UDC: 101.1:316; 1(091)
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-4-110


viewing

POLITICS AND SUBJECTIVITY IN THE WORKS OF M. FOUCAULT AND G. DELEUZE: SERIES OF TRANSGRESSION AND RESONANCE

A. V. Drozdenko1, N. V. Zaitseva2, V. O. Sheleketa3
Samara State Technical University, Samara, Russia
1 e-mail: arseniidrozdenko@yandex.ru
2 e-mail: zajczeva.natalia2012@yandex.ru
3 e-mail: vladshelo@mail.ru

Abstract. In the history of philosophy, it is quite common to encounter stories related to the detailing of communicative interactions within the framework of specific-historical types of scientific community – national, regional, professional (ontology, theory of knowledge, etc.), etc., connected with the discussion of a particular philosophical theme or problem. These questions are actively discussed in the modern philosophical and methodological literature, within which the direction of cultural-historical analysis is dominant (T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, St. Toulmin). In this article, the authors turn to the micro-analysis of the communicational network of a specific scientific community, highlighting the line of creative interaction between two famous French thinkers of the XX century – Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. The methodology includes a comparative analysis of secondary sources, the identification of lines of convergence/divergence through the prism of transgression and resonance, and the interpretation of pervasive strategies (sadism/masochism) as images of philosophical approaches. The use of the image of perversion allows us to visualize the complex interplay between the ideas of Foucault and Deleuze, avoiding simplistic oppositions. For this purpose, critical studies devoted to various aspects of Foucault’s and Deleuze’s philosophical dialogue – political, ideological, philosophical, etc. – are attracted. As a result, it is established that the long-lasting creative dialogue between these authors is (1) a creative laboratory of exegetics, where each communicating subject develops the ideas of the other, adding new meanings, shades, and colours. (2) In the melting pot of philosophical discourse, one can trace the complexly structured movement of thought – the latter can be conceptualized in two interacting terms – convergence and divergence. In order to discuss this issue in an evidential way, the authors identify five basic themes around which the philosophical thought of Foucault and Deleuze moves, converging and diverging. These problematic points include the following: (1) the reliance on Nietzsche’s theoretical legacy, (2) the rejection of a teleological description of history, (3) a pronounced political activism, (4) a return to Stoic ideas, and, finally, (5) the concept of the event.

All these questions are considered in the article with the support of studies of modern foreign authors. In particular, the closeness of the methodological ideas of the philosophers in question to Kant’s critical framework is established. In Foucault’s work this attitude is realized in the concepts of archaeology of knowledge and genealogy of the subject, while in Deleuze’s work in the doctrine of abilities. Speaking of Nietzschean motifs in the work of these thinkers, the authors reveal the role of genealogical methodology in Foucault’s work and the peculiarity of Deleuze’s interpretation of empiricism. The attitude to the concept of ‘political’ is tested in the paper by means of the notion of ‘transversality’. As for the lines of divergence in the views of Foucault and Deleuze, they are connected (1) with different interpretations of history, (2) a significantly different understanding of the concepts of ‘pleasure’ and ‘desire’, (3) an opposite interpretation of modern society and the theme of resistance. Discussing the above issues, the authors come to the following conclusions: (1) for Deleuze, it is the history that has not happened that is of particular interest, whereas for Foucault it is the unknown history, (2) both interpretations of the concepts of ‘pleasure’ and ‘desire’ are essentially different approaches in the struggle to reorder the world, (3) the demarcation of the concepts of modern society is carried out by juxtaposing the concepts of ‘biopower’ (Foucault) and ‘control’ (Deleuze), and the theme of co-protestation is examined through the concepts of knowledge (Foucault) and desire (Deleuze) as organisers of power. Finally, through a comparison of sadistic (Foucault) and masochistic (Deleuze) strategies, the authors demonstrate differences in the integration of the place and role of reflexive procedures in the subversion of law. The novelty of the study lies in the interpretation of philosophical dialogue through perversive practices, which allows us to rethink the politics of subjectivity in poststructuralism.

Key words: G. Deleuze, M. Foucault, resonance, transgression, pleasure, desire, philosophical dialogue, thinking styles, philosophical influence.

Cite as: Drozdenko, A. V., Zaitseva, N. V., Sheleketa, V. O. (2025) [Politics and subjectivity in the works of M. Foucault and G. Deleuze: series of transgression and resonance]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 4, pp. 110–121. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-4-110.


References

  1. Deleuze, J. (2016) [Desire and Pleasure]. Maya 68-go ne bylo [May 68 Did Not Happen]. M.: Ad Marginem Press, pp. 31–47. (In Russ.).
  2. Deleuze, J. (1992) [Representation of Sacher-Masoch]. Venera v mekhakh L. von Sacher-Masoch [Venus in Furs L. von Sacher-Masoch]. M.: RIC «Culture», 380 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Doss, F. (2021) Zhil’ Deloz i Feliks Gvattari. Perekrostnaya biografiya [Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Cross Biography]. M.: Publishing House «Business» RANEPA, 672 p.
  4. Marquis de Sade (1992) Filosofiya v buduare [Philosophy in the Boudoir]. M.: Prominformo, 224 p.
  5. Miller, J. (2013) Strasti Mishelya Fuko [The Passions of Michel Foucault]. M.: Cabinet scientist, 528 p.
  6. Regev, Y. (2016) Nevozmozhnoye i sovpadeniye: O revolyutsionnoy situatsii v filosofii [The impossible and the coincidence: On the revolutionary situation in philosophy]. Perm: Gile Press, 146 p.
  7. Foucault, M. (2002) [Intellectuals and power]. Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannyye politicheskiye stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu [Intellectuals and power: Selected political articles, speeches and interviews]. Under the general editorship of V. P. Vizgin and B. M. Skuratov. M.: Praxis, pp. 66–81. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  8. Gilliam C. (2018) Vrais Amis: Reconsidering the Philosophical Relationship Between Foucault and Deleuze. Foucault studies. – Vol. 25. No. 2, pp. 191–212. (In Eng.).
  9. Gillson E. C. (2014) Ethics and the ontology of freedom: problematization and responsiveness in Foucault and Deleuze. Foucault Studies. – No. 17, pp. 76–98. (In Eng.).
  10. Grace W. (2014) Foucault and Deleuze: Making a Difference with Nietzsche. Foucault Studies. – No. 17, pp. 99–116. (In Eng.).
  11. Kaufman E. (2001) The Delirium of Praise. – Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 229 p.
  12. Koopman C. (2016) Critical Problematization in Foucault and Deleuze: The Force of Critique without Judgmen. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 352 p. (In Eng.).
  13. Lawlor L., Sholtz J. (2016) Speaking Out For Orhers: Philosophy’s Acrivity in Deleuze and Foucault (and Heidegger). In book: Between Deleuzeand Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 352 p.
  14. Morar N., Gracieuse M. (2016) Against the Incompatibility Thesis: A rather Different Reading of the Desire-Pleasure Problem. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 232–247. (In Eng.).
  15. Morar N., Nail T., Smith D. W. (2014) Foucault Studies Special Issue: Foucault and Deleuze. Foucault Studies. – No. 17, pp. 4–10. (In Eng.).
  16. Nail T. (2016) Biopower and Control. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 247–264. (In Eng.).
  17. Patton P. (2016) Deleuze and Foucault: Political Activism, History and Actuality. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 160–174. (In Eng.).
  18. Penfield C. (2014) Toward a Theory of Transversal Politics: Deleuze and Foucault’s Block of Becoming. Foucault Studies. – No. 17, pp. 134–172. (In Eng.).
  19. Sauvagnargues A., Feldman A. (2016) Becoming and History: Deleuze’s Reading of Foucault. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 174–200. (In Eng.).
  20. Smith D. W. (2016) Two Concepts of Resistance: Foucault and Deleuze. In book: Between Deleuze and Foucault. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 264–285. (In Eng.).