought from the death grip of gridded existence.
At their placements, some of the students display a singularly
different dispositon. One student, a surly youth discoMected from
academics and at tmes facing difficulties in school relatonships, is a
very different person when he enters the elementary classroom where
he is placed. The children obviously adore h and he is absorbed in
his work with tem
.
Watching him stand there loosely, talking with
staff at the placement facility, one notces the emergence of a different
person. State space denies this multplicity.
Also, what the vision of multplicity urges is a cross-fertton
between zones that needs to be explored more thoroughly by the
teachers than it is at the moment. While the languages of the
placements intermingle at a certain level with the language of the
school, a more substantial cross-use of the different sets of
enunciations is often not there. For instance, the stories of students'
experiences can enter into a "rhizome" with the rest of the
curriculum; these narratives can reach into the micropolitcs of publiC
formation at the school. We even form a rhizome with our viruses,
says Deleuze, that transport genetc material between speces, thus
making it impossible to draw definite lines between species. I t
instance, te "genetic material" would be field material available
daily once students are trained to be careful observers and
biographers, a task that invokes the emphasis on autobiography i
Canging the image of Thought
115
Pinar's (1995) and Grumefs (1988) work. Through material drawn
from the field and cOMected to the school curriculum, learg
becomes cross-fertilized, exchanging material along many lines, as
will be clear from the foHowing example.
Rhizome and Resistance
A field visit to the local newspaper office tms out to be instructve in
a surprising maMer. We sit around, and the editor holds forth on a
pecial issue he is bringing out on alterative schools: addreSSing

Issues on teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, etc. Macy whips around
angrily: "Did you hear how he said "teenage mothers"? What's he
know about teenage motherhood? I'm a teenage mom and am proud
of it. Wouldn't give it up for nothing. I Jove my baby" (Field Notes
O
/27 /02). With these words, Macy impugns the patronizing

discourse about teenage pregnancy, and a new plateau of intensity
erges SOWing the poverty of the discourse. I am witessing a

hVIng
.
cu
ncul
m. Macy spottng patriarchy, Macy grappling with

monolithic patiarchy, Macy resistng with her multplicity, with her
right to be a student + a mother + a teenager + . . . .
Observing AD., I realized that he was focused entirely on what the
editor had to say, and had not paid attention to what Macy said in
response. The editor represented for AD. the source of autentic
utterance, thus keeping the situation tied to strong categorical
relatonships. Macy's outburst could help reconvene the murmurs
and "stanunerings" that Deleuze constantly alludes to in his writings
(Deleuze and Paret, 1987), and the curricular possibilites and
connectvites that could emerge out of that experience. AD. seemed
more fo on the formal aspects of "what the students leared,"
that is, on recovering what was given in te newspaper office, rather
than actvely seeking the embodied perceptions of students. I the
pr
cess, e misses what the differental perceptions produced and the

rhlz
matc onnections that surrounded him. Part of the challenge of

an Innovatve curriculum is to continually tur situatons into
lear
g opportunites; we must produce the curriculum in
Conjuncton with becOming, or rather, there is a becoming-curriculum
as
might have occurred if AD. had aHowed himseU to be
eterritorialized by Macy's stand. This is not the same thing as what
IS
often called a "student-centered approach," and it certainly isn't a
teacher-centered one. Instead, t is an acentered, rhizoid approach.
That is to say, it has no center; it urges us to conceive of learning and
percepton in terms of constructing rhizoid spaces. Thi s partly means
we recuperate within thought, as much as possible of the intensities
and resonances that become available by going beyond the signifier.
And t, in turn, means remaining ever vigilant about the production
of signs. This vigilance is not the self-conscious awareness of any
autonomous being-for that would plunge us right back into the tap
of humaism-but a subpersonal and strategic deployment of
passion.
But this passion, from where does it come? It arises from the hand
to-hand combat with te forces of signification that I elaborate on in
the following chapter, forces that t into structures of power and
stratification once they occupy certain sign regimes. Even as tese
forces occupy te signs, they produce te "forgetting" of their
conditons of emergence and become normalized. To prevent this
normalizaton is passion. This is the battle we have to fight, of
throwing off, not accumulatng, of shedding and not acquisition. It is
through 1055, Deleuze has reminded us, rather than acquisiton that
we gater the necessary momentum for transformaton.
Conclusion
As I investigated the curricular and leag relationships in the
school, it seemed to me that the problem novice teachers faced in
finding their feet in this fluid environment could be seen as a semiotic
problem: that of gettng away from sigg regimes that project the
signs of learg as bounded, convergent, and a function of
representation, toward experimenting with differential possibilites
within repetiton, and multiple ways of making connections that
continually undergo change and reveal unexpected and irregular
learing opportunites. I have suggested troughout that a Deleuzian
praxis can help teachers constructively come to terms with their own
category constucts as well as the somewhat open and indeterminate
spaces in the school that provide new openings for the play of signs.
I the next chapter, I discuss ways of taking this deterritorializaton,
or underg te existng order, further through a semiotc exercise
of experimenting with signs in a Deleuzian manner, an exercise I call
"apprentceship of the sign." Umberto Eco (1980) remarks that signs
are all we have to orient us in this world. Signs may keep us pinned
down to existing ways and relations, or they can be engaged in a very
Changing the Image of Tought
117
different manner that displaces us from the world of representation
onto a differential plane. Therefore, a lot depends on how we engage
and eperiment with signs. r claim that investigating the sign
reconfigures some of the constricting boundaries that have become
reified and normalized in the teachers' lifeworld.
What follows are some ways in which teachers can reexamine the
signs that arise in the educatonal enCOunter and experience
themselves not as something outside the production of the Sign, that
is as someting transcendent, but as an entanglement, or as part of the
generation of the sign itelf, that is, as immanence. In this way we
move from te transcendent plane to one of inunanence in which we
are always implicated in the signs that we observe. In other words,
we realize our productive role in the generaton of the sign, which
leads to a more actve and responSible mode of being. For it is akin to
saying that we are partly responsible for te reality that we perceive.
The Deleuzian pragmatcs is thus a profoundly ethical struggle.
Notes
1. The molar and the molecular have nothing to do with size. The
atom is a molar entity, while a sand dune might be a molecular
entity-individual sand particles may be blown off and deposited
elsewhere during a sandstorm. Therefore, these are not distinctions of
scale but consist of qualitative differences in the manner in which
they are composed. Molecular compositons manifest strictly local
connectons, and thus are capable of continuous variaton, whereas
molar compositons are rather more restricted, being trapped as a
result of geologic acton or cultural images of unifcaton. But this is
not a stict dichotomy. It is possible to be poised in the threshold
between the molar and the molecular, that is, to have boundaries that
are flexible and open to change.
2. Take a phenomenon such as the birth of a planet. A cloud of dust
egins to esce in the presence of certain syntheSizing forces, or
attractors, such as, for example, the gravitatonal field of a young
118
star. By means of stochastc processes of selection, the different layers
are formed, with some of the dust included and some left out. At each
stage, different discriminatng forces capture suitable material and act
upon the different strata to form yet other strata. The result of alt
inunense activity is present in the end as an apparently unified entty.
The fluctuatng field of volatle gas and dust has solidified into a
stable unity, and the individual partcles, themselves composites, are
temporarily locked in, and can now behave only as strata.
Starting from the opposite end, consider an "event" such as the
French Revoluton. Once we get past the label that identfies "it"
historically, it becomes impossible to localize it or see it as something
unified with a clear boundary. There are too many things going on for
there to be a center that can be clearly identified. Further, Latour
(1993) notes that French historians have recently discovered that "the
actors and chroniclers of 1789 used the notion of revolution . . . to
influence their own fate" (40). I other words, the revolution was
being produced in part by the idea of revolution. It is the lack of a
unifying center that makes all phenomena multiplicities.
3. The a-signifying semiotic is a tansformaton or a particle of
intensity that has not yet been captured by any signifying regime. I
other words, it is an in-between state where meaning i fluid and has
not settled down or stratfied.
Chapter 4
Te Apprenticeship
The nomas are the ones who don't move on, they become nomads because they
refse t disappear. A. Toynbee cited i A Thousand Plateaus
I
,
th
,
e
.
previous chapter we saw the manner in which te learg
actvItes and needs of the actors in te school as well as their
identes leaked
ut of the regular and more circumscribed spaces

onto Irregular terntory, as also the difficulty novice tachers faced in
contending with complexity and difference that arose in tose spaces,
I the language of our analysis, the novice teachers contnued in the
stream of "overcoding" or assimilation that subsumes difference and
attempt to produce universals of meaning according to established
vues and modes of thinking. Observing that difference and
divergence, and not representational certainty, must be central to a
more pertnent response to what was going on at the school, I offered
the Deleuzian notion of the rhizome not only as a descriptive tool but
also a

a praxis, as a way of conceiving interactons in terms of
becommg. For as I a
:
e sai earlier, who we are, that is, the image we
ave of ourselves, IS mextrIcably linked with how we formulate our
Interactons. I argued that rhizortic tg would be able to
respond more adequately to the volatle and indefinitude of urban
edu t I
,
ca on U parbcu ar
,
But for this shift to OCcur, actual experimenta-
ton is necessary,
I t chapter, we will take the work of reconceptualizing the
P
,
edagogtcal
ncoter a step further, and investgate in general te

SIgn systms m which we are implicated. As teachers, we must do the
work of creating hollows from where we can speak without being
overcoded, that is, assimilated into existing sign regimes. I suggest
that a fundamental rethinking or reconceptualizing of the ways in
which we construct learning, and the image of ourselves that is
dispersed in it, cannot happen without a certain experimentation and
praxeological exercise tat opens up these orders. I other words, it
needs a hand-to-hand combat wit signs, for all percepts and
constructs are made up of signs tat arise between perceiver and
perceived, between observer and environment (Deleuze, 1972;
Luhmann, 1990; Bateson, 1991). Deleuze (1972) observes:
Leag is essentally concered wit signs. Signs are the object
of a temporal apprentceship, not of an abstract knowledge. To
learn is first of all to consider a substance, an object, a being as if
they emitted signs . . . . Everytrung which teaches us something
emits signs, every act of learg is an interpretaton of signs or
hieroglyphs. (4)
This seems at first to evoke a classic hermeneutic position. However,
as we shall see, Deleuze takes us in a very different directon and into
the sign itsel, to enter it, t take apart the singularities of it
composition, and along with Guattari (1984), moves into a pre
signifing field of flux.
1bis chapter, ten, sets itself the task of inquiring into the
complexity of the sign from a Deleuzian perspective, and offers a
certain semiotc experimentation which a practitoner might
undertake so as to be able to insinuate onesel into differential spaces.
I order to construct such a conceptual apparatus, I offer here a mode
of experimentaton that I call an apprenticeship ofthe sign tat allows us
to uncover the nuances of sigs. It is argued here that for teachers
entering into the profession, it is important to become apprentced to
the sign; to become what Deleuze (1972) calls "Egyptologists" of the
signs generated in encounters so as to be able to contnually escape
the modes of dominant significations that reify knowledge. Therefore,
a substantal part of the chapter is devoted to developing a
experimental framework for studying signs, an endeavor which I
have said in the introducton is a major purpose of te book; in the
latter half of the chapter I use data from the case study to throw light
on te working of the framework.
The Apprenticeship
121
The framework developed here is also directed at the work of
creatng a matrix so as to be able to raise complex issues around
teacher becoming and teacher educaton. Britzman and Dippo (1998)
have painted out, the question of teacher becoming must consider
"complex conversatons about. . . conflictve forms of knowledge,
culture, identty, community, language . . . " without which inequalities
in education will persist (15). For denial of complexity is the
counterpart of denial of heterogeneity, and results in capitulatng to
social totalities and molar stratificatons. I highly differentiated
environments such as urban schools, to deny complexity is to abet
hegemony.
But the apprentceship takes the "complex conversaton" in a
somewhat different direction; it takes it underground, so to speak, to
a subpersonal level, to the level of singularites and intensities, and to
what Guattari (1984) has called an a-Signifying semiotics:
[The} positon of the subect changes radically when a-signifying
semiotics come to the forefront. The world of mental representa
tion then no longer functions to over-encode semiotics. Signs are
involved in things prior to representation. Signs and things
engage each other independently of the subjectve contoL . . of
individual utterances. (76)
The a-signifying semiotcs takes us into a terrain beyond meaning, to
sets of relatons between force fields, to junctures where forces tum
into power, clothing themselves in specific utterances that invent an
interiority and a Signified. This is vital from the point of education if
We are to reinfuse life into curriculum. To get out from beneath
Signifer models that project a stable signified, and to get into a hand
to-hand combat withforces themselves, we have to get to
a generalized micropolitcal struggle that can undermine it from
within, in such a way as to enable all the intensive multiplicites
to escape from the tyranny of the sigifying overcoding. What
t means is unleashing a whole host of expressions and experi
mentatons that all work to penetate and eat into the semiology
of the dominant order, to feel out new escape routes and produce
new and unheard of constellations of a-Signifying particle beams.
(84) .
This means that teachers have to learn to problematize what they are
"seeing" and not fall into the trap of a naive realism;. tey
,
have. to
experience themselves as joint producers of the sign regimes 1 hlC.h
they participate. This displacement in the mode of perceptio

IS
attempted through the apprentceship. The very ontolocal
assumptions and boundaries that construct schoo and learg
undergo a fresh examination once we become apprenticed to e Sl.
A new sense of looking and listening is urged on us by the reali zaon
that we are, at all te, implicated in the signs tat we perceive. This
brings about a fresh orientation in the educatonal encounter where
the opposite end of the encounter, or the "Other" is no lone
.
r an
absolute Other but an inescapable part of the signs that are Jomtly
generated i the encounter.
Referring to Derrida's phrase "Tout Autre est Tout Autre," Doll
(1999) says: "The phrase is easily tanslatable as a truism 'every other
is every other: But it can mean
.
. . Every on is every bi othe
.
r. The
challenge then, ethically and educationally, IS to work WIth thIS new
noton of 'otheress: to realize that as humans we are all other
generally and locally" (89). That is, we are at the same t self. an
alterity--ifference and repettion
.
To put it differently, no Idennty I
self-coincident, and most important, identty is produced always and
only in an encounter. It is the clash of forces between the oberver and
the observed, each of which is implicated in te producbon of the
other, that gives rise to the sensible, te sign. And it is the sign that
we must learn to examine in this new way, that is, with the awareness
of co-production, if we are to respond to the challenge of oming
aware that we are bot self and other, difference and repention. No
longer is it possible to believe that the signs-the students that we
face, the curriculum that is handed down to us, the concepts and
language that we use-are independent of us. I t mn er we
"enter" the sign, as it were, and become implicated in it.
This complexities the way we observe and react to tings, and
brings about a moment of diffidence, of creatve hesitancy,
,
tw"en
observaton and recognition, producing a murmur or a creanve
stammering," to use a Deleuzian concept (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987,
98). For no longer is the sign entrely outside of us. To go back to
M.s:s reference to auras:
K.R.: O quite a few occasions I have heard you refer to having to
The Apprentceship
12
read students' auras. Can you clarify it a little for me what you
mean by this process?
M.s.: Well, I don' t mean anyting very esoteric. It is a sort of
intuitive grasp of symptoms they show.
KR.: Are tese symptoms entrely generated by the student or
are these subjective as well?
M.s.: I am not sure I understand. Do you mean whether I am
imagining it?
K.R.: No. I mean do you see yourself only as a passive receptor of
these symptoms?
M.s.: No, I tink a lot of me comes into play, my experience and
on, so in that sense it is subjectve. (Interview with M.S. No.2)
The grouping of symptoms or signs is a creatve act, something tat
happens between te student and the teacher. A explicit realizaton of
this creative process changes our habits of thought and the
constuction of relations, and we become even) bit Other.
The creatve moment of heSitancy or stammering brought about by
the realizaton tat we are implicated in the signs we experience is a
minor but important surge of destratification; it opens up a space for
moving away from repettion and toward a careful experimentaton
with signs. It helps us set aside our habitual, everyday mode of
apprehending reality, and we begin to read signs as if in a "foreign
language" (Deleuze, 1995, 133), which is the breaching of the old
boundaries and divisions, producing minor disorientations and
dissident flows in an otherwise repettous reality. I suggest that a
reorientation in thought's relation to signs in terms of a "foreign
language," that is, not in terms of recogniton, is facilitated by an
experiment such as the apprenticeship of the sign. In the following
pages, I aim to show what t involves and develop a framework for
such an apprentceship. Having set the context in the previous
chapters, we begin here the work of praxis in a more formal manner.
Praxis
It will be necessary, before going any further, to dwell for a moment
On what we mean by the sign. One way to talk about signs is to say
they are aggregates of differences by which a perceiving organism is
able to orient itself. Bateson (1991) observes that the key queston at
any given moment of the life of an organism is: What's happening? t
an effort to respond to this existential question, the organism makes
certain moves, and encounters differences that constitute information.
Broadly speaking, then, a sign is anything that brings about a
perception of change, difference, or information. From Bateson's
perspectve, it is a difference that makes a difference to any
perceiving system.
But in Deleuze (1983), we find a radicalization of the sign. Signs are
not merely te passive purveyors of difference, but the result of an
active clash of forces; a sign is an event in and of itself:
A phenomenon is a sign, a symptom which finds its meaning in
an existng force. The whole of philosophy is a symptomatology,
and a semiology. (3)
Further, "a sign is what flashes across the boundary of two levels,
between two communicating series" (Deleuze, 1990b, 261). The sig,
in this view, is, therefore, simply an arena for the stuggle of forces,
emerging when one set of forces overwhelms another, and it is in t
sense I will use it here. The same object, phenomenon, or sig changes
sense depending on the force which appropriates it, and terefore my
focus will be on the becoming of the sign, on the forces that
appropriate it, rater than on Signification; tat is, on emergence and
constructon rater than recogniton. To read signs is to reconvene the
unsaid, to stutter in a foreign language, to construct a language of
difference.
A we have seen, the plane of representaton cuts off the becoming
of multplicites, which is a mutant space or a plane of differece.
That is to say, it hinders our understanding of the multplicit of
forces that occupy a sign at any moment because the drive is toward
recogniton through resemblance. Our attempt is to reconstruct te
sign, to enter the sign itsel and become with the sign i an iment
fashion, situated in the plane of the sign. To recount our major
purpose, it is the formulation of certain conceptual tools for ways of
looking, tg, and experimentng tat loosens the grip of existng
boundaries and categories. Ceaseless problematizaton of sigs is one
way to prevent boundaries from closing in onus.
"Experiment," says Deleuze to the apprentce, "don't Signify and
iterpret! Find your own places, territorialities, deterritorializatons,
regime, lines of flight! Semiotze yourself instead of rooting around i
The Apprenticeship 125
your prefab childhood" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 139). To
semiotze ourselves is to ride the differental of the sign into a
conjuring space, and redistribute our intensities in conjunction with
other intensities that are in resonance, a fashioning of the sell after
Foucault (1994), a practice of feedom that alters our sensibilities. To
attempt a praxeological analysis therefore, or to serve an
"apprentceship of the sign," I will offer next a four-part analytcal
frame and illustrate its working trough examples fom the case
study. I propose t as an aid to tg and experimentng on sign
regimes that bring about a change in our relationship to signs, and
help us to be situated at the level of the signs themselves without
seeking a transcendental viewpoint. The following are the four
aspects of the praxis proposed here: 1. The Adscension; 2. The
Alloscension; 3. The Amnioscension; and 4. The Anascension. I will
explain each of these components below.
1. Adscension. Recall the Deleuzian critque of Platonism that was
discussed in chapter 2. I observed that Platonism, or the drive toward
universals and the subsumpton of difference under identtarian
schemas or assimilatonism, is an underpinning of most modernist
insttutons, and of schooling in particular. Curriculum caught in
Platonic ideals ignores or fails to notice differental experience. This
element of the praxis helps to carry forward the work of reversing
Platonism that we began earlier. It alerts us to what Deleuze calls "the
points of subectvation" (Deleuze and Pamet, 1987, 114) where signs
begin to coagulate toward specific and dominant significatons.
And here we must intoduce Plato's noton of the simulacra which
is seized by Deleuze in order to tum Platonism on its head. I the
Platonic schema of the world as icon or model, and obects a copies,
the noton of the simulacrum is evoked in order to distnguish
between good and bad copies. For Plato, simulacra are false copies or
phantasms and a threat to the purity of the genuine types. But
according to Deleuze (1990b), te simulacrum is neiter model nor
copy:
The simulacrum is not a degraded copy. It harbors a positve
power which denies the original and the copy, the modl and tie
reproduction. At least two divergent series are interalized in the
simulacrum-neither can be assigned as the original, neiter as
the copy. (262)
I other words, Deleuze denies the model-copy reading of the world,
and instead, posits the world itself as phantasm, as succession of
images based on disparity, dissymmetry, and difference. In fact one
recalls Bateson's (1991) famous asserton that it is difference that
makes a diference, affg the point that dissymmety or te
differental is the basic condition of the production of a distincton or
informaton. The subtle mechanism of t production process is as
follows. Deleuze explains tat heterogeneous or divergent series-of
unformed matter/singularities/frequencies-when juxtaposed set up
"interl resonance" which "go beyond the series themselves" (261).
This resonance generates a positve force or movement that gives rise
to the simulacrum:
This simulacrum includes the differential point of view; and te
observer becomes part of the simulacrum itself, which i trans
formed and deformed by his point of view. I short, tere i in
the simulacrum . . . a becoming uted [that i] always more or
less at once but never equal. (258) 1
So, the emergence of the simulacra or objects of the world is not from
an ideal type which hovers over the process but from the attracton
betwee myriad and multplicity of forces that act on one another in a
contingent fashion. It becomes clear now why we had to intoduce
the noton of the simulacra. The communicating series can
communicate only because of potental difference, and therefore the
observer, who i nothing but anoter series and not necessarily
human, becomes part of the production of the simulacrum, that i,
part of te simulacrum itself. It is in the becoming of the simulacra
that there i a freedom which triumphs over icons and models. It i
here that we find an affirmaton of difference.
No doubt, we still have the experience of resemblance, but "the
same and the similar no longer have an essence except as simulated"
(262). That is t say, te effect of resemblance comes not from the
interiority of model or icon but is "completely external," produced by
the mn er in which a sign flashes across the "dissymmetries" of te
two communicating series. I other words, the experience
of
sameness and resemblance is not due to any interl invariance but to
the whole patter of differences that are repeated.
Hence, to experiment with different series and interalize their
consttutive dissymmetries is a first step in our work. The next step is
to see ourselves as not identites but as generating discrepancy and
dissimilitude that resonate with other discrepant or dvergent series;
we, therefore, perceiv ourselves as simulacrua. I tracking the
movement of signs or the clash of forces in the everyday, and in
pedagogic encounters, we become aware of the indefinite nature of
the series of thought-feeling-utterance that we caU identty, and the
sea of the unformed and the unsaid from which arises a particularity
as an "evaporative surface effect" (Massumi, 1992, 46). This radically
alters our attitude toward the pedagogic encounter, and we can no
longer remain embedded in the stuggle for producing resemblance.
Instead of seeking the safe but illusory ground of identty and
similitude, we seek to produce difference.
It i important to clarif that sig regimes are not to be confsed
with language. Instead, they are "fluxes of expression and fluxes of
content" and "language is never te only fux of expression" (Deleuze
and Parnet, 1987, 117). Therefore, language is only one aspect of
asblages of enunciaton. For Deleuze, sigs have a much to do
wit the extra textual as with text. It i through careful attention to the
sign and a persistent awareness of the generatve factor that we begin
to lose the sense of realit as concrete and given, and therefore change
becomes possible.
To recap then, adscension is a praxeological move in which we
identfy the points of subjectvation of signs, tat is, step back from
dominant or ideal significatons t observe the rise of te simulacra.
In the process of observing the world as simulacra, our identties
loosen up and we become more sieve-like rater than closed enttes.
This is an important step that takes us away from molar categories.
2. Alloscension. The next element or function shows how one
regime of signs gets tanslated into another, that i, with what
"transformations, residues, variatons, and innovatons" change
COmes about. It would show "not simply how semiotcs m, but how
new semiotics are detached and produced, and how they inspire new
assemblages" and mutants (Deleuze and Parnet, 1987, 114).
Experimentation with tansformaton or mutaton shows us how
reality i produced out of mutatng sign regimes. To take an example,
We may ask when statements of the Bolshevik type first
128
appeared and how Leninism, at the time of the break with the
social democrats, effected a veritable transformation that created
an original semiotic. . . . I an exemplary study, Jean-Pierre Faye
did a detailed analysis of the tansformations tat produced
Nazism, viewed as a system of new statements in a social field.
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 139)
Taking a different example, we can find out how the dominant
discourses in te school have been produced, that is, the conditions of
their emergence. It is crucial for the apprentce to become aware of
these births and tansformations, for they constantly lead us to view
how new regimes emerge from old ones, and what residues they
leave behind. These residues, no less than the emergent regimes,
define the boundaries of what we consider as reality.
In studying alloscension or transformation of sign regimes, it is
useful to make distnctions between several kinds. Transformations
that take sign regimes into a presignifying zone, that is, where the
privileged status of language is no longer ensured, are called
"analogic" by Deleuze. An example from the case study is MS.'s
evocation and tracing of auras which have an "extratexhlal" aspect.
Following this line, we are led into a more uted zone where
things become fuzzy. Second, transformatons tat take signs into a
signifying zone, tat is, where the signifier dominates and tere is
uniformity of enunciation and expression, may be called "symbolic."
An example of this is L.S.'s insistence on te formal way of doing
science seen in the previous chapter. Here, the signs are overpowered
by dominant significations such as what is science learg. Third,
transformatons that take sign regimes into a counter-signifying zone,
that is, into an oppositonal frame, may be called "strategic." A
possible example of that zone might be Macy's rejecton of the
editor's point of view that we saw in the previous chapter. Her series
of utterances clash with te editor's views tat produce new
offshoots. Finally, there are transformations tat take semiotcs into a
postsignifying zone, that is, into mimicking consciousness itself, such
as we find in chapter 5, where a subject says she no longer knows
what her feelings are (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 135-36). I te
mimetc, we glimpse the limits of significaton, and signs begin to
mime the unformed, the "chaos" from which a statement or utterance
appears as a surface effect. Close attenton to these fou aspects -te
analogic, the symbolic, the stategic, and the mimetc-sensitize us to
the processes of world-making through signification. We reconstellate
sense data by using our bodies as the experimental ground, and thus
bring about a more generative relatonship with te "Outside."
In inserting ourselves tus into te semiotic process of alloscension,
we enter into a mode of transformaton, as the former closed regimes
of signs show themselves to be mutants of previous regimes and so
on, thus throwing us off center and onto a plane of becoming.
According to Deleuze and Guattari (1987), becomings "have neiter
culmination nor subject, but draw one anoter into zones of
proximity or undecidability; smooth spaces, composed from within
striated space" (507). From strong categories tat bind us to stata,
and restrict our freedom to think and operate, we enter into
contnuums of intensities that expand the horizon of possibilities in a
pluralistc directon.
3. Amnioscension. In the combat of forces, te arising or emergence
of te sign corresponds to a momentary cessation of becoming, a
fleeting stabilizaton of flux. I other words, te sign, in a sense, is an
arrestment of the flow of singularities. Inscribed or actualized in
bodies, these give rise to molar categories and striated or State space.
And as we have seen, escape from these limitations, which reconnects
to the fu, is te process of becoming moleculao The separaton
between perceiver and perceived or experiencer and experience
becomes fuzzy in molecularity, and the dualism between cOgito and
consciousness is eroded.
Becoming, in Massumi's (1992) words, is a "tension between modes
of desire" that outlines a new range of "potential relations" in the in
between spaces "between two molar coordinates" (94). I other
words, as desire struggles between linearity and molecularity, tere
appears for an instant the line of acceleration, a second order change,
which momentarily deterritorializes through a critical stimulus at a
sensitive moment. This happens in the smallest of intervals, in a kind
of passage to the limit. The most subversive kind of transformaton is,
therefore, contrary to popular notons, not necessarily the largest and
the most grandiose, but the almost invisible fracture, the
instantaneous that can annihilate old structures. This is why, in the
third part of the praxis, we pay attenton to te small interval:
The smallest interval is always diabolical. It is as though a
intense matter or a contnuum of variation were freed . . . The idea
of the smallest interval does not apply to figures of the same
nature; it implies at least a curve and a straight line, a circle and a
tangent. (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987. 108)
The smallest deviation is produced when the curve tums away ever
so slightly from the tangent to the curve at a point. that is, when two
dissimilar figures or planes meet. The use of mathematical metaphor
is justified here since, in te smallest interval, te distinctons between
the biological, the mathematical. and the linguistic or informational
disappear.3 What remains are intensities that occur in the smallest of
intervals. and tat find no expression in ordinary language; that is to
say, they shatter language and form, freeing pure itensites. That is
why small changes that produce secret lines ofdisorientation are highly
effectve.
In t manner, beneath the vast movements of regulated discourse
that correspond to the social attitudes and positions maintained by
the order-word, we come upon uncertain terrain, an indeterminate in
betwee-ness of sensatons, feelings, thoughts, gestures, and things
that cannot be forced into any category; we fnd excruciatngly small
gaps in which we may insert an impOSSible question, an aporia
through which to escape to new becomings. It is not a question of
evading te order-word, as Deleuze has pointed out, but to develop
its own power of escape.
The amnioscension is this meditation on te small interval tat
holds te possibility of a revolutonary release of intensites. I
requires a careful reorientaton in thought, a hanging on to minute
distnctons in space-time with one's fingerails as it were, witout
being distracted by the large categories into which societal forces
thrust experience.
4. Anascension. Last, the apprentice must also know how to
recognize what Deleuze calls the "worldly sign." The "worldly sign"
is the empty sign, stereotypical and vacuous. It is the product of
inattenton. It invents the stereotype and attempts to replace or "stand
in" for action and thought. It repeats, and "anticipates action as it
does thought, annuls thought as it does acton" (Deleuze, 1972, 7.
Although empty, these signs are everywhere, and Deleuze says tat
the apprenticeship would be incomplete if it did not pass through
them.
PedagOgically, signs that typecast the student coming from a
difficult background as incapable, that see political resistance or
dissent as intansigence, and signal differing abilities as failure,
replace thought and action wit empty vacuity. Nevertheless, to wake
up fully to the Sign, the apprentice must live through these vacant
signs as well, and be aware that she or he is capable of producing the
worldly sign which incapaCitates.
The thing to grasp though is that the worldly sign itseU is not the
stereotype; it invents the stereotype. It has other potentalites or ways
of becoming that are a pointer that any sign can begin to function like
a worldly sign. This is connected to the key insight in Difrence and
Rephhon (Deleuze, 19), that repetton is not possible without
difference. That is, what repeats is difference, and not the Same. So,
even the worldly sign has the potentality for escape, and we have to
draw it out. It is only a lack of experimentaton with the worldly sign
that makes us f into the tap of believing that it produces the same.
One must enter its plane of becoming in order to see how it acts. But
the real implication of the above is that, without constant
watcess and experimentaton, even deterritorialized signs can
quickly become reterritorialized again. I other words, freed
intensites can become locked once again into strata unless we remain
engaged in the work of praxis.
With te help of the work outlined above, there comes about an
intuiton of the nomadic topos. The nomadic topos is never outside of
us, but is part of our own sell-descripton, a dynamic conjuring of
new connectivites allowing new alignments freed from te
stratfication by order-words. The relentless examinaton of Signs and
Our relatonship to themopens up minor fissures, cracks, fault lines,
and gaps through which fresh orientatons and new imaginings
become possible. These new imaginings are not necessarily new
images but primarily a fluidation of reified images in thought. The
apprenticeship therefore leads to what Deleuze and Guattari have
called "schizoanalysis," referring to the possibility of minor schisis or
fissure in our normal flows (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 146).
"Minor" here does not mean unimportant, but rather, not readily
discernible. Small changes or dissident flows may begin as a result of
schizoanalysis, and minor flows of disorientaton have te possibility
of changing the habitus (Bourdieu, 1990), thus moving from relying
on representation and recognition to difference and experimentaton.
The four components of the praxis can generate a new image of
ourselves as assemblages or compositons that can be recomposed at
any tme.
Britzman and Dippo (1998) have observed that the conventonal
approach to curriculum is to get teachers to move toward a more
certain ground, toward more rigid planes, or in terms of our analysis,
toward rigid "stratfications," through higher requirements, testng,
certification, and so on. The teacher educaton and professionalizaton
literature and te standards movement extol this objective side of
teacher education. Being concered with regulated spaces, they
mostly do not take into account irregular hecomings, the actual starts
and stops, the faltering, the errors and accidents, desires, and other
complexities that constitute complex learning. I contast to the
denial of complex thinking in conventional teacher education and
curriculum i n general (Britzman, 1998; Pinar, 2002), a Deleuzian
analysis offers COUlectiOns to the fields of indefinitude and flux from
which events and identities appear as surface effects, mixing in new
compositions, incorporeal transformations, and new opportunites for
becoming. The igoring of becoming, ignoring of moment of
deterritorialization and flux, leads to great contradicton and to
impotence, since what i ignored is precisely what we need to get
people involved in their own becoming in education-a sense of
becoming that is not merely a Signifier on a grade sheet, but
something palpable.
Case Aaysis
Next, we win look at an example from the case study to see how the
Deleuzian analysis can help to actualize the potential relatons in the
encounter. That is, by means of the exercise in semiotzation outlined
above, our effort will be to generate in the encounter a fleetng touch
of the nomadic. The following is an excerpt from the Field Notes:
This i a Friday seminar on jouralism; the students are working
on the school paper. All around me are signs of different kinds:
linguistic, photographic, artistc, all being processed toward a
final artculaton. Some of the students are working on PCs edit
ing teir pieces. According to the teacher, Carla has been uncoop
erative for some time, and her work has suffered. She is sittng in
one comer frowning at some sketches. The top sketch shows two
apples baking in an oven talking to each other.
Teacher: Carla, these cartoons of yours, you'll have to explain to
me what they mean.
Carla: [shrugs] I don't know. Cartoons don't have to mean any
ting.
Teacher: Probably 'mean' is not the right word. What do they
indicate? What are you tying to say here?
Carla: [Pointng to a Calvin and Hobbes strip] What's this one
mean here . . . a child and a stuffed toy?
Teacher: Now just a moment. You said "a stuffed toy." Is that
just a stuffed toy to Calvin?
Carla: I don't know. Well, yes and no. I mean, He knows it's a
stuffed toy . . .
Teacher: Yes?
Carla: He's also talking to him, and pretending it is talking back
at h, so in some ways it's real to h I guess.
Teacher: So there are already two views right?
Carla: How does it make a difference? It's all in the author's head
anyway.
Teacher: But animals conununicate too. Cildren tal to animals
all the tme.
Carla: Oly children and people who are screwed up.
Teacher: But you see the possibility of at least two perspectives?
Why's that important here?
Carla: Yes . . . okay, it's like . . . there are different ways of looking at
something.
Teacher: Alright, now let's look at your pieces. What is your
perspectve here?
Carla: [silent]
The discussion contnued in an uneasy fashion with Carla partici
pating monosyllabically and becoming increasingly fidgety.
(Field Note NO.15)
There appear to be several things gomg on here-art, signs,
representation, perspectve, connunication, resistance-several
regimes of signs intercrossing, producing resonance and dissonance.
As we discussed the situaton afterwards, the teacher appeared to
identify Carla's atttude as a typical case of disengagement, as
someone going trough the motons of school reluctantly, and
indicated that there were other issues that compounded her behavior.
The student-teacher encounter in itself was not problematized;
instead, the teacher had taken a stance that corresponded to a molar
categorization.
To reiterate, our purpose is to attempt a semiotization of the
pedagogic encounter so that the heterogeneous series that emerge
from encounters, as well as the resonance between their elements that
are te result of difference and divergence could be seen as
productive. In other words, what Saussure (1959) dismissed as the
"heteroclite," or the seething elements untamed by language, are
brought into our midst, thus deterritorializing dominant
significations. Contemporary theorists such as Deborah Britzman and
Henry Giroux have, from very different theoretical positons, already
challenged the simplistic views by which the student is positoned as
disengaged or disruptive. It will be helpful, as a contrastve device, to
briefly allude to some of these positons in order to situate a
Deleuzian analysis.
I her recent work i curriculum studies, Britzman (1998) has cast
her arguments in terms of a Freudian ontology and epistemology,
and works with the psychoanalytc assumption that education is
necessarily an interference with the various unconscious desires of a
child which give rise to fundamental conflicts not only between the
learer and the teacher, but within the learer herself. Britzman
(1998) observes:
At te heart of psychoanalytic work is an etical call to consider
the complexity, conflict, and plays of psyche and history. These
are the conficts-Eros and Thanatos, love and aggression-that
education seems to place elsewhere. And these forces seem to
come back to educaton as interruptions, as unruly students, as
irrelevant questons, and as controversial knowledge in need of
containment. . . . The problem is that. . . How might educators begin
to complicate not just the difficult knowledge on the outside
but also the response to the difficult knowledge within-that
other war? (133)
That "other war" Britzman refers to is the Freudian theater of the
unconscious and its battle with the ego. The oversimplified modernist
curriculum remains i denial of tese complex dramas, and results in
The Apprenticeship
135
placing te difficult questions of life elsewhere, outside the realm of
education. But these forces, so carefully kept out, come back to haunt
the teacher in te classroom. They retur in the form of interruptons,
disengagement, and classroom battles, which give rise to feelings of
oppression and irrelevance in te student and to a sense of
hopelessness and defeat in the teacher.
Thus far, I go along with Britzman's position, but by tying her
analysis to the twin forces of Eros and Thanatos of Freudian theory,
Britzman directs attenton to the psychological aspect of te individual
rather than toward the subpersonal possibilites that arise in the in
between space of the learning encounter. Deleuze (1995) iterates his
positon with respect to Freud:
What we're saying is that Freud at once discovers desire as
libido, as productve desire, [but} is constantly forcing the libido
back into a domestic representaton witin the Oedipus complex.
(16)
The Oedipal theater rests within the individual unconscious, and
therefore Carla's "oppositionality" in this framework must be seen as
arising from the repressive mechanism of the Freudian positon. But
from a Deleuzian viewpoint, Carla's indifference or hostlity can be
seen as a problem of the in-between; it takes place in an encounter,
and it is precisely this encounter which is the teater of production
that must be theorized and not the individual unconscious. I other
words, the teacher is implicated in it as much as the student.
I would like to examine the above data from yet another
perspective before I proceed to the Deleuzian analysis with regard to
this case. This time, we will look at it from the critical perspective of
Henry Giroux, a curriculum theorist who may be seen as occupying a
sort of borderland between critical theory and "postodemism."
Giroux is a Significant commentator on contemporary urban youth,
especially those whom he refers to as "border youth," and so is most
pertnent in this case. Giroux (2000) has pointed out the "fractured
conditon" of the new generation of youth, as well as tose who
attempt to educate them, who are caught "between the borders of a
modernist world of certainty and order, and a postmoder world of
hybridized entities, electronic technolOgies, and local cultural
practices" (176). I tis shifting context, Giroux advocates a critical
136
appropriation of postmodem pedagogic practces a a str
.
atec
engagement with moderm for a transformative polincal project l
education.
Criticizing the "racially coded cultural legacy" of moderist
schooling, which valorizes the experiences of the middle class, Giroux
notes:
The moderist nature ofpublic schooling is evident in the refusal
of educators to incorporate popular culture into the curricula or
to take into account the . . . massively new socializing contexts for
contemporary youth. (178)
The fact that education has not been able to come to terms with
popular culture, and has deliberately overlooked it, is an important
point in understanding the coolness of youth toward schools, and
their view of them as hostle places.
Given the gap between the official culture of schools and that of
youth who inhabit them, it is possible to see Carla's cartoons (apples
talking to each other as they are being baked) as a sign of popular
culture and her mood as resistance. Her inability or unwillingness to
explain her work can be seen in the light of a refusal to participate in
the overt culture of the school, and an a that seems to say, "Oh!
what's the use. You wouldn't get it anyway, even i I told you."
Writng about the increasing alienaton of disloated youth, Giroux
(2000) argues passionately about the need to rethink the entire
curriculum of schools that takes into account the "cultural
tansformation" that has occurred in recent times due to "massively
new socializing contexts" that include large changes in demographics
and the impact of the information age.
But Giroux's critique, like those of some other Critical theorists,
while important and incisive, rarely gets down to the queston of
practice. In other words, while Giroux offers a powerful "language of
critique," what is often missing is a microanalysis of the "language of
possibility," to use Giroux's own terms. Hlebowitsh (2000) has
remarked that there is an explicit admission of this among some
Critical theorists themselves: "Giroux and Aronowitz have noted that
the scholarship inspired by critcal theory has a pessimistc character
that tends to default on the commitent to curricular possibilites";
further, he also cites Giroux's observation that "radicals need to
develop theories of practce rather than theories for practce" (91).
The above laca is met to a large extent by the Deleuzian
approach, a thoroughgoing pragmatc one, that is concered with
experimentaton at the level of everyday practce. To move to the
Deleuzian perspective then, the first thing for the apprentce t note is
that te pedagogic encounter itel is a theater of producton of which
the teacher-apprentce and student are co-producers. I tis specific
instance, the object of our attention, which is the production of a
cartoon, is merely one participatng series. Several regimes of signs
enter into the production: + Teacher + Carla + Cartoon + Classroom
+ + + . . The and, and, and . . . shows the vertiginously proliferatng circles
of signs or heterogeneous series in the theater of production. This
may be seen as a step in operationalizing the first component of the
praxis I developed earlier-the adscension-tat bids us to observe
multiple regimes of signs that converge in the production or
subectvizaton of the dominant signifier. This immediately calls into
queston the interpretation that led to the unilateral positoning of the
student as disengaged or recalcitant. For such a conclusion can arise
only by remaining a detached observer outside the theater of
producton. By semiotzing, we reject this hierarchical positon,
reentering the arena t release a variety of forms and substances of
content and expression, no longer prey to one-sided and easy
conclusions.
To put it differenty, sensitzed to the fact that the queston of
cartoons and the rest are themselves within the producton of signs,
and do not reflect independently existing essences, the teacher as a
participant cannot remain external to their generation. I oter words,
the teacher becomes implicated in the producton of the new series.
This inevitably brings us to the point where we must deny dominant
ignifications, and see the production as generating not faithful

