The Deleuze/Guattari text Anti-Oedipus burst onto the intellectual scene in 1972 as a radical new means to reconceptualise capitalism and its effects. At the heart of Anti-Oedipus and its analysis of capitalism is the concept of deterritorialization, and how it evacuates identities, culture, values, and, indeed, coherent thought itself, and it makes them susceptible to the equations and dynamics of capital flows. Anti-Oedipus presents the mechanisms with respect to how deterritorialization interacts with and to (...) an extent liberates desire as ‘desiring-machines’. This philosophy of education paper applies the workings of deterritorialization and desire from Anti-Oedipus to the dynamics of contemporary climate change education and the Anthropocene. As such, it posits this dynamic as being critical to present day approaches to the philosophy of education that wish to engage with capitalism and its effects, and at the same time positively enter the climate change debate. This paper suggests that understanding the matrix of deterritorialization, desire, climate change and learning, is perhaps the most important work that can be performed in the philosophy of education today and with respect to the future. (shrink)

A critical examination of the figure of Oedipus in psychoanalysis and Western culture as it relates to the history of society and capitalism.

In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari saw the difficulty of disentangling the question of Spinoza and, later, of Reich from the very limit of a system of representation by which they mean Oedipus. As A Thousand Plateaus would emphasize later, this limit brings out the question of the desire for democracy (‘democracies are majorities’). It desires Oedipus. In What Is Philosophy?, the limit question (Oedipus) gave way to the concept of a people to come. Fifty years (...) since its publication, Anti-Oedipus remains a relevant text (apropos of its ‘strategic adversary’ identified by Foucault) against the background of the social pathology of neofascism, populist politics, and the rise of the alt-right and neoconservative movements in recent years. The paper tries to locate this inflexion point where the desire for democracy modulates into the bi-univocal plasticity of Oedipal desire whose dangers people already seem to know. They have unmasked Oedipus’ double impasse and have escaped it. They no longer desire fascism; they desire fascists, neocons, and right-leaning mob rousers. Fifty years since its publication, Anti-Oedipus confronts a type of people who have learned to behave like the enemies of capitalism, too careful not to overload desire and destroy its bi-univocality, its great balancing act on the Body without organs. Incidentally, in ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control,’ Deleuze spoke about a people who know how to ‘surf’ replacing the ‘older sports.’ This applies to people who could become either schizoidal or regress to its more familiar inversion, the simulacra of Oedipus. (shrink)

ABSTRACT“: We cannot say psychoanalysts are very jolly people; see the dead look they have, their stiff necks.” In 1972, the tone Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari used in Anti-Oedipus caused an immediate public reaction: it was regarded as the mark of a fatal critique of psychoanalysis. However, critique, in philosophy, is used in certain technical and precise senses. We will try to demonstrate that, technically, Anti-Oedipus is a delimitation of a Kantian sort, an evaluation of (...) a Nietzschean kind, and, finally, a divergence in terms of Deleuze himself. Thanks to this precision, we will find that the target of Anti-Oedipus is not psychoanalysis in general but what Deleuze and Guattari call, respectively, “the illegitimate use of the synthesis of the unconscious,” a conception of life presupposed by psychoanalysis, and a configuration of desire that explains both psychoanalysis and the system in which it functions. (shrink)

According to Deleuze and Guattari ([1972] 2009), the Oedipus complex is a historically produced social symptom that captures desire in neurotic and familial, capitalist, and Christian forms. From this perspective, narcissism is not a primordial condition, which precedes the Oedipus complex phase, but is its consequence and effect, reversing the logic of human development postulated by Psychoanalysis. The aim here is to carry on with Deleuze and Guattari’s criticisms of Psychoanalysis, approaching narcissism as a phenomenon manufactured by this (...) same civilization that aims to combat it. If in Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari demonstrate that the Oedipus complex is not a natural and universal path to the formations of the unconscious, but is produced by the civilized capitalist machine, Narcissus is now placed in the spotlight, unfolding the narratives of psychoanalytic theory about a supposed anti-social human nature. (shrink)

A story goes that the king of Scythia had a highly-bred mare, and that all her foals were splendid; that wishing to mate the best of the young males with the mother, he had him brought to the stall for the purpose; that the young horse declined; that, after the mother’s head had been concealed in a wrapper he, in ignorance, had intercourse; and that, when immediately afterwards the wrapper was removed and the head of the mare was rendered visible, (...) the young horse ran away and hurled himself down a precipice.If Oedipus Rex moves a modern audience no less than it did the contemporary Greek one, the explanation can only be that its effect does not lie in the contrast between destiny and human will, but is to be looked... (shrink)

