intensities played out both on the social body and on the indi-
viduated body. From language to speaking in tongues [glossolalie],
all transitions are possible. (L’Inconscient machinique, 25, 31, our
translation)^4There is no longer any pretence to a normative or structural reduc-
tion, but the criterion of interpretation depends on the conditions
in which the enunciation unfolds; and since enunciation follows a
route that can be defined as a drift (that is, the displacement from one
point to another that has no recognizable logical consequentiality),
then interpretation will have characteristics that we can define as
delirious (in the sense of dé/lire, jettisoning the rules of logical and con-
sequential reading to opt for a reading that is as multi-planar as was
the enunciation).
This is how we enter into the analytical space that takes the
name of schizoanalysis. Schizoanalysis presupposes the proliferat-
ing character (one irreducible to structure) of the agents of enun-
ciation, and further presupposes the proliferating character of the
viewpoints of interpretation. Analysis therefore cannot develop by
presupposing linguistic and psychological structures (of which
enunciation would either be an application or a deviation). Ana-
lysis becomes schizoanalysis when it adopts the perspective of
multiplicity.
If language encounters the event, then interpretation must synchro-
nize itself with the rhythm of the enunciation. And an enunciation is
no more reducible to syntactic structures than a speaker can be reduced
to psychological structures. If language encounters the event, inter-
pretation must assume as many points of view as the singularities that
enter into the determination of the event.
Schizoanalaysis is this mode of interpretation that assumes the view-
point of drift and singularity. Singularities are not entirely at one with
the person, with the individual – they are rather flows of intentionality
and imagination that can cohabit within a person, or can spread out
along the lines of internal relations to a collectivity. The collectivity of
enunciation is a singularity. That is, what defines the singularity is not
the individuality of the speaker, but the belonging to the same plane of
immanence of an enunciation.
The authors of A Thousand Plateausspeak of their collective writing
in terms of a singular multiplicity: ‘each of us was several persons’
(Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 3). And this is not at all a
play on words.68 Thought, Friendship and Visionary Cartography9780230_221192_08_cha07.pdf 10/3/08 11:35 AM Page 68