from "Flocking to the Fold: Pope Francis's (De)(Re)Territorialization of Catholicism"
. . . In the self-prescribed schizophrenic nature of their work, Deleuze and Guattari explain that all cultures and subcultures exist in what they term assemblages: “All this, lines and measurable speeds, constitutes an assemblage” (4). They use a book as one of the many examples throughout their work, “There is no difference between what a book talks about and how it is made. Therefore a book has no object. As an assemblage, a book has only itself, in connection with other assemblages” (4). They claim that the reason a book has any significance in the first place is because it has relations to other assemblages—or rather—other cultures and subcultures. With Catholicism (and every other assemblage), each individual is his or her own assemblage, but gains significance when crossed and combined with other assemblages. Pope Francis offers a much clearer, less schizophrenic explanation, “There is no full identity without belonging to a people. No one is saved alone, as an isolated individual, but God attracts us looking at the complex web of relationships that take place in the human community. God enters into this dynamic, this participation in the web of human relationships.” This web of human relationships is an assemblage. Deleuze and Guattari would claim that there is no center to the Catholic assemblage despite the attempts at making the papacy that center. Pope Francis explains that members of the Jesuit Society (the religious order of Catholicism to which he belongs), Christ and the church are at the center of the society, which gives it “two fundamental points of reference for its balance and for being able to live on the margins, on the frontier. If it looks too much in upon itself, it puts itself at the center as a very solid, very well ‘armed’ structure, but then it runs the risk of feeling safe and self-sufficient.” Although Deleuze and Guattari would claim there is no center, Pope Francis believes that there should be two centers always working with one another: Christ and the Church.
Deleuze and Guattari explain that deterritorialization of an assemblage is a never simple matter. The act of deconstructing—in this case attitude—always involves immediate reterritorialization as well: “[Deterritorialization] is in turn inseparable from correlative reterritorializations. [Deterritorialization] is never simple, but always multiple and composite” (509). In other words, once something is deconstructed, it is then immediately reconstructed into something else. For example, with Pope John Paul II (the pontiff in office when Budde wrote his essay), the deterritorialization that tried to make the pope a household name immediately reterritorialized into a capitalist culture industry, at least in Budde’s perspective. What makes Pope Francis’ rhetoric more effective is the difference between striated space and smooth space.
Deleuze and Guattari compare the difference between striated space and smooth space using fabrics. Striated space is like woven fabric, everything has its proper place and its equivalent function; smooth space is more like felt, where everything is fused together with no apparent pattern, but still functions (475). They are quick to remind us “that the two spaces in fact exist only in mixture: smooth space constantly being translated, transversed into a striated space; striated space is constantly being reversed, returned to a smooth space” (474). The two are always at play, going back and forth, much like deterritorialization and reterritorialization. . . .
. . . In the self-prescribed schizophrenic nature of their work, Deleuze and Guattari explain that all cultures and subcultures exist in what they term assemblages: “All this, lines and measurable speeds, constitutes an assemblage” (4). They use a book as one of the many examples throughout their work, “There is no difference between what a book talks about and how it is made. Therefore a book has no object. As an assemblage, a book has only itself, in connection with other assemblages” (4). They claim that the reason a book has any significance in the first place is because it has relations to other assemblages—or rather—other cultures and subcultures. With Catholicism (and every other assemblage), each individual is his or her own assemblage, but gains significance when crossed and combined with other assemblages. Pope Francis offers a much clearer, less schizophrenic explanation, “There is no full identity without belonging to a people. No one is saved alone, as an isolated individual, but God attracts us looking at the complex web of relationships that take place in the human community. God enters into this dynamic, this participation in the web of human relationships.” This web of human relationships is an assemblage. Deleuze and Guattari would claim that there is no center to the Catholic assemblage despite the attempts at making the papacy that center. Pope Francis explains that members of the Jesuit Society (the religious order of Catholicism to which he belongs), Christ and the church are at the center of the society, which gives it “two fundamental points of reference for its balance and for being able to live on the margins, on the frontier. If it looks too much in upon itself, it puts itself at the center as a very solid, very well ‘armed’ structure, but then it runs the risk of feeling safe and self-sufficient.” Although Deleuze and Guattari would claim there is no center, Pope Francis believes that there should be two centers always working with one another: Christ and the Church.
Deleuze and Guattari explain that deterritorialization of an assemblage is a never simple matter. The act of deconstructing—in this case attitude—always involves immediate reterritorialization as well: “[Deterritorialization] is in turn inseparable from correlative reterritorializations. [Deterritorialization] is never simple, but always multiple and composite” (509). In other words, once something is deconstructed, it is then immediately reconstructed into something else. For example, with Pope John Paul II (the pontiff in office when Budde wrote his essay), the deterritorialization that tried to make the pope a household name immediately reterritorialized into a capitalist culture industry, at least in Budde’s perspective. What makes Pope Francis’ rhetoric more effective is the difference between striated space and smooth space.
Deleuze and Guattari compare the difference between striated space and smooth space using fabrics. Striated space is like woven fabric, everything has its proper place and its equivalent function; smooth space is more like felt, where everything is fused together with no apparent pattern, but still functions (475). They are quick to remind us “that the two spaces in fact exist only in mixture: smooth space constantly being translated, transversed into a striated space; striated space is constantly being reversed, returned to a smooth space” (474). The two are always at play, going back and forth, much like deterritorialization and reterritorialization. . . .