【德兰达】德勒兹：历史与科学

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements.2

AssemblageTheoryandHumanHistory.3

MaterialismandPolitics.29

AssemblageTheoryandLinguisticEvolution.51

MetallicAssemblages.67

MaterialistMetaphysics.81

IntensiveandExtensiveCartography.115

DeleuzeinPhaseSpace.141

2Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

Someoftheessaysthatmakeupthisbookarepublishedhere

forthefirsttime,butsomehaveappearedinotherpublicationsin

modifiedform.Thepublishersacknowledgethatsomematerialhas

beenpreviouslypublishedinthefollowingcollections:

DeleuzianSocialOntologyandAssemblageTheory.InDeleuzeandthe

Social.EditedbyMartinFuglsangandBentMeierSorensen.

(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.)

Deleuze,Materialism,andPolitics.InDeleuzeandPolitics.Editedby

IanBuchananandNicholasThobum.(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity

Press,2008.)

MolarEntitiesandMolecularPopulationsinHistory.InDeleuzeand

History.EditedbyJeffreyBellandClaireColebrook.(Edinburgh:

EdinburghUniversityPress,2009.)

DeleuzeinPhaseSpace.InVirtualMathematics.EditedbySimon

Duffy.(Manchester:ClinamenPress,2006.)

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.3

AssemblagesandHumanHistory.

Wenolongerbelieveinaprimordialtotalitythatonce

existed,orinafinaltotalitythatawaitsusatsomefuturedate.Wcno

longerbelieveinthedullgrayoutlinesofadreary,colorlessdialecticof

evolution,aimedatfbnningaharmoniouswholeoutofheterogeneous

bitsbyroundingofftheirroughedges.Webelieveonlyintotalitiesthat

areperipheral.Andifwediscoversuchatotalityalongsidevarious

separateparts,itisawholeoftheseparticularpartsbutdoesnottotalize

them;itisaunityofallthoseparticularpartsbutdoesnotunifythem;

ratheritisaddedtothemasanewpartfabricatedseparately.

GillesDeleuzeandFelixGuattari.TheAnti-Oedipus.1

Acrucialquestionconfrontinganyseriousattemptto

thinkabouthumanhistoryisthenatureofthehistoricalactors

thatareconsideredlegitimateinagivenphilosophy.Onecan,of

course,includeonlyhumanbeingsasactors,eitherasrational

decision-makers(asinmicro-economics)oras

phenomenologicalsubjects(asinmicro-sociology).Butifwe

wishtogobeyondthisweneedaproperconceptualizationof

socialwholes.Theveryfirststepinthistaskistodeviseameans

toblockmicro-reductionism,astepusuallyachievedbythe

conceptofemergentproperties,propertiesofawholethatare

notpresentinitsparts:ifagivensocialwholehaspropertiesthat

emergefromtheinteractionsbetweenitsparts,itsreductiontoa

mereaggregateofmanyrationaldecisionmakersormany

phenomenologicalexperiencesiseffectivelyblocked.Butthis

leavesopenthepossibilityofmacro-reductionism,aswhenone

rejectstherationalactorsofmicro-economicsinfavorofsociety

asawhole,asocietythatfullydeterminesthenatureofits

members.Blockingmacro-reductionismdemandsasecond

concept,theconceptofrelationsofexterioritybetweenparts.

Unlikewholesinwhich“beingpartofthiswhole"isadefining

characteristicoftheparts,thatis,wholesinwhichtheparts

cannotsubsistindependentlyoftherelationstheyhavewitheach

other(relationsofinteriority)weneedtoconceiveofemergent

4Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

wholesinwhichthepartsretainarelativeautonomy,sothatthey

canbedetachedfromonewholeandpluggedintoanotherone

enteringintonewinteractions.

Withthesetwoconceptswecandefinesocialwholes,

likeinterpersonalnetworksorinstitutionalorganizations,that

cannotbereducedtothepersonsthatcomposethem,andthat,at

thesametime,donotreducethosepersonstothewhole,fusing

themintoatotalityinwhichtheirindividualityislost.Takefbr

examplethetightly-knitcommunitiesthatinhabitsmalltownsor

ethnicneighborhoodsinlargecities.Inthesecommunitiesan

importantemergentpropertyisthedegreetowhichtheir

membersarelinkedtogether.Onewayofexaminingthis

propertyistostudynetworksofrelations,countingthenumber

ofdirectandindirectlinksperperson,andstudyingtheir

connectivity.Acrucialpropertyofthesenetworksistheir

density,anemergentpropertythatmayberoughlydefinedby

thedegreetowhichthefriendsofthefriendsofanygiven

member(thatis,hisorherindirectlinks)knowtheindirectlinks

ofothers.Ortoputitstillmoresimply,bythedegreetowhich

everyoneknowseveryoneelse.Inadensenetworkwordof

mouthtravelsfast,particularlywhenthecontentofthegossipis

theviolationofalocalnorm:anunreciprocatedfavor,anunpaid

bet,anunfulfilledpromise.Thisimpliesthatthecommunityasa

wholecanactasadevicefbrthestorageofpersonalreputations

and,viasimplebehavioralpunishmentslikeridiculeor

ostracism,asanenforcementmechanism.

Thepropertyofdensity,andthecapacitytostore

reputationsandenforcenorms,arenon-reduciblepropertiesand

capacitiesofthecommunityasawhole,butneitherinvolves

thinkingofitasaseamlesstotalityinwhichthemembers'

personalidentityiscreatedbythecommunity.Asimilarpoint

appliestoinstitutionalorganizations.Manyorganizationsare

characterizedbythepossessionofanauthoritystructurein

whichrightsandobligationsaredistributedasymmetricallyina

hierarchicalway.Buttheexerciseofauthoritymustbebacked

bylegitimacyifenforcementcostsaretobekeptwithinbounds.

Legitimacyisanemergentpropertyoftheentireorganization

evenifitdependsfbritsexistenceonpersonalbeliefsaboutits

source:alegitimizingtradition,asetofwrittenregulations,or

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.5

evenfbrsmallorganizations,thecharismaofaleader.The

degreetowhichlegitimateauthorityisirreducibletopersons

can,ofcourse,varyfromcasetocase.Inparticular,themore

organizationalresourcesarelinkedtoanofficeorrole(as

opposedtotheincumbentofthatrole)themoreirreducible

legitimacyis.Nevertheless,andhowevercentralizedand

despoticanorganizationmaybe,itsmembersremainultimately

separablefromit,theiractualdegreeofautonomydependingon

contingentfactorsaboutsocialmobilityandtheexistenceof

opportunitiesoutsidetheorganization.

Itisthistypeofsocialwholeproducedbyrelationsof

exteriority,wholesthatdonottotalizetheirparts,thatthe

openingquoterefersto.Butthatquotealsomentionsanother

importantcharacteristic:thatthewholesareperipheralorexist

alongsidetheirparts.Whatexactlydoesthismean?Itisnota

spatialreference,asifcommunitiesororganizationsexisted

nearbyortoonesideofthepersonsthatcomposethem.Deleuze

andGuattarimaysimplyintendtosaythatthepropertiesofthe

wholearenottranscendent(existingonasupplementary

dimensionaboveitsparts)butimmanent.Butitmayalsobean

ontologicalormetaphysicalremark:communitiesor

organizations,tosticktotheseexamples,areashistorically

individuatedasthepersonsthatcomposethem.Whileitistrue

thattheterm“individual“hascometorefertopersons(or

organismsinthecaseofanimalsandplants)itisperfectly

coherenttospeakofindividualcommunities,individual

organizations,individualcities,orindividualnationstates.

Inthisextendedsensetheterm“individual“hasno

preferentialaffinityforaparticularscale(personsororganisms)

andreferstoanyentitythatissingularandunique.Unlike

philosophicalapproachesthatmakeastrongontological

distinctionbetweenlevelsofexistence(suchasgenus,species,

organism)hereallentitiesmustbethoughtofasexistingatthe

sameontologicalleveldifferingonlyinscale.Thehuman

species,fbrexample,iseverybitahistoricalindividualasthe

organismsthatcomposeit.Likethem,ithasadateofbirth(the

eventofspeciation)and,atleastpotentially,adateofdeath(the

eventofextinction).Inotherwords,thehumanspeciesasa

wholeexists“alongside“thehumanorganismsthatcomposeit,

6Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

alongsidetheminanontologicalplanepopulatedonlyby

historicallyindividuatedentities.

Historicalexplanationsareinevitablyshapedbythe

ontologicalpresuppositionsofthehistorianswhoframethem.

Historiansmayberoughlydividedintotwogroupsalongthe

linessuggestedintheopeningparagraph,thatis,dependingon

whichofthetermsofthefollowingbinaryoppositionsthey

favor:"theindividualversussociety","agencyversusstructure”,

“choiceversusorder".Takingthesideofthefirsttermsinthese

dichotomiesyieldsnarrativesinwhichpersons,typically“great

men",haveshapedevents,situations,ortheoutcomesof

particularstruggles,throughtheirideasandactions.Thisdoes

notnecessarilyimplyadisbeliefintheexistenceofsocietyasa

whole,onlyaconceptionofitthatmakesitintoan

epiphenomenon:societyisasumoraggregateofmanyrational

agentsormanyphenomenologicalexperiencesshapedbydaily

routine.Takingthesideofthesecondterms,ontheotherhand,

yieldsnarrativesframedintermsofthetransformationsthat

enduringsocialstructureshaveundergone.Thebestknown

exampleofthisisthesequencefeudalism-capitalism-socialism.

Asbefore,thereisnoimplicationherethatpersonsdonotexist

onlythattheyareamereepiphenomenon:personsaresocialized

astheygrowupinfamiliesandattendschools,andafterthey

haveinternalizedthevaluesoftheirsocietiestheirobedienceto

traditionalregulationsandculturalvaluescanbetakenfor

granted.

ThelatehistorianFernandBraudelbrokewithbothof

thesetraditionalstanceswhenhesetouttostudyeconomic

historytakingashissubject“societyasasetofsets."2The

charactersinhisnarrativesincludesuchdiverseentitiesas

communities,institutionalorganizations,cities,andthe

geographicalregionsformedbyseveralinteractingtownsof

differentsizes.Personsarefeaturedtoobutnotasgreatmen,

whilelargerentities,likekingdoms,empires,world-economies,

aretreatednotasabstractsocialstructuresbutasconcrete

historicalentities.Speakingofa“setsofsets“isanotherwayof

sayingthatthevarietyofformsofhistoricalagency(communal

agency,organizationalagency,urbanagency,imperialagency)

arerelatedtooneanotheraspartstowholes.Braudefsisa

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.7

multi-scaledsocialrealityinwhicheachlevelofscalehasits

ownrelativeautonomyandhence,itsownhistory.Hence,

historyceasestobeconstitutedbyasingletemporalflow-the

shorttimescaleatwhichpersonalagencyoperatesorthelonger

timescalesatwhichsocialstructurechanges一andbecomesa

multiplicityofflows,eachwithitsownvariableratesofchange.

BraudePsvisioncanbeenrichedbyreplacinghissets,

orsetsofsets,withtheirreducibleanddecomposablewholes

justdiscussed.Let'sillustratethiswithaspecificexample,one

thatcombinesBraudel'sdatawithanontologyofindividual

entitiesconstrainingthefieldofvalidhistoricalactors.Anentity

suchas“theMarket”,fbrexample,wouldnotbeanacceptable

entitytobeincorporatedintoexplanationsofhistorical

phenomenabecauseitisnotanindividualemergentwholebuta

reifiedgenerality.Butthemarketplacesorbazaarsthathave

existedineveryurbancentersinceantiquity,andmorerecently

ineveryEuropeantownsincethe11thcentury,areindeed

individualentitiesandcanthereforefigureasactorsin

explanationsoftheriseofEurope,andofthecommercial

revolutionthatcharacterizedtheearlycenturiesofthesecond

millennium.Equallyvalidaretheregionaltradingareasthat

emergedwhenthetownsthathousedlocalmarketplacesbecame

linkedtogetherbyroadsandthetradeamongthemreacheda

thresholdofregularityandvolume.Regionalmarketsbeganto

playanimportanteconomicroleinEuropebythe14thcentury

and,ashistoricallyconstitutedwholescomposedoflocal

marketplaces,theyarevalidhistoricalactors.Soarethenational

marketsthat,startinginEnglandinthe18thcentury,cameinto

beingbystitchingtogether,sometimesforcefully,many

provincialtradingareasthemselvescomposedofmanyregional

markets.Bythe19thcenturytherailroadandthetelegraphmade

thecreationofnationalmarketsasimplertaskandtheyemerged

inplaceslikeFrance,Germany,andtheUnitedStates,playing

animportantroleintheeconomichistoryofthesecountries.3

Otherreifiedgeneralities,like“theState“shouldalso

bereplaced.Asarguedabove,inadditiontocommunitiesaset

ofinteractingpersonscangiverisetoinstitutionalorganizations

possessingemergentpropertieslikelegitimacy.Organizations,in

turn,caninteracttoformalargerwholehkeafederal

8Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

government.Thelatterisawholeinwhichmanyorganizations

arearrangedinahierarchicalwaywithauthorityoperatingat

differentscales:somehaveajurisdictionthatextendstothe

entirecountry;othershaveauthorityonlywithintheboundaries

ofaprovinceorstate;andyetothersoperatewithinthelimitsof

anurbancenteranditssurroundingregion.Whenitcomestothe

implementationoffederalpoliciesthisnestedsetofoverlapping

jurisdictionscanbeapowerfulobstacle,manypolicies

becomingdistortedandweakenedastheyareimplementedat

differentscales.Thisproblem,however,canbecomeinvisibleto

historiansthatusetheconceptof“theState“andview

governmentsasmonolithicentities.Thesetwoexamples

illustratethatthedistinctionbetweenmicroandmacroshould

neverbemadeabsolute,withindividualpersonsplayingtherole

ofmicro-entityandsocietyasawholetheroleofmacro-entity.

Rather,microandmacroshouldbemaderelativetoaparticular

scale.Comparedtotheregionaltradingareasthattheycompose,

localmarketplacesaremicrowhileregionalmarketsaremacro.

Butthelateraremicrorelativetoprovincialmarketswhichare,

inturn,microrelativetonationalmarkets.Similarly,

governmentorganizationswithfederaljurisdictioncanbe

consideredmacrorelativetothosewithauthorityextendingonly

tobordersofstatesorprovinces,andtheseinturnaremacro

relativetolocalurbanauthorities.

Thus,both“theMarket"and"theState"canbe

eliminatedfromamaterialistontologybyanestedsetof

individualemergentwholesoperatingatdifferentscales.The

expression“operatingatdifferentscale"，ontheotherhand,must

beusedcarefiilly.Inparticular,itshouldreferonlytorelative

scale,thatis,toscalerelativetothepart-to-wholerelation.

Giventhefactthatanyemergentwholehasalwaysalarger

extensionthanthepartsofwhichitiscomposed,thisrelative

usageisunproblematic:communitiesororganizationsare

alwayslargerthanthepersonsthatcomposethem.Butthesame

isnottrueiftheterm“scale“isusedinanabsolutesense.If

insteadofcomparingacommunitywithitsownmembers,we

comparedtheentirepopulationofpersonsandtheentire

populationofcommunitiesinhabitingacountry,fbrexample,we

wouldhavetoadmitthatbothpopulationsarecoextensive,that

is,thattheyoccupythesameamountofspace:theentire

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.9

nationalterritory.Andasimilarpointappliestothepopulation

ofinstitutionalorganizations.Butevenifwerelativizethe

conceptwemaystilldisagreeontheuseoftheexpression

“levelsofscale“todistinguishsocialwholes.Whynotuse,for

example,theexpression“levelsoforganization"，aphraseused

bybiologiststocharacterizethepart-to-wholerelationsbetween

individualcells,individualorgans,andindividualorganisms?.

Becausethisconceptcarrieswithitconnotationsofincreased

complexitybetweenlevels,andinsomecases,eventeleological

implications,aswhenbiologicalevolutionisviewedas

involvingadrivetogreatercomplexity,fromunicellular

organismstomulticellularones.Theexpression"levelsof

scale”,ontheotherhand,carriesnosuchconnotations:acityis

clearlylargerthanahumanbeingbutthereisnoreasonto

believethatitpossessesahigherdegreeofcomplexity,orthat

anyofitscomponentpartsismorecomplexthanthehuman

brain.

Onefinalpointneedstobeclarified:whenwesaythat

asetofinteractingpersonsgivesrisetoacommunity,orthata

setofinteractingorganizationsgivesrisetoafederal

government,thisshouldnotbetakentoimplyatemporal

sequence,asifasetofpreviouslydisconnectedpersonsor

organizationshadsuddenlybegantointeractandawholehad

abruptlysproutedintobeing.Inafewcasesthismayindeedbe

thecase,aswhenpeoplefromavarietyofwar-stricken

communitiesaggregateintoarefugeecampandalargerwhole

emergesfromtheirinteractions;orwhenpreviouslyrival

industrialorganizationsaggregateintoacartelformingalarger

wholeastheyinteract.Butinthemajorityofcasesthe

componentpartscomeintobeingwhenawholehasalready

constituteditselfandhasbeguntouseitsownemergent

capacitiestoconstrainandenableitsparts:mostpeopleareborn

intocommunitiesthatpredatetheirbirth,andmostnew

governmentagenciesareborninthecontextofanalready

functioningcentralgovernment.Nevertheless,theontological

requirementofimmanenceforcesustoconceiveoftheidentity

ofacommunityorofacentralgovernmentasbeing

continuouslyproducedbythedaytodayinteractionsbetweenits

parts:theemergentpropertiesofasocialwholeareimmanent

onlytotheextentthattheywouldceasetoexistifitsparts

10Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

ceasedtointeract.Soweneedtoincludeinamaterialist

ontologynotonlytheprocessesthathistoricallyproducethe

identityofagivensocialwhole,butalsotheprocessesthat

maintainthatidentitythroughtime.

