The potential applicability of Deleuzian philosophy as an approach to understand the dynamics of memorial cultures has been explored previously (e.g. Parr, 2008) - for the most part this has been done with reference to Deleuze's reading of Henri Bergson's notion of time and memory as this was presented in Le Bergsonisme (1966). Deleuze's (and Bergson's) understanding of the past as co-existing with the present simply suggests that the diachronic evolution of culture is rejected in favour of an experiential synchronicity of past and present. This synchronicity already indicates a convergence of time horizons – as it represents a convergence of various and disparate synchronicities and its respective retrospectives.
Time is, however, not the only way in which the motif of convergences can be used to approach memory cultures from a Deleuzian perspective. The term assemblage represents one of the key concepts in Deleuze's philosophy – notably with regards to his collaborative work with Felix Guattari. Especially in Mille Plateaux (1980) they use the idea of assemblages to denote and describe destratified configurations of autonomous, but still related semiotic, organic and anorganic parts; constellations of performative actions; and concentrations of relational functionalities. Through these assemblages the various flows of ontological "becomings" are facilitated. If the dynamics of memory cultures were to be mapped on the dynamics of assemblages, this presents a viable approach to regard the various convergences that memory cultures inherently suggest – whether these convergences are historical, political, institutional or disciplinary in nature.
The aim of this paper is to try and understand memory cultures through Deleuze & Guattari's theories on assemblages. Assemblages in principle are convergent in nature and held together by two axes: the one comprising the segments of content and expression and the other representing the territorialization and deterritorialization sides of the assemblage. So too memory veers between material contents and discursive expressions, either of which can be territorialized, deterritorialized and reterritorialized, depending on its adherence to a normative benchmarking of remembering. But the complexity of rhizomatic assemblages is not limited to this – and neither is the dynamics of memory and memory cultures. One of the main issues refers to the question as to what convergences of various assemblages would entail for memory cultures? And whether a respective minor-major status can be identified to illuminate the politics of the various memory flows? Deleuzian philosophy might not present all the answers, but it does provide a toolkit to understand memory as both an assemblage of convergences and a convergence of assemblages.
