Good afternoon, for our presentation, Reactor Assemblages, I will be presenting live as a

current guest member of Reactor, and Jonathan will be presenting via video as an ex or virtual
member of the group.
Assemblage theor, !anuel "e#andas theor of the social, is a response to the age old theor
of resemblances, in which the social is imagined as a bod with classes, groups, institutions, or
other structures as its organs $"e#anda %&&'( )*. "eveloped from "eleu+e and Guattari, its
purpose is to provide the ontological basis for the wor, of the social sciences. -he theor
see,s to address the relationship between parts and whole in a wa that evades hierarch and
identit. In most social theor the relationships are based on a strict reciprocal determination
between parts where the are defined b their position in the whole $"e#anda %&&'( .*. -hese
relations of interiorit mean that if a part is detached from the whole, it cannot survive intact
because those relations define it. In assemblage theor, the whole is instead characteri+ed b
relations of exteriorit meaning that an element can be ta,en out of one assemblage and
inserted into another, where it can perform a different function. -he theor relies on the idea that
components can actuali+e different capacities in different situations or assemblages $"e#anda
%&&'( /&0//*, for instance, m own functions in the art groups AA1, the 2ero 3oint Group, or
Reactor are ver different, even though I have a limited number of capacities that I can
actuali+e. -he different components of an assemblage interact but maintain their own self0
subsistence and this heterogeneit of parts is central to assemblage theor $"e#anda %&&'(
//*.
Anti-Oedipus $"eleu+e and Guattari /.)4* opens with the example of the mothers breast as a
machine for feeding $and bonding* and describes the wa it is coupled with the babs mouth,
which is a feeding0machine, a breathing0machine, and a language0machine $"eleu+e and
Guattari /.)4*. -his coupling together of machines is developed in A Thousand Plateaus into
the concept of machinic assemblages $"eleu+e and Guattari /.))( 5*. -he use of the word
assemblage in translation belies the fact that it is translated from the 6rench agencement,
which has several meanings( arrangement, laout, or fitting $as in fitting two parts together*, all
of which have the implication of being connected in a particular wa. 7hen concepts, bodies,
or other individuations, get put together in a specific fashion the derive part of their sense from
each other in relation and produce something new. It is in this sense that assemblages are
described as machinic( the are productive.
-his means that it is no longer sufficient to discuss art collectives as unities with a particular
identit( Reactor is not 8ust one thing. -he same is true for audiences, which are composed of
people who have come to the wor, at a particular point in time. -his is particularl important for
groups li,e Reactor whose wor, is activated b audiences participating in the wor,. 7e should
discuss how the Reactor0assemblage ma,es use of the audience0assemblage in the wor, and
how, as primar authors, the ta,e responsibilit for influencing the relations of the group0
audience machine and what it produces.
It is important to be clear that Reactor do not aspire to an ideal of e9ual collaboration with
audience0participants: the participants are co0producers of the wor,, but the are not co0
authors. Reactors practice ac,nowledges that social relationships are une9ual and in tension.
;n the occasions that Reactor do offer up the vision of e9ual collaboration, it is principall a
conceptual0aesthetic device for the purposes of the pro8ect, rather than an ambition. Audience0
participants activate the wor,, the influence its dnamic development and the possibilities that
can be actualised. -he audience0assemblages are components of the wor,, characterised<as
ou sa<b relations of exteriorit. Audience members have lives and potentials before and
beond the wor,, whereas the wor, itself does not exist without them.
7ithout the audience, the wor, is nothing more that a dead sstem of artefacts, texts, rules,
descriptions and demarcations of space. =ut this is not theatre: the form of the conventional
pla has a consistenc as a wor, before it has ever been performed. >es, then it too lac,s life,
but it has a specific existence as an artefact, even without an audience<without ever being
performed. A pla can be activated in the mind of the reader, it does not need to be phsicall
embodied on a stage.
