Interview With Manuel DeLanda

8/20/2015
New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies
I. INTERVIEWS>2. ANY MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY MUST TAKE AS ITS POINT OF DEPARTURE THE
EXISTENCE OF A MATERIAL WORLD THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF OUR MINDS
2.Anymaterialistphilosophymusttakeas
itspointofdeparturetheexistenceofa
materialworldthatisindependentofour
minds
InterviewwithManuelDeLanda
Q1: In your short text The Geology of Morals, A NeoMaterialist
Interpretation from 1996 you introduce the term neomaterialism
rewriting the way in which Deleuze and Guattari, in their A
Thousand Plateaus ([1980] 1987), use Hjelmslevs linguistic model
(which according to Deleuze and Guattari thus goes far beyond the
reach of language) of form, content, substance and expression in
order to conceptualize geological movements. In your reading of it,
you make no use of Hjelmslev but instead favor other concepts like
strata, deterritorialization and reterritorialization in order to map
the morphogenetic changes of the real. There is no reason why neo
materialism should make use of particular concepts (like the ones
mentioned) or even of particular authors like Hjelmslev. Yet what
seems to be crucial for it would be to revitalize an interest in an
affirmative reading of the dynamics among processes of
materialization, as it offers us a thinking which starts with bodily
motions alone, as Spinoza would put it ([1677] 2001, E2P49 Schol.)
andhowthisallowsustorethinkverydifferentbranchesofacademia
such as geology, mathematics, cultural theory, (neoclassical)
economicsandsociology.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/11515701.0001.001/1:4.2/--new-materialism-interviews-cartographies?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
1/13
8/20/2015
InyourbookIntensive Science and Virtual Philosophyfrom2002you

give a beautiful definition of what a history is, which made us
rethink the way in which new materialism could be situated in
academicthought.Youwrite,
Thewelldefinednatureofthepossiblehistoriesisnotto
be approached by a mere mention of laws expressed as
differential equations, but by an understanding of how
suchequationsinfactindividuatetrajectories(DeLanda
2002,36).
Canweconcludethatthebooksyouwroteandthewayinwhichyour
new materialist arguments rewrite the various branches of
academia, are all about the creation of such individuated
trajectoriesthatinventaneomaterialism?Inotherwords,couldwe
evensaythatyourneomaterialism,thoughinspiredbyDeleuzeand
Braudel, cannot even be said to have these authors as its point of
departure?
Manuel DeLanda: Any materialist philosophy must take as its point of
departure the existence of a material world that is independent of our
minds. But then it confronts the problem of the origin of the enduring
identity of the inhabitants of that world: if the mind is not what gives
identity to mountains and rivers, plants and animals, then what does?
An old answer is essences, the answer given by Aristotle. But if one
rejects essentialism then there is no choice but to answer the question
like this: all objective entities are products of a historical process, that
is, their identity is synthesized or produced as part of cosmological,
geological, biological, or social history. This need for a concept of
synthesis or of production is what attracted Marx to Hegelian
dialectics since it provided him with a model of synthesis: a conflict of
opposites or the negation of the negation. Deleuze and Guattari, on the
other hand, replace that model of synthesis with what they call a
2/13
8/20/2015
double articulation: first, the raw materials that will make up a new
entity must be selected and pre-processed; second, they must be
consolidated into a whole with properties of its own. A rock like
limestone or sandstone, for example, is first articulated though a
process of sedimentation (the slow gathering and sorting of the
pebbles that are the component parts of the rock). Then it is
articulated a second time as the accumulated sediment is glued
together by a process of cementation. They use Hjemslevs terms
content and expression as the names for the two articulations, but
this is not meant to suggest that the articulations are in any way
linguistic in origin. On the contrary: the sounds, words, and
grammatical patterns of a language are materials that accumulate or
sediment historically, then they are consolidated by another process,
like the standardization of a dialect by a Royal Academy and its official
dictionaries, grammars, and rules of pronunciation.
The
question
of
the
individuation
of
trajectories
is
about
mathematical models (which to me are the secret of the success of

science) but you are correct that it goes beyond that. All entities
synthesized historically are individual entities: individual plants and
animals; individual species and ecosystems; individual mountains,
planets, solar systems, et cetera. Here individual means simply
singular or unique, that is, not a particular member of a general
category, but a unique entity that may compose larger individual
entities through a relation of part-to-whole, like individual pebbles
composing a larger individual rock. A materialist ontology of
individual entities is implicit in Deleuze & Guattari and Braudel, so we
must give them credit for that, then move on and invent the rest.
Q2: Neomaterialism is in a way rewriting academia as a whole,
whichincludesthedisciplinaryboundariesthatorganizeittoday.In
your work you definitely practice this by reading a geology into
sociology for instance. Yet it would be very interesting to make this
3/13
8/20/2015
more explicit. Thus, how would new materialism propose a

rethinking of the disciplinary boundaries (without using labels such
as interdisciplinarity, postdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity which
eventuallyareallnewdiscipliningexercises)?
MD: Academic fields are also historical individuals with contingent
boundaries, many of which are settled as part of turf wars. Why would
anyone feel the need to respect those boundaries? We need to draw on
the conceptual and empirical resources developed by all fields to
enrich materialism and prevent it from becoming apriori. What label
we use to designate this maneuver is entirely irrelevant.
Q3: Despite your emphasis on individuated trajectories, you
respondedverypositivelytoourrequestforaninterviewaboutanew
materialism. You said that the time has come indeed for a renewed
interest in materialist perspectives. In addition to its potential
disciplining effects (new materialism becoming a theoretical yet
antimethodological school), we all know that materialism, in
European thought, has a strong Marxist history. In several of your
writings and interviews, however, you mentioned various problems
with Marxs thinking. You consider yourself to be leftwing, but you
do not share many of the dogmas, institutional preferences and
economic solutions offered by the Left, premised on Marxism. In
terms of economics your interest seems to be much more in
institutional or evolutionary economics (think of the writings of
Donald now Deirdre McCloskey and Phil Mirowski) and the way in
which they now reread Adam Smith (especially his Theory of Moral
Sentimentsfrom1759).Nevertheless,whatyoudotakefromMarxis
his interest in the oppressed, that is, his antiAristotelianism that
allows us to conceptualize the selforganizing power of matter
withoutthemeaningthatshouldovercodeit.
CombiningyourrejectionofMarxandyourappraisalofmaterialism,
4/13
8/20/2015
couldwethenlabelyournewmaterialistthinkingasanonhumanist
andevennonanthropocentricmaterialism?
MD: The political economy of Marx is entirely a priori. Although he
was sincerely interested in historical data (and hence, in creating an a
posteriori theory) the actual amount of information available to him
was extremely limited. Today we have the opposite situation thanks to
the work of Fernand Braudel and his school. In addition, the old
institutional school of economics (perhaps best represented by the
work of John Kenneth Galbraith) as well as the neo-institutionalist
school, offer new models that go beyond classical economics. (The two
authors you mention, though, are mostly useless, being metaeconomists and non-materialist.) It is our duty as Leftists to cut the
umbilical cord chaining us to Marx and reinvent political economy.
Deleuze and Guattari failed miserably in this regard.
Marxs theory of value was indeed anthropocentric: only human labor
was a source of value, not steam engines, coal, industrial organization,
et cetera. So in that sense the answer is yes, we need to move beyond
that and reconceptualize industrial production. In addition, Marx did
not see trade or credit as sources of wealth, but Braudel presents
indisputable historical evidence that they are.
Q4: It would be interesting, in reply to Marxism, to see this stance
formulatedintoapoliticalprogram.Aboveall,thecurrentecological
drama might be a nice starting point for a neomaterialist political
program.Butcoulditbeledbyaninvisiblehand?
MD: Ecologists (not only activists but scientists) are well placed to
help in this regard, because as they study food webs they must
consider all sources of value: the sun, the photosynthetic process
that transforms solar energy into chemical energy, the microorganisms that decompose dead bodies and re-inject nutrients into the
5/13
8/20/2015
soil, et cetera. Combining ecology and economics is a good idea, so that

a barrel of oil is not valued only in terms of its market price but as a
non-renewable source of value due to the energy it contains. We may
keep the idea of an invisible hand (that is, that prices self-organize as
part of a dynamic between supply and demand) but only when dealing
with large numbers of small firms without market power. When
dealing with oligopolies there is no anonymous competition but rivalry
and deliberate planning. Large corporations, as Galbraith argued long
ago, are a planning system operating through a very visible hand.
Braudel referred to oligopolies as an anti-market to stress this point.
Q5: In your work on assemblage theory (in A New Philosophy of
Society from 2006) you once again show us that it is the movement
that in reality generates all these emergent wholes that we should
focus on when we want to get a sense of the irreducible social
complexitycharacterizingthecontemporaryworld(DeLanda2006,
6). You argue strongly against the dualisms that have been
transmitted to us in the history of philosophy (matter vs. meaning,
micro vs. macro, inorganic vs. organic vs. social, realism vs. social
constructivism, etcetera.) and argue in favor of a new ontology
according to which mechanisms are largely causal, but they do not
necessarily involve linear causality (ibid., 19 original emphasis). In
an interesting book from 2007 called Built by Animals, Mike Hansell
describestousthefollowingconstruction:
It is a sphere composed of a few hundred stones
cemented together, with a large circular hole at the
bottom. The top of its dome bears seven or eight study
spikes,eachacairnofstones,largeronesatthebase,the
smallest at the tip creating a sharp point. The most
distinctive architectural detail, the one that gives the
name to the species that builds it, is the collar to the
circular aperture. It is a pleated coronet constructed
6/13
8/20/2015
from particles too small to be distinguishable from the

cement that binds them. The diameter of this whole
dwelling,forthatiswhatitis,isabout150thousandths
of a millimeter (i.e. micrometres, written m). Smaller
than the full stop at the end of this sentence, it is the
portable home of the Difflugia coronata, a species of
amoeba(Hansell2007,58).
The Difflugia coronata is not an animal. It is a singlecell creature
thatfeedsandreproduces,buthasnonervoussystem(thusnobrain).
Major academics interested in animal architecture, like the quoted
Hansell, have difficulty explaining how such a simple creature is
capableofcreatingsuchacomplexform,theirbiggestproblembeing
thattheDifflugia coronatalacksabrain.Forsomereasontheyfailto
see how their question already embodies several presumptions that
make any answer impossible. They accept the Cartesian difference
between the mind and the body. They accept the difference between
theanimal(subject)anditshouse(object).
Newmaterialism,implicitlyandexplicitly,wardsoffthesemodernist
oppositions,andmightverywellbeconsideredcapableofexplaining
howthissimplecreaturecouldcreatesuchcomplexforms.Notonlyin
your geological history of the organic world, but also in your
assemblagetheoryyoushowushoworganicandinorganicmatter,in
their entanglement, create the new. Do you think the Difflugia
coronata created its house similarly to the way in which the human
beingcreatednotonlyitscitiesbutalsothesocialgroupequally[]
freeing them from the constraints and literally setting them into
motion to conquer every available niche in the air, in water and on
landasyouwrotein A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (2000,
267)?
MD: It is absurd to think that complex self-organizing structures need
7/13
8/20/2015
a brain to generate them. The coupled system atmospherehydrosphere is continuously generating structures (thunderstorms,
hurricanes, coherent wind currents) not only without a brain but
without any organs whatsoever. The ancient chemistry of the prebiotic
soup also generated such coherent structures (auto-catalytic loops)
without which the genetic code could not have emerged. And bacteria
in the first two billion years of the history of the biosphere discovered
all
major
means
to
tap
into
energy
sources
(fermentation,
photosynthesis, respiration). To think that a brain is needed goes

beyond Cartesian dualism and fades into Creationism: matter is an
inert receptacle for forms that come from the outside imposed by an
exterior psychic agency: Let there be light!
So yes, neo-materialism is based on the idea that matter has
morphogenetic capacities of its own and does not need to be
commanded into generating form. But we should not attempt to build
such a philosophy by rejecting dualisms or following any other metarecipe. The idea that we know already how all past discourses have
been generated, that we have the secret of all past conceptual systems,
and that we can therefore engage in meta-theorizing based on that
knowledge is deeply mistaken. And this mistake is at the source of all
the idealisms that have been generated by postmodernism.
Q6: Could you elaborate some more on this idea of not rejecting
dualisms, since this comes very close to an important argument in
our own reading of new materialism. For when we say that new
materialism, implicitly and explicitly, wards off modernist
oppositions and thus qualitatively shifts the acceptance of the
Cartesiandifferencebetweenthemindandthebody,thesubjectand
the object, et cetera, we are referring to Bergson ([1869] 2004, 297)
whohasarguedthat:Thedifficultiesofordinarydualismcome,not
from the distinction of the two terms, but from the impossibility of
seeing how the one is grafted upon the other. Thus, we argue, the
8/13
8/20/2015
time has come to make a formal difference between this ordinary

