woman’s younger self, the girl, first unleashes her torrent of words upon the world. Stalwartly in the third person, is repeated several times in several different angles, but each coming to the same conclusion, one of a fresh, new beginning and no meaning. There is no longer a center of significance connected to expanding circles or an expanding spiral as Deleuze and Guattari mentioned, but a point of subjectification constituting the point of departure of the line. There is no longer a signifier-signified relation here, there is no longer sign- to- sign circularity. One can argue that no signifier comes to any signified and in this way no meaning can be achieved.
As a matter of fact, the woman withdraws her body for becoming a point of subjectification for the drawing of a line of flight or deterritorialization. The mouth is the subject of enunciation, constituted on the basis of the woman that replaces the body. She talks about darkness but whether this darkness was real, from an eclipse, a cloud, simply imagined, or from something more serious like a seizure is unknown, but it is during this darkness that “she could still hear the buzzing … so-called … in the ears … and a ray of light came and went” (217). This darkness, buzzing, and light is repeated over and over in the play, and, again, whether real or imagined, are obvious precursors to a great meaninglessness. In the woman’s third examination of the scene, she finally comes to the true result of the nothingness through her speech. She states that:
it was all dead still but for the buzzing … when suddenly she realized … words were — what ? … who? … no! … she! … realized … words were coming … imagine! Words were coming … a voice she did not recognize … at first … so long since it had sounded…, then finally had to admit … could be none other … than her own (219)
and also in the moment it’s clear to see that the buzzing, the ray of light culminated in her first words. This is the nothingness and meaninglessness that she is mulling over, again and again.
Too many words have been said haphazardly without referring to any specific meaning that can represent a-signifying sign system. This regime is not supposed to represent any meaning; this is the regime of literal language. In fact the whole story does not have any interpretation. The two figures of thought-consciousness and unconscious can be seen in postsignifying regime. This can be read as a line of flight for the woman to escape her loneliness and silence during the past years. In these lines we come across redundancy in the unconscious part of the mind that throws out lot of words based on her repressed desire in everything even talking. As a matter of fact, in the signifying regime “redundancy is a phenomenon of objective frequency involving signs or element of signs (the phonemes, letters, and groups of letters in a language): there is both a maximum frequency of the signifier in relation to each sign” (A Thousand Plateaus 132). In the postsignifying regime, on the other hand, “the redundancy is one of the subjective resonance involving all shifters, personal pronouns and proper names” (133). Here again we can see personal pronoun of she and her that she used over and over in order to clarify her speech to the listener:
all that early April morning light . . . and she found herself in the–– . . . what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . . [Pause and movement 1.] . . . found herself in the dark . . . and if not exactly . . . insentient . . . insentient . . . for she could still hear the buzzing . . . (67).
Moreover, one can come across proper nouns used in the play:
sitting staring at her hand . . . where was it? . . Croker’s Acres . . . one evening on the way home . . . home! . . a little mound in Croker’s Acres . . . dusk . . . sitting staring at her hand . . . there in her lap . . . palm upward . . . suddenly saw it wet . . . the palm . . . tears presumably . . . hers presumably . . . no one else for miles . . . no sound . . . just the tears . . . sat and watched them dry . . (78)
These are testimony to indicate the postsignifying regime deployed in the play.
The most essential distinction between the signifying regime and asignifying regime and their respective redundancies is the movement of deterritorialization they effectuate. Since the signifying sign refers only to other signs, and the set of all signs to the signifier itself, the corresponding semiotic enjoys the high level of deterritorialization; but this is a deteritorialization that is still relative, expressed as frequency. In this system, the line of flight remains negative, it means that it is assigned a negative sign. As we have noticed, the asignified regime proceeds entirely differently. This is due to the fact that the sign breaks its relation of significance with other signs and sets of racing down a positive line of flight, it attains an absolute deterritorialization expressed in the black hole of consciousness and passion (A Thousand Plateaus 367). According to Deleuzean explanation in this play, one can see asignifying regime that follows the line of flight in the woman’s talk. The strong impact of these words can be seen in the multiple of signifiers that never follow any signified resulting in the meaninglessness of the atmosphere
. . . . out . . . into this world . . . this world . . . tiny little thing . . . before its time . . . in a godfor– . . . what? . . girl? . . yes . . . tiny little girl . . . into this . . . out into this . . . before her time . . . godforsaken hole called . . . called . . . no matter . . . parents unknown . . . unheard of . . . he having vanished . . . thin air . . . no sooner buttoned up his breeches . . . she similarly . . . eight months later . . .(267)
These words come one after the other and without referring to any specific meaning. In fact, most of the characters in Beckett’s plays don’t talk in a meaningful way. Thus the woman in this play is one of the best examples of words that are voiced by the mouth without thought or meaning.
As Deleuze and Guattari insist in their book, A Thousand Plateaus, it seems necessary to distinguish between three types of deterritorialization: the first type is relative, proper to the strata, and culminates in significance; the second is absolute, but still negative and static, and appears in subjectification; finally, there is the possibility of a positive absolute deterritorialization on the plane of consistency or the body without organs. Based on these categories, the third one is foregrounded in this play as one can detect deterritorialization in the woman’s words. Actually, when nothing can be seen but mouth this can be construed as the representation of body without organs that the researcher aims to make clear. In fact, mouth’s words follow the line of deterritorialization. This play is full of breaks, transitions, and uncompleted phrases
tiny little thing . . . out before its time . . . godforsaken hole . . . no love . . . spared that . . . speechless all her days . . . practically speechless . . . even to herself . . . never out loud . . . but not completely…(68)
that can represent a-signifiying regime in the shadow of meaningless world.
3.2 Becoming- Not I
For Deleuze life begins with pure difference or becoming, or tendencies to differ – such as the differential waves of sound and light, and these differences are in turn actualized by different points of perception: such as the human eye. Our world of beings, the extended terms that we perceive, are contractions of flows of becoming. As it mentioned before the supposed real world that would lie behind the flux of becoming is not, Deleuze insists, a stable world of being; there ‘is’ nothing other than the flow of becoming. All ‘beings’ are just relatively stable moments in a flow of becoming-life. The obstacle to thinking becoming, according to Deleuze, is humanism and subjectivism. And by negation of subjectivity in this play she is welcomed to the world of becoming. The task here is to think without models, axioms or grounds and this is represented in this play when she does not belong to anything even the world of order in language. The attempt to become imperceptible – no longer disengaged from life and difference – by becoming one with the flow of images that is life is the key word in Deleuze’s philosophy of becoming. By becoming Deleuze means approaching or imaging the inhuman point of view of animals, machines and molecules that we no longer have to take ourselves as unchanging perceivers set over and against life. We can immerse ourselves in the flow of life’s perceptions. The human becomes more than itself, or expands to its highest power, not by affirming its humanity, nor by returning to animal state, but by becoming-hybrid with what is not itself. This creates ‘lines of flight’; from life itself we imagine all the becomings of life, using the human power of imagination to overcome the human.
To become is not to attain a form (identification, Mimesis) but to find the zone of proximity, indiscernibility or indifferentiation where one can no longer be distinguished from a woman, an animal, or a molecule. Neither imprecise nor general, but unforeseen and non preexistent, singularized out of a population rather than determined in a form, becoming is always between or among a woman between women or an animal among others. Also becoming other of language means a minorization of this major language a delirium that carries it off, a witch’s line that escapes the dominant system. According to Deleuze’s postulate, becoming-imperceptible involves the challenge of abandoning or transforming the perceived image of thought or point of view from which we judge and order life. This allows a new notion of freedom: not the freedom of a human self who can be disengaged from the force of life, but a freedom gained by no longer seeing