RECONCEIVING UTOPIAN MOVEMENT:
REALIZING THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTEhfTIAL
OF LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL
EXCHANGE
by
Jacqueline R. PlaniB
BA, TnrAy Western Universily, 2002

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
In
GENDER STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Apnl2005

® Jacqueline R. Plante, 2005

1^1

Library and
Archives Canada

Bibliothèque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de l'édition

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre référence
ISBN: 0-494-04625-2
Our file Notre référence
ISBN: 0-494-04625-2

NOTICE:
The author has granted a non­
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non­
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

AVIS:
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive
permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter,
distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans
le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, électronique
et/ou autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.

Conformément à la loi canadienne
sur la protection de la vie privée,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont été enlevés de cette thèse.

While these forms may be included
in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires
aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

Canada

Ulopia", and sunoundngdavialionscfAewmf^ has become the acadomklamildrWWiich is
insMecdve, naive, impraticable and at worst, cedain to fail. Regarded as such, ukpia(nXlsm) has been
resfiicted to nterary forms that have minimal transfbnnadvepotenliai. Howaver, our approach to
utopia(nXi8m) Is under transformaUon. Recant ferninistscholarBhip has begun to unravsioornrnon
aseumpWons that have unnecessarHy, and furthermore, mistakenly, Nmitedilspotenliai uses. Consequently,
connecting utopla(nXism) to efforts towad perfection of place or a blueprint for the fture is no longera
relevant activity.
In support and extension of this dsoourse, I explore a conceptual Imdscape of a new utopia wfsch Is
the birthplace of creativity, active thought, the continual process of conscious transfbmiation,
experimentation,andtherealignmentofaxistingelements. Moreover,itislnthespaceofthebooKorthe
written text, that expérimentai utopia(nXism) can be regenerated and appreciated in the forces dready at work.
However, the propagation of such activity requires a reconoeptuaMzation of utopia(nXlsm) and, therefore, a re­
consideration of common sense In regards to each concept with which it connects.
As the conceptual fluidty increases, a coHaboratrve Iransfonnation of liferËure through the efforts of
both reader and writer becomes crucial. GBIesDeieuzB offers an axperimsntal approach to Marature in which
writer, reader, text and the book Itseif are taken up In a variable state of becoming. UUIizingsuchDsieuzian
conceptsasthe'rhizome', 'nornadmm'end'delenitoriaBzatiorHeterTitoriaWion'tothewritingandreadngof
new" utopian Ntsrature, serves to extend transgressive potentials in terms of boundary-traversal, languageinnovation, and rdardfty-dkpersal and also challenge the exclusivity of how utopian Wtarature is commonly
distinguished. The academic affirmation of an Inventive utopla(nXlsm), which aims to explore rather than
designate through both Rtermy and theorËical taxis, wHI unfurl the vigorous poss&ilities of the psyche
beyond the skeptical stagnations of feminism(6).
Whef Is dbcussed here Is a ulopic perspective of Bterary exchange. Oneinwhlchutopia(nXism)
must be understood as an active force.

TABlf OFCONTENTS
Abstract li
Table of Contents: ili
Warning to the reader v
STOP 1: INTRODUCING THE ACADEMIC ARENA

1
1: what is the concept of utopia?
2: the futility of discussmg a concept
4: the concept of the concept-the situation of the situated
6: validation of approach

STOP Z UTOPIAN IMPOTENCY

9

9: I t seemed like a good idee...ln theory": the root of utopia(n)(ism)
16: why utopla(nXism)?
17: openmg the ddWtton
18:^oriouscontradRlion
19: a space for experimentation
STOP 3 : MOBILIZING UTOPIA(NXISM), MOBUZING THOUGHT 20
20: thinking is not what you think
21: good sense of the corrsnon
23: immanart transcendence
25: joyful nM@sm
27: embracing tear, loving nothing
29: academic utopia/experimerrtal domain - the e#tism of the estranged
30: a community of the estranged
31: replacement ideals
STOP 4: THE WRITER. 32
33: what/who is the new utopian writer? idenOty into multiplicity
37: three taxtisas of the utopian wrltsr
37: texture 2 - the estranged
38: texture 2a- eskenged as woman
40: problem # 3 -convenient diaegard for the buddhghmale subject
42:counter-problem#3a-preoccupied withthefeministself
# problems #2 &1-becoming-woman
45: texture 3 - of delicate health
STOP 5: THE BOOK 47
47: utopian is as utopian does
49: the rhizome-the structure resistant structure
50: explosive text
51: increments, measurements, where'd the genre go?
55: 'arrd then I hsppened upon this brmch': an example of the rhizome
56 :orderls in order faHure?
59: conoeplual and physical structure
60:theirAerview
61: the introductory text
62: (tscipKnery cross-breeding
63: annouTdng exposure
64: unraveling the narrative (pert 1)
STOP 6: THE CHARACTER

66
66: unravaBng the characta
68: a becoming between the actual and the virtual
69: cfraracter without identity

RETURN TO STOP 5: THE BOOK

73

m

73: iM3V8lingth8n8nalive(paft2)-flaw8inR^Bntion
75: freeing the book from its contant
76: infected with psychoanalysis
78: ONE - changing spaces
80: TWO - "THINGS. TTWngs. TWngs, things, fhingsthmg6...#%s. Things? Is ftWa wont?"

82:THREE& FOUR-pnvate pads and sex acts
83: making language move
84: a) the metaphor, representation, symbol and hence, thesit)ecl
87: and of grmmw and punctuation?
89: with conclusion but always thinking aboiA open" - warcising the reajer
STW 7: THE READER

91
92: learning to read
92: the literary machine
95: süence and discretion
96: igiorance
97: readmg to learn
97: readng against defensiveness

STOP 8: CONCLUSIONS

98
99: the eddy or whirlpool of thought

Outtakes: 104
Abbreviated Titles & Works Cited: 105

IV

A e Older of üils thing
In conbackUonb (he veiyefldit of this project, as you shaN soon see, I hswe broken the dscussion down
into 10 points that I r^er to in privelB as "points of dissection', 8 mildly Initated «(pression of the violent
dppingofpiecesfmmtheirnaturEdflowtobeplotledlntosedions. This, Itellmyself, wasnecessaryinordw
to procise a presentation of each, to some extent, as orgaiûzedmdcontËnable matter. Failing to escape
some fomi of methockalstnjcture in this instance Is more humorous than Inevitable. So, as a means of
lessening the damage of this impending failure, please regard each section (and the entire project) as it is
intended to be presented: porous, raw md bleedng, without theoreticai beginning or end, and irreducbie to
its presentation as singular. One begs consideration of ali others to have any amalgamatad result-one wlii
leak into another the next wN refer back to those prior to ll As it Is preeeided in such a way I ask for your
"willing suspension of disbeW, or belter still "an adoption of belief mtH aHends meet up.
iwholsf?
There wili be none of this sort of questioning here, /will use T without nwchdiscr^ion throughout the
presentation of this projed, but not from a desire to express myself to draw your atteidion to me, because I
represent noffmg with any solidarity (an intentionaily placed dancing modHer). I represent no one really, i
write for no one really, i srfpose I am writing for myself, but I do not pretend to know who that is exactly: and
I sifposei am writing for you or anyone I have ever read, brd this changes drastically every momenl What I
vwite is the frothy ckcharge from the mouth of some vast beast erijoying the mixed favours and textures of
vaied discourses, i use T because I want to dam some responsÊxNtyfortfieprodiKt of this activity, and
because I wish to engage plainly in a conversation with you, the reader, on an obvious level - because I
(whomever that may be at the moment) am here and because you are here. And because we are excited by the
problems at hand and I consider a oorAiuous emphasis of this banality to be crudal to tfre exchange.
Adtntttedly, Httie excites me more than the paradoxical harmony between the glorious generalities of theory
and the pmüculanty of person. It is my prderence to have been working on this project with another living
human being, so as to have a becoming between the two of

To be one another's mediator, and then we

oxAj use 'we' inslead of 'I". So, adl this being said... I vow to use whatever pronoun occurs—T, "we', or
whatever else.

: pronoun dellberaWon#

I had considered alternating the mascuNne and feminine pronoun for each chapter, or simply using
one and apologizing about Its* the outset; however, idedded to try something a Htdedfferert ihaveuseda
rather unnatural, not entirely logical intrusion of brackets to separate the letters M and [s]...those being the
letters which mdcate female: [s]he = she/he; however, those letters without brackets are not always
grammdically correct for the pronoun requlrements of the mascUine: he[r] = his/her; he(r]-sdf =
himself/herself. Achsttedy some of my reasons for this choice are for personal benefit at the expense of the
reader, such as, I was curious as to which pronoun would moetimmedately stem from my mhid and Into my
typhg hands. To my surprise. It was the feminine; however, it was suspiciously forced, as though my
consciousness was retaliating by consdously flipping the subiect whom I had been reading fw so many years
as the neutral subject—a dreadful lesson that I'm afraid has me involuntarily reactive. A mere reversal was
sknply unacceptable. AndtheideaofputUngboihvrnsequallymdtractlve, butnotbecauseltlsdslracling, I
rather find that to bring attention to such a transparent word is thougf# provoking, and an exercise of
flextility. However,irealizedthatitwasthewholeideaoflhepronounth(dbdh«edme...thatlonlyhadthe
choice between the maacukne and the feminine and thK due to the gender awareness of contemporary
theory, my use of the masculine would appear either appaNngly unaware or bitterly ironic, but my use of the
ferninine would appear either dwgustinglyprecktable or skrrlypasaiveaggresslva. Solmadeafariy
abilraydecisiontooonfusethesensechaninvolvedinreadingoomprBhenslon. Thesoimdismost
frequentlyof the feminine, yet the feminine serves as merely a sHent supplement to the writlen presence of the
masculine. Somehow it accompkshee all four of the ImpBcalionsi found undesirable and has the visual
dklraclion of placing bolh at once. During the duration of the writing process I was entertained by the
exercise of natursBzing my use of these words; they played a part in keeping rnyrnind alert Acoordngfy, I
kept them because tfrey are an authentic part, and because pronouns are ridculous arryway, so we should
dress them up in something amusing if we must continue to parade them around.

VI

S '# '
g
g
3

s.

:

&
g

g

g
?

Ii
&
m

dearly exemplified, by the wnter-in-pfesaTt, Ihe one situafing the situation from witfwn an ovenwhelmingly
complex mukh of Idaas of past, piaaent, and perhaps ftdura-pmiectad, and all witMn the laws of academia.
And the one in this writing sfkiadon, at this mornenf,aeernsk) I * me. VMshing to convey a concept, In order
to commumcata to the reader, I an obliged to abide tv those rules which the iAopia(nXism)rMonceplualized
has been motivated to neglect, but that my cogstive pocess Is pla^red, by nobody's fadt but every living
ttWnginlhehumardspictionoftheunivefse. This,aHtf%hasledmetoaconsidaalionofthe
concepfuaWidnofffieoorice^evenbWorefB-oonceptualizingofieconceptinparticda. Becauseperhapsit
Is a place to begin, to aMer the attitude with wfiich we approach tfre entrance of this dmdgery, that is, to see
that we are entering an exit, rather than exiting a i opening, the outside.
: the fuUIMy of discussing a concept
The concept worWng behind a tenn is always oompUcfded and unpredktable bacarse as its history
may be long and extremely varied. It is susoepUble to an unknowable variety of oontaxts and usee. As Rita
Felsid points oid, even 'everyday Ufa' Is a concept with a long and oompWcrdad history (78). According, the
appearance of ihe word utopia(nXism) does not cue everyone k) the same dasipTaikm or stage of its process.
Therefore,thedsoussionsurroun(fngaconoe;Aaccordingtoilssigs#cationiscrippledfromtheoutsel For
example, although two opposing parties may desire a simila product, as is notable m contemporary feminist
dkcusslons of ukpl^nXism), both anti, and pro, the rotations of dscussion are halted by ooncems about the
signiBer rather than sW it is they intsnd to signify. According to conterrporaryfernirsst theorist Lucy
Sargisson, utopia(nXism) mtonates transgression, which is the 'Redeeming aspect" of a theory or work (CFU
98). However,AyferwristlheoristSaflyKitch,whooppoaesherselfto'utopians'suchasSargsson,theword
denotes aHthat is conu;^ within a text or body of thoughl Furihennore, she argues that Sargisson Is truly
anti-utopian and acting under an unsuitad body (Higher Grormd 76). KItch prefers the conceptual body of
realism,orwWshecaHsHigherao(md,todesiQnat8themeaning. Ontheconbary,Sargissonarguesthatthe
definition of utopia(n)(lsm) mrat be adaptable to ihe evolulion of contemporary feminist work, a demand aWch
she offers the openness and complexity of what she calls fransgressfverrtopiankm, and new ufppfanbr;;. The
words utHized by each theorist are thick with opposition, but If dkragarded, would expose a prooess and
affect which are doeelyperaHeled. Howevsr, this is merely a sknpMeddscussion between only two, and is,
adtnittedlymetalyoneaspectofwhatfuelsiheopposilion. Buttheconceptofaconcept,lheapproachto

using a tBirn capitulates a zipper daadlock. Conflict is Wtrfariously involved In the dscussions of
utopla(nXism), even within Its own, obviously pandleBng tenns. There is socialist md critic^ utopia(nXism).
Thereisutopia(nXism)ascoi#8rA,asfonn,asfunclion,asadion. Utopia(nXi3m)asplanandasplaoe.
Utopia(n)(ism) as deposition. Utopia(nXism) as artkdc expression md Nteiay genre. There are degrees of
utopia(nXism), as Ernst Bloch desotes it, the "imderdeveiopecr or "wishful tfsnking" ukpia(nXism)sare
respon8tiefortaintingtheresponseto«Jthenticutopia(n)(ian)s(106). AndwitfWnthemtenseconsideration
of the project at hand, there is utopia(nXism) as rspresentstMn of Mure, modernism, nalve^, and
impracticability. Lltopia(nXism), as si^Tlfier, is recreated, in a sense, every time It is used, dependng on Its
context and Wended meaning. However, as we do with aB other concepts, we try to use It with some
oonAdenoe h r the purpose of whatever niotivates our particular dscusaion. Are we then to think IhË we are
capabieofhavmgacorTversalion? OristhepadenoeandinvBslmentrBquiredoftherseder-witterwho
approachesatextwithhefr] prepared web of assumptions, beliefs, and irrve^rnenls, an unrealislicallytWgh
expectation? Certainly It is. Perhaps It is even, 'utopian', as They" say.
DeleuzerndGuattmicondudethatthereisnopointindscussion: Ihebestonecaisayabout
dscussions is that they lake things no farther, smce the participants never talk abord the same thing'(MiP?
28). TodsagreewiththisslalamentwouldbetDsdfertheironyofproMngthelrpoinl Bi^wearefortunate
becausewedsayeeinacontaxtwheretheiqeclionof unrversd statements is paranount; however, in the
samecorÉBxtwe»e!mfortunatebecause,althouÿi we know exactly what we are doing, we continue to do so.
It is the contradction of ideology, or rrxxe accurately, the ideology of contradclion produced by he academic
arena as I cdl it Subsequently, DeleuzB end Guattari are dscussing, despite what they know, and here we
are, canylng on the dscussion. Why? Because in the exchange of whË we will caHutopla(nXlsm), the
foundations of the conversation themselves are changing, along with the questions, the positions, and the
conoeptsoftheconceii^bemgdscussed. BecauseweraalizBthatwhatweweredacussingismerBlyour
projection powered by the force that motivates us bapedr, to wait to speak, to try and listen. It is no longer
thetarmitself—that halting fixation—that carries any importance, or even its meaning, but rather the fooe
bednditthatismexpendable.
Perhaps then, the dscussion is not alone in its futiMty,wilh its brackish faces and words, bd is
ratherinpatnershipwithorrhabitualapproach. Wequestionwhat,who,how,why,when,where,whateveris

ulopl^nXism)?, from a potent propensity of ttm academic arena, that voice of parmioia which cnes out, "sp;^
Wiaf chemicails w academic weedk oryour camM^pWed garden iwü be ovemm/r While finng questkm
attack mdhuding answers in defense, the conceptËhand—utopia(nXism)—failed or no, produced froma
desire for dWference, forthe new, to change the present condtion, is tallndad by dubbomsii^ectpositions
and their projections whidi are translatable oniy into symbols, rspresentations, meanings, and other
designations. ajtalivetherehthevanefyoftheconcepfsuses,b(AragedandyouWul,isadem«islration
of the multiplicity of things, rafher Aan of a grand "One" or Tme'where our Wth hides and halts our efforts In
trBnsfbrmingwhatcppressesus. Thisvanetyrenderstheconce|Aunrenderable,havingnooneposi#onm
space,time,orreason. Suitably, we must abandon our loyalties to the hunting and colonizing of concepts for
our actMty as craators and cohabitants. And If we are doing our job, each in our own time, space, and aWity,
neither the concept nor we shodd ever be laid to resl'
: the concept of the concept-fhesNuabon of Ihe sMuabd
In their coHaboraUve work on MW is fWiosopfiy? Gilles DeleuzB and Félix Guattari commence the
first chapter of their answer with yË another question: "wW la a concqpf?" It Is, common sense aside, a
crudalentrmicebecaBelheoccupalionofphilosophyislhecrealioncfconoepts. Thatiswhataphilosopher
does—createconcepts—notmerslyrallectiponthepre-existentones(AI0122). Inofherwords, Deleuzeand
Gu8tlariadvamceconceptsœ'actsofthouÿif(21). Andasthephiloaopherisproducing,ratherlhen
reflecting, the concepts [s]he produces are crafted to be active, rather than relics or bite-sized erqilmations of
Ihewofld. As Brian MassumidescnbesundartheDeleuzian influence, 3»ncepls]donotrallectiponthe
woddbutareimmersedinachangmgstateofthingsr (translalof'slbrBwordATPxii). TherWore,theconcept
is adlve In a history of nxMsment and metamorphosis acoordmg to the landecapes It encounters. We use and
reuse, give and retain names to these porous, plasmatic shelis as they rise and fall with the shape of their
contents. However, It Isa daunbng task, aasByinisbited by Ihe haunUng of prewous uses. As t#haB Bakhtin
mticüates, a concept or temr is saturabd, contaminated, impregrated by the hmrds that have touched it
before(Hawthom42). TheelementsbothpotenliallyandcurrentlyaxistinginthebodyoftheconceptarB
heterogeneous and volatHe. This heavily popuWed thing must be regarded as fultbockd, with a mess of
cells and vems because of the magiitudB its revitaKzation or rapositionmghm on several planes of thouÿt

' "Of couse, the nrnned moves, but wtMeseated, and he is ordy seatedwhAemoving'(ATP 381).

One concept overflows into other bodies, üowmwith and against, engages in beoommg with the elements of
nei^tonng concepts, dtering each, afpoMIng aid m^taning a consistent level of indktin^jishabaity:
"concepts link up with each otha, sifpod one awther.cooidinalB their contoum, adiculabtherfespecBve
problems, and belong to the same philosophy, even if they have dffemnt Nstones" (Deieuze and GusAari
K7P? 18). This is exemplified in the work of Deieuze axl Guattari, throughout concepts such as nomadohgy,
rfifzomaëcs, deterrWaüz^ion, and becomings to name a few. One concept can be considered mtarchangeable
with the other. As tMs pro)ect plays ord, the reform of utopia(nXlsm) simultaneously msmuates a tweaking of
desfre, error, and perüscëon. From this it follows that the conoeplual shift of one term producasa shift In many,
a conceptual dbastsr of tfre'natural.'
One must have a peripheral settlement with language, focusing on the activities surroundmg and
passingtNoughitsdesign:dlon8ratherthanonthe(XMX>e-p-titself,becausethecenkrisemply. Words,
besides, shoiMd only denote actions, rather thm meanings or identities, as they pass into alteration with new
problems. As Deieuze md Guattari Impart, the concept speaks an event not a INr^ fIMP? 21). There Is no
needtot:d(ethewordde«gn8tionssollterally,sotD8peak. BecaimewfTyrrNjstawordhaveonlyone,two,or
evsnthreemeanings? Doesmynameprovokeonlyonede8cr#on?EvBryconceptlsinsuchcloseproiximlty
wtthsurroundngooncetAthatitBsilhoueltecannotbereducedtosinguWty. Termsdonothavelimiteduse,
that is. @rere Is no natural relation b^ween the signifier and the signified. The words were nevsroorract In the
first place, fidl with their representation and designations. Deieuze writes, there are only Inexact words to
designËe8omelhingaxacll/(Dff3), mearWng, itisnotthet8imthedisoflnportanoe,buthowitisbeingused,
whatitdoes. ltfoUowsthatthetermneednotbeconsiderBdsoserlously,sorBsli1ctiv8ly;however,itlsnot
out of laziness or disrespect for history that the concept Is made porous. Increased in its use with a
dirmnishedconcemregatdlngits'proper'use. Ontheoontrary,itisoutofarBspectful8cknowbdgement(^
comple»tyandtheimpossbility,aswellastheundearBbility,ofoonlainmenl Indeed,theimpetuskfsuch
réactivations stems from an acute awaaness of the "proper". And this ser«ud expansion of the concept
leaks into virtually each of the multiple categories of academic Involvements, from methodology used to the
ontologicEd foundations of thought
For the convenience of sunmary, this concept of the concept, influenced by Deieuze and tvs
sumoundng populations, reveals five major attitudes from whidr this revitalization of utopl8(n)(ism) carries :

IjTheconceptcanandehoiddbenewandvolatileasalhought-act: 2)Thevilalityandcomplexityofa
concept is æ unavoidably-^ohoi»ly-4X)llabomlive andaavon 3) Tha concept nallhar has ona usa, nor doas
Its usa have only onanama; 4) VWth dead concepts, and vdth a daad concept of lha concept, comas death
masquarading as ciaativity.
5)Playtimet)r8adsdmge,takestllghtandth8imp^behindthisckcussionlsit8alfathinginmotion. To
stop is to dany tha activity of raading, dsrsspact tha activity of witlng, and tymrs tha inHnitawoMd of
cotlalxxatlonbelweanthatNm. And1urlhamTom,nonTacktBndanci8Scannott)adaniadandev8tylhing
ancountafadissut3iacttothaaff8ctBOfnomadk;movamant(A7P 382).' AsNidiolasRoylawitasofJacquas
Danida, "graat works tianshnn tha context of thair reception [although] this takas tima" (73).
But in tha midst of thasacreativa Hows are wedgad tha hony of its navigadon within the acadansc
aena, a metropolis of strict irTfrastrudure.rdhar than the expanses of unexplored landscapes which inspire
suchfhws. And this is txit ona of tha marry conlradkAms of academic exchange and, as we shall consider,
tha process of utopia(n)(ism).
zvalldaUon of approach
Asthaamorphousconceptof tha concept has tragw to unfurl, this project moves toward
intensifyingthaporousnassandmovemarrtofthaconceptutopia(nXism). However,contrarytothaaclivalion
towad which these effots move, tha very attenft to discws tha concept of creation is itself an
acknowladgmant and acceptarca of tha need for ar1icidation,whidi requires a certandapea of stability and
pause. Sucharetharealitiasofimmanenca;wamustbaginsomewhare, rest somewhere, lay our mat down.
laavaourmal(,txityKwamustnavat]afoundamongtheremainsofinaclivathought Accordngly,tha
ptotta must always have dready moved on try tha time ha[r] marks are found, tracarsa that lucid artcdation
was not ha(r] final concern, trut rather trait for tha amargenca of new drecbond possbailitias (Fiumaa 162).
This is the deNc^ activity of tha academic nomad, tha ona whom tcah the utopian pkrysr (although I ask you
to r#sin from finding tha word'utopian'faniliar at ttss time), to move as though aoDss an open landscape,
and continue to remodel tha mena accordingty. With this comas tha knovdadga that regadass of the

' "The nomads Wmtrittheseplaces: they remain in Asm,andthey themselves mat» themgow,hr ithastieeneslahtishedthalthe
nomadsmakethedesertnolessAanbieyapemadelryrl Theyarev8ckxeofdetemtorializabon'(382).

Gxpk)8iv8n8ss of ib entrance, W concept will be ^adually positioned in Ihe rop^ilions of this space; it will
t)e articulated to dealfi BizabettiGroszwrites:
You can t)6 sure WltiemomefA a theor^kd position tieoomes popularized, «çkûied, analyzed,
aid assessed wlttim intense scrutiny, ttie bulk its ptaclionaiBloegin to respond to it in automatic
and routine ways ...with their commentaries, dssertations, and endess analyses, then the Initial
thougtd becomes routinized, rendering it once agan habitual and insdtutionaBy assimilable.
(Interview 7)

aosz désertés the mevitBble development cf academ ics:^ points, those that seal caeets and the rasped
offeHowcoNeagues. Itlsamatterofpopidarity,demand,aidiÆlitywilhintheclassroom. Andthereis,
indeed, use in such tired translatons In regards to issues of accessibility and the propagation of an arena,
whichalthouÿiloathed,lsrBquirBdfbrcreativeexchange. ThjS,beingrBducedaTdusedfbrtheproduction
arxlsu^snaice of other's acadernic careers isa quintBSsentialsacrffioe of paticipalion in a dorninant
stnrclure. Thrsisbutoneofthettictior»crBatedintheeflbrttocommimicatBwithtthesys%ams,languages,
and fonnals of the instltulion whHe becoming increasingly estranged and foreign to Its inner-workings, while
hoping to gain acceptance and alliance, in order to breed change.
Nevertheless there remains a dsdnclion between die parasitic work of the academic and the soBtary
workofthoeeth8twWlbenamedutopian;thatis,arhileonewritesabor/ttheotherwritesM#rn. Inthepreboe
of her book, Hkfory ader Lacan, Theresa Brennan notes a growing dependency on "established dxad points'or
"recogrszed reference points'for purposes of Tegitimadon," 'social approval,' and 'security" (xi). Although
she acknowledges the productivity of dispelling ideas and provldng a conceptual-apEdial location for the
reader, she proposes a deference between sources efiich aim for'communicafion and acknowledgemenf and
sources whose secondary modes merely act as prodferadons of dxedpolrds(xn). The hegemony of the latter
confines the forthcoming player to a fear of speaking outside of the fandlmr, and to prpjecdngalfinnations of
thewayswhlchwealreadyareandthedkectionsweh8vealrea4fgone(xii). Contrastedtothissecondary
mode, is what BtennaicaHs the Iproposrdonalmoder, that of the infamoiK monsters of academic induence,
those we incessantly write on—"Lacm, Derrkb, Foucault, Kristeva, Irgraray", and I might appropriately add,
Deteuze—whoeeimprecedanted writing risks the danger of bad schotarshlp or immodest daims (xHi). The
modvadonof Brennan's (ktinction is to provoke aiunderatandng of her attempt to combme the two, in order
to "balance confidence and context, the movement of ideas and fixed polnlsr (xiii). It is precisely this fine
kdance that is of concern to the utopian player, with he|r] one foot in an experimented domanemd the other in

Ihe academe amm. I suggest that this balance is notable in Deieuze's artful suturing of those he reads with
hiso*nconceptcmations(aoszAF068)/ ThusincollabomtionwiththosebefofBhim,hefbrges^iead
with new thougfitwhHesimiAaneouslyreMtalizhg the raedsr's approach ban versed W s, tnasmOar
sentiment, fWiolasRoyle's corÿrins Derrida's texts as simultaneously oonstaWw—a descriptive slaternerA
offset—andperbmwfMs—that which is already doing, which "calls for action and response" which
simultaneously senms to descrbe and transform the way in which we think (22).
The delicate balance between the radkal and tire acceptable is crucial to the revitalizalion of a
concept ThersvolutionmiMc8tchon,andinordertodoso,mustmakeaconnectionwlththeoontBxtfrom
which it departs, that is, with the points of academic cohesion. Thus, a rescue of utopla(n)(ism) from the
Wnâtations and pollutants of form, content, and discipline, must begin with a departure from the shade of such
canopies as "Gender Studes,'"l^nistLitBraiy Theory," "FerninistPMosophy,"'FernmlstUtopianlsrn,'
"Feminist Utopian Fiction." This requires a wHWripiess to abandon certain expectdlons, to begminlikely
relationships. It must be understood, however, thatthisisnotanexpressicnofsomehiefarchlcalanDgance
regardng who Is tmly writing or creating. Perhaps more accurately, this departure can be understood as a
growing leniency towards those who are committed through a certain intensity of engagement that may not be
asdetectbleoroomfortable. However,leniencydoesnotmeantolerance,orpas8iveacceptance,butralher
dscemment of the multiple. There are stKtfrose who me d o ^ and those who are merely mimicking,
speaking because they Rretfre sound of their voice. This is the point at which ^fmpathles may be neglected,
becajsepfwlosophyardwritingstemfromalove, a pursuit, an obsession, and do not stop to cower beneath
oradrsre relics.
Ttss^hics, if I may crdi it that, is EM^hics of passionate motivation tfatwanants the wild use of that
which the player can m ^ available and becoming increasingly open to. An academic vWafion, In these
tarms,isneoessarytobringtheofy,pa8sedUTeoty,mdmloaclion. ThetheoriesthafutopianplayerscreatB,
and oonlrbute to, that dstkrguish the utopian player as such, extend beyond some thereat conoMon of their
career, because, at the very least they begin to circulate as an electrical-psychical-cunent through the player's
daily life. In a written conversation with Foucault, Deieuze writes:

' "...beyareasmuclrareOectionoftiis'mellKidology'asAeyatB rigorous and attuned readkigsof tmdsmerginakzedin Uie
hisbryofphilosoptry."

A(heofyhask)b8UMd,lthasto*oik. AfxjnotjU^foritsolf. IflheiBisnoonelouseit,darling
with Ihe Iheond himself who, as soon as he uses it ceases to be a theorist, th%i a theory is
worthless, or its time has not yet arrived. (Intetlectuds and Power" 208)
Butconcervably, its seepage into daSy consciousness, within the banal ddaHs such as a voluntary motion to
what one eats, is imperoepdWe to a population bonded to fixed designallons. Perhaps even more concerning
is the dar^ of the eMeds of theory by those who have limited their activilies, either intentionally or
unintanlionaNy, to sMcIfy pragmatic, poWcal grounds—a vary tangbleconmct which fuels the pitting of one
feminismagainstlheolher, and poisons the dkcusslonsurTomdngidopia(nXism)8 with disdam, as it has
become the abused mascot for such contentions.

Nothing positivB is done, nothing at aH, in the domains of either criticism or hislory, when we are content to
brandkhreadyinade old concepts like skeletons intandad to NTtimidata any creation, without seeing that the
mcient philosophers from whom we borrow them were already doing what we wotHdBke to prevent modem
philosophersfromdoing: they were creating their concepts, arid they ware not happy just to demi and scrape
bones i&e the critic and historian of our time. Evan the history of phlloeophy Is oompietely without Interest if
It does not undertake to awaken a donnant concept and to piay it agam on a new stage, even if this comes at
the price of turning it against itself.
- GNes Deieuze and FeËx Guattari Aom iMmf is Phaoeopfry?'
_____________________STWZUTOPIAN IMPOTENCY
phrot:

TTie 8(»demic arena fsAevirbafrpaoa you tnhaWoomsdorrs^f-nlnthoi^arxf In acùMfy. YOuacflnboffi, thWrA
troth. TTioughffsactlor]. Onekedsfheofher^afthouf^fh^corne/froonfkforonersneglecfedtbrfhesakBoffhe
ofherwrthoarfamn^ularfty. 7% is predseiÿ because (hey have become InseparaWashioe you Asf saw (he wa% that
Ws(We8(ruc(rjre(ha(h8dk8p(onehon?fU8hrngWo(heo(her. The academic arena isalabyrfn(h of (hesewaNs, Aey
are what has you caugWwonderfr%[ where your ideas can how. Have (hem how urr@(heyares(qpped, and
acknowledge (hkhirArreasadiscovery. Ybu have (bund a wah, and knowing (ha(r( is (here, #m(k Assuccess at
ke^ofngyouout CorAwelohow, bu( bdbremo«*% art iwhe on Aeeewah8...w7hB on (hem to make (he#posfhon
viskWe. ki (his ^pace, (hishme, you whfpl^ peacekeeper and oondWf Ay new angles (oreachvalB (he cono^ of
^bid., 83.

ufqpfa, jbec8Use*B8Cono8pfiyfM8eman%dafiwK@wmo#y^Bd6y8dBSWBAycAangie, ADmadBs^sWfonM#

(fMaflWsgiesepsycf^waOshaveWonfhew'orWngsofgMei/efyi/^. AndfBganyHessofAewwfcdonemAe
eve/y (% you Aave(*osen #18academic WB88, because aRhougAAape/cepfiWenW be daaKw#, fheexposufei^
*e/mpefcep(a)fe—walWden#gc8#on—wBAeemovemeafofAepqpuWonsmbehiieea. BufAefeiwgjbe
compeAkm, (hefe wi#be#iosew*o choose nofb see
you AavewmUen, aN fxx^fh^i##! make use <^yow
uncoweung, andm^sf/7?jofyiM#B#OMef andoweragafn across (he wa#.
point:
: "It seemed Ike a good Idea . ln theory": the mot of ulopi^n)(l$m)
The word'Utopia'was created by Sir Thomas Mom in 1518 to enlilleaflclionalAought exercise
erTviSMrWngarikjaalpolilicd.geoGpaphKd.arxjsocioecoriofnicterTiplale. Thewordismostfrequer^broken
down as follows:
the adwerb ou, meanbig "not'thenounkpos, meaning "place," which, together are generally taken to mean
"noplaoe". InaddMion,MoreplayswithlheGreekcompoaite,eufqpra,me6^"happy,"fbrtunalB,"or'goo(f
place as wen as entqpos, meaning, "a place where a# is weT. So, quite MeraHy utopia is translated as—no
place Is the good place, or; the good place Is no place—reacNng the general consensus that this good place is
nowhere to be fowd (Grosz AF0135). Notwithstanding its specific translation, and Mora's specific politkxdly
charged literary manifestation of the term, 'rÉopia" Is currently used to desigiate a smattering of
interconriected fictional andlorrnMacalrniBingsregardhTg an ideal cornrnonwealth whose InhabitarAs exist
under perfect condHions, provoking memories of rigldy authoritarian and hierarchical constructions (133),
which are dbempowering to aHbut thoee who constructed It (Sargisson CFU 87). A long chain of "utopla'incamates and predecessors include Plato's RepwWic (approx 500 B.C), the heaven of the Christian faith,
Francis Bacon's New Adarrhs (1622), of Karl Marx's "Classless Society" (mid 19thC), B.F Skinner's M/alden Two
(1948), and the rush of modernist architectural planning.' Abelt, despite its 500-year relationship with a
changing rhetoric, literary and philosophical landscape, a Bmitad use persists even now, both academically
ædcolloquially,orwors8yË,withinthecolloquiËismoftheac8demicarena. Thetermhaslongagobeen
estranged ftom its origins and burled with in connections. It puHs thought from we# beyond Its boundaries
back into its decay in the conceptual pothole of Western civilization. What I refer to as decay, is wtiat
contemporary Wnlnist theorist Lucy Sargbeon calls "the myth of utopianism', or'thecoiloqrsai usesofthe
term' (CFU 9). Based on her survey of the common approach in Contemporary Ferrrrrrrst Utopias, the basic
' In IWwf Is Fosf-AAxterrrkm?, Charles JencksCbcusses the The deallrofmodemarclritBcture"wAich worked underthe
"congenitalnaiv^iesrihat'goodkimwBstDleedtogoodcontBnr mxltemvetitiotrwaspossbleonrahonalgcundBcornrnttlBdto,
holism, tanacenderWal thought and other such amershocks of the EnHÿitenment (London: Academy BttOons,

10

assm#(xi8simDundng Ms common approach are as follows: 1)allutopia8ampolitical(17);2)all utopias
am tinltB (19); and aHutopias am p » W (19). Bascally, ubpia is mducQvsly assumed to be WuepfW for
perfection, created for actualization of space and dme. No actUEdizing of lÉopla in tMswodd, with this people,

will be pedecl fWection is impossMe; themfom, efforts toward perfection, utopia(nXism), am que^ionable
and irmlevant, If not devastating.
Contemporay feminist discourse provides one of the most sevem rejections of utopia(nXism).
Perhaps one of the most consciously antkÉoplanrepfBsentativeB is feminist theorist and self-proclaimed exutopian, Sa*y KItch. Herbooir, Higher Grorrmif, fingers utopian activity as the primary foroe of destruction
within feminism. Her argument reveals a very accurate and thorough depiction of specifically feminist
expectations regarding the assumptions of utopla(nXlsm):
[Utopian thought assumes that] societies and tunannatiae am perfectMe; foundational ideas can
be etemd and unambiguoi»:cons«tent happiness can be achieved; most problems can be defined
aidpermanentlysolvediconsensuscanmdmustoccur. SuchafHternotonlymakesthe
inevitabaity—and beneBts—of uncertainty and change, it can aboWlate feminist expectations and
lead to dsappoirdment and dkiiiusionmenl (100)
Briefly stated, ubpia(n)(ism), regardkssr^ the well-meaning irAentions behind it, is a nËve reduction of
reality, having Utile relevance and only negative effed Indcativeofparticdartypoiiticalty-basedfeminisms,
as Greg Johnson addresses, these assumed assumptions of ubpia(n)(ism) provoke anxieties surrounding the
hazard of Ignoring and disregardmg the preeent situations of women", wtxie we should be "working hem and
nowkeradkate these structures" inslead of teing preoccupied with a fWum that may or may not ever arriver
(22).