It is not possible for Reactors wor, to exist without activation b an audience. A rehearsal
sufficient to trul activate the wor, re9uires an audience of similar numbers, encountering the
wor, in a similar context, and with similar ,nowledge to that of the eventual real audience. -his
rehearsal audience crosses a threshold and becomes indistinguishable from the real audience.
In this wa the wor, can be considered an emergent propert of the three classes of
assemblages involved. -he Reactor0assemblage and the audience0assemblage set in motion
$and are set in motion b* a third assemblage, comprised of the pre0written framewor, of
artefacts, texts, rules, descriptions and demarcations of space.
I agree with ou that Reactor do not collaborate with the audience, or co-author the wor,, in the
conventional sense. ?owever, if we are considering Reactor and its audience to be
assemblages and, as ou sa, the activate the wor, together, then we ma need to establish
other terms for these interactions.
>ou use the example of theatre to discuss two different functions that an audience can perform
in relation to the wor, being enacted and implicit in this distinction is a difference in the wa the
audience is constructed. -here is obviousl a difference in the phsical position of the audience
in a Reactor wor, and a traditional theatre setting, but this is not necessaril the case with
promenade theatre where audience and actors occup the same space. -he main difference is
in the relative presence or absence of a process of feedbac, between audience and actors or
artists. 6or theatre, feedbac, from the audience is en mass, in the form of applause, laughter, or
gasps of surprise and the performance treats the audience as a homogenous mass, dening its
multiple nature. In contrast, Reactor wor,s rel on heterogeneous feedbac, from an audience
that is multiple and which can influence the foregrounding of different elements of the pro8ect at
different times.
-his brings to mind Roland =arthes suggestion, in S/Z, that texts are either readerl or
writerl. 7hereas the readerl text is simpl a product to be consumed, our onl choice being
to accept or re8ect it, the writerl text is a productive model. An ideal writerl text is li,e a
networ, or assemblage of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds: it has no beginning: it is
reversible: we gain access to it b several entrances, none of which can be authoritativel
declared to be the main one. $=arthes /..&( 40@* -exts are not usuall or often one or the other
but readerl and writerl are tendencies that texts have and it seems to me that Reactor
pro8ects tend towards being writerl in this sense.
Aven where a pla has writerl tendencies, so that directors can activate different meanings in
each performance, the assemblage of the theatre is constructed in such a wa that the abilit of
individual audience members to activate their own capacities is constrained: the cannot get up
on stage and influence the action so that characters interact other than laid out in the text. -he
Reactor assemblage is constructed in a different manner: rather than treat the audience as a
unit, the audience is considered as a heterogeneous assemblage that is coupled to the
Reactor assemblage. #anguage becomes problematic here, because the terms Reactor and
audience both impl unities that are then disavowed.
In conventional theatre<as ou point out<it is usual that audience members be confined to
one ver specific role( that of the audience. -he audience is usuall understood as a molar
entit<to use "eleu+e and Guattaris terminolog<and, broadl spea,ing, it completes a
generalised feedbac, circuit. -he dual function of this feedbac, is, on one hand( to help
establish the considered success of the piece performed and, on the other( to bear witness to
the performance per se<to establish its status as a valid performative occurrence.
In contrast to a molar treatment of the audience, in Reactors wor, we are dealing with
interactions at a molecular level. Bot onl is there a molecular audience, but also a molecular
Reactor, and these molecular agents are interacting with each other, not onl between classes,
but also within them $audience0to0audience interactions and Reactor0to0Reactor interactions*.
Cnli,e these, the third class of assemblage perhaps cannot be considered to be agents $or at
least not active agents*. -he framewor,0assemblage has been prewritten, it cannot ma,e
conscious responsive choices, and whilst Reactor and the audience ali,e can manipulate it, its
stratified nature both constrains and enables potentials that can be actualised.
