Conceptual Cluster 4: The Theory Tool Box
Deleuze, as well as Foucault, departs from a relation between theory and practice, of both as productive creative powers. Concepts, creating theories should operate on a creative level and not as representations of a reality. ”In this sense theory doesn’t express, translate, or serve to apply practise: it is practise.” (p. 208) The non-representative approach, the capability to produce, makes theory to one productive force alongside other forces. Different material and non-material forces, ”practise” and ”theory”, ”, intermingle and intertwine into complex systems of ramifications that change direction, always in a flux, always in transformation. ”Practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practise to another (p. 206) and ”A system of relays within a larger sphere, within a multiplicity of parts that are both theoretical and practical.” (p. 206) The interaction of theory and practise should thus create difference and divergence rather than agreement: ”A theory does not totalize: it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself”.
Jane Rendell, emphasizes the transformative force between ”practise” and ”theory” set up by Deleuze. She seeks, through an interdisciplinary approach, to transform the classical binary power relations between theory and practise, influenced by critical theory’s reflective rather then objectifying character: ”I refuse to think of either term in the pair as dominant. ”Inspired by Deleuze’s creative linking between practise and theory however Rendell emphasizes the relation between the two as non symmetrical, ”…for the suggestion that theory needs practise to develop is not accompanied by its reversal.” Rendell thus doesn’t really apply (accept?) the radical potential of Deleuze proposal, in my reading of Deleuze and Rendell. I’m wondering if this is the point where, if Rendell’s approach could be described as interdisciplinary ”in interdisciplinarity individuals move between and across disciplines and in so doing questioning the ways in which they work” –while Deleuze’s approach, might rather be described as transdisciplinary?