There's a surprising gap in philosophical literature when it comes to exploring the connections between Gilles Deleuze's thought and the rich tradition of American pragmatism. Despite Deleuze's explicit references to pragmatism, particularly to William James and Charles Sanders Peirce, sustained book-length studies have been notably absent. This silence exists on both sides, with Deleuze scholars rarely focusing on pragmatism and pragmatists seldom dedicating detailed study to Deleuze, even though many engage with other contemporary French thinkers like Foucault and Derrida. This volume aims to help bridge that gap and open up a dialogue between Deleuze's philosophy and thinkers in the pragmatist tradition. The relationship between Deleuze and pragmatism is complex, involving both conceptual and historical threads. It's not about simply classifying Deleuze _as_ a pragmatist, which would be an oversimplification given the diversity within pragmatism itself. Instead, the project involves identifying where their ideas align and where they diverge, shedding light on both philosophies. Here are some key areas and figures explored when considering Deleuze and pragmatism: **1. Classical Pragmatists: James, Peirce, and Dewey** Deleuze made explicit, recurring references to William James throughout his career, from his earliest book, _Empiricism and Subjectivity_, to his final published text, "Immanence: A Life". The influence often seems to have been filtered through the work of Jean Wahl, particularly Wahl's study _Pluralist Philosophies_. Wahl's presentation of James resonated with Deleuze, highlighting themes like a pluralistic critique of Hegelian monism and the importance of difference. - **William James:** Deleuze appreciated James's conception of reality as an "archipelago," a "mosaic philosophy" or "philosophy of plural facts" – a world in process, like a wall of loose, uncemented stones, where elements have value in themselves and in relation to others. This aligns with Deleuze's principle of external relations. There appears to be a strong connection between Deleuze's ideas of "transcendental empiricism" and "pure immanence" and James's "radical empiricism" and "pure experience". Both seem committed to an impersonal, pre-individual field that is ontologically prior to determined objects and subjects, and both oppose atomistic empiricism and totalizing monism. For Deleuze, this "radical empiricism" suggests a "movable and moving ground, a field of radical experience". The idea of a "superior empiricism" can be explored by bringing together William James's radical empiricism and Henry James's radical perspectivism, leading to a new way of posing the transcendental field that apprehends difference directly in the sensible rather rather than representing it. One perspective, however, suggests that Deleuze misunderstood Jamesian pragmatism by equating it primarily with pluralism, borrowing from Bertrand Russell rather than James, and presenting a pluralism that doesn't fully align with the pragmatist method for clarifying ideas. James's thought, lacking a theory of "necessary deception," is seen by some as pursuing different goals than Deleuze's. - **Charles Sanders Peirce:** Deleuze engaged with Peirce, particularly in his _Cinema_ books, finding Peirce's theory of signs useful for conceptualizing images as introduced by Henri Bergson. Wahl's work also referenced Peirce, potentially introducing Deleuze to his probabilistic "tychism". Deleuze appreciated Peirce's "great semiological theory" and the analytic importance of the diagram as a nonrepresentative "possibility of fact". However, he was troubled by Peirce's ultimate reduction of the diagram to a "similitude of relations". In _A Thousand Plateaus_, Deleuze and Guattari define "pragmatics" using Peircean terminology (indexes, symbols, icons) but focus on the inadequacy of linguistic presuppositions. While Peirce used the diagram to trace "frequencies" and discern rules for understanding semiotic orders, seeking interpretive regularities, Deleuze and Guattari were more concerned with the "despotic or authoritarian modes of operation" that "fix ideas" and establish sign regimes. They view signification and interpretation as "semiotic capture" but also see potential "lines of escape". Their call to "Experiment, don't signify and interpret!" suggests a different aim for pragmatic thought, focused on disrupting established orders. They advocate for a diagram that constructs a "real that is yet to come," independent of fixed forms and substances, arguing that Peirce's approach isn't "abstract enough". - **John Dewey:** While Deleuze doesn't explicitly engage with Dewey, there's a historical connection via Bergson, who was aware of and interacted with both James and Dewey. Conceptual connections can be explored between Deleuze's thought and Dewey's, particularly regarding their understanding of "the event" as a dynamic, partly precarious, partly stable multiplicity. Both see "existence" as affective, nonfoundational, continuous, and creative, leading to similar approaches to philosophical method. Comparing Dewey's "democracy as a way of life" with