Gilles Deleuze

1. Introduction

Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) is widely regarded as one of the most innovative figures in twentieth‑century continental philosophy. Often associated with poststructuralism, he is better described, many commentators argue, as a philosopher of difference, multiplicity, and immanence whose work cuts across metaphysics, politics, psychoanalysis, literature, cinema, and the arts.

His writings are frequently divided into two broad groupings: the independent works of the 1950s–60s, culminating in Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense, and the collaborative texts produced with psychoanalyst Félix Guattari in the 1970s–90s, including Anti‑Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, and What Is Philosophy?. Across both periods, Deleuze presents philosophy as the invention of concepts adequate to a world understood not as a collection of fixed substances but as dynamic processes and assemblages.

In contrast to traditions that ground reality in identity, representation, or transcendent principles, Deleuze proposes an ontology where difference is primary, desire is productive rather than lacking, and thought is experimental. His concepts—such as rhizome, deterritorialization, assemblage, body without organs, and plane of immanence—have been taken up in disciplines as diverse as geography, political theory, film studies, anthropology, and art history.

Interpretations of Deleuze remain highly contested. Some read him as a radical materialist, others as a metaphysician of the virtual, a neo‑Spinozist ethicist of joyful affects, a Marx‑inflected critic of capitalism, or a theorist of postmodern culture. This entry presents the main lines of his life and work, outlines central concepts and arguments, and surveys major debates around his philosophy without endorsing any single interpretive framework.

2. Life and Historical Context

Deleuze’s life unfolded within the major upheavals of twentieth‑century France: World War II, decolonization, the Cold War, May 1968, and the transformations of late‑twentieth‑century capitalism. Commentators often emphasize how these contexts shaped both the stakes and style of his philosophy.

Biographical Landmarks and Institutions

Deleuze did not participate directly in party politics or organized activism to the degree some contemporaries did, yet his teaching at Vincennes brought him into close contact with student movements, feminist and anti‑psychiatry currents, and post‑1968 radical milieus. Proponents of “militant” readings stress that his concepts of deterritorialization, assemblage, and minor politics respond to these environments.

Intellectual Milieu

Deleuze’s career overlapped with major French currents:

Historians of philosophy have debated whether Deleuze’s work should be read primarily as part of a specifically French response to German idealism and phenomenology, as a novel development of Spinozism and Bergsonism, or as a contribution to a broader “continental” critique of modern subjectivity and representation. These differing contextualizations shape how his philosophical project is understood in subsequent sections.

3. Education and Early Influences

Deleuze’s philosophical formation at the Sorbonne (1944–48) and in postwar Paris established many of the reference points he later reworked. He studied under figures such as Jean Hyppolite, Ferdinand Alquié, and Georges Canguilhem, and attended lectures by Jean Wahl and others.

Academic Formation

Hyppolite’s Hegelianism and meticulous textual scholarship strongly influenced Deleuze’s early practice as a historian of philosophy, even though he would later distance himself from dialectics. Canguilhem’s history and philosophy of science, with its focus on norms and biological life, contributed to Deleuze’s interest in processes and deviations rather than stable essences.

World War II and Political Sensibilities

Deleuze’s adolescence overlapped with the German Occupation. He reportedly had a brother who died in deportation for Resistance activity. While documented details are limited, many interpreters argue that this background helps explain his later suspicion of fascism in both political and psychic forms, and his emphasis on micro‑politics and the dangers of “micro‑fascisms.”

Early Distancing from Dominant Currents

In the immediate postwar period, Sartrean existentialism dominated French philosophy. Deleuze engaged critically with Sartre but oriented himself instead toward less central figures in the French canon, such as Hume and Bergson, partly via Jean Wahl’s non‑orthodox teaching. This contributed to his preference for philosophers of immanence and process over philosophies of consciousness and transcendence.

