德勒茲 25 論遊牧

Deleuze 25  德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧

Translated By Springhero

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Axiom 1: The war machine is exterior to the State apparatus.

Proposition 1: This exteriority is first attested to in mythology , epic, drama, and games.

箴言一:戰爭機器外在於國家機構

命題一:這個外在性首先在神話、史詩、戲劇、及遊戲中獲得證明。

 

Georges Dumezil, in his definitive analyses of Indo-European mythology, has shown that political sovereignty, or domination, has two heads: the magician-king and the jurist-priest. Rex and flamen, raj and Brahman, Romulus and Numa, Varuna and Mitra, the despot and the legislator, the binder and the organizer. Undoubtedly, these two poles stand in opposition term by term, as the obscure and the clear, the violent and the calm, the quick and the weighty, the fearsome and the regulated, the “ bond” and the “ pact,” etc. But their opposition is only relative; they function as a pair, in alternation, as though they expressed a division of the One or constituted in themselves a sovereign unity. “ At once antithetical and complementary, necessary to one another and consequently without hostility, lacking a mythology of conflict: a specification on any one level automatically calls forth a homologous specification on another. The two together exhaust the field of the function. “ They are the principal elements of a State apparatus that proceeds by a One-Two, distributes binary distinctions, and forms a milieu of interiority. It is a double articulation that makes the State apparatus into a stratusm.

 

喬治、鄧梅吉在他紮實地分析印歐神話時,顯示政治統治或支配有兩個頭:魔術師兼國王,及法官兼僧侶。雷克思王及祭司,領主及波羅門僧侶、古羅馬開國君羅缪拉及祭司牛麻,凡盧那神及糜拉神,暴君及立法者,管束者及組織者。無疑地,這兩極並肩對立,既模糊又清楚,既暴力又平和,既迅速又笨重,既可怕又有節制,既約束又結盟等等。但是他們的對立只是相對的。他們的功用二者合一,交互使用,好像他們表達一種一分裂為二,或本身組成一個統治的一致性。「既對立又互補,彼此需要,結果化解敵意,缺乏衝突的神話。在某個層次的細節自動在另一個層次召喚同質性的細節。兩者並存,將功用發揮得淋漓盡致。」他們是國家機構的主要元素,以二者合一的方式,分別管轄,形成內部的環境。這種雙重表現使國家機構形成階層重重。

 

   It will be noted that war is not contained within this apparatus. Either the State has at its disposal a violence that is not channeled through war. Either it uses police officers and jailers in place of warriors, has no arms and no need of them, operates by immediate, magical capture, “ seizes” and “ bind,” preventing all combat—or, the State acquires an army, but in a way that presupposes a juridical integration of war and the organization of a military function. As for the war machines in itself, it seems to be irreducible to the State apparatus, to be outside its sovereignty and prior to its law: it comes from elsewhere. Indra, the warrior gold, is in opposition to Varuna, no less than to Mitra. He can no more be reduced to one or the other than he can constitute a third of thir kind. Rather, he is like a pure and immeasurable multiplicity, the pack, an irruption of the ephemeral and the power of metamorphosis. He unties the bond just as he betrays the pact. He brings a furor to bear against soverienty, a celerity against gravity, secrecy against the public, a power against sovereignty, a machine against the apparatus. He bears witness to another kind of justice, one of incomprehensible cruelty at times, but at others of unequaled pity as well ( because unties bonds…) He bears witness, above all, to other relations with women, with animals, because he sees all things in relations of becoming, rather than implementing binary distributions between “ states” : a veritable becoming-animal o the warrior, a becoming-woman, which lies outside dualities of terms as well as correspondences between relations. In every respect, the war machine is of another species, another nature, another origin than the State apparatus.

 

我們將注意到,在這個機構裡,戰爭是不存在的。國家不必透過戰爭就擁有暴力可以使用,要不然它就使用警察跟獄吏來代替戰士。所以它沒有武器,沒有需要武器。它只要運用立即而神奇的捉拿、「逮捕」、「管束」,就可以阻止所有的戰鬥。要不然國家擁有軍隊,但是又先假定將戰爭合併到司法裡,一種軍事功用的組織。至於戰爭機器的本身,它似乎無法被化減到國家機構,似乎外在於統治區之外,並先於法律而來自其它地方。因得拉,這個戰神,不僅跟凡盧那神,也跟靡拉神對立。他無法被化減到任何一黨,正如他也無法組成第三黨。代替的,他像一個純粹而無法測量的多重性,成群,瞬間及蛻變力量的衝擊。他解開管束,正如他背叛盟約。他對統治區帶來喧鬧對抗,突然背離引力,抗拒公眾化的隱密,一種對抗統治的力量,一種對抗機構的機器。他見證到另一種正義,有時是一種難解的殘酷,但有時又是無與倫比的悲憫(因為他解開管束。)特別是,他見證到跟女人,跟動物的其它關係,因為他以生成的關係來看待萬物,而不是操弄「兩極」之間的分別管轄。他是一種戰士的生成動物,一種生成女人,位於術語的雙重性及關係之間的一致性之外。在各方面,戰爭機器跟國家機構種類不同,性質不同,起源不同。