Images but simulacra. That is, the cartoon is no longer a copy of the
Idea of a cartoon, nor does it suggest a specific meaning, but a
flickering matter-thought conglomerate that includes the observers.
This in no way suggests a coHapse of all genre into a primordial soup.
On the contary, it allows us to enter into a becoming together with
the observed by breaking out of categories and boudaries. T shifts
attenton from the macro-perspectve of subects and interpretatQns
to te micro-producton of signs -to te gestures, language,
138
semantics, speech acts, color, support, lines, body movemnts,
random thoughts, irritaton, irregular breathing, and to all other signs
that arise in the tripartte encounter consisting of teacher, student and
cartoon. We get away from the disease that Deleuze calls
"interpretosis," or the desire t interpret as an uncovering of interal
meaning. The original subectvizaton that is the result of dominant
signification is replaced by the producton of simulacra.
Admittedly, it takes a considerable effort of thought to get away
from the phenomenological subject, that is, to give up the
transcendental viewpoint of the teacher and enter into a destratiiied
plane wherein one has the same status as the signs themselve
.
,
But
,
it
becomes attractive once we see the pedagogical opporturuties U
doing so. The semiotization makes us lose te hard boundaries of our
identities and the image of ourselves, which makes a considerable
difference to te encounter. The entire scenario of Carla, the cartoons,
and her uncooperative mood is now no longer wholly outside or
independent of the teacher and is in a sense a production in which the
teacher, who is the other end of the encounter, is inextricably
implicated. As we semiotize ourselves, our reactons undergo a or
deterritorialization. This is the first step toward a Deleuzlan
empiricism, and the constuction of the plane of immanence. It is a
a first step toward establishing a more creatve relatonship with the
Outside, as well as a way of making fuzzy one's notion of boundaries.
The second component of te analysis is te alloscension. Looking
at the conversation, it is interestng to note that throughout the piece
neither teacher nor student menton humor, which is what cartoons
actually generate. They produce humor. They collapse different orders
of concepts, or what Bateson (1991) has called "logical types" i a
sudden precipitous move that brings about a schism. This is te
transformational aspect, when sig regimes undergo change or
mutate to produce new signs, new matter-thought conglomer
tes
.
Observation of these processes makes visible formations of JlUcrO
identities (Maturana and Varela, 1998), and makes our identities and
boundaries more open and fluid. Also, te teacher's idea that cartoon
s
must mean something undergoes a change once attenton moves from
meaning to experimentaton and production of humor.
Thus, there is transformation of sign regimes. I the play
difference and repetiton, differences repeat, but i the act
repetton become different. The tansformatonal aspect helps
The Apprentceship
139
r
alize that we are constantly being produced even as we produce

Signs ause there is no resting place; signs are constantly
undergomg tformaton, being taken over by new forces; new
cOIUlectvits lter the significance of a sig, no longer signifying
toda wht It Signaled yesterday. This is important in the pedagogic
relaonIt foreoun
.
ds the contnual minor transfonnatons going
on il our relatonship to the distnctions with which we orient
ourselves. Such reorientaton, even if they be minor, result in a
changed relatonship of ourselves to ourselves, to knowledge, and to
the student, and I. argue that a different sensibility comes ito play as
a result of beconung aware of the flux that underlies the sign. It is an
imp?rtant step in the constructon of te plane of imence, where
no fum line can be drawn between the experiencer and experience or
observer and observed.
The tird factor in the apprenticeship is the anmioscension. I the
above example, humor as a deterritorializing, carnivalesque factor
(Bakhtn, 1
:
81) brings us to the diagrarnatic or pragmatic part of
our analysIS. We have seen that signs contain singularities, or
moment of becoming that begin prior to and spill beyond enttes
and subectvites. Humor or laughter as packets of sensaton spill out
?
f the bodaries
.
of personhood and are the reason why they are
upotant m creatng free spaces that are indeterminate, unregulated,
even i momentarily, before being taken over by other forces.
These "fee spaces." by loosening older arrangement, make room
for new sensatons to arise (Rajchman, 1998). I the case of Carla's
cartoons, as a teacher one would have to refer to the producton of
humor, to
.
the ':anoganic vitality" of laughter which develops
through nunor cnses 1 the sensory system. It is at this point, when
t
ach
.
er and student discover together their respective sensations in
V1ew1Og, or otherwise reacting to a sign, that an infinitesimal moment
of det
.
I . ern ona lation occurs. For "sensations are prior to forms and
:epres
ntatios" (Rajchman, 1998, 7, and provide a space for

