Theory and Accelerationism/Xenoeconomics II

This tendency within contemporary D&G theory appears to connect with the phenomenon of accelerationism in, as we have seen, its relentless accumulation of a maximum of alienated perspectives, interminably gorging itself on the empty calories of bygone and contemporaneous theories of art and politics divested of their material substance. Yet, as Alex points out, “the impasse of the end of history can only be properly surmounted by a final nihilistic overcoming of humanism”, and from an accellerationist point of view, D&G theory crucially fails to fulfill the ultimate potential of this interminable accumulation of negated husks of critical and cultural theories because it remains firmly rooted in a kind of warmed-over humanism. It proclaims, in thinly-veiled pseudo-humanist discourse, that D&G theory holds revolutionary potential for the future but in the main, never asks itself if that future might be one in which humanity itself is no longer necessary. (This is in keeping with Deleuze’s vitalist ontology which incorporates capitalism into a vision of the world which, as RB has persistently pointed out -and as I have attempted to show in earlier posts-, is predicated upon an anthropocentric prejudice and therefore cannot think the possibilities of capitalism’s cold inhumanity.)

So, the question for us is this: could D&G theory (or perhaps even all cultural theory) fore-go its claims to the amelioration of earthly conditions [of humanity], its bleating appeals to the affirmation of a radical futurity [by humanity], its empty rhetoric which claims to find in the most abstract and immaterial concepts and procedures radical, revolutionary potential [for humanity]? Could it, in effect, admit Land’s evacuation of “pseudo-biological vitalist ethology” (cited by K-punk) while at the same time continue to stoke the fire of its paper machines, and hawk its materially worthless wares at the same speed as at present? Is it always necessary that theory gesture to some minimal notion of the human, such that its delerious excesses must forever rotate around this, expanding outwards but always anchored to one spot? (Here, again is the problem of deterritorialisation chained to reterritorialisation, the difficulty in attaining what Noys terms a non-dialectical negativity.) Of course, the further accumulation of onanistic Deleuzoguattarian theory is abhorrent to us (imagine: every book on the shelf a Deleuzoguattarian abomination Deleuze and River Engineering, Deleuze and Samuel Butler, Deleuze and The Thundercats, Deleuze and Engine Calibration…), but one cannot deny that it’s a compelling if horrific vision which begs the question: what would happen next?

~ by schoolboyerrors on November 14, 2008.