dualism as Bergson analyzes it, and the radical rewriting of
modernist dualisms, as proposed for instance by Lyotard and
Deleuze. The latter have set themselves to a rewriting exercise that
involvesamovementinthoughtthatpracticeswhatBergsontermed
pushing dualism to an extreme, rephrased by Deleuzes statement
thatdifferenceispushedtothelimit.Wouldyouagreewithusthat
this is actually a crucial element of new materialisms affirmative
stance?
MD: I am not convinced that avoiding dualities is the key to a new way
of thinking (particularly if one simply adds new ones: modernismpostmodernism, rhizome-tree, power-resistance). What matters is
what categories are used dualistically. For example, in my book ANew
Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity
(DeLanda 2006) I criticize the use of the concepts The Market and
The State. Not because they are a duality, but because both are
reified generalities that do not really exist. Adding a third term, like
The People, would not help. What we need is to replace the reified
generalities with concrete assemblages: many bazaars, many regional
trading areas, many national markets... each with a date of birth and
(potentially) a date of death. The best way to deal with this problem is
always to think statistically, dealing always with populations and with
how variation is distributed in a population. Thus, the duality malefemale can easily be eliminated if we take a large population and
check how secondary sexual characteristics are distributed: all of them,
except for the capacity to bear children, form two overlapping
statistical distributions. The duality emerges when one ignores the
zone of overlap and reifies the averages.
Q7:Couldwesaythatthisstanceexemplifiesyourontologicaltakeon
topology as explained in Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy,
which involves a qualitative shifting of Euclidean geometry (2002,
9/13
8/20/2015
24) through view[ing] this genesis not as an abstract mathematical

