Sergio Tonkonoff

El artículo se propone ofrecer una reconstrucción general de la teoría social de Deleuze y Guattari, identificando sus características principales, despejando la lógica que la articula y señalando los principios en los que se sostiene. Nos concentraremos en los conceptos de flujo, agenciamiento y máquina abstracta buscando clarificar su estatuto ontológico, sus funciones teóricas y su valor metodológico. Procuraremos mostrar que ellos son los operadores fundamentales de un abordaje radicalmente relacional del campo social y subjetivo. Pondremos de manifiesto el modo en que este abordaje cuestiona las clásicas oposiciones individuo-sociedad, micro-macro y naturaleza-cultura, al tiempo que proporciona una nueva imagen de los social, sus configuraciones y sus dinámicas. Nuestra hipótesis interpretativa es que la ontología social elaborada por Deleuze y Guattari reemplaza el tradicional paradigma del todo y las partes por un paradigma de multiplicidades diferenciales en el cual el concepto de flujo sustituye al de “elemento” o “parte”, el concepto de agenciamiento reconfigura el concepto de “sistema social”, y la máquina abstracta sustituye a los “sistemas de sistemas” sociales. Se argumenta que debido a la consistencia y al alcance de la sintaxis que así se elabora, nos encontramos ante una perspectiva meta-teórica comparable a los principales marcos conceptuales vigentes en las ciencias sociales.

Esquizo-análisis y micro-política, economía libidinal, microfísica del poder: tales son los nombres Deleuze y Guattari, Lyotard y Foucault asignaron a sus respectivos abordajes del campo socio-histórico y de la subjetividad. En el presente trabajo nos proponemos reconstruir los rasgos principales del enfoque metateórico general que, entendemos, configuran estos abordajes. Dada la escala microscópica en la que se propone trabajar, y dado el rol que en él juega el concepto de línea o flujo, sugeriremos caracterizar a este enfoque como paradigma de la diferencia infinitesimal. Buscaremos mostrar que se trata de uno de sus conceptos básicos, y lo utilizaremos como vía de acceso a su sintaxis. Veremos que es un operador clave en el rechazo de las tradicionales alternativas individuo-sociedad, naturaleza-cultura, política-economía-sociedad, y en la producción de una imagen radicalmente relacional de lo social, lo político y lo subjetivo.

O trabalho apresenta uma leitura geral do pós-estruturalismo descrevendo-o comoum conjunto heterogêneo de teorizações sobre o social, o político e o subjetivo queteve como referências complexas o estruturalismo, o freudismo e o marxismo. Propomos caracterizar o pós-estruturalismo por suas operações de “atravessamento” dessas referências, e distinguir no desenvolvimento de sua pesquisa duas grandes etapas: uma ligada à afirmação da diferença radical e à crítica das concepções totalizantes do sistema, e outra ligada à re-conceituação dos sistemas como multiplicidades ou não-todos. Neste artigo, examinaremos principalmente a primeira etapa e apenas delinearemos alguns elementos-chave para a compreensão da segunda.

El texto analiza los principios fundamentales en torno a los cuales Gabriel Tarde construye su aproximación a la vida social. Esta perspectiva, elaborada hacia fines del siglo XIX, se encuentra notablemente descentrada tanto respecto de los holismos como los individualismos que dominaron las ciencias sociales y las humanidades durante el siglo siguiente. Una de las principales razones de ello es que su punto de partida filosófico no fue Kant, Hegel o Marx, sino Leibniz. Tarde elabora una teoría social (neo) monadológica. Es decir, produce una concepción infinitista de lo social articulada en torno auna ontología y una epistemología de los infinitesimales y sus conceptos asociados. Esto es lo que se propone mostrar el presente trabajo.

The starting point of Tarde's sociology are individuals. That does not make it a methodological individualism. Instead, it is a sociology of infinitesimal difference which finds in individuals an adequate reference for addressing social life, and that ends up by turning problematic both the notion of individual and society. Imitation is here an elemental form of social relation, but it is not the only one: opposition and invention are elemental social relations as well. Social life, in what it has of proliferating and chaotic, is made up of these relations, differential relations that can however be organized, or better yet integrated, both logically and teleologically (without being totalized by this organization). By relying on pluralistic ontological and epistemological positions which privilege difference over identity, time over space, the infinite over the finite, this sociology shows itself as off-centered regarding formerly and today’s holisms and individualisms. Re-reading it as an infinitesimal sociology of flows and ensembles can open a way to go beyond the oppositions between individual and society, and between micro and macro approaches.