-his framewor,0assemblage is comprised of the phsical space of the wor, $enclosed interiors,
open spaces, built hierarchical structures, barriers, dwellings*, the visual structure $costumes,
props, banners, signs*, the ideological space $bac,stories, founding mths, appropriate social
and smbolic behaviours* and the sstematic structure $rules, logistics and predetermined
roles*. 3redetermined roles, particularl 8ob0based roles<those geared around maintaining
certain predesigned interlin,ing sstems<serve a ,e function, structuring the experiences and
possibilities for both the audience0assemblage and the Reactor0assemblage. 6or the sstem to
function these roles must be adopted. ?owever, roles can also be subverted or conversel the
can be overidentified with and developed further.
In Asylums, Arving Goffman discusses the total institution and its functioning, which is
obviousl relevant to Reactors practice, consisting as it does of microcosmic worlds that are
self0contained institutions. Goffman writes that patients in mental hospitals learn how to ta,e on
the role of mental patient $Goffman /.')( /D'0/@@*. Roles are what Goffman refers to as the
basic unit of socialisation, which are complex assemblages of behaviours that present a
particular front. According to Goffman, we expect a confirming consistenc and coherence
between setting, appearance, and manner $Goffman /.5/( D@*: being served at the newsagent
b someone dressed in surgical scrubs would be disorientating. A significant characteristic of
social front is its generalit, for instance, the use of a white coat to conve a front of scientific
,nowledge that can be plaed b a doctor or a salesman demonstrating a rug cleaner. -here
must be a set of starting positions in an interaction, whether these are formall established in
the pro8ect or simpl habits of convention. Reactor ta,es advantage of these habits of front to
9uic,l lead the participant in the pro8ects world.
Roles are li,e virtual selves that bring with them a whole set of behaviours and actions. 7hen
someone ta,es on the role of participant or performer the usuall find that a particular front is
alread established for them $Goffman /.5/( D5*. -he ad8ustments participant and artist ali,e
ma,e to their separate roles are referred to b Goffman as primar ad8ustments, but in addition
to these, he adds secondar ad8ustments. 1econdar ad8ustments are an habitual
arrangement b which a member of an organi+ation emplos unauthori+ed means, or obtains
unauthori+ed ends $Goffman /.')( /5%*( was in which the do not fit into the agreed roles:
what the get awa with.
In terms of Reactor pro8ects, primar ad8ustments are moves participants ma,e in order to
ad8ust themselves to the role of participant in a particular pro8ect. -hese ad8ustments are based
on cues provided b the artists involved, an institutional structures the pro8ect ta,es place
within, and also an other participants. Eontained secondar ad8ustments would be those that
the participant ma,es within the parameters of the pro8ect where the participant tries to wor, the
sstem for self gain. -hese ad8ustments ma be permitted b the artist because the do not
threaten the pro8ect, but rather serve to ,eep the participant engaged: li,e a release valve.
Returning to the notion of Reactor pro8ects being assemblages in which a Reactor0assemblage
and an audience0assemblage meet, it should be clear from reading Goffman that, even if
individual roles are defined, individual participants wil not sta put. If a participant ma,es
secondar ad8ustments, the rest of the assemblage also ad8usts itself to the participant,
although the effect on the pro8ect ma be barel noticable. ?owever, when the structure of, for
example, Total Ghaos is affected b unrul participants, who arent even reall themselves,
coming in and scrambling things, the effects on the assemblage are unpredicatable. "isruptive
secondar ad8ustments are those designed to facilitate the participant leaving the pro8ect
entirel or affecting radical change in the networ,. "isruptive ad8ustments are rare in art pro8ects
because participants have usuall chosen to be involved.
In Total GHAOS most secondar ad8ustments appeared beneficial to the wor,. 7here behaviour
caused problems for the sstem, it was not when participants tried to gain advantage, but rather
<as ou suggest<through a deranged enthusiasm that ris,ed overriding the sstems practical
functioning $accordingl, on the second da of -otal G?A;1 the opening periods of the vod,a
bars<where earned credits could be spent<were greatl reduced*.
