I just want to highlight two related passages from Deleuze, both taken from Two Regimes of Madness, that were of interest to me (in Gene Holland’s keen paper). The first addresses the so-called children of ’68 (“These are not young executives”). I am very interested by what Deleuze describes as their “strange indifference”; noting how they “have stopped being demanding or narcissistic, but they know perfectly well that there is nothing today that corresponds to their subjectivity, to their potential of energy” (4). What more can be said about this nothing today that corresponds to their subjectivity, to their (newfound) potentiality. What kind of subjectivity is this? What kind of potentiality? This is in part a Nietzschean sentiment, no? The women and men of the day after tomorrow, the philosophers of an over-morning, a further morning. But my aim is not to reduce Deleuze’s insight with this allusion; rather, what more can be said?
And here is the second passage I alluded to: “French society has shown a radical incapacity to create a subjective redeployment on the collective level, which is what ’68 demands” (5). I am interested in both what this subjective redeployment might look or feel like, and also this radical incapacity, this radical hindrance. What more can be said of this (subjective) hindrance? Is it a collective hindrance, and therefore(?) of society – of society’s incapacity to live up to, or in the wake of, this kind of visionary event? Or is it an impossibility of the state? of the state form? Finally, does Harvey provide any traction for these questions? That is, does he offer a strategic (and/or spatial?) vision of how this collective redeployment would or could be distributed? It would involve some form of territorial governance for Harvey, no? but not Bookchin nor the state; what then?