mbodled action or a becoming
.
Teacher and student occupy, i only
for
the briefest of intervals, an indeterminate space that is non
:epre
.
sentational, and is difractive rather than reflectve, making an
.
perung for new conversations. As we have noted earlier, the small
tnterval is rucial for Deleuzian analysis, and in this case the space of
e sensaton construct becomes the smallest interval in which
differetal movements can be discered. Varela (1992) argues that
140
the temporal hinges that articulate enaction are rooted in the
number of alterative microworlds that are activated in every
situation. These altertives are the source of both common sense
and creativity in cogniton. (17-18)
The alteratve microworlds tus generated become sources of new
curricular possibilities. To put it differently, since the seatio in the
small interval is indeterminate and emergent, other configurations are
always possible; that is, both te teacher as well as Carla's reactions
may find new architectures in which to express theelves. Thus,
affects become ways of generating new spaces that spm out of the
cracks provided by the small interval.
Finally, there is the fourth component of the analysis-what I have
called the anascension. The anascension is a meditation on the
worldly sign that territorializes, that is, reduces signs to clichs and
stereotypes. In this case, the teacher struggles with the student
er
the meaning of cartoons, that is, over significaton, and thereby reifles
it. The teacher remains with the representatonalist ideas of what
cartoons are rather than what they do, and thereby hollows out the
sign-eliminatng the possibilites of releaSing, in resonance with te
sign, the intensites tat form alternatve microworlds.
.
A similar exercise on another piece of data from the case study will
further clarify the praxis. T tme, I wl t the Deleuzian lens on a
lengthy conversaton I had with JS. whom we met earlier:
K.R.: The other day you mentoned some difficulties you were
having with one group of students. Could we discuss that a little
bit?
I.S.: Yes. I was doing some slave narratves and they seemed not
to be interested in it at all. That is kind of disappointing.
KR.: Why do you feel they should be interested?
I.S.: Well, I certainly t these pieces are relevant. They are
powerful and moving. It is also our history.
KR.: What themes were you tng of, precisely?
J.S.: Well, there are all kinds of issues of power and domination,
and dehuaton . . .
KR.: But on what plane are you castng them? I mean, there are
the students, there is yourself, and tere are these narratves. It
seems to me tat something else must happen for us to take our
place within these narratives.
J.S.: You mean, I have to connect it to te students' experiences, is
that what you are saying?
K.R.: Not exactly. But let's sei I can get this right. What is the
sensaton one might have when reading about exteme domina
ton or dehumanizaton?
J.S.: Oh! Fear, hopelessness . . . and also anger.
KR: Okay. Let's take fear for the moment. Fear has a way of
removing the barriers, don't you think? That could be emphasi
zed.
J.S.: What barriers are you talking about?
K.R.: I mean fear is just fear, your fear is the same as my fear, fear
has no label, the animal's fear is the same as my fear. The your
and the mine come later, what do you think?
J.S.: I am not sure I get what you mean, but go on.
KR.: I am basing t on my observation that fear is noting
special to me. Just like pain: neuromuscular discomfort. There
fore, it might be possible to construct the map of fear together.
That's what I meant by taking our place in it.
}.S.: You mean like separate threads but coming together. Sounds
weird. But I can see vaguely what you mean. You are talking
about. . . like frequencies . . .
KR.: Yeah, that's right, functioning togeter i n a way tat is
neiter you nor me nor anybody else, but at the same tme all of
us because we are made of these taits . . . I'm just trying to solve a
problem.
J.5.: And you t we can do this with the students? [Laughs]
KR.: I think we can, we have to be careful wit this though. But
what does this have t do with slave narratives and all tat? Do
you see any connection?
J+S.: I tink you are asking i r can use specific feelings like anger
or fear and create a certain resonance focusing on it. Involving
students' own experiences of such feelings as part of the reading
may be a good idea. (Interview with J.S. No. 2, and FolIow
up Conversation)
In the above conversaton, we are moving toward delineatng what I
am going to call a "diagram," a nonpersonal emanaton such as a
weather front that proeeds from resonatng affects. Fear a' an
abstract diagrammatic deterritorializes, releases us from sata
momentarily, forming a composite with others' fea
.
rs
.
Thre IS a
becoming in fear or in any other trait tat flees along virtual lines at
have nothing t do with historical circumstances. It has to do With
becoming. Capture it, enter into it, and we begin t de,elop a plan of
immanence that ultmately changes the nature of fear Itself, beconung
something else. The same thing happens with desire. For eleuze,
desire precedes being, and is therefore immediately pracal ad
political. It is practcal precisely because it can acvely parhClpate
the drawing of the taits before the terms and relations are set, that
,
IS,
before the boundaries of self and other are drawn. Fear and deslfe,
reward and punishment have been used in the conventional
curriculum as instuments of territorialization, that is, for
emphasizing repetiton and the thickening of stra
.
ta throuh
repettion which become authority stuctures. I a Deleuzlan analysIs,
the same are now overturned to be used as tools of
deterritorialization, as instruments of flight, of becoming.
To proceed with our analysis, let us look at the first component of
our framework, the alloscension. The sign regime of te slave
narratives in our example above was ostensibly bringing into play
another set of signs seen by the teacher as disinterest and apathy
fluxes of expression and fluxes of content
.
But the important thing is
to see the different regimes as mutually productive and playing into
one another. That is, we do not look to see how t overcome the signs
of apathy. Instead, we let the students' reactons or sign regims flow
into the theater of production. I other words, to the narratives of
enslavement the teacher can invite the students to add their own
feelings of being enslaved-to the teacher, the tpic, the cu
r
.
culum,
or any other aspect-and dramatze the situation .
.
ratzg the
situation here would mean subjectvizing the feelings m different
ways and connectng it to the topic of discussion. I t manner,
there is a cross-fertlizaton between two regimes of signs tat may
give rise to yet others. Of course, the studnts my rese to
participate. But refusal brings forth an equally mterestlng ree of
Signs, evoking a new trope of resistance which is the ansformatonal
aspect-when signs mutate or undergo tansformaton and
.
a neW
regime is born. The important thing here is to
.
look at the SIgns as
production, and keep oneseU at the level of te SIgn.
The Apprenticeship
143
Next, we must consider the amnioscension component. I the
conversation above, I discuss with IS the possibility of detaching traits
like fear or pain or helplessness and the possibility of constuctng a
map or an abstract diagram of traits or microworlds issuing from
different bodies whereby our separate boundaries might undergo a
minor destratficaton. I other words, experimentaton wit the
generatonal and transformatonal aspects of signs can bring us to a
point where we can see te possibility of traits emerging from
beneath the sigs and combining to form new multplicites. This
changes the image we have of ourselves as fixed enttes; there is the
possibility of a sudden crossing of boundaries when the taits become
deterritorialized, that is, released from the composites or aggregates.
This dissident flow or a minor current of disorientation unsettles our
subjectvities and a rhizomatc moment can emerge. The rhizoid
spaces thus generated create altertve microworlds for curricular
exploration and are an enactment of a praxis that brings about
embodied acton rather than representation, and a play of difference
rather than repettion.
In order to construct the diagramtc, we have to pay attention t
the smallest interval of interaction, in order that we may work our
way past the dominant Sigatons. We begin by paying attention
to the small differences, inconsistencies, and gaps i n our feelings,
thoughts, and attitudes
.
In other words, subversion must be carried
out at micro levels. I the small interval, eleuze remarks:
We witess a transformation of substances, a dissoluton of
forms, a passage to the limit or fligt from contours in favor
of fluid forces or flows such that a body or a word does not
end in a precise point. We witess the incorporeal power of that
intense matter, te material power of tat language. (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1987, 129)
It is the small interval where incorporeal transformatons occur,
where catastrophiC changes take place, where, according to Varela
(1992), new microidenttes emerge. A incorporeal tansformaton is
thus "a passage to the lim.it" where change occurs as at the lt in
differential calculus, where the units drop off, leaving us with the
noton of pure change. We cease to end at a point or i n the vicinity of
a pre-given representtonal outline. I terms of practce, we obsen.e
and practice small changes in daily interacton; each observaton of
flux and indeterminacy constructs new awareness of embodied action
in place of representationalist thought that leads to further changes in
the ways we tink and act. Bring about change in homeopathic doses,
says Deleuze, not in grand, sweeping reforms. It means, in order to
deterritorialize our boundaries and subjectivities, we have to observe
the smallest variations in tone, language, gesture, thought. and
movement tat we produce in encounters. The more minute the
observatons the more effective it i. It is in the small interval tat our
traits and singularities begin to detach themselves fom the
composites, and we become aware of our collectivities. In this manner
we escape identity.
Last, we have to consider the anascension component of the
apprenticeship, or the empty sign
.
The empty or worldly sign
captures intensites and domesticates them, thereby producing
homologies. The sign regime of the slave narrative that J.S. brings into
play can quickly tur into a cliche or acquire stereotypical features,
with a corresponding loss of nuance, unless an investgation into the
micropolitcs of desire, subjection, and resistance makes each sign
also into an acton, a becoming in the lives of the actors that allows it
to escape domestcation. At the same time, within ourselves, we have
to be watchful of the desire to dominate or be dominated-what
Deleuze calls "microfascisms" in our consttution-that must be part
of the forces that occupy the above signs and therefore must be kept
under close scrutiny. The purpose of the whole exercise is to establish
a different relatonship with signs that allows fresh pedagogic
possibilites, rather to enter the sign itelf, and unleash a becoming
that is a joint production in the leag encounter. I semiotcizing
ourselves thus, we become not reflectve practtioners but diffractve
ones.
This then is nomadic territory, a terrain populated by fluxes, flows,
densites, and intensities, rather than things and outlines, and where
new pedagogic possibilities arise as differentials and not as
conjunctons; that i to say, as a result of attaining the limit in the
boundary construct and the consequent collapse of dominant
Significatons, and not as representation and recogniton. But we have
to be cautous, for as Deleuze points out, stratfication and
destatficaton follow each other, and there i no such thing as being
permanently situated inthe nomadic, as we see below.
The Apprenticeship
145
Some Methodologcal Pecautions
I the
.
following section, I will explain certain methodological
precaubons that we must observe in the apprenticeship and in
creatng a logic of multplicities, that is
,
a logic of difference. It is
necessary to pay attention to these so as to be able to approach the
apprenticeship complexly, and without faUing prey to simple
dichotomies.
First, encounters contnually generate signs which coagulate or
decompose in multple ways. To make sense of tese continuous
streams of signs is to invent a language. Deleuze has observed that
there are many languages within a language. The reference here is not
to a langue/parole (SaussUIe, 1959) distinction, nor is it an allusion to
different registers or dialects within a language. Here, Deleuze is
asg us o take responsibility for creatng our own minor languages
wlthm major ones, languages of becoming without which we fall prey
o the worldly sign. This acutely brings out the ethical responsibility
ilan encounter.
The second thing one must note is that deterritorializaton and
reterritorializaton follow closely on each other's heels. To give an
example, let us look at some excerpts from Maxine Greene's (197)
well-known book Teacher as Stranger. Greene rightly states the
impossibility of establishing fixed criteria for interpreting cultural
signs, but immediately afterward declares,
Nevertheless nostaJgia remains, and it i Significant too. When a
person thinks, for example, of Te Iiad, with its heroic seekers
after excellence . . . or of Shakespeare's plays, the magitude of
these works makes them seem truer, more intrinsically artstc
than, say, Samuel Beckett's Waitingfor Godot, Berard Malamud's
T Fixer, John Barth's End ofthe Road or Sylvia Plath's Arel. (292)
After making a move away from attempts to totalize signs, Greene
ret:
,
ritOilizes
"
the roWld she had opened up by claiming nostalgia
as SIgnificant, WhIch takes us back to representatonalist ground,
an rsblishe
.
s
.
hierarchy that requires ordering of signs according
to illti C qualites or a Platonic interiority. Also, in the same essay
Greene unportantly
.
notes the necessity of setting aside "everyday
mode
.
of appreheng" in interpreting signs, but then goes on to
establish representational boundaries arOWld a sign. Corrunentng on
146
some specific pieces such as Picasso's Guernica, Greene articulates e
manner in which these cannot be encountered, reassigning to the Sign
the role of the signifier:
Encountering a work as art, the beholder is expected to set aside
his everyday mode of apprehending. Guemica ca
ot b encoWl
tered as if it were a cartoon or a distorted rendenng of an actual
bombing (293).
But in a brief essay titled "Having a Idea in Cinema/' Deleuz

(1998)
observes that art is not communicaton but purely an act of resistance.
Without nitpicking, in the producton of the sign, which is reltin
.
al,
an interdiction as above merely interferes with seeing the mulhpliClty
of forces that occupy a sign. To say Guernica cannot be encountered as
a cartoon is to reify both Guernica and the notion of te cartoon and
deny their multiple ways of becoming in relaton to te obser:er
.
For
the cartoon is often an act of politcal resistance, and an effecnve one.
I both the above examples, the apprentce must note te manner in
which deterritorialization or destatfication is quickly followed by
reterritorializaton. Dominant significatons make their appearance
after a momentary decentering.
The third thing to b aware of is tat signs or phenomena are only
partly sheathed i history, and therefore we must not make the enor
of overhistoricizaton. Chaos and complexity theory have amply
demonstrated that a system's behavior cannot be wholly predicted
from its history. Citing Nietzsche, Deleuze (1995) observes that
"nothing important is ever free from a 'nonhistorical clou: What
history grasps in an event is te way it's actualized in a partlcular set
of circumstances; [but] the event's becoming is beyond the scope of
history" (170). This can be illustrated by taking an example from
embryology as follows.
.
.
.
.
f
A organism starts With a smgle cell, With
.
a
.
certam amot
.
0
genetic information
.
Through mitosis, the cell diVIdes and
r
.nulnplies,
at all tmes the DNA is replicatng itseU. But then at one pomt groupS
of cells begin to differentiate, and one clump becomes e heart and
another the liver
.
Nothing in the chemisty of the DNA ttseU can teU
us how this happens, since all the cells had the same initial conditions.
Historical determinism fails since historically all te cells started from
the same cell. T i one of the enduring mysteries of cell biology
The Apprenticeship
147
There is no way to tell which group of cells would acquire certain
morphological characteristics. Chance and contngency cannot
explain the process of differentiation either. Something else is going
on here that i nonhistorical and that i the product of complex
interactons and emergent relatons. lhis cautons us against overly
historicizing phenomena, which can get us trapped in a particular set
of expressions.
In the view that I take here, the sign' s becoming is partly an
atemporal flux that has no directonality but which appropriates all
the tenses simultaneously. Its becoming is prior and parallel to its
unfolding i time. It has the advantage of giving the teacher the space
not only to think of her responses in learning encounters in terms of
"Chronos," which has directonality, but also in terms of "Aion,"
which i tmeless in the sense of maintaining no linear directon
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). A meditation on this can give insight
not only into the historicity of our subectivities but also into the other
dimension, that is, into the atemporal flux which is te outside of
history-the "Untmely" of Nietzsche (1983). The awareness of the
timely and the untmely together aid the apprentce of the sign to
destatfy and enter nomadic terrain.
Conclusion
There are no grand plans here, no overarching schemes for change,
only a combat with pre-signifying forces to seize contol of pathways
of becoming, an awareness of the smallest interval in which
transformaton can take place, and a constant looking out for
microfissures through which life leaks: "Imperceptble rupture, not
signifying break" opens up these possibilities as stammerings,
murmurs, decodings, and disorientations that start the movement
toward a nomadology (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 24). To tis end,
the apprentceship of the sign involves the realization of the
f
llowing: a) every encounter generates signs; b) the meaning of a

SIgn is not a given; c) signs are the result of production in which the
observer and the observed are both implicated; d) one must forsake
aU tedency toward nostalgia in reading signs and treat them as a
fresh problematc; e) signs are partly sheathed in a becoming that i
outside history, that i, they are partIy ehronos and partly Aion;
f one must hold
.
at bay habitual responses while observing signs, the
way one would U lOOking at a piece of art; g) sigs must be feec
time and again from old meanings and observed to see what they do
and to whom; and h) the apprentice must be aware of their tendency
to produce the worldly sign. A four-fold framework called the
apprenticeship of the sign has been advanced as praxis toward such a
transformaton i thought, namely the adscension, the alloscension,
the amnioscension, and te anascesion.
The work is one of constructing a nomadic topos not toward any
rosy future, but that is anterior to what is, and for which we have no
mental representation precisely because it is an immanence. It is an
agencement or deployment of intensities tat is prior to phenomena
an intersection between teacher, student, and curriculum, between
matter and thought, consisting of singularites and moments of the
world that are not bound by subectivity. For subjectvity is nothing
but an effect of the great interweaving of materials, fluxes, and
becomings. Using the notion of the a-signifying semiotic that allows
us to access the differental forces occupying the sign, we construct a
region that mainly consists of connectivities, lines, flows, and
densities that are much more useful and flexible modes of thinking
than conventional molar categories. Like a fractal entity, they
generate, even proliferate, the space of becoming, creating new ways
of relating to the world. T certainly involves a sustained movement
of experimental engagement and awareness tat facilitates tavel
beyond the habitual categories, someting tat can be accomplished
by paying dose attenton to the nature of signs.
I other words, by means of such engagement, we adscend or slip
laterally, past the signifing regimes that mold the intensities into
existng strata, into a molecular level or the plane of becoming,
shedding layers of deeply conditoned deployment of thought
energies, and suddenly, perhaps for a splt second, come free of rigid
formations, before strata close in upon us again. It is important to
note that deterritorialization is always partial and never a permanent
state of affairs. Breakthroughs must give way again to molar
formations or boundaries. That is to say, molecular states are
constantly being returned to the molar.
But if it is the case that the molecular is constantly being recodified,
then what might be te purpose of an undertaking such as the one
above? Molecularity does not allude to any mysterious, mystical, or
bizarre state of being tat is perent and irreversible. It i simply a
newly developed sense of being produced even a we produce; i other
The Apprenticeship
149
words, it gives us a sense of duration or becoming rater than the
statcity of a fixed identty. It allows us to deterritorialize, that i, t
produce te hollows from where we can speak before sign regimes
take over. I i the producton of hollows or new spaces before these
are eventually reterritorialized that is key to the praxis. Therefore, our
task i incessantly to produce these hollows where the unthought can
enter; rater, the hollow itseU t out to be the unthought of
thought.
Furter, in combatng signifiers, we get a sense of the tme
dimension and what Deleuze calls the "virtual"; that is, in getting
past the signifiers and order-words that cobble together our realities
through stuctures of complex repetiton, we come face-te-face wit
pure becoming that i nothing but an opening, an abyss. By means of
the small moves of deterritorialization, we remain i n what geologists
call the "spallaton zone," or the rim of a crater where the shock
waves do not fully deterritorialize. I other words, we inhabit a limit
where tansforms of intensities and differentals occur and each
minor move of destatfication may be reinserted into the encounters
to produce further autopoietic circles of causalty, amplifying
successive rounds. But this difficult line of work necessitates a more
rigorous exploraton of affect, since a key move in the reconstellation
of sense data into rhizoid space is to "free the tait," or to loosen the
singularites or microidenttes that are noting oter than affects
the blocks of intensites and fields of flux beneath our consttuted
selves. T i the dssion that follows in the next chapter.
But before that, let me once again clarify that a curriculum of
intensites does not mean launching into some mindless movement of
unreason. And although it bears tireless repetition from the margins
of modernist practices that "our emotons enter legitimately and
constitutively" into all formal operations including scientific activity,
a
d that we "exist" only as "bodynodes of a dynamic intercrossing of

discourses and emotons" (Maturana, 1990, 25-27), my effort here is
directed more toward a specificity. It has todo with the fact tat
It is the differentation of what exists that is contibuted by the
observer's imagination, since, with the support of the specificaton
of distnctons an irrunensely rich structure of combinations can
be obtained." (Lu, 1990, 69) (emphasis added)
In other words, the worlds that we build depend on the quality and
range of distinctions that we can produce or make available, which, in
tum, depend on the imagination.
But here again, I want to pin down imaginaton to something more
than te garden variety understanding of it as giving free reign to the
"mental" production of images and of representation. I wish to be
able to regard imagination in the present context in terms of what we
have seen in Maturana and Varela (1998) as a "readiness for action" at
the level of the microphysics of our consttution as we move between
realms and discourses. Imaginaton is tus the gap between two
concrete moments, grasping which we begin to live "according t a
production, a productivity, a potency, in terms of causes and effects"
(Deleuze, 1988a, 3). I other words, affect as imaginaton is pure
potency, appearing at the limit where the virtual becomes the actual.
It is thus that intensity and affect become a matter of life and death,
and the worlds we construct depend on the level and extent of
experientaton that we are prepared to conduct upon them. It
happens when we are able and willing to stake our entire being
behind every utterance.
Second, commentng on the Oedipal processes at work in the
formaton of molar categories, Massumi (1992) writes incisively about
the family's overcoding role within Capitalism that gives a jolt to
popular notons:
A body does not grow up sheltered from SOCiety, enclosed in the
family that feeds it. Rather, the family opens te door to society's
feeding itseU off [the body). The family is a device for the capture
of body potental by social forces of dominaton dedicated to the
vampiric extacton of surplus value. (81)
It is easy to see how the term "family" can be replaced in the above
analysis by teachers and the educaton system in general that work
within this process of "vampiric extacton of surplus value," which i
nothing other than a recuperaton of affect under heavily skewed
power relatons. For te metaphorics of vampirism is nothing if not
the illegitimate siphoning off and concentration of affect.
From this perspectve, the redistibuton of affect can only take
place if we grapple with the intensities produced in a learg
encounter prior to their being overcoded and assigned to a molar
The Apprenticeship
151
c
.
ategory or subsumed under a signifier system. Our battle has been to
fl
d w
ys of releasing preCisely these affects that are continuously

bemg SIphoned off and overcoded, that is, eclipsed from sight, and
ther
fore r
bbed of their potential for contributing to curriculum by

dorrunant Sign systms. The apprentceship is such an ant-vampiric
efort that proceeds by the awareness of codification processes that
are at work. The release of intensites from their codification under
the despot

