Good and Bad Government in Deleuzian Nomad Thought: An Examination Through Aristotelian Categories

By Bukhan Purvan Zayabat

Introduction: Nomad Thought and the Critique of Government

The concept of government has been a central concern in political philosophy, with thinkers from Aristotle to modern political theorists offering diverse perspectives on what constitutes good and bad governance. Aristotle’s categorization of human behavior and his division of government forms provide a foundational framework for understanding the nature of governance. In contrast, Deleuzian nomad thought, as articulated by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, presents a radical rethinking of traditional concepts of power, statehood, and governance. Nomad thought challenges the static, territorialized models of government that have dominated Western political theory, proposing instead a dynamic, fluid approach to politics that emphasizes movement, multiplicity, and the continuous process of becoming.

This article seeks to explore the concept of good and bad government within the framework of Deleuzian nomad thought, using Aristotle’s categorization of human behavior and forms of government as a lens through which to examine the nuances of Deleuze and Guattari’s critique of the state and their vision for a more just and dynamic society. We will begin by outlining Aristotle’s views on human behavior and governance, and then move on to a discussion of how these ideas are reinterpreted and critiqued in Deleuzian nomad thought.

1. Aristotle’s Categorization of Human Behavior and Forms of Government

Aristotle’s political philosophy is grounded in his broader ethical framework, which categorizes human behavior into four distinct types based on the ease with which individuals act virtuously or viciously. These categories not only serve to differentiate types of individuals but also inform Aristotle’s views on governance and the role of the state in cultivating virtue among its citizens.

1.1 The Four Categories of Human Behavior

Aristotle divides human behavior into four main categories: the virtuous, the continent, the incontinent, and the vicious.

1. Virtuous (Good): Those who act with virtue easily and naturally. For Aristotle, these individuals embody the highest moral standards and require little external motivation to act ethically. They are the ideal citizens in a well-ordered society.
2. Continent (Struggling Virtue): Those who act with virtue but do so with difficulty. These individuals recognize the importance of virtue and strive to live ethically, but their actions are often accompanied by internal struggle and conflict.
3. Incontinent (Struggling Vice): Those who act viciously but struggle with their conscience and desire to act virtuously. Although they often fail to live up to moral standards, their internal struggle suggests a potential for improvement.
4. Vicious (Bad): Those who act viciously with ease and without remorse. These individuals embody moral corruption and are unlikely to change without significant external intervention.

Aristotle’s categorization reflects his belief that most people fall somewhere between the extremes of virtue and vice, requiring guidance and support from the state to cultivate more population with virtuous behavior.

1.2 Aristotle’s Forms of Government

In addition to his categorization of human behavior, Aristotle identifies six forms of government, divided into “good” and “bad” types based on their adherence to virtue and the common good. These forms are ranked in terms of their moral and practical effectiveness in promoting a just society.

1. Good Governments:

• Monarchy: The rule of one virtuous leader who governs with the best interests of the people in mind. Aristotle considers this the most ideal form of government when the ruler is truly virtuous.
• Aristocracy: The rule of a few virtuous individuals who are well-educated, experienced, and committed to the common good. This form is considered the second-best option, as it balances power among a small group of wise leaders.
• Polity (Democracy of the Virtuous): A government in which the majority, consisting of citizens with moderate virtues, governs in the interest of the common good. Aristotle sees this as the least ideal of the “good” governments but still preferable to any form of “bad” government.

1. Bad Governments:

• Tyranny: The perversion of monarchy, where a single ruler governs for personal gain rather than the common good. This is considered the worst form of government.
• Oligarchy: The perversion of aristocracy, where a small group of wealthy individuals governs in their own interest, ignoring the needs of the broader population.
• Democracy (Mob Rule): The perversion of polity, where the majority rules in its own interest, often leading to chaos and the marginalization of minority groups. Aristotle views this as a dangerous form of government, prone to instability and injustice.

Aristotle’s preference for aristocracy is based on his belief that a balanced, educated middle class is best suited to govern, as they are neither excessively wealthy nor impoverished and thus less likely to act out of self-interest. The middle class, in his view, possesses the experience and reason needed to govern justly and effectively.

2. Reinterpreting Aristotle Through Deleuzian Nomad Thought

While Aristotle’s framework offers a well-structured approach to understanding government and human behavior, Deleuzian nomad thought provides a radically different perspective that challenges the hierarchical and territorialized models of governance that Aristotle and other classical philosophers have promoted. Deleuze and Guattari’s work disrupts traditional political theory by emphasizing the fluidity, multiplicity, and immanence of political life, advocating for a more decentralized and dynamic approach to governance.

