阿甘本提出生命形式的概念作為生命政治的解答，然而事實上，他在理論 平面深陷的困境距離一九七六年傅柯在《性特質史》卷一最後所面臨的僵局並 沒有想像中的遠。相對於此，德勒茲與瓜達希透過流變概念提出無形式與非組 織的「一個生命」(une vie)，在「分子層級」解放生命的特異性。 生命等同流變，但流變並不是成為某物，不是不同形式的轉換或取代，而 是流變者與所流變之物的相互解疆域化。在德勒茲的問題中，流變不是單純的 變化、演化或變動，亦不是日常意義下的運動或流動，而是首先意味著從形式 與系統中裂解、逃逸，因為在形式或體制中不存在真正的運動。

Agamben proposes the concept of form-of-life as an answer to the problem derived from bio-politics. Indeed, it is not as far as he thinks, if compared with the theoretical impasse that Foucault suffered in 1976, the year when History of the Sexuality I was published. In contrast, both Deleuze and Guattari offer a concept of informal and inorganic life, a concept releasing the singularity of life at the molecular level. Life is tantamount to becoming, but becoming does not mean that it becomes something. Becoming always suggests the inter-deterritorialization between the one who becomes and the other it becomes. In the problematic of Deleuze and Guattari, becoming is not the simple change or evolution. Instead, it is the flight from the form and the organization, since there is no movement in the form.