The meeting of Deleuze and Guattari in 1969 is generally used to explain how the former's thought became politicised under the influence of the latter. This narrative, however useful it might be in explaining Deleuze's move away from the domain of academic philosophy following the upheavals of May 1968, has had the effect of de-emphasising the conceptual development which occurred between Difference and Repetition and Anti-Oedipus. Worst of all, it has had the effect of reducing the role of (...) Marx's philosophy to the superficial level of political alibi, impoverishing our understanding of its importance with respect to the conceptual assemblage of Anti-Oedipus. This paper attempts to restore Marx's relevance to Deleuze and Guattari's project by understanding Anti-Oedipus through the Marxian categories of production, distribution, surplus-value and consumption, and argues for a conception of schizoanalysis which does not relegate the name of Marx to the garbage heap of poststructuralist intellectual strategy. (shrink)

This paper contemplates repression as a factor of production in Anti-Oedipus. Repression is part of the division of labour which defines the composition of the labour–capital relation, what Deleuze and Guattari conceive of as a differential relation. In interpreting Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of repression, commentaries have elaborated on the influences of Marx’s theories of reification and of the state. However, the influence of Marx’s theory of division of labour in capitalism has not been fully examined. This theory, (...) which involves dispossession of intellectual potentialities and suppression of productive drives, is essential to Deleuze and Guattari’s Spinozist hypothesis that the masses came to desire fascism under a particular set of historical conditions. Through a reading of Capital, guided by Balibar’s reading in particular, and an analysis of schizophrenia in alignment with Foucault’s, Deleuze and Guattari develop a theory of repression as immanent to production. Based in this theory, they conceive of fascism as a line of flight from the limits of capital, emerging among several counteracting factors against the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. In assessing how repression operates in Deleuze and Guattari’s form of psychoanalysis, this paper references Marx’s Capital and Spinoza’s Ethics as well as Balibar’s contribution to the 1965 book Reading Capital and Foucault’s 1962 Mental Illness and Psychology. The paper concludes with remarks on the further development of this theory in Deleuze and Guattari’s 1980 A Thousand Plateaus and Deleuze’s 1990 ‘Postscript on Control Societies’. (shrink)

This article seeks to expose some of the themes addressed in Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus, especially those in which the authors use Marx’s work as a starting point for their own theses. I first present the thesis of history as mere contingency, defended by the authors from a new examination of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. I show how the authors choose some fragments of Marx’s work to support an anti-dialectical thesis, contrary to Marx’s, although they (...) do not elaborate a critique of the German philosopher. In the second place, I present the authors’ thesis with respect to the nature of capital and its development, making use of their reading of the law of tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Here too, the selective recourse to Marx results in an abandonment of the labor theory of value, with the thesis of machinic surplus value. This thesis contributes to the new ontology proposed by the authors, which dissolves the categories of subject and object, while equating and homogenizing all that exists, flattening the diversity of the social world. Finally, I critique the design of revolution proposed by the authors in close connection with their new ontology. (shrink)

This essay considers Deleuze and Guattari’s paradoxical claim that Marx’s critique of political economy implies as a universal history derived from the singular features of capitalism. In this critique, capitalism is defined by the commodity form, as a relationship of economic equivalence that replaces the bonds of dependence underlying other social formations. By negating relations of kinship and caste, capitalism reveals, a contrario, the universal foundation of other societies. As the “negative of all social formations,” capitalism conditions a universal history, (...) defined, retrospectively, from the singular standpoint of a society, based upon the negation of kinship and caste. In this universal history, moreover, the negation of capitalism is identified with the possibility of a new and equally singular form of society. In Anti-Oedipus, the latter is defined as a “schizophrenic” condition liberated from the commodity as well as from the bonds of dependence that constituted the universal foundation of earlier societies. (shrink)

Published in 1972, Anti‐Oedipus was the first of a number of collaborative works between the French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze, and the French psychoanalyst and political activist, Felix Guattari. As the first of a two‐volume body of work that bears the subtitle, Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Anti‐Oedipus is, to say the least, an unconventional work that should be understood, in part, as a product of its time – created as it was among the political and revolutionary fervour engendered (...) by the events of ‘May 1968’. However, this paper will suggest that Anti‐Oedipus – as a critique of psychoanalysis and the Oedipus complex, as well as being a study of the relationship between capitalism and schizophrenia – should also be understood in a less ‘time‐bound’ fashion. In particular, the paper will examine Deleuze and Guattari’s formulation of a concept of ‘desire’ and its employment in relation to subjectivity, time, capitalism, representation, and the radical ‘therapeutic’ practice that they refer to as ‘schizoanalysis’. Moreover, nearly 40 years after the events of May 1968 and against possible doubts concerning the contemporary relevance of psychoanalysis, it will be suggested that psychoanalysis and the Oedipus complex are to be understood as symptomatic of a wider ‘malaise’ that can be discerned within psychiatry, psychotherapy, and contemporary capitalist society itself, and that it is this that forms the broader target of the book’s critique. Accordingly, by providing an accessible and critical introduction to Anti‐Oedipus, the paper also hopes to stimulate further discussion and research regarding both the critique and the contribution that the work can make to contemporary psychiatry, psychotherapy, and mental health nursing generally. (shrink)

The 50th anniversary of the publication of Anti-Oedipus in 1972, just a few years after the events in May-June 1968 in Paris, affords us the opportunity to reflect on the very simple question, what...

오늘날 정신분석의 이론과 개념은 인문·사회과학의 제 영역을 넘어 우리의 일상적 사유에까지 크게 영향을 미치고 있다. 그중 오이디푸스 콤플렉스는 무의식이 형성되는 과정을 가부장적 가족 모델 속에서 해명하려는 시도로서, 정신분석가들에 의해 흔히 무의식의 보편적 구조로 제시된다. 이에 맞서, 들뢰즈와 과타리는 오이디푸스를 유형학적으로 탐구하는데, 이는 사회체의 세 유형(미개, 야만, 문명)에 상응하는 오이디푸스의 세 유형을 제시하는 방식으로 진행된다. 이를 통해, 그들은 정신분석에서 말하는 오이디푸스 콤플렉스가 문명 사회체에만 유효한 것임을 밝히는 한편, 그것이 이 사회체의 재생산 구조에 기여하고 있음을 고발한다. 더 나아가, 그들은 무의식에 대한 대안적 (...) 탐구로 분열분석을 제시하는데, 이는 무의식을 역사적·사회적 현실과 직접 결부시키는 데서 성립한다. 이른바 ‘가족 극장’을 넘어서는 다른 분석의 가능성을 제시함으로써, 분열분석은 ‘무의식의 탈-오이디푸스화’라는 정신분석의 내적 전환을 촉구한다. (shrink)

흔히 들뢰즈 철학의 변화 혹은 전회과정을 논할 때에, 1969년과 1972년 사이에 발생한 중요한 사건, 즉 펠릭스 가타리와의 만남을 기점으로 전기와 후기로 나누고 있다. 가타리를 만나기 전에 들뢰즈는 1952년 흄에 관한 첫 저서 이후 계속해 온 서양철학사에 대한 비판적·창조적 독해의 성과를 집대성하여 1968년에 『차이와 반복』을, 다음 해인 1969년에는 들뢰즈 철학의 체계화를 처음으로 시도한 것으로 평가되고 있는 『의미의 논리』를 출간하였는데, 여기까지가 전기(前期)에 해당한다. 그리고 1969년에는 당시 정신분석에 관한 연구를 하고 있던 가타리를 만나 공통작업을 개시하였다. 그로부터 3년 뒤인 1972년에 발표된 것이 바로 그들의 (...) 최초의 공동연구 성과인 『안티 오이디푸스』였는데, 이 저서부터 후기(後期)가 시작되었다고 할 수 있다. 그렇다면 우리의 관심은 『안티 오이디푸스』를 전후로 그의 저작을 나누는 결정적 차이점은 무엇인가 하는 점이다. 이 차이점을 규명함으로써 가타리와의 공동작업의 의의나, 그 이후 저작들의 서술 유형의 변화, 나아가 들뢰즈 철학 자체의 내적 변동과정을 밝혀낼 수 있을 것이다. 따라서 본 논문의 목적은 『의미의 논리』와 『안티 오이디푸스』를 구별하는 차이점 내지 단절점의 구체적 내용을 규명하는 데에 있는데, 우리는 그것을 ‘탈기관체’라고 간주한다. 즉 이전의 전통적인 철학사적 문맥을 대신하여 개념들이 전개되는 새로운 장(場)으로서 초점화 되고 있는 것이 다름 아닌 ‘탈기관체’라는 개념이라고 규정하여 그 의미를 밝히려고 한다. (shrink)

Animals are at work everywhere in education, yet existing nowhere: Education doesn’t know them beyond their instrumental use value; as animals-for-us (Pedersen, 2019a, p. 7; Wallin, 2014, p. 149; c...

El presente trabajo se propone plegar parte del aparato conceptual de El anti-Edipo en torno a tres instancias: el sonido registrado y reproducido, el dispositivo cinematográfico, la televisión como medio para yoes con cámaras. La lista busca traducir una recomendación deleuziana: “Una buena manera de leer, hoy en día, sería tratar un libro de la misma manera en que se escucha un disco, que se ve una película o un programa de televisión, de la misma manera que se acoge (...) una canción” (Deleuze, 1980: 8). La lectura en clave pop es la lectura desde una perspectiva que no juzga la cultura de masas, sino que la incorpora como método de trabajo. Escuchar un disco, ver una película o un programa de televisión son todo menos actividades claras y distintas. (shrink)

Cohle is at ease with his lack, and his ease enables him to remain fixated on the desire of the other. This is precisely what makes Cohle the better detective, indeed the True Detective. It is because Cohle himself is unable to experience guilt— the true sign of any noir hero. Gilles Deleuze argues that the core structure of the detective's search for truth follows an Oedipal trajectory. Sophocles' classic myth of Oedipus presents the basic structure of the detective (...) genre. Cohle develops a philosophy, specifically what is referred to as anti‐natalism, or the belief that human beings should not procreate. The Lacanian philosopher Alenka Zupancic points out that Oedipus was the first noir hero precisely because in Oedipus the hero is also the villain— the two become indistinguishable. Cohle can read the signs all around him, however he has surpassed Oedipus. The ending of season one represents the ending of Cohle's trajectory of a psychotic subject. (shrink)

"The unconscious is not a theatre, but a factory," wrote Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in Anti-Oedipus, instigating one of the most daring intellectual adventures of the last half-century. Together, the well-known philosopher and the activist-psychiatrist were updating both psychoanalysis and Marxism in light of a more radical and "constructivist" vision of capitalism: "Capitalism is the exterior limit of all societies because it has no exterior limit itself. It works well as long as it keeps breaking down."Few people (...) at the time believed, as they wrote in the often-quoted opening sentence of Rhizome, that "the two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together." They added, "Since each of us was several, that became quite a crowd." These notes, addressed to Deleuze by Guattari in preparation for Anti-Oedipus, and annotated by Deleuze, substantiate their claim, finally bringing out the factory behind the theatre. They reveal Guattari as an inventive, highly analytical, mathematically-minded "conceptor," arguably one of the most prolific and enigmatic figures in philosophy and sociopolitical theory today. The Anti-Oedipus Papers are supplemented by substantial journal entries in which Guattari describes his turbulent relationship with his analyst and teacher Jacques Lacan, his apprehensions about the publication of Anti-Oedipus and accounts of his personal and professional life as a private analyst and codirector with Jean Oury of the experimental clinic Laborde. (shrink)

Notes and journal entries document Guattari and Deleuze's collaboration on their 1972 book Anti-Oedipus. "The unconscious is not a theatre, but a factory," wrote Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in Anti-Oedipus, instigating one of the most daring intellectual adventures of the last half-century. Together, the well-known philosopher and the activist-psychiatrist were updating both psychoanalysis and Marxism in light of a more radical and "constructivist" vision of capitalism: "Capitalism is the exterior limit of all societies because it (...) has no exterior limit itself. It works well as long as it keeps breaking down."Few people at the time believed, as they wrote in the often-quoted opening sentence of Rhizome, that "the two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together." They added, "Since each of us was several, that became quite a crowd." These notes, addressed to Deleuze by Guattari in preparation for Anti-Oedipus, and annotated by Deleuze, substantiate their claim, finally bringing out the factory behind the theatre. They reveal Guattari as an inventive, highly analytical, mathematically-minded "conceptor," arguably one of the most prolific and enigmatic figures in philosophy and sociopolitical theory today. The Anti-Oedipus Papers are supplemented by substantial journal entries in which Guattari describes his turbulent relationship with his analyst and teacher Jacques Lacan, his apprehensions about the publication of Anti-Oedipus and accounts of his personal and professional life as a private analyst and codirector with Jean Oury of the experimental clinic Laborde. (shrink)

A close examination of the relationship between media, art, and the "Electra complex" The feminist counterpart to Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, Anti-Electra is a philosophy of "the girl" as a model of contemporary transgressive subjectivity. Elisabeth von Samsonow asserts that focusing on the girl's escape from the Oedipus complex leads to a fundamental shift in our most common views on media and art. Presenting an interpretation of contemporary technics, Anti-Electra argues that technology today encompasses Electra's (...) gadgets and toys. According to von Samsonow, satellite drive technologies such as wireless telephones, WLAN, and GPS echo the "preoedipal constellation" that the girl specializes in. And with the help of the girl, the cartography of overlapping zones between humankind and animals, as well as between humankind and apparatuses, is redesigned through what the book holds as a "radical totemism." Anti-Electra ultimately offers a new view on gender, the contemporary world dyed by symbolic girlism, and the (universal) girl in critical dialogue with media, ecology, and society. (shrink)

Lars von Trier's movies can be seen as a series of iterations in an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. After testing the logic of this game, at the core of which is the dilemma of cooperation or conflict, at the middle level at which an individual confronts a community up till Dogville, he has transposed the game to the level of social systems in Manderlay and the level of the minimal social unit, the couple in Anti-Christ. The story is the (...) Oedipus myth reversed and fit into the logic of the prisoner's dilemma which is, one could argue, the mathematical model of a Hobbesian world view. In that sense it could be called Von Trier's Anti-Oedipus. Moreover, this is the first film in which Von Trier fully embraces digital technologies. It is as if he as a filmmaker acts like the male protagonist in Anti-Christ, and assumes the role of the Anti-Christ in order to become a Savior, since digital technologies and special effects are aligned with 'evil' in this movie. (shrink)

In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari claim that a general theory of society must be a generalised theory of flows. This is hardly a straightforward claim, and this paper attempts to examine the grounds for it. Why should socio-political theory be based on a theory of flows rather than, say, a theory of the social contract, or a theory of the State, or the questions of legitimation or revolution, or numerous other possible candidates? The concept of flow (and the (...) related notions of code and stock), I argue, is derived from contemporary economic theory, and most notably John Maynard Keynes. Deleuze and Guattari remained Marxists, not only because they held that contemporary political philosophy must inevitably be centred on the analysis of capitalism, but also because they held, following Marx himself, that the Marxist analysis of capital must constantly be transformed and adapted to new conditions. Thus, while certain aspects of Marx's analysis disappear from Capitalism and Schizophrenia, they are supplemented by the addition of new concepts adequate to the contemporary state of capitalism. The paper concludes, then, with an analysis of the role played by the concepts of flow, code and stock in Deleuze and Guattari's political philosophy. (shrink)

The aim of the present article is to pinpoint the issues involved in the analysis of the economy of “primitive” societies, as carried out by Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus. To do so it focuses on a logic of debt (Nietzsche) rather than on a logic of reciprocity (Lévi-Strauss). Deleuze and Guattari’s critical discussion of Lévi-Strauss’s ethnology can thus be related to the problematization of kinship, understood as a system of alliance and filiation relationships, which is formulated within (...) French Marxist anthropology (E. Terray, C. Meillassoux) on the one hand, and Edmund Leach’s critical anthropology on the other. This double mediation helps to show that in Anti-Oedipus, what Deleuze and Guattari seek to identify are the political strategies at work in economic relations. In the present instance, this means the finite alliance strategies operating in “primitive” societies and which are deeper than trade and production relationships. (shrink)

"Moses and Monotheism" is Freud's last book on religion. It was published in its entirety only after his flight from Nazi-occupied Vienna. Moses is perhaps Freud's most controversial book on religion. It is both an apology and a curse. It is a critique of traditional Judaism (by way of an Oedipal analysis of a deified Moses), a defence of a modern humanistic Judaism (a Judaism of moral and intellectual values), and a bitter critique of Christianity (a religion not of the (...) Father but of the sons, a failed religion, which expresses its failure in anti-Semitism). A defiant and rebellious book, one might say, one in which an old man rises to meet his fate and does so with surprising wilfulness and vigour. But Moses also reveals a dogmatic Freud defending a critique of religion that is intellectually flawed and politically misdirected. (shrink)

This paper argues that practitioners of psychedelic-assisted therapy could learn a great deal from Deleuze and Guattari’s critique of psychoanalysis in Anti-Oedipus, as well as the practice of materialist psychiatry – schizoanalysis – that they offer in its stead. Much of the clinical research on psychedelics (particularly psilocybin) over the past fifteen years has privileged mystical experience, assessed according to a quantifiable scale, as the goal of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and source of cure ( Griffiths et al. 2006, 2016 (...) ; Barrett and Griffiths 2018 ; Pollan 2018 ). Has ‘mystical experience’ become the ‘imperialism of Oedipus’ within the psychedelic revival, towards which all psychedelic experience and activity of the unconscious is expected to tend? Distressed patients would be better held, I contend, through a therapeutic practice that adopts Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the unconscious as a desiring-machine and the cure as a completion of the process of desiring-production that is not arrested and reduced to pre-assigned ends. In this mode of working with psychedelics, the embodied memories, visions and sensations of the patient do not in a predetermined way ‘express’ or ‘represent’ a perennial, quantifiable experience (or myth). Rather, they enable the positive task of schizoanalysis of learning what a subject’s desiring-machines are and how they work, and the negative task of identifying and destroying all that stands in the way of their functioning. (shrink)

For addressing the problem of negotiating social orders in a way that protects one’s humanity, I have considered Deleuze and Guattari’s intriguing claim in Anti-Oedipus that “a schizophrenic out for a walk is a better model than a neurotic lying on the analyst’s couch‘. I outlined the associated principles of schizoid living developed in Anti-Oedipus via a critique that reverses the value of two Freudian concepts, namely, ”neurosis’ and ”psychosis’. I then cited some of the book’s (...) eulogising ”praise poetry’, which describes the ”schizo’ and connected it to a contemporaneous text, J.M. Coetzee’s Life and Times of Michael K, that addresses the same ethical problem of negotiating social orders. Through the activities and reflections of the novel’s protagonist, Michael K, who might be thought of as “a schizophrenic out for a walk‘, I showed that Coetzee explores various forms of resistance. He investigates the impotence of resistance as the active construction of an alternative story from the alienated position of the ”other’. I pointed out that this strategy fails because it remains within the neurotic desire to construct a coherent narrative. Similarly, I indicated that resistance fails as a gesture of pure refusal akin to schizophrenic antiproduction, because the neurotic response re-appropriates this extremity through self-serving gestures of externalisation. Finally, I pointed out how Coetzee alludes to a kind of resistance that might be called schizoid and that changes the rules of the game. In the novel, K experiments with the first and second options, but cannot make life possible, either as a servant to a social order, on his own terms, or on the absolute outside. Echoing the question posed by Deleuze and Guattari of whether the schizoid ”men of desire’ they praise exist yet, K only dreams of the third option in the novel’s final lines, which detail the thoughts of a man dying of starvation. (shrink)

For about a hundred years since the invention of the Oedipus complex, Electra stands for its feminine counterpart even though Freud would not have it thus established because he granted the female sex no claim to its own sexuality-marking complex. Electra is the mannequin on which Oedipus hangs like a coat on a coatrack.

Este artículo analiza los aspectos centrales de la concepción del Estado en El Anti-Edipo. Capitalismo y esquizofrenia, en particular los desarrollos ofrecidos en el capítulo tercero: "Salvajes, Bárbaros, Civilizados". La innovadora figura del Estado surge de un juego polifónico, abigarrado, discontinuo y elíptico con Karl Marx a partir de la noción de Modo de producción asiático; con Friedrich Nietzsche considerando la noción de origen y domesticación; y con Sigmund Freud siguiendo la noción de latencia. Los rasgos centrales para su (...) conceptualización se sintetizan en: 1) El Estado despótico como momento paradigmático de todo Estado y 2) el Estado es entendido como máquina social, en su doble articulación: social y libidinal. The article analyzes the key aspects of the conception of the State in The Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, in particular the developments offered in chapter three: "Savages, Barbarians, Civilized". The innovative idea of the State arises from a game polyphonic from the notion of Asian Production Mode, from the concept of origin and domestication, and from the notion of latency. The central features for conceptualization are summarized as follows: 1) The Despotic State as paradigmatic moment of every State and 2) the State is understood as a social machine, in its double articulation: social and libidinal. (shrink)

In Anti-Oedipus, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari maintain that nature is a process in which there is neither nature nor human being, except as a single reality produced in the processes of production, distribution and consumption, where distributions are immediately consumed and the consumptions immediately reproduced. In its historical realization, this is the process of capitalism, which must be an effect of such processes, processes of nature and human nature. This gives rise to this question: given the rules (...) governing nature, including human nature, how much contingency is there and how much determinism? And ultimately, is capitalism inevitable? (shrink)

In Anti‐Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari aim to describe schizophrenia in a positive manner. According to them, the schizophrenic lives on the intensive order. To fully comprehend what this means, it is key to address some of Deleuze's insights regarding the notion of intensity in relation to experience and cognition. This is why I will combine ideas from Anti‐Oedipus with theory from Difference and Repetition, in order to explain Deleuze and Guattari's conception of intensity in its relation (...) to common sense and to schizophrenia. According to this conception (a), intensity is the condition of possibility and limit for the sensible; (b) it becomes covered over by the organizing principles of common sense, which make our affects more workable and recognizable; and (c) this process of organization must hang together with the codification of desire through Oedipus, the main organizational principle of the socius. On the back of these theoretical considerations, I will explain what it means to say that the schizophrenic lives amongst intensities: (a) this involves a lack of codification of desire and thus of common sense, meaning an absence of organizational principles; and (b) this perspective leads to a different understanding of the schizophrenic's experience and expression, with very concrete implications for a clinical approach to schizophrenia. (shrink)

In Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari emphasise the difficulty of confronting ‘micro-fascisms’. Such fascisms occur at the micropolitical level as they permeate and modulate across social collectivities and networks. Arundhati Roy’s novel, The God of Small Things, reflects upon overt and violent modes of social division and classifications that determine ‘who should be loved and how. And how much’. Such a system ‘restrains or limits the individual’s power’, diminishing the ‘capacity to be affected’, (...) as Deleuze wrote in Spinoza, thereby nourishing and sustaining the fascists inside of them. This article will examine micro-fascisms within Roy’s novel, demonstrating how they function at the individual and interpersonal level. (shrink)

In Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari analyze the manner in which what they refer to as deterritorialized flows of desire, have been reduced to state, family or religious hierarchies. Matter, capital, and libido are among the flows of desire for which nature and human nature are processes of production. The author’s argue that there is really only one process of desiring-production, that now capitalism and psychoanalysis are inextricably linked, and that the former produces subjective (...) abstract labor, while the latter produces subjective abstract libido. Thus although nothing exists outside of the socius, without its inhabitants, there is no socius: “they are strictly inseparable and constitute one and the same process of production.” This leaves one with the uncomfortable conclusion that social repression and psychic repression are one and the same mechanism, and insofar as the transition from primitive territories, to barbarian despots, to civilized capitalists, which they refer to as State power, has proceeded lock-step, that there is possibly no place else to go. (shrink)

O presente artigo tem por finalidade apresentar como a matéria mitológica do Édipo e da Esfinge teria regulado a consideração das ciências naturais e políticas de filósofos modernos como Bacon, Hobbes e Descartes. A partir de uma consideração da ciência moderna no registro de uma racionalização do mito do Édipo e da Esfinge na filosofia de Bacon, buscaremos mostrar como o pensamento científico moderno poderia ser entendido como um tipo de conhecimento do homem sobre si mesmo e sobre sua própria (...) cultura ancestral. Nesse registro geral de uma modernidade científica entendida como um tipo de racionalização dos mitos, o presente artigo busca mostrar por último de que modo as críticas anti-edipianas de Deleuze e Guattari à modernidade teriam influenciado uma metafísica canibal inaugurada por Viveiros de Castro como crítica ao narcisismo individualista do colonialismo epistemológico e político legado à história da filosofia e à nossa própria cultura científica. Palavras chave: Modernidade, Anti-Édipo, Antropologia filosófica e Metafísicas canibal. Antiedipian criticisms of anthropocentric modernity: a cannibalistic metaphysics devouring machine men. Abstract: This paper seeks to present how the mythological matter of the Oedipus and the Sphinx would have regulated the consideration of the natural and political sciences of modern philosophers such as Bacon, Hobbes and Descartes. Starting from a consideration of modern science in the record of a rationalization of the myth of Oedipus and the Sphinx in Bacon's philosophy, the work seeks to show how modern scientific thought could be understood as a type of knowledge of man about himself and about his own ancestral culture. In the record of a scientific modernity understood as a type of rationalization of myths, this paper seeks to show at last how Deleuze and Guattari's anti-Oedipal criticisms of modernity seem to have influenced a cannibalistic metaphysics inaugurated by Viveiros de Castro as a critique of narcissism individualist of epistemological and political colonialism bequeathed to the history of philosophy and to our own scientific culture. Keywords: Modernity, Anti-Oedipus, Philosophical Anthropology and Cannibal Metaphysics. Críticas antiedipianas a la modernidad antropocéntrica: una metafísica caníbal que devora a los hombres máquina. Resumen: Este artículo busca presentar cómo la materia mitológica de Edipo y la Esfinge habría regulado la consideración de las ciencias naturales y políticas de filósofos modernos como Bacon, Hobbes y Descartes. Partiendo de una consideración de la ciencia moderna en el registro de una racionalización del mito de Edipo y la Esfinge en la filosofía de Bacon, el trabajo busca mostrar cómo el pensamiento científico moderno podría entenderse como un tipo de conocimiento del hombre sobre sí mismo y sobre los suyos. cultura ancestral. En el registro de una modernidad científica entendida como una especie de racionalización de los mitos, este trabajo busca mostrar finalmente cómo las críticas antiedípicas de la modernidad de Deleuze y Guattari parecen haber influido en una metafísica caníbal inaugurada por Viveiros de Castro como crítica al narcisismo individualista. del colonialismo epistemológico y político legado a la historia de la filosofía y a nuestra propia cultura científica Palabras clave: Modernidad, Anti-Edipo, Antropología Filosófica y Metafísica Caníbal Data de registro: 30/03/2021 Data de aceite: 17/05/2022. (shrink)

Considered one of the most important works of one of France's foremost philosophers, and long-awaited in English, "The Logic Of Sense" is an essay in literary and psychoanalytic theory, and philosophy, and helps to illuminate such works as "Anti-Oedipus".

"Mille Plateaux (Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1980) est le second des deux volumes ayant pour sous-titre Capitalisme et schizophrénie issu de la collaboration entre le philosophe Gilles Deleuze et le philosophe et psychanalyste Félix Guattari. Cet ouvrage continue à explorer par des voies inédites - en s'attaquant notamment à une série d'erreurs afférentes selon les auteurs à l'arborescence, à l'État, au langage... - la question déjà avancée dans L'Anti-Œdipe (premier volume) d'une ontologie révolutionnaire des devenirs ("presque imperceptibles") qui ne (...) cessent de défaire l'histoire des identités ("primauté des lignes de fuite") et de produire des "coups" imprévisibles au sociologue et au militant. Sans doute le livre politique de Deleuze et Guattari le plus important, grâce à sa conception originale du pluralisme (l'individu n'y est pas conçu comme fondement de l'organisation sociale : les subjectivités sociales sont toujours au-dessus ou en dessous du niveau de l'individu, composant et décomposant des collectivités de toutes sortes)"--Wikipedia = Mille Plateaux (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1980) is the second of two volumes which comes in the series of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is a result of collaboration between the philosopher Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, philosopher and psychoanalyst. This book continues to explore new paths - including addressing a series of errors by the authors related to the tree, the state, the language... - that are already dealt with in Anti-Oedipus (first volume) of an ontology of revolutionary futures; the latter continues to unravel the history of identities ("primacy of lines of flight") and produce "coups" unforeseeable to the sociologist and activist. No doubt the political book of Deleuze and Guattari's is the most important, with its original conception of pluralism (the individual is not conceived as the foundation of social organization: social subjectivities are always above or below of the individual level, composing and decomposing communities of all kinds).". (shrink)

This is the first book to use complexity theory to open up the 'geophilosophy' developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus, Anti-Oedipus and What is Philosophy?.

Translated and with an Introduction by Daniel W. Smith Afterword by Tom Conley Gilles Deleuze had several paintings by Francis Bacon hanging in his Paris apartment, and the painter’s method and style as well as his motifs of seriality, difference, and repetition influenced Deleuze’s work. This first English translation shows us one of the most original and important French philosophers of the twentieth century in intimate confrontation with one of that century’s most original and important painters. In considering Bacon, Deleuze (...) offers implicit and explicit insights into the origins and development of his own philosophical and aesthetic ideas, ideas that represent a turning point in his intellectual trajectory. First published in French in 1981, _Francis Bacon_ has come to be recognized as one of Deleuze’s most significant texts in aesthetics. Anticipating his work on cinema, the baroque, and literary criticism, the book can be read not only as a study of Bacon’s paintings but also as a crucial text within Deleuze’s broader philosophy of art. In it, Deleuze creates a series of philosophical concepts, each of which relates to a particular aspect of Bacon’s paintings but at the same time finds a place in the “general logic of sensation.” Illuminating Bacon’s paintings, the nonrational logic of sensation, and the act of painting itself, this work—presented in lucid and nuanced translation—also points beyond painting toward connections with other arts such as music, cinema, and literature. _Francis Bacon_ is an indispensable entry point into the conceptual proliferation of Deleuze’s philosophy as a whole. Gilles Deleuze was professor of philosophy at the University of Paris, Vincennes–St. Denis. He coauthored _Anti-Oedipus_ and _A Thousand Plateaus_ with Félix Guattari. These works, as well as _Cinema 1, Cinema 2, The Fold, Proust and Signs_, and others, are published in English by Minnesota. Daniel W. Smith teaches in the Department of Philosophy at Purdue University. (shrink)