Dogg

phenotype

the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

https://pamppy.dog/services/
doggo spa

Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. Becoming Animal

Animal Studies Bibliography
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 2007. Becoming Animal. In Linda Kalof and Amy Fitzgerald (eds.), The Animals Reader: The Essential Classical and Contemporary Writings , 37-50. Oxford, UK: Berg.
(Summarized by Jessica Bell, Animal Studies Program, Michigan State University)

The essay “Becoming Animal” in this edited collection is selected from a much longer work by Gilles Deleuze and Guattari, a work entitled A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. “Becoming Animal” references and relies upon terminology that is defined in previous chapters of A Thousand Plateaus and other previous works by the authors and thus it is useful to briefly define these terms. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) differentiate between two ways of conceptualizing phenomena and knowledge: the arborescent model and the rhizome. The arborescent model is hierarchical, has a center and peripheries, has a beginning, middle, and end, and has a strong spinal axis of theory and organization. In contrast, the rhizome is anti-hierarchical, grows in a lateral manner with no center or periphery, has no beginning, middle, or end, and has no privileged viewpoint. Deleuze and Guattari endorse the rhizome model and write that becoming-animal, the focus of this essay, “is a rhizome, not a classificatory or genealogical tree” (p. 39). Deleuze and Guattari (1987) also introduce the concepts of the molar and the molecular. These can be thought of as different scales or components that intersect with one another at multiple levels (individual, social, political, etc.). These are complex concepts but, overall, the molar is associated with that which is conscious/perceptible, that which territorializes, that which is relatively rigid, and that which operates on a macro level. The molecular is associated with that which is unconscious or subtle, that which de-territorializes, that which is fluid, and that which operates on a micro level. Becoming (for example, becoming-animal) is a molecular process.

This differentiation between molar and molecular becomes relevant when the authors differentiate between the three different types of animals. The first type of animal is the Oedipal animal. This animal is individualized and sentimentalized. In other words, this type of animal has a unique history and name that arises from its emotional alliance with a human. Deleuze and Guattari refer to this type of animal as Oedipal because it is also the type of animal that Freudian psychoanalysis explores as (or reduces to) symbols of intimate family relationships. The second type of animal is the Jungian, or “archetype”, animal. This is the animal that has a symbolic presence in the myths, rituals, and spiritual beliefs of many human cultures. It is the third type of animal, the demonic animal, in which Deleuze and Guattari are most interested. It is only in relationship to the demonic animal that becoming-animal can occur. Unlike the other two types of animals, and like the process of becoming-animal, the demonic animal has a molecular character (Beaulieu 2011). This is because the demonic animal, like the process of becoming-animal, is a flexible and ever-evolving multiplicity. Like the process of becoming-animal, it exists in a realm, a fold, all of its own. However, Deleuze and Guattari also write: “Cannot anyanimal be treated in all three ways?” Thus, these three “kinds” of animals are modes of relating to animals, not inherent characteristics of the animals themselves.

Deleuze and Guattari refer to becoming-animal as a unique process that resists comparisons to other processes. They write that “there is a reality specific to becoming” and “becoming is a verb with a consistency all its own” (p. 39). Becoming-animal is also not the only form of “becoming”. Deleuze and Guattari also refer to “becomings-woman” and “becomings-child” (p. 45). All these forms of becoming share certain characteristics. Becoming is not imitation, because imitation implies a shift from identity A to identity B (Beaulieu 2011). Rather than implying a shift from one identity to another identity, or the synthesis of two identities, becoming implies the deconstructing of identity itself. Becoming is neither regressive nor progressive. Regression and progression imply that certain forms are higher, or more central, than others. The notion of becoming by definition rejects this hierarchical and linear structure. In order to stress this aspect of becoming, Deleuze and Guattari refer to becoming not as “evolution” but as “involution, on the condition that involution is in no way confused with regression” (p. 39). Thus, Deleuze and Guattari reject a model of human-animal relating that views humans as “higher” on the “evolutionary tree”. A final important aspect of becoming is that becomings are always “minoritarian” (p. 45). Deleuze and Guattari conceptualize the notions of minor and major not in terms of numerical density or importance, but rather in terms of power (Beaulieu 2011). Thus, minoritarian groups are groups that “are oppressed, prohibited, in revolt, or always on the fringe of recognized institutions” (p. 45). In other words, it is through their position on the fringe or the borderline that minoritarian groups open up the space for becoming. Thus one can speak of becoming-woman or becoming-animal, but not becoming-man or becoming-human.

