If you are Deleuzian and have read enough work to know how to ward off Deleuzisms, then here is a wonderful straw argument by Jan C. Rehmann that could serve as a way to introduce a competent Deleuzian style analysis of something. Every single major point of this essay is incorrect; to narrow it down to one major problem I would ask, where is the virtual-actual distinction?
The terms ‘incorporeal’ (as in Foucault’s “incorporeal materialism” and Deleuze’s work on the Stoics) and the ‘virtual’ (as in Deleuze’s conceptualisation of the virtual/actual couplet through Bergson, Spinoza, and his theory of the event) are elided into the ‘immaterial’. Part of the problem is that Rehmann wants to critique ‘postmodernists’ and not Deleuze or Foucault’s actual arguments, therefore the interpretations forwarded are in part derived from the readings of others. One example is Judith Butler’s work that draws on Foucault’s conception of ‘incorporeal materialism’ only indirectly and, dare I say it, incorrectly bcause it has a confused understanding of the relation between the ‘incorporeal materiality of events’ and bodies. Butler essentially reproduces the critique of Hallward and others who don’t seem to grasp the inherent ‘effectual’ and empirical materiality of the virtual. I can’t recommend Deleuze’s essay “How do we recognise structuralism?” highly enough, or Greg Seigworth’s review of Hallward’s book.
My entire dissertation is organised around arguing the complete opposite to the conclusions drawn in the essay while using most of the same sources (and a whole lot more!!). The fact that the term ‘postmodernist’ is used to describe Deleuze and Foucault’s respective works should immediately set off warning bells… This could be a satire of critiques of Deleuze, but it isn’t.