Deleuze contra Derrida

[Dan O`Hara]

Feel I must set right some inconsistencies in the recent 
Deleuze/Guattari debate, though I don`t want to be drawn into a 
slanging match on diffences of opinion between schools of thought 
(eg. "horrified by the extent" of D&G at the Warwick conference, et 
cetera. Suffice it to say, we like D&G here at Warwick.)

There appears to be a very basic misunderstanding of rhizome... MJ 
Armintor says "the conjunction `and` signified the constant branching 
out into new subjects... This idea is also in `Rhizome`" (Mille 
Plateaux). Well, "branching out" is precisely what a rhizome 
isn`t, even down to the way the actual root works. Heikki Raudaskoski 
says that the problem with talking about desire (and therefore 
rhizome) is that rhizomatic thought or language is "already 
contaminated by root-thinking": a nice irony, but I presume she means 
a basic Saussurean root-and-branch linguistic structure. Whilst this 
may be true, it`s not a very useful way of reading rhizome, and to 
turn to "frere Jacques" for help is a bit of a puzzler. D&G are 
hardly as "jouissant, free & easy hip hurray" as the master of the 
play-school of thought, are they? Derrida may reveal our dependence 
upon root-and-branch, but his own formalizations betray a far more 
worrying (and far trendier) obsession with Platonic absolutes. The  
trace, for example, as illusory effect of determinate meaning, 
suggests all language is mimicry of a possible world of this quality, 
which can only be described as an idealized Chomskyan root-and-branch 
linguistic structure of hidden variables (check `innate grammar`). I 
find this attempt to save us from irrational thought far more 
irrational (and delineated in a much less rigourous manner) than 
rhizome.
    If we adopt a Derridean reading of Pynchon to interpret the "a-
and" (which is how this debate started, I believe), we`ve got to take 
on board the semantic dynamic inherent in his notion of difference. 
What we end up with is an exponential tendency toward a 
transcendental signified, given that the Derridean conjunction is 
always disjunctively syllogistic, therefore always hierarchical and 
so always straining towards the thin end of the wedge of signifieds. 
Derrida is shaped like a skewed triangle. I`d remind you of Andrew 
Dinn`s comment that "Slothrop in paranoid mode starts assembling 
conjunctions"; if we read all those conjunctions through this 
Derridean prism, paranoia ceases to be paranoia and schizoid thought 
becomes a plane of metaphysical union. I`d suggest that what`s much 
"trendier" than D&G is undermining yourself a la Derrida, and it`s 
not difficult to do if, like Derrida, one insists on imposing rather 
prissy `formal` structures on a base of definitively wooly thinking.

One more point, to comfort those who are horrified at the terribly 
hip crowd of Deleuzians (and who perhaps feel a little left out?): 
take Frank Zappa`s words to heart - "To all the cute people in the 
world, maybe you`re beautiful, well, there`s more of us ugly 
motherfuckers than you, ha!"

Dan O`Hara