Deleuze's Concept of Micropolitics

To properly respond to the challenges we face, instead of just continuing the same old ways or running away from them, we need more than just theories about politics. We need a way of understanding and acting that can bring about real change. Deleuze and Guattari offer us one such way in their ideas about micropolitics and macropolitics.

 

In their book "A Thousand Plateaus," they talk about micropolitics as a way to understand the smaller, more detailed aspects of society and how they relate to each other. They see everything in the world, including social structures and individuals, as made up of lines or "segments." Understanding these lines helps us navigate the complexities of society, but it also helps us see where there are problems or dangers.

 

Micropolitics, then, involves three main things:

 Scrutinizing these lines and how they work in different areas of life.

Paying attention to the smaller, more subtle ways that change can happen, rather than just big, sweeping reforms.

Finding ways to intervene in society that are different from traditional politics, which often focus on big government actions like passing laws.

Micropolitics isn't just about what happens in traditional political arenas like voting or making laws. It can be applied to any part of life where there are power dynamics at play. To practice micropolitics, we might need to rethink how we approach problems and look for smaller, more nuanced ways to make a difference.

 

Deleuze and Guattari present a different way of understanding society and politics. They suggest that everything can be seen as made up of lines and segments. Instead of thinking in terms of traditional structures like trees, they propose a more interconnected model called "rhizomatic" segmentation. This means that society isn't just made up of big, structured systems (molar assemblages), but also of smaller, more fluid ones (molecular assemblages). These two forms of organization aren't simply about size; even though molecular aspects may seem small, they're just as important across the entire social field.

 

Their approach challenges traditional political thinking, which often focuses on clear-cut categories like class or gender. Instead, they suggest that within these categories, there are still many different perspectives and possibilities (masses) that aren't always accounted for.

 

By recognizing the complexity of these lines and segments, Deleuze and Guattari offer a more comprehensive way of understanding politics. They show us that politics isn't just about human interactions; it's woven into every aspect of society, including the natural world. This means that political interventions aren't limited to specific actions or outcomes, and politicians aren't just those in formal positions of power.

 

This perspective allows us to approach issues like multiculturalism, pollution, and gender violence in a more flexible and effective way. It acknowledges that there are always multiple ways of living and being, and that what seems impossible from one perspective might hold vital potential from another.

2

For instance, the late violinist Isaac Stern found optimism not in achieving perfection in his music, but in the constant challenge of creating something new each time he performed. This perpetual striving for improvement, even in the face of impossibility, is a powerful example of how a micropolitical perspective can inspire change and progress.

Deleuze and Guattari distinguish between two processes in society: molar and molecular. The molar process tends to create uniform spaces and inhibit resonance, while the molecular process fosters diverse spaces and encourages resonance. Micropolitical assemblages, associated with the molecular process, are characterized by flows and quantum movements rather than segmented lines.

 

Molar processes, such as those found in traditional institutions like families and religion, tend to impose rigid structures and hierarchies. They operate through central authorities and define predictable functions. This is akin to the macropolitical, which sets standards and norms, often without addressing underlying issues.

 

Changes within macropolitical systems, even significant ones like legal reforms, typically result in quantitative changes rather than qualitative shifts. For example, legalizing same-sex marriage may increase the number of married couples, but it doesn't fundamentally challenge the institution of marriage itself. In contrast, micropolitical interventions generate existential mutations—qualitative changes that incite heterogeneity and open up new possibilities.

 

Micropolitical processes allow for genuine experimentation and the emergence of novel solutions. Instead of predefined solutions being imposed from above, individuals can internally generate and direct their own projects based on their specific circumstances. Successful micropolitical outcomes aren't merely about being more true or less false but about being more interesting and transformative.

 

Micropolitics evokes a sense of possibility and potentiality, recognizing that things could be otherwise. It's about being realistic regarding the emergence of new forces and trusting in the unknown outcomes of our actions. While losses are inevitable, micropolitics suggests that intervening at the molecular level can mitigate the severity of these losses and enable new possibilities to emerge.

 

Ultimately, micropolitics offers a more adequate response to the complexities of the present, emphasizing disruptive potential and trust in emergent outcomes. It shifts the focus from predefined goals to the conditions that enable those goals, recognizing the value of qualitative shifts and the continual process of becoming.

 

Micropolitics, akin to Deleuze and Guattari's notion of philosophy, is about the forcefulness of events and our responsiveness to them. It's about recognizing that every response shapes the unfolding of events and expands our capacity for engagement. Micropolitics offers a counter-narrative to the seductive allure of one-size-fits-all solutions, advocating instead for a nuanced understanding of social dynamics and a commitment to embracing diverse perspectives.