This book posits that a singular paradigm in social theory can be discovered by reconstructing the conceptual grammar of Gabriel Tarde’s micro-sociology and by understanding the ways in which Gilles Deleuze’s micro-politics and Michel Foucault’s micro-physics have engaged with it. This is articulated in the infinite social multiplicity-invention-imitation-opposition-open system. Guided by infinitist ontology and an epistemology of infinitesimal difference, this paradigm offers a micro-socio-logic capable of producing new ways of understanding social life and its vicissitudes. In the field of social theory, this can be called the infinitesimal revolution.

The objective of this chapter is to clarify the social theory underlying in Foucault’s genealogy of power/knowledge thanks to a comparison with Tarde’s microsociology. Nietzsche is often identified as the direct (and unique) predecessor of this genealogy, and the habitual criticisms are worried about the intricate relations between Foucault and Marx. These perspectives omit to point to another – and more direct – antecedent of Foucault`s microphysics: the microsociology of Gabriel Tarde. Bio-power technologies must be read as Tardian inventions that, by propagation, have reconfigured pre-existing social spaces, building modern societies. We will see how the Tardean source in Foucault’s genealogy sheds new clarity about the micro-socio-logic involved in it, enabling us to identify some of its aporiae and to imagine some solutions in this respect as well.

ÍNDICE Prefacio. Pensamientos sobre la violencia. Un libro como un bricolage. Ana Belén Blanco – María Soledad Sánchez | 9 Prólogo. La violencia como “objeto”. Una Aproximación Teórica. Sergio Tonkonoff | 19 I. Violencia, mito y religión. Rubén Dri | 35 II. Violencia, religión y mesianismo: reflexiones desde la filosofía judía. Emmanuel Taub | 53 III. Religión y violencia. Una mirada desde lo implícito y lo relacional. Gustavo A. Ludueña | 65 IV. Escrito en el cuerpo: la pregunta por la violencia en algunas ficciones contemporáneas. VII. Política y Violencia: Una Introducción. Miguel Ángel Rossi | 129 VIII. Reflexiones sobre la violencia (y la política). Ezequiel Ipar | 147 IX. Variables de la violencia generalizada: real de la época. Carlos Gustavo Motta | 159 X. La función de la cópula Y en el título “violencia y espectáculo”. Daniel Mundo | 169 XI. Muerte, violencia y prohibición: ¿vínculo histórico o constitutivo? Martina Lassalle | 179 XII. Criminalización, Juventud y Delito. Algunas consideraciones teórico-metodológicas. Sergio Tonkonoff | 205 XIII. Activismo de los derechos humanos, tribunales y policías. Sofía Tiscornia | 233 El Docke. Ensayo fotográfico. Henrik Malmström | 247

This book posits that a singular paradigm in social theory can be discovered by reconstructing the conceptual grammar of Gabriel Tarde’s micro-sociology and by understanding the ways in which Gilles Deleuze’s micro-politics and Michel Foucault’s micro-physics have engaged with it. This is articulated in the infinite social multiplicity-invention-imitation-opposition-open system. Guided by infinitist ontology and an epistemology of infinitesimal difference, this paradigm offers a micro-socio-logic capable of producing new ways of understanding social life and its vicissitudes. In the field of social theory, this can be called the infinitesimal revolution.

This paper seeks to show that in the work of Bataille there is a general social theory articulated around the notion of the sacred. According to our reading hypothesis, Bataille deepened and extended the movement initiated by Durkheim, who postulated the syntax of the sacred archaic as the most fundamental part of the social grammar. But he did so interpreting the Durkheimnian legacy in the light of a conception of multitude understood as general economy of collective passion. To do this, he borrowed from psychoanalysis and German phenomenology, producing an original theory of the social bond, the structure and dynamics of human groups, with which he proceeded to analyze the discontents of his time. Given the tragic anthropology that framed this intellectual enterprise, the result was the impossible or transgressed social theory that takes the name of heterology.

