# Deleuze for Developers: will {Smooth space,Open Source} suffice to save us?

If you truly want to understand technology today, then you should at least be familiar with the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. Unfortunately for technologists, Deleuze is rooted firmly in a philosophical tradition and a writing style that they probably find opaque. In this blog series, I plan on explaining Deleuze’s philosophy in terms that programmers can understand. This is the third in the series. You can find the first here. Enjoy.

Deleuze and Guattari employ the notion of ‘smooth space’ quite a bit in *A Thousand Plateaus*. I saw this quote about it the other day:

never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us

I’ve recently been giving a lot of thought to 'cultural hegemony’

and its applicability to the web, specifically along the lines of

Google. Basically, cultural hegemony is the idea that you don’t just

have dominance through laws or economics, but through culture. So, for

example, Google submitted SPDY to become HTTP 2.0: it’s going through

the standards process, it’s 'open,’ but it also gives Google a lot of

cultural leverage.

So there’s this connection there between smooth space and open source, and the battle between the Nomads and the State Apparatus. We’ll cover that second bit in a while, but for now: what is 'smooth space’?

## The spatial metaphor

The first thing to understand about these concepts is that Deleuze and

Guattari is (I think of them as a singular entity…) a big fan of

spatial metaphors. Essentially, we can project our problem domain onto

a 2 or 3 (or more) dimensional space, and then use tools to analyze

that space. I was first introduced to this technique by Manuel de

Landa, who has a great lecture called “Deleuze and the use of the

genetic algorithm in archetecture” (video)(text). A quick rundown:

So, let’s talk about the N queens problem. We have a chess board

with one space, and we place one queen on it:

(warning, lots of ASCII (+ unicode) art to follow)

```
.-.
|♕|
.-.
```

This board is legal. It’s a solution to the '1 queen problem’: one

queen, a 1x1 board. What about 2 queens? We have no solutions. (2 and

3 don’t. :/ All other natural numbers do.) First we place a queen:

```
.---.
|♕| |
-----
| | |
.---.
```

… but there’s no legal place for the second one. Bummer. We can

determine that there’s no solution by using a simple brute force with

backtracking: place the queen in the upper right, then try to place

the second below it. That’s not legal, so we backtrack and place it on

the right. That’s not legal, so we backtrack and put it in the bottom

corner. Oh no! That didn’t work, so let’s move our first queen: now

it’s in the bottom right, and we try to place the second in the upper

right: fail! So we backtrack….

As you can see, this is a lot of steps for a small board. Once you get

up to a 'real’ chess board, there are 4,426,165,368 possible

placements, but only 92 solutions. A needle in a haystack! And we’re

using a lot of steps to determine if there’s even one possible

placement. We need something better.

One answer is genetic algorithms. So we can take our board’s current

state and assign it a score. When we place a new queen, if it makes

our score better, we keep it, and if it doesn’t, we lose it. Now we’ve

taken our 2x2 board and projected it onto a 2-axis linear space.

Imagine a plot where queens are on the x axis and score is on the y

axis:

```
.dAHAd.
.adAHHHAbn.
.dAHAd. .adAHHHHHHAbn.
.adAHHHAbn. .adAHHHHHHHHAbn.
dHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHb
dHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHb
```

So we want to keep going with our solution as long as it slopes up:

we’ve found that our answers are at the maximum of each curve. Yay

calculus! But here’s the thing: this curve only has two possible

maxima: we will have more. And it might not be in 2-d space, it might

be in 5-d space. And we can only 'use math’ to find the maximum if we

generate the entire curve, which seems computationally out of our

reach. So how do we find the maximum without generating the whole

curve? Genetic algorithms!

One such is ’simulated annealing.’ Without getting too into it,

let’s just say that there’s a 'cooling factor’ that controls how

tolerant we are of going back down a slope. So at first, we wildly go

all over the search space, but then, as we progress, we tighten up our

cooling factor, and we stop being so wild. Eventually, we’ll arrive at

a solution that’s very likely to be the true global maxima/minima.

Neat!

## Discrete vs. Continuous

If we know that the enemy is open to attack, and also know that our men are

in a condition to attack, but are unaware that the nature of the ground makes

fighting impracticable, we have still gone only halfway towards victory.

- Sun Tzu, “the Art of War”

Another interesting feature of this particular projection is that it

transforms our problem from a discrete problem into a continuous one.

One great tactic for when you’re losing: change the battlefield. Our

genetic algorithm tool needs a continuous space to operate, but our

problem is that our chess board is discrete. What do I mean by this?

“discrete space” is one in which the points are separated from one

another in some way. As an example, 'integers’ form a discrete

topology: there’s a 'gap’ between 1, 2, 3, and 4. You can see this by

drawing a number line:

```
<--(-2)--(-1)--(0)--(1)--(2)-->
```

The real numbers form a continuous topology rather than a discrete

one, there is no space between them. A ’real line’:

```
<------------------------->
```

Our 'scoring’ mechanism allows us to change the battlefield, it forms

a function (isomorphism) to convert our discrete topology into a

continuous one. We can now bring our continuous tooling to bear on a

problem that was previously inaccessible.

## Striated vs Smooth Space

Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs

away from high places and hastens downwards. So in war, the way is to avoid

what is strong and to strike at what is weak. Like water, taking the line of

least resistance. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the

ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to

the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant

shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.

- Sun Tzu, “the Art of War”

Okay. NOW we’re ready to talk about smooth and striated space. They

have a number of names for this concept, and the one that’s most

direct from where we currently are is 'Riemann space / Euclidean

space’. Smooth -> Riemann, Euclidean -> Striated. Another isomorphism.

;)

Euclidean geometry is pretty much the foundation of a metric ton of

our math. It’s what’s now known as algebra and geometry: lots of

integers, discrete spaces. This cube starts at (1,2,4) and has a side

length of 5. Cartesian coordinates.

Along comes Gauss, who was incredibly intelligent. He had this

student named Riemann, who ran with the ideas Gauss had and

started Riemannian Geometry. Riemann’s geometry is

non-Euclidean: if Euclid described lines, Riemann described

curves. Einstein would later base the theory of relativity on

Riemannian geometry.

So, who cares? Well, think about it this way: You’re in a car, driving

down a straight road. It goes for miles, with no turns or other

streets. You’re operating in a smooth space: you can easily go from

one place to another. Now, someone comes along and puts up stop signs

every block. You must (for now) stop at these signs. Now you’re

operating in a striated space: your movement is restricted. Now you’re

moving from point to point on a line. It’s a very different

experience, and you also didn’t have anything to do with the stop

signs….

According to D&G, 'the state machine’ (one instance of which is the

State) attempts to take space that is smooth and striate it. This is

often a means towards imperialism, as the striation happens through

quantification. Take, for example, the sea: a smooth space, you can

impose latitude and longitude on top of it, simultaneously quantifying

and striating it. This allows you to navigate the waters, and conquer

the sea.

This is also the position that many web startups take: 'friendship’

was a smooth space before social networks came along. They quantified

and striated that space, turning “I have many friends” into “I have

200 friends and you have 100 friends.” This quantification allows for

commodification: now Facebook can sell ads. It’s also why startups

don’t often have a 'business model’ at first: they first need to

conquer and striate their space before they find the commodity.

Sometimes you just hit dirt and go bust, sometimes you find a more

precious commodity, then refine and sell it.

'nomads’ are entities which navigate and live in smooth spaces. Maybe

my twitter bio makes a bit more sense now. ;)

## How do you create a smooth space?

You might remember Riemann from the ’Riemann sum’ in Calc I. The

brilliance of the Riemann sum is that it first striates, then

re-smooths the space. You start off first with a curve, and then

approximate the area under it by dividing it into a number of

evenly-sized bits. This first bit was necessary in a world without

calculus: we didn’t have the tooling or concepts to actually tackle

the real area, so we mapped that problem to one we did know how to

solve. As the number of bits goes up, and their width goes down, more

and more of the space under the curve is captured by our algorithm.

Finally, once we’re able to take that first step away from (striated)

algebra and move into (smooth) calculus, we’re able to move about on

the curve for reals. We’re back to smooth space again.

This interplay between smooth and striated spaces often happens, and

there’s really no part of our world today that’s completely smooth or

entirely striated. D&G posit that the left should be attempting to

create as much smooth space as possible, and that capitalism is

constantly attempting to striate space. That said, smooth space is

necessary, but not sufficient: capitalism, in its hunger and lust for

acquisition and totalitization, has managed to navigate some smooth

spaces. I’ll just quote straight from 'a thousand plateaus’, 492. It’s

a little hard, but this is getting long enough as is. ;)

Not only does the user as such tend to be an employee, but capitalism

operates less on a quantity of labor than by a complex qualitative process

bringing into play modes of transportation, urban models, the media, the

entertainment industries, ways of perceiving and feeling – every semiotic

system. It is though, at the outcome of the striation that capitalism was

able to carry to an unequaled point of perfection, circulating capital

necessarily recreated, reconstituted, a sort of smooths pace in which the

destiny of human beings is recast. … at the level of world capitalism, a

new smooth space is produced in which capital reaches its 'absolute’ speed,

based on machinic components rather than the human component of labor. The

multinationals fabricate a kind of deterritorialized smooth space in which

points of occupation as well as poles of exchange become quite independent of

the classical paths to striation. .. the essential thing is instead the

distinction between striated capital and smooth capital, and the way in which

the former gives rise to the latter through complexes that cut across

territories and States, and even the different types of States.

The first part about 'users’ is very much drawing a parallel to “If

you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” When they

talk about the 'speed’ of capital, think of HFT. Multinational

corporations have managed to overcome the striation that a State has

imposed. McDonalds is only partially affected by US laws. They operate

'outside’ of states.

In this way, simply being smooth will not suffice to save us.

If you liked this blog post, you may enjoy “Philosophy in a time of software, a moderated Google Group to discuss the intersection of philosophy and technology. This post started out as an email to that list.