Refusal to ma,e the basic primar ad8ustments re9uired for participation in the wor, itself<
situations where a participant simpl refused to ta,e part<led 9uic,l to that individuals 9uiet
departure. = contrast, all conscious rebellions or disruptions occurring within the terms of the
microcosm served to increase the richness of possibilities actualised. 6or example, the most
severel RAFist behaviour $a term referring to a mthical hate figure within the wor,<
analogous to the Goldstein character from ;rwells Bineteen Aight06our* in fact opened up a
bac,door<via the disguise of a moc, execution<to a place on the 1upreme Eouncil.
1o, certain behaviours and potentials had alread been anticipated and prepared for when the
members of Reactor were devising the framewor,0assemblage. ?owever, these possibilities
remained virtual unless the were actualised through the interactions of the three assemblages.
6or example, the exact level of RAFist behaviour re9uired to access the bac,door was onl
achieved twice over the three das of the event. 1imilarl, much of the bac,stor<whilst still
acting as an invisible scaffold and helping in the wor,s development<remained virtual and was
never directl experienced b participants.
-his discussion of roles as virtual selves and the virtual of the wor, that ma remain unexplored
or unactualised in the wor,s performance ma,es me want to introduce =ergsons cone
diagram. -he diagram can be found in Matter and Memory
$=ergson %&&4( %//* and is used in discussing memor. In the
original diagram point 1 represents m present, in the form of
sensori0motor mechanisms, on the plane 3, m actual
representation of the universe. At the base of the cone, the plane
A= represents m total memor. -he planes AG=G and AGG=GG
represent the multitude of positions I can ta,e up in m life that lie
somewhere between dwelling purel in the moment $point 1* and
being overwhelmed b the totalit of m being to date. 6or the
discussion we have been having about the virtual in Reactors
wor, I would li,e to introduce a second diagram based on =ergsons cone.
In this diagram the plane 3 still represents the actual,
present universe and point 1 represents an actualised
bod or event, let us sa it is Total GHAOS. -he plane A=
represents the total virtual of the wor,( bac,stories, virtual
selves in the form of roles, protocols, pro8ect pre0planning,
the histor of Reactor pro8ects, and so on. I have drawn the
second cone, with its base E" representing a single
participants total conception of the wor,. -he second cone
is off0set from the wor, to suggest that there ma be
assumptions or readings that are never actualised and
which do not fit within the wor,. ?owever, it ma be that the do, in fact, still constitute part of
the virtual of the wor,, and if acted upon b the participant these aspects will affect the
assemblage of the wor, as it is actualised on the plane. In short then, the Reactor0assemblage
develops a framewor,0assemblage and each of these has its own virtual that steers its
actualisation on the plane in the form of an event at point 1. -he wor, is then counter0actualised
in the virtual of the participant0assemblage, which then re0actualises the pro8ect at point 1 in a
modified form in a cclical, imminent, creative process.
References
=arthes, Roland $/..&* S/Z, ;xford, =lac,well.
=ergson, ?. $%&&4* Matter and Memory, !ineola, "over.
"e#anda, !anuel $%&&'* A e! Philosophy o" Society# Assemblage Theory and Social
$omple%ity, #ondon, Eontinuum.
"eleu+e, Gilles H Guattari, 6Ilix $/.)4* Anti-Oedipus# $apitalism and Schi&ophrenia, #ondon,
Athlone.
"eleu+e, Gilles H Guattari, 6Ilix $/.))* A Thousand Plateaus# $apitalism and Schi&ophrenia,
#ondon, Athlone.
Goffman, Arving $/.')* Asylums# 'ssays on the Social Situation o" Mental Patients and Other
(nmates, ?armondsworth, 3elican.
Goffman, Arving $/.5/* The Presentation o" Sel" in ')eryday *i"e, ?armondsworth, 3enguin.