This article explores the relationships between crime, collective responses to it, and the social production of so-called great criminals. It argues that crime, especially sexual and violent crime, produces significant imbalances in individuals habitually subject to instrumental actions, identitarian thinking and positive law. These imbalances are emotional as well as cognitive and, under certain conditions of communication, can generate states of multitude, that is, collective states linked to an intense affectivity and to the prevalence of mythic or symbolic thinking. These states reach their limits and become condensed in the mytho-historical figure of the great criminal. In this sense, great criminals are a function of such multitudinous states: points of imputation that concentrate and catalyze the affective imagination unleashed by collective effervescence.

Gabriel Tarde, along with Durkheim and others, set the foundations for what is today a common-sense statement in social science: crime is a social phenomenon. However, the questions about what social is and what kind of social phenomenon crime is remain alive. Tarde’s writings have answers for both of these capital and interdependent problems and serve to renew our view of them. The aim of this article is to reconstruct Tarde’s definition of crime in terms of genus and specific difference, exploring his criminology as a case of his general sociology. This procedure shows that Tarde succeeded in creating a comprehensive theory of crime and criminals founded not only on his most well-known concept, imitation, but also on his equally important concepts of invention, opposition, social logic and social teleology. For Tarde, crime is a complex phenomenon related to criminal inventions, criminal propagations, the production of penal laws, the execution of controls and punishments, and the collective reactions to all these.

This article aims to present a reconstruction of Gabriel Tarde’s micro-sociology in order to highlight its current relevance. The author of the article attempts to show that its distinction lies in taking the immense diversity of small social interactions as a starting point for the analysis of both face-to-face situations and large-scale institutions and social processes. Here the social field is described as made up of multiple propagations of desires and beliefs that spread from one individual to other, taking countless directions, interfering with each other, forming networks, and escaping them in search of new connections. The author attempts to show, also, that this point of view doesn’t deny the existence of social systems but understands them as open ensembles of immanent and partial relationships of collective beliefs and desires. This is why Tarde may be considered the founder of a molecular or micro-physical sociology

In this article culture is understood as the ensemble of systems of classification, assessment, and interaction that establishes a basic community of values in a given social field. We will argue that this is made possible through the institution of fundamental prohibitions understood as mythical points of closure that set the last frontiers of that community by designating what crime is. Exploring these theses, we will see that criminal transgression may be thought of as the actualization of a rigorous otherness. This otherness, however, is nothing but the culture itself in its extreme vectors, its contradictions, and residues. From there we will differentiate three types of crimes: paroxysmal, archaic, and impossible. And we will conclude that the criminal question it is not a ‘social problem’ among others. Rather, it is a fundamental crossroad where the very constitution of any culture is at stake. It is the question of the beginning and end of the societal order and its subjects

In this article culture is understood as the ensemble of systems of classification, assessment, and interaction that establishes a basic community of values in a given social field. We will argue that this is made possible through the institution of fundamental prohibitions understood as mythical points of closure that set the last frontiers of that community by designating what crime is. Exploring these theses, we will see that criminal transgression may be thought of as the actualization of a rigorous otherness. This otherness, however, is nothing but the culture itself in its extreme vectors, its contradictions, and residues. From there we will differentiate three types of crimes: paroxysmal, archaic, and impossible. And we will conclude that the criminal question it is not a ‘social problem’ among others. Rather, it is a fundamental crossroad where the very constitution of any culture is at stake. It is the question of the beginning and end of the societal order and its subjects.

This article aims to present a reconstruction of Gabriel Tarde’s micro-sociology in order to highlight its current relevance. The author of the article attempts to show that its distinction lies in taking the immense diversity of small social interactions as a starting point for the analysis of both face-to-face situations and large-scale institutions and social processes. Here the social field is described as made up of multiple propagations of desires and beliefs that spread from one individual to other, taking countless directions, interfering with each other, forming networks, and escaping them in search of new connections. The author attempts to show, also, that this point of view doesn’t deny the existence of social systems but understands them as open ensembles of immanent and partial relationships of collective beliefs and desires. This is why Tarde may be considered the founder of a molecular or micro-physical sociology.