Anti-Oedipus: Part 4
In this part of the book the question of "investment" becomes central. If I'm not mistaken "investment" has played a minor role in the book up until this point. As an first approximation we might think of "investment" are a way of talking about the link between the two regimes we have seen throughout the book, desiring production and social production. Desire is "invested" in the social field.
Molar/ molecular I think it is best to understand molar and molecular in terms of this question of investments. First of all, the difference has nothing to do with numbers or size, nor does it refer to the difference between the individual and the collective. They are both already collective so the difference has to do with two kinds of collections or populations. The molar refers to large aggregates, or statistical groupings that form a whole through a process of integration. The molecular refers on the other hand to micromultiplicities or rather singularities that relate in a movement of flight. Or more clearly, rather than two kinds of groups, molar and molecular refer primarily to two kinds of group investment. "Every investment is collective ... to aggregates and persons" (p. 280). The concepts molar and molecular, then, along with subjugated group investment and subject-group investment are aimed at differentiating the relationships between desire and the social field, that is, they are two different ways desire can invest the social field.
Sex and sexuality Sexuality is the production of the desiring machines and "desire does not take as its object persons or things, but the entire suroundings [milieux] that it traverses, the vibrations and flows of every sort to which it is joined" (p. 292). There are three theses that follow from this understanding of sexuality and desire: independence of sexuality from reproduction; sexuality applies equally to (is equally invested in) biological and social spheres ("sexuality is everywhere"); there are not 2 sexes nor 1, but n sexes ("to each its own sexes").
The sum of these theses leads to the idea of non-human sex. "Desiring-machines are the nonhuman sex .... investing these aggregates" (p. 294). Nonhuman sex is the molecular level that then becomes human sex and sexuality at the molar level. Or more precisely, human sex is specified in the large aggregates at the molar level and human sexuality is what invests these ensembles.
In nonhuman sex there is no difference between hetero- and homosexual desire. "homosexuality and hetersexuality ... elements and flows" (p. 319). At the level of nonhuman sex there could be no difference between hetero- and homosexual desire because there are not two but n sexes. Or rather with so many sexes there might be thought to be a proliferations of heterosexualities.
Returning to this level of nonhuman sexuality is what would be a sexual revolution for D&G. "Undoing the form of persons ... machinic forms or indices" (p. 366). I want to keep these elements in mind for the reading of Foucault next week who is treading on much this same ground. Sex, for example, is not something primary (and repressed) but a creation. But Foucault in contrast wants to refuse any notion of repression and hence of sexual liberation.