Let'spauseforamomenttoconsiderhowcompatible

theseideasarewiththoseofDeleuzeandGuattari.Thefirstsign

ofincompatibilityisthattheexpression“theState“occurs

throughouttheirwork.Butthistermisoftenusedas

synonymouswith“Stateapparatus”,atermthatismuchless

objectionablesinceitcanbetakentorefertotheorganizational

apparatusofagivengovernment,thatis,toanemergentwhole

composedofmanyorganizations.Amoreproblematicterm,one

thatisalsooftenusedintheirhistoricalexplanations,istheterm

“socialfield”(orlessoften,44thesocius^^).Thistermdoesindeed

referto"societyasawhole“anditisthereforenotavalid

historicalactorinthematerialistontologybeingsketchedhere.It

isunclear,forexample,justwhatkindofentitythis“social

field”issupposedtobe.DeleuzeandGuattaridistinguish

betweendifferentkindsofsocialwholes:strataand

assemblages,AStateapparatusisclassifiedbythemasa

stratum.4Tightly-knitcommunities,withtheircapacitytopolice

theirmembersandpunishviolationsoflocalnorms,wouldalso

beastratum.Butanallianceorcoalitionofseveralheterogenous

communitieswouldbeconsideredtobeanassemblage.As

Deleuzewrites:

Whatisanassemblage?Itisamultiplicitywhichismadeupof

heterogeneoustermsandwhichestablishesliaisons,relationsbetween

them,acrossages,sexesandreigns-differentnatures.Thusthe

assemblage'sonlyunityisthatofaco-functioning:itisasymbiosis,a

4sympathy\Itisneverfiliationswhichareimportant,butalliances,

alloys;thesearenotsuccessions,linesofdescent,butcontagions,

epidemics,thewind.5

Sowefacetheproblemofwhethertotreatthe“social

field“asastratumorasanassemblage.Adifferentbutrelated

problemisthatdistinguishingbetweendifferentkindsofwholes

(strataingeneral,assemblagesingeneral)mayopentheback

doorfbrreifiedgeneralitiestoinfiltrateamaterialistontology.

Toavoidthisdangerwecanuseasingletermandbuildintoit

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.11

“controlknobs”(ormoretechnically,parameters)thatcanhave

differentsettingsatdifferenttimes:forsomesettingsthesocial

wholewouldbeastratum,forothersettingsanassemblage.The

term“parameter“comesfromscientificmodelsofphysical

processes.Whereasvariablesspecifythedifferentwaysinwhich

anobjectbeingstudiedisfreetochange(its"degreesof

freedom”)parametersspecifytheenvironmentalfactorsthat

affecttheobject.Temperaturecanbeavariable,theinternal

temperatureofabodyofwater,forexample,aswellasa

parameterquantifyingthedegreeoftemperatureofthewater's

surroundings.Parametersarenormallykeptconstantina

laboratorytostudyanobjectunderrepeatablecircumstances,but

theymayalsobevariedcausingdrasticchangesintheobject

understudy:whileformanyvaluesofaparameterlike

temperatureonlyaquantitativechangewillbeproduced,at

criticalpointsabodyofwaterwillspontaneouslychange

qualitatively,abruptlytransformingfromaliquidtoasolid

form,orfromaliquidtoagasfonn.

Ifweparametrizedasingleconcept,thenstrataand

assemblageswouldceasetobekindsandbecomephases,like

thesolidandfluidphasesofmatter.Unlikemutuallyexclusive

binarycategories,phasescanbetransformedintooneanother,

andevencoexistasmixtures,likeagelthatisamixtureofthe

solidandliquidphasesofdifferentmaterials.Deleuzeand

Guattariroutinelyestablishoppositionsbetweenkinds(treesand

rhizomes,striatedandsmoothspaces)onlytobacktracklateras

theydiscussthewaysinwhichonekindcanbetransformedinto

another,orformhybridmixtures.Thus,thestrategyIwillfollow

herewillbetokeepasingleterm,theterm“assemblage”,and

parametrizeittoallowittoexhibitqualitativelydifferentphases.

Whilewecould,ofcourse,parametrizetheterm“stratum”，the

firstchoiceisbetterbecausetheoriginalFrenchterm,

“agencement”，hasquitedistinctconnotations.Thus,wecanuse

theEnglishterm“assemblage"todenotetheparametrized

conceptandreverttotheFrenchtermwheneverweneedtorefer

totheoriginalconcept.Beforediscussingthenatureofthe

parameterslefssummarizewhathasbeensaidabout

assemblagessofor:

12Deleuze:HistoryandScience.

1)Allassemblageshaveafullycontingenthistorical

identity,andeachofthemisthereforeanindividualentity:an

individualperson,anindividualcommunity,anindividual

organization,anindividualcity.Becausetheontologicalstatus

ofallassemblagesisthesame,entitiesoperatingatdifferent

scalescandirectlyinteractwithoneanother,individualto

individual,apossibilitythatdoesnotexistsinahierarchical

ontology,likethatcomposedofgenera,species,andindividuals.

2)Atanylevelofscalewearealwaysdealingwith

populationsofinteractingentities(populationsofpersons,

pluralitiesofcommunities,multiplicitiesoforganizations,

collectivitiesofurbancenters)anditisfromtheinteractions

withinthesepopulationsthatlargerassemblagesemergeasa

statisticalresult,orascollectiveunintendedconsequencesof

intentionalaction.Inagivenpopulationsomeentitiesmayget

caughtintolarger“molar“wholes,whileothermayremainfree,

composinga“molecular“collectivity.Thismeansthatawhole

atagivenscaleiscomposednotonlyofmolarentitiesatthe

immediatelylowerscalebutalsoofsmallermolecularparts.

3)Oncealargerscaleassemblageisinplaceit

immediatelystartsactingasasourceoflimitationsandresources

fbritscomponents.Inotherwords,eventhoughthearrowof

causalityinthisschemeisbottom-up,italsohasatop-down

aspect:anassemblagebothconstrainsandenablesitsparts.The

upwardcausalityisnecessarytomakeemergentproperties

immanent:anassemblage'spropertiesmaybeirreducibletoits

partsbutthatdoesnotmakethemtranscendent,sincethey

wouldceasetoexistifthepartsstoppedinteractingwithone

another.Thedownwardcausalityisneededtoaccountforthe

factthatmostsocialassemblagesarecomposedofpartsthat

comeintoexistenceafterthewholehasemerged.Mostofthe

buildingsorneighborhoodsthatcomposeamodemcity,fbr

example,werenotonlycreatedaftertheurbancenter'sown

birth,buttheirdefiningpropertieswereconstrainedbythecity's

zoninglaws,andtheircreationmadepossiblebythecity's

wealth.

Let'snowparametrizetheconceptofassemblage.The

firstparameterquantifiesthedegreeofterritorializationand

Deleuze:HistoryandScience.13

deterritorializationofanassemblage.Territorializationrefers

notonlytothedeterminationofthespatialboundariesofa

whole-asintheterritoryofacommunity,city,ornationstate-

butalsotothedegreetowhichanassemblage'scomponentparts

aredrawnfromahomogenousrepertoire,orthedegreetowhich

anassemblagehomogenizesitsowncomponents.Asmentioned

before,themembersofadenselyconnectedcommunityare

constrainedbythecapacityofthecommunitytostore

reputationsandenforcelocalnorms,aconstraintthatmayresult

inareductionofpersonaldifferencesandinanincreaseddegree

ofconformity.Whentwoormorecommunitiesengageinethnic

orreligiousconflict,forexample,notonlythegeographical

boundariesoftheirneighborhoodsorsmalltownswillbe

policedmoreintensely,sowillthebehavioroftheirmembersas

thedistinctionbetween"us"and"them"sharpens:anysmall

deviationfromthelocalnormswillnowbeobservedand

punishedandthehomogenizationofbehaviorwillincrease.

Conflict,inotherwords,tendstoincreasethedegreeof

territorializationofcommunities,afactthatmaybecaptured

conceptuallybyachangingthesettingofthisparameter.

Thesecondparameterquantifiesanassemblage's

degreeofcodinganddecoding.Codingreferstotherolepl