2.1 The Nomadic Critique of Static Government

Deleuzian nomad thought rejects the notion of fixed, static forms of government that are grounded in territorialized structures of power. For Deleuze and Guattari, traditional governments — whether they be monarchies, aristocracies, or democracies — are all forms of reterritorialization, where power is concentrated and controlled within specific boundaries. This territorialization of power leads to the creation of rigid hierarchies and the suppression of difference and multiplicity, stifling the creative potential of individuals and communities.

In contrast, nomad thought advocates for a form of governance that is fluid, decentralized, and open to continuous change. This nomadic approach to government is characterized by deterritorialization, where power is dispersed and operates through networks rather than being concentrated in a central authority. Nomad thought emphasizes the importance of movement, experimentation, and the continuous process of becoming, challenging the static and hierarchical nature of traditional forms of government.

From this perspective, Aristotle’s preference for aristocracy and his emphasis on the role of the middle class can be seen as an attempt to stabilize and territorialize power within a specific social group. While Aristotle values balance and moderation, Deleuze and Guattari would argue that such an approach ultimately limits the potential for new forms of social and political organization to emerge.

2.2 Virtue and the Rhizome: Rethinking the Role of Virtue in Governance

Aristotle’s categorization of human behavior into virtuous, continent, incontinent, and vicious types is based on the idea that virtue is a stable, universal quality that can be cultivated and reinforced through education, experience, and governance. However, Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the rhizome offers a different understanding of virtue, one that is more fluid, dynamic, and context-dependent.

The rhizome, as a metaphor for the structure of thought and society, emphasizes the interconnectedness and multiplicity of life, where different elements interact and influence each other in complex and unpredictable ways. In this rhizomatic view, virtue is not a fixed quality that can be easily categorized or cultivated but rather a dynamic process that emerges from the interactions between individuals, communities, and the broader social and political environment.

In a nomadic society, the role of government is not to impose a fixed set of virtues or moral standards on its citizens but to create the conditions for individuals and communities to explore and express their own unique forms of virtue. This requires a more decentralized and flexible approach to governance, where power is dispersed and individuals are free to experiment with new ways of living and being.

This rhizomatic approach to virtue also challenges the hierarchical nature of Aristotle’s categorization of human behavior. Rather than viewing individuals as more or less virtuous based on their ability to conform to a fixed set of moral standards, nomad thought recognizes the multiplicity of ways in which virtue can be expressed and the importance of creating spaces for different forms of life to coexist and interact.

2.3 The War Machine: Nomadic Resistance to State Power

One of the key concepts in Deleuzian nomad thought is the war machine, a form of social organization that exists in opposition to the state and its territorialized structures of power. The war machine is not necessarily a literal military force but rather a metaphor for any form of collective action that resists the imposition of fixed identities, hierarchies, and boundaries.

In the context of governance, the war machine represents a nomadic force that challenges the centralization and territorialization of power by the state. It operates through deterritorialization, disrupting the stable, hierarchical structures of government and creating new spaces for experimentation, creativity, and resistance.

The war machine can be seen as a response to the failures of traditional forms of government, including those that Aristotle categorizes as “good.” While Aristotle’s ideal governments aim to promote virtue and the common good, they are still grounded in territorialized structures of power that can easily become corrupt or oppressive. The war machine, by contrast, seeks to break down these structures and create new forms of social organization that are more fluid, decentralized, and open to change.

In this sense, the war machine aligns with the nomadic critique of Aristotle’s forms of government, challenging the idea that a stable, centralized government is necessary or desirable for promoting virtue and the common good. Instead, the war machine advocates for a more dynamic and decentralized approach to governance, where power is dispersed and individuals are free to explore new ways of living and being.

3. Toward a Nomadic Vision of Good Governance

Having explored the Deleuzian critique of traditional forms of government, we now turn to the question of what a “good” government might look like in the context of nomad thought. While Deleuze and Guattari reject the idea of fixed, static forms of government, they do offer a vision for a more just and dynamic society that is grounded in the principles of movement, multiplicity, and continuous becoming.

3.1 The Nomadic State: A Government Without Borders

One of the central ideas in nomad thought is the concept of a nomadic state, a form of governance that operates without fixed borders or territorialized structures of power. In a nomadic state, power is not concentrated in a central authority but is instead dispersed across a network of individuals and communities who are free to move, experiment, and interact with one another.