However, it is rae in contemporary thought and iitaratum for one to impart such manifest proposals
of the IdeEd, although elements of such activity am notable throughout fiction, and invigorate, in one way or
axArer.everyeiqaoslulaOonormovemerAtowardsomelhingbetter. Accordki(#y,thetracesofthewofd
utopia', and Esry VEsiation of its root, has taken an immovable position as the label for visionary thinkers
befom and after its entrance Into signitication. 'Utopian'has become a steadW academic favorite for
denoting a thinker, theory, or work that is thought to be idsEdistic, ineffective, impracticable, nafve, and certain
tofaP. Accordkrgly, the utopian'Wnker is dkmgarded as one who (kaams of an unattatnable world, whMe
neglecBng the real need of those who raqulmtangble change. Therafom, it is ram that a theorist would
deliberately place he(r]-self in the oompany of such a concept

11

Utemtum is 8 litUedMbmnt, however. Freely labeled œ an author of'utopian Mion', If» writer of
fiction is given 'permission' to engage in recognizably utopian gestures, because it is merely an artisk
reflection, an artUpreeeiWon of fantasy, wfrich offers clever social critique and vWshWthinkkg. This
particular acceptance, however, fastens the agency of such literature to little more than a particular form,
contentaTdmeansofpsycNMdescapemd/orentertainmenl Furthermore,suchcormectionsresonatewith
thenegativilyoftheacademiccolloqulalismofthetBrm. Forexanpl8,whlleSallyKitch,inherfbcu8edatlack,
does not question the insight of utop^ novels, saymg that they "respond sometimes brWiaitly to present
condKons—by absorloing them, reflecting them, axf critiquing them", ^

denounces such novels as harmful

extensions and stabilizers of 'utopian" thought
(Utopian novels] also impose the requirements of utopianism Itself: categorizing people and ideas,
emphasizmg practices rËher than processes, offermgsohMions rather than questions, promrAng
unified themes rather than oomp^ing values, waggerating the dfeclB of socWdesigi, and
undere#nating the lessons of history. (92)

It appears that any novel, phWoeophkal, political work, and thinker that aims beyond what is perceived as
possMe is, according to the fear and skepticism of KItch, attached to a history of oppression and error.
Mot all disregard for "lAopiaY manifestations is so direct or conscious as those spedficaNy pitted
against the
sqpposed genre or incNnalion, however. As adjedive, the term'outside'in the context of specfficaHy utopian
déçussions Is largely used in passing, a landed word, a descriptor, used perhaps with a knowledge of its
mealing, especialiy, of course in the condtions of its common nuances, but numbed to the complerdty of its
implicaiion. Suitably, as the aclecdVB has Axmd a common sense positions our rhetoric, the vaBdty or
accuracy of its negativity is rarely questioned, and ironically, guilty of many of its own chargee. Such is the
sneaky and often impercepfMe business of presumption. The construction of iAopia(nXism) as an insult Is
often created from exaggerdion, reductionism, skepticism, fear aid a disrespect for the efforts of individuals
working for diaige in domare with less perceptble effects.
The terms within which Kitch is addesang utopia(n)(ism) ate no longer appropriate. This kind of
unsuitability is precisely the focus of Lucy Sargisson's first book regardng utopianism, Corrferrvxxary Femtnisf
Ufoptanism (1996). She begins with the premise thd what we call contemporary utopia(n)(ism) in Merature and
theory does not fk under this angle; M s'oirf utopia(nXism)is, indeed, in obvious conflict with feminist desire

12

andis,th8m(6rB,rar^ypm8Wincontmpoiaryfemnisttexts. Basically,SaîgissonwouldsaylhatKilchis
acaaingctxrWpomyeflbftswilhlhecnmesofpasfconsWclions. Forexampl8,8sth8C(xmionviewof
utopianism designaAas Utopia as biuepdnting for the p » W poMy, SafgissœoountsmiNsassumpAon,
saying that wHNn coNemporay utopian wok, peffecdon is, If not absent, accentuated in As redundancy (2).
QuAe on the contray, she wntes, "utopia is full ncAof pedecAon txjt raAier of irreconcilable tensions" (24).
And tNs is txA one axanple of maiy imfdlded by Sai^sson. Howeva, I add, utopian charges ae equally
inappropnateregardmgwhatwouldbethouÿAofastra(#tiondutopiassm,onoecon8ideredincorÉaxt. As
Sagisson denotes of contemporary femirsst utopianisms, perfection was never considered probable in Its
traditional maWfestations. Mora hirnselfarMts to the error of his fkAional depiction, referring to Aas a
treatise on the best available plan for Are republic (Sargiseon CFU 24; Grosz AF0133), the good piaoe. Surely,
Nsvisionwasbasedonades:reforsomelhingbefler,but*hoeversaidthe*Drdperfect? Parhapsmora
easily indkAad are those seW-proclarned as'Meal'—ebsolutBlyperfect-iivhich resonates wAh the postmodern
nIgNmaras of "utopian" constnjcdons. But perfection. In such contexts, caries dAferant impiicafions than a
contemporary understandng of perfection would aBow. The perfection of Plato"8 ideal commonweaHh, for
example, incorporates the rmsfortune of fate and the hierarchical structures of teleology, admmislerad by
rrryth, while oonternporary visions convey requirarrrents of equality and fraedorn. Ofcourse,thi6isagood
example of why utopla(nXism) is charged with oppresaion, but Acannot be said that Plato had a ndve dream
of achieving a happy-go-lucky cAy. Ironically, Aseems, this term utopia(nXism), along wAh Its common
meaning, isAselfasortofoppressrvepharAom—thereisnomanAeslafiontmetoAsdescr%)tionyef Apiacesa
varietywAhinAsonecategory. lnotherwords,thewaythatwehaveusedthewordutopia(nXism)eilherto
cast sweeping generdizalion over vast varieties of philosophical, poMcal, and Hterary works, each of which
have had a mere kwelerrrentssutable to such a categorization, or to slight, dsregad,(fsqualAy ideas,
implements the "myth of utopla(n)(ism)' as a sort of symbol of our fear, negative desse, and stagnancy.
TNs dscussion, however, is thus h r reductive because even though our dheot common sense logic
may ar#ust to the possibilAy that utopia(nXism) was never intended for perfection, it remains that presenAng
ideas so radcdlyoAier, it is simply too demandng, imposs&le to implement, md therefore, isonlypossble
inaperfectworld. lnfeasibilAyis,peAiaps,ATemo8trelevantchagetoAiecontemporaryc8tegorizaAonofthe
"utopian." TothisdiargelofferadmplequesAon: vrhoeversaidthattheutoplanblueprint,oritscontagionin

13

nwmsibU8fbmis,*asintBfxbdfiy8cWizationin(X)nventionallyphysicalspaoemdffme? The goodp^ace
is no pface. Conkmpomiy theorist Elizabeth Grosz agues that utopian spaces do not exist anywhere but In
the imagination (20), which is an issue I waicoHaborate with m the next STOP, suggesting that it is arguably a
space, but of a virtud kind, however n(^ without Its manifestations, oonnectkxTS and dependencies on reality.
And of time, we have fixated on an actualization

the utopim pkm, yet the cdloqiHal use of utopia(nXlsm)

seems to dsregmd time past, meaning this: we CKinot judge utopimism of the past as though it were writtan
fdrcunentproblems. AMhoughlamnrdsuggedingthatwecaxTotconsiderdDpimMsionsofthepastin
relation to the contempormyproblems-especidlym tenns of learning from their enof—these depictions
were not wrtttan from the context to wNch we would be applying them. Contemporary manif^abons of
utopianism ae created from contempotay problems because mmifestations of utopim activity are created
from a rerddissalisfadion of the present context therefore, what WM moving mthe past, may not, of course,
be moving now.
Tmly, placing the assurnptioris of traditionEd utopia(nXism)witfxn the cunent context where effort
towardsatranscendentperfection,aswaslagelyernployedinthemodernistfa]tasy of objectivity, gives rise
torejeclion. Tfretemplale, providmg comfort and inspkation, stabilized as the product of conceptual exercise
ofhope,butasthesymbolandrBprBsent8llon,8smythandreligiorKWthbegantDd8lerioratewith
podmodemity, the logic and utility of a utopian vision began to cWerioratB also. The utopia(n)(ism)s(^ the
paË were wortdng within the sane ideologies that we ae now wortdng to transfonn (and, I might add, have
been largely ackanced grace a utopian thinking). Howeva, such thought manrfestabons should be recognized
as revolutionary and necessay at the time of their initial use. Thus, as cordemporayferTsnist theorist Jennifa
Bawell reminds us, the sodo-Nskxic placement of the writa should be taken Into account (209), In orda to,
8ttheveryleast,gansomecultixalaKfhislOficdperBpective. Wemustconsidathewrlter'swotkasan
experiment, a protest, motivated by some potent creabve and transformative force vfioae movements are
ddin^shable orbyBdongside the everydayness tfwough and try which it was produced, and the effeds it has
at the time of Its creation.
As Ernst Bloch explans, it is tfus force, tNs'antic%)atoryillanlnation' within the wortr of the abst,
that moves ahead of its time. Those works exuding aAÿafory fArmfnafkm, acoordmg to Blodr, have
prolonged revoliMionary^ecI, but we must consida the soddHmilalions of comprehension and endeava to

14

makeuseof(hes88lementBmîhecunBntconW(116). BochraqujiBSihesamafromNsmada'. Tockcard
Ns work due to ils dependency on Marx and Hegel, (he dominant ihoughtstmctWBS of Mistime, orbecausehe
tw not written specifically und* feminist terms, would be to bypass eiemer^wlTich extend oiAside his
position, through an fmmanenf (ranscendence. It is the activity we are looking for, not those things existing
mda'theidaologicalforcesoftheajthor'sposition. Aconsiderationofthec(xitext,indherwords,will
enable us to see if the writer's creation is favorable only accordmg to his need, or if there exisb the excess of
which Bloch speaks.
However, following Ms reptfmend of the utopiaMCCusation, surely we must heed KMch's warning,
but rxA merely to avoid doing precisely what we slapped her on the hand for, that is, dkcadmg important
works too flippenUy due to an over-exaggerated focus on their enoneous elements. Although the severity of
her chages may be questionable, the dangerous elenMnIs of concern she exposes tfxough her extensive
readingareveryrBal. SheprovidesuswithadMerentfemirwstperspeclivBonthesameworksasfeminist
utopian sifporters, Sargisson and Jennifer Burweli, such as Octavia Butler, SaDy Gearhart, Ursula Le Gum,
Marge Plercy, Joanna Russ, Monique Witdg, Luce Irigaray, arxt Héiéne Oxous. Rather than extract the
transgressive elements within contemporary idopianism, Kitch exposes those that remain bstaned to
tradHion. AndswelythesenovelsarBgisltyofenor,asisfmymarûfestationofthoughl CorMiderapeclficdly
feminisms of the past, which the Matedwriters are consistently placed in connection to. They administered
conceptualization and practices of women's separation, glorrtication, matriarchy, which have since been
conceived of as Ae mere strengthening of dualisms and reversal of power, but they were revolutionary
nonetheless. Thus, in our current experimentation we wNI lean from ttss error, but be moved by the
transformative force of its predecessors. Utopia(nXism), along with ferrsnism, feminiKn along with
utopia(nXism), must be continuously renegotiated to maintain their affecMvity.
Which brings us back to question of time, and holds feminists such as Sargisson and BunseM, who
are working to revitalize our approach to utopianism via outdated feminist expressions, 'momentarMy" susped
As feminists like Rita Felski :md Elizabeth Grosz have b e ^ to engage in issues of time and duration, MmepaceptionisatrickyanddBceptiveconceptual#ysicalphenomenon(notisdiketheconcept). Thatwtschwe
may regad, in this Deleuzian inspired reconce|±jalization of utopia(nXism), (X in Grosz's work on the fringe of
the experimental domain, regad as sNapnel of the p ^ is revolutionary in another; and, therefore, must be

15

expe(A8dandr8spe(^8d-^k)#edto*ofkitsway. As Rita Felslu descites it, "Nsbiyisnotonebmadnver,
butamjmberofdlslinctandsepaiat8dslreams,8achmoMngatitsowmp8C8andt8n?)o'(3). However,to
those on the tiinge, Deieuze imparts, that in order to foBow in the revdutionaiy footsteps of the thmkers
bekxeuswemust "dowhattheydd,thatis, create concepts for problems ttuA necessary change", rather
thaniepeattheirvKxk,whichwoddbed8adonaTW(l*7PP28). AndjustasthisdesirBctvesfeminist
mvWization of our approach to utopia(n)(ism), it drives Kitch's departure from utopianism toward what she
cdls 'realism', or 'Higher Ground. Accordingly, Kitch's critique has equal relevancy in a dscussion that
concerns Itself wth the subversion of dominant systems.
Considered dfferently, that is, apart from Axabons on formations such as signiAers and
representations, Kitch can be used collaborativdy. She creates an estrangement to our undarstmdng of
utopia(nXism), as weA as a conceptual siruciure of an appropriate movemenl And, as I w# make a point of
elaborating on, an adierence or concern h r the designaAons such as "utopiarf, and "feminisf, must be held
in question, manly becmrse something so easily categorized as one, the other, or both, may rightly be a
dupHcaAon, and/br may lack movement. Sifporters of utopia(nXism) may sAHadhere to the academically
safe spaces, via designations such as feminist'and'utopian'aid'Action'. Andiheforcethatdivesusto
either revitaBze, re-conoeptufdize or reject IradAonal uses and/or understandngs of utopia(nXism), or
feminism, for that matter, is In itself a utopian action, that is, utopia(nXlsm) must also come under the
transformative krce of utopia(nXism). But of course this would/bould be seen as a threat agamst the
solidarity or existence of feminism. But, no, it w@take diem t 30 years for it to de out now . and by then,
perfraps, we wfff be ready to dstanoe ourselves.
Hence, we have not departed on a journey toward a defense of utopia(nXlsm), because tha word Is
expendable. Rather, we are going to see how it is moving, see how it can move, see where A moves, and most
importanUy, we are going to mak it move. Hence, idopia(nXi8m) is movement ilaelf...it is what moves,
whetherAcomesfromdsgustorlove. ItistherevolutionofthouÿTtitself. Soratherthanapproach
utopia(nXi»n) as a lingering intnrder Aom the dominant stnictures of the past, we could ride with its life stuA
and use Ato continue dsmentlmg those structures. Inotherwords, wenWrrofqpprDachirfqpr^njfkrrijasa
system, bufn#er as a Aarcefhaf works to exffffie system.

16

: why utopia(nXbm)?
Apause forabw questions, strategic and simple: «ewe 8V8nnBlernngk)ubpia(nXi8m)aTymoœ?
VVhy are we i#zmg this particular terni? Iflhepatiajlarsigniferisoflitlle importance, asitis
interchangeable with others, and so on, why are we compelled to use a term that appeass to be contrary to this
discussion? Jenniter Burweli posits the postmodem^poststructmalist approach, with which I am gaining
momentum, as antithetical to most utopian logic, tracMonal or no, indkates; for example, while the utopian
logic works on the preservation of harmony aid creation of more suitable bomdaries, postmodernism seeks
to dbrupt and poststnjcturallsm seeks to isido these things (166). Perhapsthisdkcussion, although
decidedly not using utopiaikigic according to this quotation, is somewhat dvergent from its postmodern
oontexL Although knd of dsrupdon, we are exponantlaHy more oonoemed with reoreation and extension
thanwithdeslruclionaTderadkation. BecausewhMedsstmclionanderadcadonareurmecessary
expendtures (^energy and cai be a stationery, if not backward motion, reorerAion and extension move us
fomrard and away from prior structures without dkrespect and meaningless violence. Consequently, we
rarely think about the proper term beyond articulatory obligation, or a plaoe of nurtured departime because the
dessalions to which it is attached, abeit existing and absotutsly crucial for a reoonosptuakzaHon, are
fdreadyknown. Inotherwords,lhereisnopointin'dsregatdmgtheslatemenf,sotospeak,asthereisno
point in simply repeËing it or coming down on it with a harmner, because we simply carmot deer it all away
and begin again: USE IT. As DeleuzB and Gu^tari intonate:'concepts, therefore, extend to infmlty and, being
creatBd,arenevsrcrea#edftomnothing'(19). ThepoMofthiswfioleptooessistoconcemourselvBsmote
withtheslirTingofdmerenceandksswithdowingdowntocheckourbacks. Thememngbehindthe
signifier has never adequately represented its meanings. I do not wish to defend either what is being called
tradtional utopia(n)(i»n) nor utopia(nXlsm) as it is being re-conceptuaiized, but rather I am interested in the
freedom

the force behind those that bee the aocus#]n or categorization, those th^ would never proudy

caB themselvss utopian, but may threaten themselvss with it over tfieirtfroughtrlabor.
Shoidd I not invent a new word for a new definition such as Kitch's departure toward'Higher
Gromd? PossMy—rfyoudontllkeftyusfusesomegirngelse—butncAquiteyelTheconceptdutopia(n)(ism)
both in siructisal plan and attitude hœ been a huge part of ferrmstmovemer^s) and has become a pivot
point for the unnecessary pitUng of one feminism against another as well as useful outsides. It Is exemplary of

17

atendencybWkintocxnterxldfdes,mth*Wimov80ul*ad. ThW om,itisthesW ngpointfora
Inmsfonnalion. Fdki*ingf^lhis,peitiap8th6mostblabmtconditionofmantaininglheus8ofthetaTni6
thatAconfmuasfobeused, notonlyasæ8xpmssionofcn(iqu8valuatKn,buta6ag8n(ecf liteiayfocus.
Much d the racxnt feminist diacussiœ aiound utopWrnismsumxmds mamty Itcdonal, someUmeslheofybased, femimst utopian game. According, Sagisson vwodts to extend the datiniyon of utopia(nXism) in
order to aooommodatewha she feels Is In no way adequateiyrspfeeenÈad by the tmdWonai approach. She
debates, Bke Spinoza, with her predaoessorsmdoontemporanesthrouÿi a common tenn in order to rewed
its theoreticai Inadequadee. ' in common, Sargisson and Spinoza, while maintaining a term, 'utopianism' and
"God", express that the dosed definitions of these "names' compromise the complexity of what they are
bekvedtorepresenl Therefore, tfie goal is to work toward openended definitions. As such, Lucy Sagisson
works from a desire for the porousness of utopia(nXism), as a shark-l&e body that reNes on the drcdalion of
w a ^ through its gNs for survival and, therefore, must either keep moving a re d in places that are
themselves active currents. Completion is to finish, cease, to stop. Sargisson asserts that completion
symbolizes death: the death of movement, progress, process, development, and change (37).
Corresponcfngly, approaching utopia(n)(ism) as an openended prooess can sen* to strengthen a feminist
dscussion which is itself continuously occdomling in its inddinability (CFU 14; 24): I t Is hoped that by
leaving interpretation open we can perhaps name afeminism which is not universa&zingaaxdusive, and a
utopianism that Is n(A marked by doeureandfina% of end" (CFU 97).
: opening the definition
Sargisson has given oxygen to a dying dscussion, and drects the reader toward a rather signilicant
paradgm shift; one must learn to think open terms within the nrles of the academic arena. This can be
accomplished, in part, by defining utopia(n)(ism) In tenns of function and process (39; 63), rather than space
and time. As previoi^ stated, utopia'is not necessarily intendedfor actual time, place, orfonnal Itexids,
as Bizabelh Grosz Imparts, orWy in the imagination (20). And as we touched on earner, in part, Ernst Bloch
presentsutopia(nXism)asafunctionAroughwhichparticuiargeniusworks. ittravelsthroughhistory,
through our perp^uations aid projections of 'anticipatory iUisnlnation', which is derived from one's sensitivity
to the possble (or what we wodd now, through the mhuences of Qlles Deieuze and EMzabeth Grosz, cali the
' Spinoza's use oftrsdBonal tamsnology for the purposes of debate and departure is dscussed by Seymour Fekknan in the
introduction of BWce. Treafbe on (he Ememdadbrr of (he (rWacf (see Works Cited).

18

vifWj.basedfromasaTsitlvitylothelandenciesofreality(106). However,thisawarerTesscarifKAbe
mistEten for the fimctiori of predkÆœalxrutwtWchDKkoSuviii, the %ther of ScierToeFictiori', writes.
According to Suvin, Scienoe Fiction, as the contemporary ubpian method, carries a political responsMity of
predkbon.' The utopian function, accorchg to Bloch, Is more accuraAsly understood as a manifestation of
rmmanerrf franscemferroe (a concept which will be unfolded in cWail in the following STOP), w engagement with
some thing outside of history, the particrdar that is engaged (fm/gh Nstory, the partkrdar that gives the text a
timelessness, a duration, a futurity. The texts, Bloch tells us, with the utopian function have kngerfWght time
(116). Utopia(nXism) is, in this sense, a propelling forward, a common thread of sorts (although this
mdaatanding is largely influenced by Hegel and Marx), the mould that keeps changng its contents and a
function that both selects, produces, and iproots. What remains to be still—and eventuaby Ineffectual—are
theideologiesthattrapsudrcteatlveefforts. Therefore,werrxjstn(AconluselheforDeofutopia(nXi8m)with
the ideologies that ulNze It for their purposes. Furbrennore, we must not confuse the force of ubpia(n)08m)
with all Hterary and philosophical manifestations of mimkry. Leave them be. As Bloch tells us, they will rise
and flourish fora short time, and then decline (52). The process of utopia(nXism) w8l continue.

: glorious contraillcllon
The openness aid movement r^utopia(nXism) leads to the interceplion of divBrgent elements, and
thusthefhctionofcontracktion. RedprocaMy, the new rAralionshasÉed by an allowance for oontradktion,
and thus an opportunity for anomalous connections, both acts as a stimulant of porousness and example of
openendedness. Jennifer Burwell's work on utopia(nXism), specifically, focuses on the potency of its
contradcbxy nature. Writing in dose cor^imction to Sargisson, Grosz, and Bloch, she fonrards "utopia" as a
process, as well as a relation, not merely a position (205; 206). And it is a relation indeed, as she denotes the
friction between the withstanding elements of the tradtional approach, the utopian impulse to create positive
dtematives'andthe'new"crlticalimpulsetodeconslnjcf(29). ThecomblnationcreateswhEdshecallsthe
"utopian imprjse", wNch Is based on the attempt to imagine zdtematives or critique existing condtknsT as
wellasonconflktandoomplexity(208). BunwellexennpliliessuchusefdactivationtNoughferrsrsstliteratrxe
that draws on Incompatklesrtiect positions: being female and being human k Russ's 77* Female Wan and
dealing with both radal and gender oppression in Octavia Buber's K/ndred.

^As depicted in Suvk's "AlWword: WHhSrter. Eskenged Eyes." (see Parrinder in Works Cited, 23&290)

19

Fnctionk8ep8ubpla(nXlsm)pm6Wandprodu(Aî^ Inolher\imnj8,œnfictalthou^notid8alin
conventional sense, leads to acdvabon rather than stabilization, theretore, deeming it unconventionally ideal.
Such momentous openings eiqalored through oontradkAion vmthin fiction are fisther propelled in
throuÿiexpansionsinfeministtheofy. Comider,for«(ample,'embodedulopia'asevolvedinElizabelh
Grosz'dscussionofachitecture^orGrBgJoNTson'seidensionofthepoliticsof'situatedutcpimlsm'rrhe
SituatedSelfandUtopianThinking). NeglectingloÿïlDalkMSupposedtyincompatbleideastDresonate
amountstochange. ltissuchchangethatSaips8onrBqisra8of*hatshecallstwisgnBsswButopifMsm,or
ne* utopianism in Kterature. However, in traisgressive utopian literature, the collisions of ideas impaded
throuÿi the novel d8ocoHideM#the novel itself. Acoordingto Sargisson, transgressiveliteratisBnotonly
dsfts and slides social codes regardng gender, sex and relationship, but dso transflyjres the concept of
order itself, with a particJar focus on modes of expression such as geme and nanabve convention (CFU 201).
Here Sargisson touches on an exciting point, one that exposes the agency of Hteralue and the text In geneid,
but leads the concept utopia(nXlsm), again, against itsdf. Transgressive 'ulopim' wtiters shodd *odt aganst
theconventionelmodesi^gemeandorder. AndasSaigs8onheiselfimpads,wecannotdefine
utopia(nXism)intennsofcontentorfonn,becau8eitcannotbeuMverBallyapplied(35), butyettheycontinue
tobeidentiliedbyutopianismasliteraiygenrB. How,then,doweconceiveofabookasutopianifithaslitlie
comecdon to traddionEd utopi^nXism) and is umecognizable due to a depatae from such conventions as
contentandfomi? Unfortunatelymanyremain recognizable, anditseemsthattheapproach to the texthas
becomemoreradKallfiantfieradcdtBXtitself(tal(eSarglsson'straalmemforaxample). Umecognizability,
whatWBarabecommglo*ard,is(m'absent'indk%Aionoftheradkallynew. fhiA,notonlydowe*ishto
extend the (Wimtlon of utopia(nXi8m) to accommodate the ever chan^ng Bterature, but *e wish to explode
the convention of Ntarature, «ther fiction^ or philoaopNcai if such a dbdndion is thought possble.
:aspacefbrexperlmenWlon

If ubpia(nXlsm) is a porous concept, a i act, a process, a fmction, then the novel—in fact, the book
in générai—is an opai space Uvou^ which it lives. It is m e xte n d of the academic domedn where tfie
«perimentad writers car play. As Sargsson puts it, "pxxrks) provide forbodies-of-thought spaces in which

' This oincept is most cleariy laid (xAm'Brbodwd Utopias: TheTirne of Architectue", located in ArcMecfurBAomAeOidskk
(131-150).

20

crealMy is possMe, they add momentmn and rasist Ihe pelrifaclion to which academic minds are vidnerable'
(U63). lnagreemMit,lsuggest1hatw8approachutopia(nXism)asa8itBOfbeoomfng,aprocessofcon8cious
afxjacliverevolulion,axpenm«Ttalion, and realigning of exîËmgelementBdmwntmm a desire for continuous
movement toward unknown poss&iililiesnalher than self-conlaned bodes of academic eAortwoddngtowads
the jusdlkalion of pre-existing lielieb. We call a space set aside for expenmentalion'ubpia(nXism)'t)ecause
it Is a space for critique and a space for the radcaMy new. But now we t)egin to understand that the apace is
not actud, or meant to be actu^zed,b(AaconcepluBd space for the creation f^oonoepl% actsofAougW(MW?
21). We are not deprived of agency; we are axperimenling with the very foundations of Aougit

We cannot accept that the grounded rsmans the sane as it WK before, the sane as when It was not
grounded, when It had not passed the test of groundng. If sufRdent reason or the ground has a
1wlsf,lhisisbecauseitrelatBswhatitgroundstothatwhidri8trulygroundess. Atthispcir#,it
must be said, Aere is no longer recognllion. To ground Is to malamorphoae.
GHIesDeleuzBfromtDflkienceandRepetriion^
ST0P3:&K)BILjZINGUT0PIA(NWiaiin.M0BljZING THOUGHT
phrot :
How monk rfi% ttmsdystcpkbehavfor; ^peaking out qgaWaooncepf of ifeedomAomwrthm havens and sakfy
points. Vaeryoureneray, j^t)ac*yourtfx^bn%yourvaluations;onr^aB8enfation, ttieAcesandshrcliaBS, the
genmsandrWpBnarydrwdesoftheutopk^idppkandwhafposaionyounrusfdaAnd. TTitstswhatstppsyou, whet
causes you to rsAect rattiefthantomove, to creats, fhsaf thoseptacedundsrthe weight of such desfgnadons. Yds,
the désignations are necessary, and you stioutdfmusg know them, txrt you have much more invested in what ifows
treneath; cracking them, Arcing diem up and ouhrard—iava beneath motbn rock Yloumusfieamtouniaam. Learn
comnronsensesowedthatanoiongwmakessensefoyou,untdyouhavekorpOfAsndsreievance. Yles^pkmgeihtod
wifhtheolrnoxiousaareofatut^grDwnaduitmaiUcOonald'sphgsDomtbliofooiortWptasgcfrakb. HaveaüËruious
tim6--w#ahagksenseofâony. Because, although you db not support iWlct)onakfs, kr tbc( dsAckensyou, you
understand to some degree, its ^ppeat its tneversitrie seat in necessity to those you tove. But no^ you are no longer a
chdd, careless in your play, withouf concerns tor how outnurnlrered the green trails are try the yellow, orhowtracAerialaden the place K, or really how tranal and rkdculous the ishole thing looks Awn die seating area through the litre^glass
window. AndindeedyoucanrÆealWct)onaldtanalogyw#at:aingsenseofasseffedbcemerdthewholetime
laughing.
poW :
: thinking Is net what you think
We are exploring the activity of a new utopianism, that is as it does, that no longer has constructed
barncadesloelwean its notion arid its realization; It is the between, the crux of both dieory and action, havsig
no stable contsnl It does. Indeed, hold conter^ that vary aocordng to Its use, but what works whhin
utopla(n)(lsm) Is ^ways the new, its shape morphs with theserencountsrs at Hs outer perim^ars. OstensMy,
this Image Isa sitdng duck for the vary idopian charges it works to unsettle. Notonlyistheactivalionand
' Ibid., 154.

21

axtensiœcf Ihe concept u*opia(nXism)r8quifedbrBle8sel8bnt potential wIMn W —which, in turn, works
Wand transforming dominarrt systems—but activating this utopian activity requires us to approach the
literafyprocesswithanewimageofthouÿit,withoutcommonsense. Sirnply6tated,lornakernovBswitha
porous process, we think the new. It Is a taw order. But let it be said that this is already at work, and it has
been thnouÿiout history, in dfferent mWestalions, in the evwts of "mticipatory illurrWnation." This is
pnedseiy what has us experimenting, correcting the book with new utopia(nXism), md with the contenporary
WWnistdkcussicnsofthetwo. But it is the Aought activity of Gilles Deleuzie and Nssurroundng
populalionB from which I And cnjcial and exciting ooHabonativB potential.
: good sense of the common

In The Image of Thoughf from Ortkrenoe and RepeffAbn, GAIes Deleuze outlines 'common sense' as
our representation for the foisKWions of modem thought, largely in lanns of Arstphaosophy.thË is, the
Gatesian cogAo-the root of perhaps the single most overused pMosophical phrœes, 'cogrfo ergosrrm'—'/
ffwni^dierelbrefam'. RenèDescartBs'WedWonsonArsffWIosophy has served as a detailed, written analysis
of rWional Western thought which «posed such naturaHzed conceptual tendencies as dualism, sut^ec^
centerechess, anthropomorphism, obieclificËion, and transoenderrtalism. Accordsigly,* has been
crystfdlized as a targË for postmodern departures (alongside utopian thought, which is gulty of the same
charges), such as feminist phboeophy and deconstructionism. Deleuze, in parAcuia, uses this "Arst'premise
to deny the idea of origin, unfolding Are concept of deference' and, accordingly, arouses a new Image of
thought". Tobegin.hefocusesonanassumplionbehindtheproposed'Arefpremrse.whichisthat'everybody
naturally thinks' wNch carries that "everybody is supposed to know impAdAy what it means to thtnk" (131),
andtherefore, that which is common sense Is W which "everybody knows, no one can deny" (131). In other
wools, it is common sense Aiat we have a common sense. Delarze wrests corrvnon sense—the image of
thought—8sthebasicformofrepre8entdionwhichhasbecomeoompletelyn8tisaBzed(130). Wearediven
by a dependency on representation, in order to elucidate, to normalize, to validate.
The success wNch the naturdization of such dependencies h% to thwik, in lags pwt, the mordity
of the weak. ' Moral values derive common sense from and In connection to an "upright nature and a good

' The insight of Friedrich lAelZBchebrieAymenAoned has ever#in GksDeleuze'sdmcussiori of "As imageoftiiouÿf: however,
the entsety of this STOP is inllwenoed,dseclly.byl#etzsche's(Nm work. The M* to Power(see Works Cited).

22

wiir (131), vËung it œ 'good sense.' Together, In other «ods, the sense and the vedueprovide fodder for the
moral dwa. Accordingly, vwhat Descartes calls the Cogfto, is what Nietzsche has named H ie Moral Image of
Thought" axlldr'TheDognaticlfnage of Thouÿil''The siywficance of this is its hindrance of ddfersnce, ewen
bymeansofdemonizlngit 'Good"sense,theunityofthesen8esaTdcommon8ense,arahow*euselhe
senses to consider the object, lefs say, and common sense Is how *e Utter the object encountered Mo an
understandng of the Same: the previoudy known, thefamili*, theobvkxjsaxIsoonjaTdwhatyouknowthe
"soon'entailsisaneitampkinitself). Itisthis'good'senseoftheoonmonsensaandthesnageofthought
they uphold, which Deleuze, NMzsche...we, are working agahst, because this image of thought does nof
represent th o i# l
Common sense, good" sense, reco(p#)n, represenfadon, (he same (he same the same, does not oonsMufe
thought MotivatedbyWscnsisofthougMles8nes8DeleuzBScrupLfo(alydssecls,e%pounds,andviciously
reit8ralesthattothinkistoengagewiththeur*nown,tocreËe: "TotMnkistDcreate-theraisnoolher
creation-but to create bfirst of all to engender TNnldng'In thought" (148). The term "thought" here denotes
bothwhatisnotttiifddng—to return to common sense—and to dM cite what dways moves, aid exceeds,
wtMËterstheoommonsense,theoutside—1hou(#Tr:1hinldnginlhoughL" Eacha)dslssimr4taneously,that
is,thereisnottheoneandthentheother. WerelyontherBoognizable. RecognitionisviMAaBowsustoact
successfully in our everyday lives, to know wfMher or not to check mWeorfemaie on a questionnaire, that
the bus Is a mode of transportation, or how to greet a customer. Yes, we are famiBar with this common sense.
Wecan'know'what'everybody"knows',lhË is, of course we are within the common sense, we know,
racognizB,thewo(1d,thethmg,whatweencounlermtermsofthatwhichhasbeeneslsblished. Fdrexampk,
as we re-oonceptualize the use of utopia(nXism), we still know what Brian Massumi is implying when he says
tlgutopianplcture." AndwearesllBawareofthe1act'thatwearethinldng(135). WhatDeleuzBabhors,is
lheabsurdsubmitlaltopassivityofthoughl,tothemerebmiaBtiesofrecognition. Again,thisisnotthoughl
Thoughtisrather.mthewordsofElizabelhGrosz, "awrenchingofconceptsawayfiomthekusual
conHgisations, outside the systems in which they have a home, and outside the structures of recognition that
constrain thought to the already known" (AfO 61). It is an active force, positive desire that makes a ddferenoe
(62).
Hop^uNyOieresernblanceofthislakofthe'oubide'wiAYanscendeirthiA'rnayinvokesrnMarKiely. Thisw8be@iehcusof
"transcendental empsidsm."

23

ExisOng *(1Nn the envelop* of recogWtion is to pre(re)8oppose the Sane intenor. In other words, a
complacent reliance on recogiition will only breed the necogizable, "Ihe forni of recogition has never
saxAoned anything but the recognizable and the recogrŒBd; form vwH never inspire aiythingbr^

oonfonnilies"(0&R134). ThedogmzArimageofthoughtstunlstheeventofthenadkàlynaw,confining
creation to mimicry. Deleuze desoAas this adherence to recognition as the celebration of monstrous
in which thought 'redscovers' the 'State' the 'Church' aid—rrWght we add—tf» Nteray genre' the
gendarole'lhe'saxact'(13G). What is most at stake, what is being assayed, is dMerence, and deference is
that which forces sensMity to sense, forces the irnagination to irnagine, and thought to think (143).
Difference, however, is locked in by the logic of recognition—the preoccupation with clarity and dkdnctness
(146)-by defining différence by way of the 'natural' state from which It dffers: "...différence becomes an
otgectcfrepresentEdkinalwaysinrelationtoaconceivedkjer#, a judged analogy, an imagined opposition
or a perceived slrrrËtudeT (138). Thisisthecrisis. And #ius, the utopian player comas to the rescue of
dfference, of thoughl In syndkation of Deleuze for the purposes of making architecture Wnk, Grosz
descrtesDeleuze's project:
...to free thought from that which captures or captivates it, to free thought from the image, indeed to
free thougWfrom representation, from the "transcendental Mlusions of representation,'to (#ve it back
its capacity to effect traisformation or metamorphosis, to mdre thinking itself a little bomb or
scattsrgun. (AFO 63)

TN6isprecisely#ieproiedofre-conceptualizingutcpia(n)(i8m), to free the symbol of faMed hope, and
activateit,instBad,asoneofthemanypar1icipantsintherevolutionofthouÿA. Because,itisnotenoughto
explore ihe Implications of dead thought from which we wish to depart, but to use It In the effort toward a new
thouÿit, and the suggested altemEdive is a reqtsrement of utopia(n)(ism). The suggested aitamative is
utopia(n)(i8m), which can most approprWaly be desorbed as life.
:Wiwnanentfr»iscendence

We w * t to experienoe pure thought, feel the vbradon of Me, connect with the outside, yet the
fantasy of essence or a realm existing apart from the banalities of corporeal existence, no longer charm us.
Thisdisenchar#merAis,inl«gepart,theintelligencebehindaTti-utopiaisentimenl Hcwcansucha
contraction be reconciled? A pMlosophy that can escape the trap of recognition, enooisitertheradkadly
new, while still being applicable to the particular is unimaginable. However, accordng to Deleuze, tNs is

24

pradsely Ihe point, because the implication of the phrase, 'a philosophy that has no presupposition', is its ^
teenyng*ithdfk(ance(D&R132). WearetDimagneaphik«ophyv#inomi^,noprasifposition,a
phkeophykTsneised in thought-in its purs him. Aoooidbgly,*e am to become kmanjAeph8osopher
(the wiibr, the laadei) who thinks apah from the tiadHional image of thought, as someme who "nelha^ allows
hbnself to be rspiBsented nor wishes to rapresant anything" (130). Yes, ofcouise,thisisndculous—
accoidhg to the rationale that has us use 'of oours^' against "lidculousl'. This is pmdsely why natural
thought-the"uNversallyrecognizB(f, n^uralizad truth bom of transcendent thought—has room neither for
the ffifi*er nor the smgidanties of revolution (131).
The philoeopher, the writer, conoemshe(i)-@df with creating concepts out of what is impossible to
define—that which cannot (as well as may not) be sutured to the famMar—sensing what escapes the senses
asbrastheyaietrmnedtosense. DeleuzBappealstothi8polsrAialofourfaculties,mdKatinglhatlhatthey
really have no proper limit because they have been repressed by the confines of common sense, without
whichnewfacultiesmayanse(144). Howaiver,fbrnewfaculties,orusesdkcultiestoanse,theymi»treach
theMtsoflheirproperuse(144). Thatis,theymu8tencounterwhate9(ceedsthereachesoftheirproperuse,
theimpercsplÊ)le, the outside, or, mDeleuziantBims,(#*Bnoe.
Inherbook, AichaecfurBlhomfheOufskfe, Grosz appeals to the concept of the outside', what she adso
cdls the Thing.'' ThisconceptpenradesDeleuzB'swork,thusherown—takingonvaiousformsofwordsand
uses—and is irninensely influential to this prq|e(± Howssver, despite Its assumed positioning within the dichè
of poslmodam thought, the use of this concept is a conscious resislance to the hegemonic "catch phrase" of
postmodsmism: 'Aere is no outside' (K). Howsvar, the outside, as used by Dsteuze and Grosz, is more
porous, maneuvBiatale and fraeingreeUy, than the pcpdar conception dkws. TheoiAalde, Grosz «(plains, is
not a limit, because the boundary, which dktinguishes the outside from the inside, becomes a boundary oniy
onceitisseen, and if It is seen, it is already being crossed, and thus has moved if*) an encounter with the
oidside—a Thoughkevenf has occumed—the shape of the Insfde has changed. Furtheimoreinregardstoa
seeming re-capttuialion of binary thWdng—insidefoutsldB—rather than abandoning such thought, the
categories are "piayed off eech other" (K). Grosz offers a crucial description:

' Allhouÿ this seiAn is in «pedktWersnce to "Oreordsldertrom #18essay, "ArchNectureItemAs Outsids,'Grosz's resonating
essay The Thtng" is also reievonl Bodi of #ieee essays are in ArcWkcturefom the OuisiWe(seeWorks dted).

25

Btnanzod categones am played off each olher, am lendemd molecular, globd, and am anadyzed In
Iheir
molar particidadtiw, so that the posabiHties of thdrmcomediorK, Iheir realignment in dfferent
'systems,'
am established. So it Is not as If Ihe outside or Ae exterior must remain etamaNyoounteipoeed to
an
Inlerionty that It contains: rather, the outside Is the transmutablllty of Inside...the outside Isavlrtuad
condtlon
of the hside, as equadly real.
The outside is the force behind the serves, what causes the senses to sense...lt is that wfsch can be sensed,
diuded to, but Is amdtasieously ImperceptMe (O&R 143).^ ltdmct6,rnotrvatBS,amdperTneatesthernotionof
utopia(nXism).
Shifting Into spedflcadly Deieuzlan terms, the outside' Is 'dfference' and 'deference' Is both empmcal
andüansoenderKbecausealthouÿrltlsencountefedltisneverencountBredcompmhensively. Differencels
accessed neoessaailyefrpirically, but Is that whidi forces the senses to be active In a realm outside of the
sensMyaccessMe. Fortheconvenlenoeofsimplioity, a descrlpOon of the prooeedngs: deference forces
the senses Into

encounter with a foreign oliyect, Ws say, an Idea.' It Is gasped by the senses and already

'medated' by what triggered the encoimtar, however it is unoontaineble, foreign. ThemebHityofthesensestD
recognize and categorize it, can either resdt in either the adaptation of dfference Into the same or activation
ofatrarscendentsense-fhelmaglnation—despite the fact (frafit Is errpiricdly unimaginable (O&R 144). Thus
there Is an engaging of a "transcendental operation'of the faculties, an'ekvadon'of the imaglnafion to
trmscendentactivity,bec8useitdoesnoty^axistlnourregdarempiricdpaltBm. Thisistheactlvityof
thought This b whem the newdaplaces the neadly ordered stuff of our Interior. It is the activity of
frarrscerrdenfafempihasrn, Deleuze's paradoxical philosophical approach to the forces at play in the new Image
of thoughl The concept Itself Is, furthermom, an example of Its own work. In OfAwanoe arxf RapefiGorr, It Is
offered by Deleuze as the only way to avoid tracing the tnmscendentd from the outlines of the empmcaT
(144). In other words. It is the only way to give ample breathing room for the Idea, dfference, pure AougM
from oomplefe suffocation with the laws of commor sense, representation, recogiltion, the Same.

rioyfulnfhlHsm

^ DeleuzeposesO* question "What forces senst%bsense? Wtet is Athat can only besensed, yet is mperoepltleatthesame
AmeT..b which#* answer, if one can be so simple, is the etsmal repetition of radkddtfBrence.

26

TNs new image of thought, is not so new, taut rattier the increasing temperature of postmodern
activity in terms of rejecting the fbdties of tradttonalthouÿithowev*, conceiving (^ttiouÿitœ the activity of
the efemaBy-recurringradcally new, rather than spirakig Moan MW&e deferral', Is an authentic Nfefeme, or
% Grosz cWls Deleuze's though activity, "an afBrmation of Ufa," in ttre midst of a increasingly nihlMic arena
(AF062). TherBjectionofutopi^nXiem)isitselfafir^st8geofnlhilism, AndtakenotB,thattheprogression
of nihilism indcates a "positiVB' process, in part Nitiilism, accordng to N^zsche, is a realization that
concepts of "aim", "urûty", trultf, "vWue", and aiaxislence with a'goal and end" are psychological constructs
i# ty, for pwposes of domination, and I rmght add, sanity (and brilliant ones af that as they still persisQ
(T?ie liM@to PoMW 12-13). These are the vahres by which we have tried to preckt the world, understand its
essence and vdues by wNch we posit the human sitject-pKticularty the mar—as the meaning aid measure
of aOthings (14). The corWporarymlslrust toward utopian Aoughf exemplifies a developing nWblic
awarenessofldaaBsm, with its attempts toward Wh, amore often, Its eeducdvB weaving of Wee(15). The
affects of such consciousness are seismic, becaise our psychological understandng of the process of life, a
what we continue to call beoomfng, loses its direction. It no longa has a goal toward some grand unity, "aims
a nothing and achieves nothing" (13), but yet, purposes, (Aechons, and goals (beginning, micWes, and
ends) are the skeletal structure of the ordain which oa world funoWons. Inadecyrate dealings with this
conflict are what have purported nihilism as a despairing state of mind.
Nietzsche submits descriptions of dfferent forms and intensities of rWhilism, which may be affective
based on the activity of the nihlBsl, dthough each is at r i* of being posited negatively by those sdll
fortunate'enoughlofbolthemselves(notth8tthenih@stcares!). The^eatatfieir^enatyddabeli^,the
grealerthefreedomdthesplrif a"1ncrBaseinpowa,'powabeingnotthatwhichoppreBsestheotha, but
merely moves the one, and therefore, the many (14). The prominent dMferenoe, for the purposes of this
discussion,canbesummedipbywhatNietz8checalls'aclive'nlfslismaid'pM8tv8rnilWlism(17). The
active nihrAst is the one that, aftaerAering into nihiiism, increases inthe'^oowaofthespirir, acting freely—
freedom being the facility of self-direction' (364)—producing without the confines of cause, unity, compl#)n
and so on; conversely the passive nihilist has embaked on a decline aid recession, and has grown weay.
The passive tum against one anotha in the face of nothing, to do whateva "refreshes, heals, calms, numbs.
' In rWerence to Jacques Derrida's dffÉrance, that is. thinking in terms of deferral and (Moa. the inhérent possMty of presence,
andthe inherent Mure of arrival, azsbedr Grosz provldea a decusslon which places Derrida and DeleuzBIn landum (AfO 82).

27

[or] emerges into the foregoimd in wnous disguises" (18). They live in a sod of fncomipfek Nhilism, a derWal
ofNhilism. And so wMfedsbeHevIng truth, the struggle for the aoBdadty of identity condnues, and while
cWhroningthehummfromthec8nteroftheuniv«5e,everylhingcordinuestDbetd(enperBonally. WhNe
abfKxring myth æd order, the passive nihilists lirnitaqpemnenlalion to defeat aid the sickness of hypocnsy,
because aithough there is no point, their focus is sdii on what it is.
There must be a wOl to live and create for nothing but Me. NMsmmustbeadmittBdto, notto
redaemordefandit,butralhertocor#inuepastil Ifwedonolwewoddbebeltaroffforgetlkigitentirelyand
recede into the contorts of modernity (for example), but only to re^ze that those particular bbricalions were
what led us to nihilism in the first place. Deleuze has us dve rigM Into our nihilism, joyfuWy, with energy, with
Bk, anda wINngnass to experiment in our extreme hnmanence. And that immanent reaBtywMconlhue to
charge because it is always moving toward a conAordation with the outside, which is always new, always in
excess-itisHfe, what moves, amorphous and unpredkrtable. RËhalhanaconAuclionofirAiitetnjIhor
eeeence, it cannot be anUdpetad. Therefore, as manifeslalions of utopia(nXism) are contkigent on the beW
syMem (a iack thereof) from whkh it was bom, lÉopian thought bom of certain degrees of nihilism, as
revealed in coriternporaryferrxnist fiction and recent k m ir^ d e b ^ can no longa be accaately designated
bybeWefsamodemistidealism. Thus,situalionconsidered,hasthei#opianidaalbecomeasortofactive
nMWsm? A belief in nothing?

: embracing fear, loving nothing

Far^asies about the future are always, at least in part, projections. Images, hopes, and horrors
extrspoiatsd from the present, though not sirnply from the preeent situation but from its culturai
imagnary, its seif-rspresentaUon, its own latencies or virtuaMties. Whether self4#ling and thus
prophetic, or wildly fictiondized, these fantasies represent neisalgic points of present investment
andanxiety,lociofinter«evulnerBbility,anxiely,oroptimism. lnthissense,thayaremorerBvaaling
of the status and permeabdity of the present than they aemdoes of transfonnation or guarantees of
apresent-tote.

28

- Bizabeüi (kosz

'Future, ClUes, Architectige' ^

We no longer believe, having exposed our tailing psychological fabrications, yet we sHII ding to the
conrlbrtwhichtlTeywerecreatedlDpiovide. Wehavegmwm80customedk)fBainguncertanty,to8n rt
aimlessness; we have an addiction to a sense of control. These lingering demands continue to stop us, even
as we dearea world wfrere certainty and control are no longer desirable. This is the state of passivity, of
incomplelionwhichNielzachewams. BtherwereAainfromproiectingnagativevaluationsontothosethings
we must face, wNchm tum actualizes the problem, or warevarttoa system, which is able to outsmart us
successfullyWopleasantsubnsssion. Butwechoosetheformerlmowingthatthelatbrwitleventuallylead
back to ttWs state of limbo,
The explorations surrounding the Deleuzm image of th o u ^ as it is derived from the influence d
Nidzsche, Bergson, Foucault, and as it is currently being played out in Deleuzianferninisrns through thinkers
such as Bizabdh Grosz and Clair ColebrDok,corrlirsjes to normalizB, aid posit as positive that w f^ the
moralityr^thought'ddersiairomembracing. Whenweaccepttheriskofactivethouÿrt,l)qpeandd8slrBare
notastheywere. Wenolongerbllndlydesireintarmsofsome'thing'WBbelievetohavelost.acompulsory
ckive behind contemporay Westem Civilization, as DeleuzB and Guattari expose ki their work on
psychoanalysis.^ Rather thmr lack and demand, desire is connected to joy (Off 100). We simply desire that
wtdchweaedoing. BecausenotruthawaitBus,wetrWcreat8itaswego(52). Wecanconceiveofdesire,
œ Ian Buchanan in reference to Deleuzian th o u ^ as a told sydem, 'complek at every moment" (Oelsuzfsrr?
52). Theirnplicationisfreedomfromfabricatedcauses—beginnings,andtheurmecassaryexterrninationof
process—endings. Weactwithoutadestination,notbecau6ewelackone,butratherbecause,mthewordsof
Nietzsche,"adelirytegoelisnotnecessayatair(17). But,furthermore,andperhap8,themostdflicidtto
accept, is that without a god, the future "carmotpossbly be anticipatecr (17).
Within radondboundaies, this is a tsrri^^kxmdation for agency, or lack thereof. Moreover, it is
thefeaofsuchunoertdntythathaduspredkÆng.andconstructlnglnthelirstpIaoe. Anditisthisfea^that
has us mantdning the badKion in orderto predict, in ordatoconstructfrom a stable space. Inheremphasis
on time, the virtud aid futurity, Elizabdh Grosz addresses Esixiety aiang from the risks of entering into

' Ibid.. 49.
^ This work is mamlyconcerikabd in Anli-Oedpus:Capilakrn aid ScNzcplirenia^ works crbd),bdpersi9ls#Toughout both
Deleuze,sndDelsuzeandGualbri'soeuvre. SomeoflhemdorpolntBwOlbefurlherdsvekpedastheptqectaccelersbs.

29

unhxBseeaWe, unoonlainable change. She aHrWes Ihis discomfoft to an inability to accept instability and a
lack of control, as well as the dMAculty in acoei^ng that the stmggle will never and (in k in g of the New^.
Thefea^ofnever-endngmovementissympkimaticofaseverBdissatisfaclionwiththepiesenl That Is, looks
toward an end because one despises the mkk#e, and has a lendsncy to blame the beginning for the bad dab
ofthemidde. JustasthelogicofreoogNtion,orthecommonsenseimageofthought,pro)ectingtantasies
into the future merely limits the future to the Same, and as tha hatred of the rmddb indkates, the Same is not
vi^iere we would Uketo stay. Therefore, it Is precisely in be mkkk that we move, and rehslnfmmBmlting
potBn@aftov#i8twedeempo6sa»le. Groszwntes, "wecannotImowwhatthenewwHI bring, whattfiepromiseof
thefutweisfdrus; to know the future is to deny it as futiee, to place it as a given, as past" (Becomings 6).
The future remains tobea significmTt aspect to utopia(nXi6m), but is left untouched by our
projections. ThisacceptanceforfeitsdrBamsofde8linationforthe8akeofprocess,openingW)er
posskilitiesforchange. However,anexperimentalplayer'6exDdusbegsawillinyiessandexpeclationfor
error and faBure (Grosz "DeleuzB's Bergson" 229). But as Brian Massumi imparts, there Is freedom in the
chance. In the random, there is room:
This unoer1air%can actudly be empowering once you realize that it gives you a marspn of
maneuverabilityandyoufbcusonthat,ratherlhanonprpjecling6Uccessorfalure. ItgivBsyouthe
beBnglhat there is alwsys an openbg to experiment, to try and see. This brings a sense of poterdial
to the situation. (212)

And, this uncertainty, as Massumi suggests, produces anew understandmg of hope. Hope, m this active
nifdHsm, is not de^royed but rather altered; as bfiure has been released from its compdsory position in
negativity, hope has been released from its compulsory origins in sHly optimism.
Australian writer and philosopher, Mary Zoumazi, complied a bock of interviews with m ^
contemporary thinkers, on the correction between hope and revoWionaty politics bom tom poslmodem
melancholy: /Ycpe. WewfWiosop/*es for Ownge. Bran Massumi, who is perhaps best know for his work on and
translationofDeleuze,wa8oneofthoseintenriewed. fWrerthaicormectinghopetothevduepositionscd
optimism and pessimism, from a wishful projection of success or even some kind of a rational cWcdation of
outcomes", he places it in the present (211). In this way, to hope is not to believe In a belter future, per say,
butismoreaccurately'beingri^TtwherByouare,moreintensely"(212). Ourfreedom,therakre,ismeasured
ontrowintenseiyweaelivir^frdmoving" (214). Thejud^nentofsuccessorMiseisnotbasedonwrong

30

or riÿrt, as a system of Wiics, but mttw, we make the dstindion between 'yxxf aid bacT within knns of
becommg', the "good" being that which brings beooming to its maximum potential (218). Hope, in this sense is
the intensity of living and as Alphonse Lingis says in another ZoutnaziiT#8n/iew, "It is necessary b hope for
nothing In order b undertake any actton" (215).
Nevertheless, tNs Is not merely a silly attempt to tNnk in terms of notNng happeNng wNIe
motivatedbyawillfbrchan^ Therewillbeoutcomes,theywilibemany,wlllpropeldfTers,winh8veev«Ttin
averietyoftsnesandspac8s,andtheireMeNBwl#n(dend. However,ob8essmgoverwhen,orthrnkingin
terms of Winity, M *tts the revoUion. Nelber amval nor Infinity are containable concepts; thsrefore, they
are Inelevant and only serve bdkcourage or stop movement altogether. As Deleuze and Pametdkcussion
In Dialogues, questions regarding outcome, regardng the future of revolution. Impede the revolutionarybecoming of people (147). Furthennore,bAnflOed(pi«,DeleuzBandGuatlmiimpartthatthWdngofprocess
In terms of elAerflnaKy or WWty is "tantamount to endhg It abnfdy and prematurely'(5). Thus, in the use
of hope, desire, revolution, and, of course, utopla(n)(ism), the energy placed Into over-coding should be
redreoted to enhancing the freedom of fkw.
: academic utopia/expérimentai domain-the elitism of the estranged
Who are these active NNMsts, these new utopkms, so fiaelyRvIng in the moment, thriving on the
thr# of the unknovm, thinking the unthinkable? Are we to imagine a rare species of amogant academics,
writers, and thinkers, who forge ahead brilliantiy, wNie the lay persons, fall behind, detracted by the steaks
thrownatthemHredrrfle-mlndedguarddogsoftndhconstructions? We8yes,tNslshowlttranslataslf
approachedinthetenn8oftheperBonal,oftheargumenl Incrementsofsu^erAglorrficationcanonlybe
fabricated because measurement Is Imposable In the midst of dfference, in the midst of the space of
utopia(nXism),jU^lnthemidsL There Is no stopping to reflect, no working toward, no degree of failure,
successorgeneralproxirNtytDachievinganidealacademlcaxchangeianacademicrdopiaofsoris. One
simply reads, engages, writes and teaches; one does, or does not, in dfbrent Incremer^, consistencies,
accordng to one's own inbnsity, asasmdl part ofavast process.

' Theconcept of "becomsigw# be txouÿitk) theforsgcund of thedscussbndwinQ STOP4: Idanety into muNpkiy
(see page35).

31

This prp)e(A is intended to express agents of chaige as being spmad across VKt, honzonted
netwoiks of planes in pieces dfledng in size, speed, and Intensity. These svsnts cross paths, bed one
another, woddng In vaydfkrsnfiways, but are ahmys relevant b the others. One agent may not have seen
another for decades, but they are bound to meet again. What they do have In common Is that they are agents
ofohange. One agent buBds on the plan^ another tries to work the laws of the plane as livable as possble for
thepopulationslherB, while EKTOther Is working on the temperature, and another on the cogiitive process that
kadstothelaw. Howaver,ltisdHlicultto8eethatoneagentcannotmovewithordaffeclingtheother,mdeed,
onemaybemoutsldBth^frBeslheotherliombehindanunrBCognizedboundary. Awakentngawareness
regardng the movement of players

other realms Is crucial for successlulcotlatxxation and affectMy on

multiple planes.
The utopian player hi the academic arena chooses to transverse the boundaries irA) an experknental
domain. Thesp8ce(^utopi8(nXi8m). Theplayer'senlrencerBqi«Bsadeparturefromsafety,butan
acknowledgment of conlbnnlty when conlonnity Is due, as long there Is a continuous push to the boundaries.
It requires a wNBngness to be misunderstood, dsregarded, or even dsl&ed because the vbrabons of the
experiinardaidoinain are dMtkxA to detect from the Marier and praclicagyimpercepthle from arenas other
than the academic. Therefore, the utopian, If considsred within the tenns of eBtbm, would Nrely be posibcned
low on the hierarcfiy scale. Neilherdoastheutopianlhlnkof he((]-eetf IntennsoflnteOectual siferlortty,
[s]he has given ip on such tenns, being no better, no worse, than the grass, oraneiectiical currenl Yet (s)he
speakslnanarenawhichisra#elytosrfporther,butrafhertlarBS, even constructs, the frail mental health
ofhe[ijcrealivity. He[r]ideasarBcon8id8red'hamAdandforbidderf,andthus,[spreissii^tolhe
"suppression of those passions' (The

to Power 465). The utopian is. In this sense, estranged.
: a commun^ of the estranged

Onecannotworkaloneasaclosedsrt|ecl Cornmunity,co@aborafion,alliaKe—sifport—isonadal
to the process of academic utopia(n)(ism). Those whom I wodd consider actively utopiar^-Oeieuze, Guattari,
NMzsche—
express a necessity krooifaboratfve revolution in brought. Deleuze writes:

32

We'fB looking h r #86. We need allies. And we think these aJiies me already out there, that they've
gone ahead without us, that them ae lots of people who"ve had enouÿi and me thinking, feeling, and
working in sirmlardrections: Ifsnotaque^xioffMhionbutofadeGper'spintoftheage''
informing converging projects in a wide range of fieWs. (NO 22)

Althouÿi the alliance shares in common a revolutionaiy-deBim, utopia(nXism) requires and encourages
vmety, in order to creak new aUgrvnents, in order to expriment, and in order to become toward one another.
In dherwonk, a sort of common goal that defies the idea of the common goal, that being, movemert
dMerence, which sijpercedes the boundarks b#veen dsciplines, political interest, md other sudi
unnecessary tsnttorialdktlnctions. Therefbm, each Is less pitted against one another because they leak Into
one another (Btsrary, phHoeophical, poRtical). So pertraps we can visualize this utopian community vwth an
imageDeleuzeandGuattariwpoundofapackofwolvesinATTrousendMakar/s. Eachwolfisindspender^
active, solitary, but they travel together (33). Them Is no leader and no follower. One stands beside the other,
aOwith their becks "naked and exposed to the wildemessr (34).
This community is open, but demands of its members that they trust, act, and contitute rather than
stop the movements of other players. Everyoneisplaylngoffense. Thiskvolvessifportingoneandher.but
not by means of roles such as dependant and provider, becarae m ttie conceptuaNy experimental domain
flows act in synergy. Then, for example, the delicate health of the writer would no longer be so. As Deleuze
writes, "machesswodd no longer exist as machess...bec«jse it would recelvB the sipport of all other flows'
(A0321). Thecommunityisgrowlng,withincreasedovarlapandthu8thegrowinghegemonyofthe
expertmerdalmovemer^isapparent. WehavedreadybeenmadeawareofthedelicatBhealthdthewriter,
vm have already made ttie rejection of truth, ofthemda, of the neutral, into a cliché. Has this iack of structum,
the muMMacetedmovemerÉs that the institution has tagged with the poslmodem label taken the place as our
fiewpsychologicaiconstruct? Absolutely. Thisisthefacticltyoftheconceptralspaoeonesecondbehmd
sndlheenorsometimeaheadofeachplayer. ButwhHeconsclou8ofthenecessltytoslop,tonormaHz8,and
the perpetuation of mom practical domains, the ukrplan players am always engaging with the new. It is a
proclamation which ironically lingers in ideals.
:replacement Ideal#

Utopia(n)(i6m) re-conceptuaiized has Ideals, but ideals that reject ideas of perfection and compWion.
Theverynecessrtyr^articidatingthese'ide^'alreadydkengagesthefmtasyofperfeclion. Theeflort

33

W a d the Ideals of utopia(n)(ism) is to play at escaping tenns of idealism: he ideal ixx* is a stnjctum that is
stnjctumtess; an ideal witter is unider#able, socially unacceptable, a destroyer; the ideal reader thdves off
of the Mure of the W two Ideal tormlaes-fonns. And as concepts cvedap, create one another, each of Ihe
idealsfeedintooneanolher,suchasthewnter,theraader.aidolhersuchebmentsofliteiafyexchange. Itis
the utopia of the excluded, meaning it is indusiva and Its members are respectful of absolutely everything, but
perhaps they show their admirËion, affection in dHferent ways-by means of violeiTttrmsfbnnation,
rnanipubllonanddelhroning. Academic,ph8oscpl^,lit8raryulopial8ablackholaandagrowthofweeds
onanirdinltB, we#-nourtshedplane. We are hying to bring our work, how we read, and write, in this
partkulardscussion,tobettermmifesttheThing,Difference,theFlux,inourcreatlvaprocess%. Asaresuit,
these Ideals are not stable, they wK change, Ih^ Is he foundation of their idaaRsm. AndKispossMeto
produce without the oorWhes of cohesicn, or agreemenf,espeda*y if those are increaehglye^xised in their
irrelevance. Muchmoreisproduoedoutsidesuchooncems. Isthisthenapriv9egingofquanlltyover
quality? In a way, but quaMy Isa value construction, based on a pTMrhNlsllcmoraBty. It seems quanhy may
have been sWaglcaWy devalued, precisely because quality siwt down its numbers, encoueged the one over
the marry.
Rather than maintain the scrutiny of quality by judging new combinations of experhW in the terms of
success or Wure, the utopim makes use of failure due to an acknowledgement of complexity, tfraf renovation
is conthuouB, and that change Is often gradual and Imperceptble. Even to thoee creating II InthecoMoquial
of the everyday, thought returns to Its dasignalBd area, but each tnne players engage, stepphg further into
utopia(nXlsm), separately and/or coHeclively in active thinkhg, the colloquial takes longer to And those places
upon their retm. Artkulallons and moments cf clarity, produce new and perhaps even more complex
problems: The'prW of phHoeophical activity is revealed whenevera ludd and cogent atcidation attracts
theiri8urg8nceofprobbmsevenmoreinesislhlythantheywereprevlouslyeGcite(r(92). AndwewHlalways
have problems, h r which we wHi work for solutions, which wM, in tum, elicit more problems

An inlarmeclary species arises: the artist, restrained from crime by weakness of w8i and social timidMy, and
not yet rope for the madhouse, bid reaching (xâinquiativaly toward both spheres with his antennae: this
speciBc culture plant, the modem artist, painter, musician, above aOthe noveBsL..

34

&
g
m
%

g

&
3=

s

H
&

0
g-

W
LA

"E

TT«wMler*ntBsbecaus8[s]heismoving,andb8ingmove(i VVntingabout*hatIs)hedo8snotkrKMand
whatmaynotbeb8ne(icidkihe|r]-88lf, |s]heisapW pointof lhemultk&e(Aiondkrc8slhatv&xaiBhe(f],
that (s]h8 has no choica to sound, that irmdain he(i1 nomadk position in the in-between. In other wotds, the
writer is an 'event,' an 'mMnitive' of being (0// 66).
It is insufticient to designate a nane, oraüstofnamœ, to the concept of the utoplmwritw—without,
at least, some nesistanoe. Theyhavenames, of course, because there are people, faces, behind the writer, but
onceinthedomainoflhewriter—a bceless, monstrous domain—such obvious reductions without a carËul
rBspectforthelargerpicture,propelsadstractionanddenidoftheelfecl8oftheprq|ectathand. Theprqiect
at hand is a movement away from thought that settles into the condtions of srtject, arthorshp, identity, and
if*) the amorphous and multiplicitous. The mijtiplicity of the writer accurately impks that he(r) work is never
simplyh^f]own,ratheritovefiapswiththevoicesQftho8ebeforBitanditsmidsl Reflectively,Aeperson
inthewoik, the sin^da-bemg with a proper name, is only temporary, transitoiy, an evanescent point of
sub|ectivicatiotT", as Deleuze descr&es of himself, Guattari, and Pamet in their collaborative work (Off I4 .
Nodonscfaulhorship, and writer Identity, cohere to the Image of thought from which utopla(n)(lsm) departs,
againhaltingamovementintheeflbrttogalherandrBllectralherthanactandcreate. DeleuzeandFoucault
acknowledge the connexion bfween multiplicity and action:
Forus, the intellectual md theorist have ceased to be a srtject, a consciousness, that represents or
isrepresentWive. Andthoseinvolvedinpoltticalslni%lehaveceasedtoberBpreeented,whfherby
a party ora union that would In tum daim for itaeif the right to be their conedenoe. Who speaks and
whoads? lfsalwaysamultipNdty,evaninthepersonth8tspeaksor8cts. Weareagroupusdes.
Thereisnomorerepresentation. Thereisonlyaclion,theaclionoftheory,lheadionofpraxis,in
the relations of relays and networks. ("Intellectuals and Power" 207)
Contradktorily, the stniggle of the theorist or poHtcd activist may be, in fad, for identity (think, k r example,
oftheferrsnistpreoccipationwithidentitypditics), which in contradktion serves to create the outcast, the
dejected,depressed,detdned—the dead-stopping the events md flows of thoee who seem to leak mto the
in-tielweens. fdenfffyafw^ presupposes oonfbrmAy.
So sheH the one be abandoned for the other? That Is, the stmggle for subject stability, or as Deleuze
aTdGuatlaricallitthe'mola'foracompleteexplosionofselfintothe'molecdar'?' Notinsuchdefinrtive

' Wofsrand md@cr*rare terms ubbad by Deleuzeand Guattari to deecrte the ir#ena^ of srtjectdshaFatinn,mdar being the
mostcotTlmned(anthepnrnatyeKamplebeingmm),andmdecdarl)eingtheleastoontiwied. Seehrexample.dwplerS&IOof
ATTiowsandPWeeus.

36

lennsaTdnotwiOMUt'ifgeclMnsofcaiÆ

involving a caeWindusion and knowledge of the (kie, the

gaspofid8ntfly,a8ownedbyffiedominantslruclur86(A7P150). However,idsNitymustnothaveacenW
place, because wfienoccified, (fia center becomes a wall bdween thought and aclion.
In the essay InteHectuals and Power," Deleuze and Foucault speak of the gap between theory and
action as though it were akeady emptied, as though identity has already exploded into mult^iBcity. However,
they are neither speaking of a fiAure Ideal nor are they creating the radkaMy new. Rather, they are
acknowledging the potential Ih^ already exials, is already bemgcreeÈed,ls already moving, but requkes a
radkakynewacknowledgementaTdnourishmentinordertodasticfdlyaltBrthings. Adelberatemovement
aNKtykom identity w#l transform the force, moUvalion, product and effects of theory and Ntarature. imagine
the writer no longer spetWdng to reflect he(r)-self, to protect or create some Identity, [s]he will not bind h^r]self, and thus anyone or anything encountered, to he|r] own tmubles and evils-heMowmneuroees—
tlierefbre, what is produced wMI not be Wtad to the needs (# the group [s]he identifies with, to h^r]
personaiizedneed. Anyonecmwritefromone'8ownneraoses,prpiectone-self—thatis,thepositionwehold
with braced ams and limbs—into books that are no more than those projections, various little predkaUons of
fb(8dauthor-peraonaitties(whlcharefurtherstablRzBdbysuchprqjection8). Thewrtterdoesnotwritefrom
he(r]n8urD9Mb8causeitoff8rBnolhingn8W,noth:ngbuttheprivüegeofhe(r]perspectivB. Theackvityof
writing, thus, as the activity of the writer who is always becoming, always in between, outside of he(r}eelf
occr^iiesthesameslrides. AsDeieuzedescrtesit,"writinglsaquestionofbecoming,adwaysincorrTletB,
always ki the nsdst of being fonned, and goes beyond the matter of any livable or Wvedexperiencer
rUteratureandUfe"1). So rather than assummg that the wrWsr is abandoning reaponsMBty to a poMcal
cause or struggle, the writer virtually sacrifices the self to engage in something larger, things that (s)he will
provide with the sadstaclion that is mtstakenly assumed to ongfnats in oomplafibn.
The'sacrifioe'of the writer, however, carmr^ be confused with slavery to agr#drrven self-denial,
becaimelifei8notrBgardedthrouÿitermsofdepriv^ion,loss»idlack.' Thewriterisfullyengagedinwhat
Deleuze and Pamet call an 'involution'^ toward 'imperceptkxlity'^, decreasing dependency on the gratidtous

See abo STOP 3: "embracing bar. loving noOwif 6*9= 26).
TtwptocessoflrrvoWibmisthet8fmus8dto«(prasslheprooessofbeconmgbwardimperceplbi%. ItisintanlionaNymorB
accurate than evolution because evokikoninsawetes an mcraasekicorrpledty. a tiigher step on AehierafcNcalladdar (Off 29).

37

vok»ofconsimpdonWsays'kedyouMe/(^i#your«efw#fbodand@d(nowi'kdgement WWOWgbecause
you dese/ve %because you are acoou#sbed.' The wnter, instead, Mving on pure Intensity, positive desire,
and forces of creativity (ATP 163-5), does not require these IMngs, and therefore, is deprived of nothing.
AposibvedeelnictionofselfissiselydMicult for conventional reason to comprehend, just as it has
beendfUcutttDQomprshendthedestnjctlonofmoralMy. Indeed, the ndion sounds Hke good material for a
corrvsrAmaOy dystopian novel. %oognlzB,howsver, that Ms activity requlrasa conscious decision, a
conscious erdityengaghTg in conscious movements which trensfdnn the conœplkinæd, therefore,
construdionofrealitythatexceedsthewriter'sownrBalityorconventionaljobdescription. Thus, writing ism
ethicallyerTÉieddsdaction, wtWch calls for care and a seriousness of responsMity. Brim Massurrs defines
^Ncs In tenns of tiecoming, and that becoming must be recognizBd as having consequences, Icecarse It
partictpatesinprooesseslagerthanoisselvespi4;218). lnotherwords,thisBvingopennessisnotabout
thewritsr, the hdvidual, it is abord movement aid cormectedness that is dreclly connected to raaKty.
Proportlonatsly,*e writer must know that he(r] becoming Is relevant, or at the very least, must be aware that
what motivates he(f] Is not Rmltsd to a concern for validation or position. Deieuze explains It better
ItlspossMethatwritinghasanlntrinsicrBlatlonshipwiA&TesoflBÿil Towriteistotrace&resof
night which are not snaginary, and which one is mdeed forced to follow, because in reaBtywritmg
involvesusthere,drawsusmtherB. Towriteistobecome,buthasnothingtodowiAbeoominga
writer. (Off 43)
The process of becoming Is a delberate engagement of the subject Into a * a ^ movement away from his or
hersolkllied,fixed,'molar'idantity. ttisafreelngofiixitieslcyallowhrgtheinvasionofthesibstances
(conceplual,spinlual,nKderial,whalevBr)ofother8r±!iectiviiies,anirnds,andthhgs. Itisaciucialooncept
to the activity of the utopian player.
'Becoming' Intonates exactly what it seems to, to be "becoming"...not to be-'being'. ..not to be'something'...to always be-'becoming' something eke, something dMersnt one does not "become" something
else, one "becomes"-fowwdsomdhbig else, mixing with Its acdveattdbutss as Itis simidtaneously altered,
thus the attdbutas of tecoming" belong to neither but rather to tire becomlngtcetween the two. In other
words, one steps outside of itself, not Into the dher, but in a space In b^ween, the other does the same.
Deleuza and Pamet descrte this space as'a nanow gorge Bke a border ora frontier which will tum Ae set
^ krperceplb%inustbeunder#oodasaprocesslntheq]po8ltsdkecllon...itis«mincrsaseinsimpecity,rsqulnnglesslu»:y.less
selfindulÿncesmordertosunnve. Kmhspired by the ri^imtektnontQthat knownothmg of AecoOectedperson: thewind (ATP
chapter 10).

38

intoami%liclty'(132). Itisapmcessofrsnova&xi,rausmg,racydingthatmak8slh8wnterimconlaimble,
in constant IkDC "we am deseits, but pcpuWad by Mbes,Ao(a and fauna. We pass out Urne In oidsdnQ these
tnbes, ananging Uiem In other ways, getting lid of some and encouraging others to pmqier' (0//11). It Is a
continuous pmcess, a passing from one fomi to anothertowardlmpemeptMHy. DeleuzBEmdGuatlan
descAie this sequence of becoming towmdimperoeplMity:
A kind of order or apparent progression can be e^abilshed for the sepnents of beconsng In which
we fWouraelvBs;becotning4iroinan,becoining<M%bacotnmg-anirnal,-vegetable, or-rimerai:
beoornings-rnoleci^ofallkinds, becornmgs-paticles. (A7P 272)
This process of becoming Is a simultaneous creation of, and plunging Into, what Deleuze and Guatlari call 'the
Body without Organs'(BwO), the conce|*ralstructum (in partnershp with the concefA of the rfszomewNch
wmbecovBtedlnSTOP6)whichisade8cr%)tionofspaceof utopia(nXism), ortheauperânerdaldomam.
TheBwOisaHeldofimmanenceror, TWane of consistancy" (ATP 154) whem the hierarchical, egodriven and pheks-oentered, peyohoanalyllc slgnllkallons, both corporeal and psychical, am dsorganlzed. It
Is the space which Ihe de-sitlectllyingsitiect dears and a space whem the s u t ^ can self-da^ruct In a
conscious process of deorganization, through a sort of slrnultaneous break-down and break-through,
openinglhedeconstruding8elf,lhebo(^,theplane,everylhmg,tDOtherBwOs(158). AsDeteuzeand
Guatlari explain, creating AsOs is crucial: I f s a question of life and death, youth and old age, sadness and
joy. Itiswhemeverylhingisplayedouf (151). It Is the rarnaining space for creation, Iransfonnation,
experlmentalion—utopl8(n)(ism), andIt is the event of the writer he(rj-self. Wi#igisanaclivilythroughwhich
we both work in md create BwOs. '
: three tedures of the utopian writer
After freeing the writer from the negatlvadBsim for identity and reduction to the temisd"what's and
"who's, them am three qualities which enhance an openness to becoming and am, lherB*om,particuiarly
existar#inthepersoninvolvedlnvM#ig:1.Welkead:2.E8lranged;3.0fadellcatehealth. WhHelhefWwlll
be a sAent actor widl "STOP 9: The Reader", the second and third wiHwat no longer.

AocusagQn:1hislsa9hamBlessglor*cafionorcrowimQofAewtaBramdmieactivl^ofwr%ng. Butweamnobngerloddngd
IhiswrilmgintBtmsofbelrigcripemori.inlBrmsofperfBclionsndaiiuiderBlandrigoftnistakBaiidfsWeasbeiiigsynoiiyinous. It
is not reeky about the writer at at, but wild thosemhoengage in lAopian writing encountsr aid hmvit kansformsthesrsel^ and
whattheproductoflhewr#gmakesac9ve. OurihouÿitlssaiInviolentconkadKliontolhelanguagewhidimustbeusedmthe
attsmpttoeNpressil AndkissuchcoWswdcotWaddlonthatsitnullaneouslyexposehnitationvMeirilroductngkieiirststages
of that Walion's evdubonary adaptation.

39

: lmdui#2-theembmnged
E^rmgement is a condMon of 'being' that seems to reman consistent anong 'great writars'.
regadessofthenackaldffierenceb^wBenlheirpafticubroomaxts. ItisedsoareoogrtBdstmtagybehind
conwenlional utopian and SF theory and Btemlum.' Horaever, estrangement is not Bmited to speaking tmm
thebitlemessofone'sdis)mclionfromthedonsnantsliucture. AHhoughtNsdqunctionisnotcomhrtable,
it is not the focus of literature or phHosophy, but rather what invigorates an approach to the dominant
atnjcturefromaninBgularangle. Inthisway,think(^lhewnterasa80itoffoieignertolheenvnonment,for
whateverreEKon, whose outside'perspective, if used productively, naturally alters what is encountered as
whEÉis encountered will conversely alter the foreigner.
Throuÿioutthe essays "He Stutterefaid'Uteratureand Life" aid thebookWra. TowardaMnor
Uferafure, Deleuze writes mspâed by writers forced to write outside of their mother tongue and thus into
inventiveapproachestothedominantlanguage. Itisasortr^beoomingoflanguagefromthemE^language,
the language of the 'majoritans' to the minor language'...again dispersal Into multipiicity. But multiplicity
extends beyond ksge distinctions such as one n # )r language system and ancMher. Rather, what is
considered as one, as we have dsoovered in our dscussion of the concept of the concept, is rather
multifarious. In Dialogues, Deleuze and Pamet write, Thepoint Is not'bNnguaf, 'multNnguaf;thepointlsthat
every language is itself so bilingual, itself so rmdtilingual, that one can stutter in one's own Imguage, be a
foreigner in one's own language, that is, push ever further the poirrts of deterritoriallzallon of assemblages"
(Off 116). Consequently,Deleuzechalkngesthewrit8r,whowntesinhe|r)firstlanguage,tomake1anguage

stuttsr" by approaching It as though l^wereaTbrelgner'or'stranger,'to unfam#arizshe(r)-eelf to Its
corrvsnüon in order to undermine its structure (T4e Stuttered" 24).
: texture 2a- estranged as woman

77* aerAnce of the sentence.
/have nothing to wrfte...ewqpt ffiaf dpisses me d flW my oomprrter changes aBiaords at tfrebegfnrxng of
die sentence to a capAai lettered wwd...sofne word that Is more Important than ad die others In the chain.
Or perhpps we require an adrddonal Wcadon of a new sentence 'on top o f the preceding period. But the
period also reminds usthattheserdence has come to an end. Can rtnotWcate liofh? And then language
would breach a stade tiegrnning and end. ..not entireiy though, not realiy at ad. But Ifs a start ...yes. No?
Asfhpps. TTils Is a tiegrnning c^M bed word Mowed so eigpectantYtry the ending period...aperA(d and
reveaAigsanyleoftheEr^dshlanguage. Psrhqps. Ybtdtsnothingniorethannertherapos^ioriednoora
' Es&sngement as a Bkrary device is (bcussedm moredepth wilhin STOP 7 "ONE-chrmgng spaces" of INsproject
(see pages 76-7).

40

h@sfWyG& NfsnoWngM#ouf8Afiefon@of(woo*efugefanc8s. Yes.Nb. AndfamcomwncedWa
Wfoman, mffgafng suWw (hfough her manpuWve submBsibn, cmaW (he comma. An unëme^fpause m
(he mkW/e of s(mc(me, used Ar (hough((uf defay, (brpmynadccommunkadoo of (he Add Whd. A sAgh(
aAanËkn, nd)8(omus(c(D(hedead(8yofh(8(*madimgSL

Being a fomigner, a shanger, feeling exciuded from one's own language Is a ImnlüaT' estrangement
b women and one the* has taken I f a large degree of energy in feminist theory and Btamtum (which is, by
thislime,kx)wellknown). FeministtheorlsbandwrMers&ichasHélàneCixous,JiÈaKri6bva,Luoelrlgaray,
MoniqueWitlig,arb Joan Copiée (just to naine abw), have arÿied that the "feininine'axIstBoidside of the
symbolic order-^rerloody, herlmyage, her-seif—and therebre, leaves an endrely open space toward
creatmg a new bnguage: dcrftura Amfnrne, written tx ^ from the lesd (the bocW md the mconscious.
Basically, tha patriarchal language, which translates as the system of order that, acoordtng to the hegemonic
representation of psychoanalytic Aeoiy, must be adrered to for the sake of sanity, conslnrctadaromd the
prIvNeging of the male sdrject; therefore, language systems both subordhate the female subject and
suppiesstheemergenceofheraccordingtoherbeing. VhgirsaVVoolfwrltaswlthinhereixperienceofsuch
struggles with the oppresaon of patriarchal language:
But It is still tnre that before a womm can writB exactly as she wishes to write, she has many
(Mcultiestoface. To begin with, there Isa technicaic#flicidty-so simple, apparently: in reality, »o
baflling-thatlheveryfonnofasentBnoedoesnotfither. ItisaserAencernadebymeniitistoo
loose, too heavy, too pompous for a woman's use. (146)

A woman must, acoordbgly, attar and adapfurdii she can write ma way that "lakes the natural shape of her
thoughtwithordcnrshingordBtortingit'(145). AcoordkigtoCixoi»,forexample,awoman'spo#ticalactof
resistance Is to learn to speak her own language (Bunnell 180). However, Ihe language of patriarchy is all she
knows, and therefore, she must create a new language.^
But as those workkig in their mother language work to approach that language asafoteigner, men—
lheaccused-aswellaswornen,mustworktoapproachlangrageasanorHieulralsubject,aswoman. The
male subject, too, stnrggies beneath the bonds of dominant structures and must be freed from the false
responsbility to lake ownership and action over and above everything which Is In opposition to him, which
nowseemstobeeverythinginciudngthewomanspinningjoyfuNymherwide-openfieldoffaHow. AsLuce
Irigaray informs us, becarse women are already strangers to language, they are key to loosening the

' Theconcept of ScrdureAmWww# be dbcussed In gsahr depth dwing STOP 6: "meklnQlenguagBmover (page 82).

41

stronÿiolcbofitBSIrudiMQ, not only krlhernsekas, but (or those trapped as the masddine'othef' (^ E (h ^
ofSewafO#renoe136). AndlNswoman.thiswnter.canspproachlanguageasastrangerinofdertoInvoke
(hetnansformalivepowerofeslrangementforthereaclerasWI. TNsisdsowtiy, inDebuzeandGuatlan's
chain of becoming^, beooming4#oman, a concept that resonates with Ingam/s vision of the female, is the frst
step: 'ltisthekeytoaHolherbeconângs'(^7P277). The concept of beooming-woman, however, has
sufhrad severe consequence in the feminist reception of Deieuze and Guattari's. Bringing this discussion to
anea^hak
Aquestionthen: Are femlnianscompatble with this piqiect of ideryiiy break down, this movement
away from Ae personal? This dbcussion is endeavoring in a heavy uUkalion of Deleuzian thought to move
the use of and perspective on feminist (If you will) utopia^nXism), what are regarded within this context as vary
positive dkections; howaver, there are three particuiariypredorninarAfeimTistargurnents against the rhetoric
saturatingthisprpiectth8tshould,atthevBiyiaast,beacknowledged. Frrsdy.DeleuzBlsaccusedof
exploiting and romanticizing an actual history of women's oppression (as well as the'anorexic',
schizophrenic', and the'ghf) for the purpoees of man's progre88ion(Shuldn 149). Thk Is uncarmliy familiar In
aconversatkmaboutdepartingfromutopicblueprintsthatbeneAtoneatolher'saxpense. Secondly.itplaces
women In a troitlesome position on the drain, regardess of which direction one considerB its movement,
that Is, she is both one dovrn from man, or the least among his becomings (154). ThMy, Deieuzian thought is
accused of'convarWently'dkregarding the identity of woman just when she has beg^m to place her
siÉyectivitywithintheorderofthings. These#ireecorAenliorrsconsidered,axplormgDeleuza'stheorelical
framework from a feminist stancjpdnt requires a suspension of belief, but once considered in œsemblage
wlthlh6proceesofubpia(nXism), can feed the revdutionerypotenliai of feminist theory.^ That being said, it
is, adnltfarfy a catch 22 situation because Wnldng the process of utopia(nXism) (away from Identity, as active
nifslistefc)isrequiredforsuchasuapensionofdsbelief. ThusonereentBrstheparadoxofdmcusslon.
So, as a means of darffkalion, I offer a quick surmrary of whaf Deleuzian (fiougWdoes (v4iy It Is
useful to feminist theory): It clears space to roam between mefaphysicai oppositions, perfonned by the
'method of AND'where one concept, body or entity can be addessed alongside any other, creating new

^ Refer to quote onpage 36.
^ The useful elemenis are also laid out in Grosz' Voiafih Bodfss 164-166.