Deleuze's concept of "willing the event" can shed light on the pragmatic implications of Deleuze's philosophy, linking his concepts to democratic principles and activist programs more explicit in Dewey. Both view "persons" as complex, relational entities, groundless yet capable of critical and creative thought enabling experimentation. **2. Overlapping Themes and Concepts** Several themes appear in both Deleuze's philosophy and pragmatist thought, providing fertile ground for comparison: - **Antirepresentationalism:** A significant overlap lies in their shared critique of representationalist approaches to thought, language, and knowledge. Both challenge the idea that knowledge is merely an accurate representation of an external reality. Deleuze, for instance, sought a revolution in thought akin to abstraction in modern art, moving away from identifying thinking with recognition and representation. - **Constructivism:** Related to antirepresentationalism is a focus on construction rather than mere discovery. Pragmatism often emphasizes the mind's active role in shaping experience and knowledge. Deleuze and Guattari's definition of philosophy as the creation of concepts also highlights a constructive aspect. - **Opposition to Dualisms:** Both traditions often reject traditional philosophical dichotomies, such as fact and value, mind and world, and subject and object. James's radical empiricism, for example, sought to overcome subject/object dualisms and the problem of the one and the many. - **The Concept of Habit:** Interestingly, both Peirce and Deleuze use the concept of habit (or passive syntheses in Deleuze) to account for the emergence of individuated identities. For Peirce, the function of thought is to produce habits of action, linking belief to practical rules. For Deleuze, organisms are sums of contractions, retentions, and expectations – passive syntheses that are inseparable from determinate realities. - **The Infinite and "Infinite Pragmatics":** One exploration suggests that both Peirce and Deleuze affirm the actual infinite, which is entailed in accounting for individuation through habits. Peirce affirms an infinite world as a continuum, while Deleuze affirms one teeming with non-extensive singularities. Deleuze and Guattari's definitions of philosophical concepts and chaos involve infinite speed, framing the infinite as central to individuation. This affirmation of the actual infinite, extending Peirce's project beyond Kantian limitations, is termed "infinite pragmatics". **3. New Pragmatisms and Deleuze** The dialogue extends to contemporary pragmatist thinkers: - **Richard Rorty:** The philosophical proximity of Deleuze and Rorty is a debated topic. While Rorty was critical of aspects of Deleuze's work, some argue for significant points of convergence. These include seeing Deleuze as a philosophical ironist in Rorty's sense, their shared antirepresentationalist approaches, and their view of philosophy having a pragmatic and political role in creating new vocabularies. Both see philosophy's value not in truth, but in usefulness (interesting, important), providing tools for particular human ends and enabling new forms of description for the future. They also share similar views on texts as assemblages or machines, not mere representations. However, differences remain, including Rorty's nominalism, Deleuze's view that signs are inseparable from non-linguistic elements, Deleuze's embrace of philosophical problems versus Rorty's debunking, and their differing views on the necessity of philosophy itself. - **Robert Brandom:** Comparing Deleuze with Brandom (and Rorty) highlights different approaches to antirepresentationalism and objectivity. Brandom seeks to rehabilitate objectivity within an antirepresentationalist framework, seeing it as a constraint imposed by discourse's perspectivalness, but his account lacks the idea of something "out of our control" constraining thought. It's argued that Deleuze's concept of "problematic Ideas" in _Difference and Repetition_ can complement Brandom's view by embedding inferentialism in a "thick, pragmatist account of experience" involving an involuntary apprenticeship or learning process that forces problem constitution. - **Subject Naturalism (Macarthur & Price):** Some explorations position Deleuze in relation to contemporary pragmatist naturalism, specifically "subject naturalism". While Deleuze critiques scientific reductionism ("capital N Naturalism") and aligns with a Spinozist view of humans as part of nature, his explicit metaphysics can be harder to reconcile with the "quietism on metaphysics" often found in subject naturalism. The idea of characterizing Deleuze as a "speculative subject naturalist pragmatist" suggests his attempt to account for the conditions of the "psychological states" or "dispositions" central to this pragmatist view, even if this is seen by some as too ontological or anthropological for philosophy proper. This framing can offer a "leaner," potentially more useful Deleuze for contemporary philosophical debates. - **Somaesthetics (Shusterman):** Despite apparent differences in style and focus (metaphysics