It took four months, but I’ve finally re-read Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus from cover to cover.pic.twitter.com/9bmj54vJKz
-
I will always come to this book but I have recently started to realise that they get a lot of the Lacanian psychoanalysis wrong. I think this locks this book somewhat in the intellectual conflicts, with all the inevitable blindspots, of that time. But what biting sarcasm!
As an honest question, and knowing it’s probably a bit hard to sum up on Twitter, what do see Deleuze & Guattari getting wrong about Lacan?
-
-
I think they completely miss the point about Lacan's conceptualisation of lack & desire. Very simply put desire & lack get us beyond the Oedipus complex. Yes, in the analytic situation there is tendency to orient the subject using mommy-daddy & it is rightly condemned.
-
The Lacan/Deleuze encounter around anti-Oedipus is now legend (being summoned by L, asking for a copy of the book proof by L before publication, L's anger, resentment over it etc). All seems unnecessary now but they had real stakes in that conflict & we don't.
-
Since the hits on Lacanians keep coming all through Anti-Oedipus it's easy to miss that that central concept of desiring machine is what Lacan calls drives. The question is why they proliferate for D&G and they don't for Lacan. But 70s onwards Lacan tried to get us beyond desire!
-
Lastly it's a bit disingenuous to use Lacanian psychoanalysis from the neurosis clinic to criticise Freudian psychoanalytic approach to psychosis. There is a Lacanian psychosis clinic & it doesn't work through transference. It creates precisely temporary, improvised assemblages.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.