42

combinations (OM34); It conceives of dffeience beyond ttie illusions

Identity, opposition, analogy,

nasemblance and mpmsenlatlon; Ttie body is reduced neither to a locus for consciousness nor an oiganlcaity
determined entity: Which Indudes an enptymg of the hierarchical dagnaedon of its organs; And, WRy, but
by no means exhaustively. It provides an escape from our sad resigT^lon to castration and lad( (AO 59).
Desire Is, instead, expressed as a positive force, a space for creative acbon and the affirmation of dHference
and becomings (OWrowski fWzsche's Dice Thro*" 121). Deleuze causes the s ii# A and object to collide at
theveryrootofoif granww, sc^termgtheminarrsdtlplicl^ofcorrtlnations,vrhk:hch^lengesuswiththe
questlon:*hohasusbelievelhatbylosingtheseco<]idnates*elacksomething?(Of/90). Thecomplicatlon
of the srÈject and object breaches ne* cites down to our very language.
: problem #3 convenient disregani for the budding female subject
WeneerffohaveaseoondsexbekreiMcanfiaveaard, # , 5ffr...'
Feminism as a politics of identity Is deeply ingrained lr*)Ns history because it began as, and s#
rnoves within the needs, efforts, and lives of a particular groif of people—women. But what Is fhaf? What Is
"woman"? It Is indeed a satisated question. Derived from the psychoanalytic realization that "she" is actually
nothing but a relleclion of the male desire, and as Joan Copjecdescrbes that "she" is so mscrted within the
symbolic that "she" is 'absolutely undeddable within if (227), "we" have been trying to answer that question
ever since. In 7?re Sex Which IsNof One, Irigaray writes that the feminine occurs only within models and laws
devised by the male subjed Which implies that there are not really two sexes, but only oneT (86).
Accordnÿy, she has endeavored tow»d creating an ethics of dfference, wotldng to symboHze the feminine
and mAe woman one m herself, apat from her obltvious provision of what man believes he lacks (Lonaine
194; 136). It is a need thd has been met with an onslaught of writing "her" Into history, to create "her" orm
language, to write "her" story, create "her" identity. Hence from this the crisis continued (as one solution
always beautifldly leads to another problem) from the postcolonial reaBzdlon that "woman'.fmm the mouths
ofthewhite,rrBddb-clœsacaderrscs,wasaraxclusiveterm. TheoreticalaTswerBhavebeensilencedbythe
impossbiHtyofanall-inclusiveidentitypoiitics. Theproblemextends:howcm'we'takesoiid,poiitical
action—how can "we" make a dfference when "we" are separated in the fragments and chaotic tornado of
postmodern theory? Suggestions zmd satirical critiques have materializad as Wrat have bean consideted as
utopian'fonns, in be conventional sense, such as variadons of feminist separatism and systems invoMng a

43

reversal of power. In other words, binary thinking in oppositions like the oppressed/the oppressor. Such
m«Tifestationsaetarg^f6raTtl-utopianafgwnents,mdhaveoomelDcMinefeminlstutopianficlion. For
exmnple, consider ttWsdefinition constnrcted by SaAyMiNer Gearhart that Lucy Sargisson uses as a
representation of the oonventionrd, aid thus, restnctive approach to ferTdnistutopKmNtsrËure:
Afemlrd^idopian novel is one which a. contrasts the present with an envisioned ideWizedsooWy
(separated from the present by time or space), b. offers a comprehensive critique of present
valu8s/condHions,c. sees rnen or medeindituGons as a major cause of present socal Ills, mdd.
preserAs women not only as at least the equals of men bid also as the sole arbiters of their
repnxtudh*ifundkx*& (qklwiCNRU 30)
But dearly, feminism, even in Its attempt to recreate the female subject, is undergoing cordnuous renovation
inordertoescapesuchreductions. Butadiaegardofthesub^altog^herwouldbeliketeaingthewhole
house down just when the founddions seems œ though they had begun to slabaizB.
In Is Sexual Différence a ProblemT Claire Cokbrook Intimates that Deleuze lacks the foundation of
sexual dWferenoethat dives Irigamy's work, aid therefore much of what Is moving In feminism (124).
However, Deieuze and GuattExi acknowledge the Importance of woman taking control of her sitjedivity: "It is,
of course, indkpensable fbrwomen to conduct a molar poNtics, with a view to winntng back their own
sitjectivlty'(ATP 276). This "conducdng" of'molar'(that is, unified) politics is a necessary coHection of
herself In order to mantan functionality in the world: "you have to keep small rations of subjectivity in
sufUdent quantity to enable you to respond to the dominant reeBty" (160). They add, however, that these
shapes rnusfb*)un(k*s&)odsu;peBa:ngrnornenbL

respect arxtcaretbr that vrhk*aktBor*fsraxx)BBS in the

world need not, as DeleuzB and GuatbrI word it, 'oordineone...to such a subject, which does not function
without (kying up a spring or stopping aGoW (276). Irigaray contends, to this delicate cordradktion, that the
imperfectly Ided woman she oonstmcts is not containable or representable aMhou#i she Is still woman
Ojamaw*»40). fterniakdenerKB of the tkmnaki subject airarbsatidasolbedlcyinamsdnljanawxe, Tsnotkmof
ctfference and embodkd specificity that would ultimatBlyundatmme the vary notion of sexuddHferenoe with
which she starts' (41). And adthough Gxed or molar fbnns are necessary to a*ere to, one need not foNow
them blindy, but, indead, treat them as strategic mechanisms for success and sir/ivd (Hke conxnon sense:
STOPS). The awareness of adherence, h itself, trandonns apasstvarasigndion into a delberde activity.
Irigarayrnakesthewornmactivelnherrrxrnicryof'fernMnlty': 'onernustassurnethefernininerole
deliberately. Whkh means dready to converts form of subordmation Into an affirmation, aid thus to begin to

44

thMwtit"(77ieSexM/h«*j!sm^0ne76). DeleuzBsndGuBHahadvancelngafay'ssenliments,sayinglhatone
must "keep small supplies of agnifisnce and s itje c lific ^^ if only to turn them aganst their own systems
when the dmumslanoes demand it. when Mngs,pemons, even situ^ions,fome(son^k)'(ATP 1G0). Here
they support the notion that despite theoretical movements, we still live in the baialities of everyday
compromise (largely based on the category of our genitaAa), bid an ovamompensation, or elevation of these
condMions, is not equivalent to using these systems against themselves, but rather a hyper-exaggeration of
sorts.
:countBf-problem#3a pieoccwpled wNhthefemlnistseW

Charge: ferrsnism'spredorninantinvolvernent with issues r^sutyectivity, identity aid otherness has
nurturedastagnantpreoccupationwith'oisseives'.^ Thlschargedoesnotmsinuatethatwomenarenolonger
in need of IberËing or that the locus of recent theoretical discourse has lost its srgntficance, and does not
denythecrucialworkofthosewhoarBacliveintheseareas. ltdoee,however,beganextsnsion. Speaking
intothesilence, our absence, has occipred a vitsdstmg^ for recogrvtion and relevarcefbu# by projecting
'ourselves'—ors'persondexperiences—infbroefulwaves—intoevGtyspece. Andbecomingacqumntedwith
such fernrnistsdsraclions «crucial to exiendng past the present corxMon; however, this struggle has been
r*a&@d(BUx)dhxx*sâefy^Kde'n%3Baicffen*nH*nr*iMisreOecüxlthKX4#*KxtüN,theiBt%, andpxWHkal
activism. Although this'safety" serves as both a necessay and sibetantidsheltBr, a i adherence to the sane
questions witNn the same strictures hm reduced'Women's StudBs'aid ferarssm to'women , both as
signifia and as sgnlfiadL and has jarnined the davelopmgdBcipline of'Gender'irdo the sane pockds of
(xxxxqpbadrxqdbraBon.^
What if IMs tensing skin were punctured to reteme the matta of importaioe, freeing those on the
(xderatpasthdanapreparedtorBdt, n**jng:***%;forü*x*avvhol«rwibe**ipn3BsadrnoÜont8ssinthei%*dar
to make their outward passage toward eventual reiease? The addition of the femaie voice is no knga
accaately about rxÆcmg ha absence, identilying ha there, and then stabiBzing that kbndty; it is atxxrt the
influential spread of ha contagon, aid ha movements towad becoming, which extend pa^ the n # )r into
the(Wailsofthemina,fromthemoiatothemolecula,fromthepersonfd,totheimpersond. Thaeae

^EBzËielh Grosz reveals ha exaspaabonwithfeminism'sobsessionwiBiOieseK,the personal. thafshesuggesbmerNy leal into

na*an**nr*xish@nanqy(saBlnkrMew/âiVK*ks(XkKg.
^ Refa to STOP 2 "why utopia(nXism)? (see page 15).

45

those who have Wreac^beenfamilimzed and leianslianzBd with theones regarding the absence of sexual
cMerenoe in the history of thought, a world riddled with m^aphysical dualisms and a symbolic order
dorrWn6Éedbythepha&is. TheseirmovativBvoices,ax;WorlngoutsideofthespaoesintotheimperBonal,
passingbetweenthefluxesof theoretical stnKturesmd Into the uncerWnlies of the future, have been
regEsded as somewhat imreliable and irWfectuEd to the fmdrWst carse. But such work, a|:% considered, may
dWodge fernirssms from therr fixities and dWodge the sutyect of their discussion from \vornarr" because it is
wundesirableterm. Todothis,piayeretraversingbound8nesmustinteractwiththetermandthuschangeil
TNs is not to suggest that we forsEdre one branch of femmism to exalt the other, but rather to acknowledge
thatwhileonefacetoffemirssm—political or academio—may move in one place or indvirW s capacity, It
inhbits movement in another, therefore, iiWxtIng the potentiEd of affirmative ferrdnist desire. Imagine the
surface has cracked, its corAents leak into domams whose nomadk players have awakened latent poter#ials
aid strategicEdly forgotten their roots to redrect their energy to the new and unbmMlET.
This openendedness along with the other ooncefdsad*essed are visMe in the stak of Fanirdsm. It
isEdready'cpen-ended',enmeshedinanwltipHcitycfwayswlthotherdsciplines—withitself. RosiBraldotti
describes the feminist théorisas being ki transit, moving on, passing through, creating oonneclions between
things that were pre^ouslydbconnectBd or seerrdn;^ unrelated (177). Thevoicesoffeminismarealready
working in multipklty and uncontainabBity.'
But Is it possible that "we" can act without fret defining who this "we" is, even If it is described as
rmdtiplicitous, without perp^uaMy stopping to look back at ourselves? Is it possMe that "we'can eventually
stop asking this question? Can "we" intensify our understandng of feminism as an active force, or as Verna
Conley descrbes, "no longera movement'owned by identities, but a movement of desires, bodies, ^owsEuid
style'? (14). This would reqtdre an escape from the lise of makkig ourselves known, placing everytldng in
recognitionwlthourBelvM. ltwouldrequiieanendkssseriesof(Mamtorializmgand
reterTitorializing...retherthanareliaioeonorelevationofcon8ensus(REtichman54). EHzsb^Groszspeaks
about a "politics of impercqotbiiity,' which resists the trap of recogdtion" and situates agency "below the
level of the sut)|ect,'thkiking rattier of that wfdch causes the subject (Interview 4-S). Thinkkig below the level

' Refer to STOP 2 "openingtlied8linaon"8argi9son'sargwnent (see page 17).

46

of the sublect, is thinking towmimoleciWzatkxi, to thW(ii#mbec(mng4#omm,wtotNnk away from
tradMon^ inodes, away from 'mm', which is the niovementdfemiNsm, is it not?
:pfoMeme#Q&1-becomhg woman
From within the trap of recognition' woman hears her name in the chain of loeoomings and reacts,
txjttNs concept cannot t)e approached in the tenns of conventional hiefWry, unless perhaps it were
considered in terms of a dastic reversal. As all otherconcepts in such moving populations as the work of
Deieuze and Guattaii, attaching a convnon sense schema to the concept win sen/e only to obscwB what is
toeing done with it The'woman,'lntecoming-woman', is not the captured woman of the psychoanaiyBc
sense, wtdchactUEdly resides wittsn the man's position, as a reflection of the fnesf structure of mqontarian,
and the first in the chain of treccming. This "woman'assists in the stabiHzallon of his molar position, On the
contray, the "toeoormng-wonrm'designation m the drain of loecomings suggests a movement away from
molar man and his self-grdifylngconstnrcGon and is propeNed try txXh the woman's and man's departura
from their unhappy molar positions. Deieuze and Guattaif use the concept of the gW (yet another poirk of
serious ccntanticn) to further explain the rnovenrent of trecomingwoman. "Gltf is used to descrbe an entity
that nxwes along abstract Hnes,resisling fixation on any one pcmt, sex, or age: "The girl is the treccrningwomanof eachsax, justasthechBdisBiebecomingyoungofev8iyager(A7P 277). She, 'as fugtGve being,'
who perpetuates becoming-woman, or dvine femininity in Irigariantanns, Is a theoretical depidlon of tfrat
which cannot be perceivad, but is also the first to be harnessed try society (281). Thereafter, It is she who is
usedasbaittohamessltTetxiy(277). The'grl',therefore,iskeytodismar#iglheconfinesd
psychoanalylicfianewott(,thuslhesymbolicorder,lhesadslateofthesexesandsoon(276). Woman,as
well as man, must work toward becomingwomen, becominggirl, before maiming and belting The envisioned
"woman", in this sense, has the potential to iproot fixity because "her desire is immanent in preserAbecoming^ (lilgaray 77reEWcsofSexusfD#fenoe14^ She can begin to vaer be aRure of separation and
control with her sensual encormter with the world prerdsed on her trrxnersion and participation, a presentbecoming (Lonalne 48). Thus it is a new woman, based on the pdenRalexisling in the void tfrat dominant
organizations have left of her. Thus,asDsieuzeandGuattariimpart,'womenaswellasmenmustbecoming
toward womm" (ATP 291).

47

Readng aid using Dekuze and GuaW'sbecoming-womm, apart fmm mealing or symbolization, is
to see a movemwt of escape ttom what, at the vay least, the French temirmns have been working away
from:lhedKCWBivernachineiyotmolarrnan, its dominar#*uctiNBS, coming out of the phaUocentric tongue,
description, narrabon, coHecbons, and organizations—to become untied (liigaray This Sex which is Nof One 29;
An Ethics of Sexzraf OMbrence 138). Unreservedly, Deleuze md Guattaii write inspired by the potentisd of
"womm' in üÿit of W revolution.
ThecharacteristicsoftheutopianwritarconsidBrBd the launch Wo woman was not an indcationtha the
utopianwriterisawomanspecifically,birtthewomaihassenred86acon(#tionforestrangemenl Nosexed
individual Is attached to the subject position of "woman" in the sense of savior, the becomingvroman. Woman,
as the sexed subject cmnot be seen as savior in herself: however, her sitiect position or kick thereof, the
opportunity there, the space, is a vstual savior which the rAopian wrtter works through, toward, tegardess of
thesexedfaoebehindthework. TheiAopianwrltarindeedhasa8ex,anevarydaysubiectlvity,knowsitqutB
weH, and Is perhaps plagued by it, but in the activity of writing such dslinctlons have no relevance. The
utopian writer, therefore, struggles within all of this contrarktion. Which brings us to the third characteristic
of the writer of defeats heagfi
:*mdure3-ofdeHcaleheaNh
The tracltional approach to utopla(n)(ism) has the utopian writer pegged as one who isofa privileged
dass, race and Intellect, or if not privileged, belongng to a dass, race, religion, or intellect, and therefore
inevltablywDrkstowardtransformalionthatisbenelidaltothatgroup. TheiAopianwriterasexperimental
player, however, may have a dass or Identity groip, but It is not one with which the writer writes from or
identifieswith. Theutopkmwrit*writBstotran8formeventhegrouptDwhich[s)hesupposeclybelongs,
becauseregmdessof its possMe status as abject or minority, if it is idantiliable. It Is in need of
trardormatkm.
The lAoplan must be wiNing, as I have said, to perish, to overcome the self. It is only (he loss of self,
the removal of codkig, through which she attains the'IndMdueHty" and space for her creative power to work
(Lorraine 163), as well as the ability to write things, and see things that ae too big for hefr) (Deleuze
"UteratureandUfe'J). But this ab@ty, this wiOlngness—a madness—as sudr. Is a prMbge: 'a privbege
beyond its capadtlesr (AO 321), a privilege that pays tfre price of "mental aHenaborf (320). Itisthlscondbon

48

dm»#Ëexerds8*NchdiawsDeleuzBædGuatlanbrBlalelhewntertoth88Chizophrenic. The
scNzophmmc, aooording to Jacques Lacai, is consideiad Al, cut oRfrom redity tiecause he or she lacks
Oedpusorhasnotl)eenabsoibedintothesymlx)licoid8r(91). ThisispieciselywhyDekuzBandGuatlan
ae Inspired by the concepl
The concept of schizophrenia Intonates a i overcoming of the holds of siÈject systems (NO 26),
therefore the schizophranic resides somewhere on the penpheiy, "with no fixed Identity., defined by the states
through*hMhltpassesr(A020),but"holdngonbyahandaafoo('(A7P34). Thelndwidualona
schizophrenic journey, so to speak, Is a?)enencing a pae, Intense, plane of positive desire (D//80). In this
pure stsAe, the schizophrenic operates with/on the BwO (AO 281). It Is because of this schizophrenic openness
to "suffocating thmgs whose passage exhesats (the wntaf that the hefij health is delicate (3).
Y^theschi20phrenic(8sconcept), like the utopian writa, is axÉsiy aware of the dommar# systems
from which [s]he Is estranged and It Is precisely what (spie dsccvers In this awareness that leads heM to Ms
estrangement, this'Insanity'. As Ian Buchanan writes:
Instead of being lost In the furAouse, the postmodern schizD is for the first time In fs^oiyawae that
f«sorh8renvironmentisinbctafunhouse,adeadzoneofimages,faisetraBs,baddeoeplions. If
they are happy there it is because they have finally learned to laugh at the mackiess that ajneunds
them on all sides, ncAbecajse they have lost contact with reaKty.(Oeieuz»m 166)

It Is delicate sMuaUon. The writer, the schizophrenic, is bdh the patient and the physician, "a physician of
(herjseif and Ae workf (Deleuze "Uterafure and Life" 3). [SPre writes to cure the @s of the world...Nke a
ChrW-figure,or,asDeleuzBcailshe{r),"aves8er(3). Thus,thewrilBractsasthasaviorwementionedear#er
asthebeoormigwoman,because(s]hewritestoheaitheworld,andnxjstunraveiintheprocess. Becoming
agentofandtoihemultipNcities. Deieuze and Pamet say of the writer "you are no longer an author, you are a
production studk), you have never been nxxe populated (Off 9).
Writing Is one way of mapping Ihe schizophrenic process, the iMopian process, to support the Hows.
It is an aclMty tor becoming, as weB as an outiet to persist becoming wiAcauOon. Writing acts as both
Impetus and outlet for a dsBcatehaailh, but Itlscmcialthatthe'sub^matter'IsnotffmfW tothatofthe
writer's own, personal neurosis. The utopian writer writes because (s]he « moving, and In moving, is not
stoppedbysuchself-absort)edlllnes8. [Sprewritesaboidwhat(s]hedoesn(Aknow,mWdngwhatmovesIn
thebooKwhatmovesb^weenthetwo. Wntmgisaiactlvitythroughwhichonebecornes. ToquoteDeieuze:

49

"\AmOng is a question of becoming, always încompletB,Ë*ays in the midst of being fofmed,md goes beyond
themafterofanylivableorliv8dexpenenc8r(Tjte(atisBandljti8"1). Ttiep«DC8S8ofutopia(nXism)i6to
transvsfseboundanes, and It is through MerEdure(althougtin(A only) that boundaries can be crossed. Thus
Ktsrature provides a space for the transformative a c ü ^ of writing. As BIzabeth Grosz manifaslB, vwitingis
nota'purer^lectionofthouÿifbutm'activelaborofwords—writing,wguing,critkâzing. Theyarenotjust
mentdorconceptualskilisbuttectMquesofproduction'(AFOQ. Oneoftheproductsofthislaboristhe
txx*.

Fiction forms what streams in us.
- Anne Carson from ArAWogntphy of Red'

_______________________________________ STOP 5: THE BOOK
pivot:

You waritfo W evem atxx* drat move^ but have been sudbcabdbyamrdWude of books Mdrosepages^ bWng^
chapters^ words, sentences, pWs and every tecfimpre in bebveen have been lodged mto your (hro^ AnrcedInto your
nosbtkand^'es. Loseyourmemoryofwbataboolrls, lbrgetrBoountedbkforres,rnfrDducdonstofhoseeloquenf
Mbnalbsppenrngs.anddlsarmtbeWAiiregD^adslbcflbnaffbeboolr'send. Fbrgetwbatrtlstownk. Take
rnterestInstead, fnfhefvrngworld, wherenrysterymeetswhafyouseeandteef. Seehowthepointsmovesoqurddy
fhattheyfranslbnnmfoBnesfhatvAratBsoMenselyAatfheyblur. Acknowledgefhatwhateveryouwrrfewrffbea
nTereoonceptualsnqpshofofonesquarBlbotatonenrefBmoment Thatk^unlessyouiWfhebeasthavemostof
fheoontrol Look Irdo the mouth ofdiatlhrng. Into the anus^ Into (he ayes^ears^ pores: Juntpudoasmitrance^the
plaoesthatlnwteyoutobeoonsumed. Ybuwlllleam(haftheyarBalsoexlts(hafpushyououfalongw#(heb#y
#eproducts. Anddksectthlsbothystuh^thetanglWeproducLwhlleyouarBln^apartofA Itlsthebook Your
book? The beast's book?
point:
: utopian Is amutopian does

The theoreficd movements of experimentd players can be encouraged by promoting a doman
where accusations such as navety and impracdcallty have no significance. The noshing groimds of their
affects—which aeimcWactsble to the glazed faces of corKsptual comlbrt points—are being extended into the
arrnovingaroundandpassingthroughthelrrnonurnents. Therevdutionstaldngplacewrthinthe
inconspicuous, revolutions that are revolutionary predsdybecarse they are Inconspicuous, me being
affirmed. Itisnecessay,itseans,tobemorespecificaboutwherethisoonceptudtransformatiaicanoccur.
Where can thisspacebe Wared? Where aetheseplayersplaying?Theparticdars, oral least onepleceofa
' Ibid.. 75

50

paftcularis,ofcourse,lit8natue. AlthoughitisrrWoMtainlynotlheoneaxjoNybutitfsthe'Myy'withln
the means of Ihe pETticularpmiecl BunweMwiMes that the novel is a idopian apace because it "allows a
domaminw4*hne*languagecwbea)qxnmentecl*ilh«iddevelope(f(172). Iflheieisgoinglobean
aryment about the agency of Utopian litefatum,wtWier this tKthmuÿispeciticgemesRke'kmiMst utopian'
or'science Action', orthfoughtheutopianaxercisesof the feminist philosophic^ text, Its creators æd users
rnust be rrmdW of th e rm # * aspects which erigendertransfbnnallve potential. Soregardessofwhelherihe
srÈ#ect is

or perceived as expressing utopian' sentiments (in any sense)...ask the question, is the

book Itself utopian?
In A TTxxrsand Matearrs, Deieuze and Guettai write, there is no dMerenoe between what a book talks
about and how it is made' (4). More often then not, however, there is a gap, but there orrghfnotto be. Or, there
orrghftobeanWlbrttocloeettssgap. Simplyd:EÉed,A)rlheprocesstobeafteclive,themgredenÊsofthe
bookmustrenderastartiinginlIuenoefromëreforceofitsprDduclion. ltrnustber#fliculttod«linguish
between the two. It is a geme of authenticity, a play at fokXng theory over practice, meidng everything that
exists between them onk one horizontal plane.
VWth senwtivity to that fear cftaiiime and dsappoinlmerrttha provokes rebuttal. It must be
acknowledgedthatthereisnoperfectlyutopianbookcomprisedofpurelyrevolutionaryelemenls. Perfection
Is not the goal.' The corwtmction of the concept "perkction' is to blame for the shaming of iAopia(n)(lam) arxt
to continue to have its contagion revived by its powerful host—the assumption that perfection is the sNenf
obsession of the writer's project—Is to bsten the book, yet again, to some faby canot for those reactive and
lesentfulcommunitymemberstosooffal Thebook,bdhmrtselfandthewayitiswrittan,isarelleclionof
the way we think, the way we (fiink we think, the way we speak, and the way we find ourselves through our
nelworkscf representsAion, sign, symbol, order aid whatever else you want to cdl It Itisaproductofour
laws. Birfitis8isothepiacewherBourcreatlvrtyandthoselawsoometonegoliata.Theslrafegyis,ifyouare
indeedautopimr writer, to anive with an excess (^crWvity,asaviciou8ly joyful anny comprised of the
sitversivB,' the insane,' the estranged,' the volatile,' the bored,' the dissatisfied,' the converts,' and the
traitors.' So that after the law sets ip its standard court dbnensions to begin, there will not be room for
everyone. ltisthelawthatwillbedMpi8cediSTdertheptBS8urBandmovemerAoflhistBemmgtr@)e,because

' Rehr b STOP 2 :lltopien Impotency" ^

pages 12-13 In perAcubr).

51

edthouÿilhebbeisonIheoulBkiitsdtheacadaTWcasna, itisthelawthatisonlheoutskiMsoftha
axpenmentaldoman. The la# has mass and number. And (he books that are utopian am thoee that have
shedlhemoa(,arelhemo6tlacldng. Theyla(*oneofmoiiBoflhefollo#ing:genre,stmc(ura,plot,
autho(ship,dlreclion,identity,memoiy.andoonfofTnity. Becajseotthistheydea-spacefornewfedities.
Not raaBty as It hm been honed ink) our common sen86. ..but the W , the Bb force of our wodd: pure
dfterence,theduffin-be(#een. TheshapeoforderwillbeforcedtodiangetDacoonmodateitsnmyguesl
Orderisourneceasaryhosl Weuseittomapouraclivethoughl WbcaHthismapabook.

: the rhizome -the sbucbirerBelebmt^nidure
Fb#o#ing Anti-Oedÿx» (1983), a beast of a book which plays ate simultaieoustnbulB to and
assassination of the HMdemid and psychoanalytic captLZMiel, Deleuze and GuaAarlcornbine their ellbrts in
A TTiousand Aafeaus (1987) to present an altBmalive,Aat being multiple altematlves expressed through the
Interchangeable lenns—nomadsm, delenitorialization,beoonwig,moleculaization,do--e8ch of which
promotea replacement of unity with multiplicity, stabËty with movement, and Identity with schizophrenia.
The first event of their momentum Is their creation of a new thouÿit Image of the book the rhizome.
Theconoei^oftherhizDme, in the hands of Deleuze aid Guattari, isa paradoxical description of the
book'sstnrcture.onethatdeniesslnjCtaBandlbfm. Theimagechdlengestheplayertoimagineabookfree
from a Togicar cohesion to Knearity, unity, a singular reflection of the order of the Same, and Imitation, like
that of the strongly axistsigtradtional or classical book, or what Deleuze and Guattari call the'rooHcook" or
'wotld4ree'(ATP5). Therhizome'sescapeofthesameisassistedbyadenialandcompKczdingofbinaries
that had once provided afalse sense of darlty because, contra a; opposition, a ursfied position is poesMe.
Howeva, in rhizematics—activities based on the image of the rhizome—contracts are lifted, all gates are
opened,andifoneiswilWngandrBlevatonewmbecomepartofthefestiviti8s. Deleuzeandaratlaiwrlte,
"(the rhizome] ceaselessly establishes connections bdweensemkrticchams, organizations of power, and
drcumstanoes relative to the arts, scienoes, and social stmggles' having "no Ideal speaka-Wstener" (7). It is
m constant and complax motion, always In the midst, growing outward, offered to the task of Intermingling,
enabBngindelmiteoonneclionsandextensionstoandwlthoulsidesunoundngs. Rfszomesareopento

52

comactMnswiOifomigisunamdngsJncfKBingtheeveNdnewcornbinEÉions. AvoidnglheegoWcal

lmlalionsofonevoice,iti6mas8emblageofm@Ty. ItistheaxpenmenWdomainIhmughwNchthe
expenmenWukpIanpIayemcmplayanacaWiKukp». DeleuzeandGimW'sptwisionofthislhought
image is ubpim in W fbecKjse it opens a ne# *ayk) conceive of Ihe book, not orWym regards to contents,
objectives, and techniques outside of the conventional requkements, but also in the language with which to
discussthebook(throuÿio(ganics). Mostimpo(tmtlytheimage'srelevanceextendsbeyondthebook,it
inspirBsthewntBr,thephWo8opher,theadist,tothinkbeyondthecontainmentof'covertocover.' But,of
coŒse, Deieuze and GufAai are not done in this extei%ion, Derrida writes:
A text" is hencWofth no longera finished coipus of writing, some content closed in a book or its
maigns, but a dMerenlial network, afabric of traces rafeningenclessly to sorndhing other than
itself, to other dfferendal traces. Thus the text ovemmsaN the limits assigned to It so far (not
sUbrnerging or drowning them m an uncMerentialBdhornogenel^, but ralherrnaking them rnore
compisK, dhridmg and nadtiplyingdrokes and Wnes)-all the Umits, everything that was to bead up
inoppositiontowriting(speBch,Hfe, the world, the real, history, and what not, every fieid of
reference-tobodyornsnd,conscioiBoruncon8clou8,poRtics, economics, md so forth), (living
On" 84)
Hence, perhaps Denida can be used to dose a paragraph that opened with Deieuze and Guattari.
:exploslvelBxt

For rhizornatics to bepn processing in thought and writing, the player rnust perceive the text as more
than a blank surface waiting to be graced with he(r)artkil mastery of language.' The text has a force of its
own,acapadtyforaclivitythdtheplayer,if(#eishjd(y,wabetheoonduil Inaneflbrttoextandthe
percefdon of archrtectisB as merely solid matter, Bizstrdh Grosz descrbes text as active Httlebonts"
drawing things from around them and then scattering and scrambling them into new dractions and new
alignments:
A taxt, whether book, paper, fgm,palnllng, or buWding, can be bought of as a kind of Wef kibe nighl
Furtive, ciandedine, and always oomplsx, it steals its ideas from all around, hom its own m&eu and
history,andbetlBrstiHfromitsoulside,anddMsemmate8themeisewhere. Itisnotoryyaconddtforthe
drculationof ideas, as knowledges or truths, but a passage or point of trandtkm from one (sodd)
stratumorspacetoanother. AtaxtisndthiarepodtDtyofknowtedgeortruths,thedteforthestoraged
infbrmation...so much as it is a process of scattering thouÿrt; scrambiing terms, concepts, and practices;
forginglinkagœ;becommgafonndadion. Ataxtisnotsirriplyatodoraninstrumenl..ralheritis
explosive, dangerous, vdatae. (AFO 58)

Thishasrtruchtcdowithoif stwndonrrrentofaulhorshfdaaissedinSTDPi TheWWer.

53

The kme

a text may be conaidenad as a naturW disaster, as inured by Jacques Derrida's 'preoccupation'

w # the ügute of the earthquake (Royle 154), elevating its poterrtkd to a level

natisad, ui%toppable agency.

The player will create with it, from it, and through it as both simplement and creator, but alao as a ^ctim of its
urpredktabglty. This is In accordance to immanent tran8cendanceP...we must be "thWdng In things, among
things' because this, accordng to Deleuze and Pamet, 5s producing a rhizome and nota root, producing the
lineardMAthepoint" (Of/26). Thehopeisthatwitharespectfortheactlvityoflhetaxt,it8mov8mentwiii
workwithth8*riter,8inceithasbeenlagelyoutofh^i)handsaiy*ay. (S]heismarelyawTitsr,andmerely
abooKbutthatextisbeyondsuchparticulas. ThisoonceptofthebookdisplaceslhewrltBrfromaglorilied
agospace, the confines of a genre, a tunneled disi^inary dscusslon,æda particular consumer markel
ButforlhetaxttobesovolalBe, It must be kept aBve. It must, as Grosz deecrtee it, "shake things if ,
producerealignmentBr(Af058). WhichtranslatesirTtDDeleuziantennsasbeing'nornadologkaror
'rhlzomalic.' As such, not aHtext, not a# books, are acNve in Ms way. They are created and racreatad Ms
way. Their ravohrllon Is the reaponsh% of the players.
: hicrements, measurements, wheie'd the genre go?

DrsdnguisiMng what I refer to as the'utopian texf from the mucus of o if cultural gs is crucial to its
affectivity m at, kmguage, and theory—to life reaHy—but is also poUticaMycrucial with regards to Its reception
md use by those players whom have been inaparablyscaned by the frultiessness of tradtional utopim
manifeslations in contemporary condHions. In regards to spedlkally feminist utopim Nteralure,SallyKitoh Is
concemedthatfeminlsmhasplaoedtoomuchlimeandfathinitsagency. Sheargueslh^theseutopim
'axprwsions'are maaly artistic reHectionsd theory, as opposed to sites of inversion that feed the process of
theory (80). That is, they merely reflect ideas that are already estabkshed among feminist thinkers, and which
are already, themselveB, regmded as harmfirUy 'utopim' (82).' This argument considered, not only is literature
merely a reflection, txA what It rWlects is contrary to its desire.
Consequently, not only should the reader and writer be thinking away from the thought of tredtional
utopla(nXism), but must also be ackvB in the breakdosm of the duaUstk situation of theory or art, and action.
lfnot,thebookhasalreadydied. Such conoemed reactions as Kitch's travel somewhere betwemveWdty and

'Referb STOP SlmmanentSanscendance'^p^ 23-2^.
' Refer back to Sa#yKNch"sargument in STOP 2 "Ae mot of ubple(n)gem)(perlkular1y on pages 10-13).

54

stubborn closedness within a pending stoim doud of imintenlional hypocrisy, txrt successfully startles the
playersfmmhelijsolitafyprocess. Yes,iheseconcemsholdlhepiayeraccoimtableinhe(i1intelleclud
nomadsm. AdmNtadly, however, such reductions have become slightly less concerning at this point of the
projectafteralnaadyexpenencinglheinlennm^ingoflfsngs. YetlherBalityis,thatl3ool(8arBbeingproduced
and treated in precisely Ihe argument prescdbed. Itseems, despite our efforts, we are all helplessly guMty of
this charge.
Butthelroriyisthis, who-4ioneslly now—Is the utopian player trying to oonvmce, and what is the
point of such a dehnse? (Is it necessary to redtsFoucaulfs complexity of pcwser?) Kitch is but one, and even
then not without plenly of overlapped deelTB. And they,' the rest, certainly do not see Ihemselvas,' orthe slze
of the experimental esmy, not that "they" have one...because neither exist in such mola^ distinctions. The book
ortheessay—the taxt—Is a battle ground that comes equipped with its own oppressors th^tfre writer fights
toremindheM-eslfofwhatMhBlsdofng. ..that Mhels, In fad. doing. Here Is the prompt pn^ùœ within the
rhizomaticassimptionthattheory,literature,andlitecarmotbereducedtoseperation. Butagam,donotwant
to write (or read) with a bBnd dependency on hof methodology, twirling inavirtud ballroom, wtWle actually
sitting too long, chewmg processed food, strelcNng texts ever the same templatB in a variety of dbguises. Do
not intendonally sijpport a methodology that recompresses the text, brmgs it backward to this MEANS this.'
Stop playing the detectives of mysterious cases that happened the day before. ^ Become, instead, the mystery
maker...asking instead "what can It do7 What can happen now? And now? And now agaln...but this time
with INs? The text m the utopian player's hands ought always to be active, allowed to do whd is m its
potential.
Considering Bterature In tenrrs of Its expression of theory relays it as a tool cf sorts. But that does
what? Gérard Klein suggests that science fiction should be respected for conveying contemporary Issues
irrvolvmgdmicultsdencetoalargerpopulationina'dowrytoearthandfarniBaroor^ad'(23-24). Inavery
similar tone, Lucy Sargisson suggests that the fidlonalliterMyfonn provides a dges&le presentation of
serious Issues: I t sweetens thepKofa serious 'message' whilst playfully lading us in on the joke" (CFU 42).

^ Ernst Blochnwkes the deUnclion between tlie detective novel and #ie "novel of tliearW,prWe0ng the Idbr over*» kxmer.
Thedetedivenovelbegnsi#i#iecrme.andthenm«relyrekaces#iestepB.backwerd.B(e#iep(ychoenalyBL Blocliconknds
IhËK Is a comfortalilewriting^rategyvhictiorW masquerades as beingclever, andbegs Aequ«dion:howcan Abe suspense
when thedeath occunedat #ie outset? The'novel of #iear1isf. however, kxces thewrger andAeieadar to #snk forwardrather
than effort back to the begrming,b perceive Wlewithout any particular evidence or clirne (see Works CAsd).

55

Regarcless of (he validty of this sppmach—dosas forthemasGes—abeit accurate at Ihe moment, does not
do justice to the potential agency of the literary process. It Is not the activity of utopia(nXl8m), of the space a
fdotoidfromthecllff'sedga. RËherNresomdB#huncotnfdrlablesl(nilaritytDthearthor-audlence,the
siÈject-object, and speaker-ktenerrnenlaBty that plagues us frornBie roofs of our gramrnar.

The rhizome, which collaborate with Sarglsson's sentiments, is dfUcult to access - but not in the
tennsthË one may think. Some of the most powerful texts, e w e know, are some of the worst received.
EvsnDeleuzedescrtevA TTiousand M^ear/se he and Guattari's "most enbitious, most immoderate and
worst4eceivedwotf(' (Dliix). Itseemsthat,perhaps,whatcanbedeantycategorizede utopianficlion',
%nlnlst fiction,'and'science fiction'and, with a Wretch, 'metaphorical phBoeophy, ' are fhe only space
where utopia(nXism) is assurerf some appreciation due to their blatant utopian manifestations. However,
wrthintheconfineoftheegenre,thebookisfixBdtooertaincrfterla—worthreaistkTg. Althoughthewrfter
h e space to critique current social oondMonswhNe offering dramËkinsighls on p o s s t# e of the future,
transfonnallve potentials in the subtWle of the text suffer negled
Creating and responding to Uterature on such mortund points e genre surety play a past in what
DeleuzBref8rstoethe'crisisincor*Brrporary#tBrature'(AK)128). Misthecrisisofthebest-eellerepidemic,
where the produrdion agents of Hterature (pit6shers,e(#tors, wrAer^becomea complex copy machine of
active texts or wore yet, the copy machme of the books that seObut have nevar been acdvB. The production
agents of literature know w M sells, and bow to seW, whoe only activity can be easily monitored by @ie
axchangeofcapitol. Somepridethem8elveonknowinghowbreproducethefonnula.andtheydoitwell.
One cannot deny the brNiar^rrrovement of this mdustry, but such engagements do nothing to breath Bfe, to
transform, regardes of the lÉopian worlds that they fabricate. It Is wore, even, than both the abstract
wIsMul thinking and over-zealous empiricism that Ernst Bloch holds lesponsbie h r tamllng our cultural
consciousneewiththebBndbeWintheheffeclivihroftheutoptanimpule(106). Itisthestrdfofpomlless
chatter, the multitudacfilaccrdteplicas that the reader consumée a means of passrvB escape.
This Is the third extreme of the branching spectnrm, and it seems hardy relevant, a waste of energy,
and perhaps mAdyfaeclst to squelch the capitalistic and psychological benefits being had there.
RsthenTX)re,ti% objective here is nd the beWgerenf criticism cf products from players krrpelled in
memorandmrorkitsch. WehavefouTdwaystomockeverytNngwlthasnldereviewbecauseweare

56

acxajstomedtodbappantmentandhavabecomeralharpasâvB-aggmssivBasanBSijl Thus,the
mahknance or creation of a metar with which to measurs the transfbnn^lvakMsf of a book must be avokbd,
althouÿi wa may flourish in ke intensities that work where they do, axlelamte them accordngly In the
spaces amidst Its partcularfiekl ThestrongerlheirAenslty, the more aHars of Wenslty, and the more
distinguishable the book becomes from which its fe^ pushes.
A renegotiation of the function of literatise tdongside the re-dafirstion—The undeAryng"—of
utopia(nXism)wi# open new avenues of sockd change and possibilities that extend beyond contant and fbmi.
Not only wH the genres expand, and become increasingly irrelevar#, but also Teminist,"utopian,"theorelicd'
aspects of the book become simply aspects, as opposed to all ( M r ^ categories. Royle descrbes Derrida
as repeatedly expresang a profomd respect for writing that allows phHosopfry and literature k* contaminate
oneanother(88). Stretchthegenreflsfherineachdreclion,experimentwithnewconnecfionsnotonly
through imaginativBcorÉant, bid Ësothrouÿi the elements of the book's production. This, of course, is
already under way. Lucy Sarglsson's readngs of literature, to which the term feminist utopian fiction' still
applies, speak of the action of this literature as not only shifting social codes regardmg gender sax and
relationship, but dso transfiguring the concept of order itself, with a particular focus on modes of expression
such as genre and nanaHvB convention (CFL/201). Writing in terns of "hey oonsfdar this scenario,'is written
from a dssahsfaction with the present, does hold the current situation In question, does push the reader's
belief structure, bid writing in tenns of "this book is a scenario,' launches the reader into the particular
oondtionofhowshethinks. Inthesetemsthereisanaclualchangeintheabsliactlhe'imposs&le'andThe
way it is'meet Ina powerful coKsion to create a worldwide c&nate change. But can such influence of fhe
book be proven?
Earf Shorris, inspired by the impact of Leo Strauss, désertas the enigmatic Bfe of the book
Theionglifeofthebook...isboundid)wllhahisloryinaprooess(dlndrection. Theideasinbooks
sornehowrnanagekwiggk through the morass of indwiduals and ir*)rnafion in large rnodem
socMiesandtbecomeefleidive. Thewayisnotdear,butlhekctofitoftengivessurcea8etothe
pans of laboring in obscurity. (67)

In the process of preparing a secondary source on Jacques Derrida, Nicholas Royle writes:
Wh^her in philosophy or Wterature or elsewhere, the appearance of great works invariably provokes
soiTwdegeeofincorTvrehension,baflleinerd,mindtogglernerd. GraatworkstraTsformlhecordext
of their reoe^on aid dlls takes time. (73)

57

In both cases, the Ihinkers, wtmm Shonis md Royle ae wnting about, also cany the imderstmdng

the

unWding effects of the book mdtzdteiBsponsbility for being m active pat of its process through their
raadngofil ThechainofaxchangepreseNBdhareisevldenoeinitselfoflhebook'sT^TleWfecl Butyou
camot convince a person!^ its potenlid for impact imiess they have feit it Ihemseives, have encountaeda
book that moves, or mdersland to some extent, the strange process of dsseminalion.
The intention is not to create a hierarchical giodfkalion regarding the validity a strength of book in
tamsofutopia(nXism). Such valuations are akeac^^high-conceNralion in dkcussiomsumoundngSF at
present (many thanks to DakoSuvin), due to anxieties sumoundngvih^haanotcatam'popular'SF
literature is vaKd within acadanicdbcussion. The force behind the deeke for validation is paramount but, œ
Lucy Sargisson exemplifies, a dying breed can be revitailzed by he#ig others see what it does, rathathai
byshowingwhatothasfailtodo. ifweweretostackanolhahierarchy,tho8ewhooontinuelotraandizB
themealves by dagg^tradtKNTaiiÉopianism info the preserA context, c o u ld ^a s easily raweree il lam
suggesting that we write and read literatae with an eye and mind for its utopian elements, not unlike the
subüeandaffirmativewofkofEmËBioch,JennifaBuniMll, Lucy Sargisson, and Bizab^O osz, who, even
whHemsomeformofdmagreemenLconsistentlyextracttheintensilyofatexL Onecoddaccusetheae
academics of falsely glorifying aspects of feminist WerËure due to their irwestments there. Buttheee
conterrporay Tenolnists'mend trying to malnWnferninist qualities, in iiteratiaB or dhenwise; they are trying
to show how it is rnoving away from those terms, how the tenns themselves a e c h a n ^ , but also how, whHe
we need to pick up and move on, there is no need to disquakly what moved in the pasl
The point is not to defend or protect, but rather to empty it, with respect, because whatever causes a
book to be labeled feminist'is predseiy what the utopian player Is experimenting toward avoidng. It Is not
thesolereaponstilityofthewritBr,however,thathel^workiscEÉegorized. Wehaveanuncamy'eecondargy
naurertaWforRlingihmgsmtooldlilingsyslerns. Weknowwhattolookfor. Hence,itisthecategorlcal
triggersthatmustbeavoided. Accordn^.maryofthebooksandwrtterathathavefedthisprqiectandwWI
be exemplified are dfMcult to place in a convention^ discussion of either femlnisf or "utopian" literature or
phkeophy. Each have moommon a sort of enigmaüc form, content, and technique, and have creetora who
»B, most approprWely, dflicdt to place due to their own multiplicity, in otherwords, these writers and the
bookstheymhabit,dowhatthesegenresorrght TheutopaitextneednotbeaphWosophyorficlion

58

pmsenbng a posa&le tamplale for political atrucùM, something nadcally other, (^though I refuse to (kcredt
thatutopla(nXism)maystillmovethere). Textthatmoves,thatisactivBandn#8shing,isltselfanexampleof
an elfoh toward sonWiing that is ncAperfecl .. but dive, ^xiredffsnanoe. the force that mov% things, the
thing that has had us for cerduries experimenting with the idea of perfection.
: and Am fAvpMMdupomtMsbrandr': an example of the rMzome

This sounds kvsly...truly it does. But how does It worfr? He# Is an active utopian book
dsdnguishGble in this truncated mess? Where and how are its mtensltiespe(petuded?kkw is It created?
How may such a material and conceptual fixity (commodty) become rhizomatic? As Deleuze and Gudtmi
challenge the book to senre as aiaxarrple of what It spedts, it seems fitting to commence exemplification of
the rtvzome with the very book that gave life to this particular conceptud Image of dfference: A TTrousand
Mafeaus. Thisisnotmeanttobeame8surementoftheirsuooes8,butratheraquicklookatwhattheyhave
succeeded In doing while serving to further this expedhion on the event of the rhizome.
The one concept, that mekes the concept of 'one' Impoedble, Is multiplicity. And once the one, the
singular, the unllied. Is shattered, everything openeirdoanythmg in Its turn. This book, then, ought not to
haveltsorig|nfromoneorigln,anauthor,mastennind,orprcpernamebehinditsprq|ecl Ddeuzeand
(kjattari demote the significance of'Ddeuze and Guattarf to avoid the resoundng voice of authorship.'
Concordantiy,theywrit6that'abookha8nerthersut^norobiecf (3), and they indeed dssohrethdr
identitiesttuoughoutthework. TherBaderdoesnotknowwhohaswritfenwhat,andwhathisfbcusis,md
furthermore,8carcdyforwhomorwhatsuchabookcouldpos8tlybevimtten. Becaueethebookistheir
origin rather than the dhernwyaromd, it doœ not end with its reader, tfiey present themselves as merely a
pmt of an assemblage of voices. They write, "we have been dded, kispired, multiplied (3). This Is bid one of
many exemplary phrases of sudr sendmerrts that occur not only In this book but the endrety of Ddeuze's
work. He forms an assemblage again wNhClair Pamet In Dialogues ff, and dao to a great extent rdWnhk
readmgs of tfxnkers like Friedich Nietzsche makmg it cffficult to dktingdsh where the'otigmd'thought ends
and Ddeuze's readng begins.
Asthebookdoesnotstartftomone, or even two origins. It does not travd on one or even two linear
lines. Consequently,DdajzeandGuattariopenAThousandMafsaustoAeinckjsionofaTydiscipBnaryor

RefBrtothed«cussionregardngtheumrvelingofid8r%mSTOP4"lder#y ink)mdtlplicrly"(seepege8 32).

59

NstofWconWxl They wiHe "hem W8 have made use of evaything that came \*ltNn remge...'(A7P3), andthe
oontenb am bxbedkr reaching. WNIe one chapkrcomads the wolf (o the schizophmfw(chapter2),
anotherdevekpelheoonceptof Ae war machine and nomadbm (chapter 12), whËe yet another eneaks I f on
lherBaderwithanewoonceptoflheBodywithoutOigans(chapter6). Furthennom,eachchaptBrcameswilh
it several lines of thioug# at once and with a plelhora

voices: from Vladin^r Slepian on the dog, to ChaMotle

Brontë on the wind (chapter 10), activating the interchaTgeabiiity of terms, making irmlevait the terms of right
andwrong—valuations based on oppositiondthinldng—and thinking, instead, in precisely those ternis of
raievancemdirraievmce. Moreover,thesewiderangingconnectionsandconoeptimagesamnotcontained
to their supposed chapter they leak, jump and rustle Aom cut of each section, speaking to one another, it is
truly a book "made of variousiy formed matters'(3).
Eachpassagehasitsownmilieui'Ifsllkeas^ofsplltringB. YoucanfitarryoneofAeminfoanyother.
Each ring, oreachplataau,ou^tohaveitsownclimalB,ilsowntoneortimber'(N025). Andwrthnocamtbr
linear dkecdon toward afhal destination, the book quickens "vary dffaranf dates and speeds'(3). Each
chapter is dated, but surges from 1914 to 10,000 B.C, back to November W , 1923. In their language them am
no promts'or "^xxitlons,'only'Nnes'(8), that is, only ongoing movement, nomade thousand wrttkrg,
movmgfrompiacetoplaceandtimetotimeaccordmgtotheoondHionsoffluidty. Eachpartoftherhizome
is itself rWzomatic.
But perhaps cause for concem, is that these BtUe rhizomes am still pieces of the one rhizome, the
one being read and held in the reader's hands. TNsappeerstobeasdrecrtption, again, toaunit But It Is—
paradoxically—a unity with no unity, that is, they Tit into" a imrity which is itself anb-unitarian.
:ofder b In order Mum?
In A TTrousandPWaaus, Deleuza and Guattari make the observation that although them must be
indvrduEd notes to oeate a song, Glenn Gould plays them so smoothly and quickly that they am Murmd into a
continuous60und(8).TheformationoftherhizomaticbookislikeaGlennGouidplayrngasong. Inother
words, the book datenitorializœ, as it sounds out into the world. I t fonns a rhizome with the workf and
"assures the daterrrtorWization of the world,' that is, as a text, it tdrns from all momd it, pkds it, aid scatters
it back out again. ExIendngfromtNs, however, is the world's "retenttorraliafion of the book.. . '(11). In this
parbcuiacase, iamthewortdintheactofreteintorializing. Ihavejustretarritoridizedthebookbyplantinga

60

senesofpointsextmcladfromit ButlhavetnsligatBdlhishaltædrBgapwilhthehopeslhat'alIthelitlIe
soldkrs will nm off again, raplenlshad, just as Deleuze and GuatlaMinlend for the ra*a#xWlzed book to
'd^emtonaliZBitselfinthewohd(ifitiscapeble, lfitcm)"(11). However, it cannot do thb without the help of
the feader-wnter continuation: "Step on the stone, ptdrttup, ttyowAtwo Wahead, st^onthesfone, p«*Awp....'
But inclusion or awaraness of fetsmtodaNzad thought within the txx* makes the mader's description of it,
hejijuseof it—hejr] extension of its effects—somewhat possble.
Although Deleuze and Guattari make it rather imposable to reduce their text adequately, tfieypnwide
opporturatiesforthereader,anyieader,tole8vewith8om6lhingthafcanberaplantBdelsewhere. Intiasic
terms, they provide points of clarity and structure to he%r the reader continue the process motivating the book.
The utility of order is exploited to salvage the reader from what may be perceived as an extremely 'chaotic'
ride.' Forexample,their*odudiontoA77rowsandfWsau5bearBathoroughexplanËionofDelerEsand
Guattari'sintentions,(^theexpetknentathaTd,thatbemgtherhizome. Theoonclusion,foranotherexample,
provides the reader with a condensed glossay of tenns indkaüng chapters in which they are a r ^ .
Designated spaces in the book, Bke the introduction, preface, epkryre or whatever seems to exist on
the boundwies of the official'site of the book, are crucial to the mamtenance of its aidhenticity,espec»lly in
termsofwhatisbeingsu%estedasthenewlyutopianbook. AndasDeleiEBandGuaflariallowthemselvBS
somewhat of a schizophrenic process of presentation, one cm only imagine the oddHy and therËoredMicdty
of facing order broughoiA the stages of Its ccnstnrction. Thus, these strangely bmalboundaryepaoes
infonn the reader of the materiality, the'everyday'of the book, indudng, perhaps, the conespondence
b^weenedtormdaidhor. ThewritBrexpo6eshe(rj-self,speakingdrectlytotheraaderab(xdhe[rj
intentions, trials, disappointments, and basically, acMtling to certain shortcomings in the work being
presented. Resdtandy, regardhes of what key words are printed in bold sAthe bottom of the back cover—
Phrlosqphy lAqprarrLAerzdure' MWen'sSWee—the reader can acknowledge the writer's strides and
internions, even œ they «dst within the confines of pack8^,m dlauÿr at (Êstinctions that presume that a
book written by a womm (especiafty one with philosopNcai activity), ora primarily female perspacdve, rrW

' This re-concepWzedrdopla maybe chaok.butmudilAeevery otherconcept Ërdûsprqect, It dwe not carrywillittagapof
negadvilycarved outby Its kadMonal use. In otherwords, I amnot suggesdngwe replace kadWonal utopianism wAeentmente of
anarclry. TNswoWd be equity useless....skncing ready.

61

havefeministlaanin^. SuchdisdnclionsæemembanassmentfBally.butafeveiymalintBnnsdnaspcinse
and drculaüon In Ihe insütulion. Evefyffwng /mp/anW fn *e fnslWdn evenWly W s Aseff crysMzed. '
TTiismaAs a conlradkAinlmmwilMnlMs argument fora sùalegBplo#ig of poinis in defense of
beingplolled. AMhoughlheseplol8amnecessaiy,andcanbeu8ed*i8ety,lheypiesifpo8eafalure,a
raaHlylhaldelhmnealhewiABr, Deleuze and GuaUaM Included. Bui as It hœ been mentioned, and *iH
oonHnue b be again and a ^n .. failufB is a rsquislle fw the cmaBve process as weli as Ihe (MNoning of the
creator.Fa#umisalterBd,lumedamundsotospeak. WhatDeleuzeandGuatladfindlhemaelvesaocuaedof,
over-quding for example, they regard as impetus to production: "...when one «rites, the only question is
«hkh other machhe the iitsrary machine must be plugged into, n W be plugged into in order to «oik" (ATP
4). Thi8offenaels.*lthlnthehandsofDeleuzeandGu8llah, a propagation of the assemblage of voices, a
cnjdWaspecttoihizomaticwnting. ItfoWowsthatasenseofmlsadvenlurBMbyDeleuzBandGuatlad
comesfromthatwhichthelrcnticswouldconsiderassucoess. InrafersncetothelrworkinAng-Oedqous,
Deleuze «rites: "«e re «eU awrare that the first volume of An#-Oad(pus is sdil fuN of compromises, too fWi of
things that are stili scholarly and rather like concepts. So «e'ii change, «e already have..." (NO 9).
%ievantfaarjre, that «hkA pushes the «ritsrlrrtoainlinuous renovation, ernerges from
incongruities«ithbthet8Ktllketheironyofpiotlmgpoirdsthatiead8«ayfrompointplotting. That»,«hen
thebookdoesnotdo«hatitsays. In the midst of a condemnation of sub|ectivily, for instance, Deleuze aid
Guattan confess to the habit and comfort of using proper names: "becaiseifsrdoe to talk like everybody else"
(^. Althouÿrcertamre8ponsessuchasthisonebeartheunmislakabietoneofa(Togance,theyremainplayful
even «hile taking note of their shortconârgs and mËdngefkrIs toward impmvamenl But œide from Deleuze
and Guattari as academics themselves, the gap tretween the book-ideal they propose and «hat they produce
leaves an openmg, an Incompletion for the reader to contkrue from.
There is no Ideafrhizomatkxbook, as there is no "ideal «ritar.'Such a partnershÿ does not exist and
«iiinotexisl Itlsirreievanl Therefore, although the foWcwing dmcussion v4Baddteea a smattering of
potentialiytransfonnativeaspectsof literature, it is meant only to ir«tigatea sort of inspiration, or exploration
of possWty rather than define a goal. Damandng or axpedlng the «rlter to simultaneously engage in each
ofthemerWionedactivities(«tthanyproduclivlt^«ouldbeneedesslyenoneousandlimltmg. FasUy.ifthe
' Referback to the STOP1"va&kdion of approach" (see page 6).

62

writer even attempled to asswie responsibility for all possbWltiesltwoukllnNIxt collatxiralion—Hmrtinglhe
acadernicaenaagain,closinginoniBHk8thefaila6yofpreviousconstructions. Secondy.inorderforttTe
writer to axperiment with some intensity or relevanoe, [s)herTWSt choose hefrjbedUes.
The infortmce of vdidaling Ihe aforementioned f i r ^ md 'secondy is cruciai on Iwo additional
aooounts: 1) I have claimed that ihe activity of utopia(nXism) requiree a porousness, an outward rhizomadc
growth; 2) Those who have been pollulad ty tiadMional Ideas of utopianism, the agency of utopian Hteralure
andphkecphy, such as SaNyKitch, have made Ihls an argument contra Ais species of writer in her book
HrgfierGround. Shegalhersthetheorelicalworl(offeminismintothreeba8iccategories:genderdMerenoe,
deference among women (identity politics), and linguistic construction, accentuating each of their strongly
'idopian' activities. Feminist utopian Uterature, accordngly, is the artistic reflection of these three basic
categories. ShewritBS:'wemustbegintomderBtandrAopianismassifportMecfoniyoertamkindsof
feminist viewsT (86), suggesting that whË she sepac^m to bodies neglect an extension to the complexity of
feminism. InresponsetothisbeNef,shevEdorizK'reallstlcfaministtheorizing',wtùch''sifpliescaveatB,
questions and challenges to the othersT (187), through connection and coalition" (2K). The activity of
realistic'ferninistthougfd is "dsnaturalizmg inherited tridhs and trüsrns, tncbdkrgfernWsttruisrnsr which
"crlticiZBS its own kuncMons along with those of its antagonists and dmactorsT p29). Tothislrespond,
bravd It presents kminism in its rhizomEÉccomplaxi^, encourages becomings between Its branches, and
instigates a complex system of accounlebUity. There Is no argument in regards to these condtions. However,
m snapped for coUaborWionmd accountability, why place pressiae on those that have chosen a partculm
bianchtoextend?Becausethechosenbranchisnotpoliticairealism? tWweabandonthedomamof
litsrary transformation to work In the more visbiypracbcai realms? The concMons of a limited
acoomphhmerA indkate neiker failure, a dosing off, nor the neglect of other cnrdai Issues. There are
others,foHowingtheserdimerdsofas8entiage,thatsenf6asaUies,oollaboratDr5,extenders. EachwUido
whatMhecan,andleavBmopmspacefbrolherstoinhabitandrelashionh^r)design. Butthatwrttermust
be acknowledged and appreciated in those efforts.
Thb acknowledgement and brancfring is the same on a smaller scale, herein the Idkrsyncrasies of
the book:

63

: conceptual and phyalcal Wmctum

'Ideaiy, the maWalg&udUTB of the book would be cas* aakb In order to maintain though! In Wms
ofaplaneofconsistency. FbrDeleuzeandGuattan.theide^dbookwouldbeoneslrawmacmssamngle
sudaoe,'onasinÿepage,the6ane8heef(ATP9). L&eatbldoutmap? Pradaelyl! Novedkalstacking,
stopping and starting. W , second or thirdly. But even then there would be a center. Even the Ideal M s
short of the ideal.
I have vîsuîAzed a scroll in the form of Elizabeth Grosz's treasured concept of the Mdblus strip-the
inverted three-dmenslonal figure eigM," a concept which she borrows from Jacques Lacan and adapts bodi
her mderstanding of the monistic relationship between mind and bod|y, and the conceptual organization of
her book, l/bMie Bodies (xil). However, my vision takas on a much more banal and physical image, that It
would be belter to attach the pages of my project tog^her, from supposed beginning to end, to somehow
trypasstheforceraqukedtofitmallersoffluidtyintoastrrctlinearity. IcouldengineeraMabiusstripoutof
the book.,.but this would belong nowhere but a gaHeiy. ..and how inaccasskle and ridkulous It would be!
'Realistically', In Ihe sense of the physical organization c^a book, especially one that is about the Innovation of
Kterature, how does one materlaWze the scfszophrenic process, rhizomatics, the lAopian process, academic
utopia?
It seems that the physical properties of a book reek unavoidable havoc on the creative process.
Faint, scrolling thoughts of the mind are harnessed into text and placed—dropped sporadkaHy raaNy—wHhin
tire virtud space cf a computer, into notes scrtWed on sh e ^ of paper #rat scatter the floor; it isa
detenttorlakzbrg of the mkrd, a scattering of seeds. Given space and time to grow, expanding imprecktably, it
will all (hopefidly) merge together, evolving with the contact of dHfsrsrrt elements to create a seamless flow.
And aflhough it may not be possible, or more precisely, practical, at this time to have it physically oonespond
as6Uch,wahavethevisual(concsplual)mder^andngofthismotivalion. AconlinuousmovamerAaway
from common sense, derived from an awareness of its boundaries. Is a corÉnuous opening of potentials to
constnjct outside of II Butperhapsfirst,wecancolorlnthelinesofthisoutslde,byaccentuatingthenjesof
the inside.
In "TheAp^tmerA," from Sÿrecles of^paces and Other Haces, George Perec questions the desgnated
ordering of ourlivingapace: "ApartmentsarebuiltbyarchttBctswhohaveveryprBciseidaasofwhatan

64

enlrance-hall, a sitling-room, a parents' badnoom, a child's mom, a makfs room, a txix-mom, a kitchen, aid a
bathroom ought b be Nee" p8). Of course, the architect of a standard apadment designs within the M ts of
functionality,thatis,b888dontheneedsoftheavefagecitizeninthatcommunity. Theoondtionisquite
simply known, but as Perec brings it intotheatterdionofianguage—has the reader (Wr* it—it becomes
strange, fiuslratingly proper, and hdk^ive of our (arbitrary?) commonalities. Is the standard apartment reaWy
hdkEdivB of average behavior, and therefore, the necessary desigi? Ho* can it be changed? Ho* much can
itchange? liWrywoulditbechangad? Ho*muchwouldpeoplehavetochangeifltchanged? Andsoon.
The reader becomes irritated by the praddabilHyd human behavior but even more stupefied by the pdency
and braeddi of conformity-be use of space, and ho* daOy behavior revolvas around this use, although one
does not dearly come before the other. Perecwrites, %ismodel...l would stress, is both frcdoned and
proWemalic, though I'm commced of its elemenlaryrigMness (no one Bvesaxar^Bre that, of course, brMit
isnev8rtheless#(ethat,andnotolherwise...)'pi). Thmkingabordthevery6lructurBitself,andtherefcre
pladng it in question, is Itself a denaturalizalion of the reader's understandhg of the "natural' design.
An emphasis on the conceplud fixities of a concept or the concept d a book, will inevitably tweak the shape
of Msconception.
AThorrsanrfMefewsisanexamnpleoftweakingtheconceplualapproachtothebook. Aftardawmg
attention b the common approach—exposing The book'—Deleuze and Guattari use the book to aclialize a reconceptuabation its concept Consequently, A TTrousancf Pbdear« is first In a new genre of Werature, or mere
appropriately,doesnotbelongtoagenre. BrAhowdoesDeleuzBraapondbmorereslrir^callsfcr
prtlication?
:lhelntervle*

For OWogr/es //, Gilles Deleuze md Oaae Pamet were commissioned to create one of those'
corrventionalirAanfiew books which lays out the key kdeas of a major thinker in his or her condensed and
present explanatkxTS. But in their encounter with the as«gnment,ratherthan commence with an interview
question, Deleuze and Pamet begin by pladng the interview. Itself, in question. Congruent to ho* Deleuzs
and Guattari had begun their book, MWfsPWbeqpfyPwithanolherquestion—TAW is the Concepf (chapter
1)—that dgs up the roots of the first, Deleuze and Pamd head theirfirst chapter with,'A ConversatkmiWhd
is it? What is It for?" In the opening pages, Deleuze dascr&as be dMcdly of answering questions, replying

65

to(tjec*i(xis,belngconfinedtoastnjchgB. ThequesüonlocksoneintoacomerHemustTBspondwithina
slnjctifB, and themAm (if Ms actlvllieswB worth vWiile asking abouQ, a Aamewoikdexpeckitiofs and siyis
which M Ms presanttaoornings by fabricalmglh8rnraductiv8ly(W8elyrBa9y) in terms

the paster the

future of dominarit concepts in order tog^ the answer over and done with. (lAetryhg to explan the Msbry
of "wornen/the future of "women," wMIe in the praeenttfie term is completely empty). As Deleuze «plains it.
one must make the motions of "perfomred'answers, eWch are led by "perforniecT questions, wMch are
themselves based upon the dominar* roles and meanings, which are in turn based on the only options the
queslionedhastoconslructhe{r)answer(20). Hequedionsthebenefltsofpoeltingaquedloneranda
questioned, which only serves to "nourish duaNsmsT:
For example, inaliterary interview, there is first of Ml the intervtewerfintBrvlewee dualism, and then,
beyond, the manfwrtter, Mafwortr duaWis in Ae inWviewee himself, and agam, the duaOsm m the
mterviewee himself, and again, the duakm between the wortr and the intention or tire meaning of the
work. (19)

Thus a book comrrsssioned to bear Interview that lays out the key tenns of the'^ofious' GMesDeteuze
proceeds to dmarm the interview stnicture because its fbmrat is cordray to the mcvements of its aiwilling
subjed DeleuzeandPameflaunch,instead,intoananangementofrhizomalicsectionswhoseperticula
aidhorisunclaa(althoughtherBadahasa5(V50dianceofguesslngrighl!). Yddespitetheirrebe@on,a
more accurately, as a result of their rebellion, tfie book serves the piepose that the convention^ structae
ams toward with mcreased adequacy: they produce a NgNy condensed, and therefore, IrAensified movement
of Deleuze'sthouÿt without the restriclivefonnat previously proposed.
: the hAedridory text

Perhaps one of the foremost neoeœarilyraslnctiveslnjctaes of the txmk Is the introduclorytexl
How can the academic make utopian moves, transbnn common sense through the text, withmaucha tight
ragirne? Nicholas Royle vras asked to face the task of cornplling an infrodudory text on Jacques Derrida for
theRor/WgeCrificalTTimkerBseries. Meaning,hewastocondensethethoughtofathinkerwhoseprolectis
regardhg InfinltBdafenal, and whose concepts either explode or eat themselves before they are put Into
words. Approaching the challenge, Royle commences the book with an explanation of how the two basic
fbundafionsofsuchaprolectareirnposstleandincontradctiontothe'Ktiecf'rnatter. Herevealsthese

66

limitadons In an eAort lo remain aulhenbc to Ihe Demda's work *Nle Ëso ahempUng to adiem to them and
meets with an Immc Mlllment
Firstly, in response to the expected structure of the series—an opening chapter entitled: "Why
DerridaT—in accordance^ the work (^Denida, Royle places In question the proper name, owmershf) of the
name, identity, distindions trelween things, the meaning and purpose of description, and the purpose of
placing something within quotation marks, the meaning of the punctuation itself (1-4). Secordy, Royle
highlights the paradox of trying to mam Derrldian concepts, into Key idaasT (14-19), by using some of
Derrida's'keyideas'tDdeconstructthewhcleideaofthe'keyidea.' Hewrltesthattolidakeyideawould
require fndng "central IdaasT...but If we were looking for a single 'central Idea' for Derrida's work it might be
that of decerrtrfntT (15). Furthermore, Royle announoee his refusal to use the RouUedge "gray box' technique,
wherein definitions of 1(ey terms'or "brief accounts of inteNectual movements..." are MghWghtedand
contained, via the one gray box of the book. Theoneboxcontalnsashortblurbhighlightingthearbttrary
reduction involved in using suchatMng (14). He Infomrs the reader throughout the taxt, how such InevIteÈrly
reductive medium as the introductory text has succeeded only in propeOingamisunderstandngof Denida, for
example, labeling him a daconstmctlonist, capitulating deconstnrcUon as a "literary tooT and regarding the
statemant"thareisnolhingoutsklethetext'withoutitsparadox(62). Throughadanfkalionof
misconceptions, Royle does provide the key points of Derrida, because such an educaUonal tod is needed,
but he does so with strict attention to hov the matter does not f t Into the frame, and that only through a
complete and frequent exposure of that frame, can it be exceeded by any degree.
: disciplinary cross-breeding

Thus far, I have given examples of relaying infcnnation through a conventional meens of production
thatplacesilseffinquestion,whichisthepresent-becomingactrvityofthatmeansofproduction. Suchfbrms
of academic expression and exchange are unraveling. They are no longer suitable for the thought they are
requiredtopresenl ThisispredselythecondHionofSarglsson'sargumer^thatconterrporaryfeminist
utopianliteraturehasoutgrownthetraditionalapproachtoutopra. Oneoftheguiltynourlshmentsofthis
growth epidemic is its leap into interdac^inary cdlatxxation. The connection between two bodies which
have been needessly separated, explode into a surprlamgiyrBlreshmg new drection, as though they had
been waiting for the moment they could feast on one another af long Iasi

67

Elizabeth Grosz's AnchAadwe Aom fhe Oufskk; E s s ^ on fhe VMuaf and Real Qoaoe is m exmple of
what happens when one (kcpline, arcNtecWfheofy, Invites a stranger to offerapefspecdve, an k^ecdon
from the unfamiliar outside, with mfamËlar perspedives, language, to Its mner-woitdngs. In the foreword,
Grosz descnbes the benefltB of this exchange:
AproduclivekTtarchangebelweenphlloeophy aid architecture can work for the mutual enrichment,
and opening out, of looth historically dstmct disciplines, and that philosophy neerb to think more
careUly about aroNtecture as much as adstecture is capable of augmentation try philosophy. (vH)

RefNnking modem achitectureëfough her previous work on embodknent and cunantavkxalion of Œes
Deieuze, Henry Bergson, and ChariesDawin, and her consistant awaraness of gender issues, Grosz
chaOengesarchltaclural theory with concepts of time and durdkm as well as whd she asserts as the
simultaneous Imposst&ty and necessity of the utopk. Her coBslon with architecture has been
transfonnative as it moves the concept demfxxWufqpfe, a thought that is unthinkable within previous
thoughtsystemization. FurthemiorB,thecollislonlnckatasthetplaclng'Wdmen'sStudies,'A)rexarnple,onits
own, is senrice to stagnmcy because it belongs everywhere; It moves everything to wNch It is applied md is
moved, as weB, through reciprocal irAjence. The very modvaWon of feminist movemerA Is to plunge holes In
such dslinclions. ..m its very own'dsclpline.'
Grosz has loosened her grip on the Temmisf voice In her recent work, tiring of the corporeal overkill,
aid presents her cment work on time and futurity into areas wNch she expresses in æ interview as being
neglected. Moreover, she has loosened her grip on the overaB cohesion of the book, the medcdous unity of
her introduction to Jacques Lacan' as well as VbWe bodies cornes undone in a series of essays, most of
which serve to open questions, questions that "carmot and should not be answered bul..conlk%ia§y posed,
rigorously rased in such a v@y as to rWymswerB...'(AFD 59).
: announcing expoawre

'Rumor has if that such postmodern,' selffaferendd movements are as unbearably irritafmg as they
aeself-indulgenl' This rather mtolerant response to efforts that this pro)ectpriv8eges8ctuady raises a
orudal preponderance: one can suppose change has actually occwred when it no longer requires'«(cessive'

' Jbcrpesfjcm Afwrdnkffrrfrodu^^ NewYotkiRouUedge, 1990.

' My'eense'of thiscomes hmrny personal obsavation of professors and codeges, as we# as the«Kkanely apology sidementionsof academics daehgwiAWs material.

68

reference aid explanadon; however, if some thing is no longer in need cf'excessive'reference and
expbmation, if a slnjcture need not be used agansf itself in order to promote its revision, then we me no* in
themidstofcfiange. Tbelhinghasalreadybeennaturalized,hasalraadybecometooinvis&leormelevanfto
attackbesktesbeingregardedasmildlypeculiarinlhedeayordnanceoftlieinslitulion. Thus,doesit
folio* that an overexefted effort to axpWn a'new move' isasymptomof transformation? If tNs is the cœe
then what of AcëonafëtsrzËure? As opposed to theory, orthevwtttngafxxrtfkdondbectlydoes. However,
idHtoughttnwqfnotaddtesslheaydmecWy, RtxeathesitKkM;n6lhomReG&mhST^tB8che& Risasneaky
kindofbea^whoeeforcecanhidBtiehmdilsmanybKesandevents. Hereliesthebeaulyinthesnaaky
utopian business of cross-contamlnafing philosophy and ficBon. Literature is a space to do what can only be
done conceptually. ThefoBowinglsanaixploreflonof how a book, leaning to the tktional side of the literary
exchange, can also use its structure against Itself, how Rie writer can be freed tom the corwenfional confinas
of the fictional structure.
: unraveling the n»raUvB(p«t1)

It seems titling' to begin this exploration with the conceptual skeleton of the fictional book the
rMa7a#kB,orffbfs&ucfun& llertenn"pk]fisiB*xjtorepresantthe(x*sBdrd?akisbwigmg#*Btxxdktog8(he%ias
weMaswhathold6therBad8r'satlentk)n(Hodÿrs125). Plot,addtionally,isthernu8clemaiofblueprirR
utopianism and a highly Wned pacifier of the reader the muscleman's norWktion equivalent is a sort of
linear or logical ordering—thcugW strung out into «premisefoint-proof>>-and the stmcture of thinking
qpm#wM*AmwMmwMbL
Adrnittedy, this dapiclion is highly sirnplified,firstiy because the fidional plot develops along with
thesophisticateddevelopmerrtof its characters, and seoondy because contempormy fiction carries the
fragprentationofpostmodempfalosophy. Nevertheless,theformer—theplot—iswellequippedwithahero
(the ksnm) who does what is erqoected of hefr), reading and movkig in the swells of dominant reaNty (NO
123), even and especiaily If that reality is opposed to a regime representing the 'dominant reafity' within the
novel. Andintermsofthelatter—fragmentation—Deleuzeendarattariappealtoabookwhlchtheycdla
"bsciciilarroof (the second type of book), which may be compWcated and frapnerded, but only œ a means of
!K%W*s#ca&adi**BGabon, rmuchlÜKiÊherooftxxdL TTeauthorofsiKfiaMbookfxartakenaposrBonidson*)
'higher miity, of ambivalenoe or overdelBrminalion'...some removed understandng of the ultimate unity, or

69

compl@xmlle(AyioflhefrEgnent8dwoikl(ATP6). InboththehefomcharaclerdrivenandfragnentGdplot,
the One remains, Wthough it may have tieen artfuHy Ir^^tedwith W-moving partkiee.
Suppose#» utopian player can cneab the mu%ii@tromtak&q;aw!:^tnom the One, thereby vmting

it«zon*dH%#h^ VVhGdM*oukjthw;niaanfdrthe|dc4<*Na3Kaerpartw*n#wp? nhetxxdkrnustcofdâwetoiTKAN^
eventsmustoccur,charadersmustdo,thinkersthink...lfanyttèng,lifemustt)0 abundanL Whatifthe
diaracter is never well developed, lacks an iderdity, desires nothing? What if the character is no longer lead
bylogkalmdivaAon? Whatitthecharadef'scorAictismdelinableTWhaAifthecharacter'smemoiyis
inacce8sMeintem»of&Teanty,or8ccuracy? Inolherwords,whatifthechaacterisalltllel8ss'hisnan'and
a Wttle more 'real.' Even the construction of the trook, which should be authentic to its contents, lacks a Wnear
creation,predselybecauseltscentralpersondo8s:lhlnk(#theprocessofth6writer. (Spiehasmldee,
writes it down, develops the thought, erases half, adds an entirely new W half...deletes everything and
restadsvrMhthe«**dard#*oigh##erikkle, dhKXA**BareNvpeÊhfbrthelx%ÿnrÉmg. NoMfknagtneabock
whoee narrative structure, in alHance with its 'subject,' is based on unpredctabiiity, multl-drectlonailty, and
the simultaneous movement of multipie times and spaces. This may corrjure the ndion of a book where
nolhing'happens'beyondamolecularscale,wherelnneandprQXimilyarBnolongercertatn. Evenasthou^
wercise,thebrBd(downoflinaaritybrmgstheirnaginaliontothepoir#boundaryofthetan#ar.' The
narrative structure, #re lace Ws say, has become so frayed that it wM no longer fit through the lace-hole, or it
hasbeenlostaltog^her. Eitherway,bolhthewriter,Emdthereadertofollow,areforcedtogobarefb(4to
leamwhattheland—withitspebbles,grassandspit fbeloNretotheskin. Theyareimbeddadinakindof
timeieesness. The poW is this: aAhor/gf: the book mrrsfmorre, II» fern» ofpastpmsenf and Mure; beginning,
rrrkAfkandend/orconAktdfmaxandrssokffrbnneednofkmAflsmovemenf: Anefforttowardrhizomatics
prompts erqaerimentation with concepts of the past, present and iuture. ..m8ettiing them as rrwch as they
iMetUeus. ItisinourprimarynËurBtodoso. Nomemoryisdear. Nomodvalionisdeer. Noacdonis
solid.
The utopian charader may very weHbe a sort of dadroyer of conventional movements due to semiarbitrary, random actions such as fatling in kve with a lemon one day like "WendeU" in Lawrence Krauser's
Lemon, or rejecting dreclion entirely like the unnamed ZS-yearxrId man in Georges Perec's A Man Asleep: "You

' RefertoSTOPStenscendenWempiridsm'^pegeZS).

