ABSTRACT
Yes, I have already used it a number of times in the course of this abecedary, particularly in relating the idea of Empire to that of multitude. But in discussing the concept of multitude itself, one must keep in mind that it has three distinct senses. The first is philosophical and positive: the multitude is defined as a multiplicity of subjects. Here what is being challenged is the reduction to unity, which is to say the permanent temptation that has poisoned thought since classical metaphysics. The multitude is, by contrast, an irreducible multiplicity, an infinite quantity of points, a differentiated-an absolutely differentiated-whole. Do you really think an entire population of citizens can be reduced to unity? That is absurd. The multitude of singularities cannot be reduced to the idea of a people. During the modern period “the people” represented a hypostatic reduction of the multitude: sovereignty claimed to have its basis in the people and transferred its image to them. The deceptions of political representation were woven with the concepts of sovereignty and people. But where, then,
has the sovereign people gone? It is lost in the mists of Empire, voided by the corruption of representation. Only the multitude is left.
