Deleuze & Guattari “we as women .. .” makes its appearance as a subject of enunciation. But it is dangerous to confine oneself to such a subject, which does not function without drying up a spring or stopping a flow

Posted: October 17, 2010 in 2010

 

1730: BECOMING-INTENSE, BECOMING-ANIMAL… Thousand Plateaus

 

Yes, all becomings are molecular: the animal, flower, or stone one

becomes are molecular collectivities, haecceities, not molar subjects,

objects, or form that we know from the outside and recognize from experi-

ence, through science, or by habit. If this is true, then we must say the same

of things human: there is a becoming-woman, a becoming-child, that do

not resemble the woman or the child as clearly distinct molar entities (al-

though it is possible—only possible—for the woman or child to occupy

privileged positions in relation to these becomings). What we term a molar

entity is, for example, the woman as defined by her form, endowed with

organs and functions and assigned as a subject. Becoming-woman is not

imitating this entity or even transforming oneself into it. We are not, how-

ever, overlooking the importance of imitation, or moments of imitation,

among certain homosexual males, much less the prodigious attempt at a

real transformation on the part of certain transvestites. All we are saying is

that these indissociable aspects of becoming-woman must first be under-

stood as a function of something else: not imitating or assuming the female

form, but emitting particles that enter the relation of movement and rest,

or the zone of proximity, of a microfemininity, in other words, that produce

in us a molecular woman, create the molecular woman. We do not mean to

say that a creation of this kind is the prerogative of the man, but on the con-

trary that the woman as a molar entity has to become-woman in order that

the man also becomes- or can become-woman. It is, of course, indispensa-

ble for women to conduct a molar politics, with a view to winning back

their own organism, their own history, their own subjectivity: “we as

women .. .” makes its appearance as a subject of enunciation. But it is dan-

gerous to confine oneself to such a subject, which does not function with-

out drying up a spring or stopping a flow. The song of life is often intoned

by the driest of women, moved by ressentiment, the will to power and cold

mothering. Just as a dessicated child makes a much better child, there

being no childhood flow emanating from it any longer. It is no more ade-

quate to say that each sex contains the other and must develop the opposite

pole in itself. Bisexuality is no better a concept than the separateness of the

sexes. It is as deplorable to miniaturize, internalize the binary machine as

it is to exacerbate it; it does not extricate us from it. It is thus necessary to

conceive of a molecular women’s politics that slips into molar confronta-

tions, and passes under or through them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s