70

rGjectnolhing,youfWus8noWng. Youh8V8ce8sedgoïngforwad.butWisb8cmjseyouweren'tgoing
Ibfwaidanyway.yDu'rBrx^setlingoffagain.youhavemnved...' (143). InqureintolheafbctsofcharadBfs
whonotonlywanderfnomlhepalh, but abandon the idea of IhepsdidbgWher, opening the book bdËËI
wHh,a6lnlhecaseofthelemon-kver, no fed concept of relaliond normalcy, and in the case of the'skeping
man,'no!ealconceptoftime. ThechafactemthatenabletheutopiEmmovementdlhefhcmmesdzethe
fedity of dmlesaness, fdlure, and the gaps and fissiMs d memofy. fhdr 'impetWions.' their fdlwe to
sucoeedinoofTvention,hddthepolBnlidtolteralethebookffomit8nanativediongholdB. Fittingly,the
How Of this discussion will be kmpomdy interrupted by the character, which requifes a stop of its own.
____________________________________________________________STOP6: n t CHARACTER
pivot:
TdtemyoureurrounCgfrg^ watch, ktertbufmoefApporfardfybrBaffrmfheWsWe. TTieWstWefsAryossAWsk
descfrbearxfwhenyoufryfheyarepufeabslracBons^ W you can see As eHecf and this mothmbs you to MKrease
diem. TTieshapes (he W sAh fakes 6i your mmd are Mfide if you combAie your aermes andexperiefKee—dwik—
and aPowyoifr (bought (omanffesfAseffWo hrrn. Amay begin (o speak and mou^ like you...* Is you...an extension
ofyou. Butystdisnotfestrickdbyyourevefydeyness. ft is embedded wfdi you but trawAig across muAiple
passagesthrdyoucannotMow. ftrasfdesbothonthepoWsyoumustsefdeon, and the v^cesk? between. Your
thought and your extension take of. ,.andyou are merely an extension, oneatombom which an ef*B person has
grown. You haw Armed the erpiosiM@M9raryb#ogy...and a# three ofyou have akeady changed,
point:
: unraveling the character
Previoualy, the book was lefened to as a space of nsnegdiationbdween creativity and the law. The
writer Imbeds heM-sdf in thought and negotWes with words that Arm themsdvas and manifedthougfrtsirdo
sentenoestructisBS. OnedtBrBtheolher...itisacodependency. Inadmilarway,thecharactsrmavfeetsthe
oorrfromise between creativity and the law...thought and redily. It Is not a controlled creation any more than
the writer is a contdndole sulked.
In A Passion fbrManetrve, Jack Hodgins offsets and ItabcizBsa quote by LaufencePerrmemeart A
inspire ttie reader (who is assumed A be ar aspiring writer) A creaA effective characters: To be
convincing...the chaacters n%rst be CONSISTENT in thdr behaviors...Second, the characters must be deaty
MOTIVATED In whateva they do.. Third, the characters must be PLAUSIBLE or life-like'. Following the
quolation,Hod^adds,'lfweaeAcaBatx)utourcharacArswemustbdieveAlherrf(105). Tobelievem
acharacAr, acoordng A such sentiments, must a charada be logicd: acting sdh good reason?
reoognizsble: a rsdection of ourselves? human: a anthropomorphized animal? an expression of our idad
form: made in the image of God? speak with purpose: grammaticd speech-acts comprised of sutyect-ok^-

71

piB(Aat8?orund8(gome«TingfulchaTge:adeiRnabledeivekpm8nl? ButwhatisgoodandwWgoodR
mason? "Who am *e(?)' to be mdected? AndwhywoiddwepurposdyconHnuetonalnfomethesanelaws
over and ovB(? VWiatklndofconslnjdlonsamlheaebbekvain? PerhapslhenQW-ulopianhasloatbilhm
whatthawoddAndsMhln. Inhisessay.'Badlebyior.lhefdimila.'Deleuzeopansapoignantquaslion:
Why should the novaW believe he is oWigaledb explain the behavior of his chaiacliafs, and to
sipply them with reasons, wheneas life (or its paft never explans anyUsng and leaves in its creatures
somanylndetanTWnalB,ot)scise,indkcen*lezonesthatdelyanyatlemptatclan(ication? (81)

The character of the root book bears the weight of the world's faith in reason, Wnnaic goodness, idardlty and
thecomfortsofsoWdarityandorder. Butaslheulopianplayerishop^,instead,kidmcomfoitand
uncertainly, [s]he means to scoop out Ihe cooked-meat of the 'character,' much In the same way as (s]he has
akaady begun to empty he(r)-eelf. However, this includes nellhera rasignalion of character-crealion to stidic
tensionorcorn;^chao6,noraresignaliontolazineesordeapoticabandon. Rather,moreor'LESS'is
expected of the character and its literary movements because opening these creative erdMies to the
embodiment of utopian concepts and processes erdails their condMorsng as dean receptacles for chmge.
Simply stated, utopian characters ouÿit to play a rde in prornoting the becornng-irnperceptbiecd the writer,
but ought also invigorate the moving concept of rdopianmm...as to avoid being either r^lections of'reakly'or
pureabstiacBons.
The utopian writer creates literary creatures not unlike those Hannan Melville names The Originds"
("Bartteby; or. The t^omrula' 83). The Originals are of a "prlmary nature," that is, they are deddediy more
imbedded, present, and aware than those of "secondary natime,'who are blind to the laws of socklal
#uclige,thoseproperfycdted'human.' DeleuzewTtteslhattheOrtginds'rBvealphewiort(fs]emptines8,fhe
impetfBclion of its laws, the medkrcrity of particular creatura6..«the world as masquerade" (83). As nomads of
thought, revolutionartesoflgne, the Originals unsettle the world. It is a creation which combines what
Deleuze mdGuattaridstinguish as the "conceptual persona": (he life fonn of the philosopher's concepts (As
Socrates is to Plato and Zarathustra is to IWzsche), and the "aesthetic AgureT: Me form based on the affects
and percepts of art (as David is to Michelangelo) (65), created by writers whom they refer to as "hdf
phik)sopher5"or"hybridgeniuses"(K?P?67). The"oonceptualperBona,"whichsomelknesbutrK)tnec8ssarily
hasapropername(Charles),aTdawell-knownpsychosocialrole(Judge), assists in the devekpnent and
movement(^thewriter'8thouÿAsandexperiments(63). Theseutopiancreaturesrewadthoughtandthe

72

Miter with an extension into l« g ^ insurmountable manlfastations of life that know the restraints of the
writer's worid, but are unrestrained by it Characters overlooked as merely artislic expressions of the
imagnation can be jusdlied on intensely empirical, sociofoRtical, æd prapnadc planes (dthouÿr
justNcalion ougM to be unnecessary). Thus, perfraps the lAoplanwrAer should reconsider hefrjrelalionship
with these entities of tfre fictional worid.
: a beconWng between the actual and the vhhud

Theliterarytrilogy—thought the writer, md the character^-once entangled in an intense swarming of
becomings, creates an explosion of which the product is a character thd evades both the tanghle and the
distract these are no longer empirical, psychological, and social determinations, still less abstractions, but
intercessors, crystals, or seeds of thought" (IMP? 69). The persona lives not only through thought but also
throuÿithedetaHoftheeveryday. FurthennorB,ijnderfictioridcondMions,themanif8stationdthougfd—the
chamcter^-canliveapartftomtheconfinesoftheevBrydaythatthewriterwritesfromwlthin. Theoonceplual
persona assists in the very creation of the writer's thoughts, thinking frr the writer, and is thus the product of
the convergence of thougWand thinker (63).
Does this notion mean to suggest that the charader, which can be understood In bask terms to be
derivadfromlheimagindionofthewriter,becomes6omewhatofanautDnomousform? AccordmgtoDeleuze
and Guattarl, the conceptual persona becomes the "prbnery nature':
The philosopher Is only the envelope of his prindpel conceptual persona and of aHthe other
personae who aa the intercessors, the real siÈjects of his philosophy. Conoeptud personae are the
pNksopher's'heteronyms,'aid the philosopher's name is the s im ^ pseudonym of his personae.
(64)

73

The wnbrbmathes into he[r] conceptual persona what Is oulside of h8(r] capacity to Hve, schizophranicand
prditic, tieyond he[r] time. Utopian thought, in tMs way, ^eps out b^ore he(F] into the dmgers of urWmown
tenttory.traverainglime, space, md context thmugh the tlux of duration, lep^ltionæddfWence, long aAar
thewrtterhasbeenextin^shed. WithmdasskaOy utopian or science tkdongannetasednovals, the
immedateappe^totheticlionaich«acteristhatheorshecmbeaxpenmentedwithln1uturBpradk»ments
very unlike those of the current situation, but dthough the reconceptualized approach to utopian movement
isindeédmteresledlnfuturity.itdoesnotraquiraitscharacterstobeprpjedadintoaconstrudedfuture. The
character Is akeady Inaforeignworld—vktuai space—in the stuff of potential that is always just beyond us.'
: character wNhoutWenlHy
The charader of the experimental book is not merely an atistic representation of the writer's desire
tocreateasymbolofldenlity. ThewritardenieshelrlsecondnAiseofnegativedesiretowardanexptession
of IderÆty and becomes irrore of a point in a kre through which Me passes into a conceptual persona. The
persona can escape the weight of function and the need to construct an identity around itself. Butthe
advantage here is not merely the character's evasion of identity, tNswcidd be to escape or avoid rather than
transbrm. Thecharactercanbeusedtomagnllytheissueofidentity. Fwexarnple, consider the nornolooo
charadsr (which is "you" [or f:^ in George Perec's A itfar? Asie^. He considers the Me prescitedforhim
acoordng to cultural expectation: "you are only twenty-HvB, but your path Is aireac^ mapped out for you. The
roles are prepared, and the labels: from the potty of your infancy to the bath-chalr of your old age, aHthe seats
are ready and waking in their turn" (155). Rndkig this Hred pradctabgty unacceptable, he launches hknself
on «1 intense becoming toward imperceptkility. PartofhisprocessinvolvBsstrippmgactbnsoftheirvalue
andperformativity:
there be nothing else to say except you read, you are dothed, you eat, you sleep, you walk,
thesebeacdonsorgestures, but not proob, not some kind of
currency: your dess, your
food, your readng matter wiH not speak in yoir stead, you have had enough of trying to outsmart
them. Never again wi# you entrust to them the exhausting, imposable, mortal burden of
representing you. (170)

' DiscussedtUthermSTOPS'OfE-clKmgingspaces"(seepage77).

74

Throuÿi this particular charactei's intense rejection of sJbjeclivily, Georges Perec has his reader look in the
minor so long that he(r] face becomes strange...(sjha gets the closest possible sensabon to looking at herself
forthe firsttime wflhout actually being a stranger.
Such estrangement from 'self' capitulated by the persona is not, however, bmited to the persona and
the reader, but extends also to the molecularization of the writer. Creation of the character is itself indkabve
of the wrfter's extension. The writer detenftoriaRzes through thought which then reterritorlalizes into
concepW personae, which is then (Wemtorialized into the world to be rWemtorializBd by the reader and on
ædonitgoes. Itisavitalprocessbecauseltsafledlvityextandsbeyondthewriterbeyondhelijsituation,
Intothemindsofmanydfferenttimesandspacw. Moreover, the character does what the wrtter could do, but
dares nol Thatis, they Nve, think, say and do what the writer cannot without joining those who have Men
intDthedatkholasofourinstitutional^stBms:thehomeless,locked-away,abiect,dead,orinsane. As
urfroductfvesubjectpositions—creative-daalhs—these useless produds of tnadequatesifport for creativity,
mustbedrcumvanted. As Temsin Lorraine explains, conceptual personae provide the pivot point for
experimental movement without destroying the writer's ability to function In the dominant reality, allowing the
writerto'apprDachohaoswithoutsuccumbingtoif(208). This is espedelly important considaring the
deRcatehadthofthewriter. Thepersonaembodyingthewriter'sd8licatehealth,eventisougha(#8e8sed
state, Is a healer whom upholds the writer's position as "the bearer r^a collective enunolaUon'j^rtleby: or.
The Fonnula' 90).
But must our character be so sad and deranged...80 dystopic? A fair, yet kritaling question...one
wiWr has the excruciating exercise toward imperoeplMityrf George Perec's A AifanAsle^ reduced toa deep
depression (this acoordng to the translator David Bellos), or has such characters lassoed into common life
stages like adolescent angst, mkt-Wfe crisis, or menopause. The persona is crucial to thought^ianacendence
of such positings, but must have no business with perfedion. It is their lob' to reveal both bie beautiful and
the hideous. Accordngly, some are "sympathetic personae," living the positive movements of attractive
concepts, while others are "æt^iathdic," indcatlngdmgaous perceptions and negative movements (WiP?
63-4). And, at their "best" or most usdul, the persona traverses bdween the two, being human rdher than
static, and thus being relevant to eorperimMiMion regardng the Iwnan condtion; because, as the persona
makes possMe the beconsng of Ae writer, it must do so through its own dastic undergoing of the process.

75

VVheAier or not what Ihe chaacAer experiences is dassifablyindkaAive of mental illness, orwhethwthe
experiment has met wHhsuocxes or failure, are matters of HtdelmpoManc». ThinkinQ In these terms merely
sitjecAs the persona to the same represeiveslnjcAjres that compelled the witter to becxxne through that
personainlhetirBtplac». Firtheimore,asDeleuzeandGu8ttaiin(fcalBwith'flows-8chizzef and"bpeaksfows,'bra(dcdown nW ooccj for breakthrough (AO 315-318). The chaactar must tie dIowed to imdeigo the
raw aid destructive processes of violently departing fmm the comforts of oommon sense.
Consider, again, themanmAWaiAsfeep. One day, lalhaatiltanly, he breaks down, forgets how to
live in the world, Axgets the psychologicË comforts he had previously depaided on:
It is on a day like INs one, a litUe lata, a little earHa, that you discova, without surprise, that
som^ing is wrong that, without mincing words, you don't know how to Rve, that you will neva
know...Sornethingwa8gokTgtobreak,sornelhkig has broken. You no longab e l-how to put It? heldup:itisKifsomethingwhich,it8eemedtoyou, itaeemstoyou,fortiliedyouunlBlhen,g8ve
warmth to your heart, somalhmg Beethe baling of your existence, of your inforlanoe almost, the
impression of belongmgbaof being In Ihe world. Is starting bs#p away from you. (140)

Conskbr, as we#, the protagonist In Margaret Atwood's Surbcbg: In a simultaneous re)eclion of and
estrangement b ha existence as a human, she rebases herself inb the natursd environment:
The animals have no need b r speech, why talk when you/area word/ban agabsta bee, I am a tree
banrngfl break out again b b the bright sun and crumpb,headfagamst the groundfl am nc^ an animal
aatree, lamthelhingmwhichthalIrBesaidarânalsmoveandyow, lamaplaoe. (181)
These two aKoerplB,exBmpMy the gravity cf pushing the charactab the boundary of sense. Furthermore,
theyareincfcativBofaprWaenceinregardsbthlsrB-conceptualizallonofutopkbehavbr, that preference

being b r the arrli-heroicficliond creature.
Theanli-herobfkAxTalcrealureisthBanti-caprtalib,theanli-gluttonrst,ardfherrrlntrTralisl [Sjhe
e rr#es the 'gap'erroneously wedged b^ween want and desire by dscardng as many of the shoddy

subeUtulBS as ha writa-axtensbn is aware. [S)he Hvss, instead, with nothing inWween, and thus enters the
emptyspacethereandbstaadofdssifing,isdes«e. TakebraxampbDebuze's'awrexb.' Onemustfrst
ckregard the image of a bmab who slaves herself bresembb an ideal. Thisisidolatryofeverylhrngnew
ubpta(n)(ism)(isown8. One must also relnstab the Image of a person who deprives herself of food, as
8omeonewhoi6not(as)intem$Asd,adsprivedofpfDC8Ssbythemanaclesofhat)ituËt)eh8vior. Deleuze

andPametwrib.'lheanoreKbvoidhasnobingbdowilhalack, itisonthecontrayawayofescapmgthe
organbconstraintoflackandhmga8tlhemechanicdmealtkne'(Of/110). Theanorexic-becomingexposes

76

the empfy habits of humanity and accentuates that its efforts to fill this void have done little mom thaï
Incmasethishmger.
Asutopia(nXi6m)movBsto*adm8traintandminimalization\ thepemonabecomesincmMingly
"deserted,' incmasinglyopenformovlng populations (Of/29). Achamcteraffective ma utopian involulion
works towwd a facfr of strength in terms of Identity or convention^ success, that is, tfuough a nsduction of
consumption, normalcy, convention, fundioMdity, putpoee, and obedmnce via the raw edges of skeptidsm,
dsregard,insani^, nihiW,ædabiection. ResuHandy the utopian creatumis m anife^as the ^significant,
despised,ignoredormisunderslood. Theaid-hemoflheconventionaiworldbecomeslheherDofthe
unconventional book. Consider, for «ample, the converdionaByinsignlficardcharactBripon which Ame
Carson places her bcus in AutoWognqphy of Red. Herprotagonistisbasedonareddagon—"Geryon"—that
Herorleshadslainduringarafherinaigrslicantsideprpiecl fWisHttlemomthanameenstoanendina
hero's namative. InaddHion, Carson develops Geryon as hdfmanhalf-dagon (wings included), a
homoeexual with uncertainly negardbg gender Identity and the son of a singl»molher. This savior and
physician is what the hero would, if not see as a monstrosity, feel sympathy for, which is symplomatic of
seeinghimasamonstrosity. TheconœplofmonsIrosi^isaproduclofthealtempttotranslaÈadHfarBnoe
intothetennsofcommonsense.' Thus,dieproieclionoflhisdescfipliononlDacharacterisagood
inckalion that Mhe is producdveiy engaged In becomings that chaAenge dominant perceptions regardng
si^ect position. Acoordngly, Geryon Is exernpiary of such becoming. For one, he traverses time, apace, and
context, originating œ a mylhicai monster written aboW In antiquity (lost to time kifragmerds of paper) and
regeneratkigasaBtlleCanadianboy-notwilhouthisredmonsterwings—anfdien^edselfinthewoiid. For
another, he traverses containment within a particular category by canying excesses belonging to anbnai, man,
woman, ancient, modem and trxxtai. One specific example is Geryorfs traversal of the female gender. He
imagines Nmself as a woman while he lays alone in the darkness of an unfamiliar room: "what is it 0% to be a
woman/Hstening In the dark?"; until he sees himself as a woman in the third person: "She listens to the biank
space"(48). Onanotheroccasion,Geryon'sidentityshiftswhenheencountMskmdeoliyectsstrewnEmound
the bedroom of his lover's Grandmother "Who am I? He had been there before, dangBng/lnsida the word s/re

' RefsrtoSTOPSIheeMismoftheestmgeif (seepage29).
' Ref8rtoSTOP3"lmmanentksnscend8nce"(seepage23).

77

like at a belt" (57). Such dacentaing of his natural' subgecUvity maintans Geryon's movement at the
paametersofcategory. Camonhers8lfd8acribe8hima8'onethatw8ntædsawandcaneb8Ck'(128).
Notonlyisthepersonaofutopia(n)(i8m)chamctenzed by what the dominant order deems as
insigiificzmtorgotesque.butdsoasatraitor. DeleuzeandPametmaintainthatlhetraitorislheessentW
characterdthe novel,the hero. AtreêtortothswoMdofdorninantsigTlfications.aKlWlheedablishedorder'
(0//41). Bytraltor,itismeantthatthechaacterbetraystheorderr^lhemfgonty. Anexampleofonesuch
Iraitor-hemis'RenéG'inSolvqBaHe'sAooonfngÉofheLaw. WHhnoraalgoEdsord8SirBS,mt8mTSofsoclelzd
achievements, In ternis of personal gan, René simply does what he a^oys, that being the study of
mathematics alongside the dsNbende effort to subtract himself: "he wished to be no one" (58); tecause - time
and again in mathematics-he had caught a wNff of that aWque slate of being with which he had become
acquaintedsoeartyon-asoftofsu8pension,dsappearanoer(GO). HewantstobecomezBio,tobeoome'a
paieofgtass,apassingb(eazBr(68). ButRenéisnotallBmpImgtoescapelherBsponstilityofbeinga
human, and Ms "regression' is not the result of some hatred adepression. Quite on the contrary, René
endeavors to acce|:A the responsbility of his hanarmess with pure, positive desire rather thaï greedy
attampts to fulfill a sense of dssatisfaction: "he wanted to tdreip the absolute miniman of space that it was
possbleforanyonehananbeingtooccipyonthemapofhumanily'(61). Renédramadcallyfdtersëie
conventional conflict of the novel with a completB reversal of the goals and oonHicts that would nonndly drive
thefkbonal being: "Hehadadearsenseof nearing a point where he needed nr^Nng, missed notMng and
desirednofhing'(G5). Renéwantstolivejustfbrlhesal(eofliving,andlhusbelrayslheordarofslandard
modv^ion. Writing a character devoid of a standard motivation residtsm a nanadve structure which is also
devoid of standard modvatiori
________________________________________________________ RETURNTOSTOP&THEBOOK
the point continued...

'...tfiera can be no déMAe dosrsB to rhtzorrMdclkfioirt because there is no deWfvedosurakrffischaracAar: An
ehbrf fowardrhKomatfcsprontpfs to
the past present and Mrre. ..unseffgng them asrmKh as they unsefbe
us. But rtfs tn ourprimary nafwB to do so. No memory is dear: Nomobvabonisdear Noacbonrssotkffioontmued
bom page 66ÎI.

: unravelingIhenamdhre(part2) flaw*InRaterdlon

One of my frustrations as a young reader can be best desorbed through Gram Stoker's Oracr/ia
(1897). SpedhcaBy, the display of Irrpeccable memory in the journals of Jonathan Marker and Dr. Seward. I

78

was baRled by the impllcalions that these charactMS codd retdn the details of the day with such extreme

aocwacy,lndudngevefywoid6aidbyev8iydherchanactef8nc(xmtierBdth8tday...orthatw8ek. Ofcourse,I
leaNzethattNswasmefelythetechnicalartidryoftheauthor.thestiuctimBwithwhichtobuWdtheslMy. The
WthatthisbookwasvmtlenbyamBnoftheiy'centuryhœalsobeentakenintoaccount Butevennow,!
amdistuibedbythefabulousstorytellefsof the fidionalwoitd as depicted, for example, by feminist theorist
arxt writer Angela Carter. In

^ (he Circus, a miraculous bird woman named 'Fawers' Is created as a

magrWficer^anddetaWedsloiytsBer. It is through her eloquent words and mpeccable memory that the
narrativeexists. But wtiat are the ImpGcalions of fastening Ae movement of the book, fattening wtrat
constHutes its present, with the past? The narrator with the perfect memory Is, Indeed, a storyteller, a weaver
of myths...a Mar. How Is the reader to approach this fiction within fiction? More Importantly, perhaps, is this
anintendedactivity? Howcmthepersonaengageintheactlvitieswehavedscussedwhensheisreooisiting
the past, as only animded relic is able? Handing memory with authenticity and awareness is of extreme
Importance to the movement of the texL
In

Orff» Memory (^CAMiood(iyorrbaouvefËrd'enAnce, 1975), Georges Perec entanglee a

reconstruction of cNIdhoodfwitasy with afragmer#ed autobiography resulting in whd he descrtes as "a tale
lacking in exploits and memories, made up d scattered oddments, gaps, lapses, dortls, guesses and meager
anecdotes.'' The instability of truth and fiction, through both the reconstruction of his true memories and
memories of his fentastical creations, place the writer and character in simultaneousfy fictional' and 'red'
positions. That«,Perec(orhlspersona)rememberathenarrativestructureoftsswnaginedworldmote
clearly than the everts of the actual. He lacks the darttyd memory In regards to when what happened and
with what detail. Yet, the book continues on, its nsmrtive based as dceely as possble to those imperfections:
What marks tNs period especially is the absence of landmarks: these memories me scraps d life
snatchedfromthevoid. Nomooring. Nolhs^toaichorthemorholdlhemdown. Almostnowayof
raüfyingthem. Nosequancemtime,eNC8ptaslhaMereoonslructeditarbitraraycv8rlheyears;tâne
wentby. Therewereseasons. Therewasskimgandhaymakmg. Nobeginnmg,noend. Therewas
no past, and for very many years there was no future either: things sknply went on. You were
there...the only thing you do know Is that It went on for years and then one day it stopped. (68-9)

TNs example speaks to the utopiaiunravelmg of the nanative because it admits to the impoes&rltty of the
writBr's8ccuratedeplclionofWnea%,aTdtherefore,theinauthenticrlyofthecleanlystnjcturedbook. ltdso

' Ttiisquob is found mttietaxtbekxepegmationbegiris.

79

higtyacks the habitual narrative, not to head towad a cMterant location, but rather ki amply tzdta It off coiaae.
In addton, his unraveling of the narrative provokes a torrait of openended questions: Wtry must a naradve
structaehaveaooursa? Toavoldconfusingtheraader? WhoistosaythatanaA-AnearnanalivevMllrasdt
InconWon? Who is to say that corrfusion is a response to avoid provoking? And who is to say that
confusion leads to chaos?
EUzabeth Grosz provides a response: "It is an unhinging—perhaps deranging—of expectation, order,
organizalion, to replace them not with (border or disotganizafion bid with reorderrng'tAFO 70).
Bid Is tfss writing of the fragmented narWva because it is closer to reality not smviy a perp^uation
ofthebookthatmerelyreflectstheworkPAnotherrepresentation? PossWy-.iftheworidweretostop
changing, or the writer were to stop noticing how It has changed. And if the writer were to stop noticing, the
workfsrevolutionswould,aocordmgtothedommard^stemsofcogni@on,mreepon8e,slowdown. A
oordinual effort to denatuaNze the plot structure, in whatever terms are deemed natural at that time and In that
space,senrestoreplenishourorgaTlzationsofthoughl However,thestrongestintensltyofoifeffbrtisto
recreate the narrative stmcture with the unthought, with a seeping In of the unknown, not merely a clever
rearrangmgoffamiNarslrategies. Justasweareusingbinariesinplaytogelherasopposedtothinktngwe
cansimplyabandcnthem, or replace them with someWng else (Grosz AFO 65), we are using what exceeds
the conventional narrative structure, the outside, to reform the contents. It Is an exercise of presentbecomings. Butevenlfthisrequiresreaclivationofthepast,asitdoesinthecaseofPerec,itd06snot
operate on adeswe to lemerrter narrative clearly, as if it were something lost to which we wish to return.
Present-becoming th^ either cremes new memories or recreates those remaWng, does not take the past and
slratch it over the present events, as is, as though It remahs separate and unaltered by the presenl if change
Is denied of its affects/effects, we are denying ourselves the right to forget, to kee ourselves from our slavery
to our own oon^ruct8dmaster:-memory—aid thus to move irdo the new because the mhdfuH of memory
has Kttie room for Represent or future.
: fleeing the book AemNs content

TheprocessofutopifKn)(ism),accoidingtotfxsprpiact,ismatlerofemptyinglhir%s(theconce|t
the memory, die book...) e x e rd ^ the Deleuzlan concept of the Bo(^ without Organs, after which a
replenishment is In order": however, in a i effort to rnove away from what inNbib action, the writer's challenge

80

is to replenish the txx* with contents that are increasing in impercep&ility, less based on the representation
ofidentity.chaecteristicofapwticula'gerwe.etc. Corresponding,whatcanthismovekward
inperceptWty do wtthconkrTporaryferninist utopian kSon?
Sargisson exposes what she caHs'ktm-based'and "contsntbasef approaches to ferrsrwstutopimrtidion,
wNch neglect literature that klls outside of 'eutopia' ( such as cWopk

utopian satire), and propel a

"dumsy" continuation of binarized andysis (the them-against-us attitude that seems to have missed out on the
subtlelles of French feminism) (31-2). Such an approach has Wkeiypiayad a part in Aemovsmenf, and Sts, to
anextent,withinani«nber(^feminidutopiantexts, but if continued to be dragged along the cusp, is Wbe
more than a tired reflection, a reminiscence of old batUe-oies, based on simplified dualisms of women verses
men, ofkneeyerkreactions, aid an addcUon to playing the role of the victimized. TNs is one of the most
mitrding aspects of proper genres: a lack cfsitllely,predMlab% of oorAsrrt, a tendency to give anyone # h
evenaremotelikenessabadname—arwrw. Butthesearenotthecondtionsofthosewhoareimperoeplbly
utopian, Imperoepltiy feminist and are, asa result, the high Intensity players. Are they hidkrg their political
atdre of choice? No. They are Bvingralher than naming themselves and recounting whEdürey have done.
Utopia does not know Itself, because it is too busy kving to check arxf see how It Kves.
Correspondingly, Sagissorfs major projed emphasis is on how contemporary feminist utopian
fiction, and even the tradMonal utopianism of the past, has already transgressed their respective ingrecfents;
and that, furthermore, the relevant factor is not so much what the book in question is about as how and why
themaferialisused'(30). However,sheacknowledgesthafiti8thecontentofafiemmidiA)piantexlthat
(ffferentiates it as feminist, suggesting that even in an exercise of deconstnrcliverecognltkns and movement
toward porousness, we are stHI working within a notably kmWstmHieu. How fixed are "we" to being kfentilled
as feminist? Must kmlnisi movements be peroepUble in fidion? What are the dbdngulshing factors of a
book labeled as such? It teHs a story about the errfowennent of woman, it axperimenis with ideas of
reproducfivB roles or tedmologes,8iÈverts the ordering of gender and sexuality, or is written by a woman?
This is all rather otrWxrs. But fidion provides a special opportunity for sutitiety. While theory and philosophy
must inevitably make reference to themselves by communicafing through the terms of 'gender,' or feminism'
(even in its critique cf such temB), fiction can produce the efW s of which tennmoiogy merely represents.
However, more often than not, what is cdiedfeminkfBterature loses Hself ma strong intensity of

81

rspmsentadonJnaremovBdpoGitioncajÿTtLpinÜTesynWicwofldralherthananlenngintollk. Itloses,
agan, the gmœ of sü # *y and mises its hand for selection onto a particular tean (germ, theoneticdWifical
canp). The point is this: a book need not be perceptibly femmst or utopian morderb be trarWoimalive.
The book is b^ler situated for imintemjptedar^ when its movement is rmcharted.
: Infected wNh peychoawdysis
AnyarÆvitysurromdngpsychoanalytictheory—ctAsd inscriptions of sex and gender, gender
identity, sexual identity, fanikal relations—has become, through the hard theoretical work of the 80s and 90s,
an academic rrxmopoly In both ferninist theory and Nterature, whether typically utopian or no. Psychoanalysis
acted as the theoretical fodder for recormecling the conceptualty severed mind and body, as GroKdescr&)es
it, by theorizing the 'conelation between the fbnns of the body and the forms of mind or psyche" (Vblafile
BorëesZT). Theseexplorations haveindeedplayedasignificaitroleinshatlBrkigfaminismkTtDvaat
multiplicities. The brilliant work r^hmmtstsNre Luce Irigaray, Hélène Cixous,JrAeKristeva,JudHhBuller,
Joan Copjec, Teresa Brennan, Monique Wittig, Angela Carter, and the early work of Elizab# Grosz, have
extended the psychoanalytic framework, in every possMedreclion, in favor of the feminine position. But
what moved there, has now become still, a sort of sad procedure of applymg the template to Htecature,
historicWresaarch,ciAurd Judies, etc. Hence the experimental playerrefuses to dag this 100 yeardd
animal, stidfed and bdoctrinated by the mastsr-tialner—Freud—around wHh he(r], dead as dead can be. But
neither Is

going to biry a new one to replace the old, that is squaWydugustino. B utthe may try to hang

the thing at the Cross-roads asawarrsng to others in he[r] generation...see whereAfies been, bow rtwas reel
arxf aAe, now, see bow Ars done anddecrysd.
InAnd-Oedÿrrs, DeieuzaandQuattari, both express a greet respect for the work of Sigmund Fraud
and Ms
axtensionvia Jacques Lacan, while accusmg it of a Tnonrsnentally'dogmatic stopping of the bows of
producdvityinthecontemporaryworid. The "Oerdpal code" as they cad K, shifts the tdrole of saxuadty, Ore
whole of exchange of desire, of law, and of Bfe, Into the Oerlpal ttamework (73). Whatismemttobea
tempiata to describe the goings on of the psyche, the myth of Oedipus, is really, accordbrg to Deleuze and
Guattarl, a ^product of psychic repression'(115). It is a syetam based on punishment, debt, negadvl^ and
k)S6thatiset#Biyreliantonrepreserdalion. Everythmgispred^ermined;theissueofthep8ti«Ttalways

82

stretched over the past «xjwHh the sane Oec%*dlemplatB...allowed no (Maranoe, no ne* occasion of
change. Inresponse,DeteuzeandGuattanpiesentanaltemativB. TheycreetBlheconoeptofschizoenalysts
inorderto'cureusofthecure' (68). Schizoanalysis'setsouttoundolheexpiessiveOerfpalmoonsciousr
(98). The concept of scNzoanalysis Is, therehre, In resonance with the aenUmenls of this project, relevant b
the dtemadves created by utopian players; however, dkcusskm surrounding feminist utopiai fiction remains
lagely in the readmr^psychoaralysis, because books wtaoh are Nÿyy concentrated with such rrKislngs are
among the classics of the genre.
One such example B Angela Carter's 77* PassKxrofNewEw (1977), an apocalyptic fiction which
brings to life a fuH ring circus of psychoanalylicheory. The main character, a man named "Evelyn,' Is
transformed, try an amy of women belonging to a technologically advmced sect symbolized by the broken
phaHus, Wo a perky breasted, young woman—"new Eve"—shortly after bemghtced to mpmgnak the "Holy
Mother',agrolBsque,self-m8desyntolmadeooncrelefacl Evelyn,made'newEve,'faA6mlovewith
Tristessa,'a Irving symbol of the ideal female, who ends ip actually being a mar, who reciprocates "her" love,
but Is Idled by the dramelesshaem of women unda the command of their vidaklyteArstBroneikiven
masta'Zero.' TTrePassrorrofNewBwisanexampleofafictionalworidputelyconslructedonhypapsyohoanelytlc expression, focusing or sexual orgarszation, the connection between body and genda, aid
genda as performance. It is not utopian In the tradHionelsaise because It makes no suggestion in regards to
anyimprovemerl Ralhaitsinfer#ionseemstDh8veonoebeentoshakethegound,antmportaAia8k;
iMweva, in the cunerk context its savice can be more accuraldy understood to be somelfWng Ike that of a
cultural artffad In olha words, literature utilizing the embolisms of psychoanalysis, although once very
polgrEmt, no kmga provokes thoughl

: ONE - changing spaces

Setting: one of the primary delineating W ors of what is properly a impropetfyoonsrdeted as
'contamporary feminist utopian fiction' Is Its setting In a futurisUc time and space, the radkaUy otha. It Isa
dralegy which relies on a hearty mragnfdion to predWardfa critique on-the-brinktectviology, cwent
culturaloondtions,asystamsreorganization. ItlsalsooneofthemainstrdegiesprDvokingcriticism

83

regaidngtheiimlevaToeofthegemBlotheprBsenl Ihus.inresponseblhedTargeofifrBlevancy,
appoftBTB of utopiai and scienwficiMnwofkloeüænTpIHy how æ expression of a mdkedly other qaace is
us^m lhepresenl
In defense of (he oeaOon of a nadkallyolher selling, specifically as it is uMized by Monique Witbg,
JennikrBuiwell argues (hat a removal from the cment context is necessary to oeate outside of its
orgarwzalions:
For Witlig, then, the process of creating new rneanings in language can only lake place by irnagming
asocialspaoelhatalreadyoperalesoulsldelhelogicofoonverdionalsocialrBkdions. Inherubpian
novels, Wrtbg attempts to enact this ^lerallel work" on Ihe social level by depicting a Utopian space
where txologically female sitieds are nellher marked in laT^rage by gender nor marked in s o d ^
by sex. Through the creation of imaginaiy spaces in which material oondtkms are radcaHydfferent
from those of contemporary society, Witdg attempts to cresÉe a new context from whkh she can
attach new meanings to oorvenlionalsyntols. (187)
The writer dsplaceshelrj-selfmd Ihe reader into a apace which Is daËicËly other, free from ttie boundaries
of the preeent in order to engage with new thought Selling, primarëy, Is a matter of estrangement
Estrangement as a concept is key to the afleclivity of both idopian and SFNteraiy déçussions as weB as to
whatwearenowcaHingutopia(nXism). Itlsatechnkyjelhatfbllowsunderthenofionthatonemustbe
removed from heMfarWliar environment and sdxnerged in another, in order to r^um with a new, refreshed
perapecëve...ln order to see the preeerA with some degree of clarity (Freedman'Sdenoe Fiction and Utopia"
79). Accordngly,Sargissonissueseslrangementasiti#zadkilitBiabSBfbrthé8ep(sposesofenhancmg
awareness and olbringaltematiwe(elien)perspectivB8(CFU 179), as justification h r the "creation of new
conceptual spaces'(101). These creations are, accordng to her, written from within the present She writes
that "utopian thought camcA exist independently from Ihe real—it depends on and results from
dsssdisfaclionwiAthepreeenf(49). Bloch,asweKdarifiestheutopianfunctionasbeingbasedonone's
awarenessofthepresentralherthanamereeti^raction,embellishmentorideal(112;214). Itisacritiquecf
the present fhxn wttfWn the present the present being that wfWch Bloch calls the most dfMcult thing to see,
whidi,f»itfollows,m8yrBqdrKe8trangementattimes,tosee. Butregardessofthespedficestranglng
tedmique—the creation of a radcaliy new environment-thecnjcial factor of arrangement Its purpose in
utopianwTiling,istoacoentuateone'spo6itionmrsaBty,lhatis,tomakevisbleeixistingboundarias. Why
then, would we be compelled to stuff a symbolic representation between thouÿit and reality as thou^ they

84

womnotadaqialBlyQstmngedfromeachotherdrBady? MustlhGreaderbersmovedfnomlhesydamscf

rarity in order to experience estrwigement?
VVhat constitutes a cHferent space? TNnk of where we ere now, a fbraigi apace with an alwayeunbrnilifrfdnTi,MofwritarBlhattitno#here,*housekmgjageasttx)u^they(&lnotknoMfltt)eA*e. What
if the txx*. regardless of its conceptual position in time, Is acknowledged as a fictional and unclaimed
tenitory, regatdkss of its apparent srmHarily to our everyday reaBty? For example, what would the conceptual
landscapeofabookshapeintowithoutlhepsychoanalyet? WhËifweWedtomentlonlheyear.timeor
spacefd&rg^her? lnafRnnationofourflowwilhoutthegenre-raft,whatfulurity,innoMation,relreshinentcmi
be created wHfW the typical ficlionalgeogrephiee, or politicai structures? Is It necessary to create a
radkaNy'other'tkne and space to (Wnk...toreaHy think? VVhat If banal reaBty were acknowledged as
adequately strange enouÿi to perform tfie induction of estrmgement? RfAherthanremovethereadsrftem
thecunentcontad.whynotfdrcehefrltostareltinthe'bce'solongthatitbecomesunreoognizable. Why
not have the character look so closely at he(r] world, and aHthe things In it, including he(r)-eelf, so long that
they tdre new meaning? Perec steps up to the challenge, and has the reader look
(look] until the scene becomes knprobablaWiI you have the impression, for the briefest of
moments, that you are in a strange town, better slM,unlil you can no longer understand wh^ is
happening or is not happening, until the whole place becomes strmge, and you no longer even know
that this Is what is caHed a town, a street, buHdkigs, pavements... (QpedesSS)
Even the space of a page becomes an inhabitable, strange land used to e;qx)se the systems (^stnjcture to
wfschthewriter'scrBativeprocesspassivelyadheres. GeorgePerecmakesrehrencetothespaceofthe
page such as deregulations of the international size and emphastzmgaH of the actions that happen, that
manifaetthemselVBS on the page:'! write: I inhabit my sheet of paper, I invest It, I travel across it llndte
bkmks,spaces(iurnpsinthernear^:(#scontmutties,transitions,changesofkay)(5|p8cies11). Forcedto
look at the regulations, reveals how we carry on thorough the organizEdion of space, even though it restrids
our thought We do not produce that way. Rather we write In stops and starts, jumping b^weenhaH
fonnations of structures, from one topic to another. Randomly aAgned and numbered...^ At once numbered
andthensimplysepar^byspaoe. Perecispi±lishedthisway...thenahjfallyoccurrrngo(ganizationofhi8

'ThisisespecmHykueofwrilinglvhand. PertwpscornplacencytotheafbctsoflhecotnputierarBsortKwhatdMikneriteltothe
crsaeve process, allhough. Hmust be s » l that the computer provides s8 sorts of new openings...but only if Orese potentials are
consciously considered and experimented with.

85

thought being pmsentedlo US...connecÆng us ck)ser to HIS sIrucWm of thought rather thm his thought
structured through the dominanttbmis. Thus, Perec has produced ttreesigrWficant motions: 1) He h%
«posed the page asa conceptually and physically charged world: 2) He has exposed the strangeness of it
under the oondMons of dominant understandmg; 3) He has, in the midst of its exposure, experimented with
new manifestations of the space.
I am led to this suggestion: It Is through a radkal awareness of the existing world that we are able to
IrnaglnearxjcteateanylNngolheniwse. TMspresrfpoeesthewrWs'ability'tDcreatelheworldwlthwhich
[sjheestrmgesthereadsr. VVhynotthen,invitethereadwmtoha(ijtadkalawarenessasitmove8,bWdrelt
Is constmded Into a dstant Image?
: TWO "THINGS. tMngs.th*igs, things, thlngsthh^ .AIng#. things? Is that a word?"

Things. One of our expectations from feminist utopian or Science fiction is new gadgets, new
1hingsr...thefuturetectmologyofSFIhataNowsustodonewfhrngs. Butwhatlfwetookarrewapproachto
the obiects of our evaryday? Could our minrfess use of thhgs, our day-to-day Waractlons, be shaken ip?
CouldweactuaHyseewhatpresently surrounds us before forging ahead? Weaeatreadysmoundedby
tachnoloÿalgadgetry along with its surromdng activities of whose snpBcalions we are unawara, i.e. the
Internet, DNAapBdng. We are cunenUy Nvlng kr soienoe Bedon, acoordng to Darko Suvin and Marieen Barr,
among other SF academics. We are sunoundad, as It Is, by the effects of time, cars overgrown with weeds,
moldhg buMngs, the dkpoeal of outdated oomputar hardware. Bizarre, Is It not, th^ we sIHI have the book,
withltspag8sanditsbindng,muchthesamea6lthasalwaysbeen. ThisuncannyconcMlonwascorporeaWy
brouÿittomyattenlIonwhKilencountBredmorignfdcopyofaiarlesDarwm'sQrfgfnr^^pecies. Ifound
some Irony Involved In learsng about the srsvlval of the httest via one of the amiiest modes of mass
oommunicallon; What I was holding was an antique, an artffad Bizarre isn't H .that the book remahs to be a
fairiyhjcratlvBmduslry...along8ldearna88addkAontohot,crBan[ry,caffeinafedbevBrages. Itspresenoeisso
strange, and yet we cannot see It, and this Is wfry we are looking at It I ward to knew the book sows# that it
becomes unfamiliar, sol can use It in new ways.
Georges Perec does exactly this with a vast array of ( f r ^ . Ms Interaction with the current sta#e of
tfsngs that we are In such dose proximity with that we cannot see, that we have always Imowr?but never paid

86

aM8ri(k)nlo-ieallyth(XjÿitabouM'fK^i^ng*e Wmfiand), mfmsheslhemader'B interaction which changes
the object, the character, and the reader.
In ternis of the wall: 1 have put the picture on the waH so as to Axgat there was a waW,biA In
forgetting the waH, I forget the picture, too"; "So we need condnuaNy to be changing, either the wall or the
picture, to be forever putting other pictures ip on the wWls" (39).
In terms of the door (bemcade): 'Ifs had obviously to imagine a hoime which doesn't have a door"
(37); The probimn ^ 't whether or not there are keys: if there wasn't a door, there wordcki't be a key" (37).
In terms of staircases: 'We don't think eiough about staircasesT; We should learn to live more on
staircases. But how?" (38).
And suddenly the humor, the sickness, and the random lottery of arbitrary things—just the state of
them—

beoomessurprising. ThesecWails,thelistscfbanalltiessuchasbedsandtheseclionsofanewspeper,are
indkative of our culture, our blind obedknce to street lights and perking metars, objects that have been
placedasplaythlngsof larger systems of order These things, these'comforts', these'attachments'affect our
rnob%,incrBasethedfficultyofrnoving,beingnornadk:(64). WeaBowthemtodelineus,toplaya
significant part of our own identity construction, and we obsess:
Dedpherabrtofthetown,deducedTeobviousfact8:theobee68lo with ownership, for example.
Descrbe the number of operations the diver of a vehicle Is siÉgected to when he paks merely in
order to go and buy a hundred grans of jeWy:
-parksbymeansofacertainamountoftoingandfroing
-switches off the engine
-withdawsthekey.s^lingoffafrrstanli-theltdBvioe
-extricates himself from the veNde
-winds up the left-hand front window
-locks It
-checks that the left-hmd rear door is locked... (Q)edes51)

Perec designates the entire short novel, TMngs. A Slory

ffw Sixties, to a ooiple's struggle for identity via their

possessions, hence economic datus.
TTwcorrvlexity of o ir relationship to things is irrfinlte: Under-wirebras, condotns, themmdbogglingfetishiZEdonr^dollaredbais: CaprtaBsm, consumerism, inflation, empmdsm, materiality, life and
death. We could never mn out of ways to experiment with what we have indudkig, of course, the book Anrf
we AWrofffwËbooksHffrrgonorrrsheK TTreone we cannof even read and worxfaabor/f the s^Akancer^ffw

87

ïxx*'sappMfance. ButswB^8//*68e(hfngGÏhusAirm(f/iaMeWfeAeckon(he6ook. /mean.-pwA^iiye
cafmoffwB#8f on one page and (xwyggnaundw# us

00 lykAk) be moWki^. We begin to look at the

elements of the book that wekno# all kx)weH.. .80 doaely that we look at Uiemdfliamnlly.
The utopian activity is to keep these fWngs, unfamMar, uncomfortable, sifeifluous addtions to an
akaady satisfied ndhlng. I want to mention them...*rite an entifepemgnaph about a newWybought journal
andltsaffed I want to write about Wngs, not as a game of what if this was part of Me for you, then what?
Instead,wh^ifyourealizBdthiswaspartoflife,AenwhË? Thefirstque^iondoes,indeed,stHlprovoke
Ihouÿit, my purpose is not to argue its uselessness: however, I am looking for transfbnnalion in my presentbecoming, through materifd that hits very closely, for a cognitive escape from the closing in of common sense
-the way things are. Saying-this is the way things are-thafsridculous, pleasing, or detestable. PerhapsI
can'tchangeitentsely. ..butlc%mthinkofitdff8rBntly, and hence its unknown power over me wiWbe
decreasedthroughitsursnasking. Perecmovesthingsaround,figuresoutwaystousetheunusable,writes
about objects that no longer perfbnn their function: The alann dock that does not ring, the book that just sits
in the lap (A Wan Asleep 144).
:THRS & FOUR - private parts and sax acts

Id 's concentrate on what has become invistle to allow what we have become fixated on to
reposition Itself on the same plane as ever thing else. Body parts ae things, but things that I am suggesting
have taken a sort of hegemonic hold on our attention along the theoretical and Ntarary spread. TheFreud-oLacanlan "seed" wMchmpregnated ferdnlsms with cornplicatadpsychobiologlcal connections involving the
phaNus and woman's lack thereof, and received Its nutrients from the posbncdsmamnlodc&jld rich v # a
rejection of dualisme—rrundtody = culturelhatise = makffemale = privilegedWxirdnaled—gave birth to a
big BODYof work corporeality. This process, Ae writing of the female sex which had, until then represented
alack, a freaky mess, whose onlyjoy md purpose was to masquerade as asillymaledesrrefijfliMng machine,
in order to propagsÉe the male spedee, ego Inckided. has been rkfculcusly exciting. It is one of the more
dsttnguishablecharacteristicsoffKTtinistfiction,andforlheory. Therehasbeenthecrealionofnew
alignments, new paths of exploration, revdution: the feminine mystique, the cydes md rhythms (Krisleva
"Women's Time" 191), the multplidty of sex (Irigaray The Sex Which Is nof One). This has lead to the sexual
revolution of women, whose racer^adive voice has dtered the very condNiorK of sexuality and gender

88

poffoimanoe. An acImoyWedgement and expenmenWionwHh the language of cofporeality and the
cofporealityoflanyjagehavetaeencnjcialtottWaravolution. BizabettiQoszwritesttiatinorderto
undeislæd the complexities of our txxks we must neoogme that language, patterns, our vary habits am all
'consdtulivsingmdlenlscfoorpomaBty' (AFO50). AndhowisanappmdaUonofthebodytainngnow, inits
body language, In our feminist emphasis? Does a respect for Its oomplaxity drive us to coNinue on about the
penis, to deface it—the vagina, Pgkdfy It, to go on about their movements, preferences, and
represetWons? Havewenottaikedenoughabojtsex,violenoe,penetration,lesbianism,orthe
revoiutionarynK)vefnentfoden;duraiizeheferoeaxuality? Havewenotbecomebomdofdymgtheirflagsof
surrender with our menstrual blood? Have we beoorne saturated with visions of rnutilation, transformation,
blumtngs, bendings? Have we begun P feel haunted by hideously obvious recountings of these previous
efforts?
Justurplugthismachineforamomenl ExistPramomer#b^weenoneiBe,onefbmnula,aTdthe
naxL
Perhapsbyplacingtoomucherrphasisonoirbodes, we continue P separate from living, with m
overcorrpensdionrigMbackmPrBpresentation,perPrmalivity,andaneworderofhierarchy. Isuggestthat
we make use of the Body without Organs'as a temporary concept P break this fbdty and aid o ir moves inp
anembeddedbecomingthatisinperceptPleratharthantheshrillannouncementofourembeddedness. A
female writes from a body, through the body, with the body, for the body, but it is not necessay for herp
always wriPaborrf that body.
No, we am not finished # h our theoretical and WterarymaniPslations of the body mrd will not
prePnd the genius of psychoanalysis never axisPd. In this arena, the inseperabKty of the body from the
process of the taxt has been established, so It is of paramount importance PunPstan it again. But we am
going Pcome at it from dfbrer# angles, man atterrptp wordgUPny and promoP action, angles W don't
fatPnthemselvesonmeEmmg,but,instead,exercisetheirparts. ItmaybethatthisismompleasingPthose
who argue that such theoretical musings do not apply PeverydaysdbetanliaBty. Somebody PH these peopp
' TheconceplualimagebeingcrsaPdhemprimenlyprovokesanideaofthebody, as we ImowitPbeorgamized—asan organism.
And then we iinaglneOieuriravemngrfilsorgariizations, and iNhaf remains wheri you beghbtlush away ^ParSa^, and
signilicancesmPsijbjeclilicalionsasaWiole'(ATP15f). Basica:y.wd«organlzBthelXNj^hierarchy-penis,vagina—lhafisso
deeplyirigwnedintheOedpaEzedwestBmwQrtd. TTwbody v A t W o r ^ begins its process tcwerdsdborpncing itself the
momentone&esofitsorgans, it is an eotercise, an experlment Pat awaits us, and either we undertake t o r Wveigiorailly in
organization (ATP f4^.

89

that the book, the text of choice for this project, has its own substantiality, along with the Wters printed in
black which form words of varying iengthandsomd, sentences which the reader reads from ieft to right, and
paragaphsuptodown, pages top to bottom. These words, these vishle signs, scripts of sound acAeven
further, they produce meming that is translated from the reader's eye and retrmslated through the cognitive
process. Language produces afluny of extremely complex interactions between physical systems of
organization and oognitivB systems of organization.
: making language move

Sarglsson designates Feminist utopian literature as a site where "new and mventive language can
beËbeimaginedandempioyed...ascandMerentsocid, sexual md symbolic reWons'(41). And language
innovation has been

ongoing effort in the feminlsrrM. Think of Héléne Cixow' ëcrffum Amrnfrw md Lucy

Irigaray'slanguageofsaxuafrgmbrerMe.' Andnowthatwehavespokenoftheabsenceofthelmrguageofthe
feminine, and have been excited over the potentials there, md have seen the seedings of its growth, of its
excess and miAiplicity,tlvoughCixous and Irigmay, Ws not forget what had begun, but let's rxA simply
remember and repeat either.
The motivation of this pardcdarcorrvolution is a revolution in nanowing the gaps b^ween body md
word, word and action...whidi is what happens when, œ opposed to merely thinking about thought, one
tNnks, and in the sane way, makw laiguage think—move, as opposed to descrtii%|, representing
movemenl lfonewritBswitNnthetrmslbm«tion,ratherthanexplicitlyaboutthetransfonn8tion(aslhave
mentioned at great length) the wrrter begins to Bverl(^m il..m oveiigM m ll..lt becomes he(r] arms and legs
masense. FkÆondkwsaspacefbrthewritatoarpaienoesudiacloseencourÉawIththoughl
: a) the metaphor, representation, symbol and hence, the suWect.

In defarse of perticula activities of feminist utopian Action, such as the'deployment of the utopiar
elsewherer(IK), Jenr^Bumrell uAAzes the Action of Monique Wittig, Las GuWdres (1969), abook which is
alsofvghlyconcenlratedinexlremeutopianism,le8bianseparaAsm,andcorporeality. ItisaatAngduckfor
sianda, but ur^stly so; WitNn its context very ealy on in the feminist movement, it natures the series of
wdi nourished masculine symbolisms and patrkschal representations that had been deeply rooted along the
foundation6ofunderstaidng,notexchrdngtheimderslandngdthefemalebody. SheusestheAcAonal
apace to perfbnn what Burwell calls "the utopian act of hrgetAngf (188), in orda to experiment with new

90

syrrtols, such as The ling, the 0, the zem, the sphem" (61), to serve as dflaent fbmdations for

female

secfsunderstandngofthewoMd. Fifthermore,œ opposed to simply repladng the representador^c^
pfÉiamhy, the sect is actively self4attical,reaËzing the undMînÉ#y aid imposs&ility of rspreserding the
body. Theeffeclsofthisvwxkoffidionamcleadynotedlhmughoutdscussionssumourxfngtheagencyt^
femMstubpianMeralure. And AnveN'spatlerTt, active readhig exposes a crucial activity of Ihe text which
holdspc^entialfdrextensioriirTlonewpmduc^or». BunseO implores that Les GuWdreseOorts'to'dascnbes
Ihe body liletagy, without the mediation of m#aphorical corrpansonsT, that is, by "using language in a purely
leferenti^ way, without the sW eratce of converrtional ideology b^ween the sign and the 01:#^ (190).
This is precisely the Deleuzian acdvily of deterritorializalion, and sentiment of utopia(n)(i8m): No
morewritingundsrthebondsof representation, of metaphor. However, k not Deteuze—with his new
descriptions, new images of the body, as populated, as field of tr&es, new ways of visuaBzing love, the
rixxiting of these tites—guilty of writing within the rnetaphoricalsy^ern? Not exac%. ThecondMlonsi^
language have changed with the concepts. What is conventionally understood as a metaphor, within
[)eleuzlan tenns Is an adual becoming of the 'srtject' to that which it is being compared (whom is
ooWaborËivBlyopentotheunravelingofthatsiÉiieclivi^. Whatwasonceundarstoodasmetaphorisnowa
combining, a collision between two (Afferent worlds, not merely a parallel placement
when a word assumes a cMfererrt meaning, or even errtars into a cÊHerant syntax, we can be sure that
it has crossed another Aux or that it has been introduced to a difererrt regime of signs. ..It is never a
nratter of metaphor; there ate no metaphors, only combinations. (0//117)
Thisisimportantk)thetransbrmativepotaTtialoflanguage,andlhewrit8rhe(r)-self. Ifwearethinklngin
terms of the metaphor and its sunounding implications on our oogiitive process, the writer mns a hiÿi risk of
llrnitinghe{r]-eelf to rnerely engaging in rnlnTlcry. That is, the word is at risk of being dbplaced, borrowed,
rather than active In new meanings, dsnptive and unsettling In each new position. Thkunderstandngof
languagewithiniaBraturefoBowsfromtheuseoftheoonceplwherBwebegan. Conceptsshiftwilh
contemporary protrlems.'
Thus, the writer must gain a peripheral setAemerA with language, that Is, an acceptance and use of As
rnferchangeabflrfy: "you car sdways replace one word with another, put mother in its place" (Off 3). There is no

' TNspersoniticationofAehKtisinbrilional
' tWerbSTOP 1the concept cfthe concept" (see page4).

91

naWfrelationb^weenthesigiiWandthesigmfied. Simply8W8d,lh8Word8werBnev8rcon9Ctinlhefirst
place,M*ithth8irrBpmsmlalk)nandaymbolism,aTdas8uch,n8wn8labonscaibeni8d8. As Deleuze WIs
us, Them aeoNyinexacA words to designate 8omelhmgexaclly'(0//3), accodngly we acUvdy place
language in a "state of perpetual djsequKxlum" (ATP27) in order to woik with the deagnadons at hand, wMch
Intummoiphintonewdesignalions. Inmintennew.ArmeCarsondescitesitwell:
I mostly IMnk of mywodcas-.uslng words so that you create a sudace that leaves an impression in
thensndnomatterwhsAthewordsmean. lfsn(^aboutthemeaningofeachindhmdLEdwoni..ifs
atiout the way they Weract with each other...you stand tiack and see a sbxy emerge horn the way
that tMngs are plaoed next to each other. (NdW y 22)
The words themselvas do not mdten It is their movement the* does, Henoe a det#aling concern with their
Improper' use (which reaByjust transietesas unoonvardionel) is unnecessary. The point is that we dscuss,
we use language, and in turn see what others are doing with language: I f each one of us makes tNsefkrt,
everyone can understand, one another and there is scarcely any reason to ask questions or to raise
ot^lecttons" (Off 3). Freeing language from Its proper desfyiaNons opens potentials to use It In new ways.
Agan, just l&e things,'we do not have to create words that are entirely new, entirely other, to shift the
thoughtproducedbythekaccentu#)norcomt)lnalion. Newlanguagerelresheslheoid. Yes,asortof
recycling, that chellenges us to use what exists to change how we triindly understand their existence to

The point Is that the wrMerwill never be able to explain the unexpiainabie, but [sjhe reuses to give In
to tired dichas. In his essay, "Realism and Utopia in Khn Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy,' Fredrfc Jameson
discusses the nea^ Wnpossbilrty of expressing an ontological altemative' throigh narrative Hteratiae...the use
of language to depict the unknown (225). Aocordmg to Jameson, It is the stuff of the indescrtelole, the
unknowns that is Utopia (224). It is In the moments when the words, their originality, jump out at us from the
page becarse their use, their combln^lon is urdanaiar, but strangely, allows us to understand the thing they
work to corrjure, to have a moment of dearly sensing That force', or in the case of Robinson, to conoeivB of
something we have never seen before.
Anne Carson is highly active In the reconfiguration of language, and is successful on several
planes. DrawingfnomhermtBractionwtthandtran6iationofandenttaxts,Carsoncorrtinuaflyreintroduces
herself to EngBsh by passage of becoming in that free space between the original text and Us trandatad

92

verskm, ltisaspac8beWen6ysjsmsofofgemizatlon,aspacewhKBCfeationoccurB,aTdhenceaspace
wherethenskoffailuraisparamounl CarsœacknowledgeslhatlhisnskybacomingisbeneAciallDher
wridng:
I likethe8paceb#W88nlanguag8becais8ifsaplacedenorormislak8nn8B8...and W su W u l I
think for mting because it's always good to put yomelf off balance, to be dWodged from Ae
complacency In which you normally go at the woitd. (McNeWly 14)
Inspired tiy her raadmg and translation of the unconventional ancient Gmek poet, Stesichoros, Carson fnds
one particidaty refreshing passageway via the ac#ective. In her novel,

of Red, she describes

electives as 'small imported mechanisms' which are "in charge of attaching everytMng in the world to Its
place In particularity. They are latches of being," latches which are somehowwithin the strict Htarary
condbons of the Homeric epic, where teing is stable and partkx4ari^ is set fast in trarMon" (4), Sksichoros
unlatches:
So Ink) the stiH surface of this code Staskhoroe was bom. And Staskhoros was studying the
surbce restlessly. It leaned away from hkn. He want closer. It stopped. "Passion for substances'
seems a good description of that momert For no reason that anyone can name, Staskhoroe began
toundothelatches. Steskhorosreleasedbeing. AHthesubstanœsintheworldwatAfloËingup.
SuddenlytherewasnothingtointBrferewithhorBesbemghoWfrooved. Orarivarbeingroofsaver.
(ArdoWogrqpfy of Red Q

Her descriptions are enrkhed by the inHuenoe: air becomes "dark pink" (36), the days become "red
intarvals'(26), pain becomes the "stale black taste of leather" (107), anger pounds like a "piece of weed against
a hard black beach" (75), a Saturday mommg is "aoËedwhita" (120). AsaodaUng words with ur#ely
meanings, or importaice, she destabiHzes the predktability of language, aUowing words, as much as
possMe, to reairza new form, placing them as strangers in action together In an effort to refresh the reader's
sense of undarstandmg.
Unexpected reversals provoke reverses of common sense cognition, such as a reversal of the
corrventkndm^aphorkalexpressionofsociaihkrarchy. Forexanple,shedepktstheenoounteroftwo
exceptional characters through imagery of the bottom feeder They were two siperior eels/at the txAtom of
the tank and they recognized each other like itatksT (38). She resuscitates words that have been trampled by
excesslveuse: "Thewordeachblewtowardshimandcameapartonthewind. Gerymhadalways/hadtiss
trouble: a word like each/when he stamd at it, would dsassemble itself into separata letters and gd" (26).
Carson frequently unsettles common language use through the thought of her characters. In The Bearriÿ of a

93

Hüd)afK(, Ihe w # (who romains unnamed) considars the it:dicizBd word wNle readng in bed: "Anting a
passage in italics is a pnmitive way cf soliciting attention/wmns Fowler's Enÿish Usage/appendng as a i
example of this mtserable mode of emphasIaTTo Shedock Holmes she is always the woman '/But emphasis is
toogeneoalawonMorthe(%)aTdslant/WmindMness/lhdoooursinoognitionjusl/llier8:singeit'(75). She
begins a section of prose regardhig the wile receiving an unexpected letter from her 3iieer-ssparated partner
with: "HE SHE WE THEY YOU YOU YOU I HER SO PRONOUNS BEGIN TO DANCE" (19). Again, the woman
considers the connection between language, myth and tmlh:
And from the true lies of po^/lrickled out a questkxVWhat really oonnecis words and things?/Not
rmch, decided my husbandfarid proceeded to use lai^raga/in the way that Homer says the gods
do/Allhimai words are known to the gods but have for them entirely other meanings/alongside our
meanings/They tip md switch at will. (33)
Carson unleashes the effects of language, its transgressions, unlalches its tradlion, both through her own
sibtleuseandthroughthemorefonMsdthou^rlsof her characters, making its innovation both unmistakable
arxf unavoidable.
: and of grsmm* and punctuation?
But what could be more challenÿng then Tbrg^ng" the buldng blocks of grammar, with their
punctuËionmortfr. The writer has no choice but to be cognizm t of thek foundation.
Grammar arrdpu/rdueffon stand hoWfrrgfrarrds, ffs a game of Red Rower; andwfrowouldÈy fo break
(fyDugfrffrestrongesfgnk? Perfrepsfhen#er;bufnofneoessarffyrlfrewrf(er;rrKk8d, sees fhrs whole Ifekf
and asks, Wro cares akxrfwfnrrrngfhemfo our feam?" The twffer wonders. Am f on a (earn? Are you on a
team? Mdy? fwordd rather adowyou to stand there, hoMingharxk, so kferxgyarKf Amdiar; wfrdef have a
go at af this ^pace, f writ use you when necessary.'Brerdrratk as aHAe other wrfters start pbykrg hare and
there, together; wrth oppoaing members, the shongestWr has to dnd new ways to constArte their ifarce
posfbon. histheâ/oir, and they do A weg...ft's nothing personal Andtheyarenotpoorsports,reaNythey
made the whole WngposstWe.

Ofcoisse, this is almost unlhinkatrle, but worth a try, end the very effort to thmkoidslde of the tsrms of'Red
Rover'altarslheer#Bprooess,ffonlyimpercGpttlyatfirA Punctuationiseasiertoimagine...peifTaps
because it is more tactk, compact, ihythrmc. It is easy enough to move the mechanics of punctiadion
around, to elmnate the marks, in order to chmge the flow, the speeds æd spaces, the drections in wtsch the
writerchoosestoheveitmove. Punctuationmal(sarBtheorangepylons,thainvitingfloorpi8owB,thestn8et
signs that are maWeeble If they are only used. It would be an sbeolute shame to overlook the snporlance and
fun in the manipulation of these signals.

94

Asforgfamw.lhemlebendinghK^rBadybegunwiththedemotîonoftheajÈÿGcl Foraxample,
Luce Ingaray, based on the belief that Imguage is sexed. has conducted studies in hopes of creating ^hkal
uses of language which rœisis the subject^tject reduction, dkMing for the «Mtion of the fenmine. One
example, the title of f Low to You, as descdbed by Ingaray in an intenmew, "warns agamst saying 'I kve you,'
whichalwa^runsthenskofrBducingtheothertDlheot^ectofmylove'(iVhyDffkfBnt?105). Sheremoves
wfiatwouldbethedractorindiractobjectltomitsrevDlutionaroundtheother. Inheressay,"AGfamma"of
Becoming: Stmtegy,Subjectivism and Style,'a^Colebmokdesc*es the sii^sinovem entt^ganm ar.
Its capability of pradkation, as "a strategy of raactivism, recognition, and being (rather than becoming)" (118).
The subject, according to Colebrook, Is merely a slavish reaction to a predetermined identity position: "I do
this because of what I am" (199). Woddng with Deleuze and Gudlari, Colebrook unfolds the ^fects of their
philoGophyofinmanenceonreactivegrammar. Firstly,theuseoftheinfinitivB—"towntB"—thatis,a
reference to the everd itself, rather than the act "there is the event itself and not some prior transcendence of
which the event would be an acF (130). Secondy, the indirect speech act, that is neither the transcendent
inkxmallve position, nor the drect communication between one siÈjact and another (130). This, as we have
previously dscussed, is accomplished through Deleuze's aid Guattarfs, and Deleuze's and Pamefs, game of
hide and seek, subject dspersal in the taxL
But how does active gammar move in fiction? Perhaps it can move particulady well k Action that
concerns itself with a movement away from the sdgact, such as in Perec's A Wan Asleep, where the identity—
(u—is unimown, wWisirnplifies the activities to the activities thernselves. Butthereisnodalogue, no
speaking subject, yet the character must speak at Ames, wfW then? Take into consideration the "tangos"
betweenthehusbandandwifeinCason'sTheBeaufyofaHusband. Theirwordscomeinlistsofproseno
dffarent than the way thought is prMented—without the makers 'she sad,' 'he sacf—to mdre a line of
utterances from (bncing mouths to which who its belongs is of less importmce thaï the rhythm of the strean:
"i Iwefath/lnwhË/lnus/Thae is no us/Deep pure faith/But why/Ray you know I wished I lived inanrArer
century/You used to say the body is the beginning of everything/I don't believe that anymore" (117).
Furthermore, a i exanfpie d escape, as opposed to a mere shroudng of granmatkal positions, is dawn from
Deleuze's essay on Hennan MelvAle: "BarAeby: or. The Fbrmda." Ms rsadkg presents MelvAle's character,
Bartieby,' as speaking agrammallcaOy tfsough the repetitive use of the phrase: 1 would prefer not to."

95

DeleuzBwntKi'Ipmfa^notbJsneitheranaffimiationnoranegation. BarÜ8bydo8snotmfuse,butn8ither
does he accept, he advances and then withdraws into this advance, barely exposing himself in a nimble
rËraatfrom speech" (70). He succeeds in being neitherprasentnorabsent, neither active norpassive. Mis
the creation of a deticateimperceplMity. BiMponder Ae immanence of Ms...wfiat does such aMW
sidestepping of spoken responsibility do?
: wMh conclusion bu* always thinking about open' - exercising the reader
The book does not quite escape completion, a certain degree of solidHicafion...taldng on its final
foon.-.itmustrWerrttorifdize. ThemeagermusteventuaByletitgo,h8veitpublished,ormmyca6e,submitit
to a committee. But neither the book nor writer, as concepts, me closed when acknowledged from the
rhizorrudic condHions of Bterary processes of multiple exchange. The writer writes a book that will be read,
hopefully,byaparticularaudknce. Butlhispmticularaudenceisnottoberegardedintermsofslatus,
identily,pcwer,d8cipline,«iper1i8e,orevenlrdelligence(unlikea%auss»ielltism). ButwewMbe
regaded, rather, as those who catch the flying sNapnel, respond to the questions, who are teachable. , who
flow with the Nnes rather then fasten themselves to the points. The reader, thewriter—the ally and febowcraator^-will want to work, would be bored and mWdlyWTsdted by a handied escape.
The reader win be dscusaed at some length in the following STOP, bid must be rafened to at present
becarse the writer rrW acknowledge the reader in he(r) writing, (s]hemu^ not underestimatB the necessity
ofthereaderintheutopianprocess. Itseemsthatthatwhichthewriterleavesopenforthereader—a
potentialaddMiontotheassemblage—the gaps, the conceptual spaces, anything indefkrable, foreshadowing
of arurprecktable continuation in further work, a provocation as yet stiH unexplored. These me the pW
poirks where the potential for the continuedion, for transformdion is the iTX)st intense. And the borders of this
utopia, which is always under renovation, must remsdn open to deference. Accordingly, the writer leaves m
invitation to participate.
George Perec interacts in direct dalogue with the reader, suggesting various conceptual exercises:
Thhgs we ought to do systematicaHy, from time to time" (Qpedes 44). Aswas mentioned in severd places,
his exercises mean to estrange the reader from everyday things, systems themselvBS, and the places they
dweW. Buthisexperimentationwith'pointofview'unmistakablyhastliereadarmmind.forafewexamples,
by aking the reader to become the main character (as in A Man Asleep), to andyze, from an intsnate

96

prmdmüy, the condton of Ihe chaactefs (% in TTungs. A Skxy of Ae Sixlies), to aigege in thou^t
8 xpennMnlafion*ilhth8 wnt«^(asin 5 pe08 SofQMO 8S 8 n(fOWwAaces). ^ ^ W e x a rp le —becomingihe

maincharacler—inAWanAsk^p.isachieMedbylheueeof'yoïformoœaulhenlicaMy—'A.' The Ranch
pmnoun—fu—is weed in familkrandbr rather d(ect,aggres8ivBtafms,%which is rnemitlowanj the reader, a
cmon(m(X3nverBafiori.lik8avisualizationscnpl Havewenotalllainint)edatle8stonemoming

wondering what woidd redly happen if we ju^dMnt get up. ,.if we just dkint go? O ofraagyA ^D fogotoW
meeA^yVMIhischaractarjustdoeen'l Hedoesn'tgotohisexamonemominganditdlstarts,ormorB
accurately,stops,rigt^theiB. HeAesathoughtexperimenl Sonotonly,aswBhavaalrBadydscussedwith
specific interast in the conceptual persona, has Perec erqoerimented tieyond his ability, but he has also made a
character that Is the reader's persona as weM.
We are brought mto Perec's own unresolved thought exercises, agmn, through problerns that
comecttheevarydaywlAthehighlyabstracl Forexanrle,hetrlestoânaginearoomwithnoputposeataa:
I have several times tried to tfsnk of mapertmerd in wNch there would be a useless room. ..Rx all
myelbrts, ItounditimpoestletotoWowAlsideathroughtoanend. Language Itself, seemingly,
proved unsulted to deserting this nothing, this void, as If we codd only speak of what is fuB, useful
and functional. (SgpedesSS)
In the margin akn^ide this musing, I wrote: "What if the arcNtact included one room that had no identrliabl^
or pradetennined(prBsmied) purposed I thought, Ae job descriplion of the archltBCt may be to dedgn with
presumptions of conventiond use in mind, as to bed suit the posstle habitants, yet, (sjhecfsi leave
somethhg open; as a token of respect tor the needs and creative ebdty of its fdurehabitanl I wrote: "Can
thewTiterdoArswiththebook?" ThiscanbeasshrpleasLawranoeKrauser'snovd,Lemor?,whkAwBarsa
seduclivaly blank paper cover left tor the reader A design, or as complex as Grosz's spread ^questions that
are nieard A be pursued bd A such a way as rndritdnlngthdr unanswerability. In this same way, although
the vsiter writes wlA hejr] deaiyi m mind, (sjhe leaves a spaoe, knowing that it will be used and chmged in
unpredKlalileways. Andthewritarwrita6thebook,butwiAsomethingAbecontendedwith,somdhingthat
risks, or neariy^manteesmisunderstmdng, an exœssjæ access), that which woddtradKonaNy be
thougWofaslack. And trdy everything about the utopian writer, h^^wriUng, the book. Is conducive A this
extension, via tfie concept itself, the tonnat, use of character, end innovation of language, content and
dkdplinary/genrecolWsions.

97

I an naminded that beauty is In that wtmch Is still ummaginable, æd It is the small cracks aid
departures tiom the systan that creates and provides us with a sefKs of dtferance, of the Thing, of life. There
vAI be an a*erance to bmplake before us, the language we know. We must always hang on to this ordered
system, systems and devices wNh^ least ourpMcyfinga. And we learn that what moves is utopia(nXism)
aid the ihizomatic book, throuÿi a simultaieous respect aid depature from their tradtionËmayfestations
anduses. Butwh^wearedoingdoesnothaveapadpositionandanow...lthasWwaysbeendlfferBnl..the
natureofltlsalwaysevolutionay...alwaysihlzofnatic. Astheroo^booksplltoffirAoitstip,destroyed,it
began to rrianikstmWtipncityirÉo the rackal-system, the fascitada root, but not yË without the root's unity.
Therhiaime, teaming from the root and the fascicula rod, b e ^ to abort entirely, and who knows what hœ
yet to happen (ATP 5). Who knows what wN happen the more we work In tandem with nature . nd'Nature'as
weseeitwlthltsmolaorganismorganizalions,bdnature8sitmaybe. Ifwecanimagineadfbrent
structure of the book, we can work outside of ourprevlousfixities...it Is the imposstle that alters the
posshle. EvBnasweworktowardoverlookingourcoimionsense,wearelnspiredtowriteaidreadlhebook
apartfromtemisoflmitation,rdlection,orreGemblance. WewillworktowardanaltBrationofwhatwealready
know the book to be.
I an listening to you not on the basis of what I know, I feel, I already am, nor In terms of what the world and
language already are...l an Bstening to you rdha as the revelation of a tnrth that has yet to manifed itself—
yours and that of the world revealed through andby you.
LuoelrlgaayfromfLovefDYbrr

phrot:

77iewr#?gprocess is ari act arirrr-beùieensfqppfrrgpoW^ oradefemtorraëzaflbn, WeoirrMibrmoferidisbofh
necessary and AievftaWe. 7hebook/?Wb6puMshedanddktWkrfe(tpf8oedoufiritheworild..jfrnrrsfrBhrrfbirMze.
The wrfiar can only hope that the fib dthe book#* newsrbale# to red and tharefbre, be long and varied in As uses.
knows (he concepts wNfcrystaKze over dme h r the purposes dfheb«#tion, Wststobeej^pecfedhomthe
instWonandibeverydvneoe6a@ee-4ockeddoors,omfoehours;siy#abi,andseci#rguards. However'Ae
instWon'asamoiarunit «snofthepdnwryaudbnce, aWiough (he writer knows he/^ work w# end up inks hands.
Rather; it is the pepplbfarticies, 80 assorted and/aded, widcherder and eM thd space are the potential utcpân
readers. TTieyare the Hoversand seed^owers: TTiereader; as part ofthe person who becomes through iw#igL as a
vWuafe^dstenceintheutqpiandomain, has fttterntereet in the oono^ptbortbons the instWon makes of books.
A ith o u g h f^m ^ know them aid even hand them out horn time to time, toheMitistoiookupondeadboÆes
dkpieyedinexquisAeoof&is. P e rh ^ some of these bodks have never been anirrmted, but the reader sorts through
Ay those that were once atrve or those that have nr^ yet died and evadments with their resuscWon or frk-eidensron.
And the reader w* extend the Abr^such works wAhheig/youthAd hunger ibr newpentpactrves^Bioch ffQ . The
reader hokk the resporBA#; and the dWe, todksermnate WworkofthosetieAyBhe%sum)undmghegf, and
^peaktngmtotheArture. fSghewilire^ntrorkroedtotheihstabiil^andtransAymationitmetdurir^aswritrngprDcess—

98

W pow ysoW om f^cm afBd. Henoe, A e /e a d w ;m W M s w ^ ,K c m c W b

ëMaÆknanceoffheifbp/anpmcess.
point:

ileandngtoiead
In her book, TTKOtherSWeofLanguage. APMœqpfy of LkWng, Gemma Rumam contends lhat
we ii*abit a cultunBlhatkncMS how to speW( but not how to listen; what

believe lobe gendne d d o ^ is

acluallyasenesofcollidingmonologues. SheoRerBaconoeptofaulhenlicllsteninQlhatshecallsa'maialics
of thought," or I^TüosophicalmkWefy,'by which she diaHengas the feadar to adequately leceivawhEA is
being put kxth, allowing for the affect of wkA is been offered. Feedhg Into the context at hand, It kcmdal
that the reader of newly utopian texts understands the forces of the utopian-niachine, the forces that #16 writer
was driven by, regardkss of what tenninokgy, message, or medksn the readei' may encounter. In this
utopian netwotk, where the writef(s) wnte(s) ihizomatically, the readei(s) reed(s) as though

is readng a

rhizome rather thaï a root, or as though [spiels raadng to create anew dszome or add it to one already on
the move. But how can the reader be a bater 'listener,' hear the ihizomatk vkraUon, become part of the
ihizomehe[r}-s8lf?
: the Memy machine
WewHlneveraskwhrAabookmeais, as signified or signilier; we win not look for arylhing to
understand InH We will ask what it functions with, In connection with what other things It does or
does ncAtransmit intensities, in which other multiplicities Its own are Inserted and metamorphosed.
- Debuze & Guettarl from A Thorrsand Mafeaus^

The book Is not a toy box fuN of toyeignMers, to be extracted by annotation, interpretation, and
questioning and then plaoed in aiother toy box proudly caNed the essay". Ralher, the book, as deserted by
Deleuze, Is a HtUe norwignifying machine." The reader does not conceive of the passage apart from he(r]
pnrnaryunderstandngoftheword, aidwlllwastenotimeperfdrmlngmiexegesisofibpassages. Inthe
literary process, such analysis Is death, æd of interest orWyto the dead men with which ZarËhusIra^ vowed,
"never agaW", to waste his words. Deleuze challenges us to read as thouÿi the book were plugged Into a
large electric circuit, that is, placed In drect contact with its outside, "as a flow meefhg other flows, one

' Ibid,. 4
^ In reference to The madman' of Ni^zsche's, 77«ÆSpoke Zaraftw^h: (see Works Cited).

' Refer to STOPS'order is Inorder feaure" (seepage 56-68).

99

machineamongolh«B'(9). Frmithisappmachlh8ra8deri6lookingforuseandeHicacy(AO206)and,
thei^ofB, Rnds litHe relevance in quesBons surroundng "what does It mean," asking instead, "does itvwxk,
wdtx)*doesitwoik?"(N08). AndcnjcidtothlsinquiTyinb)thepotentialmcwementofthebook.isaskmg
w#wWdbesAMwk? Thebooknwstbeplacedin connection with the outside,sdlowedtowork with new
tiWngs. TNsihizomatic,iDeleuzim,appmachk)thebookiswhatTomConieycalisthe'melhodofAND,'{^
"Ihls and then that." Reac&ig with the method of 'AND' encourages Utermy exchange to extend the relevance of
onetaxttok*xmmdexplorean(AherlhevoioeofonebecomesanineduciblecoWecliYeutteranoe(264). It
is an approach with, quite honestly, unlimited tienedts.
For one, the separation of theory and HtarËuretiecomes extremely vuhierable. Deleuze, although a
philosopher, consistently IHuminaks the coliisionsti^ween the phllOGopherEmd the writer by coupling his
dscussionofphHosophywiththaAofMtBrafure. ThenamesofpNlosophers(Pla*o, Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche,
and Heidegger) appear alongside names of BteraryBguree(Melv*e, Whitman, Becket, and Carole) (Smith xA).
He so inte^atas and places in alliance the authors and phUosophers he reads with each other and his own
that there is a sort of becoming tielweenaifpllers (ATP 47). The "method of AND" mobNzes the community of
utopian players.
Another t)erWlt to readmg the t)ook as a Hterary machme is, as EmË Bloch, GWes Deleuze, Jennifer
Burwell, and Lucy Sargkaon exemplify, the ensuing extraction of its political impetus, the force laehind its
production. Thus,itcanberaappliedtonewph88esofthesameprct]lem. Andfurthermore,inthisapproach
the reader shows respect for the writer, becomes toward Ihe writer, because lafhar than t * the self-condemned
judgeofriÿitandwrong,thereaderpreferstorBscuethesurwcrs,le8vlngthec8sualtiesbehind. Wears
inspirsd and teamed by the work bakre us, even in Its error. As Frumara explains, although we do not requirB
its support, it can assist us In our escape from the narrow path of the dominant system, and is evidence of the
complexity of sunounctng interactions and concerns (72).
Furthermore, I suggest that the reader consider enor as an opportirWty, or invitalion to extend the
texL' TheconceptoftherNzome,asadepatisBfromtherDotandradical,iscrBatedfromwhatitis
departing, which is, in other words, a revision of an earkerfomn. Deleuze and Guattarl were both dsgusted
andinspiredbythefadic^aTdprovokedintoacrefAonoftherhizome. Accordngly.themovementofthe

100

raicalwoiddnothavebegimwîthoutlhemol WeneednotrBadwithvendettasofokjorthepefBOTalonouf
shoukkTB. Does feminism wish to continue speaking about guisM of neutrWity as though they had been
intentionaHyhiddan?lsuggest that the reader appmach the text as incomplete, in wait for reactivalion, left for
the reader to make use of it in a way that Ae writer was unable, lobe dvided and nurtured into new greenery,
tobepiuckedawayandlraTsplmtedelsewherB. ItisatreatmentthatshoulddsotranspirebetweenfBminists.
The challenge to respond to the work of the writer with Ihe largest possMe degee of openness has
beenpresentllwoughoutlheentlreprqiectthusfar. ltisrequiredtorespecttheutopia(nXism)ofthep8St,the
utopia(nXi8m) as It currently works, to be teachable, and to akw everyone to breath. The more the reader
reads with openness, the more [s)he will write openly, the broader her relevancy and care. Deleuze, for
example. In his cross-contaminations of Nietzsche (and Spinoza) has revitalized and dispelled the concept of
activBandp8ssivedesiraacrossawidMangingpopulatlonwhohas,intum,ir#ctBditirA)new»ea8. lhave
mentioned, from place to place, this action versus reaction, espedaBy in the form of harsh charges agamst
certain basses on the arms and legs of feminism, although I am not the first to do sa These charges have
been laid with care and subtlety by thinkers such as BizabelhQnoaz and Claire Colebrook and must be
spoken of again here because this dstinction is cmdal to be fieed from fixations on both the cWense and
rejectionofulopias(includngthespecificitie6ofulopianthoughQ. Thesefix^ionsarBinBlevant,and,sadly,
energyissquandaredtherewhenitistheenergy,Itself,thatistherealmatterofimportance. Suchan
oversight is a neglect and suppression of the passion driving the work. The reader must ask of he(r)-eelf, ami
thatweak? Movlngawayfiomcflticism,rBductior^,I^rBadBhopefully,withthesensesopen,willing,
accessing it only through wonder and curiosity—a suspension (^dmbelief. As Fiumara learns from IWzsche,
onefindsthecouragetodelachoneselffromone'sownconviction' (80). [SjheprdongsresislancetDthe
shackles of dkagreement, (Mansiveness and self-rdledkin, by accepting he[r] expected response based on
hefrjeverydaypmticularitiœandthenfbig^tingil ThereaderisnolongermlBrBstadinsuchmindess
bickering, but lacks the anogant confidenoe that (s]he has remained cksdved enough to avoid raking
wl«tever[s]heencounterBOverthetemplate(ftheo(yIs)hemo8terÿ)ys. However, |s|heisbegirmingtowork
from a temptate that Is only cniel to that which stops the Bow, and In doing so, begs not its 'application to' but
its susceptibility aid induction of suscepttHity, reciprocated by what it encounters.

