A. Radman, (2014) “Sensibility is Ground Zero: On Inclusive Disjunction and Politics of Defatalization” in This Deleuzian Century: Art, Activism, Society, eds. R. Braidotti and R. Dolphijn, Leiden & Boston: Brill/Rodopi, pp. 57-86.

Students’ voices in schools have been historically associated with the chaos of the irrational, immature and irresponsible: to be quietened, curtailed and disciplined. This chaos has been “hidden” through the reinforcement of discursive habits and models of recognition (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994/2009, p. 216) that block, prohibit and invalidate students’ speech and affects. “‘New wave’ student voice” (Fielding, 2004a) has emerged in the past twenty years, framed by its proponents as a “radical collegiality” (Fielding, 1999) that might provide the conditions for “radical interruption[s] to the normal asymmetries inherent in school relations” (Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2015, p. 54). In student voice work, students are re-positioned to research issues surrounding teaching and learning. ‘Student voice’ encounters where students, as those “directly concerned” with the practices of schooling, “speak on their own behalf” (Deleuze, in Deleuze & Foucault, 1977, p. 209) in “collective elaborations” (Guattari, in Rolnik, 2004/ 2008, p. 9) might manifest new subjectivities, social relations and environment-worlds in the striated spaces of schooling. At the same time, ‘student voice’ is concept that “zigzags” and passes “through other problems or onto different planes” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994/2009, p. 18). ‘Student voice’ has proliferated in recent years in school improvement literature as a mechanism by which to increase engagement and school ‘effectiveness.’ In the movement of the concept of ‘student voice’ through the terrains of education, ‘student voice’ has been de- and re-territorialised by capital, sedimented into formations that encourage students to self-style their speech to become diplomatic and their subjectivities to become enterprising (Bragg, 2007; Foucault, 1991, 2007; Rose, 1999). However, these discursive critiques of student voice marginalise the affective, sensory and material movements of student voice work that exceed and escape molar relations of power. This paper maps discursive, affective and material currents as the concept of ‘student voice’ was animated in a low socioeconomic high school during a four-year period where ‘student voice’ was employed as a reform strategy. In processes of participatory schizoanalysis in the final year of the reform, the students and I formed and re-formed collective assemblages of enunciations to create concepts, produce art and analyse the (scientific) variables that constitute and re-constitute the “micropolitical vitalit[ies]” (Rolnik, 2004/ 2008, p. 9) of student voice work. The students’ and my collective theorisations are schizo-analytically intersected with flows of signs and machinic flows in social, political and economic machines beyond the school that shape how ‘voice’ is perceived, interpreted and evaluated. Artistic and philosophical collective assemblages of enunciation about ‘voice’ are juxtaposed with the school’s documented evaluation of the ‘effectiveness’ of the student voice work. It is argued that the molar lines that construct social faces and project specific forms of subjectivities of ‘student’ and ‘teacher’ might be (momentarily) suspended and redirected, even while smooth spaces will not suffice to save us (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/ 1987).

Unique focus on the relation between artistic research and the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze Aberrant Nuptials explores the diversity and richness of the interactions between artistic research and Deleuze studies. “Aberrant nuptials” is the expression Gilles Deleuze uses to refer to productive encounters between systems characterised by fundamental difference. More than imitation, representation, or reproduction, these encounters foster creative flows of energy, generating new material configurations and intensive experiences. Within different understandings of artistic research, the contributors to this book—architects, composers, film-makers, painters, performers, philosophers, sculptors, and writers—map current practices at the intersection between music, art, and philosophy, contributing to an expansion of horizons and methodologies. Written by established Deleuze scholars who have been working on interferences between art and philosophy, and by musicians and artists who have been reflecting Deleuzian and Post-Deleuzian discourses in their artworks, this volume reflects the current relevance of artistic research and Deleuze studies for the arts.

The present thesis sets out to follow three different problems in the metaphysics of Virginia Woolf’s late novel The Waves and contrast them with the theories of three thinkers – Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari and Jacques Derrida. First chapter discusses Woolf’s approach to subjectivity. It is shown that Deleuze’s and Guattari’s method establishing subjectivity as a by-product of a machinic assemblage is particularly fruitful in reading the characters in the first four chapters where their bodies and their “subjectivities” form in diverse ways. D&G comment on the waves of the lyrical passages as an abstract machine of which the character-assemblages are actualizations. They do not, however, comment on the territorialising function of sunlight which seems to be equally important and therefore needs to be analysed. This function corresponds with the ever growing oedipalisation of the characters which finds its summit in the exitus chapter and transforms a deterritorialised rhizome into a reterritorialized (or oedipalised) signifying system. The second chapter discusses how the functioning of the territorial machine of the sun reduces the rhizome into a centralised system whose centre can be understood through the prism of Derrida’s theory of structure as a play of supplementation. It posits Percival as this (non)centre of the signifying structure. The centre needs to be recognized as a supplementary sign that limits the infinite play of the structure. Percival’s status is confirmed in three different ways – he is a myth that cannot be the arché, he is a supplementary sign, and the transcendental illusion of his presence must be affirmed. Percival’s death induces different reactions in the three characters that narrate it. The reactions of Rhoda, Bernard and Neville are discussed along with Louis non-reaction. In Chapter III, the signs and the style of The Waves are analysed. A classification of signs devised by Deleuze is applied to the novel showing that all three basic types – worldly signs, signs of love, and sensuous signs can be found. In order to be able to explicate the fourth type, the signs of art, an apprenticeship has to be taken. Bernard undergoes this apprenticeship throughout the novel with more and less success but finishes it only in the last chapter. The signs of art are thought by Woolf perhaps in a slightly more radical way than Deleuze. Bernard’s final step, when the sun sets and the territorial machine stops working, is to take the line of flight towards deterritorialisation. He loses his self which enables him to see the world in its essence as absolute difference. This, however, only works because Bernard’s functioning as a character assemblage represents the production of the literary machine at the same time. He is therefore a part of the essence, the superior Viewpoint that provides different perspectives on objects. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the style of the novel and its relation to rhythm.

A. Radman, (2012) Gibsonism: Ecologies of Architecture, Doctorate Dissertation, Delft: TU Delft, ISBN 978-94-6186-024-8.

The paper in the first part attempts to discuss various views on madness and the depictions of insanity in the modernist literature. The second part takes upon itself the issue of madness in Proust's In Search of Lost Time. It can be considered as a schizoanalytic sketch.

A battle over the politics (and philosophy) of time is a major part of what is at stake in the differences between three competing currents of contemporary philosophy: analytic philosophy, post-structuralist philosophy, and phenomenological philosophy. Avowed or tacit philosophies of time define representatives of each of these groups and also guard against their potential interlocutors. However, by bringing the temporal differences between these philosophical trajectories to the fore, and showing both their methodological presuppositions and their ethico-political implications, this book begins a long overdue dialogue on their respective strengths and weaknesses. It argues that there are systemic temporal problems (chronopathologies) that afflict each, but especially the post-structuralist tradition (focusing on Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida and their prophetic future politics) and the analytic tradition (focusing on John Rawls and analytic methodology in general, particularly the tendency to oscillate between forms of atemporality and intuition-oriented “presentism”). What is required is a “middle-way” that does not treat the living-present and the pragmatic temporality associated with bodily coping as an epiphenomenon to be explained away as either a transcendental illusion (and as a reactive force that is ethically problematic), or as a subjective/psychological experience that is not ultimately real.