"... a particular form of local, specific struggles, whose relationships and
necessary unity could no longer be the result of totalization and
centralization, but, as Guattari stated, of a transversality." (Gilles
Deleuze, Foucault)
few words in addition to the link i posted in my last mail and to what jamie
wrote about the historical backgrounds of transversality. beyond the
question of the (exclusive?) privilege of acting transversally it is mainly
about drawing transversal lines in "specific struggles", in activist
contexts: guattari himself (and of course also deleuze) used the notion of
transversality in very diverse theoretical and political contexts, they did
not define it (as usually) and therefore it is rather open. abstractly
speaking the concept of transversality goes against both vertical and
horizontal structures. this is why i mentioned it here in the actual context
of organisational forms and especially forms of "free" cooperation: as a
tool in today's tricky situation where activists find themselves not only
opposing the rigid vertical hierarchies of a state apparatus, but also the
quasi horizontal machine of globalized capitalism that tends to copy not
only the content, but also the (organisational) forms of what negri/hardt
call multitude.
i quote from my deleuzian "transversal multitudes"-text: "Contrary to openly
hierarchical networks and pseudo-non-hierarchical networks, which also seek
to cover up hierarchies as poly-centric networks, transversal lines develop
structures that are a-centric, that do not move only on the basis of given
strands and channels, never from one point to another, always right through,
in between the points, in a completely different direction. In other words,
transversals are not at all connections between multiple centers or points;
they are lines that do not necessarily even cross anywhere, lines of flight,
fault lines, continuously eluding the systems of points and their
coordinates."
this means of course something different than the old notions of inter- and
transdisciplinarity. transversality implies a concrete project, temporary,
precarious, with a political aim, bundling the specific competences of the
actors into a collective line. on the level of cooperation this means to
temporarily open up border spaces, in which different positions of artistic
practice, political action and theory production can oscillate, at least
reducing the harshness of binary systems and hierarchies between theory and
practice, art and activism, virtual and real etc.
g.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Geert Lovink <gee-*at*xs4all.nl>;
An: <collabo-*at*topica.com>;
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Oktober 2003 13:27
Betreff: Re: [freecooperation] transversalityThanks, Gerald.
Transversality is not such an easy to understand, often used concept.
I had to look it up and found the following reference. Maybe, Gerald, could
you tell us why is it useful to talk about transversality in the context of
(free) cooperation?
Geert
--
http://www.cubdest.org/0306/gfsm03ce.html
World Social Forum, "transversality" and chaos (by cubdest)
Irene León, Equatorian feminist, of the Latin-American News Services,
declared that the Third World Social Forum (WSF) had adopted a so called
"gender and diversity transversality" as an instrument of social analysis
and action. This method establishes a new "revolution" in human mind and a
consequently new basis for all social, political, cultural and economic
perspectives.
This is in fact one of the most powerful instruments to demolish thinking
and life, orienting society toward communitarian anarchy, radically opposed
to the 10 Comandments of God.
The "gender transversality" is an expression forged by XXth centhury
feminists. This expression is not easily understandable, bit it means the
application of class struggle methods to deconstruct normal relationship
between men and women, in the concrete order of facts. Among other purposes
it aims at demolishing the traditional concept of family and of the
relationship husband and wife. The main obstacle to be removed is what
feminists call "androcentric paradigm", whose alleged erroneous
characteristic would be setting "masculine reference" at the middle of
family relations and of political-social "practice and theory" as well.
In a similar way "diversity transversality" would be an attempt to implement
a kind of ideological class struggle, the instruments of which would be
"discriminated" organizations and social groups, such as Indians, African
descents, women and all those "discriminated in reason of their sexual
orientation", says Mrs. León. It was this last category that attracted the
greatest attention at the WSF, having occupied the buildings of the ancient
gas company, in Porto Alegre, to hold its numerous seminars and panel
discussions. "The only way to put an end to homophobia is through a radical
change in society, and therefore we struggle against capitalism," Thaís
Wadhy explained, who represents the so-called movement of Gays, Lesbians,
Bisexuals, Transformists and Transgender Advocates of the PSTU (Socialist
Party of Urban Workers), manifesting the socio-political and cultural goals
of homosexual practices, condemned by the natural law and by the Church.
Irene León concluded her remarks by saying that the criteria for accepting
both "transversalities", of gender and diversity, in an event of the
magnitude of the WSF, prepares the way for the building "of a new social
collective," and, even more, for a "vision" of society that was inspired by
the "cosmic visions and perspectives of those who suffer discrimination." In
other words, a society that, from a moral perspective, would establish a
kind of glorification of original sin and its consequences.
According to the Brazilian professor Silvio Gallo, of anarchistic
persuasion, the concept of "transversality" was used for the first time by
the French philosopher and therapist Félix Guattari, a follower of the
so-called chaos theories (cf. F. Guattari, "Chaosmosis: a new aesthetic
paradigm", 1992). This author, together with another philosopher, Gilles
Deleuze, defended transversality as an intellectual instrument that is
indispensable for opposing what he called the "arborescent paradigm" of the
very structure of human thought. From the point of view of such a paradigm
or model, thought is considered to be like a great tree, the roots of which
are planted in firm ground (that is, in premises taken to be true), which
make possible the growth of a solid trunk, which, in its turn, branches out
abundantly.
Deleuze and Guattari, availing themselves of concepts like "chaotic intimacy
of brain function," question and attack all "arborescent" thought, precisely
because it is based on solid principles, and on absolute and hierarchical
truths. And they maintain that transversality is an efficacious means for
dismantling such a conception of thought, which constitutes a brake against
the revolution of ideas, in mentalities, in political and social systems.
Professor Gallo, quoting Edgar Morin, well known French sociologist who also
uses criteria of analysis of theories of chaos, states that transversality
goes even further than the so-called harmonizing of disciplines, for this
latter "did not succeed in breaking with this hierarchical structure of
knowledge."
Without a doubt, much more could be said about transversality, diversity,
theories of chaos and other related themes. The very theologians of
liberation are not above these ideas. Leonardo Boff said that "chaos is at
the basis of the new order" and that he belongs "to the current of thought
which believes it is possible to escape from the conflict by stimulating the
positive (sic) elements of disorder."
This series of articles on the Third World Social Forum, as a revolutionary
laboratory, adopted a descriptive method with the objective of facilitating
the understanding of the extent of such an event, without refuting its
errors philosophically, a task that without a doubt is indispensable and
could be employed by specialists.
Whatever the case, it is clear that these observations, which are founded in
Thomistic thought, contrast profoundly both with the theories of chaos as
well as with the "transversal" analysis of reality. Finally, it is
appropriate to repeat the warning made in the first article: these
commentaries do not intend to encompass without distinction the totality of
the 100,000 participants, but only the most representative, dynamic and
influential that, during the event, assumed a distinctly revolutionary
action.