Drive and Desire: Zizek and Anti-Oedipus [ DRAFT VERSION] Aaron Schuster aaron_schuster@yahoo.com Outline 1. Introduction 2.

An overview of Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia 3. From desire to drive: Freud and acan !. "rimary re#ression$ %. $ and the &irth of the sym&olic '. A(ainst Inter#retation) or Ser(e eclaire on the *reality of desire+ ,. -he #ro&lem of (enesis in .i/e0 Introduction In Organs Without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences) Slavo1 .i/e0 re1ects AntiOedipus as 2ar(ua&ly 3eleu/e+s worst &oo0)4 an easy esca#e from the theoretical deadloc0 that traverses his earlier solo wor0) es#ecially The Logic of Sense.1 -his deadloc0 concerns the relationshi# &etween) on the one hand) the radical (a# se#aratin( &odily causes from the immaterial field of sense 5in acanian #arlance) the sym&olic order6 and) on the other) the #roduction of discrete &odies from out of the #ure flow of &ecomin(.2 In short) 3eleu/e is critici/ed for havin( a&andoned) su##osedly under the influence of 7uattari) the #ro&lem of the 2lo(ic of sense)4 the theory of the event as an autonomous surface8effect) in favor of9to cite 3eleu/e+s &oo0 on Francis :acon9the 2lo(ic of sensation)4 the de#ths of chaotic flows and forces that &oth constitute and tear a#art &odies. It would not &e difficult to turn this ar(ument around and claim that is it #recisely 3eleu/e+s *7uattarian turn+ that &rin(s him into 5sur#risin(6 #ro;imity with some of the 0ey develo#ments of the so8called late acan. Indeed) 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s #ro1ect in Anti-Oedipus could &e read) in acanian terms) #recisely as a shift from desire to drive) and hence is consonant with one of the ma1or themes of .i/e0+s wor0 from the late 1<<=s onward: the #rivile(in( of drive over desire as the final frontier of acanian theory. >hen .i/e0 critici/es his own first ?n(lish &oo0 The Su lime O !ect of "deolog# as 2endors[in(] a @uasi8transcendental readin( of acan) focused on the notion of the Aeal as the im#ossi&le -hin(8in8itself)43 one can as0 whether this was not already) in 1<,2) the aim of 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s 2auto8criti@ue of #sychoanalysis4: to disa&use acanian theory of the @uasi8transcendental orthodo;y that threatened to s@uelch its radical core. A(ainst the heroism of failure) the som&er dictum that the su&1ect must reconcile itself to castration) that the o&1ect is desire is forever lost) that the dialectic of law and trans(ression is the ultimate hori/on of
1

Slavo1 .i/e0) Organs Without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences 5Bew Cor0: Aoutled(e) 2==!6) #. 21. 2 I&id. 3 .i/e0) $or the# %no& not &hat the# do: 'n!o#ment as a political factor) 2Forward to the second edition4 5 ondon: Derso) 2==26) #. ;ii.

analytic e;#erience) and so on) 3eleu/e and 7uattari cham#ion the more uncanny ace#halous realm of the drive and its #otential to revolutioni/e the esta&lished coordinates of a (iven sym&olic order. -here is also a third #ossi&ility. Aather than an unresolved deadloc0 or 2inherent im#asse4! in 3eleu/e+s wor0) the 2two &ecomin(s4% that .i/e0 identifies can &e viewed as a #ositive virtue: the achievement of 3eleu/e is #recisely to thin0 together these two su##osedly incom#ati&le levels. If this is correct) then is there is less a *turn+ in 3eleu/e+s thou(ht than a wor0in( out or an ela&oration9often with com#letely diver(ent technical voca&ularies9of different ways in which these levels relate. I will ar(ue that the two &ecomin(s or two levels of (enesis in 3eleu/e) one of the surface and one of the depths 5to follow the division of The Logic of Sense6) can &e #roductively translated in acanian terms as follows. First there is the static genesis( which descri&es the sym&olic constitution of reality. -his #rocess leaves a fissure in the world) a dis#laced and dis#lacea&le (a# which 3eleu/e desi(nates as the sense event) aleatory #oint) or @uasi8cause) all re(arded &y .i/e0 as synonyms for the o !et a. -his evasive *o&1ect cause+ of desire is that #oint in reality more real than reality itself) discerni&le in the way that it war#s or distorts the latter+s smooth functionin(. Eere .i/e0 #raises 3eleu/e for maintainin( the (a# &etween the sense event) descri&ed as the 2emer(ence of Bew)4' and cor#oreal causality as the networ0 of connections that com#rises everyday reality. Cet he fails to see that) for 3eleu/e) the very surface on which the event #lays is itself the product of another (enesis. -his is the d#namic genesis) which e;#lains the ori(in of the surface from out of the #re8 sym&olic realm of the drives) a #rocess that #roceeds throu(h a num&er of 2#assive syntheses4 until it forms a *writin( #ad+) i.e. a surface for sym&olic inscri#tion. -his is the domain of the untamed) non8castrated &ody &eneath the *unconscious structured li0e a lan(ua(e+ 5as 3eleu/e and 7uattari say of acan) 2the sym&olic or(ani/ation of the structure [$] has as its reverse side the real inor(ani/ation of desire4,6. -here are two senses of the real at sta0e here: one as a fleetin( *evental+ #oint inscri&ed within yet e;ceedin( the frame of reality) the other as a chaos of forces that #recedes and conditions the installation of the sym&olic order. -he first ado#ts the #ers#ective of the synchronic functionin( of the sym&olic) while the second in@uires into the #re8 history of this order. One of the confusin( as#ects of .i/e0+s ar(umentation is that while he definitely (ra##les with this latter #ro&lem of the #assa(e from the real to the sym&olic) he refuses to reco(ni/e it as a 0ey concern of 3eleu/e) and es#ecially of 3eleu/e+s colla&oration with 7uattari in Anti-Oedipus. -his essay forms a #art of a &roader in@uiry into the relation &etween #sychic individuation in 3eleu/e and su&1ect formation in acan. 3eleu/e+s relationshi# with #sychoanalysis is com#licated to say the least. Ee may alternatively &e viewed as dee#ly sym#athetic to Freud) Flein) and acan) translatin( their insi(hts into his own meta#hysical voca&ularyG or else a sarcastic critic of #sychoanalytic ideolo(y) as in his colla&orative wor0s with 7uattariG or else sim#ly indifferent to Freud and his le(acy) nourishin( himself on other) lar(ely for(otten romantic and irrationalist #hiloso#hies of the unconscious: Hun() :er(son) 3.E. awrence) Aleister Irowley...J
! %

.i/e0) Organs Without Bodies) #. 2=. 7illes 3eleu/e) The Logic of Sense) #. 1'%. ' .i/e0) Organs Without Bodies) #. 2,. , A8O) #. 32J. J For the latter a##roach) see Ihristian Fersla0e) Deleuze and the )nconscious 5 ondon: Iontinuum)

In s#ite of its relentless anti8Freudian #olemics and seemin( conce#tual anarchy) I &elieve that Anti-Oedipus should &e read as a serious attem#t to en(a(e with acanian theory. If anythin() 3eleu/e and 7uattari see themselves as faithful ecause iconoclastic adherents to acan+s #ro(ram a(ainst the stale slo(aneerin( of his disci#les. As 3eleu/e e;#lains) 2 acan himself says *I+m not (ettin( much hel#+. >e thou(ht we+d (ive him some schi/o#hrenic hel#. And there+s no @uestion that we+re all the more inde&ted to acan) once we+ve dro##ed notions li0e structure) the sym&olic) or the si(nifier) which are so thorou(hly mis(uided) and which acan himself has always mana(ed to turn on their head to &rin( out their limitations.4< Anti-Oedipus mi(ht well &e viewed as a monstrous offs#rin( of acanian #sychoanalysis) in the sense that 3eleu/e conceived his #hiloso#hical enter#rise as creative &u((ery) #roducin( *children+ of (reat thin0ers that were missha#en and im#ro&a&le &ut nevertheless their own.1= Hac@ues8Alain Killer has claimed that AntiOedipus) with its criti@ue of naLve oedi#alism and its humor8laden #raise of madness) was indeed reco(ni/ed &y acan as a delirious #ro(eny.11 An overview of Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia Schi/o#hrenia in Anti-Oedipus desi(nates less a clinical entity than the dee# ontolo(ical structure of the world) the Eeraclitean flu; out of which more or less sta&le fi(ures emer(e li0e tem#orary islands in a ceaselessly flowin( river. -his flu; is the madness of creation) a maelstrom of forces which threatens to en(ulf individuated thin(s) colla#sin( their &orders and &lurrin( identities) &ut which also holds the #romise of radical renewal and revolutionary chan(e. In The Logic of Sense 3eleu/e writes of the 2e;traordinary [$] moments in which #hiloso#hy ma0es the A&yss 5Sans-fond6 s#ea0 and finds the mystical lan(ua(e of its wrath) its formlessness) and its &lindness: :oehme) Schellin() Scho#enhauer.412 Anti-Oedipus can &e viewed as an attem#t to (ive voice to the A&yss in a #ro#erly modern way: no lon(er as an o&scure #ulsatin( >ill or 3ivine fury &ut as an immensely com#le; technical a##aratus. A machinic A&yss for the modern techno8era. -o fully e;#lain 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s theory of machines9which ma0es use of) amon( others) ewis Kumford) Samuel :utler and :runo :ettelheim+s case history of Hoey the *mechanical &oy+9would ta0e us too far afield here. Suffice it to mention that this theory mar0s a sea chan(e with res#ect to the classical conce#tion of the machine) in #articular the relation &etween technolo(ical artifacts and or(anic life. If #hiloso#hy traditionally sou(ht to com#rehend life in terms of dead mechanism 5with the cloc0 servin( as a #rivile(ed model for the intricate machinery of livin( &ein(s6) contem#orary thou(ht increasin(ly understands machines as @uasi8livin( or(anisms) with the ca#acities of evolution) re#roduction and self8or(ani/ation. In an essay from 1<'% 7eor(es Ian(uilhem summed u# this momentous turn &y sayin( 2One has almost always tried to e;#lain the structure and functionin( of the or(anism startin(
2==,6. < 3eleu/e) 2On Anti8Oedi#us)4 *egotiations transl. Kartin Hou(hin 5Bew Cor0: Iolum&ia) 1<<%6) #. 1!. 1= 3eleu/e) 2 etter to a Earsh Iritic)4 i&id.) #. '. 11 +L,Anti-Oedipe est une variation sur un thMme de acan) la criti@ue de l+oedi#ianisme naLf) enrichie d+un Nlo(e) non sans humour) de la schi/o#hrNnie. I+est d+ailleurs une #ro(Nniture @ue acan a reconnue) tout en la ta;ant de dNlirante.4 Interview with FranOois ?wald) -agazine Litt.raire no. 2,1 5Bovem&er 1<J<6) #. 2!. 12 3eleu/e) Logic of Sense) #. 1='.

from the structure and functionin( of an already constructed machine. Cet rarely has it &een attem#ted to understand the very construction of the machine on the &asis of the structure and functionin( of the or(anism.413 3eleu/e and 7uattari ta0e u# this challen(e) for(in( a *livin( technics+ that aims to transcend the alternatives of mechanism and vitalism &y recastin( the meta#hysics of creation in terms of an e;#anded theory of machines. 2?verythin( is a machine [$] ?verywhere #roducin( machines) desirin( machines) schi/o#hrenic machines) all (eneric life.41! Anti-Oedipus tells the story) or even dou&le8story) of how su&1ectivity arises from the hurly8&urly of desirin( machines 5Iha#ters I P II6) and the course of universal history as a succession of me(a8machines 5social forms6 that or(ani/e) canali/e and re#ress desire 5Iha#ters III P ID6. -he first story su##orts and su&tends the second) as the desirin( machines constitute the 2infrastructure4 of the massive social or(ani/ations. In #sychoanalytic terms) the two stories to(ether lay out the s#lit &etween the unconscious and consciousness) i.e. the unfathoma&le multi#licity of molecular flows and #artial o&1ects on the one hand) and the realm of re#resentation with its molar formations and lar(e a((re(ates 5o&1ectities6 on the other. -hou(h Anti-Oedipus does not em#loy this voca&ulary) this s#lit could also &e understood in terms of 3eleu/e+s well 0nown division &etween the virtual and the actualG in this com#arison) AntiOedipus descri&es &oth the construction the virtual) which is never sim#ly (iven &ut itself the #roduct of com#le; synthetic #rocesses) and the actual as a series of concrete social8historical forms. -hou(h these two layers are o##osed in various (uises throu(hout the &oo09#roduction versus re#resentation) molecular versus molar) desirin( machines versus Oedi#us) schi/o#hrenia versus #aranoia) and so on9) this o##osition is too sim#le 5and too structural6 as it stands. Qnfortunately) the #olemical tone reinforces the im#ression that the first term in these #roliferatin( dualisms is 2(ood4 and the second 2evil)4 and) even further) that the second should &e done away with in favor of its more anarchic) ener(etic and revolutionary cousin.1% 2-o o/erturn the theater of re#resentation into the order of desirin( #roduction4 is a ty#ical formulation.1' :ecause Anti-Oedipus is usually read in ethico8#olitical terms) as a 2(uide to the non8fascist life)4 a &lue#rint for the multitude) or what not) I thin0 it is im#ortant to em#hasi/e its other) less flashy dimension: its descri#tive tas0) to #rovide an account of the genesis of re#resentation from the realm of #roduction) to show how Oedi#us comes into &ein( throu(h the immanent wor0in(s of desirin( machines.1, -he story of Anti-Oedipus culminates with the rise of ca#italist civili/ation) which is #arado;ically close to the schi/o#hrenic core of creation itself. In a word) ca#italism is cra/y) 2mad from one end to the other and from the &e(innin(.41J It volatili/es #reviously e;istin( social &onds) dis#laces #o#ulations and (eo(ra#hic &oundaries)
13

7eor(es Ian(uilhem) 2Kachine et or(anisme)4 La connaissance de la /ie 5"aris: Drin) 1<'%6) #. 13=G my translation. 1! 3eleu/e and 7uattari) Anti-Oedipus) #. 2G translation modified. 1% Eere I am solidary with .i/e0 in his o##osition to this duality of 2the 7ood versus the :ad4G see Organs Without Bodies) #. 2J. Eowever) I thin0 that this duality can &e undermined from within AntiOedipus) throu(h a more attentive readin( of the &oo0. -here is no need to turn to the theory of the sense8event in The Logic of Sense to #ro&lemati/e the su##osedly flat &ecomin( of the real in AntiOedipus. As we shall see) the sym&olic dimension is definitely not missin( in the latter. 1' A8O) #. 2,1G em#hasis added. 1, Hoe Eu(hes em#hasi/es this as#ect in his e;cellent Deleuze and the 0enesis of 1epresentation 5 ondon: Iontinuum) 2==J6. 1J A8O) #. 3,3.

&rea0s u# traditional &elief systems) and dissolves esta&lished identities. *All that is solid melt into air+: the (allo#in( insanity of ca#italism is #art and #arcel of its consummate rationality) which su&ordinates everythin( to the sin(le8minded #ursuit of sur#lus value) or) to #arody 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s lan(ua(e) its #er#etual &ecomin(8#rofit. -here is a 0ind of #oetry of ca#ital to &e found here. And 3eleu/e and 7uattari are critical of ca#italism not for its madness) which is rather a term of #raise) &ut &ecause it is not mad enou(h. >hile unleashin( an 2awesome schi/o#hrenic accumulation of ener(y)41< ca#italism always 2reterritoriali/es4 what it had 1ust torn asunder: it &rin(s &ac0 the e(o 5the consumer6) the order of re#resentation 5the commodity form6) and the social lin0 5Oedi#us6) there&y interru#tin( its own schi/o#hrenic #rocess. Indeed) #recisely &ecause ca#italist civili/ation is closest in nature to schi/o#hrenic desirin( #roduction) it mo&ili/es a stron(er and more devious a##aratus of re#ression than anythin( hitherto ima(ined.2= >hat interests 3eleu/e and 7uattari is the #ossi&ility of radicali/in( the dynamic unleashed &y ca#italism and turnin( it a(ainst its own order. 2-he schi/o is not revolutionary) &ut the schi/o#hrenic #rocess [$] is the #otential for revolution.421 Schi/o#hrenia has a #eculiar dou&le status in Anti-Oedipus. It is &oth a *timeless+ ontolo(ical structure and an affliction of the human mind which emer(es at a #recise historical moment. 2Schi/o#hrenia is our very own *malady+) modern man+s sic0ness. -he end of history has no other meanin(.422 Eere we have a 0ind of clinical version of the end of history thesis: after Ee(el+s #hiloso#her) Schellin(+s artist) Biet/sche+s #ro#het) and Fo1Mve+s dictator) 3eleu/e and 7uattari #resent the schi/o as avatar of #ure difference &rin(in( to a close the history of re#resentation. 53es#ite im#ortant differences with Ee(el) Anti-Oedipus may 1ustly &e considered 3eleu/e+s 2henomenolog# of Spirit6. -o (ras# the schi/o#hrenic+s world historical si(nificance) it is necessary to first rescue him from his #sychiatric dia(nosis. For #sychiatry confines schi/o#hrenia to #atholo(y) conceivin( it in strictly ne(ative terms) as defect) deficiency or conflict. -he case of #sychoanalysis is more com#licated) &ut not much &etter. 3eleu/e and 7uattari fault Freud for modelin( the #syche after neurosis) turnin( the schi/o into a failed neuroticG acanian orthodo;y is similarly critici/ed for tas0in( the #sychotic with insufficient inte(ration in the sym&olic order. -he aim of Anti-Oedipus is to reverse these 1ud(ments and #roduce a #ositive #ortrait of schi/o#hrenia. Bo lon(er a man(led or lac0in( su&1ect) the shattered universe of schi/o#hrenia instead &ears witness to the miraculous #owers of the &ody. -he schi/o+s wide8ran(in( world delirium and fantastic or(an machines #rovide an answer to S#ino/a+s @uestion *>hat can the &ody doR+)23 and 3eleu/e and 7uattari a##rovin(ly @uote A.3. ain(+s descri#tion of schi/o#hrenia as a 2voya(e of initiation) a transcendental e;#erience of the loss of the ?(o.42! In 3eleu/e+s words) madness is 2a ru#ture) an eru#tion) a &rea08throu(h which smashes the continuity of a #ersonality and ta0es it on a 0ind of tri# throu(h *more reality+) at once intense and terrifyin() followin( lines of fli(ht that en(ulf nature and history) or(anism and
1< 2=

A8O) #. 3!. A8O) #. 33,. 21 A8O) #. 3!1. 22 A8O) #. 13=. 23 2Eowever) no&ody as yet has determined the limits of the &ody+s ca#a&ilities: that is) no&ody has yet learned from e;#erience what the &ody can and cannot do$4 5III) 2) Scholium6. S#ino/a) 'thics) transl. Samuel Shirley 5Indiana#olis: Eac0ett) 1<<26. 2! A8O) #. J!.

s#irit.42% A controlled schi/o#hrenia is itself the cure for the forces that menace life) chief amon( them the &ad 5neurotic6 lunacy of #ersonal identity. i0e acanian #sychoanalysis) the end8#oint of 3eleu/o(uattarian schi/o8thera#y is su&1ective destitution9a movement of de#ersonali/ation conceived in Anti-Oedipus as o#enin( onto a more #rofound anonymous life of scattered molecules) #iercin( sensations) and aleatory events. Since its #u&lication Anti-Oedipus has &een do((ed &y the criticism that it romantici/es madness. 3o its authors have no sense for the tremendous sufferin( of the mentally illR -hou(h this is a s#ecious accusation) one of the crucial theoretical #ro&lems of the &oo0 is distin(uishin( *divine schi/o#hrenia+) madness in the #rofound) ontolo(ical sense) from de&ilitatin( #sycho#atholo(y. Are mentally ill schi/o#hrenics essentially 2suicided &y society)4 rendered sic0 &y the forces of social re#ression and the #sychiatric cuc0oo+s nestR Or must this classic anti8#sychiatry thesis &e altered) so that the dan(er comes not from only from #riests) 1ud(es) and doctors &ut from somethin( in the nature of the schi/o#hrenic #rocess itself which threatens destructive dissolutionR 2 ines of fli(ht [$] turn out &adly on their own account) as a result of a dan(er which they conceal. Fleist and his suicide #act) ESlderlin and his madness) Fit/(erald and his destruction) Dir(inia >oolf and her disa##earance.42' -he successful schi/os are the artistic ones) the ones who are a&le9 to use a more Freudian voca&ulary9to su&limate their sufferin( and (ive e;#ression to the e;#losive cor#oreal forces #recisely as a catastrophe of meanin( and re#resentation.2, It is from such artists) rather than #sychiatric manuals or hos#ital wards) that we can &est learn a&out schi/o#hrenia. :ut the ca#acity for artistic e;#ression is no (uarantee a(ainst crac0in( u#. In one of their &etter formulations of the #ro&lem) 3eleu/e and 7uattari offer a cautionary note: 2Schi/o#hrenia is at once the wall) the &rea0in( throu(h this wall) and the failure of this &rea0throu(h.42J From desire to drive: Freud and acan In my o#inion the title 2Anti8Oedi#us4 is unfortunate with res#ect to 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s enter#rise for at least three reasons. $irst it vastly overestimates the cultural #ower of #sychoanalysis. ?ven if orthodo; #sychoanalysis effectively is an ideolo(y of re#ression) it is hardly a socially si(nificant one. Eere the &oo0 is very local and dated in its concerns. Second) 3eleu/e and 7uattari are wron( a&out the *unholy alliance+ of Oedi#us and ca#italism. Ia#italism need not de#end on a #atriarchal structure for its #er#etuation: on the contrary9and to the cha(rin of free mar0et cultural conservatives9it is ca#italism that has effectively de8oedi#ali/ed society) &rea0in( u# the traditional family unit and deni(ratin( the father+s sym&olic authority. Far from o#enin( onto a new freedom) this li&eration from oedi#al constrains has (enerated even worse su#ere(o #ressures: the neurotic Oedi#al su&1ect) (uilty for its inevita&le &etrayal of the intro1ected ideal) has (iven way to the hollow *narcissistic+ character ty#e &om&arded &y ima(es of en1oyment.2< Third( the *Oedi#us+ that the &oo0 so vehemently attac0s is far from &ein( the most interestin( or nuanced one in
2% 2'

T&o 1egimes of -adness) #. 2,. Dialogues) #. 1!=. 2, See 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s remar0s on the final #aintin(s of >illiam -urner) A8O) #. 132. 2J A8O) #. 13'. 2< See Ihristo#her asch+s valua&le essay 2-he Freudian eft and Iultural Aevolution)4 *e& Left 1e/ie& no. 12< 5Se#tem&er8Octo&er 1<J16. See also .i/e0+s 2>hither Oedi#usR4 in The Tic%lish Su !ect: The A sent Center of 2olitical Ontolog# 5 ondon: Derso) 1<<<6.

'

the dramatis #ersonT of #sychoanalytic theory. acan too critici/ed the naLve version of the Oedi#us com#le;) and) li0e 3eleu/e) focused more on Oedi#us at Iolonus9the outcast) the human waste) the inassimila&le remainder9than Oedi#us *the family man+.3= >hat) then) is the real aim of their criticismR It should &e em#hasi/ed that 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s criti@ue of Oedi#us is an immanent one. -heir (oal is not to tear down #sychoanalysis 52Freud is deadU46 &ut to recover its #ro#erly su&versive core) a rescue o#eration that ta0es aim not only at later orthodo;ies &ut) more fundamentally) at the reactionary tendencies of Freud himself. 3eleu/e and 7uattari actually #o0e fun of themselves here) com#arin( their difficulty to that of the do((ed Kar;ist se#aratin( the (ood communist wheat from the Stalinist shaft. 2"sychoanalysis is li0e the Aussian AevolutionG we don+t 0now when it started (oin( &ad.431 5One thin0s also of Eeide((er+s @uest to uncover the #recise moment when authentic 7ree0 thou(ht was infected &y meta#hysics6. So) when did #sychoanalysis (o off the railsR 2Oedi#us is the idealist turnin( #oint.432 On the one hand) 2what Freud and the first analysts discover is the domain of free syntheses where everythin( is #ossi&le: endless connections) none;clusive dis1unctions) nons#ecific con1unctions) #artial o&1ects and flows.433 -his is the revolutionary Freud who denied the #sychiatric distinction &etween normality and #atholo(y and demolished the teleolo(ical conce#tion of se;uality) the theorist of the #syche+s #olymor#hous #erversity as a riot of #artial drives ruled not &y self8#reservation or any e(oistic strivin( &ut &y the &lind im#erative of #leasure. -here is) however) another Freud) the Freud who re8inscri&es his su&versive insi(hts &ac0 into a familiar normative scheme) turnin( the drives into develo#mental sta(es and su#erim#osin( on the dis#ersed domain of infantile se;uality an adult drama of love and hatred) law and trans(ression.3! -o recover the early su&versive Freud a(ainst the later (entrifyin( one is the (oal of 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s criti@ue. In a word) what Anti-Oedipus aims to salva(e is the Freudian notion of Trie from its Oedi#al domestication. -he same lo(ic of immanent criti@ue (uides 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s readin( of acan. :roadly s#ea0in() Anti-Oedipus en(a(es acan in a dou&le manner) vehemently re1ectin( the so8called orthodo; as#ects of his theory 5the &ad * acanism+ of lac0 and the si(nifier6) while ela&oratin( what 3eleu/e and 7uattari ta0e to &e his most ori(inal and #roductive conce#ts 5nota&ly) the o !et a6. 2 acan+s admira&le theory of desire a##ears to us to have two #oles: one relation to *the o&1ect small a+ as a desirin(8machine) which defines desire in terms of real #roduction) thus (oin( &eyond
3=

2>e remem&er Oedi#us+ dirty little secret) not the Oedi#us of Iolonus) on his line of fli(ht) who has &ecome im#erce#ti&le) identical to the (reat livin( secret.4 3eleu/e) Dialogues #. !'. 3eleu/e and 7uattari in fact credit acan throu(hout Anti-Oedipus with deconstructin( the Oedi#al myth. 31 A8O) #. %%. 32 A8O) #. %%. 33 A8O) #. %!. 3! Alon( these lines) "hili##e Dan Eaute offers a 3eleu/o(uattarian readin( of Freud) showin( how the later introduction of Oedi#us occults Freud+s earlier insi(hts into infantile se;uality) and is res#onsi&le for a verita&le 2turn4 in his wor0. 2-he Oedi#us com#le;) as Freud defines it) undoes the radical o##osition &etween infantile and adult se;uality) and as a result ma0es it #ossi&le to thin0 in develo#mental terms. Kore s#ecifically) the reintroduction of a normative and essentialist definition of *normality+ is the inevita&le counter#art of this shift. It is therefore9at least this is my hy#othesis9the introduction of the Oedi#us com#le; in the 1<2=s which e;#lains the 3ehre in Freud+s te;t.4 2-he introduction of the Oedi#us Iom#le; and the reinvention of instinct: Freud+s Three 'ssa#s on the Theor# of Se4ualit#4 1adical 2hilosoph# no. 11% 5Se#tem&er8Octo&er 2==26) #. J.

any idea of need and any idea of fantasyG and the other related to the *(reat Other+ as a si(nifier) which reintroduces a certain notion of lac0.43% -his &rief statement sums u# the essentials of 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s a##roach. acanian theory is effectively &ifurcated: the ima(inary and the sym&olic 5alon( with the conce#t of fantasy6 are deni(rated) and the real develo#ed in a new 5delirious6 direction. For 3eleu/e and 7uattari the real is the only *real+ domainG the ima(inary and sym&olic are realms of illusion and alienation) falsifyin( the chaotic dynamics of real e;#erience) i.e. the machinic #roductions of the unconscious. 2Anti-Oedipus was a&out the univocity of the real) a sort of S#ino/ism of the unconscious V$W -he #eo#le who hate +'J) or say it was a mista0e) see it as somethin( sym&olic or ima(inary. :ut that+s #recisely what it wasn+t) it was #ure reality &rea0in( throu(h.43' As they state une@uivocally: 2For the unconscious itself is no more structural then #ersonal) it does not sym&oli/e any more than it ima(ines or re#resentsG it en(ineers) it is machinic. Beither ima(inary not sym&olic) it is the Aeal in itself) the *im#ossi&le real+ and its #roduction.43, Iorrectin( acan on this last #oint) 3eleu/e and 7uattari e;#lain that the real is the domain where 2everythin( &ecomes #ossi&le4 since it is a 2su&8re#resentative field4: only in the sym&olic is 2the fusion of desire with the im#ossi&le is #erformed) with lac0 defined as castration.43J >e are thus left with the 5li&idinal6 o&1ect without the 5si(nifyin(6 Other9which could well serve as motto for 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s selective a##ro#riation of acan: a theory of #re8#ersonal intensities and desirin( machines in opposition to the su&1ect s#lit &y lan(ua(e) the order of si(nifiers 5the Other6 in which it finds its identity as &arred) inconsistent) lac0in(. Such is the 2reverse side of the structure4 uncovered &y Anti-Oedipus.3< Ar(ua&ly) the develo#ment of acan+s own thou(ht moves in e;actly the same direction. -here are two #assa(es in #articular in acan+s oeuvre that seem to 1i&e with Anti-Oedipus) &oth from what is usually considered acan+s middle #eriod in which he underta0es a rea##raisal of the Freudian conce#t of the drive. $irst is acan+s characteri/ation of the drive in Seminar XI as a monta(e of hetero(eneous fra(ments) a 0ind of 2surrealist colla(e4: 2If we &rin( to(ether the #arado;es that we 1ust defined at the level of Drang) at that of the o&1ect) at that of the aim of the drive) I thin0 that the resultin( ima(e would show the wor0in(s of a dynamo connected u# to a (as8ta#) a #eacoc0+s feather emer(es) and tic0les the &elly of a #retty woman) who is 1ust lyin( there loo0in( &eautiful.4!= ar(e #ortions of Anti-Oedipus mi(ht &e read as an e;tended riff on this #assa(e. As acan ela&orates in that seminar) the drive should &e conceived as a headless 5ace#halous6 circuit turnin( around a #artial o&1ect) a 2radical structure in which the su&1ect is not yet #laced.4!1 Su&1ectivity #ro#er9the s#lit su&1ect of the si(nifier9is a secondary develo#ment which emer(es from out of the circular loo# of the drive. Second is the distinction &etween drive and desire #ro#osed in the .crit 2On Freud+s *-rie&+ and the "sychoanalyst+s 3esire4: 2V3Wesire comes from the Other) and 1ouissance is located on the side of the -hin(4G 2the drive divides the su&1ect and desire) the latter sustainin( itself only &y the relation it misreco(ni/es &etween this division and an o&1ect that causes it. Such is the structure
3% 3'

A8O) # 2,fn. 2On "hiloso#hy4 in *egotiations) ##. 1!!8!%. 3, A8O) # %3. 3J A8O) ##. 2,) 3==) 3='. See also #. J3. 3< A8O) # 3=<. != acan) The $our $undamental Concepts of 2s#choanal#sis ed. Hac@ues8Alain Killer) transl. Alan Sheridan 5Bew Cor0: Borton) 1<J16) #. 1'<. !1 I&id) ##. 1J18J2.

of fantasy.4!2 -his distinction would a##ear to #rovide a relatively clear8cut scheme for understandin( the relationshi# &etween 1ouissance and su&1ectivity. On the one hand) en1oyment is lin0ed to the -hin( and its cor#oreal fi(ures) the various o !ets a: this is the *immanent+ domain of the drive) radically closed in on itself in an autoerotic loo#. 3esire) on the other) is &ound u# in an intersu&1ective dialectic whose very essence is inter#retive o#enness: desire is desire of the *transcendent+ Other) turnin( around the unfathoma&le @uestion *what does the Other wantR+. -hese two levels meet in the fundamental fantasy) which #rovides a 0ind of 5unconscious6 answer to the eni(ma of the Other+s desire &y ci#herin( it in a &i/arre &odily scenario 9fantasy is the ima(inary side of the #artial o&1ects) i5a6. :y doin( so) however) it o&scures what 3eleu/e and 7uattari would call the real desirin( #roduction) so that the su&1ect *misreco(ni/es+ its non8fantasmatic real *cause+. Kuch more im#ortant than the trum#eted criti@ue of Oedi#us and alle(orical8style inter#retation 5truc0 Y 3addy) etc.6) Anti-Oedipus is) in acanian terms) a theory of the drive a(ainst desire 5to avoid #ossi&le confusion: what 3eleu/e and 7uattari call desire is referred to &y acan as dri/e6. .i/e0 #resents the relationshi# &etween the Other and the o&1ect in the followin( way: 2Identification ta0es #lace at the level of lo(os) it is always identification with a si(nifierG as such it comes after the *im#ossi&le+ relationshi# &etween a drive qua real and its o&1ect) o !et petit a [$] sym&olic identification 5ultimately identification with the Kaster8Si(nifier that re#resents the su&1ect6 com#ensates for the *im#ossi&ility+) the structural failure) of the su&1ect+s traumatic relationshi# towards o !et a.4!3 -his schemati/ation of acan+s mature theory) settin( the drive and its o&1ect on one side and the su&1ect+s constitution via sym&olic identification on the other) a(rees with the &ifurcation made &y 3eleu/e and 7uattari. ?;ce#t for one ma1or difference. For .i/e0) the ori(in of su&1ectivity is e;#lained as an escape from an un&eara&le trauma at the level of the drive. -he relation to the o&1ect is failed) im#ossi&leG it can only &e dealt with 5i.e. ela&orated sym&olically6 in the field of the Other. As we have seen) 3eleu/e and 7uattari a&1ure this voca&ulary of im#ossi&ility. In the su&8re#resentative realm everythin( is #ossi&leG it is the Other that introduces the notions of lac0 and castration) there&y crushin( the free #roductivity of desirin( machines. Instead of a story of esca#e) Anti-Oedipus #resents one of alienation and ca#ture9or so it seems. !rimar" re#ression$ Iould the aim of schi/oanalysis) then) &e reformulated as li&eratin( the creative #ower of the drives from crushin( (ri# of Oedi#al desireR Such is the #ersistent hi##ie misreadin( of Anti-Oedipus) which transforms 3eleu/e and 7uattari into &lissed out #ro#hets of a *summer of desire+. -hou(h not their intention) 3eleu/e and 7uattari are #artly res#onsi&le for this flaccid inter#retation) in the same way that acan &ears some res#onsi&ility for the misconstrual of his theory as #reachin( tra(ic resi(nation &efore the im#ossi&ility of !ouissance) the hum&le acce#tance of castration) finitude) etc.!!
!2

acan) 2On Freud+s *-rie&+ and the "sychoanalyst+s 3esire4 in 5crits) transl. :ruce Fin0 5Bew Cor0: >.>. Borton) 2=='6) #. ,2!. !3 .i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder: On Schelling and 1elated -atters 5 ondon: Derso) 1<<'6) #. !JG em#hasis in ori(inal. !! As "hili##e Ken(ue ar(ues) in the confrontation &etween 3eleu/e and acan we must (uard a(ainst &oth a ne(ative and #essimistic vision of desire and an affirmative vitalist #olitics &ereft of any sense of the tra(ic. 0illes Deleuze ou le s#st6me du multiple 5"aris: FimN) 1<<!6) #. 1=,.

<

>e need to e;amine in (reater detail what I+ve &een callin( 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s conce#tion of the drive. A distinction from acan can hel# us out here. In Tele/ision acan distin(uishes &etween suppression and repression) in a way which at first sounds li0e an ironic refutation of Anti-Oedipus7 2Freud didn+t say that re#ression comes from su##ression: that 5to #aint a #icture6 castration is due to what 3addy &randished over his &rat #layin( with his wee8wee: *>e+ll cut it off) no 0iddin() if you do it a(ain+.4!% So much for the su##osed #rimacy of mommy8daddy8me: for acan) the classic ima(e of the castratin( father9alon( with all other forms of su##ression emanatin( from the social s#here9is founded on a more #rimordial instance of #sychic re#ression which has nothin( to do with the family #er se. 2>hy couldn+t the family) society itself) &e creations &uilt from re#ressionR -hey+re nothin( less.4!' A succinct formulation of this same idea was already #ut forward &y Freud+s collea(ue Dictor -aus0: 2For the livin( or(anism reality is un&eara&le) and V...W the tas0 is incum&ent u#on it of creatin( a su&stitute for reality formation that is more &eara&le: culture.4!, In short) all of culture is a gigantic collecti/e defense mechanism that allows human &ein(s to live with the otherwise intolera&le reality that is their li&ido. And 3eleu/e and 7uattari say e;actly the same thin(: 2if the family is a&le in this manner to sli# into the recordin( of desire) it is &ecause the &ody without or(ans on which this recordin( is accom#lished already e;ercises on its own account) as we have seen) a primal repression of desirin(8#roduction. It falls to the family to #rofit from this) and to su#erim#ose the repression that is properl# termed secondar#.4!J In order to understand this) it is necessary to &ac0trac0 a little and e;#lain how the mechanism of #rimary re#ression wor0s and its relation to the desirin( machines. ?verythin( &e(ins in Anti-Oedipus with the chaotic realm of #artial o&1ects) what 3eleu/e calls in his study of Eume *the delirium of the (iven+: 2a collection without an al&um) a #lay without a sta(e) a flu; of #erce#tions [$] -he de#th of the mind is indeed delirium.4!< -his #re8Oedi#al universe is descri&ed in The Logic of Sense as one of uns#ea0a&le violence where 2&odies &urst and cause other &odies to &urst in a universal cess#ool.4%= Ilearly we are far from a &lissful ?den. -he #ro&lem that 3eleu/e and 7uattari confront is essentially the same as the one set forth in the Eume &oo0: how can the (iven transcend itself) throu(h what #rocesses does the disconnected medley of the mind &ecome su&1ectR -his #ro&lem is all the more im#erative (iven the &rutal and di//yin( nature of #artial o&1ects: their #oundin( and thro&&in( is too much and must &e somehow neutrali/ed) evaded. In Anti-Oedipus the movement of transcendence is first initiated throu(h the creation of a &ody without or(ans which re#els the no;ious flu;. And this is what #rimary re#ression is a&out) the 2repulsion of desirin(8machines &y the &ody without or(ans.4%1 At this #oint the 2#aranoiac machine4 is &orn) wherein the drives &ecome 2an overall #ersecution
!%

acan) 2-elevision)4 transl. 3enis Eollier) Aosalind Frauss) and Annette Kichelson) Octo er no. != 5S#rin( 1<J,6) ##. 31832G em#hasis in ori(inal. !' I&id.) #. 32. !, -inutes of the 8ienna 2s#choanal#tic Societ# 8olume ""9: 9:9;-9:99) ed. Eerman Bun&er( and ?rnst Federn) transl. K. Bun&er( 5Bew Cor0: International Qniversity "ress) 1<'26) #. 3=. !J A8O) ##. 12=821G em#hasis in ori(inal. !< 3eleu/e) 'mpiricism and Su !ecti/it#: An 'ssa# on <ume,s Theor# of <uman *ature) transl. Ionstantin D. :oundas 5Bew Cor0: Iolum&ia) 1<<16) #. 23. %= 3eleu/e) The Logic of Sense( #. 1J,. %1 A8O) #. <G em#hasis in ori(inal.

1=

a##aratus4 emanatin( from some alien e;terior.%2 As &ad as this may sound) the new confi(uration at least #rovides for a mar(in of &reathin( room com#ared to the #revious state. For that #rimordial schi/o#hrenic #andemonium is strictly untena&le: su !ecti/it# is made possi le # a minimal paranoia that 0ee#s the #urely cor#oreal forces at &ay. 3esirin( #roduction is o##osed &y a li&eratin( moment of 2anti8 #roduction.4%3 In an interview from 1<J= 3eleu/e descri&ed Anti-Oedipus as a 0ind of Aussian Ionstructivism of the unconscious.%! In the same s#irit) there are two fundamental trends at wor0 in 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s material unconscious) which we could name after Sta%hano/ 5the hero of Soviet socialist #roductivity6 and O lomo/ 5the la/y aristocrat of Ivan 7oncharov+s e#onymous novel6. In its Sta0hanovist mode) the unconscious is endlessly #roductive and creative) for(in( new connections and #roliferatin( flowsG this overwhelmin( out#ut) however) is o##osed &y the O&lomovist tendency to a&solute indolence) which &rin(s all the feverish activity to a crashin( halt. "t does not eat) &reathe) shit) and fuc0G it stays in &ed. Or to @uote 3eleu/e and 7uattari: 2From a certain #oint of view it would &e much &etter if nothin( wor0ed) if nothin( functioned.4%% In the rece#tion of Anti-Oedipus relatively little attention has &een #aid to 2anti8 #roduction)4 even thou(h it is here that can &e found the 3eleu/o(uattarian e@uivalent of the death drive.%' Five years earlier) in Coldness and Cruelt#) 3eleu/e recast Freud+s s#eculations in 2:eyond the "leasure "rinci#le4 in terms of transcendental #hiloso#hy. Accordin( to 3eleu/e) Freud is effectively &oth Bewton and Fant: at the em#irical level) he demonstrates how #leasure is) without e;ce#tion) the re(ulatin( #rinci#le of #sychic life and at the transcendental level he descri&es the o#erations of &indin( and un&indin( as the necessary conditions for the #leasure #rinci#le+s rei(n.%, -his constitutive activity is now renamed *machinically+ as #roduction and anti8 #roduction) &ut 3eleu/e and 7uattari do not intend these terms to ta0en as a new dualism Z la ?ros and -hanatos. Aather) the desirin( machines wor0 &y &rea0in( down) or &rea0 down &ecause they wor0 too well: the ris0 of colla#se) destruction) and e;haustion is intrinsic to their e;cessive drivin( force. "roduction and anti8 #roduction 5which is e@uality to the #olarity: or(ans8without8&odies and &ody8 without8or(ans6 are two facets of one and the same desirin( #roduction. -a0en to(ether they are o##osed to the or(ani/ational forms and lar(er totalities that use their #ower for their own #ur#oses 5self8#reservation) social re#roduction) etc.6. 2-he &ody without or(ans and or(ans8#artial o&1ects are o##osed con1ointly to the or(anism.4%J Or) #ut in .i/e0ian terms) the death drive @ua hy#er&olic e;u&erance is o##osed to the domesticatin( force of the sym&olic structure. -his leads to an im#ortant correction of the standard #ortrait of Anti-Oedipus. Iontrary to .i/e0) for 3eleu/e and 7uattari evil does not consist only in 2the
%2 %3

I&id. A8O) #. J. %! T&o 1egimes of -adness) #. 1,%. %% A8O) #. ,. %' An e;ce#tion to this ne(lect is Hean8FranOois yotard+s essay 2?ner(umen Ia#italism)4 transl. Hames ei(h) Semiote4t=e> vol. II no. 3 51<,,6) ##. 2%82'. %, See 3eleu/e) Coldness and Cruelt# in -asochism) transl. Hean KcBeil 5Bew Cor0: .one) 1<<16) ##. 111811,. %J A8O) #. 32'.

11

su&ordination of the flu; of desire to an Ideal which truncates its assertive life8#ower) its multi#le #roductivity.4%< Aather there is an evil) *anti8#roductive+ dimension of desire as such) that 2#rofound and almost unlivea&le "ower4'= which constitutes #sychic life. -his insi(ht leads to a new a##reciation of Oedi#us. -hou(h Oedi#us is tirelessly condemned throu(hout the &oo0) it nonetheless #lays a crucial 5even necessaryR6 protecti/e function) tamin( the anarchic schi/o#hrenic forces while never fully masterin( them.'1 Oedi#us) as the he(emonic form of social re#ression) leans on and is &uilt from that #rimary re#ression which renders #sychic life #ossi&le in the first #lace. 2Oedi#us is a re@uirement or conse@uence of social re#roduction) insofar as this latter aims at domesticatin( a (enealo(ical form and content that are in every way intracta&le.4'2 $ and t%e &irt% of t%e s"m&o'ic et us ta0e our readin( of Anti-Oedipus a little further. 3es#ite its *rhi/omatic+ a##earance as a hod(e#od(e of conce#ts and references) Anti-Oedipus has in fact a classical #hiloso#hical structure) full of shar# distinctions and tri#artite schemas. 57uattari com#lained a&out not &ein( a&le to reco(ni/e himself in Anti-Oedipus &ecause of it 2#olishedness4 and 2#erfection4 '3 9indeed) Anti-Oedipus is a ni(htmare not of chaos &ut of order6. It may &e read as an socio8historical ela&oration of 3eleu/e+s transcendental em#iricism) and in fact dis#lays a remar0a&le continuity with his earlier wor0 des#ite the &oo0+s novel voca&ulary. >ithout e;cavatin( the whole #hiloso#hical &ac0(round of these notions) let us loo0 at how 3eleu/e and 7uattari descri&e the #rocess where&y the unconscious is constituted. -he unconscious is com#osed) they tell us) &y three #assive syntheses. 23esire is the set of passi/e s#ntheses that en(ineer #artial o&1ects) flows) and &odies [$] -he real is the end #roduct) the result of the #assive syntheses of desire as auto#roduction of the unconscious.4'! -hese syntheses o#erate freely and &lindly) without a master #lan or directin( instance 5which is why they are called 2#assive4: they ha##en to and throu(h the unconscious) rather than &ein( carried out &y a transcendent a(ent6. -o (ive a &rief summary of their o#eration and how they &uild u#on one another: [ -he first connecti/e synthesis involves the #roliferation of #artial o&1ects and their #olymor#hous connections) and how their un&eara&le fren/y is countered &y the &ody with or(ans. -he &ody without or(ans re#els the #artial o&1ects) settin( u# a 2counter flow of amor#hous and undifferentiated fluid.4'% -his is the first ste# towards su&1ectivity as li&erated from the o&scure and suffocatin( cor#oreal de#ths: the 2#aranoiac machine.4 [ In the second dis!uncti/e synthesis) the &ody without or(ans a##ro#riates the #artial o&1ects as its own) recording their connections on its smooth surface. -he 2associative
%< '=

.i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder: On Schelling and 1elated -atters) #. 113. 3eleu/e) $rancis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation transl. 3aniel >. Smith 5Kinnea#olis: Qniversity Kinnesota) 2==36) #. 3<. '1 On this im#ortant #oint) see Steven Shaviro) 27od) or the :ody >ithout Or(ans)4 #. 23fnG availa&le at htt#:\\www.dhal(ren.com\Otherte;ts\7od.#df '2 A8O) #. 13. '3 FNli; 7uattari) The Anti-Oedipus 2apers) ed. StN#hane Badaud) transl. FNlina 7otman 5Bew Cor0: Semiote;t5e6) 2=='6) #. !=!. '! A8O) #. 2'. '% A8O) #. <.

12

flow4 of #artial o&1ect is there&y turned into 2si(nifyin( chains)4 yet the si(n elements are 2not themselves si(nifyin(. -he code resem&les not so much a lan(ua(e as a 1ar(on) an o#en8ended) #olyvocal formation.4'' -hese #rimitive inscri#tions are similar to what acan calls lalangue) si(nifiers coa(ulated with en1oyment) and what .i/e0 desi(nates via Schellin( as the interstitial domain of 2s#iritual cor#oreality4: material fra(ments no lon(er #urely &odily &ut not yet fully meanin(ful.', At this #oint the &ody without or(ans under(oes an im#ortant transformation: it &ecomes a 2miraculatin( machine)4 2arro(atin( to itself &oth the whole and the #arts of the #rocess) which now seem to emanate from it as a @uasi8cause.4'J -his is the same @uasi8causality that .i/e0 affirms in The Logic of Sense as res#onsi&le for maintainin( the autonomy of the sym&olic order. On the surface there e;ists a @uasi8cause 5aleatory #oint) the #hallus as si(nifier of castration6 that li&erates it from strict material determination and #rovides a new orientationG in Anti-Oedipus this function is ta0en over &y the &ody without or(ans) which in the second #assive synthesis #resents itself as the source of #roduction) *miraculatin(+ the #artial o&1ects) even thou(h it is their material #roduct. [ In the third synthesis of consumption and consummation the &ody without or(ans is su&mitted to a further develo#ment) &ecomin( a field of intensities. -hese intensities are &ased on (radients of attraction and re#ulsion #roduced &y the #rior two syntheses: the re#ulsion of the #artial o&1ects in the first synthesis) and their attraction onto the recordin( surface in the second. 2-he forces of attraction and re#ulsion) of soarin( ascents and #lun(in( falls) #roduce a series of intensive states &ased on the intensity Y = that desi(nates the &ody without or(ans.4'< On this field of intensities is also #roduced 2somethin( of the order of a su !ect4,= who en1oys 5consumes6 them: this is the 2celi&ate machine.4 -his su&1ect is not yet a sym&olic one) it is not acan+s s#lit su&1ect of the si(nifier. It is rather the autos of auto8erotism) the ace#halous su&1ect of the drive) the su&1ect of an 2I feel4 that is at a dee#er level than the 2I see) I hear4 of hallucination and the 2I thin04 of delirium.,1 2Eere it is not a case of the hallucinatory e;#erience nor of a delirious mode of thou(ht) &ut a feelin() a series of emotions and feelin(s as a consummation and a consum#tion of intensive @uantities) that form the material for su&se@uent hallucinations and deliriums.4,2 -he &ody without or(ans now fi(ures as the #ure form of auto8affection 5intensity Y =6) and the nomadic su&1ect the &ase for the ela&oration of more com#le; #sychic #rocesses 5hallucinations) delirium6. In his comments on Anti-Oedipus) 3eleu/e distances himself from the way he distin(uished surface and de#th in his #rior wor0) #articularly The Logic of Sense. 2Anti-Oedipus no lon(er has hei(ht or de#th) nor surface. In this &oo0 everythin( ha##ens) is done) the intensities) the events) u#on a sort of s#herical &ody or scroll #aintin(: -he Or(anless Bod#.4,3 2I+ve under(one a chan(e. -he surface8de#th o##osition no lon(er concerns me. >hat interests me now is the relationshi# &etween
'' ',

A8O) #. 3J. .i/e0) The A #ss of $reedom?Ages of the World 5Ann Ar&or: Qniversity of Kichi(an) 1<<,6) #. !,. 'J A8O) #. 1=. '< A8O) #. 21. ,= A8O) #. 1'. ,1 A8O) #. 1J. ,2 A8O) #. J!. ,3 3eleu/e) T&o 1egimes of -adness) #. '%8''.

13

a full &ody) a &ody without or(ans) and flows that mi(rate.4,! It is this shift to #ure materialist &ecomin( that .i/e0 denounces in Organs Without Bodies) accusin( it of &ein( &ut a variant of idealist *em#iriocriticism+) a s#ecies of irrationalist Le ensphilosophie.,% As should &e already clear) however) the situation is not so sim#le. 2ace 3eleu/e) in Anti-Oedipus the surface\de#th distinction is not so much a&olished as historici/ed. -he three levels in The Logic of Sense of the schi/o#hrenic de#ths) the surface of sense) and the tertiary order of #ro#ositions are transformed &y Anti-Oedipus into the flu; of desirin( machines) the recordin( surface of the &ody without or(ans) and the universal history of socio8#olitical forms.,' Kore #recisely) it is in the second #assive synthesis that there is an initial constitution of the sym&olic) as a recordin( surface whose autonomy is (uaranteed &y the &ody without or(ans qua @uasi8cause. :ut the surface #ro#er does not emer(e until much later) with the rise of 3es#otic Ae(ime and the advent of the master si(nifier. 2It is #erha#s at this 1uncture that the @uestion *>hat does it meanR+ &e(ins to &e heard) and that #ro&lems of e;e(esis #revail over #ro&lems of use and efficacy.4,, 5In terms of the The Logic of Sense) this is the tertiary realm) the #oint at which full8fled(ed #ro#ositions can &e formed6. >hat follows in Anti-Oedipus is the story of the &rea0down of this order. -he #assa(e from the *closed+ :ar&arian ?m#ire to the *infinite+ universe of Ia#italist Iivili/ation 5or) in acanian terms) from the master+s to the ca#italist discourse6 entails a fateful mutation of the sym&olic surface. -he master si(nifier can no lon(er (uarantee the consistency of meanin(. >e enter into a condition of (enerali/ed slavery) where the rei(nin( des#ot or fi(ure of authority is re#laced &y the a&stract law 5a;iomatic6 of Ia#ital. 2*I too am a slave+9these are the new words s#o0en &y the master.4,J It is this #artial colla#se of the sym&olic order9the destruction of social codes &y the ca#italist a;iomatic9that (ives &irth to the schi/o#hrenic as the monstrous child of modernity. A(ainst Inter#retation) or Ser(e ec'aire on t%e *rea'it" of desire+ One of the central motifs of Anti-Oedipus was #erfectly well s#elled out &y Susan Sonta( in her famous 1<'! essay 2A(ainst Inter#retation)4 a te;t whose Biet/schean #olemics fit well the cate(orical style of 3eleu/e and 7uattari. Inter#retation) whose most fundamental o#eration is that of su&stitution) *A is really :+) is derided for its contem#t of a##earances and meta#hysical ressentiment: 2-o inter#ret is to im#overish) to de#lete the world9in order to set u# a shadow world of *meanin(s+.4,< Iriticism should show how an artwor0 functions) how it creates it effects) its uni@ue intensive e;#erience) and not tell the story of what it means. 2In #lace of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art4J=9the #hrase is eminently 3eleu/o(uattarian) and schi/oanalysis may &e @uite accurately conceived as an erotics rather than a hermeneutics) i.e. an analysis of interactin( drive8intensities and flows instead of a translation of one set of re#resentations into another. 2-he unconscious #oses no #ro&lem of meanin() solely #ro&lems of use. -he @uestion #osed &y desire is not *>hat does it meanR+ &ut rather *<o& does it &or%@+4J1
,! ,%

3eleu/e) Desert "slands) #. 2'1. .i/e0) Organs Without Bodies) ##. 22823. ,' On this #arallelism) see Hoe Eu(hes) Deleuze and the 0enesis of 1epresentation. ,, A8O) #. 2='. ,J A8O) #. 2%!. ,< Susan Sonta() Against "nterpretation and Other 'ssa#s 5Bew Cor0: 3ell) 1<''6) #. ,. J= I&id.) #. 1!. J1 A8O) #. 1=JG em#hasis in ori(inal.

1!

In their criti@ue of alle(orical inter#retation 3eleu/e and 7uattari are in fact dee#ly acanian) if not Freudian. For Freud had already em#hasi/ed that analysis is not an infinite inter#retive endeavor: if it is intermina&le it+s not &ecause the we& of meanin(s is ine;hausti&ly rich) &ut &ecause inter#retation inevita&ly runs u# a(ainst stu&&orn *stic0in( #oints+ which it cannot dissolve or move &eyond9hence the im#ortance of what Freud called the economic factor. acan similarly ar(ued that) far from multi#lyin( meanin(s) the aim of analytic inter#retation is to reduce meanin( to nonsense. Bot any nonsense) however) &ut that very #recise and sin(ular nonsense that or(ani/es the su&1ect+s li&idinal e;istence. 2Inter#retation is directed not so much at the meanin( as towards reducin( the non8meanin( of the si(nifiers) so that we may rediscover the determinants of the su&1ect+s entire &ehavior [$] not [$] in its si(nificatory de#endence) &ut #recisely in its irreduci&le and senseless character @ua chain of si(nifiers.4J2 One of the ma1or difficulties acan faced was clarifyin( the e;act status of these #re(nant nonsensical elements) 2the #arado;ical (roundin( #oint of the Sym&olic4J3 at once interior and e;terior to it. Anti-Oedipus can &e read as one lon( e;#lanation of where these elements come from) how they are #ut to(ether) and how they &ecome entan(led in lar(er circuits of meanin( that distort their true machinic nature. In the conte;t of the a&ove @uotation acan refers a##rovin(ly to Ser(e eclaire+s wor0 on inter#retation) which also #lays an im#ortant role in Anti-Oedipus. 3eleu/e and 7uattari s#ecifically cite his essay 2 a rNalitN du dNsir4 as crucial to their understandin( of acanian #sychoanalysis and a 0ey influence on their own theory of desirin( machines. It is therefore instructive to review eclaire+s main line of ar(ument) and e;amine how Anti-Oedipus re8inter#rets it. -a0in( u# Freud+s distinction &etween the #lasticity and adhesiveness of the li&ido9 in s#ite of the li&ido+s incredi&le o#enness) it tends to (et stuc0 on the same dum& satisfactions that re#eat throu(hout a #erson+s life9) eclaire descri&es a realm of 2#ure sin(ularities)4 fi;ed elements that com#ose the final synta; of the su&1ect+s desire: the odor of a woman+s nec0) the modulation of an echoin( voice that seems to say *Cou+) the hint of acidity in &a0ed a##les) the fullness of the hand as it sei/es a &all) a &eauty mar0.J! Ee calls this collection of irreduci&le elements the 2#ure &ein( of desire)4 a 2fiction4 of the unconscious in8itself without any conscious or #reconscious entan(lements. -his is the most #rimordial level of the #syche) the 2reality of desire.4 >e encounter it when) in the course of analysis) certain ideas or im#ressions no lon(er #artici#ate in the s#here of meanin() when a #sychic content falls out of the #lay of connections) associations and su&stitutions that constitute meanin(ful discourse. Such elements insist in #sychic life) they are stu&&orn) they do not &ud(e) 52on &ute indNfiniment sur le m]me ensem&le de *#ures sin(ularitNs+46) &ut one can no lon(er say why: they cannot &e e;chan(ed for other si(nifiers or e;#lained or further analy/ed. -hey are asic 5molecular6 terms. -hou(h they have no relation to one another they form a definite ensem&leG as eclaire writes) they are 2soldered4
J2 J3

acan) The $our $undamental Concepts of 2s#choanal#sis) #. 212. 3ominie0 Eoens and ?d "luth) 2-he sinthome: A Bew >ay of >ritin( an Old "ro&lemR)4 in 1ein/enting the S#mptom: 'ssa#s on the $inal Lacan) ed. u0e -hurston 5Bew Cor0: Other "ress) 2==26) #. 12. J! -his is eclaire+s set of e;am#les) the descri#tions sli(htly shortened. Ser(e eclaire) 2 a rNalitN du dNsir4 in 5crits pour la ps#chanal#se 9 9:AB-9::C 5"aris: Seuil) 1<<'6) #. 1!<.

1%

to(ether #recisely &y their 2a&sence of lin0.4J% -hey are nonsense &ut also #ure sense) meaningless and at the same time too meaningfulG in Freudian terms: too char(ed with ener(y to #artici#ate in the movement of re#resentations) their intensity &ends and war#s the functionin( of other mental #rocessesG in acanian terms: &oth radical lac0 and sur#lus) o !ets a. 3eleu/e and 7uattari enthusiastically a##rove 2the rule of the ri(ht to nonsense as well as to the a&sence of lin0)4 re#eatin( with eclaire 2you will not have reached the ultimate and irreduci&le terms of the unconscious so lon( as you find or restore a lin0 &etween two elements.4J' -his #oint deserves to &e underlined: althou(h Anti-Oedipus can &e read as a #oetic ele(y to the infinite #lasticity of the li&ido) it is in fact what Freud called #oints of fi4ation 5not flowU6 that are at the heart of the desirin( machines. Aather than sheer chaos or flu;) what interests 3eleu/e and 7uattari are the ri(id molecular elements that determine the ever8shiftin( networ0 of li&idinal flows. 3eleu/e and 7uattari (o on to in(eniously reinter#ret eclaire+s 2#ure &ein( of desire4 in S#ino/istic8 ei&ni/ian terms) readin( the *a&sence of lin0+ that defines unconscious sin(ularities in terms of the meta#hysical conce#t of *real distinction+: the ultimate desirin(8elements are li0e the infinite attri&utes of 7od that are strictly inde#endent of one another yet #artici#ate in a common divine su&stance. 2 i0ewise for the #artial o&1ects and the &ody without or(ans: the &ody without or(ans is su&stance itself) and the #artial o&1ects) the ultimate attri&utes or elements of su&stance.4J, -his is their *S#ino/ism of the unconscious+: the &ody without or(ans refers to the One su&stance of which the #artial o&1ects 5or 2or(ans without &odies4 to cite .i/e06 com#rise its s#ecific irreduci&le elements) and &oth stand o##osed to the *or(anism+) i.e. the or(ani/ation of desire accordin( to the 5oedi#al6 dialect of su&1ect and Other. eclaire+s 2#ure &ein( of desire4 thus &ecomes 2a #ure dis#ersed and anarchic multi#licity) without unity or totality) and whose elements are welded) #asted to(ether &y the real distinction or the very a&sence of distinction.4JJ 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s meta#hysical re8inter#retation of eclaire entails one crucial difference from him. >hereas eclaire carefully @ualified his 2#ure &ein( of desire4 as a fiction) since one can never sei/e it directly &ut only throu(h its effects on other mental #rocesses) 3eleu/e and 7uattari insist that it is the real itself.J< For eclaire the 2reality of desire)4 the field of nonsensical #re8#ersonal sin(ularities) has the status of a construction which serves to e;#lain the (a#s) fissures) and inconsistencies in consciousness. 2-he Aeal is an entity which must &e constructed afterwards so that we can account for the distortions of the sym&olic structure.4<= >hat ultimately lies &ehind these elements is the /oid) the lac0 of closure or inconsistency of the sym&olic order itself. 3eleu/e and 7uattari insist instead on the #rimacy of the real) which is no lon(er conceived as a (a# or fissure &ut a 2#ure dis#ersed and anarchic multi#licity.4 It is this additional turn of the screw) from the (a# in the sym&olic to the #ositive *inor(ani/ation+ of the real) that eclaire misses. For eclaire) on the other hand) the fault of 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s theory is its a&straction of the real from any sym&olic and ima(inary mediation) which renders it totally o#a@ue. >hereas Anti-Oedipus #resents the real as (round and the ima(inary and sym&olic as su#erstructures) in
J% J'

I&id.) #. 1%=. A8O) # 31!. J, A8O) # 3=<fn. JJ A8O) # 32!. J< A8O) # 31!. <= .i/e0) The Su lime O !ect of "deolog# 5 ondon: Derso) 1<J<6) #. 1'2.

1'

acan the o !et a 2&elon(s in a fourfold structure that includes the si(nifier) which is dual 5S1 and S26) and the su&1ect 5crossed8out S6.4<1 One can wonder whether the #ositions of eclaire and 3eleu/e and 7uattari are really so far a#art. For as the authors of Anti-Oedipus s#ecify) 2-he movement of deterritoriali/ation can never &e (ras#ed in itself) one can only (ras# its indices in relation to the territorial re#resentations.4<2 -o say that we can access only the *indices+ of deterritoriali/ation &ut never the #ure flu; itself) is tantamount to ar(uin( that the real is always at least minimally fictionali/ed: the drive is always8already entan(led in desire.<3 -his would seem to confirm eclaire+s criticism) and to a certain de(ree 3eleu/e and 7uattari could a(ree that it ma0es no sense to radically se#arate the o !et a from the circuits of the ima(inary and sym&olic9or in their terms) to isolate movements of deterritoriali/ation and lines of fli(ht from the molar re#resentations in which they &oth are em&edded and e;ceed. 3es#ite this &road a(reement) however) the 0ey @uestion of the startin( #oint remains. Should one &e(in with the schi/o#hrenic #roduction of the real) and derive the (enesis of the sym&olic from its tur&ulent internal dynamicsG or should one &e(in with the sym&olic structure and endeavor to show how it necessarily (enerates a trou&lin( sym#tomal #oint) an intrinsic stum&lin( &loc0R T%e #ro&'em of (enesis in Zizek -he ma1or aim of .i/e0+s #hiloso#hical #ro1ect can &e summed u# as thin0in( to(ether acanian #sychoanalysis with the 7erman Idealist #ro&lem of the constitution of su&1ectivity and reality. In this endeavor) acan+s theory of #sychosis #lays a #ivotal role. It is the e;treme fractures of the #syche that reveal the most #rimordial #rocesses at wor0 in the (enesis of self and world: #hiloso#hy is here #ut to the test of madness.<! In .i/e0+s more recent wor0) the ela&oration of this #ro&lem has #roceeded #rimarily via a reinter#retation of F.>.H. Schellin() focusin( on his idea of 3ivine creation as a 0ind of thera#eutic esca#e from madness. Schellin( is not only read throu(h the lens of acan) &ut .i/e0 advances a novel Schellin(ian hy#othesis re(ardin( the cate(ory of the real. In The $ragile A solute) .i/e0 identifies what he calls a 2fundamental oscillation4 in acan+s oeuvre: 2what comes first) the si(nifier or some deadloc0 in the realR4 It is worth @uotin( the #assa(e in full) as it #rovides a succinct summary of .i/e0+s
<1 <2

23eleu/e and 7uattari Fi(ht :ac0$4 5o#. cit.6) #. 22!. A8O) #. 31'. <3 -his is the essence of Hac@ues AanciMre+s criti@ue of 3eleu/ian aesthetics: however 3ionysian in intention) 3eleu/e always ends u# re8inscri&in( #re8#ersonal forces and sin(ularities in sta&le A#ollonian forms. Ientral to AanciMre+s strate(y is showin( how 3eleu/e time and a(ain relies on a classic alle(orical inter#retation of artwor0s in order to *re#resent+ their more radical anti8 re#resentative natureG thus :artle&y &ecomes a hero in a story a&out redem#tion) and not a #ure *formula+G the end of the movement8ima(e in Eitchcoc0+s cinema is alle(ori/ed &y the #hoto(ra#her+s motor #aralysis in 1ear Windo&G and so on. See 2?;iste8t8il une esthNti@ue deleu/ienneR)4 in 0illes Deleuze: une /ie philosophique ed. ^ric Allie/ 5"aris: Institut SynthNla&o) 1<<J6G 23eleu/e accom#lit le destin de l+esthNti@ue)4 -agazine litt.raire no. !=' 5Fe&ruary 2==26G La Chair des mots 5"aris: 7alilNe) 1<<J6) last cha#ter on 3eleu/e and :artle&yG and) La $a le cin.matographique 5"aris: Seuil) 2==16) cha#ter on 3eleu/e and cinema. <! In a recent essay .i/e0 accuses Eeide((er of failin( this test: acan is not a Eeide((erian insofar as the latter cannot thin0 #sychosis. See 2>hy acan is not a Eeide((erian)4 Lacanian "n% no. 32 5Fall 2==J6.

1,

#osition. Sometimes) acan #resents the traumatic coloni/ation of the live &ody &y the #arasitic sym&ol [sic] Order as the #rimordial fact: it is the intervention of the Sym&olic that derails) throws out of 1oint) the natural or(anism in its &alanced circuit) transformin( natural instincts into a monstrous drive that can never &e fully satisfied) since it is condemned to an eternal *undead+ returnin( to its #ath) #ersistin( forever in an o&scene immortality. At other times) in a more s#eculative8mythical mode) he is searchin( for some 0ind of natural e;cess or im&alance) a malfunctionin() monstrous derailment) and then he conceives the sym&olic Order as a secondary in5ter6vention destined to *(entrify+ this monstrous e;cess) to resolve its deadloc0. One is tem#ted to claim that it is here) &etween these two versions) that the line runs which se#arates materialism from idealism: the #rimacy of the sym&olic Order is clearly idealistG it is ultimately a new version of 3ivine intervention in the natural orderG while the second version9the emer(ence of the sym&olic Order as the answer to some monstrous e;cess in the Aeal9is the only #ro#er materialist solution.<% For the remainder of this essay I shall offer a few comments on this #rovocative thesis. It is in order to more fully ela&orate the materialist solution that .i/e0 turns to Schellin(. Kore #recisely) it is the *middle+ Schellin( of the Ages of the World that allows .i/e0 to theori/e the genesis of the sym&olic order from out of a deadloc0 or im#asse in the real) rather than the real &ein( immanently determined as the stum&lin( &loc0 of the sym&olic. -hese (reat s#eculative writin(s) at times reminiscent of the #sychotic world system of 3r. Schre&er) #resent an esoteric mytholo(ical narrative a&out the creation of the universe. "ut very &riefly: :efore creation #ro#er 2there is the chaotic8#sychotic universe of &lind drives) their rotary motion) their undifferentiated #ulsatin(4<' 5it is this a&yssal universe that 3eleu/e and 7uattari endeavor to descri&e in modern machinic terms6. 7od+s inau(ural act consists in a des#erate esca#e from this suffocatin() closed domain into the li(ht of creation. >hat is descri&ed here is the #assa(e from 2the #re8sym&olic chaos of the Aeal to the universe of logos)4<, or) #ut otherwise) from 2*closed+ rotary motion to o#en #ro(ress) from drive to desire.4<J -he (reatness of Schellin(+s #hiloso#hy is to the thin0 the real as itself un&alanced) unhin(ed) *out8of81oint+9an insi(ht which Schellin( himself does not consistently maintain) &ut o&scures in his turn to #re8modern se;ual mytholo(y and dreams of a final reconciliation.<< -his idea is what some of acan+s

<%

.i/e0) The $ragile A solute( or &h# is the Christian legac# &orth fighting for@ 5Derso: ondon) 2===6) #. <18<2. .i/e0 has more recently #osed 2the 0ey materialist @uestion4 thusly: 2if the Aeal has not su&sistence of its own) if it is inherent to the Sym&olic) how) then) are we to thin0 the emer(ence8 e;#losion of the Sym&olic out of the #resym&olic XR Is the only alternative to naLve realism a 0ind of 2methodolo(ical idealism+ accordin( to which *the limits of our lan(ua(e are the limits of the world+) so that what is &eyond the Sym&olic is strictly unthin0a&leR4 The 2aralla4 8ie& 5Iam&rid(e: KI-) 2=='6) #. 3<=G em#hasis in ori(inal. <' .i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder: On Schelling and 1elated -atters) #. 13. <, .i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder) #. ,. <J I&id.) #. 13. << I&id.) ##. ,28,3.

1J

most interestin( inter#reters refer to as the 2&arred real.41== -hou(h to my 0nowled(e the term was never em#loyed &y acan himself) in one of his last seminars acan does remar0 that 2nature is not so natural as all that4: 2VIWn conformity with what ?d(ar Korin says in a recent &oo0 where he interro(ates the nature of nature) it is com#letely clear that nature is not so natural as all that) and it+s even in this which consists that rottenness that is (enerally referred to as culture.41=1 -his #assin( reference to ?d(ar Korin+s La nature de la nature is instructive. Korin characteri/es nature as 2more Sha0es#earian than Bewtonian)4 a com#le; system where chaos) waste) disorder) and cataclysm cannot &e dissociated from order) law) and or(ani/ation.1=2 -he cru; of Korin+s ar(ument is that the human &ein( constitutes a hy#er&olic e;acer&ation of the universe+s com#le;ity) a violent o#enin( u# or dis8 orderin( of the natural world) what he calls 2hy#ercom#le;ification.4 Iontrary to an all too sim#listic idea of 3arwinian ada#tation) Korin defends ima(ination) delirium) and insanity as &elon(in( to man0ind+s essential &ein(. It is &y virtue of humanity+s successful dis8ada#tation) its seemin(ly useless and even self8destructive a#titudes) that it is ca#a&le of all the accom#lishments of rationality and technical civili/ation: homo sapiens is at the same time and ine;trica&ly homo demens.1=3 .i/e0+s Schellin( affirms this evolutionary #aradi(m: 2V-Whe features we refer to in order to em#hasi/e man+s uni@ue status9the constitutive im&alance) the *out8of81oint+) on account of which man is an *unnatural+ creature) *nature sic0 unto death+9must someho& e at &or% in nature itself) althou(h9as Schellin( would have #ut it9in another) lower #ower 5in the mathematical sense of the term6.41=! In his re#ly to 3aniel Smith) however) .i/e0 chan(es tac0 and defends the #rimacy of the sym&olic: the real 2has no ontolo(ical consistency in itself) &ut can only &e discerned retroactively) from its effects) as their a&sent Iause41=%9a definition familiar from The Su lime O !ect of "deolog#) and consonant with 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s thesis that deterritoriali/ation is discerni&le only throu(h its effects on territorial re#resentations. :ut if this is the case) then strictly s#ea0in( it ma0es no sense to s#eculate a&out a 2natural e;cess or im&alance4 which the 2secondary intervention4 of the sym&olic order would then serve to sta&ili/e. -he main difference &etween the Schellin(ian .i/e0 and 3eleu/e and 7uattari concerns the o&1ect of #rimary re#ression. For .i/e0 it is not the #rimal #ulsional chaos that forms the core of re#ression) &ut rather a s#ecial *ori(inary+ si(nifier which) in sin0in( into unconsciousness) simultaneously #ushes &ac0 the drives and inau(urates the sym&olic order.1=' For 3eleu/e and 7uattari #rimary re#ression &ears instead on the desirin( machines themselves) as the moment of their &rea0down) anti8 #roduction. In a more Biet/schean vein) 3eleu/e and 7uattari #osit a conflict &etween drives: the &ody without or(ans re#ulses the #artial o&1ects and there&y forms the first
1==

2-he Aeal that will have &een &arred &y the Sym&olic was always already &arred in itself.4 oren/o Ihiesa) Su !ecti/it# and Otherness: A 2hilosophical 1eading of Lacan 5Iam&rid(e: KI-) 2==,6) #. 21,. See also Adrian Hohnston) Dize%,s Ontolog#: A Transcendental -aterialist Theor# of Su !ecti/it# 5?vanston: Borthwestern) 2==J6) #. <2. 1=1 acan) Seminar EE"8 L,insu que sait de l,une- ./ue s,aile F mourre 1<,'8,, 5un#u&lished6) Session of Kay 1,) 1<,,. 1=2 ?d(ar Korin) La m.thode 97 La *ature de la *ature 5"aris: Seuil) 1<,,6) #. 3'J. 1=3 ?d(ar Korin) Le paradigme perdu: la nature humaine 5"aris: Seuil) 1<,36G see es#ecially ##. 1238 12'. 1=! Slavo1 .i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder 5 ondon: Derso) 1<<'6) #. 22=G em#hasis added. 1=% .i/e0) 2Botes on a 3e&ate *From >ithin the "eo#le+)4 Criticism vol. !' no. ! 5Fall 2==!6) #. ''1. 1=' .i/e0) The "ndi/isi le 1emainder) #. 33.

1<

#aranoiac machine which then serves as the &asis for sym&olic inscri#tion. 3es#ite these differences) &oth theories are versions of what 3eleu/e calls in The Logic of Sense 2dynamic (enesis)4 which moves from the clamorous de#ths to the #roduction of surfacesG i.e. from drive to desire) from real to sym&olic.1=, Eere I thin0 ?u(ene Eolland is ri(ht to com#are) while not identifyin() the &ody without or(ans to the unary trait since &oth serve the function of introducin( si(nification to the #syche.1=J >here does acan stand with res#ect to thisR Is there) in fact) a 2fundamental oscillation4 in his wor0R I am convinced that) for the most #art) acan ascri&es to an ontolo(ical dualism in which &ody and si(nifier) or the #re8sym&olic real and the order of lan(ua(e) are radically distinct. -his #osition has three main sources. $irst) it can &e seen as an inheritance of Ale;andre Fo1Mve) who in his lectures on Ee(el cate(orically re1ected the master+s #hiloso#hy of nature) ascri&in( it to the unfortunate influence of Schellin( 5U6: 2All of this) in my o#inion) is an error on Ee(el+s #art [$] the real 5meta#hysical6 and *#henomenal+ 3ialectic of *ature e;ists only in Ee(el+s 5Schellin(ian6 ima(ination.41=< -his idea was then echoed &y :ataille and _ueneau 5the editor of Fo1Mve+s lectures6)11= and later ta0en u# &y Sartre in his de&ates with the French Iommunist "arty) where he defended the autonomy of historical dialectics a(ainst its 5Stalinist6 *naturali/ation+.111 acan+s innovation was to ma0e use of the theolo(ical notion of creatio e; nihilo to attac0 what he viewed as the theolo(ical under#innin(s of a certain teleolo(ical evolutionism: the sym&olic order is a&solutely novel) and the 2dialectic of desire4 its instantiates cannot &e derived from any #re8 e;istin( need or natural develo#ment.112 Strictly s#ea0in() the sym&olic order has no #re8history. Bothin( #recedes it) or rather whatever #rimal Stoff was there can only &e thou(ht from within the coordinates of the already (iven hori/on of lan(ua(e. Second) this dualism is derived from the s#ecific situation of #sychoanalytic thera#y) as a #ractice &ased on s#eech. It is this fundamental fact that acan wished to recall analysts to in his 2return to Freud4: #sychoanalysis is a 2tal0in( cure4 in which) contrary to hy#nosis or &ehavioral thera#ies and close to the ancient as#irations of #hiloso#hy) somethin( true is revealed a&out the su&1ect. an(ua(e) and more s#ecifically how lan(ua(e wor0s in the cure) is therefore the #aramount concern of #sychoanalytic theory. -he standard criticism that acanian theory is a lin(uistic idealism which i(nores &odily drives and affects is in my mind s#ecious. Of course there are drives and affects9the #oint is that) in the course of analysis) what matters
1=, 1=J

3eleu/e) The Logic of Sense( #. 1J'. ?u(ene Eolland) Deleuze and 0uattari,s Anti-Oedipus: "ntroduction to Schizoanal#sis 5 ondon: Aoutled(e) 1<<<6) #. 3=. 1=< Ale;andre Fo1Mve) "ntroduction to the 1eading of <egel transl. Hames E. Bichols 5Ithaca: Iornell) 1<'<6) #. 21,. 11= See 7eor(es :ataille and Aaymond _ueneau) 2-he Iriti@ue of the Foundations of the Ee(elian 3ialectic)4 8isions of '4cess: Selected Writings 9:GH-9:C: transl. Allan Stoe0l) Iarl A. ovitt and 3onald K. eslie 5Kinnea#olis: Qniversity Kinnesota) 1<J%6. 111 -he de&ate that too0 #lace on 3ecem&er ,) 1<'1 at a Kaison de la KutualitN in "aris &etween Hean8"aul Sartre and Hean Ey##olite) on one side) and Ao(er 7araudy) Hean8"ierre Di(ier and Hean Orcel on the other still ma0es for interestin( readin(. -he transcri#ts were #u&lished under the title -ar4isme et e4istentialisme: contro/erse sur la dialectique 5"aris: "lon) 1<'26. In his later Kar;ist #hiloso#hy) Sartre remains faithful to the ontolo(ical dualism of his first (reat wor0 Being and *othingness. One should also mention Kerleau8"onty+s intervention in this de&ate) a #lea a(ainst scientism and mechanism in Kar;ist thou(ht: 2Kar;ism and "hiloso#hy)4 Sense and *on-Sense) transl. Eu&ert . 3reyfus and "atricia Allen 3reyfus 5Ihica(o: Borthwestern) 1<'!6. 112 See acan) The Seminar of Iacques Lacan Boo% 8"" The 'thics of 2s#choanal#sis 9:A:-9:J;) ed. Hac@ues8Alain Killer) transl. 3ennis "orter 5Bew Cor0: >. >. Borton) 1<<,6) ##. 21381!.

2=

is not these forces as such &ut how they are s#o0en a&out) sym&oli/ed. -he (round and medium of analysis is not any 'rle nis or immediate affective e;#erience &ut s#eechG113 in #articular that stran(e @uasi8automatic s#eech freed from rules of #ro#riety) morality and common sense) and without any (oal 5even a thera#eutic one6 &eyond its own aleatory movement9what Freud called free association. In this sense) the (reat anti#ode of Freud+s tal0in( cure is >ilhelm+s Aeich+s or(asmic ve(etothera#y which aims to directly mani#ulate &odily forces via massa(e) trance) and mystical technolo(ies. acan+s theori/ation of the creati/e po&er of the sym&ol should &e understood first and foremost as an attem#t to e;#lain the efficiency of the tal0in( cure. Third) and #erha#s most interestin() acan+s thesis of the #rimacy of the sym&olic is &ased on his understandin( of the relationshi# &etween #sychoanalysis and modern science. -he essence of acan+s criti@ue of #henomenolo(y is that it fetishi/es immediate e;#erience at the e;#ense of missin( the &roader sym&olic networ09Freud+s 2other scene49that secretly determines the very character of this e;#erience) how it *immediately+ a##earsG thou(h consciousness has no direct awareness of this order) and cannot if it is to function #ro#erly) it is nonetheless res#onsi&le for one+s most intimate feelin(s) thou(hts) and so on. For all his tal0 of surmountin( the natural attitude and the #re1udices of everyday life) the #henomenolo(ist #roceeds in a naLve way) thin0in( that #erce#tion (rants access to thin(s as they are in themselves. :ut as any scientist 0nows) reality is hardly accessi&le throu(h #erce#tion: the real can only &e e;#ressed &y a&stract mathematical formulae which have no intuitive fulfillment whatsoever.11! Hust as) contra Eusserl) the mathematical ideali/ation of nature cannot &e founded on the intuitive evidence of the life8world 5this is the sense in which modern science is *creationist+6) so the sym&olic order cannot &e derived from #henomenolo(ical e;#erience however raw or sava(e. -he most #rofound effect of modern science on the human condition is its radical decenterin( of the universe with res#ect to sensuous e;#erience9reality &ecomes thorou(hly non8anthro#ocentric) divorced from human #erce#tion9) and acan ar(ues that the Freudian s#lit su&1ect is the #ro#er heir of that decenterin(. One of the clearest statements of acan+s #osition can &e found in Seminar XDII: 2Our first rule is never to see0 the ori(ins of lan(ua(e) if only &ecause they are demonstrated well enou(h throu(h their effects. -he further we #ush &ac0 their effects) the more these ori(ins emer(e. -he effects of lan(ua(e are retroactive) #recisely in that it is as lan(ua(e develo#s that it manifests what it is @ua want8to8 &e.411% -o #ara#hrase Eeide((er) *the ori(in of lan(ua(e is lan(ua(e as ori(in+. Eere it is #ossi&le to mar0 a ma1or difference &etween Freud and acan. >hereas Freud analy/ed the sym&olic lo(ic of dreams) neurotic sym#toms) and other unconscious
113 11!

See acan) Seminar IX L,"dentification 5un#u&lished6) session of 13 3ecem&er 1<'1. As acan ar(ues a(ainst Kerleau8"onty: 2>hy not confirm that the theory of #erce#tion no lon(er elucidates the structure of reality to which #hysical science ma0es us accedeR [$] ?verythin( shows us that it is &y refusin( the #erceived intuitions of wei(ht and im#etus that the 7alilean dynamics anne;ed the heavens to the earth) as the heavy cost) thou(h) of introducin( what we nowadays feel in the e;#erience of the cosmonaut: a &ody that can o#en and close itself wei(hin( nothin( and &earin( on nothin(.4 2Kerleau8"onty: In Kemoriam)4 Kerleau8"onty and "sycholo(y) ed. Feith Eoeller transl. >ilfried Der ?ec0e and 3ir0 de Schutter 5Bew Hersey: Eumanities "ress) 1<<36) #. ,!G translation modified. 11% Hac@ues acan) The Seminar of Iacques Lacan Boo% E8""( The Other Side of 2s#choanal#sis 1<'<8 1<,=) ed. Hac@ues8Alain Killer) transl. Aussell 7ri(( 5Bew Cor0: >.>. Borton) 2==,6) #. 1%%. See also S?KIBAA X$ Iatherine Kala&ou recalls this #assa(e to ar(ue a(ainst acan+s idealism$

21

formations) it was acan who ar(ued that human &ein(s are inherently #rone to #sycho#atholo(y ecause we are s#ea0in( &ein(s: it is lan(ua(e9the autonomy of the self8relatin( sym&olic order with res#ect to the natural world9that transforms animal instincts into unruly drives and insatia&le desires. 5-his is illustrated &y the *(ra#h of desire+ ela&orated in Seminar D and the im#ortant Ncrit 2Su&version of the Su&1ect4: the startin( #oint of the (ra#h is a raw instinctual need which is then retroactively transcoded &y the discourse of the Other and transformed into a demandG one is always already inside lan(ua(e) and the very idea of a *startin( #oint+ can only &e #resented mythically6. -he crucial seminar on this to#ic is the un#u&lished Seminar IX L,"dentification 51<'18'26. Antici#atin( 3eleu/e+s ma1or study) there acan lin0s to(ether difference) as introduced &y the unary trait) the most #rimitive sym&olic element) and repetition) the #eculiar insistence of human drives which &rea0 with the natural cycle of need and satisfaction. Qltimately) what re#eats is difference as such) the ru#ture instituted &y the autonomous order of lan(ua(e with #re8sym&olic nature.11' Eowever) in that same seminar acan also e;#licitly situates the su&1ect &etween two #oles) the 2ideali/in( effects of the si(nifyin( function4 and a 2vital immanence4 which he warns should not &e confused with the 2drive4 5#resuma&ly &ecause the drive cannot &e understood outside the *ideali/in( effects+ of the si(nifier6.11, In what consists this second #oleR -o what e;tent can *vital immanence+ &e determined on its ownR A(ainst his own #redominantly dualistic #ers#ective) acan occasionally a##ears to endorse a 0ind of &iolo(ical #re8history of the transcendental su&1ect) as if desire+s dialectic were #receded and #re#ared &y structures found in nature. Such is the conclusion one could draw from his ar(ument that) for e;am#le) the sym&olic law o#erates on the naturally occurrin( division &etween #leasure and en1oyment 51ouissance6) as 2what &inds incoherent life to(ether4G11J or his em#hasis on 2man+s prematurit# at irth4 as the evolutionary under#innin( of his theory of su&1ectivityG11< or his assertion that the lac0 and ne(ativity #ro#er to lan(ua(e find a natural *fit+ in the o#enin(s and rims of &odily orificesG or his references to the s#ecific characteristics of the human #hallus in com#arison with #enises throu(hout the animal 0in(dom9as Hared 3iamond notes) the function of relative enormity of the human #enis still remains a mystery for evolutionary &iolo(istsG12= or his s#eculations on the homolo(y &etween his to#olo(ical fi(ures of su&1ectivity) li0e the torus) and em&ryolo(ical structures 5the &lastos#here6G or his musin(s on the infinite #ain #ervadin( nature$121
11' 11,

See the session of$ S?KIBAA IX references$ acan) Seminar IX L,"dentification 5un#u&lished6) session of 2= 3ecem&er 1<'1. 11J 2:ut it is not the aw itself that &ars the su&1ect+s access to 1ouissance9it sim#ly ma0es a &arred su&1ect out of an almost natural &arrier. For it is #leasure that sets limits to 1ouissance) #leasure as what &inds incoherent life to(ether$4 acan) 2-he Su&version of the Su&1ect and the 3ialectic of 3esire in the Freudian Qnconscious)4 5crits) o#. cit.) #. '<'. 11< acan) 2"resentation on "sychic Iausality)4 5crits) #. 1%2G em#hasis in ori(inal. 12= Hared 3iamond) The 1ise and $all of the Third Chimpanzee 5 ondon: Dinta(e) 2==16) ##. '28'!. 121 In Seminar XDII acan comments on a #assa(e from the 7os#el of Katthew) 2Ionsider the lilies of the field) how they (rowG they toil not) neither do they s#in4 5':2J6. -o this ima(e of a carefree nature) ty#ically inter#reted as hymn to 7od+s 1oyful creation and an e;hortation to the *sim#le life+) acan o##oses his own wild s#eculation. Ki(ht it not &e the case that the #lant suffers from an infinite #ainR -hat far from e;hi&itin( a (raceful and harmonious &alance) nature is suffused with a terrifyin( masochistic !ouissanceR 5Seminar E8"") #. ,,6 Kar; and ?n(els had already ridiculed the #astoral vision of Katthew: 2Ces) consider the lilies of the field) how they are eaten &y (oats) trans#lanted &y *man+ into his &uttonhole) how they are crushed &eneath the immodest em&races of the dairymaid and

22

As is well 0nown) the #osition of 3eleu/e and 7uattari is that of monism or immanence. Sometimes acan+s stance is called) in o##osition to 3eleu/ian immanence) a *transcendence within immanence+) in reference to the lo(ic of e;timacy: at the heart of immanence there is an inaccessi&le forei(n 0ernel that transcends immanence and #revents it from closin( u# on itself.122 ?vo0in( the s#ecter of such claustro#ho&ic self8enclosure) eclaire once remar0ed a&out Anti-Oedipus that 2-he &oo0 #uts your more #erce#tive readers in the situation of a sin(le and uni@ue #ers#ective that leaves them feelin( a&sor&ed) di(ested) &ound) even ne(ated &y the admira&le wor0in(s of your so8called machineU V$W It seems to #ut the reader in the situation of feelin( cornered) &y the sim#le fact of s#ea0in( and as0in( a @uestion.4123 -his is the #erfect acanian re1oinder to Anti-Oedipus: 3eleu/e and 7uattari+s su##osedly o#en and li&erated 5anti86system effectively #lun(es us into the worst hell) a suffocatin( maternal #rison. Eowever) I maintain that 3eleu/e+s immanence is not really o##osed to acan+s transcendence8in8immanence. In fact) as I
the don0ey8driverU4 5The 0erman "deolog# in Collected Wor%s 8olume A 9KBA-9KBH) Bew Cor0: International "u&lishers) 1<,') #. !,26 :ut acan (oes further. :eyond deridin( an idealist and conciliatory conce#tion of nature) his su((estion of a #ained #lant is reminiscent of a 3iderot or >hitehead8style #an#sychism where all of nature is alive and teemin( with en1oyment. 2From the ele#hant down to the flea V$W from the flea down to the sensitive and livin( molecule which is the ori(in of all) there is not one s#ec0 in the whole of nature that does not feel #ain or #leasure.4 5D,Alem ert,s Dream in 1ameau,s *ephe& and D,Alem ert,s Dream transl. eonard -ancoc0) ondon: "en(uin) 1<'') #. 1J26 Indeed) acan+s dar0er intimations in Seminar XDII fall s@uarely in the #urview of the romantic *aturphilosophie of Schellin( or the #utrefyin() self8destructive nature of Sade. est we thin0 that this #assa(e is a mere hapa4) it is instructive to note that acan re#eats the same #oint in the followin( seminar: 2V-he #leasure #rinci#leW can only have one meanin() not too much en!o#ment. :ecause the stuff of every en1oyment is close to sufferin() that is even how we reco(ni/e its finery. If the #lant was not manifestly sufferin() we would not 0now that it was alive.4 5Seminar XDIII D,un discours qui ne serait pas du sem lant) un#u&lished) session of Karch 1,) 1<,16 A few years later acan reformulates his 5Schellin(ian8Sadeian6 hy#othesis in a more scientific manner. A(ain he raises the @uestion of whether nature *en1oys+) this time in relation to the #ioneerin( studies of &acterial con1u(ation conducted &y FranOois Haco& and ?lie >ollman. Ian one s#ea0 of en1oyment at the level of the se;ual life of &acteria 5e.(. the infection of &acteria &y the &acterio#ha(e6R 3o &acteria too suffer an inconceiva&le masochistic #ainR Eere acan focuses not on what he now calls the 2reli(ious mousse)4 the fiery stuff of en1oyment) &ut the actual re(ulatory structures at wor0 in livin( &ein(s. In the case of '7 coli 39G 5the main su&1ect of Haco& and >ollman+s e;#eriments6 the difference &etween donor 5male6 and reci#ient 5female6 &acteria is determined &y a sin(le se; factor F: the #resence or a&sence of this (enetic factor determines the se;ual character of the &acteria strain. -he relation &etween the different strains) acan notes followin( Haco& and >ollman) is asymmetrical: the F8 ty#e is inca#a&le of mutatin( to the F` ty#e) e;ce#t via contact with donor &acteriaG conversely) in con1u(atin( with reci#ient &acteria the F` ty#e does not mutate to the F8 ty#e. -he transfer of (enetic material is strictly one8way: there is no se;ual *relation+ or reci#rocity) no &alanced interchan(e. Bow what interests acan is the hi(hly su((estive analo(y 5or 2stran(e isomor#hism4 as he #uts it6 &etween &iolo(ical and sym&olic structures) the 5real6 fact that &acterial se;uality is dictated &y a sin(le se; factor) and the 5sym&olic6 determination of human se;uality &y the #resence or a&sence 5`\86 of the #hallus. At &oth levels) what we find is not two #ositive or su&stantial 5se;ual6 identities) &ut rather a dis1unction turnin( on the #resence or a&sence of a sin(le element: in other words) a non8ra##ort. acan+s comments on Haco& and >ollman are found in Seminar XXI Les non-dupes errent 5un#u&lished6) session of A#ril 23) 1<,!) and D,un Autre F l,autre Le s.minaire li/re E8") ed. Hac@ues8 Alain Killer 5"aris: Seuil) 1<<16) ##. 2218222. acan claims to have read Haco& and >ollman+s study in the ori(inal ?n(lish: Se4ualit# and the 0enetics of Bacteria 5Bew Cor0: Academic "ress) 1<'16. 122 See Kladen 3olar) A 8oice and *othing -ore 5Iam&rid(e: KI-) 2=='6) ##. 1'%81''. 123 23eleu/e and 7uattari Fi(ht :ac0$4 in Desert "slands and Other Te4ts 9:AC-9:HB) transl. Kichael -aormina 5Bew Cor0: Semiote;t5e6) 2==!6) #. 221. Ori(inally #u&lished in La Luinzaine Litteraire no. 1!3 5Hune 1'83=) 1<,26) ##. 1%81<.

23

#reviously ar(ued) it is #recisely the aim of Anti-Oedipus to thin0 the (enesis of transcendence from out of immanence) re#resentation from #roduction) Oedi#us from the &lind whirr of #artial o&1ects and desirin( machines. -ranscendence is not sim#ly o##osed to &ut a necessary #art and #roduct of immanence 5thou(h this is sometimes not ac0nowled(ed &y 3eleu/ians) and sometimes not &y 3eleu/e and 7uattari either6. >hat is &arred &y this a##roach is the classic acanian idea that the sym&olic intervenes *from out of nowhere+9don+t in@uire a&out its ori(insU9into a undifferentiated and) in essence) unthin0a&le real) similar to the Sartrean model of the for8itself ne(atin( the inert in8itself. -his is what .i/e0 calls acan+s idealism. Bow) one should not overloo0 the (reat advanta(es to this scheme) which effectively #reem#ts the idea of a natural ada#tation &etween the su&1ect and the real. Cet this dualism mi(ht not &e the only or &est way to save acan+s insi(hts into the successfully dis8ada#ted character of the human #syche. For the main tar(ets of acan+s creationism) Stalinist nature dialectics and teleolo(ical evolutionism Z la -eilhard de Ihardin) are no lon(er really threats or interestin( o##onents) and the refrain of the *a&solute novelty+ of the sym&olic is an increasin(ly wea0 ri#oste in the face of contem#orary evolutionary theory 5li0e Ste#hen Hay 7ould+s Biet/schean notion of *e;a#tation+6.12! Insofar as .i/e0 asserts in his most recent wor0 the #rimacy of the real) he moves into a theoretical s#ace occu#ied &y) amon( others) 3eleu/e and 7uattari. Eere a (enuine dialo(ue with Anti-Oedipus is #ossi&le.

12!

One of the (reat stren(ths of .i/e0+s wor0 is his confrontation of acanian theory with wor0 in the natural and co(nitive sciences.

2!