vs. ordinary life), Deleuze and Richard Shusterman share a pragmatic concern with the body as a site of affective encounters and material practices. Deleuze's Spinozist question "What affects are you capable of?" or "what a body can do" highlights a pragmatic dimension rooted in Spinoza, offering a philosophical approach where the body and affects are central. While Deleuze's approach can be seen as a form of "transcendental pragmatism," questions remain about its practical nature compared to Shusterman's somaesthetics. However, exploring this link between Deleuze's rigorous concepts and Shusterman's practical concerns is seen as fruitful. **4. Philosophy's Nature and Method** The relationship between Deleuze and pragmatism can also be examined by comparing their views on the nature and method of philosophy itself. Dewey saw philosophy as a "criticism of criticisms" concerning goods or values. Deleuze and Guattari define philosophy as the art of creating concepts. While seemingly distinct, connections can be drawn between Dewey's notion of criticism and Deleuze's concept creation, particularly concerning imagination, creation, and opposition to commercialism. One way to pragmatically assess the relationship is to ask about the "use" of calling Deleuze a pragmatist. This isn't just about finding shared doctrines or topics. It's also about comparing their philosophical temperaments, attitudes, and visions. The "use" might lie in seeing Deleuze and pragmatists together as rejecting traditional metaphysical and epistemological stances. It might also be in using Deleuze's ideas to read pragmatists against themselves (e.g., highlighting cultural presuppositions in Dewey) or using pragmatist ideas to read Deleuze against himself (e.g., highlighting implicit commitments to experimental method or democratic politics). Ultimately, comparing their understanding of philosophy itself can reveal a shared attunement or vision. Deleuze's metaphilosophy presents potential challenges for some forms of pragmatism, particularly regarding the confluence of science, philosophy, and common sense. Deleuze argues forcefully that these should _not_ come together. Some pragmatists, however, tend to integrate these elements, potentially leading to deflated forms of transcendental philosophy or insufficiently critical approaches. Finally, an interesting area to explore is a "thingly" pragmatism found in both Deleuze and Dewey. This view moves beyond a purely human-centered pragmatism focused on consequences or intentions to consider the "inhuman" forces, habits, and pre-individual compositions that make up the self and the world. For Dewey and Deleuze, habits have a "thing-like nature," and action can occur without intentionality or feeling, emerging from complex unthought networks of forces. This view challenges the idea that meaning and intentionality are primary, suggesting a pragmatic approach that attends to what occurs in the absence of decision and explores the extra-human composition of the world. **Areas for Further Exploration:** - Delve deeper into how Deleuze's "transcendental empiricism" relates to or differs from James's "radical empiricism". - Compare the specific concepts and methods used by Dewey and Deleuze in more detail (e.g., Dewey's logic of inquiry vs. Deleuze's logic of sense, Dewey's account of growth vs. Deleuze's concept creation). - Explore the implications of Deleuze and Guattari's critique of Peirce's diagram and their call to "Experiment, don't signify and interpret!" for contemporary pragmatist semiotics. - Investigate the ways in which Deleuze's thought, particularly his ideas on events and becoming, can inform pragmatic discussions about social change and activism, building on connections to Dewey. - Further analyze the points of convergence and divergence between Deleuze and Rorty, especially regarding their political implications and views on the role of philosophy. - Examine how Deleuze's notion of apprenticeship and problematic Ideas provides a robust account of objectivity within an antirepresentationalist framework, potentially complementing Brandom's work. - Continue testing the compatibility of Deleuze's metaphysics and naturalism with contemporary pragmatist approaches like subject naturalism. - Explore the potential for dialogue between Deleuze's philosophy of the body and Shusterman's somaesthetics. - Investigate the concept of "infinite pragmatics" and the affirmation of the actual infinite in both Peirce and Deleuze. - Consider the philosophical temperament and vision shared by Deleuze and certain pragmatists, and what value is gained by understanding them in relation to each other. - Examine the potential for a "thingly" or "inhuman" pragmatism that focuses on the forces and habits composing the self and the world, as suggested by both Dewey and Deleuze. In conclusion, the relationship between Deleuze's philosophy and pragmatist thought, while previously underexplored, offers numerous points of contact and productive tension. Examining these convergences and divergences not only clarifies and extends Deleuze's ideas but also provides new avenues for developing pragmatist thought.