This nomadic approach to governance challenges the traditional notion of the state as a fixed, hierarchical entity that imposes order and control on its citizens. Instead, the nomadic state is more fluid and decentralized, allowing for a greater degree of autonomy and flexibility in how individuals and communities organize themselves.

The nomadic state is also characterized by its emphasis on deterritorialization, where rigid structures and boundaries are broken down to create space for new forms of social organization to emerge. This creates a more dynamic and open-ended approach to governance, where power is constantly reconfigured in response to changing circumstances and challenges.

In this sense, the nomadic state can be seen as a response to the limitations of Aristotle’s forms of government, offering a more flexible and dynamic approach to governance that is better suited to the complexities and uncertainties of modern life.

3.2 The Role of Virtue in a Nomadic Society

While Aristotle’s concept of virtue is grounded in a fixed set of moral standards that are reinforced by the state, nomad thought offers a more fluid and dynamic understanding of virtue that is closely tied to the principles of movement, multiplicity, and becoming.

In a nomadic society, virtue is not a stable, universal quality that can be easily categorized or cultivated but rather a dynamic process that emerges from the interactions between individuals, communities, and the broader social and political environment. This requires a more decentralized and flexible approach to governance, where power is dispersed and individuals are free to explore and express their own unique forms of virtue.

This rhizomatic approach to virtue also challenges the hierarchical nature of Aristotle’s categorization of human behavior. Rather than viewing individuals as more or less virtuous based on their ability to conform to a fixed set of moral standards, nomad thought recognizes the multiplicity of ways in which virtue can be expressed and the importance of creating spaces for different forms of life to coexist and interact.

3.3 The Nomadic Vision of Justice and the Common Good

In contrast to Aristotle’s emphasis on the role of the state in promoting virtue and the common good, nomad thought offers a more decentralized and open-ended approach to justice and governance. In a nomadic society, justice is not about enforcing a fixed set of rules or principles but about creating the conditions for individuals and communities to explore and express their multiplicity in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity.

This approach to justice is closely tied to the concept of deterritorialization, where rigid structures and identities are broken down to create space for new forms of life and social organization to emerge. In a nomadic society, justice is not about imposing a fixed vision of the good society on others but about creating the conditions for people to experiment with new ways of living and being.

This nomadic vision of justice also challenges the traditional notion of the state as the primary guarantor of the common good. Instead, the nomadic state operates as a facilitator of difference and multiplicity, creating spaces for individuals and communities to explore and express their own unique forms of life. This creates a more dynamic and inclusive approach to governance, where the common good is not defined by a fixed set of principles but by the continuous process of becoming.

3.4 The Nomadic Approach to Power and Resistance

Finally, the nomadic approach to power and resistance offers a radical rethinking of the role of government in society. While traditional forms of government are often grounded in the concentration and territorialization of power, nomad thought emphasizes the importance of dispersing power and creating spaces for resistance and experimentation.

The war machine, as a form of nomadic resistance to state power, plays a central role in this vision of governance. Rather than seeking to overthrow or replace existing forms of government, the war machine operates through deterritorialization, disrupting the stable, hierarchical structures of government and creating new spaces for experimentation, creativity, and resistance.

In this sense, the nomadic approach to power and resistance aligns with the broader principles of movement, multiplicity, and becoming that underpin Deleuzian nomad thought. It offers a more dynamic and decentralized approach to governance, where power is constantly reconfigured in response to changing circumstances and challenges.

Conclusion: Toward a Nomadic Vision of Good and Bad Government

In conclusion, the concept of good and bad government in Deleuzian nomad thought offers a powerful critique of traditional forms of governance, while also providing a forward-looking vision for a more just and dynamic society. By challenging the static, territorialized nature of traditional governments and emphasizing the importance of movement, fluidity, and becoming, nomad thought offers a more dynamic, inclusive, and open-ended approach to governance.

Nomadic governance is not about achieving a final, perfect state but about creating the conditions for continuous experimentation, transformation, and becoming. It is a vision of a world where people are free to explore and express their multiplicity, where social relations are fluid and dynamic, and where the process of becoming is embraced as a central aspect of life.

In this sense, nomadic governance offers a new way of thinking about government, one that is in tune with the fluid, dynamic, and ever-changing nature of life. It is an invitation to embrace the uncertainties and contingencies of life, to engage with the process of becoming, and to find new ways of envisioning and creating a better world.