Deleuze and Guattari’s avoidance of the word “freedom” is not so much a sign of disillusionment as it is a deliberate philosophical choice. Their conceptual vocabulary reflects their critique of traditional notions of freedom, which they see as tied to individualized, idealized, and ultimately limited understandings of human agency. Instead, they use terms like “refrain” and “lines of flight” to articulate a more complex and processual idea of liberation that avoids the pitfalls of classical ideas of freedom. Here’s why:
1. Critique of Traditional Freedom
• For Deleuze and Guattari, the idea of freedom as it is commonly understood (rooted in liberal or existentialist traditions) is often tied to:
• Individual autonomy: The notion of a sovereign self making free choices.
• Opposition to constraint: Freedom defined negatively, as the absence of external limits or oppression.
• They view this conception of freedom as inadequate because:
• It ignores the micropolitical forces and assemblages (social, economic, and unconscious) that shape and constrain individuals, often invisibly.
• It risks reinforcing structures of power by assuming freedom is something that can be achieved within the same systems that impose control (e.g., capitalism, the state).
2. Freedom vs. Liberation as a Process
• Rather than treating freedom as a fixed state or goal, Deleuze and Guattari emphasize liberation as a process of becoming:
• Lines of flight represent movements of escape or transformation within oppressive systems. These are not total breaks but partial and creative ways of navigating or reconfiguring the system.
• Refrains create temporary territories or spaces of stability that allow for new movements and connections. While refrains can territorialize (stabilize), they also have the potential to deterritorialize, opening up possibilities for change.
• In their framework, true liberation does not come from achieving “freedom” in the classical sense but through constant experimentation, escape, and re-creation of assemblages.
3. Disillusionment with Idealism
• Deleuze and Guattari are critical of idealist abstractions, including the ideal of freedom, which they see as disconnected from the material and affective realities of life. Instead, they focus on:
• Desire: How it operates within systems of power and repression (e.g., capitalism channels desire into consumption, limiting its potential for creation).
• Immanence: Liberation must occur within the systems and assemblages we inhabit, not as an escape to some transcendent realm of freedom.
4. Freedom in Capitalism
• Deleuze and Guattari recognize that capitalism often co-opts the language of freedom, offering a superficial sense of choice (e.g., consumerism, political freedoms) while simultaneously deepening control through more subtle forms of repression (e.g., debt, surveillance, commodification).
• In this context, they see freedom as a compromised concept that needs rethinking.
5. Refrains and Lines of Flight as Alternatives
• Refrain: A creative act that establishes a sense of self or territory within chaos. It provides a way to navigate the world without relying on the ideal of a fully autonomous freedom.
• Line of Flight: A vector of escape or transformation that breaks away from fixed identities or systems. These are not guarantees of freedom but are opportunities for experimentation and becoming.
6. Are They Disillusioned?
• Deleuze and Guattari are not disillusioned but radically rethinking the concept of freedom:
• They replace it with notions that emphasize fluidity, connection, and multiplicity, resisting the binary of freedom versus oppression.
• Their critique is aimed at moving beyond the traps of utopian idealism and into a more pragmatic, immanent philosophy of transformation.
In Summary
Deleuze and Guattari do not reject freedom outright, but they find the term too tied to limiting, individualized, and idealized frameworks. They prefer concepts like refrain and lines of flight to capture the fluid, processual, and immanent nature of liberation. These ideas reflect a deeper engagement with the complexities of life, power, and creativity, making them skeptical of any static or absolute notion of freedom. Their project is not one of disillusionment but of reconceptualization, seeking more effective tools for thinking about liberation in a world of interconnected systems.
