1 Introduction: Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?
It would be tempting to begin this book foreword on Deleuzo-Guattarian Perspectives in Second Language Education (SLE) following the familiar template of formulaic, celebratory statements that typically announce the arrival of a new scholarly work into the world of academe. Such temptation would be further justified given the demonstrated expertise of the many contributors to the volume. A brief assessment of the substantial reference lists cited in the following chapters clearly shows inspired colleagues who are far more versed in Deleuzian theory than I have been and who have devoted considerable intellectual and pedagogical energy in “re-territorializing” this formidable body of philosophical work for SLE purposes. This is no small accomplishment considering the noted difficulties that many readers experience – even specialists – in seeking to understand and utilize the primary texts of Deleuze and Guattari.
Buchanan (2015), for one, identifies significant differences between Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of an assemblage (a key concept in this collection) and what he calls assemblage theory, a derived body of research too divergent from its origins, excessive in its orientation towards complexity and indeterminacy, and disengaged from power relations. Language, and not just in translation (i.e., agencement, in Bangou, this volume), is to blame – or to congratulate(!), depending on our attitudes towards interpretive license. As Markus and Saka (cited in Buchanan, 2015) note, “it has been the power and often beguiling attraction of Deleuze and Guattari’s language that has encouraged the piecemeal appropriation of certain concepts” (p. 392, fn. 1). Again, the authors and editors of this collection are to be commended for negotiating the stylistic and conceptual difficulties, and areas of potential incommensurability (to be discussed below), that such challenging philosophical works present for a field (i.e., SLE) firmly grounded in language pedagogies and the unique diversities of classroom relationships. In such settings, selective (i.e., “piecemeal”) appropriations may be more than sufficient in terms of providing responsible and ethical guidance in SLE and language teacher education (LTE) programs.
The beguilement noted above relates to the playful subtitle for this introduction, which was a comment that I first heard at a social gathering and immediately committed to memory, eventually converting it into a bluegrass-type of song (appropriation of a different sort). It comes to mind (melody included), after reading this collection, (re)reading Deleuze and Guattari, as well as several articles and books devoted to explaining and interpreting their work. For SLE professionals, most of whom are unlikely to have completed degrees in philosophy, the commitment of time and intellectual effort in a project such as this would be daunting. While I cannot fully know each contributor’s motivation behind such effort, I can speculate that it is a mix of both dissatisfaction and restlessness with the status quo – even after thirty or more years of a critical turn in SLE (e.g., Chun & Morgan, 2019; Kubota & Miller, 2018) – and a deep attraction to the unique critical tools/weapons that they identify in their reading of Deleuze and Guattari. There is clearly a desire for a battering ram/war machine approach to SLE and LTE on display throughout this collection. Inspired by Deleuzo-Guattarian perspectives, it is a collection meant to provoke and inspire – perhaps even infuriate at times – but always with an impetus to keep moving, to de-territorialize and reterritorialize our habits of thought and practice as SLE professionals. In this respect, the proverbial juice has been worth the prolonged and arduous squeezing involved.
Inspired by the transgressive, rhizomatic spirit of this book, I would like to now shift towards a less conventional and less celebratory approach to the art/task of writing a foreward. Towards this purpose, I will share my initial hesitation in participating in this project, perhaps contributing further to the kinds of conversations and appropriations that this important book initiates. This foreword comes at a time when I have been painfully reminded of the professional marginalization and self-marginalization of the SLE field within academic institutions. Recently, our department has struggled with the administration to justify having a tenure-track, professorial-stream English as a Second Language (ESL) hire, their belief that an academic position in ESL/LTE should only warrant a teaching-stream hire, which includes a larger teaching load and reduced expectations for research – notably unrecognized by senior administration as contributing much beyond service-based efficiencies in a narrow understanding of what constitutes SLE theory and practice. I should also note that we have only had professorial-stream appointments in the history of the department. As one local administrator later recommended, we might have a better chance to attain a professorial-stream hire if we re-name the position as being in the discipline/field of Applied Linguistics rather than ESL/SLE, advice we have taken as we await a final decision.
This diminishment and deprofessionalization of SLE is increasingly common and a reflection of neoliberal pressures in post-secondary education (e.g., Flubacher & Del Percio, 2017). Indeed, many universities have created ancillary, “cost-recovery” ESL institutes, staffed by hourly-paid instructors (part of the new precariat!) with little job security to justify the graduate degrees in SLE that most of them have obtained. We might recognize this professional marginalization as part of the “affective intensities” and “molecular memories” (Ravindran & Ilieva, Chapter 5) around which a book on Deleuzo-Guattarian perspectives on SLE are conceptualized and received. The “emotion labour” of second/additional language teachers (Benesch, 2017; Miller & Gkonou, 2018) saturates such assemblages, manifest in the desire for a transdisciplinary equality seldom realized. And here is the source of my initial hesitation/frustration: Yet another publication in which critical theories from relatively prestigious fields (e.g., philosophy, cultural studies, political economy, etc.) are enthusiastically embraced by SLE scholars, but almost always without (trans)disciplinary reciprocation, a point I have recently discussed elsewhere (Chun & Morgan, 2019; Ferraz & Morgan, 2019). In short, we feel the need/desire to read Deleuze and Guattari, but is anyone in philosophy or Deleuzian Studies reading Pennycook, for example? Probably not, though they should, and they should read this book if they are genuinely interested in nomadic theorizing and rhizomatic possibilities previously unrecognized in their own fields/disciplines of interest.
I am not making an argument here for renewed insularity in SLE/LTE, fields that have benefitted from greater ideological and epistemological pluralism. Rather, it is fundamentally a case of how, as SLE professionals, we engage in transdisciplinary work: with field-internal confidence or with field-external subordination? To what extent does adopted or appropriated theory and terminology – e.g., the popular concept of the rhizome and its variants (i.e., rhizoteaching, rhizocurriculum, rhizoanalysis, etc., cf. Waterhouse, this volume) – serve to genuinely illuminate and invigorate field-internal domains, or is it primarily ornamental and self-referencing, giving off an undeserving aura of theoretical gravitas (and rhizo-fatigue)? Or, perhaps it is a case in which the tensions between these “conflicting” possibilities resonate in ways conducive to disciplinary “becoming” (a wasp and orchid, heterogeneous, rhizome forming exchange of sorts).
In addressing such transdisciplinary challenges, I am reminded of the usefulness of Foucault’s (1997) observation that everything is potentially “dangerous”, not to be avoided but instead requiring a “hyper- and pessimistic activism”.1 Such activism is particularly relevant for the theoretical and pedagogical work undertaken in this collection. The productive doubt arising from hyper-reflexive, epistemic skepticism in one discipline – say, philosophy under siege from the internal war machine/battering ram of Deleuze and Nietzsche (Bradley, Chapter 4) – may, in turn, lead to profound conceptual and pedagogical paralysis in another, say SLE or LTE. It is not so much an either/or scenario as it may reflect nuanced, inflections of theory and practice, and ultimately how SLE professionals decide to engage with this innovative book based on their own contextual constraints and opportunities (again, the field-internal confidence issue).
That there might be “dangerous” (cf. Foucault) areas of incompatibility, perhaps even incommensurability, across disciplines is something that Deleuze and Guattari (1994), themselves, implied in their later book, What is Philosophy?, in which the foundations and purposes of philosophy, science, and art are comparatively detailed and succinctly summarized by Adkins (2015) in the following way: “Philosophy creates concepts. Science creates functions, and art creates sensations” (p. 18), albeit with loosened boundaries. We should wonder as to what creations Deleuze and Guattari would have assigned SLE or even education in this transdisciplinary comparison.2 I suspect that the creative pedagogical encounter in SLE, embracing all of its interpersonal and communicative/semiotic elements, would be foundational – much more than the concept-building and forms of nomadic thinking described in the following excerpt on conceptual activity in philosophy:
Concepts are centres of vibrations, each in itself and every one in relation to all the others. This is why they resonate rather than cohere or correspond with each other. There is no reason why concepts should cohere … From this point of view, philosophy can be seen as being in a perpetual state of digression or digressiveness. (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 23; emphasis added)
In contrast, I would argue that pedagogy is all about coherence. To use an ecological metaphor, pedagogy’s dynamism and feedback systems flow towards equilibria rather than disequilibria and chaos. Following Gregory Bateson (1972; Harries-Jones, 2016), I believe that pedagogy is best conceived as supporting higher-order learning, helping students and student teachers discover or recognize the “pattern that connects” by creating possibilities through which larger and personally relevant “meta-lessons” for teaching and for life can be created. If we can speak of disciplinary ontologies, the foundational differences posed here (e.g., philosophical/conceptual digressiveness versus pedagogical coherence) warrant careful consideration on the “dangerous” terms of engagement suggested by Foucault.