Scholars disagree on the weight of each early influence. Some accounts stress Hyppolite and Hegel as the primary negative reference points; others foreground the constructive role of Spinoza and Bergson. There is broader agreement that Deleuze’s early encounters with these traditions provided the materials for his later philosophy of difference and immanence.

4. Intellectual Development and Phases of Thought

Commentators commonly divide Deleuze’s intellectual trajectory into several phases, each marked by distinctive projects and conceptual emphases but also by strong continuities.

1. Historian of Philosophy (1950s–early 1960s)

During this period Deleuze published monographs on Hume, Nietzsche, Proust, and Bergson. These works display close textual analysis but also introduce a method of “creative interpretation” in which past philosophers are read as inventors of problems and concepts rather than as mere doctrinal positions. Many scholars see in these texts the embryonic form of his later ideas about multiplicity, empiricism, and critique.

2. Systematic Philosophy of Difference (mid‑1960s)

With Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense, Deleuze turned to a more systematic construction of a metaphysics of difference, repetition, events, and sense. He drew on mathematics, logic, and literature to challenge representational thought and to develop notions such as virtual multiplicities and series of events. This is often regarded as the core “Deleuzian” phase in a narrow sense.

3. Collaborative Political‑Psychoanalytic Turn (late 1960s–1980)

Meeting Félix Guattari led to the joint Capitalism and Schizophrenia project. Here Deleuze’s metaphysical concerns intersect with analyses of desire, capitalism, and institutional power. Concepts like desiring‑machines, rhizomes, and deterritorialization extend earlier ideas of multiplicity into social and political registers. Some interpreters view this as a radical break; others emphasize deep continuities with his prior work.

4. Aesthetics and Late Reflections (1980s–1990s)

In the 1980s Deleuze focused on cinema, painting, and the nature of philosophy itself. The Cinema books, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, and What Is Philosophy? develop analyses of images, sensations, and concepts that refine earlier distinctions between the virtual and the actual, time and movement, and thought and non‑thought.

There is debate over whether these phases represent genuine shifts in Deleuze’s orientation or different applications of a single underlying project of immanent thought. Some scholars stress an increasing political and ethical concern; others argue that metaphysical questions remain primary throughout.

5. Major Independent Works

Deleuze’s independent monographs, written before and alongside his collaboration with Guattari, articulate core elements of his philosophy and his distinctive way of reading other thinkers.

Early Monographs on Individual Thinkers

These works are often interpreted as laboratories in which Deleuze develops, through others, his own concerns with immanence, difference, and the critique of representation.

Systematic Philosophical Works

Difference and Repetition (1968) presents what many regard as Deleuze’s central metaphysical propositions. It argues for the ontological priority of difference over identity, reconceives repetition as productive variation, and introduces the virtual/actual distinction and multiplicities as basic ontological units.

The Logic of Sense (1969) focuses on events, language, and sense, using the Stoics, Lewis Carroll, and psychoanalysis to describe how incorporeal events “surface” on bodies and how paradox structures thought and language.

Scholars differ over how “systematic” these works are. Some read them as constructing a coherent, if unconventional, ontology; others highlight their fragmentary style and their dependence on the texts they reinterpret. Nevertheless, they are widely taken as key to understanding Deleuze’s later extensions of these ideas into politics, aesthetics, and collaborative work.

6. Collaboration with Félix Guattari

Deleuze’s partnership with the psychoanalyst and activist Félix Guattari began around 1969 and continued until Guattari’s death in 1992. It produced some of the most influential and controversial texts in late‑twentieth‑century theory.

Genesis and Working Relationship

Guattari was involved with the experimental psychiatric clinic of La Borde and various far‑left political groups. Their meeting introduced Deleuze to concrete institutional and clinical practices, while Guattari found in Deleuze’s metaphysics resources for rethinking psychoanalysis and politics. Accounts from contemporaries describe their collaboration as dialogical: Guattari brought political and psychoanalytic material; Deleuze offered conceptual and systematic elaboration. However, both resisted attempts to sharply divide their contributions and insisted on joint authorship.