signifiers allows for a smooth space to emerge in which
th

categones are less important than the emergence of multiplicities.
This does not mean, however, that multipliCites are not
distnguishable from one another, only
not at all in the same manner as forms and the terms in which
these
re incarated. They are objectively made and ude

accordll1g to the conditons that determine their fluent synthesis.
(Deleuze, 1994, 187)
I. other "
:
ords, multpliCites are contnually differentating but
WIthout takmg any final determinate forms. This is vitally important
fro

a pedagogic angle since it urges us to give up, for instance, the
ohon of the teacher as a determinate being. Instead, we learn to look

m terms of the fluctuating fields of habits, affects, and ideas that are
in contnual flux. The labor that rem before us i t take a closer
look at affect in order to understand this dynamiC relationship and
the formaton of the feld of compositon.
Notes
1. I the Logic ofSense, Deleuze writes that in Plato the simulacrum
implies unmanageable "dimensions, depths .. and distances that te
observer cannot master." In other words, Plato suspects the
un
:?
ntollabl rebeou
.
s
ature of the forces at play, and in order
o unpose hn o
.
n this limitless becOming, attempts "to shut it up
1 a cav
m
;,
that IS, m the dungeons of identty (258). Deleuze argues
that t unformed chaos" that Plato considers subversive
.
is
152
precisely the power of affirmaton that allows us to break the chains
of identity and representaton.
2. To b sure, as Massumi (1992) points Qut, the point of departure i
always a molarized situaton, because the choices thenseles ae
expressed i molar terms, but the process of tansformaton ItseU IS
not molar.
3. Cell differentiaton is a good case in point. Cells tarting from the
me initial conditons break symmetry at a pomt and become
ferentated into specific tissue. The symmetry breakin cannt be
explained through either biology, mathematics, informahon SCIence
or any other theory in isolaton. The process itself exeed
.
s all f these
and can be thought of as a cutting edge of complexity I which the
usual distinctions between matter and thought. or the abstract and
the concrete, vanish.
Chapter S
Becoming Nomad
Nfects aren't feelings, they are becorings thatspill over beyond whoever lives
through them. Gi e Deleuze, Negotiatiolls
A significant problem never loses its problematdty despite having
numerous solutions, since it persists in its very solutons, which it
spawned and from which it must also difer. To put it differently,
problems are not problematic because of the limitatons of te stte of
our empirical knowledge, but the "problematc" i precisely "a state
of the world" (Deleuze, 194, 280). Let us recall tat one of the
problems that I outlined in the beg g was the problem of affect
in partcuar, stess -in novice teachers. The problem of stress is not a
problem one can "solve," due to its complex multiplicity, although
one can have numerous local solutons. But it alerts us to what
Deleuze calls the "reality of the virtual" (280). That is, it signals the set
of abstract differential relations or series of contractions and
contemplations that order intensities into proximate arrangements.
Seen in this manner, stress becomes, simply, different distributons of
"mobile singularities" or blocks of intensities and their formatons
that we have discussed earlier. Such a redescription is important for
establishing the link between stress, affect, and curriculum, as also the
relevance of its discussion here. The l is in the virtual. To remind
ourselves, the virtual is not essence or any ideal state, nor is it virtual
reality. It is simply the potential for differentating such as in the case
of the differentatng egg that we saw earlier. It i also certainly not
the possible: "whereas the possible is te mode ofidentty of concepts
154
within representation, the virtual is te modality of the differetial"
(Deleuze, 1994, 279). It is, in a sense, pure becoming that escapes
determinaton and yet determines.
In the intoduction and chapter 3, I observed that a restrictive and
limiting view of curriculum and learning that came out of
representationalist conceptions created resentment and stress in
teachers who unfortunately sought resemblance and identty in the
highly differentated urban conditons of the school. In the language
of our analysis, the affective investments were tied to certain notons
of becoming, to partcular resonances. Given that our commitent i
to find ways of looking, thinking. and experimenting tat allow us to
escape the representationalist ground and enter a more nomadic
terrain that can deal with irregular and divergent spaces, we have to
find new pathways of distributing affect that lead away from stessful
configuratons. To this end, we have to continue ow work of
mapping or conceptualization, which, as Britzman and Dippo (1998)
point out, i
not just about artculating ideas but also about making sense
about the myriad feelings one has about ideas. Conceptualizaton
brings togeter affect and cogniton precisely because structures
of meaning cannot be divorced from structures of feeling, invest
ments, and desires. (22)
Thus, a concept is not just an intellectual notion, a product of
Cartesian reason; it has woven into it affective qualites at the same
tme. How we constuct something conceptually is inexticably linked
with our stuctures of investent, feelings, and desires. Conceptual
izaton i a hybrid of thought, emotion, and desire. Therefore, recon
ceptualizaton must also affect stress. I other words, I am suggesting
that a change in te conceptual stucture in which one is immured
can significantly influence affectve states and thereby positively
affect stress. But what is more important from the Deleuzian
perspective is the possibility of prducing affect, a unique contibuto
.
n
that goes beyond containment of negatve affect to the generatve. It 1
this positvity of affect that can lead us into new becomings. But
before we go into te question of stess from a Deleuzian perspectve,
let us first very briefly look at the problem of teacher stress as
Becoming Nomad 155
portrayed in mainstream educaton literature, mainly U order to
identify the major assumptons of the analyses.
Stress and Identity
Stess is an aspect in the becoming and the unbeCOming of a teacher
that is of serious concer according to all available indices (Byre
1998). Abel and Sewell (1999) observe that prolonged stess associated
with the gradual erosion of important technical, psychological, and
social resources results in burout. Maslach (1993) has suggested that
buout among individuals who do "people work" tends to be
multdimensional, composed of emotional exhaustion, depersonal
ization, and reduced personal accomplishment. Emotonal exhauston
includes increased feelings of depleted emotional resources and
feelings of not being able to provide oneself to others at a
psychological level. Depersonalization occurs when an individual
develops negatve atttudes toward students because of depleted
emotonal resources. Abel and Sewell (1999) emphaSize the need for
efectve coping strategies targetng sources of stess.
The existing literature recognizes that relatonships with pupils
have been the most important source of stress for teachers (Friedman
1995), and several studies have also indicated that poor student
attitude is consistently a predictor, i not the best predictor, of teacher
stress (Borg and Riding, 1993; Boyle et al., 1995). Other major sources
of stress identified by teachers have been administatve apathy and
work overload. A review of the literature also reveals tat the
organizatonal approaches which have been used in schools to
combat burout have been managerial in style and technique (Boice,
1993). These include te skills of managing tme, communicating,
panning leisure time, and methods of reducing psychological stress.
Fmally, the literature states that in-service programs and workshops
devoted to various forms of relaxation training, such as visualization,
quieting reflexes, autogenics, and biofeedback, often provide renewal
techniques for the burnt-out teacher.
I all t, what is important to note is the way stess i taken to be
an abute of the teacher as a sel-enclosed entty. Although it is
recogruzed tat teacher-student relatons are a major contributor to
stress, te relatonality itself is considered as something exteral to
the phenomenon. The second thing to note is that the nature of the
actons proposed in order to "combat" or eliminate stess arid
156
burout is of the order of restoraton of an original stress-free
identity. That is, they presuppose an original representational
wholeness. Each of these, ranging from positive feedback to stess
reducton training, from meditaton to managerial techniques, is
individualistc and therefore deals with one end of the problem,
ignoring the relatonality of the issue, or the encounter. Stress arises in
an encounter, although its effects may be more readily visible in the
body of the teacher. I the dialectcal mode of analyzing the problem,
the vital two-way relationality of the encounter gets eclipsed. The
mainstream literature thus leans on a one-sided analysis of te
problem, seeing stress as a problematc of a certain kind of depleton
of self.
From the above perspective, stress results in the perception that one
is no longer fully oneself, that is, in a sense of dihed powers of
being and actng. Therefore, stress may also be described as a kind of
fragmentaton of identty due to the impact of several exteral forces.
Now, identty, or being oneself, in the language of our analysis, can
only arise by being identcal. or as the occurrence of pure resemblance
without dif rence; tat is, we feel ourselves to be the same individual
over time and through myriad experiences. I other words, identty
must come out of perct repetition. Only if matter or the Cogito repeats
itself perfecty, ad infnitum, can there be the sense of the identcal, or
the Same. So also in Freudian psychoanalysis, repetition appears as
foundatonal, and occurs through a schema of oppositon and the
mechanics of repreSSion, repeating also in the model of the death
instnct.
Rethinking Repetition
We have seen earlier that the order of concept is closely linked wit
the order of affect, and consequently, if we can show that the basic
conceptual model which is subsumed by stress-related affectve
distributions are problematic, and identify the nature of the
difficultes terein, we will be in a position to reconsider stress. I this
case, the first step in our analysis wl be to show that pure repettion
or perfect resemblance is impossible. Tat is to say, pure repetton is
perfectly illusory. It means that repetton is not possible witout
difference, noting more, nothing less. The consequences of t wl
become clear as we proceed, but primarily, by breaking out of the
illusion of pure repetition or identity we can hope to lay te ground
Becoming Nomad 157
for a different order of reconsttution. In order to do t, we will first
have to delve into some relatvely dense theory tat is unavoidable
for grasping Deleuze's work.
First, repetition occurs when things are distinguished in numbers,
in space and time, while apparently their concept remains the same.
Two identical pencils are said to be repetitions of the same concept. I
other words, repettion is difference without a concept. Since the
pencils are separated in space and time, there is a difference, but this
difference is exteral to the concept since they are not seen to differ in
concept. S there is a difference witout there being a diference, and
"repetton is represented outside the concept. . . but always with the
presupposition ofan identical concept" (Deleuze, 1994, 270). This shows
the first distortion in tg about repetition as pure resemblance.
Second, the model of representaton in which repetton occurs
"suppresses the thickness in which repetition unfolds" (271). The
numerical multplicity, i the case of the above example of penCils,
does not occur in empty nothingness but within stata of space and
time and matter. To think repettion therefore presupposes a
subectve thinker. That is to say, it can only be "understood in
relaton to a thought identity . . . with the result that repettion remains
a concept of reflection . . . for a spectator who remains extinsic" (272).
Therefore, there is a hidden observer present in the notion of
repetton in whom is played out te game of repetiton. But the
subject implies all manner of mediating influences including memory
and thought that introduce difference.
Third, Deleuze writes, "The Same would never leave itseU to be
distibuted across several 'equivalent' . . . if difference were not
displacing itelf and disguising itseU in this same" (290). Tere must
necessarily be an exteral force tat would transport the sameness to
numerical multiplicities, and this force is difference. Therefore, we see
repetition as a kind of disguising and a displacement that attempts to
deny the fact that repetition is really a complex phenomenon that has
layers and layers within it separated by difference. And tis "evasive
in-betweenness of expression's emerging into and contnuing through
a cluttered world is why it is never 'autonomous' in the sense of being
a separate entity" (MaSSUmi, 202, xxix). Therefore, repetton cannot
succeed in retg the Same:
The Negatve does not return. The Identcal does not return. The'
Same and the Similar do not retur. Oly affirmation returns-in
other words, the Different, te Dissimilar. (299)
What returns is affirmaton in the form of swirling Singularites or
"crowned anarchies" that are endless variatons of variations. I other
words, what returns aTe simulacra: "Simulacra are those systems in
which different relates to different by means ofdifference itself . . . [We]
find in these systems noprior identity, no internal resemblance." (299)
Stress and the Simulacrum
I keeping with the above analysis terefore, the first step in dealing
with stress is to understand ourselves not as identites that return
every day, day after day, but as "crowned anarchies" or systems of
simulacra in which only affirmaton returns as a differential. This is
basic to a Deleuzian approach that attempts to bring about a change
in the image of thought, that aims to have thought without an image
that is prior to it, and thereby reaches what Deleuze calls the
"genitality" of thought. Reaching the genitality of thought means to
come into contact with the sea of excess contactions or expressions
that go beyond all molar identties. We ten carry with us not just a
prior identty thrust upon us by the idea of a false retur, an
obligation to be the same, but a becoming-intense by the realizing of
all the uncaptured excess tat lies beyond stata. In this way we
encounter "a world which cannot be assimilated to everyday
banalit . . . but one in which resonates the tue nature of that profound
groundlessness which surrounds representaton" (277). That is to say,
we enter every encounter not as grounded beings with fixed
identties, but with the groundlessness and affirmation of the
simulacra. It is the groundlessness that is key to the excess that is
generated around any determination:
Expression's moving-through is non-consciously inflected in the
body by a cascade of repeated determinations, no sooner follow
ed by passings into the gaps of systemic indeterminacy between
its strata. The body's layered processing injects as much chance
inflection as it does serial definition. (Massumi, 2002, xx )
This systemic indeterminacy gives rise to a creative uncertainty that
contnually results in new detertons or inflectons: It is the
Becoming Nomad
159
production of the simulacrum rather than identity. Therefore, a
necessary shift i tought, one that is required if we are to grapple
with stress and affect without falling into false negatvities, is to t
in terms of the simulacra. But one more step remains: For the purpose
of our analysis, we have to be able to formulate the noto of stess in
terms of te Deleuzian noton of affect, which is explained below.
Affect as Transition
For Deleuze (1988a), affects are movements from one state to another,
"transitons, passages that are experienced, durations trough which
we pass" to an enhanced or dshed sense of being. These
"contnual variatons" that create a movement in tme from a
"preceding state towards the next state" are called affects. That is to
say, affects are modifications that act upon previous modificatons,
leaving corporeal taces which involve both "the nature of the
affectng body and the affected body." Further, affects are "purely
transitive, and not indicative or representatve, since [they are]
experienced in a lived duration that involves the difference between
two states" (48-49).
I other words, affects are transitons or difrences between states
produced in relatonship, and i we ask about the nature of these
differences, we cannot get a representatonal interpretaton precsely
because it is experienced as a transiton between sttes. "But te idea
which consttutes theform of the affect affirms of te body something
which involves more or less of reality than before" (Spinoza cited in
Deleuze, 1988a, 49). This means that although we cannot tanslate the
differential it representational terms, its effect is felt as an
expansion or diminution of our "mode" of being, that is, our capacity
to be affected and toact.
To put it simply then, affect is something which either increases or
decreases our power to be affected, and since it is always relatonal, it
produces new modes from preceding states that affect all parts of the
relaton, that is, all bodies that enter into the relaton.' So when we say
a body is affected, we mean that a certain mode encounters another
mode and enters into a composition with it, tereby increasing or
dihing its "power of acting or force of existng" (Deleuze, 1988a,
SO). Accordingly. stress can be thought of as negatve afect, a certain
tansitonal moment in the composition of bodies.
160
Let us for a moment retur t the apprentceship and its four
components. The reader will note that the main thrust of the
experiment was to return expression to the indeterminate by closely
examining sign systems that encode te forces of expression or the
comings-te-be.2 For processes carry much greater potential than signs
could possibly reflect, and sign regimes, by giving too much
definition to te processes, negate the excess. The apprenticeship
attempts to ret the determinate endings to the indeterminate,
attemptng tereby to reinsert te determinate wholes back into the
sea of becoming. It is also by means of such an apprenticeship tat we
locate ourselves in that space of transition betvveen states, an
indeterminate region, whereby we can reconnect to the potentalites
and mobile singularites. We are now ready to look at some case data
to see how this reconceptualizaton can help in the pedagogic
encounter.
Analysis of Case Data
Let us look at the following example fom the case study. I talked t
L.S. who revealed an unusual angle to te problem of stress.
K.R.: Could you talk about some specifiC things, behaviors,
attitudes that have been stressful for you since you came here.
L.S.: Oh, where shall I start! There are several things but I have
t feeling that some of the students either want to push you up
or bring you down. And that is one. Do you know what I mean?
K.R.: I am not sure if I followed you. Could you please elaborate?
L.S.: Well, I th it is a status thing. Eiter you must have status
in their eyes or they ignore you. I have spoken to some others
and theyhave similar feelings.
K.R.: Oh I see. But how does one acquire status?
L.S.: Oh, it could be many things. You may come in with a certain
status for various reasons, or it could be the way other staff teat
you, the way they look at you. It could be the subject you teach.
K.R.: And in what ways does this affect you?
L.S.: It interferes wit the way you functon as a teacher; there is
an invisible frame around you. And te status determines
whether students pay any attenton to you or not. And a you
feel crowded, less room to maneuver.
K.R.: Is tis entrely beyond the control of te teacher?
Becoming Nomad
161
L.S.: I think a large part of it comes out of certain expecttions.
(Interview with L.S. No.2)
L.S. sees the problem of stress as vitally related to the issue of status,
to the way one is seen in the other's world, to how one is pOSitioned,
in oter words, in terms of her identity. Thus, feelings of indifference
or student apathy that cause stress are directly related to social
images of who we are.
L.S. is engaged in a mental effort of representaton, one that
attempt to create a coherent map of her relatons in advance and
thereby brings forth a compelling narrative-world that is negatve
and stessful. The conceptual shift that is to be made here is to realize
that these relations are not positivites but emergent differentials, and
the affects they trigger are fields of flux. In other words, stress is not a
state but a sensation that arises in tanSiting between states. The effort
of the apprentice is to remain in this space of tansiton. The causal
claim tat "I am stressed due to . . . " is an abstracton whose actual
embodied acton needs to b studied, for as Varela (1992) has pointed
out, "cognitive intelligence resides only in its embodiment" (59).
What all this amounts to is a shift in attention from overarching
descriptors such as stress to the planes of fracture and microintervals
produced by tectonic shifts wherein the nameless enactve moment
actually emerges, and which contains generative possibilities. Such a
praxis can be achieved by becoming aware of the tansitonal
moments of affective states. The excitement begins once one takes
hold of t theater of producton and the stuctures within it
(Massumi, 1992, 67) and through carefl observaton and
experimentaton discovers what Deleuze calls the possibilites of the
virtual. and what Varela (1992) would call "neural narratves" of the
imagination. That is to say, one becomes situated in the in-between
ness of the transitive that moves not along predetermined lines, but
along the virtual and therefore has a certain flexibility and
spontaneity.
The above points may be further clarified by looking at anoter
piece of data from the case study and the analysis that follows. In this
case, E, an older teacher, expresses her fears and her stressful
conditon:
E: I t my real stress has come about because of working with
students and getting closely connected to their problems for a
long tme. I love the students and many of the kids come in and
tell me what is going on. Sometimes listening to them can be
exhausting. I find myself jumping in wanting to act and do
something to change what is going on in their lives. I feel very
stongly about this, and this causes me a lot of stress. I go to teir
homes, I contacted T by going to her house to tell her she has to
be in school to meet the psychologist te next day if she wanted a
referral fom her. But her home conditons overwhelmed me. I
found I could not teach after that for a while. Over tme, this has
become very depressing for me. How does one listen t te
depressing stories of kids' lives and not get depressed oneself?
But maybe depression is not the word. I do not know my own
feelings anymore. That is my queston. I have been working with
these kids and their personal problems so closely and I have felt
recently tat I cannot continue here anymore because I am too
fragile now. (Interview with E No.2)
Here we see the case of a teacher who is close to what she feels as a
breakdown in her emotonal wellbeing due to stress. The pressure of
consistent close interactons has opened up lines of fracture, but it is
these lines of break or affective rupture that offer possibilities of fresh
investigaton witin pedagogy. To quote Britzman (1998):
[A] more useful way to t about feelings requires attenton to
what it is that structures the ways in which feelings are imagined.
[Therefore] pedagogy might provoke the strange study of
where feelings break down . . . pedagogy might become curious
about what conceptual orders have t do with affectvity. (84)
By bringing te conceptual structure we have developed to bear on
where feelings break down, we can move along a different pathway.
According to Varela (1992), where feelings break down is precisely
where "the concrete is born" (11). In other words, the performatve
takes place in between states; critcal tansitional moments open up
gaps in our "molar identites" or apparent continuity and inspire a
certain force, a freedom of observaton and acton due to the
indeterminacy inherent in te situation. Even more emphatcally,
Varela (1992) notes that "it is the breakdowns, the hinges that
Becoming Nomad 163
artculate microworlds, that are the source oL.the creative side of
living cogniton" (11). In Deleuzian terms, schisis leads to leakages
and the consequent regaining of a degree of "molecularity"; it acts to
remove the organism from its normal habitat of sameness and
identity to a becomingother or a continually differentiating space
where a degree of spontaneous generation can occur. In other words,
"breakdowns," or critical moments of transiton, are generative
moments when something new might happen. In such a praxis,
concept percept, and affect act togeter to produce the observation of
a microidentty or Singularity that is
a mode of individuation very different from that of a person,
subject, thing, or substance. They consist entirely of relations of
movement and rest, capacities to affect and be affected. (Deleuze
and Guattari, 1987, 261)
These becomings that spill out of determinate boundaries form modes
of enactve percepton. E's conditon inadvertently exhibit such a
becoming. The temporary absence of boundary or molecu1arity that E
experiences, rather than diminishing her capacites to be and to act,
can actually enhance it once she learns to look in terms of transitions
and the simulacra or microidentities, and fully embraces te field of
entanglement, giving up the struggle to maintain transcendent
categories. I other words, the state of vulnerability that E epitomizes
is an entry to a multiplicity. Such an operaton "opens a space in the
grid of identties those categories delineate, inventng new
tajectories, new circuits of response, unheard-of futures . . . and maps
out a whole new virtual landscape" (Massumi, 1992, 101). By
deliberately cultivating t field through the observation of
transitons, we enter praxis.
Further, E says she does not know her feelings anymore, revealing
an indeterminate state where E can only have a sense of her fragility.
It is te careful directon of such moments of "schisis," aided by a
conceptual deterritorialization, that leads to the opening of a
fractal abyss where [earlier] there was only a hyphen between
stimulus and response, and calUed reaction. The body's zone of
indeterminacy . . . widen[s] beyond measure. This increase i the
body's degrees of freedom is called "imaginaton." Imaginaton
takes the body not as an "object" but as a realm of virtuality . . . as
a site for superabstract inventon. (Massumi, 1992, 100)
Without the benefit of an experimentaton of the kind outlined in the
apprentceship to direct her deterritorializaton, E unfortunately has
moved toward a diminished state of powers of acting and being. I
suggest that, with an experimental awareness of the process of
releasing affects from signifiers and the corresponding relative
deterritorialization, teachers can turn such affective moments to
productve use and redirect them into the forming of multiplicities.
That is, they can engage in generatng new microintensities or
simulacra that can reconfigure stress into a positvity.
To recount then, in Deleuzian-Spinozian terms, stress can be
redescribed as transitonal states in the combinaton of bodies that
lead to negatve consequences. Given the concept-affect
correspondence, it leads to the position that stess or a decrease in
powers of acting and being can be a consequence of the habit of
maintaining transcendent categories. This can be reversed by affective
formatons that recombine intensites according t a different schema.
I the above example, E says that her conditon is the result of "being
too closely connected" to the kids and their problems. But these
categories are exteral to the experience of stess itself. In other
words, these categories do not preexist on the plane of affect; instead,
what is, is the experience of intensity and entanglement. A Deleuzian
praxis can help E to widen her repertory of responses.
However, no one knows at the outset the affects of which the body
is capable. Therefore, "it is a long affair of experimentation, requiring
a lastng prudence" that is necessary to enter a widening range of
responses, and invent the necessary neural narratves for those new
becomings (Deleuze, 1988a, 124). Below is a piece of case data that
exhibits possibilities of pedagogic experimentaton:
}.5. has been teaching slave narratives i his literature class. It is
something he feels passionate about but he is disturbed by his
students' lack of response to these powerful accounts. Oer the
term }.5.'s anxiety has risen over the apathy and the indifference
of the students. He admits to feeling increasingly stressed. But
something has happened that has begun to tum things around.
J.S. said, after a while he could see the student' point of view. He
Becoming Nomad 165
shared the students' sense of frustration. As soon as that hap
pened, the character of his negative emotons began to change.
(Field Note NO.16)
From tg about stess from a unilateral perspectve, }.S. seemed
t have been moved to appreciate the encounter. I follow up t
issue with J.S.:
J.S.: At this point I realized that 1 have to change my orientaton,
that I had certain fixed ideas about what they should be learning
and how.
KR.: What about the sense of frustraton you spoke about earlier?
J.5.: There's less of that now, that's one result of the change, I
began to feel less of it personally.
KR.: Why do you t that happened?
}.5.: I think it happened one day when I had hit the bottom. I
asked myself what was I opposing. I hadn't taken into account
student frustrations seriously up until that point. Since then I
have begun to change some things.
KR.: You mean there is no frustation now?
}.5.: No, but it does not have the emphasis on myself anymore. I
a doing tings differently now. (Interview with }.5. No.2)
Earlier, J.5. had not taken into account students' affects and
frustatons. In other words, their affects were not allowed to enter
into a relationship with the material. Later, that changes; proceeding
in t mn er, with careful experimentaton, J.S. can reenter the
multplcity beyond determinate formulations, that is, a degree of
molecularity that "evoke[s] an indeterminate number of pragmatc
responses" (Massumi, 1992, 100). The line of thought tat was
occupied by personal stess is taken beyond itself and remapped onto
a different set of conceptual coordinates. Taken further, by means of a
reconceptualization of the kind I have suggested here, it could help
J.S. to enter a more fertle zone of existential openings.
Conclusion
Thus, in a given encounter, careful observation and cautious
experimentaton will reveal the scope of affectvites. T has
sigificant consequences for the problem of stress. For it means tat
certain modes and images of thought-thought invested in
maintaining molar categories-are likely to induce stress in the
pedagogical situation. A change in the image of thought helps us
escape the negatvities and produce simulacra. The effort is to
somehow take charge of that production, to seize the means of
constructing the patchwork of the plane of immanence in which we
ourselves become the efficient cause, the producer. This is the central
difference between, say, a social psychology approach to stess and
the Deleuzian approach. Deleuze discusses and shows us te
possibility of te production of afct.
In our analysis, the production begis when we realize, by means
of the apprentceship, that OUf molar categories are built from "small
domains composed of microworlds and microidentities" (Varela,
1992, 18), the "unruly interactions" and not totaliZing integraton
between whom give rise to a cognitive moment. The realization of
these microidentities or multplicites that l up with other
microaffects affords a self-seeding, and with that the possibility of
moving from effect to cause, or from stress to productvityl and is
capable of dealing with the problem of stess and affect in a
singularly comprehensive way. In other words, it repotentializes te
body into becoming an event and helps to circumvent habit:
Habit is the body's defence against shocks of expression. It
'recogizes' every arriving perception as being 'like' an impulse
the body has already integrated as a functional life content. It
contains potential with resemblance . . . . The resemblance is in the
redundancy of response . . . The sameness of the response depends
precisely on disregarding the singular contours of the arriving
impulse: dismissing its potentally tortuous anomalies as func
tonally insignificant. (Massumi, 19921 xxxi)
The body being composed of multple layers of strata is not often
predisposed to t but to operate out of habit. Much of what we
have discussed is an attempt to dislodge from the old habits of
thought in which the body becomes frozen. To dislodge here means
to see thought itself as an event, and not as a representaton of an
event, tat isl not in terms of another reification. T is the
transformatve power of thought without an image.
But, how do we connect this to the affect of the everyday work i
Becoming Nomad
167
classrooms? An example may be useful here. Let us consider Samuel
Beckett's Waiting for Codot. One plausible theme of the play is
existential boredom of an extreme kind. But as Deleuze has pointed
out, neither the actors nor the dialogue is boringl nor is the reader
bored. Here we see the movement of pure affect as boredom without
boring anybody. Instead, the very affect-boredom-is detached
from molar identites and carefully experimented withl looked at
from various angles. Experimentng with boredom in this manner is
never boring, but quite the opposite. It dehabituates us from tg
about boredom as a attibute of a subect. Similar experimentaton
wit pure affect may be found in the writings of Virginia WooU and
Herman Melville, among others. Such experimentation leads to a
fundamental change in the image of thought, or rather, it opens us up
to thought itself as an event.
In other words, when we sense that affects are singularities that
exceed the expressions within habit, we can open ourselves to that
excess tat exceeds the designations and significatons of habitual
thinking, and begin to live a an aspect of a dynamic limit, or a
metastable entity (Deleuzel 1990b, 104). Pushed beyond a critcal
threshold, affects get knocked out of their habihlal orbital paths that
COllectvely produce the illusion of enduring categories, and instead
appear as openings, tiny abysses. We no longer remain passively
bound to affects through sentment, but instead become active
participants in their production by entering the very zone of that
production.
But a doubt is thrown in our midst. Is this not what Kane succeeds
in doing in Orson Welles' great f Citizen Kne? Does not Carlie
Kane pursue, Ahab-like, his affect, his "Rosebud," the obscure object
of his desire to the ends of the earth? (Beiler, 1998, 90) And in that
process, does Kane not become an instance of pure desire strung out
into so many singularities of the kind I have been suggesting? While
it is true that Kane unmoors himself in the pursuit of what remains
the unthought within the film, he remains within the trap of the
signified, h childhood sled "Rosebud" that is emblematc of the
Oedipal separaton that is forever out of his grasp. As we have noted
earlier, movements within Capital and other forms of Stte logic also
deterritorialize, but these are immediately followed by new kd of
stratification that quickly siphon off the affective energies thus
released. Kane's deterritorializaton is simultaneously a
reterritorializaton, as it is recuperated within h desperate logic of
accumulation and the OedipaUzed search for an absolute signified. I
have also said earlier that in freeing signs from despotic regimes and
the affective energies bound up with them, one must be cautious
about precisely this recodification.
But what precautions are available against such doubling back? I
order to answer that question, the map must nowbe briefly extended
beyond the work of the apprentceship, beyond the freeing up of
desire or intensites, and into a confrontaton with what Deleuze has
called the "line of the Outside," or to a face-off wit thought itseli. I
the concluding section, I shall discuss tis phenomenon.
Notes
1. When we say bodies, we do not necessarily mean whole entities. In
the present framework. even an optically sensitive surface that
contacts into it a ray of light is a body; it is what Guattari has called a
"part-subect" or what Maturana and Varela have described as
"microidenttes." A larger body, such as a hu body, is simply an
assembly of these part-subect or microidenttes.
2. Expression here refers to the theory and ontology of Expressionism,
that is, to the genesis of forms and structures in which forces take
definition. It is not to be confused with linguistc expression, just as
signs must not be thought here in terms only of language.
Conclusion
The Line of the Outside
The tchnocrat is the natural friend of the dictator-omputers and dicttor
ship; but the revolutonary lives i the gap which separates technical progress
fromsocial totality, and inscribes there his dream of permanentrevoluton. This
dream, therefore, is itelfacton, and aneffectve menace to all estb l ished order;
it renders possible what it dreams about. -illes Deleuze, T Logic ofSes
We started by looking at some problems that surfaced in the case
study-the difficulties novice teachers faced in a highly differentated
environment where they sought similarity and resemblance and
correspondence with mainstream atttudes toward schooling. Te
urban school described in the case offered pedagogical possibilites
more in the way of irregular, uncertain, and in-between spaces that
were closer to the "leaky" needs of urban youth who attended the
school. While the dynamics of school relatons at this partcular site
continually resisted being confined to the staid space of
representation and resemblance, and cried out for a different kind of
mapping that would better articulate the possibilities terein, te data
showed that the teachers, not conceptually prepared to deal wit
difference as a positivity, were often unable to take advantage of
these in-between spaces for making pedagogical moves. Something
substantal always leaked -the school leaked out of "State" space in
serious ways; few in the district office understood what i was doing;
the staff leaked out of contactual space in attempting to make school
somehow relevant to youth with different needs within an
unresponsive and wooden state system; te student spilled out of
the formal curriculum and onto wider social spaces, and the
curriculum moved out of te classroom and was designed tobe full of
different lines of flight trough which students, many of whom
would otherwise have dropped out, could find escape routes to
different becommgs not anticipated within the district's official
curriculum.
The case study illustated the difficulty beg g teachers had in
constructing and practicing a contextually relevant pedagogy in tis
highly differentated urban space; the tendency was to reduce
difference to identty, to the established, conventional mode of
curricular practices from which the school had attempted to escape in
the first place. It resulted in a strong pull toward the center.
Therefore, my theoretcal intervention in the way of offering theory as
praxis was to find a way to make teachers aware of the constructivist
possibilities of positive difference. The effort was to help teachers
locate themselves in te flow of a praxis by means of which to move
to an alterate concepton of curriculum than the representatonalist
one. This praxis was worked out witin the frame of a Deleuzian
empiricism tat insists that reality is cocausal and not a given, but
rather an "eterlly recommenced creation" (Massumi, 1992, 53)
through reciprocal presupposition or mutual determination. The basis
of t lay in the differential nature of Deleuzian eco-ontology.
Following Spinoza and Hume, Deleuze considers all phenomena to
be nonidentical, provisional, multplicitous, and a product of
difference. Enttes do not belong to categories; it is te categories that
are abstracted from the multitudes. In considering the case study i
this light, we saw the case data resonate with the noton of
multiplicity and rhizomatcs. Realizing our multplcities is a first step
toward breaking down identtarian ways of thinking, and releasing
the power of difference. It is not a mere queston of teaching ourselves
to value diversity in which difference is stll the "Other"; it is to
realize that we are ourselves the product of di erence and not static
beings, thus allowing ourselves to be located in the ever-shifting
interstces of difference itelf. In other words, it is an invittion to
occupy, even if momentarily, unknown regions in wh
.
ich the P!atonic
pressure to seek resemblance and identity shrink, givmg us glimpses
of alteratve possibilites of which the rhizoid space is one.
Thus, our philosophical project is t release us from
representatonalist tg by embracing "the constantly changing
Conclusion: The Line of the Outside
171
sensible world of multplicity and becoming" (Hayden, 1998, 133).
Ethical experimentation with te manner in which boundaries come
up around the sensible helps us to remain close to the relations of
existence/ difference themselves instead of relying too much on
existing categories. Deleuze offers useful insight into te ways in
which arbitrary composites or aggregates such as the human identty
gain sovereignty through " despotc sign systems" and acquire reified
boundaries through re-presentation. Therefore, examining sign
systems earnestly begins the work of theory as praxis; experimenting
with signs leads to an altered perception of the learg encounter as
reciprocal presupposition, and a joint producton of signs. And since
signs are differentals, the productve power of positve difference
comes into play. Each new sign or movement of difference poses a
fresh problem for pedagogical investigation. Through our
investgaton of te sign, we reach the terrain of a-signifying semiotcs
