För några år sedan kom jag över en roande intervju med Manuel DeLanda och John Protevi.

Framförallt är det DeLanda som underhåller, genom en och annan dryg kommentar:

I think Marxism is Deleuze and Guattari”™s little Oedipus, the small piece of territory they must keep to come back at night after a wild day of deterritorializing. Who could blame them for needing a resting place, a familiar place with all the reassurances of the Marxist tradition (and its powerful iconography of martyrs and revolutionaries)? The question is whether we need that same resting place (clearly we need one, but should it be the same? Shouldn”™t each of us have a different one so that collectively we can eliminate them?).

I think the main obstacle to engaging with Deleuze directly is the style. He writes as if he deliberately wanted to be misunderstood […] He changes terminology in every book […] and never ever gives explicit definitions (or hides them well). I suppose that was an attempt on his part of preventing a given terminology to solidify too soon, to keep things fluid and heterogenous. Fine. But I cannot deal with that and hardly expect complexity theorists to put up with it either.

Dessa citat hamnade sedan i min intro till samme tänkare.

Intervjun ifråga hade satts samman av Torkild Thanem, som under några år varit inne på deleuzianska tankegångar i relation till organisationsforskning. På NFF-konferensen berättade han att hans första bok – The Monstrous Organization – nu är på väg ut från bokpressarna. Skall bli intressant att kolla upp.