Major Collaborative Works

Interpretive Debates

Some commentators argue that the collaboration marks a decisive political turn, shifting Deleuze from “pure” metaphysics to engaged social critique. Others maintain that Capitalism and Schizophrenia extends earlier metaphysical commitments into new domains without fundamental rupture.

Critical discussions also concern the status of psychiatry and schizophrenia in their work. Proponents see Anti‑Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus as pioneering critiques of institutional psychiatry and of the pathologization of difference. Critics contend that their metaphors risk romanticizing mental illness or oversimplifying clinical practice.

The Deleuze–Guattari collaboration remains central to contemporary uses of Deleuzian concepts in social theory, cultural studies, and political philosophy, and subsequent sections develop these themes in more systematic terms.

7. Core Philosophy: Difference, Multiplicity, and Immanence

Across his writings, Deleuze develops a core philosophical orientation structured by three interlinked notions: difference, multiplicity, and immanence. These concepts orient his metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and political thought.

Difference as Ontological Principle

Deleuze argues that difference is not merely a relation between pre‑given identities but an internal, productive divergence that generates such identities. As he writes:

"

“Difference is not diversity. Diversity is given, but difference is that by which the given is given.”

— Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition

Proponents of this reading see Deleuze as reversing the traditional priority of identity over difference in Western metaphysics. Others interpret his language more modestly, as a critique of certain representational models rather than a fully general ontological thesis.

Multiplicity Instead of Substance or Subject

To articulate this primacy of difference, Deleuze deploys the concept of multiplicity. Multiplicities are structured fields defined by their dimensions, singularities, and transformations—borrowed partly from mathematics and Bergson. They replace both classical substances and the modern subject as the basic units of reality.

Some interpreters treat multiplicities as a rigorous technical notion; others caution that the term remains deliberately flexible and metaphorical.

Immanence and the Rejection of Transcendence

Deleuze also insists on a plane of immanence: reality contains only processes and relations internal to it, without appeal to transcendent principles (such as God, a noumenal realm, or an external foundation of values). His late work defines philosophy as creating concepts on such a plane of immanence.

Supporters of an “immanentist” reading see Deleuze as continuing and radicalizing lines from Spinoza and Nietzsche. Alternative interpretations suggest that his appeals to the virtual and to sense still function as quasi‑transcendental conditions, complicating claims of pure immanence.

Taken together, these ideas sketch a world of dynamic, self‑differentiating multiplicities organized on a plane of immanence—an orientation elaborated in greater detail in his metaphysics and ontology.

8. Metaphysics and Ontology

Deleuze’s metaphysics seeks to describe the structure of reality as a process of self‑differentiation. While interpretations vary, several notions are generally treated as central: virtual/actual, multiplicity, events, and immanence.

Virtual and Actual

Deleuze distinguishes the virtual from the merely possible. The virtual is fully real but not yet actualized in determinate forms. Actualization is the process by which a virtual multiplicity becomes individuated.

Some commentators understand this as a sophisticated reworking of Aristotelian potentiality; others relate it to Bergson’s duration or to contemporary discussions in modal metaphysics. Critics argue that the distinction can appear obscure or risks reintroducing a dualism incompatible with strict immanence.

Multiplicities and Differential Ontology

In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze describes being as composed of multiplicities characterized by differential relations and singular points. These are often modeled using examples from calculus, topology, and group theory. Identities and representations arise as secondary effects of these primary differential structures.

Supporters see this as a coherent “differential ontology” that departs from substantialism and essentialism. Skeptics question the depth of the mathematical analogy and suggest that the metaphors exceed rigorous application.

Events and Sense

The Logic of Sense introduces an ontology of events as incorporeal, surface effects that “happen” to bodies without being reducible to them (for example, “the battle” as distinct from the motions of bodies and weapons). Events are linked to sense, which Deleuze treats as the expressed of propositions and the frontier between language and things.

This dual emphasis on differential structures (in Difference and Repetition) and events (in The Logic of Sense) has led some scholars to speak of two complementary ontologies in Deleuze. Others argue for their integration via the concept of the plane of immanence, a field of immanent events and processes on which multiplicities differentiate.

Debates continue over whether Deleuze ultimately offers a single unified metaphysical system or a set of overlapping, experimentally deployed ontological models.

9. Epistemology and the Critique of Representation

Deleuze’s epistemological views are closely linked to his critique of representation—the idea that thought primarily mirrors or corresponds to a pre‑given reality. He proposes instead an account of thought as productive, differential, and problem‑oriented.

Critique of Representational Thought

In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze attacks what he calls the “image of thought” dominating Western philosophy: the assumption that thought naturally tends toward truth, that recognition and common sense are paradigmatic, and that concepts represent identities and resemblances.

He criticizes four classical “postulates” of representation—identity, opposition, analogy, and resemblance—and argues that they reduce difference to a secondary role. Proponents see this as a systematic dismantling of representational epistemology; critics sometimes object that representation remains indispensable for many scientific and everyday practices.

Transcendental Empiricism and Problems

Deleuze describes his own approach as “transcendental empiricism.” Rather than seeking a transcendental subject, he investigates the conditions of real experience as impersonal, pre‑individual fields of difference. Knowledge does not primarily consist in recognizing objects but in encountering problems that force thought to think.

"

“The object of encounter, on the other hand, really gives rise to sensibility with regard to a given sense.”

— Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition

Here, problems and questions are ontologically prior to solutions. Some commentators compare this to Kantian transcendental philosophy transformed by Nietzsche and Bergson; others regard it as a radicalized empiricism that collapses epistemology into ontology.

Learning, Signs, and Apprenticeship

In Proust and Signs, Deleuze portrays learning as an apprenticeship to signs—social, amorous, artistic. Knowledge arises from interpreting signs that provoke transformation rather than from accumulating representations.

This non‑representational epistemology influences his later accounts of science and philosophy in What Is Philosophy?, where science constructs functions and “prospects of reference,” while philosophy creates concepts on a plane of immanence. The comparative merits and limits of this tripartite division (philosophy/science/art) remain debated, especially regarding its adequacy to contemporary scientific practice.

10. Ethics, Politics, and Desire

Deleuze’s ethical and political thought is closely intertwined with his redefinition of desire and his emphasis on immanent evaluation rather than transcendent norms.

Desire as Productive

Together with Guattari, Deleuze rejects psychoanalytic theories of desire as lack. In Anti‑Oedipus they write:

"

“Desire does not lack anything; it does not lack its object. It is, rather, the subject that is missing in desire, or desire that lacks a fixed subject.”

— Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Anti‑Oedipus

Desire is described as a positive, productive process composed of desiring‑machines that connect bodies, flows, and signs. Proponents see this as enabling a non‑repressive account of social and political organization; critics argue that the concept risks idealizing desire and underestimating conflict or negative affects.

Ethics of Immanence and Affects

Drawing on Spinoza, Deleuze conceives ethics in terms of powers (puissances) and affects rather than duties or moral laws. Good and bad are evaluated by the degree to which relations increase or diminish a body’s power to act. Some commentators thus speak of a “joyful” or “affirmative” ethics of experimentation with modes of life.

There is ongoing debate over whether this yields sufficiently determinate guidance for action, especially in complex political situations, or whether it tends toward relativism.

Politics, Micro‑Politics, and Capitalism

In Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Deleuze and Guattari analyze capitalism as a system that both deterritorializes traditional social relations and imposes new, flexible forms of control through money and the State. They highlight micro‑politics: the ways power operates in everyday practices, institutions, and desire.