Let me suggest a few points for debate/dialogue in my reading of the collection. One of the most prominent throughout this book is the key Deleuzean concept of the rhizome (e.g., rhizo-thinking, rhizo-curricula, etc.), a most valuable resource/tool in respect to foregrounding flexibilities and being open to emergent, dynamic developments as they arise in SLE classrooms. For LTE purposes, I wonder if there are not better responsive concepts or metaphors, ones that encourage greater coherence-building and preparation for teacher repertoires when unexpected moments/opportunities for criticality and transformative teaching arise in a lesson (see e.g., Pennycook’s praxicum, 2012, Ch. 7). In response to an article on materials in SLE classroom ecologies, written by Guerretaz and Johnston (2013), Ian Martin and I (Morgan & Martin, 2014) explore this issue via Bateson’s (1972) notion of stochastic processes, ways of observing and (re)acting to “random” events, which are more oriented towards cohesion (dynamic equilibria, the status quo ante, cf. Bateson) and suggest greater programmatic preparation and responsiveness for such occurrences in SLE settings.
Bradley’s chapter also invites comment in respect to transdisciplinarity. The discussion of Globish is one of my favourites, especially for its conceptual brilliance and creativity in utilizing Deleuze and Guattari, Levinasian ethics, and information theory (and much more) in reaching a provocative conclusion that Globish should be seen as an “internal war machine” against linguistic imperialism, a “glottophagic” devouring of English origins, ownership, and centre-based agendas. Still, I wonder how this carefully wrought argument might play out with language teachers, especially of a critical persuasion. Might this conceptual victory/success encourage pedagogical complacency, Globish no longer being viewed as a potential class-based, neoliberal threat for social justice language teaching, of which Chun’s (2015) example of teaching a video on globality in an EAP business program stands out as an inspiring model. Food for thought?
Then there is the issue of the assemblage, which rightfully has emerged as a richly inclusive framework (aligning memory, affect, and materiality in discourse/text analyses) for critical literacies in applied linguistics (e.g., Morgan, Pennycook, & Kubota, 2018; Pennycook, 2017). Given my interest in Gregory Bateson’s bio-semiotics, I was fascinated by the fact that Deleuze and Guattari (1987) draw on his ethnographic work in Bali in their characterization of a rhizome as “made up of plateaus” (p. 21). From Bateson, the plateau is defined as “a continuous self-vibrating region of intensities [achieving a] bizarre intensive stabilization” (p. 22) through internal, cultural practices and performances that served to mitigate disruptive tensions. Adkins (2015) identifies these intensities as a crucial dimension of the logic of the assemblage and its internal multiplicity and orientation towards change. It is interesting to compare “intensities” and their varied applications here. Bateson examined the cumulative interaction of affective relations in Bali that over time maintained (i.e., anti-schismogenic responses) or failed to maintain group cohesion (i.e., schismogenic behavioural patterns; Bateson, 1972; Harries-Jones, 2016, pp. 28–32).3 That these inter-animating or “vibrating” patterns of intensive interaction could be destructive later provided Bateson with a model for understanding and analyzing the communicative (ir)rationalities and dangers of super power relations and military arms races. It also informed his particular understanding of cybernetics and the role of feedback (and feedforward) in the dynamic (de)stabilization processes first explored in Bali and earlier in Papua New Guinea. In sum, we might say that from a Batesonian bio-semiotic perspective, the dynamic intensities of a plateau/assemblage, or within rhizomatic chains, always has the potential to be (self)destructive and in ways not immediately recognized. Certainly, there would be Deleuzian specialists who acknowledge this destructive/productive duality in the assemblage and foreground its relevance in their own work.
I see this expanded perspective on plateaus/assemblages as reiterating an earlier point citing Buchanan (2015) and his discussion of an assemblage theory divergent from its Deleuzo-Guattarian origins and priorities. Specifically, Buchanan cautions that the influence of social power relations and intentionality have often been displaced in assemblage theory, the consequence of which might be a misrecognition of the kinds of destructive processes and appropriations that Bateson introduces, making the assemblage and the rhizome pedagogical domains worthy of a “hyper- and pessimistic activism” (cf. Foucault), which I return to here and in relation to our SLE positionality vis-à-vis transdisciplinary hierarchies and the one-directional flow of research and theory in academe (i.e., the professional desire for relevance and respect issue, again). In this context, we may be prone towards linguacentric solutions for what are, in effect, “destructive” socio-economic intensities and processes resistant to language policies and practices, and indeed capable of appropriating or commodifying their progressive or emancipatory elements under certain conditions.4 I would suggest that plurilingualism (Piccardo, Chapter 3) and translanguaging might be considered in this potentially “dangerous” way as some have cautioned (cf., the multi/plural turn, Kubota, 2014; Flores, 2013). Though I still strongly support the social justice potential and strong ecological underpinnings of plurilingualism (Piccardo, Chapter 3), I still believe that we should be ever vigilant to the articulated problems and appropriations that potentially undermine the “bizarre intensive stabilization” (Bateson, cited in Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1987, p. 22) of the assemblages which we populate and embody in our universities and communities. As Ravindran and Ilieva note in their chapter, citing Massumi (2015), we need to be more attuned to the “co-presence of potentials” – the affordances and potential dangers that shape our identities and our agentive capacities.
