I think his inability to be indoctrinated, including to be analyzed by Lacanians, saved his soul. You see, he must have been a lover of bird songs. In other words, birds inspired and saved him.
Deleuze’s philosophy is marked by an anti-totalitarian and anti-dogmatic spirit that likely shielded him from making the “heartless mistakes” that others, like Badiou or Heidegger, fell into. While he collaborated closely with Guattari, who was influenced by Maoism, Deleuze maintained a critical distance from rigid ideological commitments, including those associated with Maoism or any other revolutionary dogma. Instead, Deleuze’s approach to politics and philosophy is profoundly rooted in a resistance to authoritarianism, grand unifying theories, and any notion of absolute truth that could justify oppression or violence.
1. Radical Pluralism and Anti-Oedipal Thought
Deleuze’s commitment to multiplicity and difference — what he often refers to as a “radical pluralism” — forms the core of his philosophy and steers him away from any ideology that demands conformity or uniformity. In A Thousand Plateaus, co-written with Guattari, Deleuze champions the idea of “rhizomatic” structures, which are decentralized, non-hierarchical, and ever-shifting. This perspective stands in opposition to the rigid, top-down structures characteristic of authoritarian regimes. His preference for plurality and openness would have made it difficult for him to align with any ideology, like Maoism, that could lead to the suppression of individual freedom or complexity.
2. A Focus on Desire and Creativity Over Dogma
Deleuze and Guattari’s work in Anti-Oedipus emphasizes the importance of desire as a creative, liberating force rather than one that should be directed or controlled by any overarching system. Their critique of psychoanalysis and state structures in this text reveals a deep suspicion of any power that seeks to channel desire into rigid pathways or prescribed roles. This notion is fundamentally anti-authoritarian, as it resists attempts by the state (or any regime) to direct and repress human desires in the name of ideological purity. Deleuze’s focus on “lines of flight” — paths of escape and resistance — also speaks to his commitment to liberating life from oppressive structures, aligning him with emancipatory projects without endorsing repressive revolutionary means.
3. Suspicion of Grand Narratives and Fixed Ideals
Unlike Badiou, who was drawn to revolutionary events as transformative truths, Deleuze was skeptical of grand narratives that claim universal solutions or absolute truths. His philosophy values process, flux, and becoming over any fixed ideal or endpoint, which distances him from revolutionary ideologies that promise definitive, often violent, transformations of society. Deleuze’s thinking is far more cautious about ideas of purity or truth that could justify large-scale sacrifices or repression. His belief in continuous creation and transformation undercuts any inclination toward totalitarian or purist ideologies, which often demand rigid adherence to a specific goal.
4. Ethics of Experimentation Rather Than Ideological Commitment
Deleuze’s philosophy promotes an ethics of experimentation rather than adherence to dogma. He and Guattari encouraged people to create their own ways of thinking, living, and acting, advocating for “micropolitics” — small-scale, context-sensitive ways of engaging with power. This micropolitical approach differs sharply from the large-scale ideological projects of regimes like Mao’s, which demand adherence to a single, unifying ideology. By promoting experimentation and individual exploration over collective, enforced doctrines, Deleuze protected himself from the ideological entrapments that led others to overlook or excuse mass suffering.
In essence, Deleuze’s philosophical values — radical pluralism, creative desire, skepticism of grand narratives, and a commitment to experimentation — kept him distant from authoritarian ideologies and prevented him from making the same mistakes. His approach to politics and philosophy is deeply ethical in its respect for complexity, difference, and life’s inherent multiplicity, steering him away from any path that might reduce individuals to ideological tools or justify violence in the name of a higher ideal. This grounding in an ethics of openness and resistance to any fixed structure or absolute truth ultimately saved him from falling into the heartless mistakes that compromised the moral integrity of some of his contemporaries.
