Nomadology: The War Machine

Author and Publication

The war machine is defined as a structure that exists outside the State apparatus, indicating a fundamental difference in the nature of warfare and power.

This exteriority is articulated through various cultural phenomena: mythology, epic narratives, dramatic representations, and games. These serve as mediums that express the war machine's essence and operational dynamics in societal contexts.
Political sovereignty is represented through two key figures:
- Magician-king (Rex, raj): symbolizes magical powers and the charismatic authority that captivate and terrify social groups.
- Jurist-priest (flamen, Brahman): embodies legal authority and the structure of governance that maintains societal order.
These dual roles, although contrasting, function together to present a complementary binary that represents a sovereign unity:
- Magician-king: Often depicted as obscure, violent, quick, and fearsome, embodying the unpredictability and chaos of power.
- Jurist-priest: Characterized by clarity, calmness, weightiness, and regulation, establishing rules and norms within the polity.

War is conceptualized as existing beyond the confines of State apparatus, a significant departure from traditional views that associated violence strictly with State authority:
- State violence can manifest through police enforcement or immediate capture, circumventing the necessity for warfare.
- The integration of war into State operations occurs legally through the army, suggesting a normalization of violence as a function of governance.
The war machine emerges as a chaotic force outside of State regulation, with figures like Indra symbolizing its multiplicity and resistance to fixed structures.
Justice from the perspective of the war machine may be perceived as cruel; however, it carries an undercurrent of compassion, urging alternative relationships with power, gender, and culture.
- It operates beyond binary oppositions, promoting a becoming that resists hierarchical arrangements, allowing for fluidity in social organization.

Chess: A Game of State
- Features fixed pieces with defined roles (knight, bishop) and structured battlefields, embodying a regulated approach to war.
- Reflects a model of dominance and control inherent to State power structures.
Go: A Nomadic Game
- Consists of flexible pieces which function collectively, permitting innovative strategies devoid of rigid roles and hierarchies.
- Represents war that emphasizes adaptability and territorial contestation, showcasing a more fluid approach to conflict.
Both games illustrate contrasting paradigms:
- Chess embodies striated space with fixed entities aiming for dominance.
- Go operates within smooth space, emphasizing continuous movement and the dynamic interplay of strategies.

Analyzing historical myths and narratives reveals the complex relations between State power and warfare.
- Example: The myth of Nkongolo and Mbidi signifies the traditional State's disruption by external military forces (notably Mbidi's army).
Clastres' Perspective asserts that primitive societies employed various mechanisms to resist the establishment of centralized State power, suggesting that war plays a critical role in maintaining social order rather than contributing to State development.

In primitive societies, war serves as a mechanism that preserves group identities and segmentarity, acting as a barrier against State formation.
Clastres theorizes that:
- War does not catalyze the development of a State; instead, it forms an integral aspect of a social state that actively opposes the establishment of hierarchical governance.
- Mechanisms inherent in warfare delineate and constrain social exchanges, preventing the emergence of powerful centralized authorities.

Nomadic societies operate through non-centralized governance frameworks, allowing for fluid power dynamics:
- Leadership is based on prestige and respect rather than formal authority, ensuring collaborative decision-making.
- Example: Street gangs in urban settings illustrate these dynamics, where collective action can limit an individual leader's power through shared decision-making processes.

Distinctions between two scientific paradigms:
- State science (royal/imperial): aims for control and organization of knowledge, exemplified by hylomorphic models that dictate established norms.
- Nomad science (minor science/natural philosophy): embraces fluidity and transformation, focusing on relationships and dynamic processes.
Historic Examples: Figures such as Archimedes and architectural practices of Gothic cathedrals highlight the tension between structured, State-driven demands and the operational dynamics of nomadic practices.

Deleuze and Guattari contend that an understanding of the war machine as a framework outside State constraints can unveil new modes of sovereignty and power relations.
Nomadic thought emphasizes the importance of movement, transformation, and the necessity of creating spaces for fluid identities that defy traditional structures of power and dominance.