Social Inscription



Let’s observe that the status of two categories advanced in the previous chapters remains unresolved. On the one hand, the tripartite distinction between inscription, registration and interpretation (or, to use our term, realization) advanced by Freud, which was used to characterize the relative situation of markets, the market and the social, remains a mere analogy. Analogy may play a heuristic role in philosophy, but must be absolutely no more than this. If philosophy is and remains essentially Platonic, this is due to its unbending commitment to real definition, something which analogical argument can never provide. That ours is a intelluctual culture of extrinsic connections, forged through habitual similarities, is no justification for the plague of analogy in ‘theory’ today — the need for a critique of analogical reasoning is pressing. In a nutshell, the analogy between psychic structure and the situation of the market will have to be made into a real identity. On the other hand, the mechanism of evaluation, according to which intensive price is captured and transformed into value, remains unexplained.


Social Order Social Theory Social Formation Capitalist Society Social Memory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Jean-François Lyotard, Libidinal Economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), 26, translation modified.Google Scholar
  2. 6.
    Pierre Clastres, Archeaology of Violence, trans. Jeanine Herman (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2010), 163.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    Pierre Clastres, Society Against the State, trans. Robert Hurley and Abe Stein (New York: Zone Books, 1987), 205–6.Google Scholar
  4. 9.
    Eugene Holland, Nomad Citizenship: Free-Market Communism and the Slow- Motion General Strike (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011), 33–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 11.
    Pierre Clastres, in Gilles Deleuze, L’île désertes et autres textes (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 2002), 316.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Dudley Dillard, ‘The Barter Illusion in Classical and Neoclassical Economics’, Eastern Economic Journal 14:4 (1988): 299–318.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    David Graeber’s particularly weak reading of this text misses the element of inscription so important for Deleuze and Guattari, describing Nietzsche as ‘a man able to see with uncommon clarity what happens when you try to imagine the world in commercial terms’. (David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years [New York: Melville, 2011], 96) Such a perspective is only possible because he fails to see the genetic element of Nietzsche’s analysis, according to which exchange is only possible after and on the basis of the system of cruelty and inscription.Google Scholar
  8. Correlatively — and on this point Bill Maurer’s argument that Graeber confuses contingency and ontology at the level of origins is certainly a propos (Bill Maurer, ‘David Graeber’s Wunderkammer, Debt: The First 5000 Years’, Anthropological Forum: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology 23:1 [2013], 79–93.) — Nietzsche’s argument is not straightforwardly for the thesis of primordial debt, but rather primordial inscription.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 17.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, in Walter Kaufmann (ed.) Basic Writings of Nietzsche (New York: The Modern Library, 1992), Second Essay, §3, 496–7.Google Scholar
  10. 25.
    See, eg. Malcolm Steinberg, ‘On the Mechanism of Tissue Reconstruction by Disassociated Cells, I. Population Kinetics, Differential Adhesiveness, and the Absence of Directed Migration’, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences 48 (1962): 1577–82;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. and Ramsey Foty, Cathie Pfleger, Gabor Forgacs and Malcolm Steinberg, ‘Surface tensions of embryonic tissues predict their mutual envelopment behaviour’, Development 122 (1996): 1611–20. The major question in embryology, as Steinberg puts it in the first of these pieces, concerns the interaction of cells: ‘To interact with one another to different degrees, the surfaces of the various kinds of cells must be encoded with characteristic differences which become translated into cellular adhesive differentials.’ (324) Of course, the entire problematic here turns around the meaning of the term ‘translates’, though Steinberg does insist upon the fact that these characteristic differences are not constants, but ‘rather to be regarded as norms, about which the strengths of adhesion vary’, and that this variation also characterizes the surface of most cells, which are themselves heterogenous.Google Scholar
  12. 26.
    For an extremely helpful and nuanced discussion of Althusser on these points, see Giorgios Fourtounis, ‘On Althusser’s Immanentist Structuralism: Reading Montag Reading Althusser Reading Spinoza’, Rethinking Marxism 17: 1 (January 2005): 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 28.
    Erica Reiner, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
  14. 29.
    Félix Guattari, The Anti-Oedipus Papers, ed. Stéphane Nadaud, trans. Kélina Gotman (Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2006), 227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jon Roffe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations