Identity, diversity, and rhizomatic complexity

Abstract

This paper addresses the vexing question of identity in relation to diversity and ‘rhizomatic complexity’ – a phrase that signals its Deleuzo-Guattarian orientation. It is argued that, far from being something that can be comprehended in unitary substantialist fashion (that is, as something unified and forever resistant to change), ‘identity’ can instead be articulated as a function of the constantly shifting relations and interrelations between and among the ‘processes’ comprising the ‘subject’. According to this rhizomatic conception, the subject – if indeed it can be called that – comprises an assemblage-in-becoming, whose contours change as it enters into open-ended processual relations of desiring-production. This simply means that Deleuze and Guattari, complexifying Lacan’s already complex subject (stretched between the ‘real’, the imaginary and the symbolic) even further, have theorised a non-substantialist version of it, which accommodates change as well as intermittent, albeit fleeting, stability. This allows for a subject that may be described as identity-in-flux, which means that identity is not cast in stone, but instead that the rhizomatic, open-ended structure of the assemblage subject accommodates reconfigurations of identity, with the caveat that such reconfigurations cannot instantiate a leap over the abyss of nothingness to a point that is rhizomatically untethered to the hitherto temporally evolved assemblage-subject. This conceptualisation of the subject has far-reaching implications for, among other things, cultural and social reorientation on the part of rhizomatic interrelationality of individual subjects. Moreover, it exposes social and cultural ‘diversity’ as being prey to a certain mode of postmodernism, which exacerbates flux and difference to the point where – unlike the poststructuralist models of Lacan and Deleuze/Guattari – it cannot account for difference while retaining a sense of (admittedly changeable) social ‘identity’ – something that undermines the political function of agency, as demonstrated in the conclusion of the paper.