Deleuze and Guattari then discuss how the process of becoming-animal occurs. The first point they make is that becoming-animal occurs through contagion, not filiation. Filiation, or reproduction through hereditary descent, does not allow for the multiplicity of difference that contagion allows. For, when a new organism is produced through filiation, “the only differences retained are a simple duality between sexes within the same species, and small modifications across generations” (p. 41). Whereas, in contagion, there can be multiplicities that span across multiple worlds: plant, animal, and human. Deleuze and Guattari give the example of a becoming-animal interaction between a wasp and an orchid. The orchid, by appropriating physiological and chemical properties of the female wasp, entices the male wasp to pollinate it (Beaulieu 2011). Filiation does not apply here, since there can be no orchid-wasp hybrid produced through this interaction. Rather this interaction represents a becoming, a state of being that transcends the boundaries of classified distinct “species.”

The second key point about the process of becoming-animal is that this process involves both the anomalous and the multiplicity (or pack). Deleuze and Guattari define the anomalous as “neither an individual not a species… but a phenomenon of bordering” (p. 43). In other words, the anomalous is both part of a pack/multiplicity and an exceptional loner or leader within that pack.

SOLO EXHIBITION SEPTEMBER 27TH - OCTOBER 6TH
TRIXIE GALLERY, THE HAGUE

https://www.tamardewaal.nl/over-tamar/
Tamar de Waal rechtsfilosoof

https://thomasspijkerboer.eu/
Thomas Spijkerboer migration professor at the Vrije Universiteit amsterdam

Pongo, companion species of David

Iushi, companion species of Mariana

Brom, companion species of family Galogaza / not living in Amsterdam/ based in Hamburg

Companion species of Sonja de Jager / based in Rotterdam

Floor Hoevers / Mara's aquintance with a dog in Amsterdam

Dachshond I dog sitted in Amsterdam / not adopted tho

Donna Haraway,
When species meet

Construction - Alicia / spatial design
Graphic design - Karla Zlimen
Photography - Vlad

From Introduction:
becoming with - becoming worldly
alter globalisation
messmates
to be one is always to become with many
the figures are at the same time creatures of imagined possibility and creatures of fierce and ordinary reality

naturalcultural
concrescence of prehensions
American Association of Lapdogs
lapdogs and laptops
gods, machines, animals, monsters, creepy crawlies, women, servants and slaves, and noncitizens in general. (page 10)
culturally normal fantasy of human exceptionalism (page 11)
Freud descried three great historical wounds to the primary narcissism of the self-centered human subject; 1)COpernican wound that removed Earth itself, man's home world from the centre of the cosmos 2) Darwinian, which put Homo sapiens firmly in the world of other critters 3) Freudian, which posited an unconscious that undid the primacy of conscious processes (page 11)
The Great Divides of animal/human, nature/culture, organiz/technical, wild/domestic .... respect and response (page 15)
Posthumanism, postfeminism
Karen Barad's term 'intra-actions'at many scales of space-time that need rethinking, not getting beyond one troubled category for a worse one even more likely to go postal (page 17)

Becoming is always of a different order than filiation. It concerns alliance. (page 28)

All worthy animals are a pack; all the rest are either pets of the bourgeoisie or state animals symbolizing some kind o divine myth. (page 29)
The old, female, small, dog-and cat-loving: these are who and what must be vomited out by those who will become-animal. (page 30)
COMPANION SPECIES
NON HUMAN ANIMALS
MESSMATES

Autopoiesis is self making (page 32)
Do we prefer living with predictable sheep or with sheep that surprise us and that add to our definitions of what 'being social' means? (page 35)
Whom and what do I touch when I touch my dog? (page 35)
Caring means becoming subject to the unsettling obligation of curiosity, which requires knowing more at the end of the day than at the beginning. (page 36)
more liveable "other worlds" (autres-mondialisations) inside earthly complexity than one could ever have imagined when first reaching out to pet one's dog. (page 41)
Canis lupus familiaris, indeed the familiar is always where the uncanny lurks
(page 45)
BIOCAPITAL
As an online report on the pet food and supplies market from MindBranch Inc. for 2024 stated: "In the past people may have said their pet'is like a member of the family', but during 1998-2003 this attitude has strengthened, at least in termsn of money spent on food with quality ingredients, toys, supplies, services, and healthcare'. The consumer habits of families have long been the locus for critical tehory's efforts to understand the category formations that shape social beings (such as gender, race and class). (page47)

Companion-species kin patterns of consumerism should be a rich place to goet at the relations that shape emergent subjects, not all of whom are people, in lievely capital's naturecultures. Properly mutated, the classics, such as gender, race and class, hardly disappear in the world - far from it; but the most interesting emergent categories of relationality are going to have to acquire some new names, and not just for the dogs and cats. (page 47)
food delivery devices to help out dogs who are alone too much. Dogs in capitalist technoculture have acquired the "right to health". (page 49)
CANINE CONSUMER CULTURE (page 51) vacation packages, adventure trips, camp, cruises, clothing, toys of all kinds, day care services, designer beds ... DOG HOTEL with spa??
Dog custody battle (page 52)
DOGDOM (page 58)
Animals end up: permanent dependents ("lesser humans"), utterly natural ("nonhuman") or exactly the same ("humans in fur suits").