Book Review: Difference and Repetition (1968) by Gilles Deleuze
There is something strange about Deleuze that distinguishes him from virtually all other philosophers. It is as though a certain atmosphere permeates his corpus that is oddly imperceptible. One gets an impression almost alien when reading him, as though some profound unnaturalness were being conveyed. Indeed, it is more of an “encounter” than anything else, for one does not know what to make of him. He is an enigma, an anomaly, a mystery.
But what is it, exactly, that makes his work so “alien”? No doubt it is the paradox that lies at the heart of his thought: his attempt to think the unthinkable – in other words, the different. For what is "difference" if not the unknown? By definition it is that which is out of the ordinary. A problem thus arises: if the different is inherently beyond us, how could one come to know it? That is to say, under what conditions can difference be thought, assuming it is even possible?
It is precisely this concern that motivates Deleuze’s investigation in Difference and Repetition (DR). In that sense, it is like a lengthy disclosure report. But unlike a disclosure report, Deleuze will not be “identifying” any differentials as such, for they always disguise themselves. Difference is sub-representative: it simply eludes representation. For this reason, Deleuze is critical of any investigative method that relies on common sense – which turns out to be almost every philosophy proposed hitherto. He claims that they fall victim to a certain dogmatic Image of Thought whose presuppositions merely constrain our ability to think difference properly.
If we are to avoid falling into transcendental illusion, we must look elsewhere. His aim, therefore, is twofold: (1) to liberate difference (and its companion concept, repetition) from its subordination to the Image of Thought and its corresponding model of representation; and then, once freed, (2) to articulate new conceptions of these ontological categories as they are in themselves. In other words, critique followed by philosophy in itself. Continuing with the theme of aliens, I want to briefly elaborate on these two aims before moving on to a defence and criticism of Deleuze.
(1) Given the nature and scope of Deleuze’s project, it is hardly surprising that his work should feel so alien to us. DR represents a fundamental departure from the history of Western metaphysics, the ground upon which our entire edifice of knowledge rests.
His, or rather Nietzsche’s “overturning of Platonism,” whereby the simulacrum is affirmed over the authentic copy, pulls the rug out from under our feet, as it were – that is to say, it leaves us without an original model to return to and hence no eternally valid criterion to distinguish between true and false claimants, no deus ex machina to save us. This ontological ungrounding is more than just a paradigm shift; it is the destruction of the very notion of the paradigm – at least as we have come to know it.
But even more than this, (2) Deleuze’s metaphysics of difference installs an irreducible complexity into Being itself – the multiplicity (or problematic Idea). The multiplicity defies common sense notions of “thingliness” – for lack of a better term – precisely because it lacks a fixed sense of identity; characterised by a perpetual state of flux, it has no stable essence. Rather, it is an n-dimensional, topological (confused), virtual, heterogenous, qualitative Riemannian manifold composed of differential relations, distinctive points (singularities) and intensive processes. (Reading this back, I cannot help but think of that hideous alien substrate from the sci-fi movie, The Thing.) As such, it is best understood not by what it is (a static essence; being) so much as what it can do (a dynamic process; becoming).
If all of this has left you feeling utterly confused – don’t worry, that is to be expected. I have tried to replicate the sense in which Deleuze makes newcomers – and probably seasoned veterans too, for that matter – feel perplexed, unsettled, and even disturbed. In this way, I hope to have given a “taster” of DR without getting bogged down by its technicalities, which would be entirely unnecessary – for this is a review, not an exposition.
To reiterate, I believe DR is alien in two ways: (1) its radical critique of our metaphysical framework leaves one feeling alien-ated. Like the existential mood of angst, one no longer feels “at home” in the world; and (2) its attempt to give expression to strange ideas which themselves seem alien, in every sense of the word. Rather than a criticism, however, this is something I believe is advantageous. Therefore, I wish to briefly defend these two points by showing the benefits they bring to readers.
(1) Deleuze’s (and Foucault’s) radical, post-structuralist method of critical inquiry, problematisation, encourages one to challenge the natural order of things (pun not intended), i.e. the status quo. One takes nothing whatsoever for granted and instead seeks to eliminate all manner of presuppositions, biases, and convictions – insofar as this is at all possible. In this way, it promotes intellectual “cleanliness”, or genuine “free-thinking”, as Nietzsche would say.
(2) His experimentation with, and re-thinking of, ideas and concepts from a range of disciplines discourages stagnant thinking. This, I would argue, is what Deleuze does best: he opens your mind to new possibilities and thereby enhances your thinking. Moreover, his ability to make the natural seem unnatural arouses a fascination with mother nature, in all her overwhelming complexity, that fosters a life-long passion for learning.
Moving on, I do have some genuine criticisms of Deleuze that I would like to address. The first of which pertains to his use of language. Deleuze’s prose is, at times, utterly impenetrable. I am not the first person to raise this concern. In fact, postmodernists are notorious for their deliberate obscurantism and unintelligible writing style. To quote Nabakov’s Lolita, “You can always count on a [postmodernist] for a fancy prose style.” They have even been accused of charlatanism for their (supposed) misrepresentation of scientific ideas (see the Sokal affair). But I would not go this far. For it seems to me that postmodernists (or at least the post-structuralists) are more concerned with showing the philosophical implications of these ideas rather than offering any competing interpretations. To be clear then, as an intellectual movement poststructuralism is undoubtedly rigorous, and the problems it raises are both well-founded and genuinely valid.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a pernicious idea circulating academia, particularly in continental philosophy, that good writing is obscure writing. This is emphatically not true. In fact, with respect to philosophy, it actually hinders progress; for at this point we are merely debating semantics, not arguments, which are the primary concern of philosophy.
To return to Deleuze, although his work necessitates a degree of technical jargon – he literally defines philosophy as “the creation of concepts” (see What Is Philosophy?) – he goes far beyond what is simply necessary. Deleuze’s writing is highly technical, but also poetic and utilises a whole host of rhetorical devices, such as the double entendre, antimetabole, complex metaphor, and so on. DR is no different. In fact, it is a notoriously difficult text, even by Deleuze’s standards. Therefore, even with a very high level of reading comprehension, you will struggle.
The other criticism I wish to raise is not so much a reproach as it is a warning. Deleuze engages with, polemicises, and even defaces a plethora of philosophers (and scientists, mathematicians, poets, literary figures, etc.) and their ideas. Most of the book will go over your head if you jump in without any background knowledge or secondary sources (research papers, scholarly articles, companion texts, etc.)
Now, obviously I’m not suggesting you learn the entire history of philosophy in preparation for DR – that would be silly. What I am saying, however, is that at least some study of Deleuze’s project and the main ideas of his principal interlocutors (Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson) for context is necessary. I would also recommend having at least a basic understanding of some minor figures from the book (Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Hegel, Freud, etc.)
In conclusion, DR is one of the greatest works of 20th century philosophy and represents a monumental intellectual achievement. It is incredibly complex and alien for two main reasons, both of which I hope to have shown are pros of reading the book rather than cons. The criticisms I have are less about the content itself and more about its presentation, which is a major barrier to entry for the uninitiated. For this reason, I would not recommend the book to anyone unless either a serious student of philosophy or a learned autodidact… or perhaps also a very curious individual with the patience of a saint and the discipline of an ascetic.
​
- Written April 10, 2023