Gilles Deleuze ( 18 January 1925 – 4 November 1995) is a French philosopher who, from the early 1960s until his death, wrote influentially on philosophy, literature, film and fine art. His most popular works were the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1980). His metaphysical treatise Difference and Repetition (1968) is considered by many scholars to be his magnum opus. Deleuze’s works fall into two groups: on one hand, monographs interpreting the work of other philosophers (Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, Foucault) and artists (Proust, Kafka, Francis Bacon); on the other, eclectic philosophical tomes organized by concept (e.g., difference, sense, events, schizophrenia, cinema, philosophy). Regardless of topic, however, Deleuze consistently develops variations on similar ideas.
Deleuze’s main philosophical project in the works he wrote prior to his collaborations with Guattari can be boldly summarized as an inversion of the traditional metaphysical relationship between identity and difference. Deleuze claims that all identities are effects of difference. Identities are neither logically nor metaphysically prior to difference, Deleuze argues, “given that there exist differences of nature between things of the same genus” ( Anti-Oedipus 16).That is, not only are no two things ever the same, the categories we use to identify individuals in the first place derive from differences. Difference, in other words, goes all the way down. To confront reality honestly, Deleuze argues, we must grasp beings exactly as they are, and concepts of identity (forms, categories, resemblances, unities of apperception, predicates, etc.) fail to attain what he calls “difference in itself.” “If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference” (Anti-Oedipus 69).
Moreover, Deleuze claims that being is univocal, i.e., that all of its senses are affirmed in one voice. Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference. “With univocity, however, it is not the differences which are and must be: it is being which is Difference, in the sense that it is said of difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being”(67) For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Deleuze summarizes this ontology in the paradoxical formula “pluralism= monism”(Anti-Oedipus 68).
Difference and Repetition is Deleuze’s most sustained and systematic attempt to work out the details of such a metaphysics, but his other works develop similar ideas. In Nietzsche and Philosophy (1962), for example, reality is a play of forces; in Anti Oedipus (1972), a “body without organs”; in What Is Philosophy? (1991), a “plane of immanence ” or “chaosmos”(90).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

There would be no way one can merely claim that Beckett had Deleuze in mind while writing his three pieces, Krapp’s Last Tape, Not I, and Endgame. However, while reading these plays, as a researcher, one may come across the notion of process of becoming, what Deleuze frequently concentrates on in his revolutionizing theories. The process of becoming other than yourself and coming into the light of the new world in which there is no place for humanity to be there. Therefore, the researcher aims to examine the main characters in the mentioned works- Krapp, Ham, Clov, and the woman’s mouth- carefully to see if they can be positioned in such a process. Furthermore, she needs to make sure that she would not limit herself to finding traces of Deleuze’s becoming process in Becket’s male and female figures; rather it is necessary to expand the whole theory to other characters and events to examine the applicability of Deleuze’s theory to Becket’s theater. In the same way, the significance of the male and female figures’ function in these works should not be degraded as they are not excluded from Becket’s or Deleuze’s. On the contrary, they are to be appreciated in the newly born world of becoming.
One of the main issues dealt with in this study is the importance of both Becket’s and Deleuze’s language that escapes any attempt for fixed one-dimensional meaning. Such writings always carry the risk of being over read, or blocking the examiner in their complexities. Thus, although Becket’s fragmented, chaotic and endless texts that mocks the structured, highly stylized and codified language is artistically used in all three aforementioned plays, the researcher should patiently scrutinize the purpose behind it to see if it can be brought in line with what Deleuze meant by becoming and effect. Another notion equally abstract and important, is the issue of humanity that should be treated just as emphatically of the becoming since Deleuze spends an article-space defining the process of not censoring the human and writing about it. Equally significant for Becket, human becoming other things is the main source of suffering as well as liberated in Krapp’s Last Tape, Not I and Endgame. Such delicacy should be taken into consideration in applying Deleuze’s notion of becoming to Becket’s disembodiment of his characters to prevent any possible over reading. In conclusion, to have a thoroughly Deleuzean study of Samuel Becket’s Krapp’s Last Tape, Not I, and Endgame, the researcher needs to pursue a complicated procedure of finding and analyzing the coordinated elements in both literary and critical domains chosen in this research.

