<p>The influence of Catherine Malabou’s concept of plasticity has grown considerably. However, recent commentaries increasingly trace disagreements in the literature to Malabou’s own ambiguous uses of the concept. This paper weaves together these criticisms and places them in the Hegelian context out of which Malabou developed her views. Plasticity is Malabou’s argument for reimagining Hegel’s <i>Aufhebung</i> as a non-teleological view of change in which the “suppleness” of material plays an important role. As presented in <i>The Future of Hegel</i>, Malabou lays out her view of plasticity through the very Hegelian process of <i>aufheben</i> she is actively rethinking. Original lessons about change drawn from examples of material transformation are developed into an ontology of “becoming.” I argue that the charge of ambiguity in the literature stems from the lack of appreciation of this move from limited examples to novel ontology, something Malabou later acknowledged. I suggest distinguishing between plasticity and what I call “neoplasticity.” The former refers to concrete examples of material change, inspired by the plastic arts, in which the role of material suppleness is explicit. The latter refers to cases of transformation in which the role of malleability in the process of change is implicit and requires being considered in light of her ontology of non-teleological change.</p>