So: where does the subject stand in D&G? It's as if agency is returned to the individual by deterritorializing the individual--"not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I." By emphasizing agency of the collective instead of the subject, or rather by exploding the dichotomy of subject and collective into rhizomic fireworks, D&G suggest that we can create new planes and a politics of desire freed from beliefs. Any other thoughts about (individual?) agency in D&G?
On the Q. of agency, I'm not sure that I follow Benhabib's characterization of the cross-purposes (initially mistyped 'cross-porpoises') at which she locates postmodern and feminist theory. Or, to put it another way, I'm not sure that I buy into her account of postmodern nonagency, which seems - to me, anyway- at least a little reductive.