How does the regimes of the same and the regimes of the other work? This question is attempting to do hermeneutics of production in Deleuzean style. When we are discussing regimes of the same and the regimes of the other, we are doing what Deleuze and Guattari did when they were taking about regimes of signs. But there is a slight difference. They assert that there are several regimes of signs. Within this plurality, here I am thinking of two regimes: regimes of the same and the regimes of the other. The regimes of the same and the regimes of the other are dealing with the politics of the chain of signs from the privileged location of the same or that of the other.
regimes of the same impose an unitary set of relations based on the imperialism of one/ same. Hence, plurality is, then ,ordered around one/ same and , therefore, the other comes under the other of the same. Disenclosing of the sway of the one/same over the many/ plural opens the power play of signs within the regime of the same. The power play that is opened by disenclosing the regimes of the same, shows how the value of signs is ordered by imperialising the one/ same over all shades of the other.
Disenclosing the regimes of the other, we come to understand that other stays side by other of the other. Hence, the politics does not produce the other as the other of the same but lets the other be the other of the other on a horizontal rhizomatic plane. Having opened the play of signs within the regimes of the same and the regimes of the other, here an attempt is made to do a hermeneutics of production by raising what do these two regimes do our market, politics and faith. This takes us to a second level of disenclosure. We, therefore, try to enter the way assemblages and disassenbages are forged within the field of play of the regimes of the same and that of the other and step deeper to trace their influence on our market, politics and religion. Assemblages and disassemblages are multiplicities that open power relations that are allowed by the logic of the regimes of the same as well as the logic of the regimes of the other.
Logic of the regimes of the same enables and forms assemblages and disables and forms disassemblages . Assemblages begin to co-function and disassemblages remain silenced as disfunctional but are also used to mask as assemblages ( assemblage of democracy for instance is disassembled and this disassemblage puts on mask of democracy). Same is true of the logic of the regimes of otherness . To open the power play of the signs with the regimes of the same as well as the logic of the regimes of the other, we will have to consider the field of play. To open the field of play , we have to introduce the geography of the field of play. The geography of the field of play is opened and closed by the logic and the politics of the regimes of same as well as the regimes of the other in respective consitions. The regime of the same imperializes the one/same and organizes everything under its sway around the imperial relations to the one or the same. Hence geography of the field is opened or closed to form assemblages or disassembleges with reference with the logic and politics of the same/ one. Same is true of the logic and politics of the regimes of the other.
Disenclosing the geography of the field of play that opens assemblages and disassembages enables us to enter market, politics and religion as specific fields of play. The kind of assembleges and disassembleges opened in the market are ordered by the regimes of the same and are the one that are reigning in the present. The market is under the regime of the same. Its energies flow in one direction. It blindly follows the profit principle. Production is not concerned whether it is needed. Production produces for profit and hence, instead of needs, wants are created and consumerist society is assembled. The assemblages of production, supply and consumption only follow the one or the same single principle, the principle of the profit.
The politics of the regime of the same is fascistic. It also orders around the autocratic power of one leader. We can also see how populisms are growing across the globe. No other assemblages of power are allowed. Even democracy is hijacked and disassembled and rendeedr into disassemlage that works. We in India talk of an undeclared emergency. A kind of dissassemblage that produces undeclared emergency is also under the regimes of the same. When it comes to religion , we may say that the structures and the shapes of fundamentalisms growing around the globe appears to be products of regimes of the same. We can discern what kind of assemblages are enabled and disassemblages are produced, side-lined or silenced. Some of the disassemblages mask as assemblages and damage faith life.
Having disenclosed the powerplay of the regimes of the same, we can try to disenclose the field of power play of the regimes of the other with reference to the market , politics and religion. The regime of the other order plurality through the logic of hyphenation and orders it side by side. A market that is not simply based on principle of profit and that blindly produces for profit cannot be imagined. But the merchantile movements before the birth of capitalism shows us that alternate ordering of the market is possible.
The opening of global market was sadly imperialised so that profit moves only in one direction. Capitalism thus, produced assemblages and disassemblages that are ordered around the sway of the imperialized one / same. But the fact the capitalism had a beginning gives us a hope. We can still hope that regimes of the other can enable us to produce other assemblages and disassemblages that will displace the capitalist driven market.
Politics that follows the regime of the other would be truly democratic. It will put up assemblages that will enable participative democracy. Representative democracy is a disassemblage that does not fully work democratically. It was a lesser evil. Today, with the communication revolution, we can move to the micro democracy and assemble a participative democracy. The assemblages within religions may also operate as disassemblages. But with the regimes of the other, God will show up as the other of the other and hence, open relations that are diverse so that playfield of the religious signs also are sufficiently aphophized to enable a communion/ assemblage between God , human and the world.