where language is a hand-to-hand combat with forces tat occupy
Signs.
Further, Deleuze's concepts allow us to travel beyond our confining
coordinates to a field of fu and indefinitude from which arise
sensibilites and assemblages tat are able to operate in new ways.
From the point of view of meeting successfully the challenges of
divergent spaces, tis is of great importance; it validates differential
experience not merely as an acknowledgment of an Other, but as the
very processes through which reality is generated. Therefore, it frees
us to look for and affirm curricular possibilites i unusual spaces that
are generally overlooked. I particular, it helps us to see how the
student and te learning encounter are fonts of curricular
possibilites. Deleuze urges us to reach for the haecceities and
singularities of our experience tat are temselves multpliCities, wit
which to strive for new configuratons of tought and feeling. From
being transcendentally situated as the experiencer, there is the
possibility of being inserted into the plane of experience itself. For
example, when the categories around feelings break down, we enter
an uncertain field of flux that is usually pathologized as
schizophrenia by institutionalized psychoanalysis. But for Deleuze
and Guattari, there is a creative schizoid process that gives access to
an iment state i "controlled schisis" can be maintained. Using
Deleuzian concepts allows not just new curricular spaces but new
the formal curriculum and onto wider social spaces, and the
curriculum moved out of the classroom and was designed to be full of
different lines of flight through which students, many of whom
would otherwise have dropped out, could find escape routes to
different becomings not antcipated within the district's official
curriculum.
The case study illustated the difficulty beg g teachers had in
constructing and practcing a contextually relevant pedagogy in this
highly differentiated urban space; the tendency was to reduce
difference to identity, to the established, conventional mode of
curricular practices from which the school had attempted to escape in
the first place. It resulted in a strong pull toward the center.
Therefore, my theoretcal interventon in the way of offering theory as
praxis was to find a way to make teachers aware of the constructivist
possibilites of positive difference. The effort was to help teachers
locate themselves in te flow of a praxis by means of which to move
to an alternate concepton of curriculum than the representatonalist
one. This praxis was worked out within the frame of a Deleuzian
empiricism that insists that reality is cocausal and not a given, but
rather an "eternally recommenced creation" (Massumi, 1992, 53)
through reciprocal presuppositon or mutual determination. The basis
of this lay in the differental nature of Deleuzian eco-ontology.
Following Spinoza and Hume, Deleuze considers all phenomena to
be nonidentical, provisional, multiplicitous, and a product of
difference. Entities do not belong to categories; it is the categories that
are abstacted from the multtudes. I considering the case study in
this light, we saw the case data resonate with the notion of
multiplicity and rhizomatics. Realizing our multiplicites is a first step
toward breaking down identtarian ways of thinking, and releasing
the power of difference. It is not a mere queston of teaching ourselves
to value diversity in which difference is stll the "Other"; it is to
realize that we are ourselves the product of diference and not static
beings, thus aIlowing ourselves to be located in the evershifting
interstces of difference itself. In other words, it is an invitation to
occupy, even if momentarily, unknown regiOns in which the Platonic
pressure to seek resemblance and identity shrink, giving us glimpses
of alterative possibilites of which the rhizoid space is one.
Thus, our philosophical project is to release us from
representationalist tg by embracing "the constantly changing
171
sensible world of multplicity and becoming" (Hayden, 1998, 133).
Ethical experimentation with the manner in which boundaries come
up around the sensible helps us to remain close to the relatons of
existence/ difference themselves instead of relying too much on
existng categories. Deleuze offers useful insight into the ways in
which arbitary composites or aggregates such a the human identty
gain sovereignty through "despotic sign systems" and acquire reified
boundaries through re-presentaton. Therefore, examg sign
systems earnestly begins the work of theory as praxis; experimenting
with signs leads to an altered perception of the learg encounter as
reciprocal presupposition, and a jOint production of signs. And since
signs are differentials, the productive power of positive difference
comes into play. Each new sign or movement of difference poses a
fresh problem for pedagogical investigation. Through our
investgation of the sign, we reach the terrain of asignifying semiotcs
where language is a handto-hand combat with forces tat occupy
signs.
Further, Deleuze's concepts allow us to travel beyond our confining
coordinates to a field of flux and indefinitude from which arise
sensibilites and assemblages that are able to operate in new ways.
From the point of view of meetng successfully te challenges of
divergent spaces, tis is of great importance; it validates differental
experience not merely as an acknowledgment of an Other, but as the
very processes through which reality is generated. Therefore, it frees
us to look for and affirm curricular possibilites in unusual spaces that
are generally overlooked. In partcular, it helps us to see how the
student and the learning encounter are fonts of curricular
possibilities. Deleuze urges us to reach for the haecceities and
singularities of our experience that are themselves multpliCites, with
which to strive for new configurations of thought and feeling. From
being transcendentally situated as the experiencer, there is the
possibility of being inserted into the plane of experience itself. For
example, when the categories around feelings break down, we enter
an uncertain field of flux that is usually pathologized as
schizophrenia by insttutionalized psychoanalysis. But for Deleuze
and Guattari, there is a creatve schizoid process that gives access to
an immanent state if "controlled schisis" can be maintained. Using
Deleuzian concepts allows not just new curricular spaces but new
172
ways of defining identity that are more compatble with irregular
spaces.
Boundaries around curriculum and boundaries around identity are
seen to open up when redescribed in Deleuzian terms of composites
or aggregates. But for t to happen, we have to pay close attenton
to the internal differences witin them. I other words, through
theory as praxis the "badly analyzed composites" can be seen to be
nothing other than exactly that-composites made up of traits, which
can be destatified, and the singularites or microidentites released.
Once our sensibilities aTe opened up in a Deleuzian manner, life
leaks out of the holes or fissures and forms multiplicities or rhizomes
or plateaus of intensity with other composites. Entities lose "faciality"
and become anonymous; boundaries lose teir hard edges. The
advantage of creating the image of ourselves as a rhizomatc
multplicity is that rhizomes have open borders and are constantly
changing in architecture. They are nonhierarchical and more
democratic. They are of the order of the moss and form plateaus of
intenSity, laterally stung out and contngent. Because of this
flexibility they are eminently suitable for conceptualizing work in
uncertain and irregular spaces and becomings.
In terms of the curriculum, they offer great flexibility, for rhizomes
are connectivites; they ceaselessly attempt to establish new
connectons and interrupt molar formatons. New connectivites
generate vectors of virtuality and regions of surprise. They give us the
freedom to consider new matter-thought compositons. I short,
rhizomes have the possibility of reinsertng life into the classroom
because they search for intensity and cull it from difference; they
show new ways of becoming, tapping from the existng life around
them, bringing forth new concept-affect architecture.
As a first step toward such destratification, I offered the
apprentceship of the sign. The apprenticeship consists of four
components: the adscension, te alloscension, the amnioscension, and
the anascension. Each of these components performs a partcular
work of destratfication, or conducts a move away from
representaton and resemblance. The apprenticeship is geared toward
a moment-te-moment transformatonal awareness of the way sign
regimes behave, and within tat awareness, the rhizomatc
possibilities of becoming different, of becoming-other together with
other bodies, thoughts, and intensites. It teaches us to read everyday
173
reality in a "foreign language" with a hesitancy and a stuttering,
keeping in abeyance our everyday modes of apprehension.
The stuttering as creative heSitancy, a moment of generatve flux in
te curriculum, is another point I make in this work. I applying the
fowfold analytical framework of the apprentceship to the
conversaton between Carla and the teacher in chapter 4, we sehow
the possibility of such a moment arises but goes unheeded. I the
attenton were ted at that pOint to production of affect instead of
being centered on meaning, it is conceivable that the entre situaton
could have evolved differently. In a different example, another
teacher OS) takes advantage of hesitancy or "stuttering" and begins to
put to productive use the negative affect-in this case frustraton and
stess.
The next important point to come out of this work is the potency of
the small interval It makes use of the systems theoretical perspectve
of Francisco Varela in partcular to support and clarify the Deleuzian
emphasis on the small interval. The apprentceship opens the door to
dissident flows and lines of disorientation. It creates minor derailmet
from our gross identtes, and contains the possibility of generatng
out of that disturbance minute, qualitatvely different, space-tme
intervals. Small intervals can be very potent and teoretcally
powerful The study of change must inevitably look into the small
interval, since aU tansformation takes place in te confines of the
itesimal as a passage to the limit. "Imperceptible rupture" and
not "signifying break" thus becomes, in terms of praxis, the sites of
rupture, allowing us t become aware of the fluxes tat lie beneat
our consttuted selves. The signifying break or grand schemes of
reform and change are rapidly taken over by territorialiZing forces,
but an imperceptble rupture remains the hidden, unnotced fault line
that can allow what Britzman and Dippo (2000) have called "awful
thoughts" or dissident movements to surface.
I terms of educaton, what this signifies is tat the grand-scale
reforms and large stuctural initatives, altough they may look
impressive, are less important from the point of view of real change
than the minor movements of disorientation and dissidence at the
micropolitcal level. For as Deleuze has observed, major signifying
breaks are always captured by existng forces after a brief while and
reinserted into the old spaces. This is what Deleuze calls
174
"reterritorializaton." Instead, smaller acts of rupture have greater
pOSSibility of escaping capture.
This brings us to yet another praxial move offered in this work
mapping affects. When we realize OUf multiplicities, there is a change
in the image of ourselves from fixed identities to blocks of intensity or
affect. When we enter a roomor into an encounter, we do not enter as
a preformed categorical entity, not even as a numerical multplicity,
that is, as several separate selves as some popular "postodern"
notions are apt to project, but as a qualitativ multiplicity. This noton is
central to Deleuze's thought. We enter in conjunction wit the
complex fields of indefinitude, fluxes and tendencies that have no
particular shape and cannot be fitted into preexisting categories. In
other words, we bring with us the complicated genetc abyssal
shadows from which events, entities, statements, and thoughts arise
as surface effects. These unformed singularities can form synthesis or
assemblages with other such fields of force, whether human or not. It
is precisely these unqualifiable fields of indefinitude that hold out the
possibility of escaping our consttuted selves or to "pour out of the
holes of subjectvity," as Deleuze and Guattari put it (1987, 190). The
case of E in the previous chapter was an illustration of the beg gs
of such a deterritorialization, but without the necessary conceptual
shift, E could not map her partial deterritorialization. Mapping here
COMotes not representing existing territory but creating a patchwork
with other tendencies, traits, thoughts, and intensities.
To map affects therefore requires a combined concept-affect shift.
In fact, in Deleuze, these are not ever fully separable. Concept and
affect go togeter; conceptual architecture is closely connected t
affectve states, which in t affects what it is possible to
conceptualize. To create a map or an abstact diagram, sensaton in
the smallest interval must be watched in a pedagOgic relatonship,
and like in E' 5 case, sometimes a spillover occurs and a loss of sense
of boundaries take us to the limit where feelings intermingle wit
other bodies resulting in the intensification of our powers of affecting
and being affected. This is the constructon of the diagram or the map
of maps. The important claim here is that the pragmatcs of te
diagram can help prevent stess and bout in teachers, that is, in
those who are wlg to experiment with the apprentceship, by
inserting te experimenter in a plane of immanence through minor
destratifications.
Conclusion: The Line of the Outside 175
T work of contolled schisis that I have described here must
proceed with a lot of cauton and careful experimentaton.
Desubjectfication and the attempt to place the body in direct relation
with the flows of other bodies by working past the naturalized
organic unity does not imply a complete loss of all sense of cohesion
and integration: "You have to keep enough of the organism for it to
reform each dawn; and you have to keep small supplies of
significance and subjectficaton, if only to tum them against their
own systems when the circumstances demand iL.and you have to
keep small ratons of subjectvit in sufficient quantty to enable you
to. . . [mJimic the strata. You don't reach the plane of consistency by
wildly destratifying" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 160-61). I other
words, it is neither possible nor desirable to fully deterritorialize the
apparent organic unity of the entity; for strategic purposes, we have
to maintain certain outward stratifications. Instead, the way to go
about it is through minor destatifications and small intensifications,
changes of velocity, retarding flows here and intensifying it there.
I have described this work as fieldwork in philosophy, in that it is a
theoretcal mode of analYSis that nevertheless pays close attenton to
the complexities and dynamiCS of the educatonal encounter. It puts
philosophy to work in a tue Deleuzian fashion. I have tried to use
philosophy to interrogate the lived experience of curriculum and
thereby find new possibilities of action. In the case of teacher stress, it
involved replacing the one-sided analysis of what happens to the
teacher, usually found in mainstream literature, to the more complex
one of theorizing the pedagOgical encounter itself.
The shift from tanscendence to ir ence implies a renunciaton
of a priori, tanscendent categories in terms of which change usually
i sought. The transcendent is "paradigmatc, projectve, hierarchical,
and referental" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 89), whereas immanence
is the jouissance of difference and movement. Instead of the
tanscendent, which blocks movement and becOming, we construct a
plane of immanence or of teacher becoming from within, through
cautious experimentation and our eye on differential movement in
small intervals. According t Deleuze, this is perhaps "the supreme
act of philosophy," the task of showing the plane of imence. The
plane of immanence is not given but is constucted piece by piece
even as we take Our place in it, and it is subversive to domination and
oppression. Deleuze (1995) remarks: "It is not immediately clear why
176
imnence is so dangerous, but it is. It engulfs sages and gods. [For]
immanence is inunanent only to itseU . . . and leaves nothing to which it
could be immanent" (45). Immanence flattens authority stuctures
and all transcendent claims to truth; it fills the dimensions with a
jouissance or ecstasy of difference.
Finally, we must address the inevitable-the question of te
concrete. Does tis book, for instance, tell us what to do on Monday
morg? Perhaps not, but what it attempts to do is to reconsttute
"Monday morg" for us, so that it does not arrive all at once in its
molar spledor. To put it differenty, when our tanscendental
identties encounter other unified categories such as Monday
morgs, the meetng of the two statfied unities may not produce a
pleasant syntesis. What I have attempted throughout the book, and
under different guises, is to shift our focus from macroscopic
categories such as teacher, student, curriculum, or even Monday, and
the problem of how to deal with them, to the constitutive differences
and singularites that can be recomposed once we are in contact with
the unsaid of the stated, the untought of tought, and in general te
forces that occupy signs and overcode differentiaL experience, moving
at aU tmes toward a pragmatics of local formatons.
What happens as a result of such experimentation is that 'Monday
morning' never arrives, which is not to say we disappear in the void,
but it does not arrive as a solidly oppressive order-word. As we enter
our qualitatve multiplicities, these differentiating series find many
points of resonance with each other, and new points of
communicaton arise. What allows tese, or any two heterogeneous
series t communicate with one another is the "dark precursor," or a
second order differential-the difference of te differences-that has
little to do wit the original series but is able to oscillate to produce
combinations. I other words, we imperceptibly enter, and become
situated in the very plane from which an abstraction such as a
category arises. Thus situated, we can combine with the singularites
of a Monday morning in different ways to find new solutions.
Also, we must realize that the book is in one frame, and te
category called 'Monday mornings' belongs to a different frame. A
observers, we are able to see both frames simultaneously, and t.
where part of te confusion arises. As Maturana and Varela would
say, we move from one frame to another without ackno
.
wledging te
move. Instead, if we l ingered, say, in the book's frame, It would help
177
us to do te necessary work o gather the force of insight necessary
for deterritorializing the category called Monday morgs, resulting
in a succession of independent durations that combine with our traits,
and those of curricular material, to produce unique, and infinitely
variegated, pedagogical moments-the construction of a plane of
contnual variaton in which categories lose their transcendental
image.
Finally, when molar categories are dismantled or deterritorialized,
and assemblages return to te molecular, however briefly, before
forming new categories, there is a force that is released tat may be
described as binding energy, a sudden liberatory intensity, a moment
of what Deleuze might call pure acceleration. It allows us to confront
whatever it is that we have to face, not from the known but from the
unknown, a clear, dartng line that, when we do the necessary hard
work to stay on it, makes for a creative response. One could perhaps
go so far as to say, and Deleuze does suggest this in several places,
that stying on this line changes the very synaptc arrangements in
the brain, since the concept that we are dealing with are, each of
them, a vector, or the point of applicaton of a force tat changes te
image of thought, and along with that the "reality" we must deal
with.
This continual and subtle transformaton, if we are willing to do the
necessary experimentation on ourselves, aligns us with some key
cartographic elements for navigation on an altered plane: reciprocal
presupposition, resonance, heterogeneity, progressive differentation,
plateaus of intensity, plane of compositon, microintervals of affect,
desire as production, and lines of acceleraton, among others. Besides,
the coordinates of the body on this plane are lattude and longitude
relatons of transformaton and relations of potentiality. The
praxiological use of these concepts and constructs changes the image
of thought.
In closing, I will quote Deleuze (1990) about ways of reading a
book:
There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it
as a box with something inside and start looking for what it
signifies . . . Or there's the oter way: you see the book as a little
non-signiing machine. T second way of reading is intensive:
something comes through or it doesn' t. There's nothing to
178
Teachers i Nomadic Spaces
explain, nothing to understand, nothin