Key political notions include:

• Deterritorialization/reterritorialization: processes of destabilization and re‑stabilization of social and psychic arrangements.
• Minor politics: inspired by Kafka, the political power of minorities and marginal practices that deterritorialize major languages and institutions.

Interpreters diverge on the normative implications. Some view Deleuze and Guattari as advocating radical, even anarchistic experimentation; others emphasize passages in which they warn against “micro‑fascisms” and destructive lines of flight, suggesting a more cautious, diagnostic politics.

Their influence is visible in contemporary discussions of biopolitics, post‑Fordist labor, feminist and queer theory, and theories of the commons, although scholars disagree on how directly Deleuzian concepts can be translated into concrete political programs.

11. Aesthetics, Literature, and the Arts

Aesthetics occupies a central place in Deleuze’s work, not as a separate philosophical domain but as a privileged site where sensation, time, and thought are transformed.

Literature and Minor Writing

Deleuze devoted major studies to Proust and, with Guattari, Kafka. In Proust and Signs, literature is a space where signs reveal hidden worlds; art teaches us to read and feel differently.

In Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, Deleuze and Guattari introduce minor literature, defined by three features:

This concept has been influential in postcolonial, feminist, and queer literary studies. Some readers, however, question its generalizability beyond the specific case of Kafka or worry that it may idealize marginality.

Painting and the Logic of Sensation

In Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, Deleuze explores painting as the composition of sensations and percepts rather than representations of objects. Bacon’s work is described as creating a “body without organs” through color and contour, undoing the organized, figurative body.

Supporters see this as advancing a distinctive ontology of sensation; critics sometimes argue that Deleuze’s reading is highly selective and more concerned with his own concepts than with art‑historical detail.

General Aesthetics

Across these studies, Deleuze treats art as a practice that:

• Extracts percepts and affects independent of perceiving subjects.
• Operates on a plane of composition that parallels philosophy’s plane of immanence.
• Functions as a site of experimentation with new possibilities of life and perception.

In What Is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari distinguish art (which creates percepts and affects), philosophy (which creates concepts), and science (which creates functions), while insisting on their mutual interpenetration. This tripartite scheme has been both praised for clarifying the specificity of artistic practice and criticized for underestimating hybrid or cross‑disciplinary forms.

12. Cinema and the Philosophy of the Image

Deleuze’s two cinema books—Cinema 1: The Movement‑Image and Cinema 2: The Time‑Image—offer a systematic philosophical account of film grounded in Bergsonian notions of time and movement and in a taxonomy of images.

Movement‑Image and Classical Cinema

In Cinema 1, Deleuze interprets classical cinema (roughly up to World War II) in terms of the movement‑image. Drawing on Bergson’s theory of perception and movement, he classifies images into types—perception‑image, affection‑image, action‑image—organized around sensorimotor schemas. Narrative continuity and goal‑directed action provide the framework through which situations are linked.

Film theorists have debated whether this taxonomy adequately captures the diversity of early and classical cinema. Some celebrate its philosophical depth; others argue that it sidelines industrial, technological, and socio‑historical factors.

Time‑Image and Modern Cinema

Cinema 2 introduces the time‑image, associated with postwar modern cinema. Here, sensorimotor links break down, and films present direct images of time through disconnected spaces, irrational cuts, or characters unable to act effectively. Deleuze analyzes directors such as Rossellini, Resnais, Ozu, and Tarkovsky.

"

“The cinema does not give us an image to which movement is added, it immediately gives us a movement‑image.”

— Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1

Proponents regard the distinction between movement‑image and time‑image as a major contribution to film theory, providing tools for analyzing narrative disruption, memory, and thought in cinema. Critics suggest that the sharp temporal and geographic demarcation (pre‑ and post‑war, Hollywood vs. modern European cinema) can obscure continuities and non‑Western traditions.

