The concept of the body without organs was mainly defined by
Deleuze and Guattari in
Capitalism and Schizophrenia. In both volumes,
Anti-Oedipus and
A Thousand Plateaus, the abstract body is defined as a self-regulating process—created by the relation between an abstract machine and a machinic
assemblage—that maintains itself through processes of
homeostasis and simultaneously limits the possible activities of its constituent parts, or organs. The body without organs is the sum total intensive and affective activity of the full potential for the body and its constituent parts. Deleuze and Guattari presume, in
a continuation from
Samuel Butler's radical departure from
vitalism in "
Darwin among the Machines", that since all organisms have some sort of abstract inclination or
desire—in the case of nonhuman life such as plants and animals, their genetic instincts variably control what actions they take—the body without organs is the inevitable, unconstrained manifestation of those inclinations or desires that may take upon unprecedented forms. The concept of the body that the
body without organs refers to elements from both the concept of substance proposed by
Baruch Spinoza and the concept of "intensive magnitude" in
Immanuel Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason, wherein it is defined not by closed and determinate activity but by cohesion through affective potential. A body without organs can consist of many different actions that approach an unattainable goal, many of which are the activities of assemblages that people unconsciously create and are always engaged in; to become a body without organs, one must dispose of stratification (the classification of constituent parts into groups), and instead give way to what Deleuze and Guattari described as an immanent "becoming" of pure intensity. The body without organs is not necessarily coupled with the eradication of stratification, but rather encourages the creation of a "smooth space", immanently transforming the body beyond its existing categorization. The bodies—not merely physical but
intensive—of
schizophrenics,
drug addicts, and
hypochondriacs are examples they give of bodies without organs, but they caution against replicating their actions; people should not seek out their negative experiences, which are "catatonicized" and "vitrified". While these examples are said to have abandoned stratification, they never intensified, which makes their bodies without organs vulnerable to re-stratification. They classify bodies without organs into three categories: The empty BwO is chaotic and undifferentiated because it undergoes destratification without intensification; the full BwO is a "
plane of consistency" because it is both destratified and intensified, which allows it to enter new relationships; meanwhile, the cancerous BwO is too stratified and becomes "majoritarian", having predetermined objectives that eliminate the body's potential. Two important examples of the body without organs relate to eggs. As a bird egg develops, it is nothing but the dispersion of protein gradients, which have varying intensities and have no apparent structure; for Deleuze and Guattari, a bird egg is an instance of life "before the formation of the strata", since changes in the qualitative elements of the egg will emerge as a changed organism. Relatedly, in the
Dogon culture, there is a belief in
an egg that encompasses the universe, where the universe is an "intensive
spatium" (an intensive interior), similar to a bird egg. According to Deleuze and Guattari, the Dogon egg is an intensive body, crossed with several zig-zagging lines of vibration, changing its shape as it develops without being compartmentalized through organs.
Ambiguity The body without organs remains one of Deleuze and Guattari's more ambiguous concepts and terms; over the course of their careers, the term changed in meaning and was used synonymously with others, such as the
plane of immanence. Deleuze and Guattari were unsure whether they referred to the same concept when using the term; scholars of Deleuze and Guattari have also expressed "little to no agreement" on the term, according to philosopher Ian Buchanan. ==Interpretations==