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

1.3 Significance of the Problem
The objective of this research is to examine Beckett’s three plays Krapp’s Last Tape, Not I and Endgame in the vein of Deleuzean projects of becoming and affect. Therefore, the researcher wishes to demonstrate how Deleuze’s notion of becoming in the process of reconstructing the newly born world is applicable to Becket’s three main characters in the mentioned plays, Krapp, Hamm, Clov, and the woman’s mouth. The researcher also aims to examine if the mentioned characters are either successful to defeat fixed order and be born again according to Deleuze’s project of coming back to no origin and creating everything other than representations of traditional things.
Besides, the researcher seeks to construe the chosen plays to see if Deleuze’s becoming and affect are applicable to Becket’s depiction of his male and female figures. Also to trace notions such as Deleuze’s becoming and affect in Becket’s portrayal of seeking for freedom and transformation are represented in his plays. Finally, the thesis aims to scrutinize diverse aspects of Becket’s distinguished style of writing in the mentioned plays to see if they can align with Deleuze’s tenet of ‘becoming’ to make a subversive revolutionary type of writing.
What makes Deleuzean study of Becket’s plays significant lies in the fact that both Beckett and Deleuze interestingly share certain notions despite difference of time and place, they lived in. In fact, Becket’s plays deal with the subject of despair and the will to survive in spite of that despair, in the face of an uncomprehending and incomprehensible world as an end to such plays. Thus, Samuel Becket has been often under attacks of those who accused him of depicting pessimistic images of life, absurdity, mental illness, pain, and torture for a long time. However, when such notorious issues are reread under the lights of Deleuzean tenets one can realize how people should free their selves to glorify becoming others rather than being human This becoming other seems to be a means to break from the old and be born again, and to create people’s free language that does not repress any desire, and consequently Becket’s works are capable to gain a higher and deeper significance. In this way, the three chosen plays read as not only multilayered representations of human psyche, but also as detailed practices of what Deleuze describes as the becoming through everything of the multidimensional things that would accord the reader of this study a wider horizons for understanding and expounding them.
One of the main issues Deleuze points to in Capitalism and schizophera is the fact that humans should enter the world of imagination since it is through art and philosophy that they can speak. Opposing capitalist society, “he does not differentiate between reality and becoming other than reality; he actually equates them considering becoming as a freedom” (496-97). For Becket as well, the program of becoming plays the main role in his plays to such an extent that the principle concern of his three main female and male characters in all three plays is the struggle with their restricted world and the attempt to find a way to speak out. Krapp of Krapp’s Last Tape, Hamm and Clov in Endgame, and the mouth in Not I all struggle obstinately to find a way to cure both their loneliness and their souls. And at the same time, they try to find a way to express their thoughts through becoming and create the language of their own.
The revolutionary use of language is another means by which humanity can free itself from oppression as Deleuze argues, on being kept in the dark prison of humanity for centuries, it is time for humans to break their prolonged silence and to get rid of the overwhelming of capitalist society and its traditions in which man is always subject to passivity and destruction. To do this, it is time to revolutionize the language and create a special writing in which not only human but things are also given voice; “a language that does not deny the others but gives them courage and space to speak up as well; a language that breaks all norms, classes, regulations, and codes sweeping away the syntax” (Deleuze 497-49). Therefore the research serves to demonstrate how Becket has artistically used this quality in his three plays as he has created a unique language of his own from which one cannot expect the common qualities of traditional literary language. He tries to communicate by means of an incommunicable language that at first seems to be too chaotic and fragmented but aided by Deleuzean projects, it acquires deeper dimensions of understanding. The quality of the other dimensions mentioned in Deleuze’s revolutionary theory enhances the reader’s understanding of Becket’s plays as there is constant fusion of human voices and things in these works indicated in the voices of Krapp, Hamm/ Clove, and the woman’s. Consequently, these voices that may even confuse the reader at first implying a chaotic mixture of voices with no aim of communication; however, when regarded under the light of Deleuze’s representation of other things language, one can see the purpose behind giving voice to the other, avoidance of any humanity, and bringing us to the scene rather than I. Therefore, this research can enhance reader’s horizon of understanding of Becket’s theater in creating becoming and affect on the basis of what Deleuze sets forth through the power of language.
Another significant issue the researcher aims to enhance in Becket’s plays through the lights of Deleuzean dictums is the process of becoming. In other words, one of the outcomes of becoming is the rebirth of inhumanity despite all the chains and repressions that pin it in the margin of the capitalist society. “Deleuze urges humanity to take the risk of being things to step outside the capitalist circles that exercises the constant vigilance of the other. He believes that it is only by the means of speaking/ writing that they can take a journey to things returning back to themselves” ( Capitalism and schizophera 457-64). I would claim that Deleuze believes that you are affect, you are flux and machine. So you have freedom to be something that you are not. Becoming shows human being is collection of sounds, colors, textures, voices, and noises. There is no center, no being. He shatters everything “I am collection of sounds, forms, and shapes, I am not human anymore” (56). As the researcher has observed, the same notion has been practiced by Becket’s characters who are brought out of the vigilance of a humanity Krapp/ Hamm- to reaffirms what Deleuze calls “Newly Born” in his essay. The researcher believes that Samuel Becket’s characters in these three works are often mentally disturbed due to the repressions and violent tortures of capitalist society in a melancholic distressing condition. They are mostly trapped in the transcendence systems that push them into the margin, keep them in the dark and make them feel deprived of their drives- in case of Hamm and Clov in Endgame- and even from being a human- in case of Krapp and the woman’s mouth in Not I.

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

  • 1

پاسخ دهید