Status of Deleuze’s Film Theory

Deleuze explicitly denies offering a history of cinema in the empirical sense; instead, he constructs a “classification of images and signs” that uses films as examples. This has led some scholars to treat the cinema books as primarily philosophical rather than film‑studies works, while others integrate his categories into broader film‑historical research.

Debates continue over how literally to take Deleuze’s Bergsonian claims about movement and time, and whether his emphasis on perception and thought neglects issues of spectatorship, gender, race, and material conditions foregrounded by other film theories.

13. Method: Reading and Creating Concepts

Deleuze’s philosophy is characterized by a distinct methodological stance that combines inventive readings of past thinkers with an emphasis on the creation of concepts.

Creative History of Philosophy

Deleuze repeatedly insists that he is not a historian in the conventional sense. In his studies of Hume, Nietzsche, Bergson, Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, and others, he seeks to extract problems and conceptual “lines of flight” rather than reconstruct authors’ intentions or contexts.

In Dialogues, he remarks that he looks for “a foreign element” in a philosopher that can be developed in another direction. Proponents see this as legitimizing experimental appropriations of the canon; critics argue that it sometimes leads to idiosyncratic or selective interpretations that downplay textual and historical constraints.

Concept Creation

In What Is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari famously define philosophy as:

"

“the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts.”

— Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, What Is Philosophy?

Concepts are not generalities or classifications; they are singular, intensive constructions composed of multiple “components,” situated on a plane of immanence, and related to “conceptual personae” (figures such as the friend, the idiot, the nomad). Deleuze thus treats philosophy as a practice akin to artistic and scientific creation, distinguished by the kind of entities it creates.

Experimentation and Style

Deleuze’s method also involves experimentation in style and composition: the use of series, plateaus, and non‑linear structures, especially with Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus explicitly invites “non‑sequential” reading. Some readers see this as embodying the very rhizomatic thinking the book describes; others find that it complicates systematic reconstruction and can obscure arguments.

Relation to Science and Art

Deleuze contrasts philosophy’s concepts with science’s functions and art’s percepts/affects, while stressing that all three intersect and inform each other. Interdisciplinary appropriations of Deleuze often turn on how strictly this division is interpreted. Some authors adapt his concepts directly in empirical research; others caution that his work provides a speculative vocabulary rather than testable hypotheses.

Overall, Deleuze’s method privileges problem‑creation, conceptual invention, and experimental reading, a stance that shapes the diversity and sometimes the contentiousness of his reception.

14. Relation to Other Thinkers and Traditions

Deleuze’s philosophy is deeply intertextual, engaging with multiple historical figures and traditions in often unorthodox ways.

Key Philosophical Interlocutors

Interpretations diverge on whether Deleuze should be seen as primarily a neo‑Spinozist, neo‑Bergsonian, post‑Nietzschean, or as creating a largely unprecedented synthesis.

Traditions and Movements

Deleuze is often associated with:

• Poststructuralism: He shares with Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard a critique of structuralism’s static systems and humanism; however, some commentators argue that his constructive metaphysics sets him apart from certain poststructuralist emphases on textuality or deconstruction.
• French historical epistemology (Canguilhem, Bachelard): Informing his interest in concepts, norms, and scientific practice.
• Marxism: Deleuze and Guattari engage with Marx’s analysis of capitalism, particularly surplus value and deterritorialization. Some Marxist readers celebrate their update of Marxism for late capitalism; others criticize their work as insufficiently grounded in class analysis or political economy.
• Psychoanalysis and anti‑psychiatry: They draw on and contest Freud and Lacan, while intersecting with figures like R.D. Laing and the institutional psychotherapy movement.

Cross‑Cultural and Interdisciplinary Resonances

In Anglophone philosophy, Deleuze has been read alongside process philosophers (Whitehead), pragmatists (James, Dewey), and analytic metaphysicians concerned with modality and powers. Some see convergences with complexity theory, systems theory, or new materialisms, though others caution against direct assimilation.