2 And … And … And … Yes! The Juice IS (Becoming) Worth the Squeeze
For those of us in SLE, still frustrated by the persistent arborescence of our field, the idea of reaching out rhizomatically and making new connections and creating new assemblages that are possibly field transforming is most definitely appealing. This inspired and inspiring collection addresses many of my concerns regarding the relatively low status of SLE/LTE in the so-called or so-branded “transdisciplinary/interdisciplinary” academy. Indeed, these impressive chapters, informed by Deleuze and Guattari, voice a collective, field-internal confidence that is certain to motivate other SLE/LTE professionals, especially because of their careful grounding in SLE issues, practices, and domains (e.g., L2 writing and plagiarism, family literacies, SLE curricula, LTE programming). Where else has such a collection been conceived?! Yes, there will be points of contention and controversy. Maybe the collection is not Deleuzian enough for some, or too Deleuzian for others. For the former, how can one rightly fix fences around ideas made for movement? For the latter, take the time to read these chapters as they have been “translated” with great care and field-internal insight. Follow Fleming’s (Chapter 2) advice and experiment with what is on offer; its explanatory power may surprise you – even “convert” you. Now it’s time to celebrate!
Notes
The full quote is worth inclusion: “My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism” (Foucault, 1997, p. 256, On the Genealogy of Ethics).
The absence of such inclusion speaks both to the marginal status of (language) education in academic hierarchies but also to the particular spatio-temporal assemblages that gave rise to Deleuze and Guattari’s work. In post-WWII France, philosophers, such as Deleuze, Foucault, and Sartre, were serious public intellectuals and celebrities. In today’s anti-intellectual and post-truth environment, public interest and trust in academic opinion has notably withered under relentless critique by irresponsible “populist” politicians and their media supporters, a particularly fertile setting for intensified scholarly desire for social relevance and respect.
Of note, Bateson’s ethnographic work in Bali had been comparative, informed by earlier fieldwork that he had undertaken in Papua New Guinea with the Iatmul, whose own cultural practices and intra-group relations tended towards greater destabilization and group fission, a process for which Bateson adopted the term schismogenesis (Harries-Jones, 2016).
In this respect, pluralism, fluidity, and the production of difference should not be assumed to be intrinsically emancipatory or anti-capitalistic. As Wallin (2010) cautions, “conjoined to the image of the rhizome as an image of complication and plurality persists a more insidious fidelity to the logic of neo-liberalism” (p. 84). Such “dangerous” fidelity warrants vigilance rather than avoidance, to reiterate the Foucauldian perspective that I have adopted.
References
Adkins, B. (2015). Deleuze and Guattari’s A thousand plateaus: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Benesch, S. (2017). Pedagogy and emotions: Exploring English language teachers’ emotion labor. New York, NY: Routledge.
Buchanan, I. (2015). Assemblage theory and its discontents. Deleuze Studies, 9, 382–392.
Chun, C. (2015). Power and meaning making in an eap classroom: Engaging with the everday. Brisol: Multilingual Matters.
Chun, C., & Morgan, B. (2019). Critical research in English language teaching. In A. Gao (Ed.), Springer second handbook of English language teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_56-1
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Ferraz, D., & Morgan, B. (2019). Transnational dialogue on language education in Canada and Brazil: How do we move forward in the face of neoconservative/neoliberal times? Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada, 58, 195–218.
Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–520.
Flubacher, M.-C., & Del Percio, A. (Eds.). (2017). Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics, subjectivity and truth: Essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984 (P. Rabinow, Ed., R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: The New Press.
Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 779–795.
Harries-Jones, P. (2016). Upside-down gods: Gregory Bateson’s world of difference. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/pluri turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37, 474–494.
Kubota, R., & Miller, E. R. (2017). Re-examining and re-envisioning criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14, 129–157.
Massumi, B. (1987). Notes on the translation and acknowledgments. In G. Deleuze & F. Guattari, A Thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (pp. xvi–xix). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Miller, E., & Gkonou, C. (2018). Language teacher agency, emotion labor and emotional rewards in tertiary-level English language programs. System, 79, 49–59.
Morgan, B., & Martin, I. (2014). Towards a research agenda for classroom-as-ecosystem. Modern Language Journal, 98, 667–670.
Morgan, B., Pennycook, A., & Kubota, R. (2018). Preface. In S. Vandrick (Ed.), Growing up with god and empire: A postcolonial analysis of ‘missionary kid’ memoirs (pp. xi–xvii). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and mobility: Unexpected places. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14, 269–282.
Wallin, J. J. (2010). Rhizomania: Five provocations on a concept. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(2), 83–89.