Advertisement

Complexity Theory, Deleuze and Guattari’s Affective Assemblage Theory and the Courtroom as Affective Assemblage

Chapter
  • 122 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)

Abstract

This chapter continues the philosophically advanced exploration of the theoretical framework by focusing upon two major theories of the organisation of complex social assemblages. The first theory is that of complexity science and complexity theory, with the central concepts of self-organisation, emergence, order-out-of-chaos and transformation in social organisation. The second is the assemblage theory developed by Deleuze and Guattari on conceptualising social organisation in terms of the doubly articulated semiotic regime and material regime and in terms of operations of territorialisation, deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation. In conclusion, we consider what it means to reconceptualise the courtroom as an affective assemblage.

Keywords

Complexity theory and science Affective assemblages Territorialisation Deterritorialisation Reterritorialisation Semiotic and material regimes 

References

  1. Bak, P. (1996). How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organised Criticality. New York: Copernicus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bak, P., Ting, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. (1987). Self-Organising Criticality. Physical Review of Letters, 59(4), 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Capra, F. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capra, F., and Mattie, U. (2015). The Ecology of Law: Towards a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community. Oakland CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  6. Chesters, G., & Walsh, I. (2007). Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of Chaos. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cilliers, P. (2007). Thinking Complexity: Complexity and Philosophy. London: ISCE Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Colander, D., & Kupers, R. (2014). Complexity and the Art of Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coveney, P., & Highfield, R. (1995). Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  10. Delanda, M. (2000). A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  11. Delanda, M. (2006). A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Delanda, M. (2013). Intensive Science, Virtual Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  13. Delanda, M. (2016). Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1986). Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  16. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What Is Philosophy? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). A Thousand Plateaus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2017). Anti-Oedipus. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  19. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  20. Grosz, E. (2017). The Incorporeal: Ontology, Ethics, and the Limits of Materialism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guattari, F. (2000). The Three Ecologies. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  22. Holland, J. (1999). Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organisation and Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Lorenz, E. (1993). The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: Washington University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Massumi, B. (1992). A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Massumi, B. (2013). Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and Occurrent Acts. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Morin, E. (2007). Restricted Complexity, General Complexity. In C. Aerts & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity (pp. 5–29). New Jersey: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. London: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  31. Murray, J. (2008). Complexity Theory and Socio-Legal Studies. Liverpool Law Review, 29(2), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murray, J., Webb, T., & Wheatley, S. (Eds.). (2018). Law’s Complexity: Mapping an Emergent Jurisprudence. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1989). Order Out of Chaos. London: Bantom Double Day.Google Scholar
  34. Ringrose, J. (2011). Beyond Discourse? Using Deleuze and Guattari’s Schizoanalysis to Explore Affective Assemblages, Heterosecually Striated Space, and Lines of Flight Online and at School. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 598–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruhl, J. B. (1996a). Complexity Theory as a Paradigm for the Dynamic Law-and-Society System: A Wake-up Call for the Legal Reductionism and the Modern Administrative State. Duke Law Journal, 45(5), 849–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruhl, J. B. (1996b). The Fitness of Law: Using Complexity Theory to Describe the Evolution of Law and Society and Its Practical Meaning for Democracy. Vanderbilt Law Review, 49, 1406–1492.Google Scholar
  37. Ruhl, J. B., & Ruhl, H. (1996). The Arrow of Law in Modern Administrative States: Using Complexity Theory to Reveal the Diminishing Returns and Increasing Risks the Burgeoning of Law Poses to Society. UC Davis Law Review, 30, 405–482.Google Scholar
  38. Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stengers, I. (2000). The Invention of Modern Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  40. Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  41. Woermann, M. (2016). Bridging Complexity and Post-Structuralism: Insights and Implications. Berne: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Institute for Applied Health ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Liverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations