Clayton Crockett on Deleuze

I wanted to bring to the attention of readers a new book by AUFS affiliate, Clayton Crockett. As the title suggests, Deleuze Beyond Badiou presents an account of Deleuze’s philosophy by taking as its occasion Badiou’s polemical reading of Deleuze. The account that emerges will be very useful to many readers of Deleuze. Though I am not here offering anything like a proper review, I should say that I found particularly compelling the way that Crockett emphasized certain concepts or themes — most notably the interstice, the three syntheses of time, and the time-image.

These are important points to stress, and I would say that they are central concerns in my own work on and from Deleuze. It struck me that the reason for this may be the (commonly) felt need to respond to Badiou’s polemic. One could say that the demand that arises in this polemical conjucture is to articulate the manner in which Deleuze’s immanence is able to create new possibilities of existence (contrary to Badiou’s claim that Deleuze’s thought does not ultimately break with the order of the present). Crockett’s book is an important contribution to this articulation.

In addition to the development of the aforementioned concepts and themes, Crockett also proposes some alliances for Deleuze’s thought, most notably with the work of Malabou and Laclau. Other notable moves include a reading of Badiou as Kantian, a discussion of Difference and Repetition in terms of the “energetics of being,” and a fascinating (concluding) proposal for an economics inflected by Vodou.

4 thoughts on “Clayton Crockett on Deleuze

  1. Dan, thanks so much for reading the book and posting about it. The benefit of Badiou’s critique, as bad as it is, is that it helped focus on a counter-reading, and opened up a broader interpretation of Deleuze’s philosophy as a whole.

    I was wondering whether you saw any resonances with Ramey’s book. On the one hand, it’s a very different project, and the scientific reading of Difference and Repetition and Cinema 2 is less invested in recognizing and liberating a hermetic strain. On the other hand, at least with the stuff on Vodou at the end, which I think is relatively underdeveloped, there might be ways in which the time-image could connect up to more hermetic understandings.

  2. It’s an interesting question, about the relation between _Hermetic Deleuze_ and your book. I definitely think there’s a way in which your concluding chapter connects up with that tradition. One difference — though perhaps this is a difference-amidst-connection — is that your focus on economy, and particularly on finitude, the necessity of loss, tends to cut against the more infinitizing tendency of the hermetic tradition. Though of course i’m speaking extremely loosely here.

Comments are closed.