In non‑Western contexts, Deleuze has been compared with certain strands of Buddhist, Daoist, and indigenous thought, especially regarding impermanence, non‑self, and relationality. Scholarly views here range from enthusiastic affirmation of such dialogues to concerns about anachronism or cultural appropriation.

Overall, Deleuze’s work both continues and transforms multiple traditions, making him a nodal figure in contemporary debates about the future of continental philosophy.

15. Reception, Criticisms, and Debates

Deleuze’s work has generated a wide and sometimes polarized reception across disciplines and intellectual traditions.

Early Reception in France

In France, his pre‑1968 works were generally recognized within academic philosophy, though often as idiosyncratic histories of philosophy. Anti‑Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus attracted broader attention in the 1970s, intersecting with radical politics, anti‑psychiatry, and artistic milieus. Some contemporaries praised their experimental style; others criticized them as obscure or politically ambiguous.

Anglophone and International Uptake

Translations in the 1980s–90s led to significant uptake in literary theory, cultural studies, geography, architecture, and political theory. Concepts like rhizome, deterritorialization, and assemblage became widely used, sometimes independently of their original philosophical context. Supporters argue that this demonstrates the productivity of Deleuzian tools; critics worry about dilution or metaphorical overextension.

Major Lines of Critique

Common criticisms include:

Feminist, queer, and postcolonial theorists have developed both critical and appropriative engagements. Some find in Deleuze resources for thinking embodiment, sexuality, and difference without fixed identities. Others criticize a relative lack of attention to gendered and racialized structures or suggest that the valorization of flows and becoming may obscure material constraints.

Internal Debates Among Deleuzians

Within Deleuze scholarship, key debates concern:

• Whether Deleuze is primarily a metaphysician or a political thinker.
• How to reconcile the “systematic” Deleuze of Difference and Repetition with the experimental Deleuze–Guattari of A Thousand Plateaus.
• The status of the virtual and the plane of immanence: metaphysical realities, heuristic devices, or critical tools?

These discussions have produced a substantial secondary literature that continues to refine, contest, and extend Deleuzian concepts across fields.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

Deleuze’s legacy spans philosophy, the humanities, social sciences, and the arts, influencing both theoretical vocabularies and concrete research practices.

Influence Across Disciplines

His concepts have been adopted in:

• Philosophy: As part of ongoing debates in metaphysics (powers, process, modality), political theory (immanence, democracy, control societies), and ethics (affect, experimental life).
• Cultural and literary studies: For analyzing texts, media, and cultural practices via notions of minor literature, deterritorialization, and rhizomatic networks.
• Human geography and urban studies: Through assemblage theory, non‑representational theory, and studies of mobility and infrastructure.
• Art and architecture: Inspiring explorations of non‑hierarchical forms, smooth/striated spaces, and process‑based creation.
• Film and media studies: Via the movement‑image/time‑image distinction and broader reflections on images and perception.

Position in Twentieth‑Century Thought

Historians of philosophy variously position Deleuze as:

No consensus exists on which label best captures his significance, but there is broad agreement that he helped reorient continental philosophy toward immanence, multiplicity, and creation.

Continuing Debates and Developments

Deleuze’s work remains a touchstone in contemporary discussions of:

• Biopolitics and control societies, following his short text on “Postscript on the Societies of Control.”
• Ecology and environmental thought, where his notions of assemblage and non‑human agency intersect with ecological and multispecies studies.
• Technology and digital culture, seen through rhizomatic networks, virtuality, and new forms of subjectivity.

At the same time, critical assessments stress the need to address questions of race, gender, colonialism, and economic inequality more centrally than Deleuze explicitly did, leading to projects of “Deleuzian” or “Deleuzo‑Guattarian” reworking in these domains.

Deleuze’s historical significance thus lies less in a closed “system” than in an open repertoire of concepts and methods that continue to be reinterpreted, contested, and applied in diverse intellectual and practical contexts.