101

The reada" nW alio* a becoming toward and with the writer, thinking, readmg, towad æd with the
li$eofukpia(nXlsm). Thereaderbecomessusoeptiblebthecondtionsr^thewriter,becomesthewriter,to
the writer's history, context, in order to chakngehefij thought which cm only occur at the undableoutsldrtB.
As Fiumara Intonates, it is our position at the outskirts of a "healthy mkHecf that has us within earshot of
what lays beyond th^ limit, beyond what sunounds our rdional life (94). The reader Is oorrpeHed to take on
the passion, the madness of the writa, the characteristics of the writer estranged, of delicate hedth md, of
course, well read. AndhumMemhefijreverenoeforthelsstoryeAhwhichherworkispossble. Which
means that she must position he(r]-6eiras somewhat imtoudrable.

: silence and dlscrellon
Although the reader is extremely accommodating, she does not lack discretion. Evenintolermoe
md prolonged sBenoe the reader Is acutely aware, active, learning from that with which Mhe does not afpee.
Saving the energy that would have been wasted in reaction, the reader listens' with full atteNkm. The reader,
aslistener, ism in-Wween, like the act of writing that occurs before a sort of slopping, orsoikfficationof
either sdbmission Of revolt The reader is active in what Fiumara calls a "preethicarsltualion (149).^ That is,
Wslening(readk%)ismderstoodasa60i1ofconduitrdherlhmyetanolherposllion(77). Thereader's
silencedoesnotmemp8SSivity,especiallynotinthed8siredtenn8(^sii)IMyandimperceptbility. Fiumara
draws a dkdnctionbetwem active and passive listening. The torrent of messages that are "not listened to
oorrecûÿ," or which we are not capable or wWHngto listm to, still reach us, pacifying us into torpidky,
stagnation,tenumbment''aswepm8lvelyabeorband,hence,aoceptwhatweencoun*er(83). Thepreferable
dtemative, as we have discussed, however, is not to be reacUve, bid to be m active Wslenerwith sdence as
conduit Silence does not connote passivity: In fact WBlive in a culture that forces us to speak .oftm without
thinking. Deleuze writes:
Radk) and television have spread tfss spirit everywhere, and we're rkWed with pomUess talk, insane
quanbtiesofwordsandimages. Stipkfty'sneverblindorrrsjte. Soifsnotaproblemofgalling
people to express themselves but of providmgBttle gaps of solitude and sOence in which they mrgi#
sventuaHy find something to say. Repressive forces don't stop people erqxesslngthemselvBs but
rather force them to express themselvee. What a relief to have nothing to say, the rIgM to say
nothing, becrnseor^ythm is there a chmoe of franmg the rare, and ever rarer, tNng that might be
worth saying. (N 0129)
' "lîstBriirigtt9elfcrBat9ssuchapre-elliicalsgu^on;rttsawayofbeirrgwtitchrsnotyelawayofdr)itig.andbecauseoftliisk
escapes km bieWbmalive of submisston or revoir (149).

102

I æn wder the belief that Ëthouÿi It is the responsbility of the reader to use what |s]he reads, one who
responds too freely, too quicWy, too eagerty, cannot be trusted - becawe a sufficimt réponse is an aduoiÆ
task. Time is requlred to process the material. The reader should be dsgrunded by the Idee of hewing to
disci»sit...tohearhe{r] voice butcher out a response., .to answer dlrecdy questions about the text, to add to
the irrelevant excess of chatter.
In this sense, sHence is a sort of Body without Organs, a lÉopian space in Itself. Fiumara understands It as
transformation of one's self into a conduit, rWher than anotha^oppoturAy for the propagation of the self (77).
She writes:
OnemustbeabletokeepapatofoneselfdetttoplaytheroleoflmpertiMiablespectator: Hewho
keeps sknt, not he who is dknced because he can no longer speak he who remains silent because
he chooses to surrender his own instruments of reasoning kr order to freely opt for a more radkal
and implacable Nstsnlng. (182)
Acoordmg to Fiumara, It Is Important to Wstan, because we cannot fag victim to what we haye heard, and can
therefore expose (83). But, there is always a surplus, voices to which waremamfgrrorart because they were
duwned out by the ones to which we had selected to Bsten.
[Ignorance
The reader, who spreads so thin, welcoming complexity and variation much too large to organize, must
accept the dkcomfbrt of imfamilisslty, bewilderment, unscholarllness, and fgnoranoe. As a reader. Ignorance is
aforcetobereckonedwith(whichincludesadependencyontranslation). Itisahorrllyingrealizalionthatone
has read practiczdly nothing, that there is an inasmountable quantity that remains to be read The effects of
this reach Into Ae reader's comprehension of those (s)ie does encounter. I amtoofamKarwiththis
breakdown having read Ernst Bloch and GHIes Deleuze, cookie monsters of the fine arts, who Incessantly dop
nanesofwMchlhavescaroelyreaddiredly, have engaged via a few mUdy effective secondary sources, or,
^ worst, have never even heard of. It is a reekty Mcalive of the Herary machine: one book, one name, one
theory,Unk8toamultitudeofwr1thinglinœtDotherbooks,nam68,theories. Thereisnolon^aoomfort,a
calm available in recognizing a grand succession, sliding along a silken thread. As Fiumara writes:
". ..everything has alreai^ become no longer reoountable and no tongarfoWows a thread but has spread itself
outacrossanendksssrstace" (75). lhadlmdedinthemiddeofawrithingm8S60fserperds,eachd

103

(Menant (xiky, whispenng (Menant eeiiRtions, in all the enenÿea of smooth pœsage, (joseness, amongst all
the^eaming,scaly8l(in,passingcweran(junderoneanothei'. TNs^lnotpnovokedeleatorc&isea
(»asing. ltpnovokesa(X]nwTen(ânQofa(XXTlinu(XBpnoie(:t,anlf*ABpiqe(t
Deleuze himself wrltas aboiA tw intimidations at jumping into the histofy of phAosophy, pnessunas that
he
(xxxWuded as being imneoessay nasWions on the academic's conceived v^kfty of their pursuit
The history of phkeophy has atways been Ae agent of power hi pNloaophy, and even In th o u ifl It
hœ played the nepnassor'snole: h(M can you thmk without having read Plato, Descartes, Kant and
Hekjeggar.andsoaid-so'sbookaboiAthem? Afonnidable8(dx)olofmtimidationwhi(^
mamfactiresspecWists in thought-but whkdifdso makes those who stay outside oonfbnn all the
mona to specialism which they despise. (D/f 13)

Hopefully, the youthful neader will begin naadmg to learn, rather than to find he((j-eelf trapped, especially by
the kfosyncraticmxieties (fusing a tannlnconectly, or been thrown a question (which is a fom of attack to
begin with) regarding a thinker who is an obvious stranger to hejr] work thus far. The reader learns to accept
ignorance because it Is a true conrMon of her work and it nourishes desire, not because it is grasping at what
knowledg6lacl(s,butbecauseithasaninlinitesifplyofignorance, encounters with the unknown, and the
new at its déposai. The reader is a ^lark in this way, whose sunmval depends on the water gushing in aid out
of gills propelled by its perpetual movement [S]he would de without new combinations to ingest and (fspel.
And this survival is assisted by those whom the reader reads, who have pulled in their world aid fumeled it
drectly to the reader; because the act of rearing is not only tor the writer, but the reader as weU.
: reading to learn
If we are authenticdly striving k r the growth of rhizornatics in literary exchange, or plugging into the
utopian forces, there is a cag for the reader's heightened, expended awareness, ability to listen. The reader
spreads her paHdes over vast expanses of various taxture and temperature, [^isavacuumsucldnginthe
sunoundngs, filtering them into the words on each page and sendng them out again.
Yicumayrearfinawide varfefyr^locafkvis, snabarxforierfrëqpfayboofhmahfgh-frafMcareaefafarge
unwers^youareaforefgnerfD, (xthe arnxAarrm a (x^be shop you flerprenf every MWiesrfay, eacfiw#
As own parfkuiar sensory influences on the
you engagea# the (axt SomerfaysyoubeoomeachiW,
orashaman, AscfnaWaffffreijrMBrencecrBaWeachdayoneacfipage.

All things must be considered, the reader should not ignore the extant to wfWdi (sjhe mixes with the words,
sentences, and traces of the author. What is he(rj commitment to what (sjhe reads? Is it entertainment, a

104

cornpelling force, a source to Armel into an assigned project? Not to judge the intentions bëiind the reader in
terms of creating a scale of the most to the least valuable, noWe or valid engagements, but to question the
forces that are acting rfonhajrj as Mho reeds. And to question vi^iatlmmecWe activities are being engaged.
Is (sgre writing in the margins, imdertirvng or circling words and phrases aid so altering the visual stËus of
the orignal product? Hew is [sjhe positioned? Is [sjhe didracted by he[rj surroundngs? By h^rj-self? He[r]
worries? Hejrjwtite socks showing at the ankles? Is [sjhe eating? Drinking coffee? Mxing experiences?
TfWnkingabouthimger? WHhwh^speed,urgenry,orpaAanceoutofadesiratoprolongtheaiiperienoeis
[sjhereedng? Is [sjhe excited by Ae work? StnjggBng to catch on to Ae style of the writer? Experiencing
pan(p of Inadequacy? What Is stopping he(rj, or aklnghe(rj in beooming-toward the wrtter?
: reading agalnet dehnehrenew
GHIes Deieuze continues to be positively expkrrad by FensnistTheor^ such as EKzabeth Grosz,
OorotheaOlkowski.mdClairBColebrookalongwithagrowingcotnrnunityofacadernicplayerB. However,as
discussed In STOP 4, Deleuze has met with severe dbapproval and defensivanesswithh feminist dacourse
beceuseof his simultaneous dsregard for and supersedng of the core of feminist dacourse—identity
politics—that is, sdcjectivity, identity smd the personal. Bid what is under threË? The 'safe' boundaries of
legitimate, poHticalliHxmect feminist considsralions? The continual work on famNarbatliee, the stuffkigfuHer
of the same spaces? Much of how Deleuze and the surroundng dacourse are discussing, is alreedy in line
with feminist desire, but furthennore have the potential to make Irrelevant the structural strongholds that keep
usfromworkingthatdesire, the point hare being, it is alwsys in the intarest of the reader to make use of what
[sjhecan. TextthatprDvokesarBaderresponse,wh^herthatbegoedngareactivBrellax,orm6piringa
joyful coHaboralion, Is rich with useable resources. To this my reader might reply, Is this not selective
reedng?" To that I would answer, abeokttaly, butonlylfyou, theonereedngselectivsly, understand that
academicutopiacperatasonacompiexnetworkofrespectandopenendedress.' Tobemorespecific,the
readerdoe6notread8same6msofself-afflrmation,orwithaiticedint8ntions. [Sjhereadsinanefforttoavoid
reduction, and with hopes of axtendng the taxi, and thus sfRmmng the labor of the writar. The utopian reader
will be dawn, however, to particdaty experimental texts, md thw, is likely to be interacting with a writer who
wouldencouragesuchuseof the text, In a way permitting the reader to take with he(rj what [sjhe wM, In

105

mfemno8(o4 TTMUsm/AWBaus, DeleiEe encourages his naader to "happily pass over what fhey don't
under^anf(N07). ItisasortlrusteeshpoperatmgonlheacadaMcgoldenrule. Fiumarawrites:
ThefÉNIiMjetowadlistenmgimpliesabasictîust-almostahope. Theasamplionlhatwecai
appmach the optimal use of even the most rudônerdaiy communications md that them is a desire to
rsprasentandexpressoneselfisdeeplyinteniKovenwiththistiusl Atiustthatowinleiloculuormay
convey what is y^unknowm, imexpected or even what may actudly be necessary tor our own
constant renovation. (162)

And it tbilows, that as the reader tnEmstorms the aftecWty of the tend, (sp* must t * expect to tie changed also
(165).

Becaise it's not enouÿi simply to say concepts possess movement;
you also have to constnict intaUectually mobile concepts.
,W as Ifs not enough to make moving shadows on the waN,
you have to construct images that can move by themselves.
-Qlles Deleuze from Negotiadons'
______________________________________________________________ STOP 8: CONCLUSION

point:
Ybu have submerged yourselfm an amorphous mess of ufpplan fhoughf-acfrvfde^ conmecdng Aagmerds, w#ng,
cra^ng extensions, IngesdngfnAvmadonanddbfrAuflhgffassom^ngAkefhoi^hffntovariowsprlesofooBecdons.
Ybu know that evenfuaOy; Ihislalqmnfh must he Nedm(Ddeifnable#epockets,placedInapartkularordm;
comprornlsedlbrfhepurposec^adeguateevfic^on. 77ilslsnofoniÿacontpron«se,huf8lsoagtarmgoonhadlcfion
that despite clever setfeAcrngrefefenoe, and elahorafrdn on the productfvify of Wture, gives rise to douht and
kirstratlon. TTielbrBmostmanhbstationofthlsstrugglefstheooncluslon. Regardlessofwhafwordsyouputthere,
whateverftppearsonthelastpagewrHhehycufturallaw,theendhytlscfofsrrnplephyBlcaioon^litudon. Butthrs
oordradictk)nh8sheenwfthyoutheentûBtirne;rflspredsefywhafgaveyouthesensethafsomethrhgwas, mtisct
happening TheshametWcontradKtlonwouldheffyourBduoedrtat^krallyouhaveleamedanddetemWalizBd,to
amatteryourownsuooessortlwlure,rntennsofyourlevefofachlevBment ^oonduslonls^aqM oe,agiR you
rrnpart to the reader hetbre your rntereectihg lines continue on thek' w^.
The battle between potendai end acfuakzatlon Is ongoing «xfdeo^otrvefyrnveroeptihle.
phrot:

:eddyorwhMpoolofthought
In a trtute to love, Mfe, creativity, production, innovation, growth aid movement, I have dscussed,
from various angles and intansities, a few of the p h y ^ , conceptual, psychological, poWtical, Hngdstic, aid
academic confines beyond which the utopian writer must struggle to extend he(r)thought-activity. And not
unlike Nicholas Royle's struggle to escape the compicmkG of writing an 'introductory text" on Jacques
Denida, or Deleuze and Fame's rejection of the the interview,' I have faced the ta * of wrtting a thesis on a

^ Ibid., 122

106

subject quite oqxxedb ils tadlkmal'struchm. inolherwoitk, wNIe imparting exairples of wilem, who
through their clever aggravation of dcmnant systems, have given movement to the templates and techniques
of Wteraiy and philosophic^ thouÿrt-eKpression, I have floundeied in precisely the convention and
conveniancethatlsobrazenlyreproach. lfi8vemadeeMdrtstot)ypassmycrime,t)ymean8(^ai
intadisciplinary approach, a respect for my Ihought-henelidaries, with the intention of extending, inspiring,
and Invigorabrig a oorrtination of dying arguments, and aHwith a conscious aAsmpt to accept faWuie and a
profound trust in Ihe reader; however, the manifestation is largely description ahorrt lhat is, along the lines of
the paiWic and secondary, academic work (as according to Teresa Brennan and Denida's oonstWve
writing^, ' as opposed to writing ecëvefy w#, or as art exarqpk of: However, it must t * said that there is the
potential for movement and inHuence in the Normative approach, and as i wlii dscuss in a moment, that
sdthough the sifposadlimitalions of a thesis structure are largely self-imposed, these imagined boundaries
ae part, as we have cbcussed, of a very real arxi complex imbeddng of academic normalcy md the t#rders
of general common sense.
The pointed this conclusion is that the conclusion,' to my imder^anding. Is the most painful part of
thisprqjed Ih8vereachedwhatlcall'thecrls»dtheconclu8ion,'apraee)iposureofhowfarmyideashave
exoeededmyabKty. Resrdtantly,lhavet)eenslrucl(wlththefearandshameofacademicsafBtyand
acceptance. Thus, I acknit that the corxdusion Is a persisting organ to eWch I must exaggerate attention. Not,
however, tfwouÿr a sBghtly removed dscussion of how other writars and pNioeophers have responded to the
problem, txjt ma dhectlnteraction between you and I m hopes ttWa humble eelf-exposure and rWerenoe to
the evils of the problem at hmd will—despitB an impending failure to escape or produce at an adequate
level—wIN at the very least have the problem vented by myself, the writer, aid ejgwsed to you, the reader.
The conclusion,' when adhering to the precise conceptualizations and manifestationB of its
academichlstory,fdnnsaneddyorwh#tpoolofthoughl ItisadernonofrornanticizBdcircleiunningthat
leads to exhaustion aid certain stagnation; It lies in wait the whole time, even at the'dose'of a project (this
project) which writes toward and abord beooming-away from the seduction of such habits. The conclusion,'
by colloquial designaëon, signlAee a result or outcome of an act or process, a dosing, end, orfWsh. It elicits
afindjudgmerd,decision,s^tiementordeduction. Initsrno6tl8wfdkrm,thecondudoni8(fer7vedfromthe

' See Page 7.

107

8tm(AuT%of logic: thetanduskmpmsentsapmposiliœ

axjnrnorpmmises

inasylloÿsm. Ho#eiver,piBsentconWconsid8rad,aconclusioniS8sund8sirabl8asitl8impo6^]le,88
wallasafabnca&ininanafMforlheasajmadpeacaofamvaL Howavar, IhasameaslheconvKitionEd
utopian biuopnnt, a logical conduaon memly leads to the umeceesary and dsappolNing stunting of an
otherwise invigoiatingty unknown and potaibal-full (utim
But although we may recogmzB, hopefuBy at this point, that a conclusion is neither required to make
changenorasignlhatchangehasoocuned,th8reisanurgencycompdingwlthtlTisrecognition. Itisthe
oontradkzlion t)#ween being condMoned to crave doase, complelion, sadsbction (cdmax aid resoWon), or
at the very least, to feel msatislied in the absence of these pieces of the formula, aidbecoming-towardthe
utopian who, acting in positive desire rather than longing with negative desire, has begun to understand
completion as the crashing of the wave (s]he has been rkfng up on the banen beach. However, lhistug-of4aa
in which the conclusion plays the flag, until tNs point, has merely roWedwith the momentum of the prqect,
perhaps because being in the midst, the reader and the writer have sustained a mild sensation of pending
fuMKment,whBel, the writer, have had no Menfion of following through. The answers were easily defened
becmjsetherewastimekrfuliaimenl However,asthisconch«ionhasustol&igtoadop,itnowb8comes
deartoyou, thereader, thatfuHMmerdwHlnotbeachleved. I refuse.
A dedbarate reduction would be beUtdlng to myself, the work of those from whkh this Project has
been inspired and wodd be to underestimate the complexity of the reader. Thus, I am not going to tdl you
whattoleavewrth.howtosumitup. Idonothopetoprovldeacondensedverslonofwhathasbeenrelayed
herejustsothatsomeonecaireadonlythlsandcatchthe'keyideas'oflhisproiecl lhavealreadydonethis
in the abstract, before it aB began. But that was dessert before supper, rather than a "doggy bag's* the end of
themed. I will not send you home with a cute BtUecardboard carton to stink ip you" car, rot in your
relrigeralor «id encourage a late niÿit television-watching binge of cold Idtoverstha* have sdtled in roomtemperatureWsandoils. Butforwhatkindofreaderwouldthisbedesirable? Isaythecritic. Ifedobligded
to provide some form of conclusion to appease the anbdpEÉed critic... the ethered "person" whose severe
gaze I try to caeBtUe for—the andyticdmodemid, a combination of aHthe worst trdts of each professor,
writerandthinkerlhaveencounteredthusfar. lassumethiscritictodlrkutemyrefusdtocondudetoa
lazinessorthelackof dsdpBne required to condense my ideas, because it Is the crfBc who glorifies an

108

8)q)endtur@ofeneigyonsmma^ymxjdeduclion. Andtkis,whydolconc8mmy58lfth8cntic?Orpeitiaps,
morepaplexing is, why would W m tic would Ixihmading this pmjecl?CI@Kly a reader who dssims a
lra(#)n^ conclusioiiwoidd have despised Ihe pfojectaliWotTgitheraAxB, a couple of clever pages kidosmg
isunlikelykredaemtheotherlOO. So.asthiscondusioniscleadynotforlhatieader, IdonotapologizeAy
myapologelicchatler.evenifitistothatieaderlamspealdng. Hopefully,youhadthempatienoetoreadthis
W , and thus save yoimelf from the torment (Ethereal
Despite the W that my entire project urges such a reader to ease tp, to not take thmgs so aerrously,
it opens its arms to embrace each of its probable enemies, t)ec8use even someone on heMdeaWaed looks for
an opening, as the cliché goes: [s]he's at death's door Meaning this: this conclusion, regarded in
conventionfd terms, regardkss

the reader's position which may have been derived in the tenns of

convention, "Ws" in the same way as ulopia(nXism)dependmg on the approach to whkrh the reader is taking.
Anacadernicprpiectisconstructedwithabeginning,rniddb, and protTiised an end, an arrival, or closurB
suggestkrgagoal toward unity, it Is a blueprint of thought meant to offer answers or aitamatlve. Wehateit,
but unfdrtmately it is what h% been errployed by those b^ore us end has consequently been estabkhed in
ourcommonsense. TherËore,wrtNnaconÊextofresislanoetosuchlredtion,thecontent(^lhepaperhas
presipposed the conclusion to resist doeure, to propel the reader mto the future, P open Mselfrp to new
connections. And this marks an obvious potential of the conclusion. The conclusion is not NmrtedP
summary. Ralhar, it also providea an opportunity P plug the working Ideas into the wider world, senclng the
readeroffwithafreshlyopenedcanofworms. ltBthu6,aooncentiatadiocaleofirrt8nsity,br±blingwith
possWty; Using the conclusion—the ultimaP' anti-thesis of this tfiesis—P examine its own 'nature,' brings
the severity of the problem P a condensed bp; thus conveying Pa sense, the failure of this project, a
necessary revelation for the producbvity-extension of the reader.
However, we aeplacPgPr too much importance on the conclusion, one section, while it ought not
Pbeanymorerelevantthananyotherparl Because,aMhou^aphysicaltlushingofsigrslicaicefevelsis
improbabPatthisbme,wemustatleastatletTptPlayitflatconceptudly. EachsecbonismeantPsudan
itself, propel Prward, P be oomplePfb every momenl By means of blatant explanation, this Is nota tiPe:
fake Pe cap 0^ and slarf 8rpreez% on (fiaf end, yorr know; aorfofpusA the corrtanlB along really pa@enf Re P the
open end, and ffpsPfiKWcome orrf over Perd". Rather, this is a sponge: take APhanrtarpeezeff&ecraq^wfP

109

Ms raason alone, Ihe paranoid, heightened response k)8om#iing that is altogelherinsignMicaTt in üÿitofits
sunomdmgaclMly makes the concksionadmgeious and heady vaste of energy.
Why, then, include a conclusion ^ dl?
The question harkens back to a concept brought to my consciousness in mimdergraduak social
psychology cowse: although first impressions hold signiticance. ..it is the last (or mmerscenQ encounter with
apersonwhkAwearemostinfluMiced. lnasimWarway,theclo6ingofabook,anessay—itsinevitableend—
at the very least physic^, which Is in close proximity conceptua*y,accoidng to the experience of Ae
reader, has an inevitably strong impad That is, despite a conceptual refusal on the pat of the writer,
whGÉBvertextisplacedinthefinalpagesofthebookoressayactœtheend. Hence,fdthoughlm8yrBfuseto
teWyou with what to leGMe, how it aHfits together, to what it coidd connect, aid to either recount or condense
what has previously transpired, wWever I position at the end, wHIsitslitiAe as the answers I rsAaed to
fabricate. IcanorWyhopethereaderwiHnotreadwithsuchslnctlinaarityorclimactkexpectation.
My repugnance, my failed anti-conclusion, has been predkAeble since the begirmng, to the point of
bemghumorous. AocorAigly,tfssoondusionissothickwHhtheemptycaloriesofwadedwords,littered
withlaAabout; talk abor/f the terrtb conclusion, as though exposing the inadequacy of such a concept hœ
freedmeofmyacadenscresponsbility. So,thenanlprq|ectingtheresponsibilityoftheconclusionorTtothe
reader? Absolutely,'gosEdisfyyourselfl" But perhaps the provision of a tanMe conclusion Is an adequate
example, because all the while defeated, I glow with the joys of corAadktion: I have indeed reacheda
condusionlhatthereoughtnotbeaoonckjsion. Furthermore,lknowitdoesnotendhere,becauselhave
already moved on...I have long since plunged Into fcdon, and It has grown like an independent lint) from the
skin of this creature. Therefore, although my tracks rnay be here, I cannot be found.
Bd I refuse to have the last word. And as sWenoeor refusal can be an act, so can I ad in my refusal.
TI%K, Bartlebyw* apeak for me, saying, Iworjdprdar not to."

110

(A

el

r l l l l

Hr
a
a

2.

77)eb<x*Ase^âm8(kmac(%s8Ak/iKfbyme«Kofphys(cafpfqpef(ym8nqwfaëon. TTiebfMngœsë^and
fMavyasAoughWpegesamnBSfsWbkawonafx^bef^onfy&r&fOm/nuks. AndAecoverimage
beam
degree ofembamKsfngckbéWwwWbaw your WarDund^gfyoneAsWonabÿ
UfAsWonabk wwe Mrakbfmg. Ad AeyYenof/^MnoNf.jMcauae you bave become eAbdWy dWMS&fy
bansparW -b(bepobdofW sA%, Ybuopentsu^fked^efgWypuWE gupefWyenboeitaeosWy
arouseft by/k#gËMc&)n8gam8fyourgrab;..^qpporW(yAras8ndB)g(^<be80(dl

AbbievIabdTNIe*:
AO = AnB-Oecfpue: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
ATP = A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
D&R = Différence and Repetition.
NO = Negotiations.
WIP? = What Is Philosophy?
: see Glllee Deleuze, or Deleuze and GuaUarl In Works Cited
Dll = Dialogues II
: see GWes Deleuze and Claire Pamet In Works CNed.
AFO = ArcMtecture from the Outside.
: see Elizabeth Grosz In Works Cited.
CPU = Contemporary Feminist Utopianism.
UB = Utopian Bodes and the Politics of Træsgession.
: see Lucy Sarglsson In Works Sited

112

B ^ . Solve;. According (o Ae Lew. FourAcoounk (^Mankind. (1993) Trans. Barbara Havalæd.
London: Hatville PnMs, 1996.
Bajgh,Bnroe. 'HowDeleuzBcanhelpusmak8U1atahfB*oik.''BuchananaKlMarl(s34-66.
Benhabb, Seyla. S&radng Ae S # Gender; Crxrrnrunify andfWnodem Oonfenvrorary EAks.
New York RouUedge, 1992.
Bloch, Emsl TTrel/kVNanFuncdonofArfandLrkrafure. SeieckdEsa^. Trans. JackZIpesand
Frank Meddenburg. Cantridge: MIT Prass, 1988.
BraidoU, Rod. Towards New Nomadwrn: FeminW Deleuzian Tracks; or, Mebphysks and MebtoBsm."
Gabs O^euze and AeTTieaba of PMoaqpfy. Eds. ConsbnUn Boundas and Dorlhea Olkowskl.
New York: RouOedge, 1994. 157-186.
Buchanan, Ian. Oefeuzkm. AMeboonrnrenbry. Durham: Duke UP, 2000.
Buchanan, Ian and Cbke Colebrook. Eds. Dekrrze and Feminist TTieory. Edbbutgh: EdMwgh UP, 2000.
Buchanan, Ian and John Marks eds. Deleuze and Ubrafura. Ednburgh: Edmburgh UP, 2000.
Burwell, Jennifer. Nobs on Nowhere. Feminism, Utopian Logb and Sociai Transbrmadon.
Untversl^ofl^wiesob Press, 1997.
Carson, Anne. Aubbdgn^y of Red. A Nowei in Vbrae. Toronb: Vinbge Canada, 1999.
— . ifnoflWnbr: AagmenbofSqppho. Toronto: \Anbge Canada, 2003.
—. The Beaufy of (he Husband; A FkdonaiEss^ in 29 Tangos. Toronto: Vinbge Carada, 2002.
Carbr, Angela. Nighb a( (he Qrcus. (1984) London: VWage 1994.
—. The PassionofNewEve. London: Virago Press, 1982.
Cixous, Hélène. The Laugh of Medusa." New French Feminisms. An Ardhobgy. (1975)
Trans. Keith Cohen and Paub Cohen. Eds. Elane Marks and IsabsHe de Courtivron.
New York Schocken Books, 24&64.
Colebrook, Clame. "A Gramma of Becoming: SIrabgy, Subjectivism, and Style.'
Becomings. Bpbrabonsm Trme, Memory andFufuras. Ed. BbbbsbGrosz.
Ithaca: ComeO UP, 1999. 117-140.
— . "Is Sexual Difbrence a Problem?" Deleuze and Feminisf Theory. Eds. Ian Buchanan and Claire Colebrook.
Ednburgh: Bdkburgh UP, 2000. 110-127.
Conley, Tom. T and My Deleuze." Debuze and Ubrzdure. Ed. Ian Buchanan and John Marks.
Ednburgh: Ednburgh UP, 2000. 263^282.

Conley, Verna. "Becomlng-Wdman Now." Debuze and Fen^dsf Theory. Eds. Ian Buchanan and Clare
Colebrook.
Ednburgh: Ednburgh UP, 2000. 18-37.
Deleuze, GNes and FéBxGuËlari. AntFOedjpusrCrpNahmandSchizophnMia 1977.
Univarsity of Mbnssob Press: MbnsepoBs, 1998.

113

— .AT??ousandPW98us.Cqp/MMnWSchKqpfiwnfa. Trms.BrianMassumi.
Mirmaepolis: Univwsity of MinnescAa Press, 1987.
—. M W is AWbsopfyPTrans. H. TorrdinsonandG. ButrcW. European ParspecdvasBar.
Ne* York Coluntia UP, 1994.
DekuzB, GNes and Claire Pamal OfabguesH. Trans. 1987. H. Tomkrsonand
B. Habberjam. New York Columbia UP, 2002
Deleuze,G@es,andMkh8lFducaidt 'InlelleclualsandPcwer.' OeserffsfandkarKlOAerTiaxb, 1953-f974.
David
Lapo(#deEd., Trans. Michael Taormina. SerrrioW(e) Foreign Agerds Series. London: MIT Press, Z)04.
Deleuze, GHIes. OAkrenoe andRepeMbrr. Trans. Paul PaAon. Ne* York Colurrtia UP, 1994.
—. "Barteby: or. The Formula.' Essays Cribcal and CHnlcal. Trans. D. Smith and M.A Greco.
London: Verso, 1998. 6&80.
—. Negodaffons.' f972-Y990. (1990) Trans. Martn Joughin. Ne* York Colimbia UP, 1995.
— . "He StuAsred." GrMas Debuze and the TTreatre of Asbsophy. Ed. ConsWm
Boundas and Dorthea Olko*sld ed. Ne* York RouOedge, 1994. 23-29.
— .TjWrature and Life.' Essays(>ttK8landabbalTrans.DenlslW. SrnNhandM.AGreoo.
London: Verso, 1998.1-6.
Derrida, Jacques. "LhHng On."Trans, .lames Hubert OeconsfrucfbnandCrftbisrrr. B i Harold Bloom etal.,
Ne* York Seabury Press, 1979. 75-176.
Bohler, Margrit, JuneLarWnarxiShelbNeysrTrilhed. FerrAdsfUbpias. Re-WsbrmngOurfiAaasL
Toronto: Inanna Publierions, 2002
Felsid, Rita. OorngTTme.ferrdnrstTTreoryandAosfmodemCultwe. Ne* York Ne* York UP, 2000.
Fiumara, Gemma C., TTie OlherSberVLanguage. A PMosrvfyofUstenfng. Trans. Charles Larrtsrt Ne* York
London, 1990.
Free*»), Carl. "Scienoe FbOon aid Utopia: A Historko-PhHosophical Overvie*' Pamnda. 72-97.
Grosz, Bizabeth. Archdechfe From the Outside. Essays on M rW and Real Space.
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002. WMtngAnMectureSertes-APncÿecttylhe
Anyone Corporatbn.
— . ad. Beoombgs. ErgToratbrisIn 77me, ILbmory, and Futures. Ithaca: ComeU UP, 1999.
—. 'DeleiEe'sBergsomfXrration,theVirtualandaPoWticsoftheFutaB.'DebuzeandFembbt7heory. Eds.
Ian Buchanan and Claire Colebrook Edmburgh: Edbburgh UP, 2000. 214-234.
— . VPIatrb Bodies. Toward a Corporeal Fendnbm. IndbnapoBs: Indmna UP, 1994.
Grosz,EHzabTh. InterviewlistedonlinebyRobertAusch,RandalDoaneandLauraPerezofthe
FoundOt^AedtorirooHeclive. FdllowmgapresetitationattheCityUniversilyofNewYork
Graduate School. DreunBsted. htlpV/*eb.gc.cimy.edubsct*/found_obieclltexlfyosz.htm
Ha*thom, Jeremy. A Goncbe Glossary of Contemporary Lrterary TTieory. 2«'Ed. London: Arnold, 1994.

114

Hodgins, Jadt. ^PassfonAirAfafn^ve.

Ingaray, Luce. An EWcs of Sexual OfArwice. 1984. Trans. C. Burke and G. Gill.
Ilhaca: Cornell UP, 1993.
—. llowfoYbu SfrekAlbraFeWywrArrrMskiry. Trans. A.Marin. NewYorkRouUedge, 1993.
—. TTrrs Sex

rs Nof Or*. Trms. C. Porter. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985.

Iiigaray, LuoeandSylvÈreLotringereds. IVhyO#fBnt?ACuAurBofTMfoSutyedB. lr7brv*wi5ii#LuceIrrgaray.
Trans. C. CcKns. SemiobKt(e) Foreign Agents Ser. New York Semiotaxt(e), 2000.
Jameson, FredMc. I f lAndone good city I wMspare the man": Realism and Utopia in
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy.' Parhnder 208-232.
Jennings, Chris. "On:] Though^ BarWool" Hypatia 17.3 (2002): 108-110.
Johnson, Greg. "The situated self and utopian thWdng.' HyprAi 17.3 (2002): 2044.
Kitch, SaHy. feminist Future Thought The Dangers of Utopia." Bchler 51-65
KItch,Sally. HigherGrDund.FrQmUtqpfarrrsmtDRea@smrrrAr??er7canFernrrW7??oughfand
Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1997.
Klein, Gérard. "From the Images of Science to Science Fkdion.' Parrinder 119-126.
Krarser, Lawrence. Lemon. New York: Me Sweeney's Books, 2000.
Kristeva.Juiia. "Women's Time." The Kristeva Reader. TorilMoied. New York Columbia UP,
1986. 187-213.
Lingis, A%]honso. "Innocence." Becomings. Erpkn^ions in Trme, Memory, and Futraes.
Ed. Ekzabelh Grosz. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999.201-216.
— ."Murmurs of Life-With Alphonso Lingis." Hqpe. New Philbeophieskr Change. Ed. Mary Zoumazi. London:
RouUedge, 2002. 210-242.
Lorraine, Tamsin. %arzy and Deiewze. Bpertments in Vhoerai Phikeqpiy. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999.
Massumi, Brian. "NavigaGng Moments." Hqpe." New Phüosophiee k r Change. Ed. Mary Zoumazi.
London: RouOedge, 2002. 210-242.
McNeilly, Kevin. "Gifts and Questions: An Interview with Anne Carson." Canedtmr
LAerafure 176 Spring 2003:12-25.
More, Thomas. Utqpia. 1917. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. TheKWto Power. Trans. Walter Kaufman and R.J. Hollingdale. Ed. Walter Kaufman.
New York Vintage Books, 1967.
—. Thus Qooke Zarathrrsfra. (1961) Trans. R.J Hollingdale. Toronto: Penguin Books, 2003.
O&owski, Dorothea. "Nietzsche's Dice Throw: "Tragedy, Nihilism, and the Body without Organs."
GiWes Oeierrze and the Theater (^Philosophy. Eds. Constantin Boundas, Dorothea Olkcwski. London:
RouOedge, 1994. 199-140

115

Pamnder, PaAick, ed. Learning (hamOAer Wodds. Esfmngement Cogni&y? and (he R #cs
of Science. Duham: Duke UP, 2001.
Perec, Geoige. Sipecies of Sipaoes and (XherQaaces. (1974) Tnane. Jdm Stunock. London: Penguin Books,
1997.
—. Things." A Sfory of (he 8ix(ies. Trans. David Bellos. London: Collins Havill, 1990.
—. Mil" Or (he Memory (fChddhood (Mf on ie souvenir d"enAnce, 1975.
Rae, Ian. "Dazzling Hybnds: The Poaby of Anne Carson." CanadboLAerafure.
166(2000): 1741.
Racfÿnan, John. "Diagram and Diagnosis." Becomings. Expkrafions in Time, Memory, and Aduras.
B i Eizabefh Grosz. Ilhaca: Cornell UP, 1999. 42-64.
Royle, Nicholas. Jacques Oenide. RouUedge CnUcal Thinkers Series. RouUedge: London, 2003.
Sargisson, Lucy. CordenyoraryfierrdnisfUkpianism. London: Rodledge, 1996.
— . U(qpianBodbsand(heAo#(ic8 of Transgression. London: RouUedge, 2000.
Shorris,Earl. "LeoSlraws,Geo(geBi«h,fmdlhePhilo6ophyofMa88DecepUon"Harpers
June 2004:65-71
Shukin,Nicole. "DeleuzBandFen*s8nis:lrivolunlaryRegiUalorBandAfleclivelnlsbilors."
Debuze and Feminisf Theory. Bh. Ian Buchanan and Oaira Colebrook. Binburgh:
BfnburghUP,2000. 144-155
Spinoza, Baruch. Bhics: Trea(i8eon(heBnenda(iQnof(heirdedec(andSebcbdLs(brs.
Trans. Samuel Shirley. Ed. Seymour Feldman. lndariapoU8:HackeUPiÉ)BshingComp:my,
1992.
Stoker, Bram. Dracub. Ed. Glennis Byron. Petarborough: Broackrie* Press, 1998.
WUUg, Monique. Les GubiibresL (1969) Trans. David Le Vay. London: David Own, 1971.
Zlzak, Sbvqj. The SulWKme OHÿecfofideoiogy. Phronesis Series eds. Ernest Ladau and Chanlal
Mouffe. London: Verso, 1989.
Zoumazi, Mary. ed. Hqpe. New Phiiosqphies ibr Change. London: RouUedge, 2002.

116

117