 

    Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the State apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combines in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: “ It” makes a move. “ It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a non-subjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces; their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellation, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot ( or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point; the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “ smooth” space of Go, as against the “ striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing or deterrritorializing it ( makethe outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory;. Deterritoriatlize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…) Another justice, another movement, another space-time.

 

   且讓我舉個有限例子,從遊戲理論的內涵,比較戰爭機器跟國家機構。讓我們看一下象棋跟圍棋,從遊戲棋子的觀點,看棋子之間的關係及相關的空間。象棋是國家及法庭的棋戲,中國的皇帝在玩。象棋子鐫有符碼。他們有內在特性及本質屬性,界定他們的動作,情況,及衝突。他們有特質,車就是車,卒就是卒,仕就是仕。每一個就像是稟賦有相對力量的陳述的主體,這些力量組合在一個表達的主體,換言之,下棋者或遊戲的內部形式。比較起來,圍棋是個小丸子,圓石子,簡單的數學單位,只有一個匿名的,集體的,第三人稱的功用。「它」做一個動作。「它」可以是男人,女人,虱子,大象。圍棋是非主觀化的機器裝配的元素,沒有內在屬性,只有情境的屬性。因此在這兩個情況,關係是不同的。在他們內在的環境裡,象棋子彼此之間以及跟對方棋子,擁有兩個一致性的關係。他們的功用是結構性。在另一方面,圍棋只有外在性的環境,跟星羅棋盤只有外在的關係。依照這個關係,它發揮插入或情境的功用,例如邊界,包圍,消滅。獨立地,一個跳棋子能夠同時地毀滅整個星羅棋局。可是圍棋子不能夠(或者只有逐步地才有可能)。象棋的確是場戰爭,但是一場體制化,規劃好的符碼戰爭,有先鋒,後衛的戰爭。但是圍棋的本體是沒有戰鬥線的戰爭,既沒有衝突,也沒有撤退,甚至沒有戰鬥,純粹是策略,而象棋則是一種符號學。最後一點,空間也完全不一樣。象棋是一種如何自己安排封閉空間的問題,因此要從一點走到另一點,用最小量的棋子,吃掉最大量的棋子。而跳圍則是在開放的空間佈局,佔有空間,維持隨時可跳躍的可能性,動作不是從一點到另一點,而是沒有目標或目的地,沒有離開或抵達地繼續下去。相對於象棋的「羅列」空間,圍棋的空間是「平順」的。相對於象棋的國家形態,圍棋是遊牧的,遊牧相對於城邦。不同的是,象棋替空間添加符碼及解碼,而圍棋不同地全然前進,轄佔領域及解轄領域(使外在成為空間的領域。以建構次級的鄰近領域,鞏固該領域,以從內部粉碎敵人的領域,而解轄其領域。以放棄而解轄自己的領域,另外開闢領域)另外一個正義,另外一個動作,另外一個時空。

 

    “ They come like fate, without reason, consideration, or pretext…” “ In some way that is incomprehensible they have pushed right into the capital. At any rate, here they are. It seems that every morning there are more of them.” Luc de Heusch  analyzes a Bantu myth that leads us to the same schema: Nkongolo, an indigenous emperor and administrator of public works, a man of the public and a man of the polive, gives his half-sisters to the hunter Mbidi, who assists him and then leaves. Mbidi’s son a man of secrecy, joins up with his father, only to return fromm the outside with that inconceivable thing, an army. He kills Nkongolo and proceeds to build a new State. “ Between” the magical-despotic State and the juridical State containing a military institution, we see the flash of the war machine, arriving from without

 

   「他們前來,像命運,沒有道理,考慮或藉口。」「以無法理解的方式,他們直接逼近首都。無論如何,他們就在那裡。似乎每天早上,越來越多。」何希分析一則班徒的神話,讓我們得到相同的模式:岡哥洛是一位土皇帝,也是公權力的執行者。他將同父異母的姐妹送給獵人比帝,因為他幫忙他們後離去。比帝的兒子,一位神秘人物,跟他父親會合,卻從外面帶回來一樣不可思議的東西:軍隊。他殺死岡哥洛,繼續建造一個新的國家。在魔術師兼暴君的國家跟司法的國家「中間」,存在著一個軍事機構,我們看到戰爭機器的閃爍,從外而來。

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: