In Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze, Keith Ansell Pearson argues that the species “is a transcendental illusion in relation to the virtual-actual movement of life, which is always evolving in the direction of the production of individuation” (62). Deleuze’s theory of individuation sheds new light on Lessing’s portrayal of the paradoxical relationship between the individual and the species. For Deleuze, individuation is the double movement of differentiation/differenciation:
differentiation refers to the process of becoming virtual while differenciation that of becoming actual. The movement allows the individual to break from the control of the species under certain conditions since the individual signifies two entities at the same time: the virtual individual and the actual individual. Thus, for Deleuze, the individual not only follows the evolution of the species but also precedes the species. Here, the
58
individual is not born just to enhance the survival of the species but to enable the multiplicity of life as well as cosmic evolution, which enables communication among disparate individuals/elements.
Deleuze holds that evolution develops, not according to a pre-established blueprint of the species, but aims at the changeability and potentiality of evolution itself. Survival of the species for Deleuze is not the aim of evolution; instead, evolution traverses species and organisms in order to enact its multiplicity. In Germinal Life: The Difference and
Repetition of Deleuze, Ansell-Pearson claims, “If Darwin’s theory of ‘descent with
modification’ put an end once and for all to the theological doctrine on the fixity of species, then Deleuze’s thinking of radical difference also aims to expose theimpossibility of the fixity of fields of individuation” (95). Deleuze overthrows the priority of species in proposing that the movement of evolution is not for “the sake of species and organisms,” but for creativity and difference. According to Deleuze, “[S]pecies and parts are not primary; they are imprisoned in individualsas though in a crystal. Moreover, the entire world may be read, as though in a crystal ball, in the moving depth of individuating differences or differences in intensity” (Difference and Repetition 247).
Table 1.2: The individual here refers to the embryonic state of life. It is virtual.
The concept Analogy
Individual Crystal
Embryo
The World Egg
The image of a crystal is employed to emphasize the generating characteristics of the
59
individual since the surface of the crystal is not where its limitation is but indicates where it starts to proliferate in response to the milieu. The virtual individual serves as the
reservoir of infinite assemblages, which trigger the (trans)formations of the species and parts on the way to individuation or evolution. Most importantly, the crystal individual expresses the world through unfolding and actualizing differences. The individual here refers to the embryonic state of life, which is not a limited subject but rather a larval life form.
Deleuze further extrapolates from von Baer’s embryology and employs the image of an embryo to signify how the embryo manifests movements that transcend the limitation of the species. Deleuze argues that
an embryo does not reproduce ancestral adult forms belonging to other species, but rather experiences or undergoes states and undertakes movements which are not viable for the species but go beyond the limits of the species, genus, order or class, and can be sustained only by the embryo itself, under the condition of embryonic life. (Difference and Repetition 249)
For Baer, the embryo does not replicate the parts of the organism to which it belongs;
instead, it traverses the boundaries of the species, genus, order, or class and serves as the
“phantasm of its parents” because “every embryo is a chimera, capable of functioning as a sketch and of living that which is unlivable for the adult of every species” (Difference
and Repetition 250). The embryo precedes the development of the specific species since
embedded within the embryo are infinite possibilities and divergences. Deleuze proposes that “the embryo is the individual as such directly caught up in the field of itsindividuation” and that “it is the individual which is above the species and precedes the species in principle” (Difference and Repetition 250). It is the species that is an illusion rather than the individual. What the individual signifies here is not the specific subject or
60
self but a fluid and virtual entity. Based on the above arguments, individuals shall never be considered as members of a species; instead, according to James Williams, “they cross species and are a condition for the emergence of species through a process that Deleuze calls indi-drama-different/citation” (Gilles Deleuze's Difference and Repetition 189).
Extrapolating the concept of individuation from Gilbert Simondon, Deleuze places emphasis on the process and claims that the process of individuation or
indi-drama-different/citation is similar to that of an egg’s development:
The world is an egg. Moreover, the egg, in effect, provides us with a model for the order of reasons (organic and species related)
differentiation-individuation-dramatization-differenciation. We think that difference of intensity, as this is implicated in the egg, expresses first the differential relations or virtual matter to be organized. This intensive field of individuation determines the relations that it expresses to be incarnated in spatio-temporal dynamisms (dramatisation), in species which correspond to these relations (specific differenciation), and in organic parts which correspond to the distinctive points in these relations (organic differenciation).
Individuation always governs actualisation: the organic parts are induced only on the basis of the gradients of their intensive environment; the types
determined in their species only by virtue of the individuating intensity.
Throughout, intensity is primary in relation to organic extensions and to species qualities. (Difference and Repetition 251)
Here, as we can see, Deleuze insists that it is through the intensive field of individuation that the species and organisms are induced. For Deleuze, the “intensive field of
individuation” indicates the intensity such as temperature and humidity. This intensive field of individuation interacts with its milieu in a differential relation and determines the
61
direction of the species just as temperatures in different areas influence the nasal
structures of the inhabitants. For example, normally people who live in hotter places such as Africa possess flat noses while those who live in colder place such as Russia possess high noses. In the process of individuation, intensity serves as the catalyst that propels the development from differentiation to individuation to dramatization to differenciation.
Individuation refers to a process, rather than something that is already there in the individual. There are three stages of individuation in which the intensity “actualizes”
difference in multiple ways. The first stage, “differentiation,” signifies virtual multiplicities that distribute differential relations along with their singularities. The second stage is dramatization or intensities, in which difference of intensity expresses differential relations or virtual matter and incarnates the virtual multiplicities into spatio-temporal dynamisms. The third stage is differenciation: if the dynamism is revealed in species, it is specific differenciation, and if revealed in organs, it is organic differenciation. Therefore, differenciation includes actualized individuals, or species and parts. Individuation possesses both sides of virtual and actual or intensity and extensity.
The “virtual” aspect of difference in the first stage is dramatized in the second stage, the
“spatio-temporal” aspect of difference; in the third stage, the “specific” aspect of difference is actualized. Deleuze asserts that “Individuation does not presuppose any differenciation; it gives rise to it” (Difference and Repetition 247). Individuation does not limit the fulfillment of differenciation within a certain frame; instead, it multiplies and proliferates on its way to actualizing itself by determining differential relations. This is epitomized in Deleuze’s claim that “Individuation is the act by which intensity
determines differential relations to become actualized, along the lines of differenciation and within the qualities and extensities it creates” (Difference and Repetition 246). Thus, intensities (differences) are actualized into extensities (repetition); the virtual is
62
crystallized into the actual; the differentiated is turned into the differenciated.
Since Intensity plays an important role in the process of individuation, I explain the concepts of intensity and extensity before exploring the relationships of individuation and intensity.
Table 1.3: The concept of indi-drama-different/citation:
The concept of indi-drama-different/citation:
virtual
actual
Differentiation Individuation (Ideas) Dramatization (Intensity)
Differenciation (quality and extensity)
In Difference and Repetition, Delezue proposes that “Difference in the form of intensity remains implicated in itself, while it is cancelled by being explicated in
extensity” (Difference and Repetition 228). Difference is “inexplicable”; it is explicated only when it is cancelled. That is, when its multiplicity is turned into self-same Identity.
Moreover, intensity is enveloped and enveloping. It is implicated in itself and “continues to envelope difference at the very moment when it is reflected in the extensity and the quality that it creates” (Difference and Repetition 240). The importance of intensity in actualizing Ideas can be glimpsed by the following question regarding Ideas, proposed by Delezue in Difference and Repetition: “How is the Idea determined to incarnate itself in differenciated qualities and differenciated extensities? What determines the relations coexisting within the idea to differenciate themselves in qualities and extensities?”
(Difference and Repetition 245) It is intensity that determines the differential relations of
63
Ideas and thereby turns virtual multiplicities into spatio-temporal dynamisms. For
Deleuze, “Intensity is the determinant in the process of actualization. It is intensity which
dramatizes. It is intensity which is immediately expressed in the basic spatio-temporal
dynamisms and determines an “indistinct” differential relation in the Idea to incarnate itself in a distinct quality and a distinguished extensity” (Difference and Repetition 245).If intensity is the catalyst that triggers the actualization of Ideas, then what are the Ideas that serve as the virtual matter to be actualized? To begin with, Deleuze’s concept of Idea is not a Platonic one. Deleuze claims that Ideas possess two sides: the virtual and the actual. Ideas are “pure virtuality” when the differential relations and the repartitions of singularities “coexist according to their own particular order in the virtual
multiplicities which form Ideas” (Difference and Repetition 279). On the other hand, Ideas are actual because “they are actualized in species and parts, qualities and extensities which cover and develop these fields of individuation. A species is made up of
differential relations between genes, just as the organic parts and the extensity of a body are made up of actualized pre-individual singularities” (Difference and Repetition 279).
Ideas are incarnated as different species, parts, and actualized individuals according to the intensity or milieu they encounter. Consider the color white. Deleuze proposes, “The Idea of colour, for example, is like white light which perplicates in itself the genetic elements and relations of all the colours, but is actualized in the diverse colours with their
respective spaces” (Difference and Repetition 206). The Idea of color is expressed or actualized through the intensity that determines the differential relations and transforms the Idea of color into different extensities (colors) in accordance with specific
spatio-temporal conditions. With the example of color, we can perceive the oscillation between the virtual and the actual. If “Ideas contain all the varieties of differential relations and all the distributions of singular points coexisting in diverse orders
64
‘perplicated’ in one another” (Difference and Repetition 206), then we are led to the virtual sea of Ideas. If Ideas are expressed as a specific form, then we encounter the actual form of Idea. Deleuze calls “the determination of the virtual content of an Idea differentiation” and “the actualization of that virtuality into species and distinguished parts differencaition” (Difference and Repetition 207).
The interrelationships among individuation, intensities, and Ideas can help us
understand Deleuze’s thesis that the individual precedes the species. If Platonic Ideas are
“virtual” models to be followed by “actual” worldly things, Deleuzian Ideas possess both sides: the virtual and the actual. They are virtual powers of differentiation, determined by the intensities and then actualized into species. In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze explicates the interrelationships among individuation, intensities, Ideas, and singularities in more detail. He delineates how individuation is influenced by the communicating intensities, how the differential relations are determined by the intensities, and how Ideas envelop all the varieties of differential relations and singularities.
Individuation is mobile, strangely supple, fortuitous and endowed with fringes and margins; all because the intensities which contribute to it communicate with each other, envelop other intensities and are in turn enveloped. The
individual is far from indivisible, never ceasing to divide and change its nature.
It is not a Self with regard to what it expresses, for it expresses Ideas in the form of internal multiplicities, made up of differential relations and distinctive points or pre-individual singularities”(Difference and Repetition 257-8).
For Deleuze, individuation is based partly on turning differentiation into the “external”
pre-established cause or identity of the species. The differentiated part is constituted by
“internal” multiplicities, differential relations, and singularities. What the species is will be determined by how the virtual individual enacts multiplicities, differences, and
65
singularities via determining the intensity; simultaneously, the virtual individual never actualizes the intensities of the species without turning the intensities into the external properties of the actual individual. Here, we can understand differences from the two different perspectives of Individuation (Ideas): differentiation and differenciation. On the level of differentiation, difference is the mere power of intensities, while on the level of differenciation, differences become the extensities. When the individual refers to the virtual differential side, s/he can be connected with the Ideas that coexist in the
enveloping and enveloped waves of intensities. It is these communicating intensities that enable the individual to transcend the boundaries of and enact differences in the species.
To put it in another way, on the level of differentiation, difference is the “difference of difference,” while, on the level of the individual, difference becomes the fold between internal difference and external difference because the individual oscillates between the virtual and the actual. When individuals are viewed in terms of their actual side, they follow the rules of the species; on the other hand, when they are viewed in terms of their virtual side, they are capable of transcending the limited rules of species established for certain species. The two concepts are compatible because of the double nature of individuation: differentiation and differenciation. The way intensity is explicated into extensity works in a similar mode to the way differentiation is turned into differenciation.
In short, the individual, on the one hand, follows the rules of the species, and, on the other hand, precedes the species since the individual here refers, not only to the
actualized individual who abides by the rules of the species, but also to the larval, embryonic state of life. The “virtual” individual is not controlled by the species but evolves with the dynamic choreography of the assemblages in the cosmos. Now, using Delueze’s theory of individuation, I explore the entwined relationship of Johor and the species.
66
Individuation of Johor and the Paradoxical Relationship of the Individual and the Species (the Collective)
In Shikasta, Johor oscillates between the incorporeal and the corporeal, depending on his milieu. His ability to transcend the spatio-temporal coordinate, his long lifespan, and his androgyny embody Lessing’s reconfigured concept of the individual in relation to the species. Why does Lessing create a character who, as previously mentioned, freely juggles at least five identities: the immaterial galactic messenger who can transcend the spatio-temporal coordinate, the galactic messenger who is subject to the cosmic plan, Johor’s soul in Zone Six, the incarnated George who is conditioned by the rules of species in gender and physicality, and the same George who is able to problematize the marital relationship by recalling the ancient concept of high marriage that echoes Canopeans’ androgynous, harmonious relationship? What can these seemingly
contradictory identities reveal to us? How can Johor simultaneously follow and precede the species?
Though Johor appears governed by the rules of the species, in Deleuzian terms, he actualizes the virtual power of intensities of the species. The two levels of individuation, the double movement of differentiation and differenciation, in Deleuze’s theory, help explain the relationship between Johor and “his” mother planet, Canopus. On the one hand, when Johor is manifested as a virtual, larval state of life, which connects with the cosmic forces SOWF and Lock, he is moving towards differentiation. Johor describes the interacting currents, manifested on Shikasta as SOWF and Lock, which connects
Canopus and Shikasta with other planets. “Now we had to look outwards, away from Rohanda--in the balances of powers elsewhere, among the stars who were holding us, Canopus, in a web of interacting currents” (Shikasta 17).The interacting currents
67
virtualize Johor and enable him to connect with other beings. On the other hand, the virtual individual Johor is turned into the actual galactic messenger, Johor, and the Shikastan, George Sherban. What is more, George is virtualizing himself through “high marriage” that exemplifies the disappearance of the boundary between the individual, earth, and heaven. Between the virtual and the actual is Johor’s soul. In Deleuzian terms, we can say that Johor’s intensity is fixed as extensity or the virtual differential relation is incarnated (dramatized) into actualized individuals by the process of “differenciation.” In the process of individuation or indi-drama-different/citation, both actualized individuals and the species are crystallized. In this way, the species evolves with the transformation of “virtual” individuals while “actual” individuals abide by the rules of the species/the cosmic plan. Evolution of the individual incubates the species, and the individual, undergoing creation, follows the rules of the species/the cosmic plan.
The virtual individual precedes the actual species (Canopeans) in Johor’s role as the galactic messenger. His encounters in various milieux result in doubts and divergences, which indicate to him the infeasibility of underplaying differences and inequalities by following the fixed rules of the species/the cosmic plan. Deleuze’s theory of individuation or indi-drama-different/citation involving the oscillation between the actual and the virtual helps us understand implicit mutuality in the relationship of the individual and the species.
In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze proposes that the difference or inequality between the virtual and the actual will be cancelled when virtual intensity is turned into actual extensity; nevertheless, the transformation is never complete because there are always remainders, which trigger transformation of the virtual and thus the actual. In
Shikasta, the remaining differences and divergences between the virtual and the actual
enable Johor to move between the virtual (SOWF and Lock) and the actual (the role of68
messenger) and transcend them at the same time. On the one hand, Johor as the virtual individual enacts the virtual intensities that trigger the differential relations within virtual matter. On the other hand, Johor’s virtual intensities have to be incarnated in qualities and extensities, such as the actualized individual, George, who follows the rules of the species.
The virtual individual, Johor, determines the trajectory of the species while his actualized individual follows the rules of the species set by Canopus. Johor as a virtual individual is a crystal or embryo—in a larval state of life. Johor as an actualized individual is attached to the cosmic plan and to extensities such as stellar alignments, architectural structures, and individual temperaments.
Tracing Johor’s life trajectory reveals how individuation works and how it points to
Tracing Johor’s life trajectory reveals how individuation works and how it points to