deleuze (1992) "postscript on the societies of control"

8/12/2019 Deleuze (1992) "Postscript on the Societies of Control"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deleuze-1992-postscript-on-the-societies-of-control 1/6

Postscript on the Societies of ControlAuthor(s): Gilles DeleuzeReviewed work(s):Source: October, Vol. 59 (Winter, 1992), pp. 3-7Published by: The MIT Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828 .

Accessed: 15/01/2013 20:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:00:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress



4 OCTOBER

enclosure-prison, hospital,factory,chool,family. he familys an interior,

incrisis ikeall other nteriors-scholarly, rofessional,tc.The administrationsin charge never cease announcing supposedlynecessaryreforms:to reformschools,toreformndustries, ospitals, he armedforces, risons.But everyoneknows hat hese nstitutionsre finished, hatever he ength f their xpirationperiods.It'sonlya matter fadministeringheir ast rites nd ofkeeping peopleemployeduntilthe installation f thenew forcesknocking t the door. Theseare the societiesfcontrol, hichare in theprocessof replacingthedisciplinarysocieties. Control is the name Burroughs proposes as a termfor the new

monster, ne thatFoucaultrecognizes s our immediate uture.Paul Virilio lsois

continually nalyzingthe

ultrarapidformsof

free-floatingontrol that re-

placed theold disciplines perating n the timeframe f a closed system. hereis no need here to invoke the extraordinary harmaceuticalproductions, hemolecularengineering, hegeneticmanipulations, lthoughtheseare slated toenter into the new process.There is no need to ask which s the toughestormost tolerableregime,for t's within ach of themthat iberatingnd enslavingforces confront ne another.For example, n thecrisisof thehospitalas envi-ronment of enclosure,neighborhoodclinics,hospices,and day care could atfirst xpressnew freedom,butthey ould participate s wellin mechanisms fcontrolthatare equal to the harshest f confinements.here is no need to fear

or hope, butonlyto look for newweapons.

2.LogicThe differentnternmentsr spaces of enclosurethroughwhich the in-

dividual passes are independentvariables:each time one is supposed to startfromzero, and althougha common language for all these places exists, t is

analogical.On theotherhand,the differentontrolmechanisms re inseparablevariations,forming systemof variable geometry he language of which isnumericalwhichdoesn'tnecessarilymeanbinary).Enclosures are molds, istinct

castings,but controls re a modulation,ike a self-deformingast that will con-tinuously hange fromone momentto the other,or like a sieve whose meshwill transmute rompointto point.

This is obvious in the matterof salaries: the factorywas a body thatcontained its internalforces at a level of equilibrium, he highestpossible intermsof production, he lowestpossible n termsofwages; but in a society f

control, hecorporationhas replacedthefactory,nd thecorporation s a spirit,a gas. Of course the factorywas alreadyfamiliarwith the system f bonuses,but thecorporationworksmoredeeplyto imposea modulationof each salary,in statesof perpetualmetastabilityhatoperate throughchallenges,contests,and highly omicgroup sessions. f the most diotictelevision ame showsareso successful, t'sbecause they expressthe corporatesituationwithgreatpre-cision. The factoryonstitutedndividuals s a singlebodyto the double advan-







Postscriptn the ocietiesfControl 5

tage of the boss who surveyedeach elementwithinthe mass and the unions

who mobilized a mass resistance;but the corporation constantly resentsthebrashestrivalry s a healthyformofemulation, n excellentmotivational orcethatopposes individualsagainstone another and runs througheach, dividingeach within.The modulatingprincipleof salaryaccording to merit has notfailed totemptnational education tself.ndeed, ust as thecorporationreplacesthe factory,erpetual rainingends to replacetheschool,nd continuouscontrolto replace the examination.Which is the surestway of deliveringthe schoolover to the corporation.

In the disciplinary ocietiesone was alwaysstarting gain (fromschool tothe

barracks,fromthe

barracksto the

factory),whilen

thesocietiesof controlone is never finishedwithanything-the corporation, he educational system,the armed services being metastablestates coexisting n one and the samemodulation,like a universalsystem f deformation. n The Trial,Kafka,whohad already placed himself at the pivotal point between two typesof socialformation, escribed the most fearsome fjuridicalforms.The apparentcquittalof the disciplinary ocieties betweentwoincarcerations); nd the limitlessost-ponementsf the societiesof control (in continuous variation) are two verydifferentmodes of uridical life,and if our law is hesitant, tself n crisis, t'sbecause we are leavingone in order to enter into the other. The disciplinary

societieshave two poles: the signaturethatdesignatesthe individual, nd thenumber or administrative umerationthat ndicateshis or her positionwithina mass. This is because the disciplinesnever saw any incompatibilityetweenthese two,and because at the same timepower individualizesand masses to-

gether,that s, constitutes hose over whom itexercisespower intoa body andmolds the individuality f each memberof thatbody. Foucault saw theoriginof thisdouble charge in the pastoralpower of the priest-the flock nd eachof itsanimals-but civilpowermoves n turnand byother means to make itselflay priest. ) n thesocietiesofcontrol, n theotherhand,what s importantsno longer eithera signatureor a number,but a code: the code is a password,while on the other hand the disciplinary ocietiesare regulatedbywatchwords(as much from thepointof viewof integrations from hatof resistance).Thenumerical anguage ofcontrol smade ofcodes thatmarkaccess to nformation,or reject t. We no longer find ourselvesdealingwiththemass/individual air.Individuals have become dividuals, nd masses, samples, data, markets,orbanks. Perhaps it is money that expresses the distinctionbetween the two

societiesbest,sincediscipline alwaysreferredback to mintedmoneythat ocksgold inas numerical tandard,whilecontrol elates ofloating atesofexchange,modulated accordingto a rateestablishedbya set of standardcurrencies.Theold

monetarymole is the animal of the

spacesof

enclosure,but the

serpents

that of the societiesof control.We have passed fromone animal to theother,from the mole to the serpent, n the systemunder which we live,but also inour manner of livingand in our relations with others.The disciplinaryman







6 OCTOBER

was a discontinuousproducerof energy, ut the man ofcontrol s undulatory,in orbit, n a continuousnetwork. verywhereurfingas alreadyreplaced theolder sports.

Types of machinesare easilymatched with ach typeofsociety-not thatmachines are determining, ut because they xpressthose social forms apableof generating hem and usingthem.The old societies f sovereigntymade useofsimplemachines-levers, pulleys, locks;but the recentdisciplinaryocieties

equipped themselveswithmachines nvolving nergy,withthepassive dangerof entropy nd the activedanger of sabotage; the societiesof controloperatewithmachinesofa third ype, omputers,whosepassive dangeris ammingandwhose activeone is

piracyand the introduction f viruses.This

technologicalevolutionmustbe, even moreprofoundly, mutation fcapitalism, n alreadywell-knownr familiarmutation hat an be summedup as follows:nineteenth-

century capitalismis a capitalismof concentration, or productionand for

property. t therefore rects the factory s a space of enclosure,the capitalistbeingtheowner of the means of productionbutalso, progressively,heownerof other spaces conceived through analogy (the worker'sfamilialhouse, the

school).As formarkets, hey re conquered sometimes y specialization, ome-timesby colonization, ometimesby loweringthe costs of production.But, inthe presentsituation, apitalism s no longer involved n production,which t

often relegatesto the Third World,even for the complex forms of textiles,metallurgy,r oil production. t's a capitalismof higher-order roduction. tno longerbuysrawmaterials nd no longersells thefinished roducts: tbuysthe finishedproductsor assemblesparts.What it wantsto sell is services ndwhat t wants to buy s stocks.This is no longera capitalism orproductionbutfortheproduct,which s to say,forbeingsoldor marketed.Thus it sessentiallydispersive, nd the factory as given wayto the corporation.The family, he

school, the army, he factory re no longer the distinct nalogical spaces that

converge towards an owner-state or privatepower-but coded figures-deformable and transformable-of a single corporationthat now has only

stockholders.Even art has left the spaces of enclosurein order to enter intotheopen circuits f thebank.The conquestsofthemarket re made by grabbingcontrol nd no longerby disciplinaryraining, y fixing heexchangeratemuchmore than by loweringcosts,by transformationf the productmore thanbyspecialization fproduction.Corruption hereby ainsa newpower.Marketinghas become the centeror the soul of the corporation.We are taughtthat

corporationshave a soul,which s themostterrifyingews in the world.The

operation of markets s now the instrument f social controland formsthe

impudentbreed of our masters.Control is short-termnd of rapid ratesofturnover, ut also continuous and without imit,whiledisciplinewas of longduration, nfinitend discontinuous.Man is no longerman enclosed,butmanin debt. It is true thatcapitalismhas retained s a constant heextremepovertyofthreequartersofhumanity,oopoorfordebt, oonumerousfor onfinement:







Postscriptn the ocietiesfControl 7

controlwill not onlyhave to deal with rosions of frontiers ut withthe explo-sions within hanty ownsor ghettos.

3. Program

The conceptionof a controlmechanism, iving hepositionofanyelementwithin n open environment t any given nstant whether nimal in a reserveor human in a corporation, s with n electronic ollar), s not necessarily neof science fiction.FdlixGuattari has imagineda citywhere one would be ableto leave one's apartment,one's street,one's neighborhood, thanks to one's

(dividual) electronic ard that raises a givenbarrier;but the card could just aseasilybe rejectedon a givenday or between certainhours; what counts is notthe barrier but the computerthat tracks ach person's position-licit or illicit-and effects universal modulation.

The socio-technological tudyof the mechanisms of control,grasped attheir nception,would have to be categorical nd to describe what is alreadyinthe processof substitution or thedisciplinaryitesof enclosure,whose crisis s

everywhereproclaimed. It may be that older methods,borrowed from theformer ocietiesof sovereignty, illreturn to the fore,but with the necessarymodifications.What counts s thatwe are at thebeginning f something. n the

prison ystem:he attemptto findpenaltiesof substitution, t least forpettycrimes,and the use of electronic ollarsthat force the convictedperson to stayat home duringcertainhours. For the schoolystem:ontinuousforms fcontrol,and the effect n theschool of perpetual training, hecorresponding bandon-mentof all universityesearch, he ntroduction fthe corporation t all levelsofschooling.For thehospitalystem:he newmedicine without octoror patientthat inglesout potential ickpeople and subjects t risk,which n no wayatteststo individuation-as theysay-but substitutes or the individualor numerical

body the code of a dividual materialto be controlled. n the corporateystem:newwaysof handling money,profits,nd humans that no longer pass throughthe old factory orm. These are verysmall examples,but ones thatwill allowforbetterunderstanding fwhat s meantbythecrisis f the nstitutions, hichis to say,the progressive nd dispersed installation f a new systemof domi-nation.One of themost mportant uestionswillconcernthe ineptitudeof theunions: tied to the whole of theirhistory f struggle gainstthe disciplinesorwithin he spaces ofenclosure,willtheybe able to adapt themselves r willtheygive way to new forms of resistanceagainst the societiesof control?Can wealreadygrasptheroughoutlinesofthesecomingforms, apable ofthreateningthe oys ofmarketing?Manyyoung people strangely oast ofbeing motivated ;theyre-requestapprenticeshipsand permanent training. t's

upto them to

discoverwhat they'rebeing made to serve, ust as theirelders discovered,notwithoutdifficulty,he telos of the disciplines.The coils of a serpentare evenmore complex than theburrowsof a molehill.





deleuze (1992) "postscript on the societies of control"

Documents