to interpret.
plugging into an electric circuit. (8) (emphasiS added)
It's like
Deleuzian concepts are "little non-signifying machines"; it is a
mistake to try to see them in terms of mere signific
tion, for the

i ifier leads us back to Oedipalized or controlled terntory. Instead,
rt we must do is plug into tese concepts or tny "circuits" that
have a destatifying charge of their own in any encounter, an
,
d see
what they do mutually, if tey do anything .
.
We must expenment
with them incessantly, and find out how, and i, they operate on our
intensites and how te intensities operate on them. For Deleuze, a
book is a tool box, but of a Borgesian kind, where the tools become,
one by one, the very parts they were supposed
,
to be working on, not
as in an assimilation but a disjunctve synthesis, for they produce a
difference and never the Same.
References
Abel, M. and Swell, J. (1999). Stess and burnout i n rural and urban secondary
school teachers. TIle Joural ofEducational Research, 92 (5), 287-93.
Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: An i1iormal introduction to ethnography.
New York: Academic Press.
Bakhtn, M. (1981). T dialogic imagination: FOllr essays. Austn: Uni versity of Texas.
Bains, P. (2002). SuhjecUess subectivites. In Brian Massumi (e.). A slwck to thought:
Expressiou after De/euzea11d Gualtari. New York: Routledge.
Bateson, G. (1991). A sacred mlity: Further steps to a/ ecology ofmind. New York: Harper
Collins.
Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of pastmoderity. New York: Routledge.
Beckett, S. (1994). Waitingfr Godot. New York: Grove Press.
Beller, ]. L. (1998). Cinema, perception, and space. In Eleanor Kaufman and Kevi n
Heller (eds.). De/euze and Guatlari: Ne mapings in politics, philosophyand culture
Minneapolis: University of Minnesot Press.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, researci, critique.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Best S. and Kellner, D. (1991). Postmoder theory. New York: Guilford Press.
Blake, N., Smeyers, P. (1998). Thinking again: EdJlatiOz afterpostmoderism. Connec
tcut: Bergin & Garvey.
Boice, R. (1993). Writing blocks and tacit knowledge. The Journal ofHigher Educatioll,
64 Oan./Feb.), 19-54.
Borg, M. and Riding, R. (193). Teacher stess and cognitve style. T British Joural
of Edllcational Psyclzology, 63 (June), 271-86.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). /u olher words: Essays towards a refexive sociology. Stanford:
Stnford University Press.
Boyle, G. et al. (1995). A stuctural model of the dimensions of teacher stTess. T
Sritisll Joural ofEducatioual Psydzology, 65,49-67.
Britzman, D. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher. Haroard Educational
Review, 56 (4), 442-55.
. (1998). Lost subjects, contestedobjects: Towarda psydzootlalytic theoryoflearing.
New York: SUNY Press.
. (2002). The death of curriculum? In Willi am Doll and Noel Gough (eds.).
CUTTicu/um Visions. New York: Peter Lang.
Britlman, D. P. & Dippo, D. (1998). Toward an academic framework for thinking
about teacher educaton. TeaclzingEducatiQl, 9 (), 15-26.
. (200 ). On the future of awful thoughts in teacher education. Teaching
Educatio1, 11 (1),31-37.
Buchanan, I. (2C). Delellzism: A me/aeommentary. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Byrne, J. J. (1998). Teacher as hunger artist: Burout, its causes, effect, and remedies
Contemporary Education, 69 (2), 86-91.
Canett, E. (1984). Crowds and power. Carol Stwart (rans.). New York: Viking.
Cherrhoimes, C. (1988). Poner alld criticism: Paststructlral i/ilestigalions in education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cicouret A. V. (1963). The(dueatiotzal decision-makers. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill &
Co.
Conway, D. W. (1997). Tumbling dice: Gilles Deleuze and the economy of repetition.
In K. A Pearson (ed.). Deleuze and philosophy: Thedifrrenceenginetr. New York:
Routledge.
Davis, B. et aL (200). Engaging minds: Learing and teaching in Q camp/exworld.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deleuze, G. (1968/1994). Difrence Imd repetition. Paul Patton (Trans.). New York:
Columbia University Press.
. (1972). Proust and signs. New York: George Braziller.
. (1977). lntlle<tuals and power: A conversaton between Michel Foucault
and Gilles Deleuze. In Donald Bouchard (ed.). Michel Fcmrault, Language,
Counter-memory, Practice: Selected essays and interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
. (1983). Nietzsche aldphilosophy. New York: Columbia UniverSity Press.
. (1985). Cinema 1: The movement image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
. (1988a). Spinoza: Practical philosophy. S Francisco: City Light.
. (1988b). FOlt. San Hand (Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesot
Press.
. (l990a). Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza. Martin Joughin (Trans.). New
York: Zone Books.
. (1990b). The logic ofsense. New York: Columbia University Press.
. (1993). TIle Delellt Reader. C. Boundas (Ed.). New York: Columbia University
Press.
. (1995). Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press.
. (1997). Essays critial and clinical. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
---. (1998). Havingan idea in cinema: On the cinema of Staub-Huillet. In
Eleanor Kaufman and Kevin Heller (eds.). Deleuze alldGuattari: Newmappings in
politics, philosophy and rulure. Minneapo l is: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G. and Guattri F. (1983a). On the line. New York: Columbia University
Press.
. (1983b). Anti-Oedipus: Cpitalismand schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesot Press.
__ . (1986). Nomadoloy: Te war machine. New York: Columbia University Press.
. (1987). A tlwusarld plateaus: Capitalism and schizoplmmia. Brian Massumi
(frans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesot Press.
. (1994). Wat is philoso/y? Hugh Tomlinson (Trans.). New York: Columbia
References
181
University Press.
Deleuze, G. and Paret, C. (1987). Dialogues. Hugh Tomlinson and B. Habberjam
(rans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. (1970). Stucture, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In
R. Macksey (ed.). T stctumlist controversy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Universit Press.
DoU, W. (1999). Conversing with "the other." Joural o/Curriculum Theorizing, 15 (3),
83-89.
. (2002). Ghosts and the curriculum. I W. Doll and N. Gough (eds.).
Currirulum visions. New York: Petr Lang.
Eco, U. (1980). The name ofthe rose. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.
Fendler, L (199). Making touble: Predicton, agency and critcal intllectuals. In
T. Popkewitz and L. Fendler (eds.). Critical theories in education: Changing
terrains o/knowledge andpolitics. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1977). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In D. F. Bouchard (ed.) Language,
counter-memory, practice: Selectedessays and interoiews. New York: Cornell Univer
sity Press.
. (1979). Discipline and punisl!. Alan Sheridan (Trans.). New York: Vintage.
---. (1983). Introducton. I G. Deleuze and F. Guattari. Anti-Oedipus. Minnea-
poli: University of Minnesot Press.
---. (1984). The Foucault Reader. Paul Rabinow (ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
. (1988). The careofthe self Thehistoryofsexuality,
Books.
Vol. 3. New York: Vintage
--. (1994). Etllics, subjectivity, tmth. Paul Rabinow (ed.). New York: New Press.
Friedman, I. (1995). Student behavior patterns leading to tacher burout. Joural of
Educational Research, (88) 5, 281-89.
Giroux, H. (200). Postodem educaton and disposable youth. In Peter Trifonas
(ed.). Revolutionary Pedagogies: Culural politics, instituting education, and tire
discourse o/theory. New York: RoutiedgefaImer.
Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the moder age.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Grosz, E. (1994a). A thousand tny sexes. In Constantin Boundas and Dorothea
Olkowski (eds.). Gilles De/euze and the theatro/philosohy. New York: Routledge.
. (1994b). Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism. Sydney: Allen and
Unwin.
Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter Milk: Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massa
chusetts Press.
Guattri, F. (1984). Mo/ecularrevo/utio/: Psychiatry and politics. Rosemar Sheed
(Trans.). New York: Penguin.
---. (1995). La Borde: A clinic unlike any other. In Sylvere Lotinger (ed.).
Chaosohy. New York: Semiotext(e).
Hardt, M. (1993). Gilles De/euze: An apprenticeshipin philosophy. Minneapolis: Univer
sity of Minnesota Press.
-. (1998). The withering of civil SOCiety. In Eleanor Kaufman and Kevin Heller
(eds.). De/euze and Gua/fari: Nelv mappings il politics, philosophy and culture.
Mi nneapolis: University of MinnesotPress.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teQchers, dlanging times: leacllers' work and culture in
Illepos/moderage. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
HarUey, O. (1997). Re-sclwolingsociety. Washington, D C: The Falmer Press.
Hayden. P. (1998). Multiplicity and becoming: The pluralist empiricismofGilles DelflIu.
New York; Peter Lang.
Hlebowilsh, P. S. (2000). Radical Crrimium theory reconsidered: A historical aproach.
NewYork: Teachers college Press.
Irigaray, L. (1985). 11'ls sex which is no/ one. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jardine. A. (1985). Gynesis: Confgurations o/womall and moderily. Ithaca, N: Cornell
UniversitPress.
Kaufman, E. (1998). Intoduction. In Eleanor Kaufman and Kevin Heller (es.).
De/euzeand Gllal/ari: Newmappingsin polincs, philosophyand cltllre. Minneapolis:
Universitof Minnesota Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (1992). Forging the American CrriCI/um. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1993). Wehave never betn moder. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Lesko, N. (1995). The "leaky needs" of school-aged mothers: Anexami naton of US
programs and policies. Cumculuminquiry, (25), 2.
Levi Stauss, C. (1969). Tle rml and lire cooked. J. Weightman and D. Weightan
(frans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Li ston, D. and Zeichner, K M. (19). Clilture of teadling. Mahwah. NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. John Bednarz (Trans.). Chicago: Uni
versity of Chicago Press.
. (1990). The cognitive programof constructvism and a reality that remains
unknown. I W. Krohn et al. (eds.). Selforganjzation: Portrait 0/a scientifc revolll
lion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout A multidimensional perspective. [n W. B. Schaufeli
(ed.). Profssional Bumoll: Recent develoments in theoryand research. Washington,
DC: Taylor & Francis.
Massumi, B. (19). A llser's gllide to capitalism and schizophrenia: Deviations fm
De/fUze and Guattari. Cambridge, MA: M Press.
. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Clltural Critiqlle, 31, ifaIl 1995).
. (2002). Introducton. In Bri an Massumi (ed.). A shock to thought: Expression
a/Jer Delelluand Guattari. New York: Routledge.
Maturana, H. (1990). Science and daily life: The ontologyof scientific explanations. In
W. Krohn et al. (eds.). Sclrganizalion: Portrait 0/a sciellifc revolution. Dordrecht
Kluwer.
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. J. (1998). The tree ofk/wwledge: The biological roots ofhuman
understanding. Boston: Shambhala.
McCarthy, C. and Dimitriadis, G. (20 a). AII-consuming identites: Race and the
pedagogy ofresentent in the age of difference. In Peter Trifonas (ed.). Revolu
tionaryPedagogies: Cu/ural polilics, instihlling education and lire discourse 0/theory.
New York: RoutIedgeFalmer.
References 183
. (20 b). Globalizing pedagogies: Power, resentment, and the renarraton of
difference. In R. Mahalingam and C. McCarthy (eds.). Mu/ticldtllral CIrriCllum:
NIdirectionsfr social theory, practice, andpolicy. NewYork: Routledge.
Meier, D. (1995). The paer of their ideas: LeSSOIS fr America from a small school il!
Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
Molnar, A (2002). The commercializaton of America's schools. In W.E. Doll and
N. Gough (eds.). CurriCldum visions. NewYork: Peter Lang.
Murphy, T. S. (1998). Quantum ontology: A virtual mechanics of becoming. In
Eleanor Kaufman and KevinHeller (eds.). Dclellze Ind Guattari: Newmappings in
politicsplliloscpltyalldClllllre. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotPress.
Natonal Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). Report 0/ the
Commission. Washington DC: NcrAF.
Nietzsche, F. (1967). On the genealogy of morals. Vol. J. W. Kaufmann and R. J.
Ho1lingdale (Trans.). New York: Random House.
Nietzsche, F. (1982). Daybreak: Thoughts on the prejudices ofmorality. R. J. HoliingdaJe
(Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge UniverSity Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1983). Untimely meditations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
North Cental Regional Educational Lab (NCREL). (1998). Milwaukee Public Sd!ool
District lImovativt School Program: Final Report Addendum. Oak Brook, IL: NCREL.
O[ebe, M. (2001). Beginning tacher support and assessment progam. TeacherEdu
cation Quarterly28 (1), 7-.
Pearson, K. A. (1997). Deleuze ald philosophy: T di/rellceellgileer. New York: Rout
ledge.
Pinar, W. (1994). Autobiography, politics, andsexuality: essays ill CIrriculum theory n 97-
1992). New York: Peter Lang.
. (1995). Understanding CIrriculum: An introduction to the stldy a/historical and
contemporaryCrriculum discourses. NewYork: Peter Lang.
. (1998). CurriCIlllm: Toward new identities. NewYork: Garland Publications.
---. (2002). The IntemationalizatiOI O/curricuilm studies: A historyand status report.
Paper presented at AAACSConference, NewOrleans.
Polya, G. (1957). Howto wiil: A new aspect o/maillematical metllod. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Popkewit, T. S. (1988). Educatonal reform: Rhetric, ritual, and social interest.
EduCltional Theory38 (1).
Rajchman, j. (1998). ConS/Mictions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
---. (2000). The De/euze Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ricouer, P. (1985). History as narratve practice. PhilosophyToday ifaIl 1985).
Sanders, M. (2000). Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice
Mahwah, N}: L. ErlbaumAssociates.
Saussure, F. de. (1959). Course in general linguistics. Charles Bailey and Albert
Reidlinger (eds.). NewYork: Philosophical Library.
Shwanitz, D. (1987). Systems theory and the environment of theory. InC. Koelb
and V. Lokke (eds.). TIle current in criticism: Essays on tilepresent and/utur of
literary theory. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Shukin, N. (00 ). Deleuze and feminisms: Involuntary regulators and affCtve
inhibitors. In Ian Buchanan and Claire Colebrook (eds.). Oe/euze and fmiuist
theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Swaminathan, R. (forthcoming). Epimdeja: An ethic afpedagogic care. ReviLw oJRfsearciz
in EducatiOI.
Taussig, M, (1993). Mimesis and alterity: A partiClliar history oflhe sel5es. New York:
Routledge.
Varela, F, (1992). Ethical knaw-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Vazquez, A. S. (1977). Tl philosophy of praxis. Atlantic Highlands, NJ; The
Humanites Press.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). The constrctiol! of brw/edge: Contribution 10 conceptual
semantics. Seaside, CA: Intrsystems Publicatons.
Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery afreason. New York: Routledge.
Weisberg, J. and Sagie, A. (1999). Emotional burout: Impact on intenton to quit.
The Joural of Psychology, 133(3),333-9.
Weiss, E. and Weiss, S. (1999). Beginning teacher induction. ERfC Digest; Washing
ton DC: ERIC; 1999-11-0.
Willis,P. (1977). Learing to labour: How working class lads get working class jobs.
Farnborough, England: Saxon House.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Transfomling qualitative data. London: Sage Publicatons.

Roy Deleuze Teachers in Nomadic Spaces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roy Deleuze Teachers in Nomadic Spaces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roy Deleuze Teachers in Nomadic Spaces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the main concepts discussed in the text?

What are some of the main concepts discussed in the text?

How does the author apply Deleuze's concepts?

How does the author apply Deleuze's concepts?

-

d Capitalism'S culture industies, they have not fully come to terms

gh a proliferation of connectvites, there is te possibility

roduction, we take a step toward constructng a curriculum of

tional expression on the board was instantly condemned,

, both are self-referential. This is highly

mple, as a teacher we face the intensity of a students hostility, we

e drawn. :hus tre 1

cerintes and vanabo

overents and their potental for transformaton.

nment Wth the working of this map even as we produce it,

ht the very Slippages, affect, and other "unruly"

iculum, and the context. The rhizome moves and grows

plied through feedback would, by conceptually realigning the

course, create conditons for new oscillations or resonances to

s chapter, the fuidity and the multiplicity

s an escape, a mutational possibility not necessarily coincident

tivities as disparate and isolated from one another is not helpful

ontingent," the exercise of a not-fully-determined space which is an

gions that are ':not

s to look at it as lessons being delivered to a student by a teacher; that

onditonec to look. A different way of looking I am suggestng here

biguity that is also a disjunctive synthesis of the qualitative

fferences that produce those responses. What is this present if not a

egs, there are always questons, reservations, and contrary

e in proximal relationships. Such an approach leads to a very

nal encounter. For

vements, we c choose to focus on the deterritorializing aspect,

pecial issue he is bringing out on alterative schools: addreSSing

/27 /02). With these words, Macy impugns the patronizing

erges SOWing the poverty of the discourse. I am witessing a

m. Macy spottng patriarchy, Macy grappling with

cess, e misses what the differental perceptions produced and the

matc onnections that surrounded him. Part of the challenge of

ut of the regular and more circumscribed spaces

ncoter a step further, and investgate in general te

ignifications, and see the production as generating not faithful

alize that we are constantly being produced even as we produce

ntatios" (Rajchman, 1998, 7, and provide a space for

llowing: a) every encounter generates signs; b) the meaning of a

d that we "exist" only as "bodynodes of a dynamic intercrossing of

ys of releasing preCisely these affects that are continuously

bbed of their potential for contributing to curriculum by

re incarated. They are objectively made and ude

ohon of the teacher as a determinate being. Instead, we learn to look

ature of the forces at play, and in order

tion, for the

You might also like