ATP reading notes 7 – the constraints of the constants

Continuing with Chapter 4 and the third and fourth postulate of linguistics, I’m trying to find a position from which the ‘problem’ that chapter addresses can be understood. As I mentioned in the previous post, the chapter reads in large part as a criticism of linguistics, in a semi-polemical tone, and perhaps because of this its positive content is not always easy to pick out. There are, however, some key notions, such as the role of the order word (the mot d’ordre) and the idea that language operates as a constraint. Taking this as the opening move of the chapter enables us to suggest something like the following: if language is first a form of constraint and because of this is bound up with power and dominance, with policing, then what strategies must be developed to prevent the constraint from becoming restriction. Constraint and restriction are different things. One can be constrained by rules and in so doing participate freely in a game, without restrictions. Alternatively one can be restricted to a particular way of playing and blocked from innovations even if such innovation doesn’t break the rules but re-organises them. In terms of politics and subjectivity this takes on wider ethical and normative connotations. If language constrains and yet at the same time is intimately connected to the very possibility of subjectivity (being able to say ‘I’), then the claim might something like ‘within a dominating normative framework language forms a set of internalised chains’. In this context it is not ‘ideas’ that lock people up – not ‘ideology’ that maintains ‘hegemony’ – but rather the mode of the policing of language, what we might call the operation of the constraints of the constants.

Whilst the constraint of the constants might be a feature of linguistic practice the operation of such constraints is not but is rather one mode of understanding language. Here we perhaps begin to see the strategy of the chapter. D&G argue throughout Chapter 4 that another way of conceiving language is not only possible but necessary, both politically and theoretically. ‘Linguistics’ is the target of criticism via the four postulates ascribed to it because it fails to understand the constraints of the constants as themselves derived from continuous processes of variation that form the site of political selections. We can accept that language is a practice of constraint organised by the set of constants without falling into the trap of assuming that those constants are ‘natural’, innate or fixed. Chomsky is obviously and clearly one of the key targets of the polemic in the chapter and is the figure of the ‘major’ mode of understanding language in which the constraint of the constants is taken as a kind of fixed or stable feature of linguistic reality. Yet,

“You will never find a homogenous system that is not still or already affected by a regulated, continuous, immanent process of variation (why does Chomsky pretend not to understand this?). There are not, therefore, two kinds of language but two possible treatments of the same language. Either the variables are treated in such a way as to extract from them constants and constant relations or in such a way as to place them in continuous variation. … Constant is not opposed to variable; it is a treatment of the variable opposed to the other kind of treatment, or continuous variation. So-called obligatory rules correspond to the first kind of treatment, whereas optional rules concern the construction of a continuum of variation.” (ATP 103)

From this we find the following important implication being drawn:

“Moreover, there are a certain number of categories or distinctions that cannot be invoked, that are inapplicable and useless as a basis for objections [to the claim that language is a regulated, continuous, immanent process of variation] because they presuppose the first treatment and are entirely subordinated to the quest for constants: for example, language as opposed to speech; synchrony as opposed to diachrony; competence as opposed to performance; distinctive features as opposed to nondistinctive (or secondarily distinctive) features.” (ibid, emphasis and possible ‘object’ added)

These two different treatments of language are explicitly defined a few pages later as the ‘major’ and ‘minor’ modes of treating language (ATP 106) and the fact that these two modes exist is itself to be accounted for in turn by the order word as the “variable of enunciation that effectuates the condition of possibility of language and defines the usage of its elements according to one of the two treatments” (ibid). To try and state this less formally, what makes language possible are things called ‘order words’ that organise our ways of speaking and this organisation of our ways of speaking can be done in a ‘major’ mode or a ‘minor’ mode’. In the major mode restriction to a norm is the way of organising language whereas in the minor mode creation from a norm is the way of organising language. The major constrains to restrict, whereas the minor constrains to create. What is crucial here is that it is not the order word itself, it is not the constraints, that are the problematic feature, rather it is the operation of the constraints that matters. The ‘major’ or ‘minor’ here are not, then, quantifications but refer rather to major standards or norms and minor deviating practices. Importantly the deviating practices of the minor are identified as the location of autonomy. “Becoming-minoritarian as the universal figure of consciousness is called autonomy” (ATP 106). Becoming-minor, however, is never a fixed constant position, but always something that operates as a flight from ‘the standard’ (deterritorialisation) where ‘the standard’ is part of a process of variation.

After making this point with regard the order word there is a strange turn in the text that occupies the last three or four pages of the chapter. D&G make the odd statement that “the order word is a death sentence; it always implies a death sentence” (ATP 107). They go on to say that “death is the general incorporeal transformation attributed to all bodies from the standpoint of their forms and substances” (ATP 108). Earlier they argued – as I noted in the first post about this chapter – that the collective assemblage of enunciation organises or polices a set of incorporeal transformations. From this we might assume that different assemblages have varying sets of incorporeal transformations. The example given is of a judge sentencing a convict and maybe it’s possible to imagine a collective assemblage of enunciation that did not have this particular incorporeal transformation as an element in its set. With death, however, we seem to find an element that any set of incorporeal transformations must contain – “Death, death; it is the only judgement, and it is what makes judgement a system” (ATP 107). They continue “in effect, death is everywhere, as that ideal, uncrossable boundary separating bodies, their forms, and states, and as the condition, even initiatory, even symbolic, through which a subject must pass in order to change its form or state” (ibid).

In this ‘death’ then we find not simple expiration in the colloquial sense, mortality or termination, but something that seems instead closely connected to borders, thresholds, change, transition. The subject here is entwined in a kind of relationship to a ‘death sentence’, to a line it must obey if it is not to ‘die’. The ‘father’s orders to his son’ that they refer to contain within them the possible expulsion of the son from the relationship, the ‘death of the son’, even though this death may not involve the death of the material body that the attribute ‘son of…’ was ascribed to. Father to son: You’re dead to me. This example of a relationship problem, the fact that a relationship can break down in such a way that someone might say “you’re dead to me”, seems to be written into the very operation of language in so far as language is organised through collective assemblages of enunciation that operate on the basis of the capacity to exclude. It’s this capacity to expel the body that underpins the order word.

At the same time this inherent death sentence within the order word sits alongside the capacity to flee. So the order word contains both expulsion and escape, the former imposed like death and the latter taken up as autonomy. Escape is not simple autonomy however but seems intricately bound into a more complex process of creation, which is perhaps why it is possible to closely align it with autonomy. Escape must avoid ‘black holes’, veering off into some ‘imaginary’, they suggest (ATP 110) and they go on to offer an example from a Herzog film where he says “Who will answer this answer?”

“Actually, there is no question, answers are all one ever answers. To the answer already contained in a question (cross-examination, competition, plebisicite, etc) one should respond with questions from another answer. One should bring forth the order word of the order word. In the order word, life must answer the answer of death, not by fleeing, but by making flight act and create. There are pass-words beneath order-words. (Il y a des mots de passe sous les mots d’ordre). Words that pass, words that are components of passage, whereas order-words mark stoppages or organised, stratified compositions. A single thing or word undoubtedly has this twofold nature: it is necessary to extract one from the other – to transform the compositions of order into compositions of passage” (ATP 110)