“Deleuze’s theory (metaphor?) of assemblage as a way of thinking about the social world is an intriguing one. Fundamentally the idea is that there does not exist a fixed and stable ontology for the social world that proceeds from “atoms” to “molecules” to “materials”. Rather, social formations are assemblages of other complex configurations, and they in turn play roles in other, more extended configurations.”
“The assemblage approach suggests a different set of metaphors for the social world: mosaic, patchwork, heterogeneity, fluidity, transitory configuration. And this seems like a more realistic way of characterizing large extended social formation like states or regulatory agencies.”
“The downside of this way of talking and thinking about the social world is precisely the indefiniteness and indeterminacy it suggests for the composition relation. This poses a very hard problem for explanation. How are we to explain the properties and behavior of the composite entity if there is so much contingency in its parts and the ways in which they interact?”
“Assemblages are composed of heterogeneous elements or objects that enter into relations with one another. These objects are not all of the same type. Thus you have physical objects, happenings, events, and so on, but you also have signs, utterances, and so on. While there are assemblages that are composed entirely of bodies, there are no assemblages composed entirely of signs and utterances.”
“DeLanda emphasizes that Deleuze’s concept resists the “organismic” approach to conceptualizing the social, by which he means an approach that looks at the whole as an inextricable combination of interrelated parts.”
“Truthfully, neither Deleuze nor DeLanda succeeds in making the concept of assemblage a very clear or analytically specific one. So let’s consider a diluted version of assemblage theory that might nonetheless be useful for sociological theory while foregoing much of the metaphysical language characteristic of Deleuze’s writings: Social entities are composed of components and lesser systems. The components of a social entity are heterogeneous. The components include both material factors and meaningful expressions. The components have their own characteristics and dynamics. The components may have very different temporal and spatial scales. The effects and interactions among components may be indeterminate because of complexity effects and probabilistic causal mechanisms. The behavior of the whole is difficult or impossible to calculate even given extensive knowledge of the dynamics of the components.”