process but as a concrete physical process in which an
undifferentiated intensive space (that is, a space defined by
continuous intensive properties) progressively differentiates,
eventually giving rise to extensive structures (discontinuous
structures with definite metric properties) (ibid., 25 original
emphasis)?
MD: Topology enters neo-materialism as part of the rejection of
Aristotle. We need to replace both his genus and his species. The
latter is replaced by the concept of a species as a contingent historical
individual, born through a process of speciation (reproductive
isolation) and capable of dying through extinction. The former is
replaced by the topological animal, that is, a body-plan common to
entire phyla (such as that of vertebrates) that is a structured space of
possible body designs. Such a space cannot be metric because each
vertebrate species varies in length, area, volume, et cetera, so only
topological properties like connectivity can be used to specify it.
Q8: In After Finitude, Quentin Meillassoux critiques idealists and
what he calls correlationists, for their shared representationalism
(something you also argue against) and also for continuing the
anthropocentrism that saturates the history of Western thought. For
although the human mind is no longer the point of departure for
philosophy, correlationalism still needs it in order for the world to
exist. Meillassoux ([2006] 2008, 37) ascribes a Kantianism to the
LeibnizianmonadSchellingsnature,ortheobjectivesubjectobject
Hegelian Mind Schopenhauers Will the Will (or Wills) to Power in
NietzscheperceptionloadedwithmemoryinBergsonDeleuzesLife,
etc.
Accordingtoourreadingofyourwork,youseemtoaimatproviding
anonanthropocentricmappingofthemorphogeneticchangesofthe
10/13
8/20/2015
real.Doesitfollowfromthissummaryofyourprojectthatyouagree
withMeillassoux?
MD: To be honest, I never read Meillassoux. But I surely reject the
idea that morphogenesis needs any mind to operate. I also reject the
neo-Kantian thesis of the linguisticality of experience. To assume that
human experience is structured conceptually is to dehistoricize the
human species: we spent hundreds of thousands of years as a social
species, with a division of labor (hunters, gatherers) and sophisticated
stone tool technology. Language is a relatively recent acquisition. Are
we to assume that those ancient hunter gatherers lived in an
amorphous world waiting for language to give it form? Thats
Creationism again, you know: And the word became flesh.
So yes, to the extent that Meillassoux rejects all forms of idealism I
surely agree with him. I would need to see what he offers beyond a
critique in order to assess the actual degree of agreement. Critique is
never enough. Marxism is not going to go away simply by making a
critique of it, we need to offer a viable alternative.
Q9: If so, an alliance can also be struck between your work and the
workofAlainBadiou,whoisMeillassouxsteacherandalsoclaiming
a new materialism. This time it comes to the fore when we take into
account your shared interest in mathematics, and, more in
particular,topology,diagramormodel.Foranewmaterialismtobe
valuable for scholarly and activist projects such as feminism and
postcolonialism, however, a theory of the subject seems to be
necessary. In new feminist materialism, for instance, alliances are
soughtwithprocessontologies,whichmakethenonanthropocentric
stance not nonfoundationalist (cf. the work of Rosi Braidotti). A
question then would be whether you see this necessity for a new
theory of the subject, and how this (dis)connects with the work of
MeillassouxandBadiou?
11/13
8/20/2015
MD: Badiou left me with a bad feeling after reading his book on
Deleuze which is incredibly incompetent. He uses the word the One
on just about every page when Deleuze never used it (other than when
making remarks about the scholastic notion of the univocity of
being). He is also a fanatic about set theory, whereas I tend towards
the differential calculus as my mathematical base. (The idea that the
latter was reduced to the former is yet another mistake we inherited
from the nineteenth century).
I agree that a theory of the subject is absolutely necessary but it must
be based on Hume, not on Kant: subjective experience not as
organized conceptually by categories but as literally composed of
intensities (of color, sound, aroma, flavor, texture) that are given
structure by habitual action. Recent developments in artificial
intelligence will help with this: while the old symbolic school is deeply
Kantian, the new connectionist school (based on neural nets that are
not programmed but trained) points to a way out. Current neural net
designs are at the level of insect intelligence but they already suggest
how an insect protosubjectivity can emerge from a dynamic of
perceived intensities. We need to extend this to the subjectivity of
mammals and birds, and work our way up to human subjectivity. The
political implication of this can be phrased as follows: rejecting the
linguisticality of experience (according to which every culture lives in
its own world) leads to a conception of a shared human experience in
which the variation comes not from differences in signification (which
is a linguistic notion), but of significance (which is a pragmatic one).
Different cultures do attribute different importance, relevance, or
significance to different things because their practices (not their
minds) are different. When it comes to gender, the paradox is this:
idealism was created by males who were in an academic environment
in which their material practices were reduced to a minimum, and who
had wives who did all the material work. And yet the moment
feminism became academic it became deeply idealist. Hence I welcome
12/13
8/20/2015
any return to materialism by feminists, even if based on entirely

different ideas.
Contents [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/11515701.0001.001/1:4.2/--new-materialism-interviews-cartographies?
rgn=div2;view=toc] Next Section [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/11515701.0001.001/1:4.3/--new-materialisminterviews-cartographies?rgn=div2;view=fulltext] Previous Section
[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/11515701.0001.001/1:4.1/--new-materialism-interviews-cartographies?
rgn=div2;view=fulltext]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ohp.11515701.0001.001
Published by: Open Humanities Press, 2012
Hosted by Michigan Publishing, a division of the University of Michigan Library.
For more information please contact [email protected].
13/13

Interview With Manuel DeLanda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interview With Manuel DeLanda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Interview With Manuel DeLanda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/20/2015

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

InyourbookIntensive Science and Virtual Philosophyfrom2002you

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

mathematical models (which to me are the secret of the success of

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

more explicit. Thus, how would new materialism propose a

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

soil, et cetera. Combining ecology and economics is a good idea, so that

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

from particles too small to be distinguishable from the

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

photosynthesis, respiration). To think that a brain is needed goes

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

time has come to make a formal difference between this ordinary

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

24) through view[ing] this genesis not as an abstract mathematical

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies

any return to materialism by feminists, even if based on entirely

You might also like